Right Wing Repugnants Once Argued Moral Grounds For Impeachment

[LV426]

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).

But it's not common knowledge because in everything you're giving me, none of it supports your argument.

You are trying to widen the parameters of what "preventing" means so much that any protest or criticism becomes an act of prevention, regardless if it ever actually prevents anything.

Your original argument was that Conservatives are being prevented from speaking. Yet, you couldn't produce a single legitimate instance of it that didn't involve a bigot like Coulter or Milo; people who rightfully earn the scorn, protest, and prevention.

You must have incredibly low standards for yourself, based on how you debate here.

 

[Flash]

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

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

Yes, he is obnoxious. But I would never attempt to prevent him from speaking. Only intolerant totalitarian bigots want to block speech they are afraid might be offensive to delicate ears who need a safe place.

 

[LV426]

Again, you are deflecti

No, pal, you are. I'm deflecting by talking about your original argument?! You're the one who deflected to Connerly, dude. That was all you.

 

[cawacko]

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.”

Being against AA makes you a bigot? How so? You are basically saying anyone who has a position opposite of what you hold is a bigot, intolerant, racist etc.

 

[LV426]

My original question was about preventing a person from speaking on a college campus against affirmative action

Right, and I asked for an example, and you gave one.

Only it wasn't an example of someone being prevented from speaking on a campus...it was an example of someone who wasn't.

Since then, you've shifted the parameters of what "prevention" means to someone merely protesting or levying criticism. Which is basically you arguing that no one should ever be forced to face protests or criticism for having shitty, bigoted and racist intolerant beliefs.

 

[LV426]

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.

OMG.

Dude...you're flaming out.

A hypothetical one that turned out not to be hypothetical at all! So you tried to make a hypothetical argument using reality as the basis (?) and in doing so, undermined your own argument.

So now we're back to you saying that no one should face protests or criticism for being an intolerant bigot.

Weak sauce.

 

[LV426]

Your concern with all the details is just avoiding the real conclusion: liberals initiated the hate and intolerance

But they didn't!

Holding the position of anti-AA is intolerance and bigotry.

Being criticized for holding that intolerant and bigoted position is not reverse bigotry, which you seem to be arguing it is.

Wow.

And this was after you tried to pretend that Conservatives were prevented from speaking, even after you posted an article showing the one you based your "hypothetical" on wasn't!

This is bush league.

 

[LV426]

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.

I will not apologize for being detail-oriented.

You won't apologize for being lazy as fuck.

 

[LV426]

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 bel

You keep saying things that aren't really true, are they? You're just kinda talking out of your ass. Yes, they were against gay marriage. They're not anymore. So what's the Conservatives' excuse for still being against it?

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:

STOP.

You're embarrassing yourself, and obviously trying to deflect away from the conversation.

And we can silence the Conservative racists very easily; ignore them.

We don't need poor white trash to win elections anymore. Doug Jones proved it. All we need are non-voters. Accommodation is pandering to that poor white trash by posturing over things like guns.

 

[Flash]

But it's not common knowledge because in everything you're giving me, none of it supports your argument.

You are trying to widen the parameters of what "preventing" means so much that any protest or criticism becomes an act of prevention, regardless if it ever actually prevents anything.

Your original argument was that Conservatives are being prevented from speaking. Yet, you couldn't produce a single legitimate instance of it that didn't involve a bigot like Coulter or Milo; people who rightfully earn the scorn, protest, and prevention.

Not true. You make giant leaps in (il)logic. Protesting a speaker and trying to block him from speaking are very different.

It is common knowledge to most people. And, some of my sources do prove my point, you just deflected again by saying it is ok if the person is a bigot like Coulter or Milo. You make my point for me--you justify your bigotry by claiming the person is a bigger bigot. It is ok to block Coulter or Milo so that doesn't count. But it is still bigotry and hate initiated by liberals.

