Liberals have become so radicalized they have now become what they use to hate

[LoneLaugher]

.

Funny how some lefties call the Constitution a document that was written by rich white slaveholders -- presumably a bad thing -- while others try to take credit for it.

Just admit you want to get rid of it and establish an authoritarian European-style Social Democracy.

That would give you folks yet another excuse to avoid the point of the thread, too!

You think this thread has a "point"?

Wanna let us know what it is?

I'm still waiting for some kind of answer to this though:

Smatter? Can't think beyond pronouns?

It appears you really don't know what I meant.

Here, let me make this as simple as I can for you. I was referring to the original post of the thread:

“You have become exactly [like] the conservative, religious book burners of the 40s and the 50s and the 60s. You are it,” Norton said. “You are the speech repressors, you are the hypersensitive ones, you are the ones who want people fired immediately, you are the ones calling for people’s jobs. You have become what you hated.”

And you ask, "who the **** is 'they'"?

I looked over my posts that you quoted, and I did not use the word "they". So why did you have to ask such a question?

You're so desperate to avoid the point of the thread that you're flailing.

And to repeat the point above, with which I agree: “You have become exactly [like] the conservative, religious book burners of the 40s and the 50s and the 60s. You are it,” Norton said. “You are the speech repressors, you are the hypersensitive ones, you are the ones who want people fired immediately, you are the ones calling for people’s jobs. You have become what you hated."


Get it? If not, I'll repeat it again: I was referring to how you so resemble the conservative, religious book burners of the 40s and the 50s and the 60s.

I do hope this is clear enough for you.

This is the second time one of you has just made stuff up out of thin air in an effort to prove a point. That's always a good sign.

.

^^^^^

This douchebag refers to "they" often. Why is he so weirded out by someone asking who "they" is?

 

[P@triot]

Opie and Anthony are the guys who got fired from radio years ago for doing a bit where they had a link to a couple who were pretending to **** inside St. Patrick's Cathedral. It led eventually to the Catholic League, among others, demanding they be fired. They were.

Speaking of 'tolerance'.

Yup. Again -- social mores.

It's more fascinating that this is where Buttsoiler's taking his political cues from -- a pair of shock jocks.

As opposed to Pogo - who takes his marching orders from George Soros (and doesn't know it because he doesn't even know who runs ThinkProgress ).

Soros proudly worked for the Nazi's by the way. I do enjoy watching Pogo freak out though when facts are presented from other liberals which he cannot dispute.

 

[deltex1]

grammar - "I use to", or "I used to" - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange


With all due respect...

 

[P@triot]

Changing, as the Founders expected us to. Read them. The damn thing wasn't written by God on stone tablets, you just wrongly believe that it was.

ah yes....the 'living breathing Constitution'.......

the Founders provided a way to Amend the Constitution.....not to change it incrementally through crazy 'interpretations' and spotting things in 'penumbras' by activist judges....

that all part of your presidents anti-American 'Change'......

You don't believe Marbury v. Madison is settled law? You really have consumed the Kool-Aid.

The fact that you believe the Constitution is "living, breathing" and able to be edited on the fly, while a ****'n 25mph speed limit is set in stone shows that you are the only Kool-Aid drinker in the argument, junior....

 

[P@triot]

Gotta love it when clueless people chime in.

figures....you libs think having control and responsibility is comedic....

Did you listen to the audio posted in the OP?

Do you listen to the radical, unhinged positions of your fellow liberals? We're now unable to read books or have discussions in COLLEGE because it could remind someone of an uncomfortable experience...

Good luck conducting business in this world if reading or speaking is banned genius. How can a doctor ask a patient what hurts if the word "hurts" triggers uncomfortable memories in the mind of libtards?!?

 

[LoneLaugher]

grammar - "I use to", or "I used to" - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange


With all due respect...

Something that anyone who pays attention in grammar school knows.

Someone who argues this matter is not deserving of much respect. It is noted that " all due respect " could refer to no respect at all.

A little respect could be earned if said person acknowledges his error.

 

[LoneLaugher]

figures....you libs think having control and responsibility is comedic....

Did you listen to the audio posted in the OP?

Do you listen to the radical, unhinged positions of your fellow liberals? We're now unable to read books or have discussions in COLLEGE because it could remind someone of an uncomfortable experience...

Good luck conducting business in this world if reading or speaking is banned genius. How can a doctor ask a patient what hurts if the word "hurts" triggers uncomfortable memories in the mind of libtards?!?

Nope. We are able to read anything and discuss anything. The idiot you cited in your. OP was trying to get other idiots to call the show. Nothing he said is substantiated.

