Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why is there so much liberal hate?

Page 28 of 49 [ 776 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 49  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AspieRogue

08 Jul 2012, 4:00 pm

Raptor wrote:
JanuaryMan wrote:
Oodain wrote:
HisDivineMajesty wrote:


wow

let me ask you this, do you think all muslims fit the stereotype you have put forth?

or all african nations?


I must ask the same question.
Remember that Hitler and the Nazis were not Muslims, that the Romans were not Muslims, that a vast numer of the Chinese that committed genocides were not Muslims. And I can keep going. Evil exists in all pockets of humanity, and people of every religion or lack of can descend into madness.


Yes but in the past few decades the Chinese, Nazis, and Romans haven't done much in the form of genocide.
With that said I'm more concerned with a dirty bomb in the hands of an Islamic terrorists than the Luftwaffe strafing my neighborhood with an Me-109.




Rather than target one religious group for vilification, how about nations take steps to secure nuclear materials as well as develop geiger counters sophisticated enough to distinguish between isotopes and use them at all ports of entry to curb the smuggling of radioactive isotopes?



AspieRogue

08 Jul 2012, 4:04 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
What the f**k? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
How the hell did you come up with the notion that I'm some insane truther?
I said it wasn't all Muslims. But I never said Muslim terrorists didn't do it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer wrote:
Quote:
But neither was it all Muslims, either.


U left it open for that.



No he didn't. That's a Strawman if I ever saw one!



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,426
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Jul 2012, 6:41 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
What the f**k? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
How the hell did you come up with the notion that I'm some insane truther?
I said it wasn't all Muslims. But I never said Muslim terrorists didn't do it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer wrote:
Quote:
But neither was it all Muslims, either.


U left it open for that.



No he didn't. That's a Strawman if I ever saw one!


Thank you, sir. 8)

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Jul 2012, 8:46 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Raptor wrote:
JanuaryMan wrote:
Oodain wrote:
HisDivineMajesty wrote:


wow

let me ask you this, do you think all muslims fit the stereotype you have put forth?

or all african nations?


I must ask the same question.
Remember that Hitler and the Nazis were not Muslims, that the Romans were not Muslims, that a vast numer of the Chinese that committed genocides were not Muslims. And I can keep going. Evil exists in all pockets of humanity, and people of every religion or lack of can descend into madness.


Yes but in the past few decades the Chinese, Nazis, and Romans haven't done much in the form of genocide.
With that said I'm more concerned with a dirty bomb in the hands of an Islamic terrorists than the Luftwaffe strafing my neighborhood with an Me-109.




Rather than target one religious group for vilification, how about nations take steps to secure nuclear materials as well as develop geiger counters sophisticated enough to distinguish between isotopes and use them at all ports of entry to curb the smuggling of radioactive isotopes?


That means getting nations to come together under a common goal which is easier said than done once you get down to the details. Then it's a struggle over who controls what, who pays for what, all the diplomatic ass kissing and deal making, and there's always going to be someone that gets mad and goes home and leaves something vulnerable that we have to claim is not vulnerable just to prevent diplomatic butthurt.
Gee, that all sounds really effective and efficient.

A bomb or materials does not have to come in by ship into a port city or on a cargo jet to an international airport.
For one example a 30 ft. sloop coming into ANY bay or little inlet from international waters could be the delivery vehicle and that would be hard to detect if the circumstances were favorable to the party doing the smuggling.
Then you have that disgusting mess along the Mexican border where the US government has elected not to do its job. That's a wound open to anything walking in and there's probably stuff that's been smuggled across that we don't know about............yet.

Makes a lot more sense to keep a close eye on the ones that have the track record of producing terrorists, political correctness be damned.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Jul 2012, 8:47 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
What the f**k? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
How the hell did you come up with the notion that I'm some insane truther?
I said it wasn't all Muslims. But I never said Muslim terrorists didn't do it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer wrote:
Quote:
But neither was it all Muslims, either.


