Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
If you play that clip backwards it says, "I am Dianne Feinstein and I want you to be unarmed" But you have to do a correct amount of drugs before listening.
If you play that clip backwards it says, "I am Dianne Feinstein and I want you to be unarmed" But you have to do a correct amount of drugs before listening.
Do you an actual refutation? I mean, it's not like she's a senator and head of the Justice committee or anything....oh....wait...
the only thing the Left has proposed is to regulate arms that can cause a massacre.
She is referring to assault rifles. That was the subject of the legislation.
He didn't need to. Intelligent, non-intentionally obtuse people knew exactly what he was saying. When I went into the Maine woods to hunt deer, I did not take a weapon of war. My ex-wife is an insurance agent and she has to go off into the boonies to strange client's homes all the time. She has a small handgun in her purse for personal protection. It is not a weapon of war.
prove it or stfu.No, she was referring to ALL guns.
When Dixie - the guy who thinks you can't divide one into three equal pieces - starts blathering about one of his ideas being the only thing that makes rational sense, rational people need to quickly turn their heads to avoid spraying their computer monitor with whatever they happen to be drinking when they read it.
I refer you all to the title of the thread. I rest my case.
it is certainly not the hallmark of "BIGOTRY" to express an opinion concerning the overly argumentative, intentionally obtuse, willfully obstinant, foolishly bombastic, laughable behavior of one single individual who, for the past decade, has strutted around internet political chat sites passing himself off as a 21st century version of the old vaudvillian, Professor Irwin Corey (still alive, by the way), who billed himself as "The World's Greatest Authority". Pointing out your comical pathetic foibles is not bigoted, it is simply perceptive.I refer you all to the title of the thread. I rest my case.
I'm not Left wing and your argument still fails.
Maybe since you have limited knowledge of politics and you submit yourself to a party you are always proven wrong and want to justify this by saying "The other person is bigoted."
Easy....heh
it is certainly not the hallmark of "BIGOTRY" to express an opinion concerning the overly argumentative, intentionally obtuse, willfully obstinant, foolishly bombastic, laughable behavior of one single individual who, for the past decade, has strutted around internet political chat sites passing himself off as a 21st century version of the old vaudvillian, Professor Irwin Corey (still alive, by the way), who billed himself as "The World's Greatest Authority". Pointing out your comical pathetic foibles is not bigoted, it is simply perceptive.
This has nothing to do with me. In the OP, I offered a challenge... go find the threads where conscientious liberals are understanding where their conservative counterparts are coming from, and offering to meet in the middle. You will not find any. On virtually every issue, the Liberal takes a liberal stance and defiantly refuses to budge from it. Meanwhile, the last two people conservatives offered up to run for president, literally bent over backwards to pander to moderates and offer compromise on liberal issues. Whether it's immigration reform, abortion, gay marriage, the right has been more than willing to find common ground and work out a solution, it is the left who remains defiant in their bigoted view that they are the only ones who are right, and the right is just wrong.
Are you stating that Liberals should stop taking a Liberal stance?
You do realize that Conservatives do the exact same thing (R)ight?
It's why I am "anti-party". People join the party they have the most in common with and justify the bad sides of that party in order to win. Welcome to politics.
I have no problem with people taking a liberal stance, but if that means being a closed-minded intolerant bigot who can't even read what someone else posts, then no... they shouldn't be that. If it means they have a personal liberal view but accept that we live in a society with people who disagree with that view and have a valid reason for their disagreement, and if they understand that the only way to solve our problems is to understand where the other side is coming from, and that we have to reach compromise we can all live with... then yes, that's how they should be. No one has to abandon what they believe personally, but liberals have to accept that people disagree with them, and have valid arguments.
But the ideology of liberalism isn't conducive to this, you have an agenda, you think you are right, and you simply reject anything that contradicts your view. That's BIGOTRY at it's finest... thy name is Liberalism!
You are new to politics![]()
Most Lefties are more aware of the beliefs of the Right than the Righties are of the Left. Righties have no clue what the Left thinks/wants. That's a fact.
Most Lefties are more aware of the beliefs of the Right than the Righties are of the Left.
I have no problem with people taking a liberal stance, but if that means being a closed-minded intolerant bigot who can't even read what someone else posts, then no... they shouldn't be that. If it means they have a personal liberal view but accept that we live in a society with people who disagree with that view and have a valid reason for their disagreement, and if they understand that the only way to solve our problems is to understand where the other side is coming from, and that we have to reach compromise we can all live with... then yes, that's how they should be. No one has to abandon what they believe personally, but liberals have to accept that people disagree with them, and have valid arguments.
But the ideology of liberalism isn't conducive to this, you have an agenda, you think you are right, and you simply reject anything that contradicts your view. That's BIGOTRY at it's finest... thy name is Liberalism!
Yep, a bold statement, but true. All we need to do, is examine the threads on this board... Class assignment; find the threads where a Liberal has accepted some degree of compromise to their original stated position. After you realize the impossibility of this task, watch MSNBC or other liberal sources, and see if you ever notice any of them compromising or trying to meet in the middle, on anything. You'll notice, the only time they are willing to "meet in the middle" is when they are so bizarrely extreme, "the middle" becomes the best possible (and only realistic) liberal outcome. They'll back down on unconstitutionally taking our guns away, if we agree to let them ban ammo and clips... that sort of thing.
When we encounter a liberal in debate, regardless of the issue, they are simply not willing to budge one iota, in order to resolve the issue. In their minds, they are right and everyone else is wrong, end of discussion. Whenever a person from the right poses arguments for reforming Social Security, it's (in a liberal's mind) because the right wants old people to die in the streets. Whenever someone opposes gay marriage, it's because they are homophobes and hate gay people. If someone suggests we evaluate Affirmative Action, it's because they are racists who hate black people. If we oppose nationalized health care, we must not care about poor sick people. They have allowed their bigotry to cement these thoughts in their minds, and they can't see any other viewpoint as valid.
Until Liberals begin to recognize their adversaries as a noble opposition, they will forever be stuck in the wilderness of hate and rage. No one is right 100% o the time, except for Liberal BIGOTS!