Something I Don't Understand About Liberals...

My eyes glaze over while looking at your juvenile and disjointed posts sometimes...

you are pathetic allie. you ignore anything you dont like and conveniently skip anything that shows youre wrong. instead of attacking substance, you go after the posters themselves. you often make blanket statements and when you get called out on it you refuse to back them up.

you are so blinded by partisanship you cant handle any criticism of the right, and so self absorbed you cant handle any criticism of yourself either. well congratulations, you won this debate due to the fact that you refused to acknowledge everything you didnt like. keep enjoying your personal fantasy world
 
do you even understand what you write?

whether i personally know someone who adheres to one of the many anarchistic views doesnt affect my ability to understand what anarchism is at it's core. just like you can know what a christian believes even if you dont know any
Either you know one of the douchebags personally or you look it up in the dictionary. Take your pick. Either way anarchists ain't right wing.
 
Hey, honey, I'm the one who posted links and definitions, when you and Ravidiot were screaming "Right wing anarchists! All the killers come from the right!"

I can't help it that you can't write worth a shit and the substance is lost because of it. That's your problem. Take a journalism class.
 
So many things to respond to....where to begin?

I'll start with you Allie since you're quickly turning into my favorite Con

But taking life is wrong, period, and those who do it in the name of the innocents are also in the wrong.

what about taking a life in the name of revenge? Is that okay? Cuz that is what this current war is about. Iraq didn't attack us...remember that as you defend this war...they were not the ones we should've been fighting.

As opposed to life you deem UNworthy, you champion of rights for the downtrodden, you.

I don't deem to make ANY judgements on anything. I'm not the one standing on a corner with a bible in my hand screaming for people to repent or go to hell.

BTW, I didn't say all liberals protest war..though of course you contradict yourself when you say you have never protested a war, and then go on to mumble some jumbled rhetoric about life we DEEM worthy. Isn't that a jab at war?

I don't believe in war as a rule unless there is no other alternative, like in WWII. I don't think it solves problems as a first line of defense and I think it creates more problems which will need to be fixed by later generations. That said I've never participated in a protest of a war, not in the picket sense of the word anyway. My protest is with my vote. It's the voice I have to express my desires for the future of my country. I exercise it every opportunity I am given.

Anarchists are right-wingers?

aren't right wingers the people of less government and less control? makes more sense that they'd be righties than lefties if you believe your own stereotype.

by some estimates" which = pure hogwash.

tell us Allie, how many innocent Iraqis do you suppose have been killed in the war? 1, 2? 10? it's not out of the realm of possibility to believe the number is approaching a million.

ignatov said:
You can't say you support "right to life" and be against nationalized health care, anti-poverty legislation and common sense gun control measures.

:eusa_clap:

DD said:
The war was justified. See invasion of Kuwait. Call for help by Kuwait.

that was in the 80s not NOW. Saying the war we are currently in was justified is bullshit no offense.

Reagan sent anarchists to Nicaragua??

Freedom fighters? is that a better term? they were sent to overthrow the government however, they did it not to crumble the gov entirely but rather to institute a gov more acceptable to the Reagan administration so not quite anarchists, just Republican killing machines.

Allie again
And no, Obama doesn't have any executive experience.

neither does McCain dummy

gowhite08 (nice racist name btw...how do you manage to type with the sheet over your head?)

African-american
Indian-American
anti-war

What else do you libs want to hyphenate?

ass-hole
douche-bag
fuck-tard

a few off the top of my head
 
Hey, honey, I'm the one who posted links and definitions, when you and Ravidiot were screaming "Right wing anarchists! All the killers come from the right!"

I can't help it that you can't write worth a shit and the substance is lost because of it. That's your problem. Take a journalism class.

and youre a liar to boot! you know i posted links. you ignored them. but keep lying allie, maybe youll even convince yourself soon
 
Either you know one of the douchebags personally or you look it up in the dictionary. Take your pick. Either way anarchists ain't right wing.

changing what youve been saying as well as ignoring what i posted. great move there glock
 
So many things to respond to....where to begin?

I'll start with you Allie since you're quickly turning into my favorite Con



what about taking a life in the name of revenge? Is that okay? Cuz that is what this current war is about. Iraq didn't attack us...remember that as you defend this war...they were not the ones we should've been fighting.



I don't deem to make ANY judgements on anything. I'm not the one standing on a corner with a bible in my hand screaming for people to repent or go to hell.



