Liberals: 9-11 Deaths were Good Thing

[HenryBHough]

FUCK YOU. @Mac1958 DO YOU DENOUNCE THIS NUTCASE AS WELL?

So pleased to have heard from the most literate of the liberal civility movement!

 

[Bush92]

More liberal love for the nation.

Those are anarchists, not 'liberals,' you ignorant putz.

Wonder who they voted for in 2008 and 2012? Nope. Their liberals.

 

[tosacco]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

 

[Bush92]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Protesters such as these, when not sponging on the welfare state you mention, are involved in liberal causes. These are fake anarchist. In reality they are just liberals taking a day off class at university.

 

[Bush92]

Well, I am certain that this young man burning and shitting on the American flag is not from the right of the political spectrum.

 

[tosacco]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Protesters such as these, when not sponging on the welfare state you mention, are involved in liberal causes. These are fake anarchist. In reality they are just liberals taking a day off class at university.

how can you tell the difference between a fake anarchist and a real one from one photo. they've got an anarchy symbol on both their banners. if they had a swastika would you think they were "fake" nazis?

 

[Bush92]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Protesters such as these, when not sponging on the welfare state you mention, are involved in liberal causes. These are fake anarchist. In reality they are just liberals taking a day off class at university.

how can you tell the difference between a fake anarchist and a real one from one photo. they've got an anarchy symbol on both their banners. if they had a swastika would you think they were "fake" nazis?

These anti-Wall Street jack-offs are most likely on government welfare when not out protesting the government. If they were real anarchist they would not be marching in the street but engaged in acts of violence against the government on the down low.

 

[tosacco]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Protesters such as these, when not sponging on the welfare state you mention, are involved in liberal causes. These are fake anarchist. In reality they are just liberals taking a day off class at university.

how can you tell the difference between a fake anarchist and a real one from one photo. they've got an anarchy symbol on both their banners. if they had a swastika would you think they were "fake" nazis?

These anti-Wall Street jack-offs are most likely on government welfare when not out protesting the government. If they were real anarchist they would not be marching in the street but engaged in acts of violence against the government on the down low.

what's to say they are on government welfare, or not egaging in acts of violence in other ways when not marching? you are making a lot of assumptions.

 

[candycorn]

The point I have made more than once is that people like you are afraid to criticize others on your end of the spectrum.
.

I've criticized Obama here...
Mr Indecisive changes Syria plan 50 times

Here...
Makes you wonder what we don't know...

Here...
There really is no IRS scandal

And here...
Surprise Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Here is me criticizing Harry Reid

It's likely a foregone conclusion that the Senate is in GOP hands come 2013. Maybe then we can get back to having 2 houses of Congress. Harry Reid has been a travesty.

Here is me criticizing Nancy Pelosi
Michelle O's School lunch nightmare, Obama kids school NOT INCLUDED

And here...

How Long Will Obama Shut Down the Government?

Here I am getting into it with "One Percenter" who is, I guess, a liberal poster.

Wal-Mart introduces new dress code, employees must buy own clothes

So you obviously have no clue what you're talking about when you say I don't criticize those whom I am aligned with politically. I gave you example after example which you'll ignore of course.

 

[candycorn]

@candycorn, with respect, I'm not gonna read through these incredibly long quote-filled posts. Right now it's early in the morning and I haven't finished my first cup of coffee. If you want me to comment on something -- and it is clear that you do -- ask me a direct question and maybe give it one link. For example, let me know who or what TTBOMK is and I'll comment. However:..

... please go back to my post in which I talked about contemporary American political discourse. While the example (as I recall) was that of a liberal, I did not single liberals out as the problem. And I'm pretty sure I have a pretty long history here of pointing out the damage done by partisan ideologues on BOTH ends of the spectrum, which is significant and increasing..

... regarding Falwell and Roberston: I remember those comments, and I wasn't terribly surprised. These are the kind of thoughts that creep into the minds of religious zealots, and I would not be stunned if many people agreed with those absurd comments. As a comfy agnostic, I just laughed and shook my head. People like that, and there are many of them, say that kind of stuff often. I disagree strongly with what they said, and probably with a majority of the goofy stuff they say. Since I don't know if God exists, it would be pretty tough for me to think for Him. BUT, do they compare to what this professor said? No. The name-calling in which he engaged was hurtful and hateful to so many families grieving their loved ones. It was worse.

