The application of the liberal ideology in the 21st century

[P@triot]

Our founders created a framework of government to ensure liberty and justice. For over 100 years now, liberals have circumvented that framework under the guise of "equality" to push their agenda. One of the many problems of that approach is that they never apply their own position in a consistent manner - the exact opposite of "equality". If "x" is advantageous to them in one instance, but a disadvantage to them in another instance, they will demand "x" for the first instance and deny it at all costs in the second instance.

For instance, the modern-day liberal will scream that guns must be outlawed because they are trying to "save lives". And yet not one of them has ever screamed to ban automobiles despite the fact that for many decades, automobiles have caused more deaths every single year than firearms have. This proves two things: that liberals aren't the least bit interested in saving lives and that they refuse to apply their positions consistently. If guns enrage you because they cost lives, then most certainly automobiles would enrage you.

With that in mind, I think we need to encourage legislatures to pass the Liberal Ideology Balanced Through Actual Requirements Deed - or LIBTARD. In a nutshell, what the LIBTARD act would do is force legislatures to address the greatest cause of the "problem" as identified by liberals in their legislation. So again, going back to the firearms, if they introduce any firearms legislation banning guns citing "lives" as the need, then the legislatures would be forced to ban automobiles first. Only after fatalities from automobiles dropped below that of firearms could legislatures move on to firearms. If a liberal professor was screaming about "white privilege", then by law that professor would be required to surrender their job, home, and bank account to any african-american who stepped forward requesting it. If any liberal student was screaming about "white privilege", then by law that student would be required to surrender their spot at the university along with their laptop, cell phone, etc. to any african-american who stepped forward requesting it. Now that is true "equality". Applying a position consistently and being held accountable for it.

Call your representatives and start demanding the LIBTARD Act today. I think it's time to support our brethren on the left and give them exactly what they want for once.

 

[P@triot]

Here is a prime candidate for the LIBTARD Act. I've used this analogy many times in USMB threads. The left believes that the U.S. Constitution doesn't matter and that guns can be taken by force for what they deem to be "the good of society". Well, there has been a significant downward trend in births for quite some time now. In Italy, it's reaching a level of concern for leaders. By liberal "logic" - it should be ok to start raping women in Italy in order to create babies and ensure the survival of mankind. It's for "the good of society" in Italy. Now, we all know that liberal men will support this to the ends of the universe and beyond (they've been raping women at alarming rates since the begging of liberalism - just look at the Occupy Wall Street cesspool). We also know that some liberal women will support this as well as they often speak about how conservative women should be "gang raped by blacks" (showing that they are not only waging a war on women, but also racists as hell implying that it's somehow worse to be raped by a black person than a person of other origin). But I'm interested to see how the rest of the liberal woman will feel about this? Will they expose themselves as hypocrites, contradicting their previous belief that it is ok to break the law if one deems it is in the best interest of "society", or will they relegate themselves baby making objects and victims for the liberal cause? Quite a predicament...

Italy set to double baby bonus to fight birth rate ‘apocalypse’

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rottweiler continues with his nonsesen statement.

He cannot link any laws or judicial rulings that violate the Constitution in the last 100 years.

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler continues with his nonsesen statement.

He cannot link any laws or judicial rulings that violate the Constitution in the last 100 years.

Bwahahahah! I could name thousands. Lets just start with Obamacare.

The U.S. Constitution delegates 18 enumerated powers to the federal government and healthcare is not one of them. Therefore, creating legislation for healthcare is 100% unconstitutional. Boom! Game over junior.

By the way - I've noticed you've avoided the real issue here. Why the call to ban guns when automobiles cost more lives per year and has for many, many decades now? I would assume you would support the LIBTARD Act to ensure the real cause of a problem is addressed before anything else?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rottweiler continues with his nonsesen statement.

He cannot link any laws or judicial rulings that violate the Constitution in the last 100 years.

Bwahahahah! I could name thousands. Lets just start with Obamacare.

The U.S. Constitution delegates 18 enumerated powers to the federal government and healthcare is not one of them. Therefore, creating legislation for healthcare is 100% unconstitutional. Boom! Game over junior.

