Page 21 of 27 FirstFirst ... 11171819202122232425 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 398

Thread: Right Wing Repugnants Once Argued Moral Grounds For Impeachment

  1. #301 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,380
    Thanks
    101,879
    Thanked 54,753 Times in 33,623 Posts
    Groans
    3,154
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    But you said liberals are only intolerant and hate because it is a response to conservative intolerance and hate. There was no conservative intolerance and hate in this case.

    You take the circular argument that anything a conservative (or liberal) does that you do not like is intolerance and should be met with intolerance and hatred.

    Is having a military with weapons a "selfish need for security"?
    I think it is when the military complex becomes bloated to the detriment of programs like infrastructure and health.

  2. #302 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I'm not talking about leaving the Board of Regents but protests blocking his attempt to speak.
    "About 250 students jammed the student union to protest the speech. The students, about half of them black and half white, chanted, ``No university without diversity,'' and pumped signs denouncing Connerly's message."

    OMG, look at the fucking headline of the link:

    Connerly Speaks, Angry Students Protest

    So before, when you said he was denied his speaking and holding that as an example of speech being prevented, it wasn't actually true. Your own fucking link says the guy spoke, but was met with protesters. Your original argument was that protesters had prevented him from speaking (not true). Then you shifted that to say they forced him out of the Regents (not true, again). Then you shifted that to say he faced protests while he spoke (the actual, accurate answer that you didn't articulate but rather lied your fat ass off about.)

    So that's two times within a handful of posts you redefined the parameters of what you meant.

    Your argument was that liberal intolerance prevented Conservatives from speaking on campuses. You left out who those speakers were. Then you tried to say Connerly was a victim that had his speech blocked, then you shifted that to say that he simply faced protesters while he spoke. But that does not equal being prevented from speaking.

    So you fucking lied.

    Again.

    Why am I not surprised?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  3. #303 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    So again, you are arguing that it's unfair for people to face social consequences of their actions.

    That's entitlement, bruh.
    "That's entitlement"? What, are you taking a college social science class. Claiming something is "entitlement" is not an argument.

    Facing social consequences for their actions is what we are talking about. You want to create intolerance and hatred to force negative social consequences on those you disagree with and you expect them to do the same to you.

    Your attitude is what is causing the increased polarization and partisanship because you are encouraging hatred and intolerance against others and you think it is justified because your "cause" is just. And the other side is doing the same thing leading to the debate on this forum and throughout the country full of insults, uncivil and crude language, and hostility.

    America has been labeled "anti-intellectual." That has hit a new low.

  4. #304 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I can't believe I am having to give history lessons. See the Foundation of Individual Liberty in Education (FIRE). They list many cases from the left and right about attempts to block campus freedoms
    Key word here: attempts

    You don't say whether or not those attempts were successful, just that they were attempted.

    That's a long way from your original position, which was that they were simply being prevented from speaking.

    Then you changed that to say people attempted to prevent them from speaking, while posting an article that shows Connerly wasn't prevented from speaking at all.

    So you lied.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  5. #305 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    "That's entitlement"? What, are you taking a college social science class. Claiming something is "entitlement" is not an argument.
    But your argument is entirely entitled. You think you -or a Conservative, or a gun owner- is entitled to not face social consequences from exercising their intolerance.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  6. #306 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Facing social consequences for their actions is what we are talking about. You want to create intolerance and hatred to force negative social consequences on those you disagree with and you expect them to do the same to you
    Again, my intolerance stems from the inherent intolerant positions you people have.

    So I wouldn't be intolerant of you if you didn't...say racist things, say bigoted things, owned a gun to harm people, etc.

    You are the ones making choices here...and then you complain and whine and bitch when you face consequences of making those choices.

    So you think you're entitled to not face any social consequences at all for your choices.

