Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, when you were slamming liberals as being mentally ill, you were being sarcastic? If you were joking or being sarcastic, that means you have absolutely no problem with the mental health of liberals. You like liberals?
"It was a joke" is your standard response when you're backed into a corner. Always.
It's the behavior of a small child.
Hey their is some valid reason to why people think that. Most of them are found in a very great book.
I have a problem when a ideology based on emotionalism, opinion, driven by spite, envy, and personal scores and vendetta tries to limit or harm my rights, my freedoms, my wealth,, my nation, my culture and the future of the aforementioned.
Furthermore coming for the side that calls people "racist" "bigots" "Nazis" "hompoboes" "flat earthers" "gun nuts" "bombers throwers" "hostage takers" "domestic terrorists" or "insurrectionist" just because the oppose a side that creates more and more failures that cost use our wealth, liberty, rights and culture...
I mean we really cant hold a candle to your guys..But then again lets make a big deal about nothing.
Lets make a big deal about nothing and take about things that do not matter instead of issues and problems that do matter, because that's what adults do, right?
Every time you say something stupid, you backtrack and say it was in jest or that you were joking, or that you really didn't mean it. Every. Single. Time.
It's the M.O. of a child.
Precisely. That is really all that is left to say in reply to his postings. They're little different from how an angry, self-centered would react to encountering reasonable people who disagree. But it is critical to understand the significance of this: This is precisely the perspective that the right-wing is cultivating in its followers, and not by accident. When a perspective cannot be defended on the basis of moral tenets such as the ethic of reciprocity, civic responsibility toward those most vulnerable, the only way to defend that perspective is to try to claim selfishness as a virtue.
Precisely. That is really all that is left to say in reply to his postings. They're little different from how an angry, self-centered would react to encountering reasonable people who disagree. But it is critical to understand the significance of this: This is precisely the perspective that the right-wing is cultivating in its followers, and not by accident. When a perspective cannot be defended on the basis of moral tenets such as the ethic of reciprocity, civic responsibility toward those most vulnerable, the only way to defend that perspective is to try to claim selfishness as a virtue.
You attack me and not my posts or the subjects at hand..But then again when you cant win with facts, attack..
You're just sour because you cannot win an argument on the merits. Morality is a foreign concept in your reasoning. You bury your claptrap in a bunker of rationalization and evasion of responsibility. You dodge and weave holding your prattle up to mature consideration in the context of reasonable principles of behavior. The idea of acting like a principled adult in society with others is an anathema in your book. When all you post is evasions of moral scrutiny for what you support, it makes clear that you know, at least in your heart, that what you support is immoral. Hopefully, someday, that knowledge you keep buried deep inside will come up to the surface and you'll admit the deficiency of the corrupt perspectives you support.
Precisely. That is really all that is left to say in reply to his postings. They're little different from how an angry, self-centered would react to encountering reasonable people who disagree. But it is critical to understand the significance of this: This is precisely the perspective that the right-wing is cultivating in its followers, and not by accident. When a perspective cannot be defended on the basis of moral tenets such as the ethic of reciprocity, civic responsibility toward those most vulnerable, the only way to defend that perspective is to try to claim selfishness as a virtue.
Whereas the left wing cultivates the perspective that anybody disagreeing with their tenets is a racist, sexist, warmongering, homophobic, Islamophobic, oligarchical religious zealot. I have seen posts from leftists like you many many times on this forum telling conservative people who disagree with you what they really think and what really motivates them. If they don't support abortion, it's because they hate women. If they don't support raising taxes on the rich, it's because they are selfish. If they don't support increasing welfare, it's because they hate poor people. If they don't support Obamacare, it's because they don't care about poor sick people. So really, you have no room whatsoever to talk. Allowing reasonable people to disagree with you is in no way whatsoever your strong suit.
Whereas the left wing cultivates the perspective that anybody disagreeing with their tenets is a racist, sexist, warmongering, homophobic, Islamophobic, oligarchical religious zealot.
Bull. Racists are racists, even if you agree with them. Sexists are sexists, even if you agree with them. And so on. When I highlight such offenses they are real, even if you cannot bring yourself to rise to the level of intellectual integrity to admit the truth.
I challenge you to find one case where I labeled some person in the manner you imply where the characterization was not reasonable from the perspective of someone between you and I in political perspective. (I'm sure you can find examples that resonate within the right-wing echo chamber, but all manner of childish, corrupt, egoistic, and petulant nonsense plays well there.)
The problem the right-wing has is that its perspectives truly are morally deficient. I realize that it makes right-wingers' job of supporting the claptrap they spew more difficult, but that's the burden right-wingers have chosen to take on by deciding to follow the offensively self-motivated path.
The problem the right-wing has is that its perspectives truly are morally deficient. I realize that it makes right-wingers' job of supporting the claptrap they spew more difficult, but that's the burden right-wingers have chosen to take on by deciding to follow the offensively self-motivated path.
Care to actually DEFEND your claim to moral superiority?
I know you can't. Your politics are immoral to the core, as it is based on immoral ideas from the start.
Do what ever you want, just don't ask me to pay for it
In a nutshell, this pretty much sums me up too !
I'm not totally hard edged about it, realizing that a certain amount of spending (weather it be for reasonable national defense, some core social programs, shared infrastructure etc...needing to be raised through taxes), is justifiable and prudent, but we seem to be moving WAY beyond that as the years roll by.
I'm pretty much a libertarian these days....do what you feel like doing as long as you can pay for your own lifestyle of choice be it quirky/strange/normal etc......but I do object in most cases to paying to subsidize your quirky/strange/normal lifestyle if you've chosen an unsustainable financial/moral/ethical model for your life and cannot support yourself on your own dime due in large part to your previously mentioned freely made choices.
Sounds complicated when reading it....but it's really not all that hard to figure out. I think most of us will understand in general terms I'm talking about although we may disagree on the specifics of individual cases.
I thought it would be interesting to see what principles people base their views on. I think it's extremely important to have foundational principles that guide your views...otherwise you'll never stay consistent. What are the things you absolutely will not compromise on?
I have views that most won't agree with (not looking for a debate), but I'll list my principles just to get it going...
1. Non-aggression principle: the initiation of force against another person is immoral
2. Respect for property rights: if someone solely owns something, nobody else has a right to it
Whatever yours are, I'd like to hear them.
Both of those and...
3. Free Enterprise
4. Free Expression
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