By the way - I've noticed you've avoided the real issue here. Why the call to ban guns when automobiles cost more lives per year and has for many, many decades now? I would assume you would support the LIBTARD Act to ensure the real cause of a problem is addressed before anything else?

That is your interpretation. Show us where the Congress and SCOTUS agree with you. Oh, you can't: step off, little man.

 

[candycorn]

Rottweiler continues with his nonsesen statement.

He cannot link any laws or judicial rulings that violate the Constitution in the last 100 years.

Bwahahahah! I could name thousands. Lets just start with Obamacare.

The U.S. Constitution delegates 18 enumerated powers to the federal government and healthcare is not one of them. Therefore, creating legislation for healthcare is 100% unconstitutional. Boom! Game over junior.

By the way - I've noticed you've avoided the real issue here. Why the call to ban guns when automobiles cost more lives per year and has for many, many decades now? I would assume you would support the LIBTARD Act to ensure the real cause of a problem is addressed before anything else?

You should do something about that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our founders created a framework of government to ensure liberty and justice. For over 100 years now, liberals have circumvented that framework under the guise of "equality" to push their agenda. One of the many problems of that approach is that they never apply their own position in a consistent manner - the exact opposite of "equality". If "x" is advantageous to them in one instance, but a disadvantage to them in another instance, they will demand "x" for the first instance and deny it at all costs in the second instance.

For instance, the modern-day liberal will scream that guns must be outlawed because they are trying to "save lives". And yet not one of them has ever screamed to ban automobiles despite the fact that for many decades, automobiles have caused more deaths every single year than firearms have. This proves two things: that liberals aren't the least bit interested in saving lives and that they refuse to apply their positions consistently. If guns enrage you because they cost lives, then most certainly automobiles would enrage you.

With that in mind, I think we need to encourage legislatures to pass the Liberal Ideology Balanced Through Actual Requirements Deed - or LIBTARD. In a nutshell, what the LIBTARD act would do is force legislatures to address the greatest cause of the "problem" as identified by liberals in their legislation. So again, going back to the firearms, if they introduce any firearms legislation banning guns citing "lives" as the need, then the legislatures would be forced to ban automobiles first. Only after fatalities from automobiles dropped below that of firearms could legislatures move on to firearms. If a liberal professor was screaming about "white privilege", then by law that professor would be required to surrender their job, home, and bank account to any african-american who stepped forward requesting it. If any liberal student was screaming about "white privilege", then by law that student would be required to surrender their spot at the university along with their laptop, cell phone, etc. to any african-american who stepped forward requesting it. Now that is true "equality". Applying a position consistently and being held accountable for it.

Call your representatives and start demanding the LIBTARD Act today. I think it's time to support our brethren on the left and give them exactly what they want for once.

An example of a conservative straw man fallacy in the 21st Century.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rottweiler continues with his nonsesen statement.

He cannot link any laws or judicial rulings that violate the Constitution in the last 100 years.

Bwahahahah! I could name thousands. Lets just start with Obamacare.

The U.S. Constitution delegates 18 enumerated powers to the federal government and healthcare is not one of them. Therefore, creating legislation for healthcare is 100% unconstitutional. Boom! Game over junior.

By the way - I've noticed you've avoided the real issue here. Why the call to ban guns when automobiles cost more lives per year and has for many, many decades now? I would assume you would support the LIBTARD Act to ensure the real cause of a problem is addressed before anything else?

lol

Wrong – not the ‘constitution’ according to you and other TPM nitwits.

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler continues with his nonsesen statement.

He cannot link any laws or judicial rulings that violate the Constitution in the last 100 years.

Bwahahahah! I could name thousands. Lets just start with Obamacare.

The U.S. Constitution delegates 18 enumerated powers to the federal government and healthcare is not one of them. Therefore, creating legislation for healthcare is 100% unconstitutional. Boom! Game over junior.

