Right Wing Repugnants Once Argued Moral Grounds For Impeachment
- Thread starter Old Trapper
- Start date
Look, all you can dredge up are old positions from years ago that have since changed then ask me to do your work for you.
Hard pass.
cawacko
Well-known member
Ignorance is bliss my man
Ok, dude...you're the one who brought Milo up. You quoted a Huffpo article that included Milo along with Coulter and McInnes. So again, I'm responding to what you're giving me. You are the one who widened the parameters of your argument to include him.
Another goalpost shift.
We're not talking about whether or not he has the right to say anything; what we're talking about is the liberal reaction to his intolerance that you're calling "intolerant". You keep moving the goalposts in this debate that started with your argument that liberals are inherently intolerant because they protest intolerant Conservatives.
But you haven't actually shown any of these examples.
Every example you cited is either not an instance of anyone being prevented from speaking, and/or a reaction to an intolerant speaker. So what are you proving here? Nothing. You're proving liberals are reacting to intolerant Conservatives by protesting them. You equate protesting them to preventing their speech, and you say it's because of an inherent intolerance yet in every instance you're using, you're showing that liberals are the ones reacting to intolerant Conservatives.
You keep proving my point for me over and over.
Sure it is.
Conservatives are intolerant of the safety and lives of others, which is why they're so gay for guns.
Yes they are, because they're showing that Conservatives are making an active choice to do something that is actively intolerant of the lives and safety of others.
You seem to think people should be free from social consequences of their actions...and that is textbook entitlement and accommodation.
I seriously doubt that. So far you've managed to help my argument that liberals are right for protesting intolerant Conservatives. You've shifted goalposts and redefined parameters several times, as you try to rig your argument to fit the narrative you're trying to artificially construct.
This is an incredibly lazy argument that says to everyone you cannot be expected to make distinctions or use details, and that your argument must be accommodated because you present yourself as some sort of moderate who's above it all.
I'm not accommodating your cowardice.
When did I ever say that?
Never.
Not once.
Not once have I said these people shouldn't be allowed to speak.
What I've said is that you must expect to face social consequences for your actions and choices.
So, another lying tactic from the lazy.
Never have I said these people shouldn't be allowed to speak. Never. Not once. So you are constructing a straw man argument because your argument is garbage and you know it. So you want to cast yourself as a an imaginary victim by pretending I've said something I haven't, so you can feel better about yourself.
BARF!
That would explain you.
Your style is to say something broad, then wiggle around the parameters afterward without bothering to support anything you say. You did it on pensions, and you're doing it again here.
Faulty logic on your part. You could just as well reverse all your arguments:
Conservative intolerance against affirmative action was a reaction against liberal intolerance for discrimination against Asians and whites.
Conservative intolerance was a reaction to liberal intolerance of current (before 1973) abortion laws
Conservative intolerance was a reaction to liberal intolerance to owning guns
Conservative intolerance was a reaction against liberal intolerance of speech they do not like
Conservative intolerance was a reaction against liberal intolerance of current (before 2015) marriage laws
Conservative intolerance was a reaction against liberal intolerance demanding changes in bathroom policies
And on and on.
These arguments are just as strong or stronger than your "liberal reaction" since liberals were intolerant of current policy and their intolerance came first
You could try, but we'll see.
So right away, your premise starts out false. AA isn't discrimination. So right here you're proving you're a bigot and that Conservatives are bigots.
Right, because the abortion laws were tolerant? What were they tolerant of? Those laws were against abortion, against a woman's choice.
cawacko
Well-known member
You can use Google and find polling done on views toward gay marriage today. Not very difficult. But clearly you don't like the results hence what you wrote above.
Pensions was very clear. You don't loke the facts so you think you are asking questions that shows the reports to be wrong but jnstead show you just don't understand it
No, this debate started with me saying both liberals and conservatives are equally bigoted and intolerant and both are harmful to a civilized society. And, I didn't say this but they should both be ashamed of themselves. All hate is bad.
But again, there would be no liberal intolerance if there were no owning of guns. So again, you keep proving over and over that liberals are reacting to Conservative intolerance.
The speech is intolerant, though. That's the thing. You even used Milo and Coulter as your examples of Conservative speech...it just so happens their speech is highly bigoted and intolerant.
Conservatives are intolerant of liberals who are intolerant of Conservative intolerance of marriage. Ummm...OK...what point are you making? The baseline is still Conservative intolerance.
But those bathroom policies were intolerant. So again, you're post-hoc.
No. You do the work. You're the one making it your argument. Put up or shut up. And even if a few liberals oppose gay marriage, that doesn't change the fact that almost all Conservatives do.
You didn't present any facts, dude. You just said ambiguously that there was a pension crisis, but came up way short on the details.
Which is an incredibly lazy and stupid argument to make since liberal "intolerance" is of inherent Conservative intolerance. Which you inadvertently proved over and over and over, to your detriment.
Hating Nazis is bad?
Well, at least we know where you stand on that question of Nazis.