Explanation of the typical liberal comback; Shut Up?
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
New conservative argument?
Just personal attacks?
I wonder why this is.
For proof of instance, clicky
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/search.php?searchid=979485
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/search.php?searchid=979486
Can yall give me a dem that has done this? BTW. I'm not dem, keep searching.
I think i've figured it out. Conservatives are big babies, and hate it. They dont care about Obama, the party, or it's views. Only theirs and their extremist views. Sheeple at it's climax. Really, it's sad.
Just personal attacks?
I wonder why this is.
For proof of instance, clicky
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/search.php?searchid=979485
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/search.php?searchid=979486
Can yall give me a dem that has done this? BTW. I'm not dem, keep searching.
I think i've figured it out. Conservatives are big babies, and hate it. They dont care about Obama, the party, or it's views. Only theirs and their extremist views. Sheeple at it's climax. Really, it's sad.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Why do you have to take every post personally, as though you are important enough that we're thinking of you every time?
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
No, the conservative arguments remain grounded in logic and deep concern for the long term well being of the country. I don't see any "proof" in the working links you've posted here.
Big babies who hate what?
A massive expansion of the federal government?
The continued depletion of states rights?
The corruption of the constitution and a greater reliance on "international law?"
A loss of U.S. sovereignty?
The erosion of our civil liberties and an abandonment of personal responsibility?
Perhaps you should elaborate because you're post makes absolutely no sense. Ironically enough, you post is in fact absolutely nothing more than a generic"personal attack" with absolutely nothing to support it.
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
I'd post links but i'm not going to spend time searching. Even if it is only 3 clicks.
Big babies: Because they're not getting their way. They hate the fact that someone isn't thinking in their enlightened way. It's hard to articulate, but i'll try.
Before Obama was elected it was all about how he wasn't from America. During the debates it was about how he was a slick talker. An hour after he was elected it was about how he didn't recite the oath correctly. An hour 10 minutes it was about how he didn't put his hand on the bible. ect ect ect.
You see, it's just moving from one thing to the next in an almost psedu-snowball effect. While it does build up, it carries no substance. Like i said, hard to articulate lol
A massive expansion of the federal government?
That's the general idea for liberalism, isn't it?
The continued depletion of states rights?
I don't know what you mean by this
The corruption of the constitution and a greater reliance on "international law?"
It's been going on, for ever? Patriot act is a clear violation of the th amendment.
A loss of U.S. sovereignty?
I'm not sure, specifically, what you mean by this. Easy example would be, lobbyists.
The erosion of our civil liberties and an abandonment of personal responsibility?
I really do hope, all the confirmed non-"sheeple" out there actually do something about it. Instead of just bitching about it behind closed doors. That's a bitch move imo.
I like to argue with you because, while you do steep to personal attacks, you actually explain your point of view. Hopefully it will continue.
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
I just watched that movie micheal more did, however long ago, sicko. I searched to see if any results came up, and not to disappoint, there were.
Also, not a shock, foss was insulting someone
I just thought it was comical
Also, not a shock, foss was insulting someone
I just thought it was comical
I'll invest the time to respond and discuss this with you, but you have to articulate things more clearly. You need to be more specific because there's nothing to respond to in that sentence.
Are all protests formed by "big babies?" Were the Civil Rights protests events by "big babies?" And if people see a fundamental, and arguably dangerous radical shift taking place, in the country, why would you argue that they are being babies by expressing that concern in a peaceful and public forum?
No, it wasn't "all about" that. You might have heard some individual people say that, but it was never "all about" that. This statement is simply untrue. For example, I've never said that nor do I believe it.
He's always been recognized as a gifted public speech reader. How else do you think he rose to national attention? He gave a speech at the Democrat convention. Recognition of his ability to read a speech continue to this day. Is it unfair to recognize this?
You're making a mistake by presenting things like that as though they are some kind of widely held opinions.
But more importantly, what is your point?
Are you associating those things with the Tea Parties? If so, you're clearly confused and have a limited understanding of what is going on. The Tea Parties weren't partisan, they weren't organized by the RNC, and they weren't specifically anti-Obama rallies. They were critical of Washington, they were critical of the Democrats AND the Republicans.
Obama voters who wanted "change" but instead just got more of the same, but tenfold, attended.
It's hard to articulate because it doesn't make any sense.
There is NO ASSOCIATION between the fringe stuff you referenced to the tea parties.
It's called federalism.
I suggest you research it.
The corruption of the constitution and a greater reliance on "international law?"
It's been going on, for ever? Patriot act is a clear violation of the th amendment.[/quote]
No, the Patriot Act isn't necessarily a violation of the constitution. But please, do tell, what amendment is it in "clear violation of?"
Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about, but no reservation when it comes to giving your opinion on it.
Sovereignty has to do with "international law" not D.C. lobbyists.