By the way - I've noticed you've avoided the real issue here. Why the call to ban guns when automobiles cost more lives per year and has for many, many decades now? I would assume you would support the LIBTARD Act to ensure the real cause of a problem is addressed before anything else?

lol

Wrong – not the ‘constitution’ according to you and other TPM nitwits.

There is no "constitution according to X". There is only the U.S. Constitution. One of the many flaws in the libtard ideology. Pretend like a legal and binding document is not legal and binding...

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler continues with his nonsesen statement.

He cannot link any laws or judicial rulings that violate the Constitution in the last 100 years.

Bwahahahah! I could name thousands. Lets just start with Obamacare.

The U.S. Constitution delegates 18 enumerated powers to the federal government and healthcare is not one of them. Therefore, creating legislation for healthcare is 100% unconstitutional. Boom! Game over junior.

By the way - I've noticed you've avoided the real issue here. Why the call to ban guns when automobiles cost more lives per year and has for many, many decades now? I would assume you would support the LIBTARD Act to ensure the real cause of a problem is addressed before anything else?

You should do something about that.

There is some "logic". Is that what you tell women who have been raped? Knowing you, I'm sure you do...

 

[P@triot]

Our founders created a framework of government to ensure liberty and justice. For over 100 years now, liberals have circumvented that framework under the guise of "equality" to push their agenda. One of the many problems of that approach is that they never apply their own position in a consistent manner - the exact opposite of "equality". If "x" is advantageous to them in one instance, but a disadvantage to them in another instance, they will demand "x" for the first instance and deny it at all costs in the second instance.

For instance, the modern-day liberal will scream that guns must be outlawed because they are trying to "save lives". And yet not one of them has ever screamed to ban automobiles despite the fact that for many decades, automobiles have caused more deaths every single year than firearms have. This proves two things: that liberals aren't the least bit interested in saving lives and that they refuse to apply their positions consistently. If guns enrage you because they cost lives, then most certainly automobiles would enrage you.

With that in mind, I think we need to encourage legislatures to pass the Liberal Ideology Balanced Through Actual Requirements Deed - or LIBTARD. In a nutshell, what the LIBTARD act would do is force legislatures to address the greatest cause of the "problem" as identified by liberals in their legislation. So again, going back to the firearms, if they introduce any firearms legislation banning guns citing "lives" as the need, then the legislatures would be forced to ban automobiles first. Only after fatalities from automobiles dropped below that of firearms could legislatures move on to firearms. If a liberal professor was screaming about "white privilege", then by law that professor would be required to surrender their job, home, and bank account to any african-american who stepped forward requesting it. If any liberal student was screaming about "white privilege", then by law that student would be required to surrender their spot at the university along with their laptop, cell phone, etc. to any african-american who stepped forward requesting it. Now that is true "equality". Applying a position consistently and being held accountable for it.

Call your representatives and start demanding the LIBTARD Act today. I think it's time to support our brethren on the left and give them exactly what they want for once.

An example of a conservative straw man fallacy in the 21st Century.

You can always count on CCJ to run around every thread screaming "straw man fallacy! straw man fallacy!". It's hilarious. It appears he has no argument, nothing of value to add, etc. I'm starting to think he doesn't even know what that means. He's almost like a dog that has been conditioned to respond to a stimulus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rottweiler, like Centinel, continues to blather.

They nothing about the Constitution, its history, American history, and American jurisprudence.

 

[Centinel]

Here is a prime candidate for the LIBTARD Act. I've used this analogy many times in USMB threads. The left believes that the U.S. Constitution doesn't matter and that guns can be taken by force for what they deem to be "the good of society".

The constitution doesn't give congress any legislative authority to enact laws restricting the acquisition or possession of arms by the people of the several states. This is obvious by reading the document.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Our founders created a framework of government to ensure liberty and justice. For over 100 years now, liberals have circumvented that framework under the guise of "equality" to push their agenda. One of the many problems of that approach is that they never apply their own position in a consistent manner - the exact opposite of "equality". If "x" is advantageous to them in one instance, but a disadvantage to them in another instance, they will demand "x" for the first instance and deny it at all costs in the second instance.