Now, here's what I'm seeing you do: This thread is about that professor nutcase and you're deflecting to other nutcases. I have to admit it's a little insulting when people do this, as they obviously think they're getting away with it. If you want to start a thread about Falwell or Robertson or some other right wing nutcase and you want me to comment, fabulous.

Are you going to provide a strong and clear condemnation of the comments referred to in the OP, or are you not?

If you're not, just say so, and we'll all get on with our lives.

.

SEE WHAT I DID JUST NOW...I SHOWED YOU A QUOTE AND ASKED FOR YOUR COMMENT. CAN YOU WRAP YOU HEAD AROUND THE CONCEPT OF THAT?FOR THE 8TH GOD DAMNED TIME, I DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ WHAT THE "NUTCASE" SAID. I DON'T QUOTE IT TO SAY THAT HE ISN'T A NUTCASE, I QUOTE YOU SAYING HE IS A NUTCASE. I AGREE, THE MAN IS A NUTJOB AND, THUSLY, NOT WORTH MY TIME TO READ SOMETHING THAT IS SO, BY DEFINITION OFF BASE.

I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT A "NUTCASE" SAYS. FOR THE 3RD GOD DAMNED TIME, IF YOU WANT TO QUOTE THE "NUTCASE" AND SHOW ME WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DENOUNCE...I'LL BE HAPPY TO READ IT AND GIVE YOU MY OPINION.

ALSO,IF YOU'RE BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST...DO YOU FIND IT "INTERESTING" THAT @Foxfyre HASN'T DENOUNCED ROBERTSON AND FALLWELL YET? CAN WE ASSUME SHE BELIEVES AS THEY DO? C'MON...THAT IS THE INDICTMENT YOU'RE MAKING ON LIBERALS....IF YOU DON'T DENOUNCE IT,YOU MUST BE FOR IT.

HOW BOUT IT?

@Mac1958

Please address the text in red.

Thanks in advance for your dodging and tap dancing...it proves what we all knew about you all along.

Why bother?

Since you refuse to answer questions, I feel no obligation to do so.

You expect far more of others than you do of yourself.

.

Gee, right after you criticized me for not being critical of those I align with politically, you turn around and do the same thing.

PS: Your second face is just as ugly as your first; lies come out of both their mouths I'm afraid.

Just to recap; you found it "interesting" that nobody impuned the works of someone they never heard of.
Then when asked if you found it "interesting" that someone you align with politically didn't impune the works of someone they HAVE heard of and were shown the quotes themselves...you clam up rather than risk alienating your buddy there.

All this right after I blew the doors off of your false and moronic accusation about me.

Man...that's got to hurt.

 

[Mac1958]

All this right after I blew the doors off of your false and moronic accusation about me.

Man...that's got to hurt.

What accusation? Precisely? Please post it. Is honesty even possible for you?

I don't know why you're so desperate to continue this conversation. You admitted that you would not condemn the professor's comments. And further, since you claim you have no idea who he is or what he said - which I don't believe, of course - I wonder why you haven't bothered to find out in the several days this thread has been up.

Oh, just kidding. I know why.

Anyway, that's all I need.

If you'd like to claim some "victory" like we're in a grade school playground, that's good, whatever makes you "feel" better. Convince yourself that won something. Maybe you should do a little virtual happy dance for us, singing "nyah nyah boo boo" to really "rub it in". I think that's how it used to work back then.

Whatever works for you. I've gotten what I wanted.

.

 

[ChrisL]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Protesters such as these, when not sponging on the welfare state you mention, are involved in liberal causes. These are fake anarchist. In reality they are just liberals taking a day off class at university.

how can you tell the difference between a fake anarchist and a real one from one photo. they've got an anarchy symbol on both their banners. if they had a swastika would you think they were "fake" nazis?

These anti-Wall Street jack-offs are most likely on government welfare when not out protesting the government. If they were real anarchist they would not be marching in the street but engaged in acts of violence against the government on the down low.

what's to say they are on government welfare, or not egaging in acts of violence in other ways when not marching? you are making a lot of assumptions.