 

[P@triot]

I have no idea why you think social mores and politics are mutuually exclusive. At that level, one should not discuss the lowering of bars.

Social mores can't be legislated, that's the main difference. Social engineering via legislation is using an artificial catalyst. For instance banning cannabis or alcohol did nothing to lessen the desire value of those substances; if anything it increased it.

None of what these clowns are talking about is politics anyway. It's cultural values (which they note right at the beginning, right before "jismism"). Has nothing to do with politics unless you want to stretch-to-fit the Liberal maxim "all men are created equal", then it's pseudorelated. But as far as I could tell they were referring to a college campus -- nothing to do with politics.

"Lowering the bar" refers to the idea of using a shock jock show to try to make a political point. These guys are anything but political scientists.

Pogo, you're an idiot. Social more are indeed the foundation for legislation. I would take you back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Amendment of almost 100 years prior. Lowering the bar, in this case, is clearly self-inflicted.

Stop being so helplessly misinformed or simply stupid.

Well, Pogo is a very special kind of stupid. He's actually on record in another thread stating that technology (internet, webcams, applications, etc.) cannot be utilized to transfer knowledge (you can't make this shit up) and that because of that "reality" (in his asinine mind), nobody is utilizing online technology to avoid live conferences (again - I couldn't make this up if I tried).

Now his position is that liberal politics are completely devoid of social issues ...

 

[P@triot]

Did you listen to the audio posted in the OP?

Do you listen to the radical, unhinged positions of your fellow liberals? We're now unable to read books or have discussions in COLLEGE because it could remind someone of an uncomfortable experience...

Good luck conducting business in this world if reading or speaking is banned genius. How can a doctor ask a patient what hurts if the word "hurts" triggers uncomfortable memories in the mind of libtards?!?

Nope. We are able to read anything and discuss anything. The idiot you cited in your. OP was trying to get other idiots to call the show. Nothing he said is substantiated.

This is the weakest response I have ever seen on USMB. It's 100% "substantiated" junior.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Do you listen to the radical, unhinged positions of your fellow liberals? We're now unable to read books or have discussions in COLLEGE because it could remind someone of an uncomfortable experience...

Good luck conducting business in this world if reading or speaking is banned genius. How can a doctor ask a patient what hurts if the word "hurts" triggers uncomfortable memories in the mind of libtards?!?

Nope. We are able to read anything and discuss anything. The idiot you cited in your. OP was trying to get other idiots to call the show. Nothing he said is substantiated.

This is the weakest response I have ever seen on USMB. It's 100% "substantiated" junior.

Game. Set. Match.

Really? What material are you unable to read?

 

[Wry Catcher]

ah yes....the 'living breathing Constitution'.......

the Founders provided a way to Amend the Constitution.....not to change it incrementally through crazy 'interpretations' and spotting things in 'penumbras' by activist judges....

that all part of your presidents anti-American 'Change'......

You don't believe Marbury v. Madison is settled law? You really have consumed the Kool-Aid.

The fact that you believe the Constitution is "living, breathing" and able to be edited on the fly, while a ****'n 25mph speed limit is set in stone shows that you are the only Kool-Aid drinker in the argument, junior....

Your ignorance is amazing. First, the speed limit isn't set in stone. It is evaluated annually and can be adjusted up or down depending on the data collected.

And, we have over 200 years of courts deciding what is Constitutional and what is not, and rarely do all justices agree. Stupid people like you have no business arguing Constitutional Law or Constitutional issues.

 

[Freewill]

Jim Norton (who is left-leaning by the way), knocks it out of the park...

“You have become exactly [like] the conservative, religious book burners of the 40s and the 50s and the 60s. You are it,” Norton said. “You are the speech repressors, you are the hypersensitive ones, you are the ones who want people fired immediately, you are the ones calling for people’s jobs. You have become what you hated.”

"Opie and Anthony" and Jim Norton go off on "trigger words" and college culture - YouTube

I don't know rottie I think they were just jealous of those they said they hated.

 

[P@triot]

You don't believe Marbury v. Madison is settled law? You really have consumed the Kool-Aid.

The fact that you believe the Constitution is "living, breathing" and able to be edited on the fly, while a ****'n 25mph speed limit is set in stone shows that you are the only Kool-Aid drinker in the argument, junior....

Your ignorance is amazing. First, the speed limit isn't set in stone. It is evaluated annually and can be adjusted up or down depending on the data collected.

And, we have over 200 years of courts deciding what is Constitutional and what is not, and rarely do all justices agree. Stupid people like you have no business arguing Constitutional Law or Constitutional issues.

