RADICAL RIGHT The Very Real Threat Of Extremism

No, it's beyond that. You make vague assertions and accusations, but never provide any reference points. Ever. It's sort of a gift.
 
Kitty's posts are always vapid generalizations with no meat to them.

Without exception.

:eusa_eh: Wait ... I generalize? So ... when you call someone who disagrees with you a liberal, that's not generalizing?

No, that's a specific comment on their intellectual limitations, which is born from the specific failures of the argument which specifically identified them as addle-minded deficients, OKA: Leftists... AKA: Liberals.
 
Darwin-loving museum shooter hates Bible, Christians

The nut must be a Democrat...

Darwin-loving museum shooter hates Bible, Christians
Suspect in death of security guard defies easy stereotyping
Posted: June 11, 2009
11:45 pm Eastern

James von Brunn

James von Brunn, the man who allegedly shot and killed a guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., was a Darwin-lover who hated the Bible and Christians, and defies media efforts to classify him as a stereotypical "right-winger," according to reports.

The Moonbattery blog revealed von Brunn advocated the socialist policies espoused by Adolf Hitler and used Darwinian theory to support his anti-Semitism.

And in statements that later were stripped from an anti-religion website, he wrote, "The Big Lie technique, employed by Paul to create the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, also was used to create the HOLOCAUST RELIGION … CHRISTIANITY AND THE HOLOCAUST are HOAXES."

The blog had an answer to how to classify von Brunn, who remains hospitalized after being shot while attacking and shooting a guard at the museum: "If it barks like a moonbat, it's a moonbat."
 
No, it's beyond that. You make vague assertions and accusations, but never provide any reference points. Ever. It's sort of a gift.

:cool: Aaah ... you see ... that's good, that's what I like to see. It's not a gift, it's more of an aversion to seeing things "set in stone." I love the flow of reality, how it's always changing, and people are too set in their minds to see it anymore. Many blame tech on this, but tech is more of a result not a cause. The true cause, most people have simply stopped thinking or no longer wish to think, or they fear the fluidity of real life, and have chosen instead to let the media or political party think for them. I just won't. Aligning with any one party or "group" is plain stupid, it takes away your freedom and individuality. Once I broke from that "unthinking" state myself, found out the party I was letting do my thinking really disagrees with at least half my views. So now, I simply do not let any party tell me what to think and try to ignore the stupid and naive alignments of others. I bet if you looked more closely at what your "party" follows, you will either deny the differences or become more like us who no longer align with anything, we are just plain old Americans now.
 
No, it's beyond that. You make vague assertions and accusations, but never provide any reference points. Ever. It's sort of a gift.
I'll give you a reference point.

So often in the kinds of situations being discussed, the conversation eventually comes around to the defender of the given policy saying "gimmie the facts" or a "reasoned argument".......The unspoken "facts and/or reasoned argument that agrees with my facts and/or reasoned arguments". Of course, if your facts and/or reasoned argument doesn't align with that of the person demanding them, you're a "blame America firster", a "flat-Earther", "mean-spirited, cat-kicking, uncompassionate, racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe", or whathaveya......Usually followed by a self-declaration of victory.

In this respect, amongst many others, arguing with neoconnie internationalist ass-whoopers looking for the next ass to whoop up on is as futile as arguing with anthropogenic global warming scaremonger moonbats.

However, that doesn't detract from the amusement value.
 
Last edited:
What SFL should have done is to have defined conservativism, demonstrated the principles and shown how such does not square with Conservative principles...

You're right I did not and I probably should have been more specific regarding the principles which define conservatism (at least in my opinion) and how they differ from those that are likely to engage in the suppression of ideas, my bad. :(
 
Doesn't matter much because the funny thing is I actually have seen first hand the end result the systems of Govt. that some of these so called liberals tout here daily and just say to myself "be careful what you wish for, you may just get it"

WELCOME to California....:eusa_eh:
 
Thanx for proving my point.

The only point which you've proven thus far Dude is that your particularly strong in making baseless assertions, but when faced with substantiating them through sound and valid reasoning, ya tend to come up short...

Care to try again? There is a TON of room for improvement here... Leave your feelings at home... and bring your intellect... we're not enemies here... it's just a debate of principle.

Interesting....i usually think the Dude is one of the more valid reasoning individuals in these threads....
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top