U left it open for that.



No he didn't. That's a Strawman if I ever saw one!


On this forum "strawman" seems to be the mating call of the left.
:roll:


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

08 Jul 2012, 8:49 pm

Raptor wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
What the f**k? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
How the hell did you come up with the notion that I'm some insane truther?
I said it wasn't all Muslims. But I never said Muslim terrorists didn't do it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer wrote:
Quote:
But neither was it all Muslims, either.


U left it open for that.



No he didn't. That's a Strawman if I ever saw one!


On this forum "strawman" seems to be the mating call of the left.
:roll:


You're way out of line! :shameonyou:



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Jul 2012, 9:03 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
What the f**k? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
How the hell did you come up with the notion that I'm some insane truther?
I said it wasn't all Muslims. But I never said Muslim terrorists didn't do it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer wrote:
Quote:
But neither was it all Muslims, either.


U left it open for that.



No he didn't. That's a Strawman if I ever saw one!


On this forum "strawman" seems to be the mating call of the left.
:roll:


You're way out of line! :shameonyou:


So?
:P


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

08 Jul 2012, 9:10 pm

You know, I always found the whole idea of hatred of a whole group a bit strange. Most of us are most likely an amalgamation of various ideas. I like the idea of classic economics, I also happen to think that pursuit of happiness takes different paths. I'm liberal on some issues, conservative in others, I think most people are. The problem is that most of us take the issues we disagree upon the most and focus on those.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

08 Jul 2012, 10:37 pm

noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Che was likely racist as well. http://lefroy.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/ ... xist-hero/

This is an example of selective out rage.


Who is outraged, or backing Che in this discussion?


Well, selective lack of outrage.


Again. When witnessing a fight between a chihuahua and a pit bull, conservatives want liberals to express equal (or greater) outrage at the chihuahua for fighting dirty when attacked.


If fighting dirty is wrong, then the chihuahua should be held in contempt as well as the pit bull. This is selective out rage. The chihuahua gets a pass for the same or worse behavior due to its circumstances. I don't give anyone a pass for their behavior, but many liberals do.


Then guilty as charged. It's fairly easy to see the American revolutionaries did not play by the rules according to the British. All insurrections are in effect "fighting dirty". In the conservative mind George Washington should not get a pass for supporting a violent insurrection when the rules of the British crown were fatally stacked against the American colonies. You'd all be King George loyalists.

When the scales are completely unbalanced you can't have the same rules for both players. Not when the most extreme imbalance of power leads to matters of life or death. This is where conservatives have some kind of moral chip missing in their brain. They don't understand the morality of balance, fairness, and having a level playing field.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,555
Location: the island of defective toy santas

08 Jul 2012, 10:38 pm

marshall wrote:
When the scales are completely unbalanced you can't have the same rules for both players. Not when the most extreme imbalance of power leads to matters of life or death. This is where conservatives have some kind of moral chip missing in their brain. They don't understand the morality of balance, fairness, and having a level playing field.

thank you for putting what i've long felt, into clear concise words.



noname_ever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 500
Location: Indiana

08 Jul 2012, 11:25 pm

marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Che was likely racist as well. http://lefroy.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/ ... xist-hero/

This is an example of selective out rage.


Who is outraged, or backing Che in this discussion?


Well, selective lack of outrage.


Again. When witnessing a fight between a chihuahua and a pit bull, conservatives want liberals to express equal (or greater) outrage at the chihuahua for fighting dirty when attacked.


If fighting dirty is wrong, then the chihuahua should be held in contempt as well as the pit bull. This is selective out rage. The chihuahua gets a pass for the same or worse behavior due to its circumstances. I don't give anyone a pass for their behavior, but many liberals do.


Then guilty as charged. It's fairly easy to see the American revolutionaries did not play by the rules according to the British. All insurrections are in effect "fighting dirty". In the conservative mind George Washington should not get a pass for supporting a violent insurrection when the rules of the British crown were fatally stacked against the American colonies. You'd all be King George loyalists.

