I think it is when the military complex becomes bloated to the detriment of programs like infrastructure and health.
Right Wing Repugnants Once Argued Moral Grounds For Impeachment
- Thread starter Old Trapper
- Start date
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
cawacko
Well-known member
Dropping knowledge
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.
cawacko
Well-known member
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?
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.
What a stupid question.
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.
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.
cawacko
Well-known member
Why?
NOPE! Not what you said before.
Before, I asked you for some examples of Conservatives speakers being denied their ability to speak because all you were doing was using improper nouns and generalized, vague, ambiguous allusions to things, but no specifics.
Then, you are the one who entered Connerly into this debate by saying he was an example of someone who was denied their ability to speak. But the problem is that Connerly was never denied the ability to speak. What you did was try to represent protests as preventing speech. However, in the one link you provided about this specific guy, it doesn't say he was prevented from speaking, just that he was met with protests. Your original argument was that they were being prevented from speaking. Now you're changing your argument to that there are attempts to prevent them from speaking, but those attempts proved unsuccessful, specifically in the case of Connerly, by you posting a link showing he wasn't denied his ability to speak.
This type of debate style you use is particularly nefarious and duplicitous. It hinges on the entitlement you feel you have that you can simply change the meaning and intent of your argument as it crumbles, and I am expected to treat it as legitimate.
Well it's not, and I won't.
"Pay no attention to the fact that I actually contradicted my own argument in the example I used, let me have my argument because I'm entitled to make it."
Eat shit.
I don't really believe anything anyone says about themselves on a message board.
And I would tell Bourbon that he's full of shit for owning a gun, and doesn't give a shit about the safety and lives of others, even himself.