You say all of the above and accuse others of making assumptions?

I don't think those people are anything like the TEA party. At least not what it was originally intended to be. It was intended to reign in the out of control taxing of the people and wasteful spending of their money. They were never for anarchy or anything like anarchy. That is a ridiculous and desperate accusation.

 

[tosacco]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Protesters such as these, when not sponging on the welfare state you mention, are involved in liberal causes. These are fake anarchist. In reality they are just liberals taking a day off class at university.

how can you tell the difference between a fake anarchist and a real one from one photo. they've got an anarchy symbol on both their banners. if they had a swastika would you think they were "fake" nazis?

These anti-Wall Street jack-offs are most likely on government welfare when not out protesting the government. If they were real anarchist they would not be marching in the street but engaged in acts of violence against the government on the down low.

what's to say they are on government welfare, or not egaging in acts of violence in other ways when not marching? you are making a lot of assumptions.

You say all of the above and accuse others of making assumptions?

I don't think those people are anything like the TEA party. At least not what it was originally intended to be. It was intended to reign in the out of control taxing of the people and wasteful spending of their money. They were never for anarchy or anything like anarchy. That is a ridiculous and desperate accusation.

It's really not. Comparing anarchists - a political ideological faction that sees the government as a violent, unweildy, oppressive entity - to the average American liberal that generally supports the expansion of government programs and the increased role of the welfare state of the lives of citizens...its obviously 1. intellectually lazy, or 2. proof that those making accusations aren't actually familiar with the claims they are making. Politically, anarchism has more in common with the right than it does with the left.

 

[ChrisL]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Protesters such as these, when not sponging on the welfare state you mention, are involved in liberal causes. These are fake anarchist. In reality they are just liberals taking a day off class at university.

how can you tell the difference between a fake anarchist and a real one from one photo. they've got an anarchy symbol on both their banners. if they had a swastika would you think they were "fake" nazis?

These anti-Wall Street jack-offs are most likely on government welfare when not out protesting the government. If they were real anarchist they would not be marching in the street but engaged in acts of violence against the government on the down low.

what's to say they are on government welfare, or not egaging in acts of violence in other ways when not marching? you are making a lot of assumptions.

You say all of the above and accuse others of making assumptions?

I don't think those people are anything like the TEA party. At least not what it was originally intended to be. It was intended to reign in the out of control taxing of the people and wasteful spending of their money. They were never for anarchy or anything like anarchy. That is a ridiculous and desperate accusation.

It's really not. Comparing anarchists - a political ideological faction that sees the government as a violent, unweildy, oppressive entity - to the average American liberal that generally supports the expansion of government programs and the increased role of the welfare state of the lives of citizens...its obviously 1. intellectually lazy, or 2. proof that those making accusations aren't actually familiar with the claims they are making. Politically, anarchism has more in common with the right than it does with the left.

Um, no. Most of the people of America are against socialism, and that is exactly what "welfare" is. Because one is against one form of government does not indicate that they are anarchists!!! Gee whiz!

 

[tosacco]

I forgot most Americans are against their roads getting paved, interstate highway systems, coordinated railways that deliver commodities, education, safety regulations on the food they eat, medication they take, or in their workplace...

 

[Bush92]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Protesters such as these, when not sponging on the welfare state you mention, are involved in liberal causes. These are fake anarchist. In reality they are just liberals taking a day off class at university.

how can you tell the difference between a fake anarchist and a real one from one photo. they've got an anarchy symbol on both their banners. if they had a swastika would you think they were "fake" nazis?

These anti-Wall Street jack-offs are most likely on government welfare when not out protesting the government. If they were real anarchist they would not be marching in the street but engaged in acts of violence against the government on the down low.

what's to say they are on government welfare, or not egaging in acts of violence in other ways when not marching? you are making a lot of assumptions.

Your view on political spectrum is correct, but the clowns in the photo, if asked, would ideologically be in line with left of spectrum. That's where they were born.

 

[Bush92]

I forgot most Americans are against their roads getting paved, interstate highway systems, coordinated railways that deliver commodities, education, safety regulations on the food they eat, medication they take, or in their workplace...