I don't believe in war as a rule unless there is no other alternative, like in WWII. I don't think it solves problems as a first line of defense and I think it creates more problems which will need to be fixed by later generations. That said I've never participated in a protest of a war, not in the picket sense of the word anyway. My protest is with my vote. It's the voice I have to express my desires for the future of my country. I exercise it every opportunity I am given.



aren't right wingers the people of less government and less control? makes more sense that they'd be righties than lefties if you believe your own stereotype.



tell us Allie, how many innocent Iraqis do you suppose have been killed in the war? 1, 2? 10? it's not out of the realm of possibility to believe the number is approaching a million.

ignatov said:


:eusa_clap:

DD said:


that was in the 80s not NOW. Saying the war we are currently in was justified is bullshit no offense.



Freedom fighters? is that a better term? they were sent to overthrow the government however, they did it not to crumble the gov entirely but rather to institute a gov more acceptable to the Reagan administration so not quite anarchists, just Republican killing machines.

Allie again


neither does McCain dummy

gowhite08 (nice racist name btw...how do you manage to type with the sheet over your head?)



ass-hole
douche-bag
fuck-tard

a few off the top of my head

Paraphrase:
"Blah blab flub nub grub maf daf baf blah blah blah blah blah blah".

Once again. It says one of the worst crimes is to kill innocents. I don't think the Taliban or Al Qaida are innocents.

And the OT does justify taking life for revenge. The NT takes a little different stance. At any rate, I'm not a "revenge life taker" myself, so I'm not sure why the hell you threw that in there.

Kindly show me where I've screamed at anyone to repent or go to hell. I certainly haven't threatened to send anyone there myself. I do find the Christian Way more palatable than "Allah is Great! Death to the Infidel!" which is essentially screaming "You're not of Islam, I'm sending you to hell right now".

Less government is not an absence of government. Apparently there are a few "fringe" anarchists (which means probably one or two) who someone (undoubtedly liberals, in order to distance themselves from the embarassing mob scene) have labeled as "individualist anarchists" who embrace precepts of the right in the extreme, but this is a pretty flimsy and ridiculous thread to hinge the whole "anarchists = right wing" claim. You might want to remember...that's a claim made by Ravi, before you get all crazy trying to prove it.

I do see a difference between the intentional slaughter of the innocent and helpless, and the UNintentional killing of random innocent people when a war is being fought. If you can't see the difference between people seeking out the most unsuspecting, the most vulnerable, and targeting them for destruction, as opposed to bystanders being killed inadvertently by a force attempting to rid the world of those who DO target innocents intentionally, and who HIDE BEHIND THEM, then that's your problem.
 
It can, but doesn't always. I don't think Saddam felt powerless, I don't think that's where his sadism came from. He desired more power, and he enjoyed exerting power...that's not the same as feeling powerless.

So that road is a wasted trip. People who kill innocents choose to do it.
 
Last edited:
Just a question for all of you...Since when did discussing the issues involve back-and-forth (Yes I hyphenated that) personal attacks. You are all acting like a bunch of high school cheerleaders. Stick to the issues. You are all starting to sound like the McCain camp.
 
... so why is it that liberal "anti-war" people are always the most numerous and "VIOLENT" protesters on the planet? Why do they protest for an end to wars and for peace by using violence and destruction while protesting? Can anyone explain that?

My explanation would be that some, and of course not all, of the violent protestors are potentially agent provacateurs. People who intentionally infiltrate specific groups to cause violence and make a bad name for the rest of the peaceful protestors.

It's an ingenius way to marginalize the power of protest, as it creates a negative image in other people's minds about protesting in general.

Never forget, this country was FOUNDED on protest. A lot of it VIOLENT.

Could you imagine yourself watching the colonists dumping tea into the boston harbor and thinking they were assholes? Those people were HEROES, and without them we may not be here talking about this to begin with.
 
My explanation would be that some, and of course not all, of the violent protestors are potentially agent provacateurs. People who intentionally infiltrate specific groups to cause violence and make a bad name for the rest of the peaceful protestors.

It's an ingenius way to marginalize the power of protest, as it creates a negative image in other people's minds about protesting in general.

Never forget, this country was FOUNDED on protest. A lot of it VIOLENT.

Could you imagine yourself watching the colonists dumping tea into the boston harbor and thinking they were assholes? Those people were HEROES, and without them we may not be here talking about this to begin with.
Pole Rider would have been for calling out the NG, ala Kent State, to shoot the Revolutionaries.
 
... so why is it that liberal "anti-war" people are always the most numerous and "VIOLENT" protesters on the planet? Why do they protest for an end to wars and for peace by using violence and destruction while protesting? Can anyone explain that?

Why do cops at protests beat defenseless women in the face with clubs?:eusa_whistle:
 
Why do cops at protests beat defenseless women in the face with clubs?:eusa_whistle:

And of course this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io9eiYBJw6s]YouTube - Police guy attacks woman[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ASXoWD0iaI]YouTube - Cops Attack and Strip Naked innocent woman[/ame]

(2nd video is a bit disturbing, just pointing that out.)
 

Forum List

Back
Top