For instance, the modern-day liberal will scream that guns must be outlawed because they are trying to "save lives". And yet not one of them has ever screamed to ban automobiles despite the fact that for many decades, automobiles have caused more deaths every single year than firearms have. This proves two things: that liberals aren't the least bit interested in saving lives and that they refuse to apply their positions consistently. If guns enrage you because they cost lives, then most certainly automobiles would enrage you.

With that in mind, I think we need to encourage legislatures to pass the Liberal Ideology Balanced Through Actual Requirements Deed - or LIBTARD. In a nutshell, what the LIBTARD act would do is force legislatures to address the greatest cause of the "problem" as identified by liberals in their legislation. So again, going back to the firearms, if they introduce any firearms legislation banning guns citing "lives" as the need, then the legislatures would be forced to ban automobiles first. Only after fatalities from automobiles dropped below that of firearms could legislatures move on to firearms. If a liberal professor was screaming about "white privilege", then by law that professor would be required to surrender their job, home, and bank account to any african-american who stepped forward requesting it. If any liberal student was screaming about "white privilege", then by law that student would be required to surrender their spot at the university along with their laptop, cell phone, etc. to any african-american who stepped forward requesting it. Now that is true "equality". Applying a position consistently and being held accountable for it.

Call your representatives and start demanding the LIBTARD Act today. I think it's time to support our brethren on the left and give them exactly what they want for once.

An example of a conservative straw man fallacy in the 21st Century.

You can always count on CCJ to run around every thread screaming "straw man fallacy! straw man fallacy!". It's hilarious. It appears he has no argument, nothing of value to add, etc. I'm starting to think he doesn't even know what that means. He's almost like a dog that has been conditioned to respond to a stimulus.

What it points out is how many conservatives use fallacies as arguments. And you never learn. Try reading what a fallacy is, go read many examples of it online, and then adjust your argument so it is coherent and presents a defensible stance, rather than gut level emotional fallacy. If the weather man says every night for two weeks "80% chance of rain" because there is an 80% chance of rain, then you running around screaming "all he does is say it's going to rain so no one should listen to him" is just inane. If the weatherman were to say "80% chance of brimstone from the sky" and you challenged him on the very first day then you'd have a coherent argument.

If your argument is not based on fact or reality, and instead on emotion, innuendo, false information, or half-truths, then it cannot be defended.

 

[P@triot]

Our founders created a framework of government to ensure liberty and justice. For over 100 years now, liberals have circumvented that framework under the guise of "equality" to push their agenda. One of the many problems of that approach is that they never apply their own position in a consistent manner - the exact opposite of "equality". If "x" is advantageous to them in one instance, but a disadvantage to them in another instance, they will demand "x" for the first instance and deny it at all costs in the second instance.

For instance, the modern-day liberal will scream that guns must be outlawed because they are trying to "save lives". And yet not one of them has ever screamed to ban automobiles despite the fact that for many decades, automobiles have caused more deaths every single year than firearms have. This proves two things: that liberals aren't the least bit interested in saving lives and that they refuse to apply their positions consistently. If guns enrage you because they cost lives, then most certainly automobiles would enrage you.

With that in mind, I think we need to encourage legislatures to pass the Liberal Ideology Balanced Through Actual Requirements Deed - or LIBTARD. In a nutshell, what the LIBTARD act would do is force legislatures to address the greatest cause of the "problem" as identified by liberals in their legislation. So again, going back to the firearms, if they introduce any firearms legislation banning guns citing "lives" as the need, then the legislatures would be forced to ban automobiles first. Only after fatalities from automobiles dropped below that of firearms could legislatures move on to firearms. If a liberal professor was screaming about "white privilege", then by law that professor would be required to surrender their job, home, and bank account to any african-american who stepped forward requesting it. If any liberal student was screaming about "white privilege", then by law that student would be required to surrender their spot at the university along with their laptop, cell phone, etc. to any african-american who stepped forward requesting it. Now that is true "equality". Applying a position consistently and being held accountable for it.

Call your representatives and start demanding the LIBTARD Act today. I think it's time to support our brethren on the left and give them exactly what they want for once.