You mean like attending tea parties, discussing these things, and organizing?
But you just called them "big babies."
But I don't rely on engage in personal attacks, I simply address things honestly and candidly, sometimes that's not particularly friendly or respectful.
By the way, and I mean this sincerely, you really need to have a better understanding of the principles the country was founded on. Without having an understanding of principles like sovereignty, federalism, limit government, you simply can't understand what's going on and how it's in such radical contrast to what this Republic is about.
Please, read the FEDERALIST PAPERS. They're available online now:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
And the anti-federalist papers (which are actually more federalist than the "federalist")
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/constitutional/AntiFederalist/antifed.htm
Or a book like The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen. He wrote the book over 30 years ago addressing the "28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5,000 years." I'm sure there's a audio version of the book available online if you ask.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Your obsession with me personally is more comical. Should I be flattered? I already had to tell foxpaws that I'm taken...
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
Cal, give me a second to read that post
Well. It's cute that you would think that. But we all know you go out of your way to show fox who's in charge. I think the liberals call that sht, over compensation?
Your obsession with me personally is more comical. Should I be flattered? I already had to tell foxpaws that I'm taken...
Well. It's cute that you would think that. But we all know you go out of your way to show fox who's in charge. I think the liberals call that sht, over compensation?
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
My point was, they were focusing on being petty. They were just given something to hate about the guy, then proceeded to voice it. Everywhere.
The first day obama got elected, i remember seeing things being posted on facebook saying that arabic is going to be the new official language, and muslim would be the new official religion of the U.S. People are stupid. Both sides, but because we have a left president, the right side is going to stick out. Just like the opposite of the last 8 years.
These t.e.a. parties, are just more of the same.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.
I'm interrupting it as, searching my phone, searching my computer. We all know they can monitor any house they want, but if you really want to blow your mind check out something called "Magic Lantern". Basically, it logs your keystrokes and reports it to the FBI.
See, i've been looking up a lot of words with my oxford dictionary (sht cost me $15 on the iphone) and this was one of them. It says "Subject to a specified state's control without outside influence". So, i took outside influence as lobbyist.
That's up to debate. The constitution is old, and out dated. It, along with its principals, were completely relevant back in 1786. Now, it's hard to agree on what the second amendment means (and good luck trying to carry it out! lol). I looked it up, and the population of the united states in 1776 was 2.5 million. Where i live now, the Twin Cities has a population of 3.5 million. Times have changed. It would be nice if they were as simple as the were before, but that's not the case.
People are born here in rough situations. Crack babies are born everyday; alcohol babies are born, every day. Teen pregnancy is running rampant now in days (which is a good sign for me!), but, who's job is it to take care of these people? Socialized government (welfare) or... it's their own problem? I'm all for it's their own problem, but i'm a cold sum bitch; i also met a teen mama that will have changed my perspective forever. Clearly, this is a very specialized argument, not indicative of anything. It's just proving a point that times have changed. What aboot gun owners, home owners, business owners, ect. ect. Is it a responsibility of government to tell you what you can and cannot have, how/when/where to own a home, or help you when your business is going under? Once, again, up for debate.
I think i have an idea of what the times were like when those guys first sat down to declare their independence. I think i know about their intentions, their wants and desires. I could read a book about someone else's feeling on the situation but i like having my own opinion at first. My beef is with how times are now, and how people are just being sheeplaized by the whole situation.
Im really ranting and raving from the original argument, but i'll get back on track lol. I really, literally, have NO idea what these radical changes are. I don't have a clue, all i hear people talk about is the changes, but i dont know specifically. Socializing health care? Is that it?
:q:q:q:q now i feel like shag posting this :q:q:q:q :Bang , but hey, i think i'm getting some good grounds for new essays.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Jeez, dude, use the preview key and do some editing.
Your arrogance and condescension does not compensate for your immaturity, ignorance and hatred. All you are engaging in here is demagoguery; which seems to be all you offer on this forum. You don't offer any substance here (you, apparently don't even understand enough of the posts to do that), you just smear.
These tea parties are not simply "more of the same", but to know that you would actually have to take the time to consider what they are and try to understand them. Apparently that is too much to ask, but you feel perfectly confident in judging them harshly.
more shear ignorance and rudeness. This issue has been covered ad nausseum ( FYI; that means to a ridiculous degree) on this forum. You are rudely ignoring that. For once, familiarize yourself with the issue, it's history on this forum and the various arguments concerning it, instead of forcing us to rehash it because you are too lazy.
I know your ego may prevent you from considering this fact, but you don't simply get to "interpret" the constitution (and specifically, the 4th amendment) as you see fit. It means something very specific and has specific boundaries. If you cannot back your "interpretation" up logically and textually, then it is arbitrary and completely meaningless.
More childish arrogance from the uninformed. The constitution is the founding document of our nation. If it is regarded as meaningless, then there is no objective rule of law, and laws are completely arbitrary.
