Are liberals more adverse to differing opinions?

[Ace Boobtoucher]

*Averse.

Yes they are.

 

[Mayhem]

Show me the Liberal who threatened to personally attack another board member with a pair of pliers and I'll be happy to plumb the depths of adversion with you. Show me the Liberal who took a reasonably active sub-forum and turned it into a minefield of manure-bombs because they couldn't just stick to the topic and respect differing viewpoints. I can name 3 "Conservatives" who were relieved of duty from the politics section of a porn board while only remembering one Liberal.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Show me the Liberal who threatened to personally attack another board member with a pair of pliers and I'll be happy to plumb the depths of adversion with you. Show me the Liberal who took a reasonably active sub-forum and turned it into a minefield of manure-bombs because they couldn't just stick to the topic and respect differing viewpoints. I can name 3 "Conservatives" who were relieved of duty from the politics section of a porn board while only remembering one Liberal.

Is it a coincidence that you return just as our friend from the great state of NC is relieved of duty from the board?

 

[Mayhem]

Nope, it is not.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Antifa and BLM are soooooooo tolerant of even the slightest disagreement that they'll hit you with a bike lock to prove it.

 

[Mayhem]

This thread isn't about Antifa or BLM. It's about Liberals. But thanx for sharing.

 

[sean miguel]

thanks for the correction on *averse.

that wasn't a typo in the title. I learn something new every day.

thanks guys :hatsoff:

 

[Jagger69]

please quote it. on the FDR issue. I was anxiously awaiting your rebuttal but never got it. You offered something vague as I recall.

I didn't repeat it concerning FDR specifically because it's the same rebuttal for him and every other American public figure who didn't fight to keep slavery a permanent institution and participate in open rebellion against the United States. If that's vague to you then perhaps you are simply incapable of accepting it. Regardless (sigh ), see below for more info.

rattrap just now said what FDR did was wrong. so there's that.

Well then, if Rattrap said it, it has to be right, no??

I never defended what he did. However, what he did at the time was, in his judgement, in the best interests of the safety and security of the people of the United States. Analogy: Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The ensuing actions that came from implementation of this law were devastating to an entire culture of people that was indigenous North America at the time. It was wrong from a retrospective and ethical angle. However, in Jackson's judgement, it was in the best interests of the safety and security of the United States at the time. You cannot make the same statement about Lee, Davis, Jackson et al so therein lies the quintessential difference. This, plus the fact that, by supporting the propagation of slavery they were not only ethically but legally and constitutionally wrong is the reason that their actions were and remain so much different than those of FDR, Truman or anyone else similarly qualified for which you choose to offer up.

Please feel free to copy and paste this as the standard rebuttal for any future concerns or questions about this same matter.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

This thread isn't about Antifa or BLM. It's about Liberals. But thanx for sharing.

And like it or not, both those (terrorist) organizations are the vanguard of progressive liberal whiny crybaby pussies.

 

[Mayhem]

And like it or not, you're full of it as usual. Antifa is it's own fragmented, insular pack of idiots. BLM is BLM. There is no Party affiliation whatsoever, by definition.

It's hilarious, with a hilarity that only you bring, that you talk of hitting people with bike locks, and in the next post you call them crybaby pussies. It sounds to me like you're rather terrified of these crybaby pussies. Hmmm, ironic.

Neither of them are the vanguard of anything, anymore than the Bundy Bunch and their Trailer park Jihad was a vanguard of anything.

If I want Hannity, I'll tune in to Hannity. And as pathetic as Hannity is at making any point he thinks he's making of an evening, you're worse. And you're further handicapped by the fact that your audience is nowhere near as gullible as Hannity's is.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I didn't repeat it concerning FDR specifically because it's the same rebuttal for him and every other American public figure who didn't fight to keep slavery a permanent institution and participate in open rebellion against the United States. If that's vague to you then perhaps you are simply incapable of accepting it. Regardless (sigh ), see below for more info.



Well then, if Rattrap said it, it has to be right, no??

I never defended what he did. However, what he did at the time was, in his judgement, in the best interests of the safety and security of the people of the United States. Analogy: Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The ensuing actions that came from implementation of this law were devastating to an entire culture of people that was indigenous North America at the time. It was wrong from a retrospective and ethical angle. However, in Jackson's judgement, it was in the best interests of the safety and security of the United States at the time. You cannot make the same statement about Lee, Davis, Jackson et al so therein lies the quintessential difference. This, plus the fact that, by supporting the propagation of slavery they were not only ethically but legally and constitutionally wrong is the reason that their actions were and remain so much different than those of FDR, Truman or anyone else similarly qualified for which you choose to offer up.

Please feel free to copy and paste this as the standard rebuttal for any future concerns or questions about this same matter.

I always get a chuckle when they bring up FDR and the internment camps. This is how the Freeones board conservative thinks: whenever a liberal is criticizing actions taken by a conservative, just bring up a similar action taken by a liberal. At which point the liberal will then have to reverse his position and defend the liberal in question even though he criticized the conservative for doing the exact same thing. Ya know, because you always have to defend your "side"

 

[Jagger69]

I always get a chuckle when they bring up FDR and the internment camps. This is how the Freeones board conservative thinks: whenever a liberal is criticizing actions taken by a conservative, just bring up a similar action taken by a liberal. At which point the liberal will then have to reverse his position and defend the liberal in question even though he criticized the conservative for doing the exact same thing. Ya know, because you always have to defend your "side"

Yes....and just the very posting of a thread like this smacks of a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" style of question. Like I would consider posting a "Are Conservatives Inherently Closed-Minded?" topic hoping to get some typical knee-jerk reactions just because I could. Sort of like jabbing a stick in an anthill just to see them swarm. Stupid.

 

[Rattrap]

Well then, if Rattrap said it, it has to be right, no??

I have 100% accuracy, according to some wordblog that exists somewhere online with at least as much, if not more, credibility than the wordblog Ace uses to inform his views on science.

I never defended what he did. However, what he did at the time was, in his judgement, in the best interests of the safety and security of the people of the United States. Analogy: Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The ensuing actions that came from implementation of this law were devastating to an entire culture of people that was indigenous North America at the time. It was wrong from a retrospective and ethical angle. However, in Jackson's judgement, it was in the best interests of the safety and security of the United States at the time. You cannot make the same statement about Lee, Davis, Jackson et al so therein lies the quintessential difference. This, plus the fact that, by supporting the propagation of slavery they were not only ethically but legally and constitutionally wrong is the reason that their actions were and remain so much different than those of FDR, Truman or anyone else similarly qualified for which you choose to offer up.

Please feel free to copy and paste this as the standard rebuttal for any future concerns or questions about this same matter.

Well, shit. I was going to leave him hanging. Guess I'm glad I did, you put it better than I would have. Kudos!

It's hilarious, with a hilarity that only you bring, that you talk of hitting people with bike locks, and in the next post you call them crybaby pussies. It sounds to me like you're rather terrified of these crybaby pussies. Hmmm, ironic.

Many conservatives do seem confused about which narrative they want to push.

This is how the Freeones board conservative thinks: whenever a liberal is criticizing actions taken by a conservative, just bring up a similar action taken by a liberal. At which point the liberal will then have to reverse his position and defend the liberal in question even though he criticized the conservative for doing the exact same thing. Ya know, because you always have to defend your "side"

You know...I'll bet there's a name for that!

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Groups so peaceful they'll murder five Dallas area police officers to prove it.

 

[ApolloBalboa]

Groups so peaceful they'll murder five Dallas area police officers to prove it.

Outside of him being black and angry that black people were being shot by cops, there's never been any evidence that Johnson had anything to do with Black Lives Matter. He's been condemned by them and there's been no proven connection between them. According to your logic, because James Fields was seen in the same group and vicinity as people who are identified as Neo-Nazis, and Neo-Nazis were seen in as parts of the group protesting the statue removal, then all of them were Neo-Nazis. If he was capable of violence, they were all capable of violence. If you're willing to separate and dismiss him as the fringe element and not let him stain the rest of the group, you have no reason to not do the same with Johnson.

Unless your mind is already made up, in which case there's no sense arguing.

 

[sean miguel]

Well then, if Rattrap said it, it has to be right, no??

I never defended what he did. However, what he did at the time was, in his judgement, in the best interests of the safety and security of the people of the United States. Analogy: Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The ensuing actions that came from implementation of this law were devastating to an entire culture of people that was indigenous North America at the time. It was wrong from a retrospective and ethical angle. However, in Jackson's judgement, it was in the best interests of the safety and security of the United States at the time. You cannot make the same statement about Lee, Davis, Jackson et al so therein lies the quintessential difference. This, plus the fact that, by supporting the propagation of slavery they were not only ethically but legally and constitutionally wrong is the reason that their actions were and remain so much different than those of FDR, Truman or anyone else similarly qualified for which you choose to offer up.

Please feel free to copy and paste this as the standard rebuttal for any future concerns or questions about this same matter.

will you use that same standard with the Bush Administration and enhanced interrogation?

and my point is - it doesn't stop at Robert E. Lee, as we've seen.

That cultural revolution though. You probably won't be here to see it to it's fruition.

 

[Jagger69]

will you use that same standard with the Bush Administration and enhanced interrogation?

and my point is - it doesn't stop at Robert E. Lee, as we've seen.

That cultural revolution though. You probably won't be here to see it though.

I caught what you initially wrote before you quickly altered it. You think that kind of crap bothers me? You know, it's entirely possible that I might outlive you, fox. I frankly don't sit around worrying about it....certainly not nearly as much as you apparently do.

Read what I posted again and, this time, follow my instructions....if you're not too far into a different mood tonight that is.

 

[sean miguel]

I caught what you initially wrote before you quickly altered it.

what was it that I altered? "to it's fruition?" I just wanted to seem smarter. Because you seem to value that over common sense.

 

[Elwood70]

You know, it's entirely possible that I might outlive you, fox. I frankly don't sit around worrying about it....certainly not nearly as much as you apparently do.

If Harry Dean Stanton can smoke and drink every day and live to 91, anything is possible.

I won't even mention Keith...

 

[sean miguel]

Is it a coincidence that you return just as our friend from the great state of NC is relieved of duty from the board?

and rattrap decided to take us off ignore.

#pussies

#revenge

#circlejerk

#boring