Selective Feminism

You're kidding, right? I think you're confusing the sentiments of college with "most of the country". I'm assuming you thought "most of the country" agreed with Ward Churchill as well. You don't seem to understand that most of the country is against bombing public buildings. Yours is a minority position. You have a far left wing extremist minority position. Don't be so misguided that you actually think "most of the country" agrees with you. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with holding a minority position but I don't want you to drown in the delusion that bombing public buildings is applauded by "most of the country".
Yes, Nixon had to resign in disgrace (which had nothing to do with the war he ended). So what? I understand that progressive moral relativism disallows you to draw distinctions between, say, a terrorist and a toaster. However, "most of the country" does not participate in extremist progressive doctrine.
 
Yawn, guy...

If you want to try to paint your artificial lines around Professor Ayers, have at it.

No one else is really buying it outside the nutter bubble.

You're defending a domestic terrorist because you agree with his cause and I'm the one painting artificial lines? Would you like me to tuck you in till the fever passes?

Guy, 'Terrorist' is a bullshit word.

And obviously, most of the country agreed with Ayers, which is why he's a distinguished professor and Nixon had to resign in disgrace.

No, actually..."terrorist" is EXACTLY the right word for Bill Ayers. Denying that makes you look even dumber than usual.
 
You're kidding, right? I think you're confusing the sentiments of college with "most of the country". I'm assuming you thought "most of the country" agreed with Ward Churchill as well. You don't seem to understand that most of the country is against bombing public buildings. Yours is a minority position. You have a far left wing extremist minority position. Don't be so misguided that you actually think "most of the country" agrees with you. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with holding a minority position but I don't want you to drown in the delusion that bombing public buildings is applauded by "most of the country".
Yes, Nixon had to resign in disgrace (which had nothing to do with the war he ended). So what? I understand that progressive moral relativism disallows you to draw distinctions between, say, a terrorist and a toaster. However, "most of the country" does not participate in extremist progressive doctrine.

No, guy, by the time Vietnam ended, everyone in the country but a few wingnut fanatics realized it was an absolutely horrible idea.

The fact a few of you haven't "gotten over it" 40 years later is proof of that.

So why you are still whining about the ugly statue, I'm pretty happy that enough people stood up against that war and got us out of it.

Oh, yeah, Nixon had a plan to end the war that was so secret even he didn't know what it was. It eventually involved overthrowing the government of Cambodia, leading to the Khmer Rogue coming to power and doing the whole Killing fields thing.

hey but Bill Ayers blew up an ugly statue... that..that...that TERRORIST!!!!

I think what Nixon did was a lot worse. Just sayin'.
 
I think what Hitler did was a lot worse than what Nixon did. So what? Bill Ayers is still a terrorist. I understand that using moral relativism as a tool to defend a terrorist is a progressive thing. This is why most domestic terrorists are progressives. However, I simply disagree with your argument (don't even get me started on your conspiracy theories, revisionist history, anti zionism and circular "logic"). Now, before you start defending Charles Manson because President Ford was a secret zionist controlled by Eisenhower I want you ask yourself one question. Are you getting enough fiber?
 
Last edited:
Charles manson?

Way to know I won the argument is when you try to change the subject.

Good job.

I guess I will let you have the last word in this thread, as it will give meaning to your otherwise useless life.
 
I think what Hitler did was a lot worse than what Nixon did. So what? Bill Ayers is still a terrorist. I understand that using moral relativism as a tool to defend a terrorist is a progressive thing. This is why most domestic terrorists are progressives. However, I simply disagree with your argument (don't even get me started on your conspiracy theories, revisionist history, anti zionism and circular "logic"). Now, before you start defending Charles Manson because President Ford was a secret zionist controlled by Eisenhower I want you ask yourself one question. Are you getting enough fiber?

Timothy McVeigh was a liberal? The Branch Davidians were progressives? Even Ted Kaczynski? Who knew??
 
Last edited:
I think what Hitler did was a lot worse than what Nixon did. So what? Bill Ayers is still a terrorist. I understand that using moral relativism as a tool to defend a terrorist is a progressive thing. This is why most domestic terrorists are progressives. However, I simply disagree with your argument (don't even get me started on your conspiracy theories, revisionist history, anti zionism and circular "logic"). Now, before you start defending Charles Manson because President Ford was a secret zionist controlled by Eisenhower I want you ask yourself one question. Are you getting enough fiber?

Timothy McVeigh was a liberal? The Branch Davidians were progressives? Even Ted Kaczynski? Who knew??

Do you know what the word "most" means? By the way, the Branch Davidians were suspected of weapons violations. That's not a terrorist charge. Oh yea, plus Ted Kaczynski was a far left green progressive. Just ask Joe B. I'm sure he'll defend the poor maligned misunderstood hero, Teddy Kaczynski.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top