If my sources did not exactly fit my example, it is because they had to be quickly referenced because it never occurred to me somebody was not familiar with the years of controversy on college campuses protesting speakers. I just used some of the first stories I came across about that topic. The FIRE site has a list of many cases including a list of speakers disinvited to speak or attempts were made to prevent them from speaking.

Justifying it by calling them a "war criminal" is going off the deep end.

 

[LV426]

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 depends on the person speaking, doesn't it?

The examples you gave; Milo, Coulter, McInnes...these are bigots, are they not?

So again, liberals are protesting bigots and to you, that makes liberals bigots?

Wow.

The mental gymnastics you are going through just to defend racist, shitty people is terribly sad and disappointing.

 

[LV426]

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

"WAH! WHY WON'T ANYONE CONSIDER THE OPINIONS AND THOUGHTS OF RACISTS?! UNFAIR!"

 

[LV426]

Social Security is an entitlement (a budgetary term).

Which you earn. You earn it by contributing to it.

You don't earn an opinion.

 

[LV426]

Yes, he is obnoxious. But I would never attempt to prevent him from speaking.

Right, because you're an intolerant bigot and so is he.

 

[cawacko]

You keep saying things that aren't really true, are they? You're just kinda talking out of your ass. Yes, they were against gay marriage. They're not anymore. So what's the Conservatives' excuse for still being against it?




STOP.

You're embarrassing yourself, and obviously trying to deflect away from the conversation.

And we can silence the Conservative racists very easily; ignore them.

We don't need poor white trash to win elections anymore. Doug Jones proved it. All we need are non-voters. Accommodation is pandering to that poor white trash by posturing over things like guns.

If you think there are not liberals who don't support gay marriage today then I don't know what to tell you. A simple Google search is your friend.

And calling people poor white trash is tolerance?

 

[LV426]

Only intolerant totalitarian bigots want to block speech they are afraid might be offensive to delicate ears who need a safe place.

So before, you agreed with me that the liberals are reacting intolerantly to bigots. That the liberal intolerance is a reaction to Conservative intolerance. Milo is inherently intolerant, so the protests against his intolerance are a reaction to his intolerance.

If Milo wasn't intolerant and a bigot, liberals wouldn't protest him.

So we're right back to where we started...with liberals reacting "intolerantly" to intolerant Conservatives.

 

[Flash]

And we can silence the Conservative racists very easily; ignore them.

The first intelligent thing you have said. It certainly beats intolerance and bigotry which makes people as bad as those they hate.

 

[LV426]

Being against AA makes you a bigot? How so? You are basically saying anyone who has a position opposite of what you hold is a bigot, intolerant, racist etc.

Sure does. It absolutely makes you a bigot.

I know it's hard for you to accept you're not the perfect person you think you are.

 

[Flash]

So before, you agreed with me that the liberals are reacting intolerantly to bigots. That the liberal intolerance is a reaction to Conservative intolerance. Milo is inherently intolerant, so the protests against his intolerance are a reaction to his intolerance.

If Milo wasn't intolerant and a bigot, liberals wouldn't protest him.

So we're right back to where we started...with liberals reacting "intolerantly" to intolerant Conservatives.

No, we are not back to where we have started. You take an extreme example with Milo, although even with him I would say his right to speak is not intolerant in itself. The intolerance is from those who want to prevent him from speaking. Free speech is the issue, not the views of the speaker.

But, other examples still show liberal intolerance not resulting from conservative intolerance. In addition to the free speech issue, hating a person because he owns a gun is not based on conservative intolerance. Your excuses that buying a gun is a choice and that guns hurt people are lame and not germane to the point. I am sure I can come up with several more with a little thought.

As I said earlier, liberal and conservative intolerance are equally as bigoted and harmful. I am not so blind as to think one side has the moral high ground on this issue.

 

[Flash]

Right, because you're an intolerant bigot and so is he.

You are the one who wants to prevent free speech from someone you disagree with. That makes you the intolerant bigot and high on the authoritarianism scale.