Exactly genius - they decide what is Constitutional. They do not get to decide for themselves what the Constitution itself means. It is written in black & white and is the law of the land until such time as it is legally ammended.

So ruling on Obamacare or gay marriage does not make the Constitution "living, breathing" you ****'n moron.

 

[P@triot]

You don't believe Marbury v. Madison is settled law? You really have consumed the Kool-Aid.

The fact that you believe the Constitution is "living, breathing" and able to be edited on the fly, while a ****'n 25mph speed limit is set in stone shows that you are the only Kool-Aid drinker in the argument, junior....

Your ignorance is amazing. First, the speed limit isn't set in stone. It is evaluated annually and can be adjusted up or down depending on the data collected.

And, we have over 200 years of courts deciding what is Constitutional and what is not, and rarely do all justices agree. Stupid people like you have no business arguing Constitutional Law or Constitutional issues.

So as you are driving down the road, you can arbitrarily "interpret" for yourself what the 25mph really means and then exceed it because it is "living, breathing" law?

Dumb ass....

And what you are stating - reviewing and altering it - is the process. And the process for altering the Constitution junior is the amendment process. And short of the amendment process, the Constitution is set in stone, says what it says, is not "living, breathing" (such an ignorant libtard term), and is the highest law in the land which is not open to debate.

 

[Pogo]

.

Funny how some lefties call the Constitution a document that was written by rich white slaveholders -- presumably a bad thing -- while others try to take credit for it.

Just admit you want to get rid of it and establish an authoritarian European-style Social Democracy.

That would give you folks yet another excuse to avoid the point of the thread, too!

You think this thread has a "point"?

Wanna let us know what it is?

I'm still waiting for some kind of answer to this though:

Smatter? Can't think beyond pronouns?

It appears you really don't know what I meant.

Here, let me make this as simple as I can for you. I was referring to the original post of the thread:

“You have become exactly [like] the conservative, religious book burners of the 40s and the 50s and the 60s. You are it,” Norton said. “You are the speech repressors, you are the hypersensitive ones, you are the ones who want people fired immediately, you are the ones calling for people’s jobs. You have become what you hated.”

And you ask, "who the **** is 'they'"?

I looked over my posts that you quoted, and I did not use the word "they". So why did you have to ask such a question?

Really.

Then who wrote this:

You do realize that's precisely what they were saying back then.

Right?

Did someone hack your account for an hour? You have three nonspecific pronouns/adverbial conjunctions there that could mean anything. The OP (if we're limited to the OP -- you don't indicate that either) refers to anywhere from four to eight entities that "they" could mean. That is, given the esoteric secret code that you were referring to the OP, which I guess we're all supposed to just know via mental telepathy. Not to even mention that (that's what they were saying -- what?) and "back then" (when?)

You're so desperate to avoid the point of the thread that you're flailing.

Riiiiight, that's why I called attention to it rather than ignoring empty content.
You guys that can't write and then want to blame the readers crack me up.

And to repeat the point above, with which I agree: “You have become exactly [like] the conservative, religious book burners of the 40s and the 50s and the 60s. You are it,” Norton said. “You are the speech repressors, you are the hypersensitive ones, you are the ones who want people fired immediately, you are the ones calling for people’s jobs. You have become what you hated."

Get it? If not, I'll repeat it again: I was referring to how you so resemble the conservative, religious book burners of the 40s and the 50s and the 60s.

I do hope this is clear enough for you.

Man, that took forfuckingEVER. What was that, four hours, just for an empty response?
And after all that, nothing there to discuss anyway; all you did was repeat the OP. We STILL don't know what all those pronouns are pointing to.
Thanks for those ten minutes I'll never get back.

This is the second time one of you has just made stuff up out of thin air in an effort to prove a point. That's always a good sign.

No idea what that means either -- but I'm not asking. I don't have that kind of time.

Shheeeeeeeeeeeeesh

 

[Pogo]

Jim Norton (who is left-leaning by the way), knocks it out of the park...

“You have become exactly [like] the conservative, religious book burners of the 40s and the 50s and the 60s. You are it,” Norton said. “You are the speech repressors, you are the hypersensitive ones, you are the ones who want people fired immediately, you are the ones calling for people’s jobs. You have become what you hated.”

"Opie and Anthony" and Jim Norton go off on "trigger words" and college culture - YouTube

This has nothing to do with "Liberalism". Matter of fact it's got nothing to even do with politics. It's about contemporary social mores. But it does speak volumes that the OP doesn't know the difference.

Let alone -- using a shock jock show as political fodder -- just when we thought the bar couldn't be lowered any further...