An example of a conservative straw man fallacy in the 21st Century.

You can always count on CCJ to run around every thread screaming "straw man fallacy! straw man fallacy!". It's hilarious. It appears he has no argument, nothing of value to add, etc. I'm starting to think he doesn't even know what that means. He's almost like a dog that has been conditioned to respond to a stimulus.

What it points out is how many conservatives use fallacies as arguments. And you never learn. Try reading what a fallacy is, go read many examples of it online, and then adjust your argument so it is coherent and presents a defensible stance, rather than gut level emotional fallacy. If the weather man says every night for two weeks "80% chance of rain" because there is an 80% chance of rain, then you running around screaming "all he does is say it's going to rain so no one should listen to him" is just inane. If the weatherman were to say "80% chance of brimstone from the sky" and you challenged him on the very first day then you'd have a coherent argument.

If your argument is not based on fact or reality, and instead on emotion, innuendo, false information, or half-truths, then it cannot be defended.

Oh Lord....another "straw man fallacy!" screamer who doesn't know what the term even means. I'm going to coin this condition "SMF Syndrome". Suffered by any frustrated libtard that can't dispute the facts.

Tell me junior....which part of my original post was "straw man"? Are you seriously going to make the case that libtards aren't attempting to limit or outright ban firearms citing "loss of life"? Please say you are going to make that case. Please? I dare you.....stupid. It appears that both you and CCJ are scared stupid by someone suggesting that you should be forced to take a small dose of your own medicine. That says quite a bit chief.

Now come on - give us more of that "SMF Syndrome" like a person with Tourettes.

 

[P@triot]

"The Straw Men are coming! The Straw Men are coming!"

God Almighty, we have so throughly defeated the libtard that they don't even attempt to make an argument any more. They can't even resort to lying because we've buried them with facts. Now it's just screaming "straw man" like a person with Tourettes

 

[IsaacNewton]

rottweiler you are a chihuahua. Alot of yeep yeep yeep but no teeth. You compare guns to cars, why not compare guns to cribs? Children die in cribs. Surely you have a fallacious argument that would connect the two and show how guns are no more dangerous than cribs!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is a prime candidate for the LIBTARD Act. I've used this analogy many times in USMB threads. The left believes that the U.S. Constitution doesn't matter and that guns can be taken by force for what they deem to be "the good of society". Well, there has been a significant downward trend in births for quite some time now. In Italy, it's reaching a level of concern for leaders. By liberal "logic" - it should be ok to start raping women in Italy in order to create babies and ensure the survival of mankind. It's for "the good of society" in Italy. Now, we all know that liberal men will support this to the ends of the universe and beyond (they've been raping women at alarming rates since the begging of liberalism - just look at the Occupy Wall Street cesspool). We also know that some liberal women will support this as well as they often speak about how conservative women should be "gang raped by blacks" (showing that they are not only waging a war on women, but also racists as hell implying that it's somehow worse to be raped by a black person than a person of other origin). But I'm interested to see how the rest of the liberal woman will feel about this? Will they expose themselves as hypocrites, contradicting their previous belief that it is ok to break the law if one deems it is in the best interest of "society", or will they relegate themselves baby making objects and victims for the liberal cause? Quite a predicament...

Italy set to double baby bonus to fight birth rate ‘apocalypse’

Alphabet soup is food, not reading material.

 

[P@triot]

rottweiler you are a chihuahua. Alot of yeep yeep yeep but no teeth. You compare guns to cars, why not compare guns to cribs? Children die in cribs. Surely you have a fallacious argument that would connect the two and show how guns are no more dangerous than cribs!

I never compared anything to anything, stupid. You claim that you care about human life. If that's the case - why aren't you calling to ban cars since they cause more deaths per year than automobiles?

You're pissed off because that simple question proves that you don't give a shit about human life jack-ass. You care about forcing your will on others and your irrational fear of inanimate objects.

 

[Centinel]

Reading comprehension.

The constitution doesn't permit congress to enact legislation that restricts the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the several states.