    That's bullshit.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  7. #307 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    OMG, look at the fucking headline of the link:

    Connerly Speaks, Angry Students Protest

    So before, when you said he was denied his speaking and holding that as an example of speech being prevented, it wasn't actually true. Your own fucking link says the guy spoke, but was met with protesters. Your original argument was that protesters had prevented him from speaking (not true). Then you shifted that to say they forced him out of the Regents (not true, again). Then you shifted that to say he faced protests while he spoke (the actual, accurate answer that you didn't articulate but rather lied your fat ass off about.)

    So that's two times within a handful of posts you redefined the parameters of what you meant.

    Your argument was that liberal intolerance prevented Conservatives from speaking on campuses. You left out who those speakers were. Then you tried to say Connerly was a victim that had his speech blocked, then you shifted that to say that he simply faced protesters while he spoke. But that does not equal being prevented from speaking.

    So you fucking lied.

    Again.

    Why am I not surprised?
    Again, you deflect from the real argument by claiming "changing parameters" and "entitlement."

    I shifted to "they forced him out of the Regent?" I did no such thing. I never said they forced him out nor did I mention him leaving the regents. The article showed the protests he faced when he spoke. This was one example. He was not allowed to speak. And, people chanting while he was speaking is intolerance and hatred.

  8. #308 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Your attitude is what is causing the increased polarization and partisanship because you are encouraging hatred and intolerance against others and you think it is justified because your "cause" is just. And the other side is doing the same thing leading to the debate on this forum and throughout the country full of insults, uncivil and crude language, and hostility.
    Accommodating your poor choices is what created this environment. Coddling the fragile white trash by accommodating their re-brand to teabags from Bush, and then their re-brand from teabags to MAGA is not on liberals, it's on people like you.

    When you start accommodating poor judgment and bigotry, you foster a negative environment where these positions are treated as legitimate. They're not. There's nothing legitimate about them whatsoever, and hiding behind your entitlement doesn't change shit, FYI.

    Sometimes a garbage person is just that, a garbage person. You're not entitled to your opinion. Entitlements are earned, opinions aren't.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  9. #309 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Again, you deflect from the real argument by claiming "changing parameters" and "entitlement."
    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.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to LV426 For This Post:

    Micawber (08-10-2018)

  11. #310 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    "That's entitlement"? What, are you taking a college social science class. Claiming something is "entitlement" is not an argument.

    Facing social consequences for their actions is what we are talking about. You want to create intolerance and hatred to force negative social consequences on those you disagree with and you expect them to do the same to you.

    Your attitude is what is causing the increased polarization and partisanship because you are encouraging hatred and intolerance against others and you think it is justified because your "cause" is just. And the other side is doing the same thing leading to the debate on this forum and throughout the country full of insults, uncivil and crude language, and hostility.

    America has been labeled "anti-intellectual." That has hit a new low.
    Dropping knowledge

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to cawacko For This Post:

    Flash (08-10-2018)

  13. #311 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    So before, when you said he was denied his speaking and holding that as an example of speech being prevented, it wasn't actually true. Your own fucking link says the guy spoke, but was met with protesters. Your original argument was that protesters had prevented him from speaking (not true). Your argument was that liberal intolerance prevented Conservatives from speaking on campuses. You left out who those speakers were. Then you tried to say Connerly was a victim that had his speech blocked, then you shifted that to say that he simply faced protesters while he spoke. But that does not equal being prevented from speaking.
    Let's look at some other examples of events which were shut down:

    "One such event took place in November of 1998, when Accuracy in Academia (AIA) planned a conference on affirmative action featuring Ward Connerly, Dinesh D’Souza, and John Leo. A group called the “Columbia Coalition for Affirmative Action” announced that it would protest the event; they were especially outraged that Ward Connerly, who had headed up successful attempts to outlaw racial preferences in Washington and California, was slated to speak at the event.