They are against the poor quality of service and massive and expensive bureaucracy this creates. Much of what you mention can be done at state level or by private industry. The federal government is a flop when handling these things.

 

[billyerock1991]

Ward Churchill 9 11 Victims Were Little Eichmanns That Got What They Had Coming Liberal Quote Database
Recently Megan Kelly interviewed former professor and liberal darling Ward Churchill who infamously said that the attacks on the twin towers were acceptable actions. Liberal blogosphere and web sites have been coming to his defense. Also, note the other stories on the tabs to the right on the page I posted. All straight from talking points of Democrats. Nawwww, the Democrats haven't went too far left. Nawwww the socialist haven't taken over the party.
The Justice of Roosting Chickens Ward Churchill Speaks Democracy Now
Here is another leftist site that advocates for Churchill. This mans views would easily fit with the opinions of the lefty bloggers on this board.

theres a difference in saying he has the right to say what he wants, then saying we liberals all agree in what he said ... thats the problem with you republicans you don't believe in total free speech ... Ward Churchill has ever right to make his statement to the people... but for you to say we all agree with him is like me saying all republicans love watching people get their heads chopped off for fun ... so how that sharpning going????

 

[Bfgrn]

Ward Churchill 9 11 Victims Were Little Eichmanns That Got What They Had Coming Liberal Quote Database
Recently Megan Kelly interviewed former professor and liberal darling Ward Churchill who infamously said that the attacks on the twin towers were acceptable actions. Liberal blogosphere and web sites have been coming to his defense. Also, note the other stories on the tabs to the right on the page I posted. All straight from talking points of Democrats. Nawwww, the Democrats haven't went too far left. Nawwww the socialist haven't taken over the party.
The Justice of Roosting Chickens Ward Churchill Speaks Democracy Now
Here is another leftist site that advocates for Churchill. This mans views would easily fit with the opinions of the lefty bloggers on this board.

Why don't you READ what Churchill said?

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Churchill, do you think that the World Trade Center was an acceptable target on September 11? Do you think it was a legitimate target?

WARD CHURCHILL: Do I personally think it was a legitimate target or should have been a legitimate target? Absolutely not. And that’s said on the basis of all but absolute rejection of and opposition to U.S. policy. But what you have to understand, and what the listeners have to understand, is that under U.S. rules, it was an acceptable target. And the reason it was an acceptable target, if none other, was that because the C.I.A., the Defense Department, and other parts of the U.S. military intelligence infrastructure, had situated offices within it, and you’ll recall that that is precisely the justification advanced by the Donald Rumsfelds of the world, the Norman Schwarzkopfs, and the Colin Powells of the world, to explain why civilian targets had been bombed in Baghdad. Because that nefarious Saddam Hussein had situated elements of his command and control infrastructure within otherwise civilian occupied facilities. They said that, in itself, justified their bombing of the civilian facilities in order to eliminate the parts of the command and control infrastructure that were situated there. And of course, that then became Saddam Hussein’s fault. Well, if it was Saddam Hussein’s fault, sacrificing his own people, by encapsulating strategic targets within civilian facilities, the same rule would apply to the United States. So, if you’ve got a complaint out there with regard to the people who hit the World Trade Center, you should actually take it to the government of the United States, which, by the rubric they apply elsewhere in the world, everywhere else in the world ultimately, they converted them from civilian targets into legitimate military targets. Now, that logic is there, and it’s unassailable. It’s not something that I embrace. It’s something that I just spell out.

AMY GOODMAN: What are you saying was in the World Trade Center?

WARD CHURCHILL: There was a Central Intelligence Agency office. There were Defense Department offices. There was, I believe, an F.B.I. facility. All of which fit the criteria of the bombing target selection utilized by the Pentagon. If it was fair to bomb such targets in Baghdad, it would be fair for others to bomb such targets in New York. That’s what I’m saying. I don’t think it’s fair to bomb such targets in Baghdad, therefore I reject New York, but so long as United States is applying those rules out in the world, it really has no complaint when those rules are applied to it.

 

[tosacco]

^^^ that is actually a completely valid argument.