How about you take a few years and educate yourself before you try to talk authoritatively on these issue; you clearly have no reasonable point of reference or any clue about what you are talking about. All you are doing is making yourself look like an arrogant little fool.
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
Because, believe it or not, all this stuff isn't black and white. I'm gray, and i'm speaking in gray. I cant help you understand that.
I didn't say they were litterally the same did i? I dont remember the last time we had a tea party, quite possibly because, the last time there was one I WASN'T ALIVE. IT'S THE SAME BS KID.
Seriously? Are you THAT :q:q:q:qing stupid? Before this, i thought you had some degree of intelligence, but with recent string of rebuttals starting with "More spin, more lies"... I cant even begin to say how stupid you seem. I can't even argue you on this.
I look like an arrogant fool? I do? Wow. Your ignorance and ego really surpass me. You have to be on your own cloud 9 of enlightenment aren't you.
So...speaking in gray means...demagoguery? Does it somehow justify demagoguery?
How about you stop trying to "blow our mind" with your profoundly idiotic platitudes and go back to smokin'.
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
So...speaking in gray means...demagoguery? Does it somehow justify demagoguery?
How about you stop trying to "blow our mind" with your profoundly idiotic platitudes and go back to smokin'.
Like i said, you always have some cute little word to discredit an argument. Is that all you're going to say?
I've argued with people like you before kid, and there really is no point. There's no point because you dont expect, nor want to learn anything. You perfectly content and pedestrian on your views, you dont see a reason to expand them. Why are you here? Do you think you're doing anyone any good?
You've argued with people like me before? People who actually expect you to be intellectually honest and maintain some level of decency in a debate? You sure don't act like it.
I am willing to "learn something" if you have something to offer. But all you have show is ignorance, immaturity and arrogance. All you have offered are mindless platitudes, distortions and lies; you have offered nothing of substance, which is necessary in order to "learn" anything. If anyone here is "not willing to learn something" it is you. The way you dishonestly dismiss certain points of view clearly spells that out. You are simply rationalizing your political bigotry. You have yet to offer anything in this forum that I have not already "learned" before.
You are arguing from a point of personal attack, arrogance, derision and distortion; there can be no honest discourse, no "learning" in that environment.
Did you ever think that maybe you could learn something from me? Or is that learning you are talking about only a one way street? Does that "blow your mind, dude"?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Wow. See what happens when the ignorant lefty loses his temper. What a hypocrite, pointing out the flaws in others while at the same time attacking somebody he admits he cannot argue with. Comical and sad. Do you need a tissue?
catmech
Well-Known LVC Member
if the constitution is outdated then i guess the oath that all military members take means nothing. "i swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states at all costs". im speaking as a veteran who has already taken this oath twice. its scary to think a person living here in the us thinks the document that holds all of the ideals of this nation to begin with is no longer relevent. people have died for these ideals. people who makie these statements are whats wrong with this country right now. and yes mr. wiggles it does bother me as a veteran that my president will not honor my flag by putting his hand over his heart and yes it does bother me that he would not swear in like every president we have ever had. obama said it was time for change. personally i dont like it.
catmech
Well-Known LVC Member
mr wiggles why dont you ask chadly if the constitution is outdated. he is an active duty marine out of 29 palms?
There, I corrected it for you.
I find it rather funny how you are implying that I am being intolerant, egotistical and ignorant when you are doing those exact things. Projecting, maybe?
Your previous posts in this thread and this forum as compared to mine rather conclusively show who the more ignorant of the two of us when it comes to most any of these issues.
As to the arrogance thing, you are talking down to people on things you clearly don't understand and passing judgment on opinions and points of view that you clearly don't understand and aren't willing to take the time to understand. I have demonstrated that I do thoroughly understand the opposing point of view, and I only start talking down to people after they show themselves to be derisive and dishonest. Which behavior seems more arrogant?
It seems that when you exhibit ignorance, rudeness, arrogance, intolerance, etc, that is perfectly fine. But when I supposedly do any of those things, that is cause for scorn and ridicule.
Can you say, "hypocritical double standard"?
Mr Wiggles has demonstrated the point more clearly and vividly than I was capable.
You responded to "Without having an understanding of principles like sovereignty, federalism, limit government, you simply can't understand what's going on and how it's in such radical contrast to what this Republic is about." with this:
The Tea Parties are not specifically about Obama. They are a demonstration that the constitution is not old and out dated. It is not irrelevant. It is still the foundation of our form of government and it needs to be protected.
You responded to "Without having an understanding of principles like sovereignty, federalism, limit government, you simply can't understand what's going on and how it's in such radical contrast to what this Republic is about." with this:
The Tea Parties are not specifically about Obama. They are a demonstration that the constitution is not old and out dated. It is not irrelevant. It is still the foundation of our form of government and it needs to be protected.