The fact that you believe liberalism is separate from "contemporary social mores" is what is fall down hilarious.

Junior here thinks liberalism is devoid of anything social when in fact, it's entire platform is forcing the social into the political...

OK now this... who the **** is "Junior"?

Ah, never mind, just make some attempt to explain how a political philosophy can dictate social mores. If you believe there's some relationship, then you must believe conservatism also dictates social mores-- how? Does the right dictate them? The left? Other parties?

Or for that matter 'splain to us where there are any political figures in your OP at all, including your original source, a couple of sophomoric shock jocks cerebrally exploring the finer points of "jismism".

 

[Pogo]

Opie and Anthony are the guys who got fired from radio years ago for doing a bit where they had a link to a couple who were pretending to **** inside St. Patrick's Cathedral. It led eventually to the Catholic League, among others, demanding they be fired. They were.

Speaking of 'tolerance'.

Yup. Again -- social mores.

It's more fascinating that this is where Buttsoiler's taking his political cues from -- a pair of shock jocks.

As opposed to Pogo - who takes his marching orders from George Soros (and doesn't know it because he doesn't even know who runs ThinkProgress ).

Soros proudly worked for the Nazi's by the way. I do enjoy watching Pogo freak out though when facts are presented from other liberals which he cannot dispute.

Your links to where I've started any thread anywhere anytime based on either of those sources are.....





Hello?



Didn't think so.

 

[Pogo]

Social mores can't be legislated, that's the main difference. Social engineering via legislation is using an artificial catalyst. For instance banning cannabis or alcohol did nothing to lessen the desire value of those substances; if anything it increased it.

None of what these clowns are talking about is politics anyway. It's cultural values (which they note right at the beginning, right before "jismism"). Has nothing to do with politics unless you want to stretch-to-fit the Liberal maxim "all men are created equal", then it's pseudorelated. But as far as I could tell they were referring to a college campus -- nothing to do with politics.

"Lowering the bar" refers to the idea of using a shock jock show to try to make a political point. These guys are anything but political scientists.

Pogo, you're an idiot. Social more are indeed the foundation for legislation. I would take you back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Amendment of almost 100 years prior. Lowering the bar, in this case, is clearly self-inflicted.

Stop being so helplessly misinformed or simply stupid.

Well, Pogo is a very special kind of stupid. He's actually on record in another thread stating that technology (internet, webcams, applications, etc.) cannot be utilized to transfer knowledge (you can't make this shit up) and that because of that "reality" (in his asinine mind), nobody is utilizing online technology to avoid live conferences (again - I couldn't make this up if I tried).

You just did make that up.
If you didn't --------- link it.

Again .... crickets.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The fact that you believe the Constitution is "living, breathing" and able to be edited on the fly, while a ****'n 25mph speed limit is set in stone shows that you are the only Kool-Aid drinker in the argument, junior....

Your ignorance is amazing. First, the speed limit isn't set in stone. It is evaluated annually and can be adjusted up or down depending on the data collected.

And, we have over 200 years of courts deciding what is Constitutional and what is not, and rarely do all justices agree. Stupid people like you have no business arguing Constitutional Law or Constitutional issues.

Exactly genius - they decide what is Constitutional. They do not get to decide for themselves what the Constitution itself means. It is written in black & white and is the law of the land until such time as it is legally ammended.

So ruling on Obamacare or gay marriage does not make the Constitution "living, breathing" you ****'n moron.

Wow, you truly are stupid.

Where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court granted the power to decide on the Constitutionality of a law passed by congress?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The fact that you believe the Constitution is "living, breathing" and able to be edited on the fly, while a ****'n 25mph speed limit is set in stone shows that you are the only Kool-Aid drinker in the argument, junior....

Your ignorance is amazing. First, the speed limit isn't set in stone. It is evaluated annually and can be adjusted up or down depending on the data collected.

And, we have over 200 years of courts deciding what is Constitutional and what is not, and rarely do all justices agree. Stupid people like you have no business arguing Constitutional Law or Constitutional issues.

So as you are driving down the road, you can arbitrarily "interpret" for yourself what the 25mph really means and then exceed it because it is "living, breathing" law?

Dumb ass....

And what you are stating - reviewing and altering it - is the process. And the process for altering the Constitution junior is the amendment process. And short of the amendment process, the Constitution is set in stone, says what it says, is not "living, breathing" (such an ignorant libtard term), and is the highest law in the land which is not open to debate.

You're ridiculous. Never did I say the driver can change the legal limit; when you build straw men, please try to find some very dry straw, building one with wet straw doesn't work at all and thus makes you appear ridiculous [those of us who know you, know you are in fact ridiculous].