    "The result was to effectively shut down the event since two thirds of the attending students were coming from other schools. (To allow those students to attend, AIA was forced to hurriedly relocate the event to a nearby park.) Late that night, Columbia administrators decided that they should restrict the next day’s events in anticipation of 450 protesters. Where the university got that number is unknown, since less than 85 protesters actually showed up, and why the University thought that restricting attendance to Columbia students would help avoid violence is also unknown."

    2003 University of California, Berkeley Ward Connerly: On list of campus "disinvitation"

    And, if you remember before you began deflecting from the real debate, I did not originally name Connerly because I was not speaking of just one person or event but the general attempt on college campuses to block speakers whether about affirmative action or any other subject. The person was irrelevant to the argument which is all attempts at justifying liberal hate and intolerance are not the result of reactions against conservative hate but originate as you so falsely claim.

    Your arguments do not improve with as your font size increases.

  14. #312 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    That sounds about right to me, yes.
    Bourbon is a poster on this board who proudly owns multiple guns and is also a black man who is a democrat. Can a black man in America be considered intolerant because he owns guns?

  15. #313 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I shifted to "they forced him out of the Regent?" I did no such thing. I never said they forced him out nor did I mention him leaving the regents.
    My mistake. I apologize for characterizing your argument as that when you didn't shift to those goalposts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The article showed the protests he faced when he spoke. This was one example. He was not allowed to speak. And, people chanting while he was speaking is intolerance and hatred
    Jesus Christ...

    Look at this sentence...it totally contradicts itself:

    The article showed the protests he faced when he spoke.
    So he did get to speak.

    his was one example. He was not allowed to speak.
    It wasn't an example, though because he actually spoke as you said in the first fucking part of the sentence, dingleberry. So he was allowed to speak because you said right here:

    The article showed the protests he faced when he spoke.
    Your article says:

    Connerly Speaks
    So you say he spoke, but then say he was not allowed to speak, then you say they were chanting while he was speaking.

    So your sentence starts off by saying he spoke, then he didn't, then he did. But your original point was that he was prevented from speaking and you proved that by saying...that he did speak.

    This is a perfect example of lowered standards, entitlement, and bullshit. You've managed to capture every single thing that is wrong with Conservatism in just four fucking sentences. You contradicted yourself twice.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  16. #314 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Bourbon is a poster on this board who proudly owns multiple guns and is also a black man who is a democrat. Can a black man in America be considered intolerant because he owns guns?
    What a stupid question.

  17. #315 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    My mistake. I apologize for characterizing your argument as that when you didn't shift to those goalposts.




    Jesus Christ...

    Look at this sentence...it totally contradicts itself:



    So he did get to speak.



    It wasn't an example, though because he actually spoke as you said in the first fucking part of the sentence, dingleberry. So he was allowed to speak because you said right here:



    Your article says:



    So you say he spoke, but then say he was not allowed to speak, then you say they were chanting while he was speaking.

    So your sentence starts off by saying he spoke, then he didn't, then he did. But your original point was that he was prevented from speaking and you proved that by saying...that he did speak.

    This is a perfect example of lowered standards, entitlement, and bullshit. You've managed to capture every single thing that is wrong with Conservatism in just four fucking sentences. You contradicted yourself twice.
    When people are chanting when you are speaking or trying to speak makes it difficult and difficult for people to hear you. The point is that the protestors were trying to prevent him from speaking which is the point of this entire discussion. The protesters were originating the hate and intolerance, it was not the result of conservative actions.

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 83
    Last Post: 01-29-2018, 12:52 PM
  2. Replies: 115
    Last Post: 01-02-2018, 06:10 PM
  3. Being a White Supremacist Grounds for Firing
    By Buckly J. Ewer in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 211
    Last Post: 08-21-2017, 05:37 PM
  4. SWA says kiss a no-no; grounds girls
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-26-2011, 05:42 PM
  5. Grounds to strike down Prop 8
    By ib1yysguy in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 11-06-2008, 07:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •