Right Wing Repugnants Once Argued Moral Grounds For Impeachment

[LV426]

When people are chanting when you are speaking or trying to speak makes it difficult and difficult for people to hear you.

So this is another goalpost shift!

Your argument was that he was prevented from speaking. There were protests, but those protests didn't stop him from speaking, as you said twice (contradicting yourself in between), and then linked to an article that said he did speak. Literally, the first two words of the article headline were "Connerly Speaks".

So you're trying to shift the goalposts that preventing someone from speaking doesn't have to mean they're actually prevented.

Bullshit. I call Bullshit.

 

[Micawber]

Why?

Because it nearly suggests the obvious answer, which is "gun ownership in and of itself doesn't make anyone intolerant and skin color has no bearing on that at all"

I don't know at all how asking that question helps you make your "perpetually aggrieved and disparaged poor white guys" case for you.
Seems more sensible to me to admit, fuck yes whites enjoy privilege of that status in the US and many other places, and consider the
sting of people of color calling it out as a small price to pay for doing business as usual, and hopefully, changing some.

 

[Flash]

Your argument was that Conservatives were being prevented from speaking on campuses. Then you posted a link showing a guy was not, in fact, prevented from speaking. Then you tried to represent the fact that he faced protests, but still spoke, as an example of liberals preventing speech -but the link you used to support your argument proves the exact opposite.

So you don't even hold yourself accountable for fudging shit, then trying to shift the goalposts afterwards.

You're the one who brought up this phantom menace of Conservatives being shut out on campuses, and then you contradicted your own argument by showing that specific Conservatives you mentioned earlier wasn't prevented from speaking.

You said he was prevented from speaking. He's the example you used. Then you posted a link showing he wasn't prevented from speaking at all.

So you bullshitted me, and are now playing a victim because I'm holding you accountable for bullshitting.

What a fucking baby.

You wanted an example of Ward Connerly. There are many other examples of people being prevented from speaking on college campuses and being "disinvited" to speak.

I will mention just a few below. I could list many more but it is all nothing more than a deflection on your part (or should I say "an entitlement") to avoid the real point which is liberal initiated hate and intolerance:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...lege-campuses-for_us_59a4144fe4b0a62d0987b0b3

"Earlier this year, violent protesters at Middlebury College shut down a speech by controversial conservative Sociologist Charles Murray. Often accused as a white nationalist, Murray’s controversial 1994 book The Bell Curve linked lower socioeconomic status with race and intelligence and was very polarizing when it was released. Hundreds of Middlebury students disrupted the program, confronted and shouted down Murray, and pushed and shoved him in the hallway as he was leaving."

"Earlier this year at NYU, 11 people were arrested while protesting conservative comedian, Vice media founder and guest speaker Gavin McInnes, cutting his speech short. The previous day, violent protesters shut down an appearance by conservative Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos. Months later. conservative pundit Ann Coulter’s speech at Berkeley was canceled."

"In past years, invitations to conservative speakers at graduation ceremonies have been revoked or declined, such as when former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice backed out of giving Rutgers University’s 2014 commencement speech due to protests."

 

[cawacko]

Because it nearly suggests the obvious answer, which is "gun ownership in and of itself doesn't make anyone intolerant and skin color has no bearing on that at all"

I don't know at all how asking that question helps you make your "perpetually aggrieved and disparaged poor white guys" case for you.
Seems more sensible to me to admit, fuck yes whites enjoy privilege of that status in the US and many other places, and consider the
sting of people of color calling it out as a small price to pay for doing business as usual, and hopefully, changing some.

Da fvck? Read LV's comments and position first before making assumptions over what's being discussed

 

[LV426]

The point is that the protestors were trying to prevent him from speaking which is the point of this entire discussion

No.

No, no, no.

That is the argument you've made now, but not the one you made before that preceded this.

You're widening the parameters of "preventing" to mean "not actually preventing".

Your argument at the start was that these people were being prevented from speaking. I asked who and how, and you didn't mention anyone at first, but then you invoked Connerly. When asked how he was prevented from speaking, you couldn't say, so instead you shifted the goalposts to "attempted prevention".

 

[Flash]

So this is another goalpost shift!

Your argument was that he was prevented from speaking. There were protests, but those protests didn't stop him from speaking, as you said twice (contradicting yourself in between), and then linked to an article that said he did speak. Literally, the first two words of the article headline were "Connerly Speaks".

So you're trying to shift the goalposts that preventing someone from speaking doesn't have to mean they're actually prevented.

Bullshit. I call Bullshit.

Whether he spoke or not does not refute the fact that liberal protestors tried to interrupt his speech showing they initiated the intolerance and hostility.

I don't think you are being honest. Certainly nobody could have missed the many incidents on college campuses protesting speakers somebody disliked which has been occurring for 50 years.

I think you are just being argumentative for the sake of argument. Nobody could be that dumb.

 

[LV426]

Check the Columbia example where the event was canceled due to the security danger of protests.

Who was supposed to speak at Columbia? Wasn't it Milo? You know who Milo is, right? What he says...what he preaches...what he posts online...?

 

[Flash]

Hold on...we can't move forward until you are actually held accountable for making a bullshit argument and using bullshit evidence to support it.

And now you have to reach back 20 years to find an example to support what you were saying.

So post-hoc, you're trying to wiggle around the very wide parameters of what you had said before.

Liberal intolerance 20 years ago doesn't count? Keep reading. I have included several more recent events. I don't really like having to do your research for you on a topic everybody knows is common knowledge (at least for most people).

 

[LV426]

You wanted an example of Ward Connerly.

No. I didn't. You are the one who entered Connerly into the debate. I was content to just have you admit you were talking out of your ass, but you forced the issue.

"Earlier this year, violent protesters at Middlebury College shut down a speech by controversial conservative Sociologist Charles Murray. Often accused as a white nationalist, Murray’s controversial 1994 book The Bell Curve linked lower socioeconomic status with race and intelligence and was very polarizing when it was released. Hundreds of Middlebury students disrupted the program, confronted and shouted down Murray, and pushed and shoved him in the hallway as he was leaving."

OK, great! Now we're getting to the meat of things.

So Charles Murray is an avowed racist and intolerant human being whose book, the Bell Jar, argued that minorities are of lower intelligence than whites. The guy's whole MO is intolerance, bigotry, and racism, and the Bell Jar is the perfect example of it. So liberals who are protesting Murray are protesting his intolerance, bigotry, and racism. So you tried to represent a racist and bigot being shut down on a campus as...what?

 

[LV426]

"Earlier this year at NYU, 11 people were arrested while protesting conservative comedian, Vice media founder and guest speaker Gavin McInnes, cutting his speech short. The previous day, violent protesters shut down an appearance by conservative Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos. Months later. conservative pundit Ann Coulter’s speech at Berkeley was canceled."

All three of those people are intolerant bigots.

So you're not helping your cause here at all. Do you...do you actually think Coulter, Milo, and McInnes don't say racist or bigoted things and don't hold racist, bigoted beliefs?

 

[LV426]

"In past years, invitations to conservative speakers at graduation ceremonies have been revoked or declined, such as when former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice backed out of giving Rutgers University’s 2014 commencement speech due to protests."

Condoleeza Rice is a war criminal.

 

[LV426]

Da fvck? Read LV's comments and position first before making assumptions over what's being discussed

Conservatives want to be accommodated, no matter how monstrous and hideous they are.

 

[Flash]

No.

No, no, no.

That is the argument you've made now, but not the one you made before that preceded this.

You're widening the parameters of "preventing" to mean "not actually preventing".

Your argument at the start was that these people were being prevented from speaking. I asked who and how, and you didn't mention anyone at first, but then you invoked Connerly. When asked how he was prevented from speaking, you couldn't say, so instead you shifted the goalposts to "attempted prevention".