When the scales are completely unbalanced you can't have the same rules for both players. Not when the most extreme imbalance of power leads to matters of life or death. This is where conservatives have some kind of moral chip missing in their brain. They don't understand the morality of balance, fairness, and having a level playing field.


We will have to agree to disagree on this stance. It is either right or wrong in my view. I'm OK with fighting dirty, but I don't pretend that those fighting dirty are righteous and have a moral high ground.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

09 Jul 2012, 11:38 am

noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Che was likely racist as well. http://lefroy.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/ ... xist-hero/

This is an example of selective out rage.


Who is outraged, or backing Che in this discussion?


Well, selective lack of outrage.


Again. When witnessing a fight between a chihuahua and a pit bull, conservatives want liberals to express equal (or greater) outrage at the chihuahua for fighting dirty when attacked.


If fighting dirty is wrong, then the chihuahua should be held in contempt as well as the pit bull. This is selective out rage. The chihuahua gets a pass for the same or worse behavior due to its circumstances. I don't give anyone a pass for their behavior, but many liberals do.


Then guilty as charged. It's fairly easy to see the American revolutionaries did not play by the rules according to the British. All insurrections are in effect "fighting dirty". In the conservative mind George Washington should not get a pass for supporting a violent insurrection when the rules of the British crown were fatally stacked against the American colonies. You'd all be King George loyalists.

When the scales are completely unbalanced you can't have the same rules for both players. Not when the most extreme imbalance of power leads to matters of life or death. This is where conservatives have some kind of moral chip missing in their brain. They don't understand the morality of balance, fairness, and having a level playing field.


We will have to agree to disagree on this stance. It is either right or wrong in my view. I'm OK with fighting dirty, but I don't pretend that those fighting dirty are righteous and have a moral high ground.


It seems like I'm taking past you. The last sentence is something I can agree on.



noname_ever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 500
Location: Indiana

09 Jul 2012, 11:47 am

marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Che was likely racist as well. http://lefroy.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/ ... xist-hero/

This is an example of selective out rage.


Who is outraged, or backing Che in this discussion?


Well, selective lack of outrage.


Again. When witnessing a fight between a chihuahua and a pit bull, conservatives want liberals to express equal (or greater) outrage at the chihuahua for fighting dirty when attacked.


If fighting dirty is wrong, then the chihuahua should be held in contempt as well as the pit bull. This is selective out rage. The chihuahua gets a pass for the same or worse behavior due to its circumstances. I don't give anyone a pass for their behavior, but many liberals do.


Then guilty as charged. It's fairly easy to see the American revolutionaries did not play by the rules according to the British. All insurrections are in effect "fighting dirty". In the conservative mind George Washington should not get a pass for supporting a violent insurrection when the rules of the British crown were fatally stacked against the American colonies. You'd all be King George loyalists.

When the scales are completely unbalanced you can't have the same rules for both players. Not when the most extreme imbalance of power leads to matters of life or death. This is where conservatives have some kind of moral chip missing in their brain. They don't understand the morality of balance, fairness, and having a level playing field.


We will have to agree to disagree on this stance. It is either right or wrong in my view. I'm OK with fighting dirty, but I don't pretend that those fighting dirty are righteous and have a moral high ground.


It seems like I'm taking past you. The last sentence is something I can agree on.


I don't think you are. We disagree on whether there should be different rule sets for the same activities based on the circumstances of the users. I don't think there should be, while you think there should. Life isn't fair and it isn't the special Olympics. If breaking the rules or behaving poorly is required to succeed then so be it, just be prepared to deal with the consequences.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

09 Jul 2012, 11:57 am

as will blatant disregard for others


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

09 Jul 2012, 12:25 pm

noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Che was likely racist as well. http://lefroy.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/ ... xist-hero/

This is an example of selective out rage.


Who is outraged, or backing Che in this discussion?


Well, selective lack of outrage.


Again. When witnessing a fight between a chihuahua and a pit bull, conservatives want liberals to express equal (or greater) outrage at the chihuahua for fighting dirty when attacked.


If fighting dirty is wrong, then the chihuahua should be held in contempt as well as the pit bull. This is selective out rage. The chihuahua gets a pass for the same or worse behavior due to its circumstances. I don't give anyone a pass for their behavior, but many liberals do.


Then guilty as charged. It's fairly easy to see the American revolutionaries did not play by the rules according to the British. All insurrections are in effect "fighting dirty". In the conservative mind George Washington should not get a pass for supporting a violent insurrection when the rules of the British crown were fatally stacked against the American colonies. You'd all be King George loyalists.

When the scales are completely unbalanced you can't have the same rules for both players. Not when the most extreme imbalance of power leads to matters of life or death. This is where conservatives have some kind of moral chip missing in their brain. They don't understand the morality of balance, fairness, and having a level playing field.


We will have to agree to disagree on this stance. It is either right or wrong in my view. I'm OK with fighting dirty, but I don't pretend that those fighting dirty are righteous and have a moral high ground.


It seems like I'm taking past you. The last sentence is something I can agree on.


I don't think you are. We disagree on whether there should be different rule sets for the same activities based on the circumstances of the users. I don't think there should be, while you think there should. Life isn't fair and it isn't the special Olympics. If breaking the rules or behaving poorly is required to succeed then so be it, just be prepared to deal with the consequences.


This is typical conservative black-and-white rule based thinking. The real world has shades of grey. The idea is if the current rules are chronically unjust, at some point they are bound to be broken. What do you think the original Boston Tea Party was if not breaking unjust rules? As for the special Olympics comment the difference between real life and a sport is this... when you lose a race you aren't forced to beg on the streets or die from lack of medical care.



noname_ever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 500
Location: Indiana

09 Jul 2012, 12:37 pm

marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Che was likely racist as well. http://lefroy.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/ ... xist-hero/

This is an example of selective out rage.


Who is outraged, or backing Che in this discussion?


Well, selective lack of outrage.


Again. When witnessing a fight between a chihuahua and a pit bull, conservatives want liberals to express equal (or greater) outrage at the chihuahua for fighting dirty when attacked.


If fighting dirty is wrong, then the chihuahua should be held in contempt as well as the pit bull. This is selective out rage. The chihuahua gets a pass for the same or worse behavior due to its circumstances. I don't give anyone a pass for their behavior, but many liberals do.


Then guilty as charged. It's fairly easy to see the American revolutionaries did not play by the rules according to the British. All insurrections are in effect "fighting dirty". In the conservative mind George Washington should not get a pass for supporting a violent insurrection when the rules of the British crown were fatally stacked against the American colonies. You'd all be King George loyalists.

When the scales are completely unbalanced you can't have the same rules for both players. Not when the most extreme imbalance of power leads to matters of life or death. This is where conservatives have some kind of moral chip missing in their brain. They don't understand the morality of balance, fairness, and having a level playing field.


We will have to agree to disagree on this stance. It is either right or wrong in my view. I'm OK with fighting dirty, but I don't pretend that those fighting dirty are righteous and have a moral high ground.


It seems like I'm taking past you. The last sentence is something I can agree on.


I don't think you are. We disagree on whether there should be different rule sets for the same activities based on the circumstances of the users. I don't think there should be, while you think there should. Life isn't fair and it isn't the special Olympics. If breaking the rules or behaving poorly is required to succeed then so be it, just be prepared to deal with the consequences.


This is typical conservative black-and-white rule based thinking. The real world has shades of grey. The idea is if the current rules are chronically unjust, at some point they are bound to be broken. What do you think the original Boston Tea Party was if not breaking unjust rules? As for the special Olympics comment the difference between real life and a sport is this... when you lose a race you aren't forced to beg on the streets or die from lack of medical care.


If the rules are unjust, they should be altered for all.