Again, you are deflecting. My original question was about preventing a person from speaking on a college campus against affirmative action. It was just a hypothetical (but based on real events). Then, you got all involved in who this person was (I had no particular person in mind), and now you are all into the question of whether he was actually prevented. Whether prevented or not, it was an attempt to disrupt, interrupt, or prevent a speech; whichever occurred is not important since the purpose was to stop certain ideas from being presented.

Your concern with all the details is just avoiding the real conclusion: liberals initiated the hate and intolerance whether the person spoke with people chanting during the speech or whether it was canceled in advance or whether it was ended during the speech. You just like to nitpick details to avoid dealing with larger issues.

 

[LV426]

Whether he spoke or not does not refute the fact that liberal protestors tried to interrupt his speech showing they initiated the intolerance and hostility.

No, he initiated it because his inherent position is bigoted. Being against Affirmative Action makes you a bigot. Here's some of Connerly more bigoted statements:

“Let it be said that when given a chance to complete the liberation of black Americans, on June 23, 2003 five justices consigned them to another generation - or, perhaps, a term of indefinite duration - of virtual enslavement to the past.”

“Supporting segregation need not be racist. One can believe in segregation and believe in equality of the races.”

 

[Flash]

Condoleeza Rice is a war criminal.

Thank you, you just proved my point.

When was she convicted?

 

[LV426]

I don't think you are being honest. Certainly nobody could have missed the many incidents on college campuses protesting speakers somebody disliked which has been occurring for 50 years.

Protesting speakers is a lot different than preventing those speakers from speaking.

So your argument boils down to; "it makes me feel bad when people protest me for being a bigot or having bigoted views".

Wah wah, entitlement.

Hard Pass.

 

[LV426]

think you are just being argumentative for the sake of argument. Nobody could be that dumb.

Your argument started with you saying these people were prevented from speaking.

You didn't say which people, just generally said Conservatives.

When asked for examples of Conservatives being unfairly maligned for bigotry, the eventual example you gave was Ward Connerly. However, no where is there evidence of Connerly ever being denied the ability to speak, and he did in fact speak at several colleges including an HBCU. So in light of that knowledge which you obviously just learned after you posted about him, you subtly shifted your argument to a general one that any protest of any Conservative speaker on any campus is an example of liberal intolerance and hate. And then you laughably chose to single out three obvious bigots (Coulter, Milo, McInns) who have a long history of saying racist, bigoted things, and that since those racists and bigots faced protests and had their protests cancelled, it was an example of liberal intolerance.

"Liberals are intolerant of Milo Yannapolis!! SCREECH!"

Yeah...ever hear what he has to say?

 

[cawacko]

Conservatives want to be accommodated, no matter how monstrous and hideous they are.

I'm not sure what you mean by accommodated. There are liberals who own guns. There are liberals who are against gay marriage. Not all liberals and conservatives hold the same beliefs.

And from an economics perspective good luck trying to silence all those who aren't keynesians or believe I'm Bernie style MMT economics. Or think the Fed should continue its easy money policies. It's not going to happen:

 

[Flash]

Protesting speakers is a lot different than preventing those speakers from speaking.

So your argument boils down to; "it makes me feel bad when people protest me for being a bigot or having bigoted views".

Wah wah, entitlement.

Hard Pass.

Attempting to prevent a person from speaking is the intolerance and thinking he should not be allowed to present his views, whether successful or not. It does not matter if his views are bigoted. What if the speaker was advocating a liberal cause?

You think you are entitled to impose your hatred and intolerance on others.

Social Security is an entitlement (a budgetary term).

 

[LV426]

Liberal intolerance 20 years ago doesn't count? Keep reading.

OMG

DID YOU KEEP READING?

It says the speaking event wasn't cancelled, but relocated.

You keep doing this; you say something untrue, misrepresenting it. Then you have to spend the next several posts walking it back.

So again, you couldn't even produce an example from 20 years ago of speech being "prevented".

You're trying to shift the goalposts on "prevented" to mean merely "protesting" or "criticism".

What a fucking fraud.