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

Conservative admits no voter fraud

Page 4 of 13 [ 206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Mar 2014, 11:40 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Nothing, if you actually ARE open minded and tolerant and not just selectively so. Liberals seem to be selective about open-mindedness and tolerance yet they are the ones that preach it.
Thank you! I couldn't possibly agree more. I often feel like asking every left-dwelling person in this country one simple question: "Why don't you preach what you actually practice?" They think of themselves as paragons of virtue, yet have no qualms about personally condemning people they disagree with, often adding constant swearing to the mix for false emphasis. There's hypocrites on both sides, but it seems the left has more of them overall. I've said this before, but it bears repeating: if you already like it, its not tolerance.


What are liberals being hypocritical about? If someone is intolerant to one group or another, why should liberals be tolerant toward them? If someone calls people on welfare leaches, or another person hates blacks, or thinks the gay lifestyle shouldn't be tolerated, why should liberals be tolerant of that sort of hatefulness?

:wall: :wall: :wall:
For the I-don't-know-how-many'th time, you're either tolerant or intolerant. This is the difference between liberals, who claim ad nauseam to be tolerant, and conservatives who do not make that claim.


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


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Mar 2014, 1:47 pm

But if conservatives were tolerant, then liberals wouldn't need to be intolerant of the intolerant.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,471
Location: Aux Arcs

24 Mar 2014, 1:57 pm

Whats wrong with being intolerant of polluters?Mountain top removal?Prejudice?


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 944
Location: Texas

24 Mar 2014, 3:39 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
If someone is intolerant to one group or another, why should liberals be tolerant toward them? If someone calls people on welfare leaches, or another person hates blacks, or thinks the gay lifestyle shouldn't be tolerated, why should liberals be tolerant of that sort of hatefulness?
Tolerance is temporary acceptance that things you don't like currently exist in the world...but it ends there. Embracing anything as morally right for everyone goes beyond tolerance, and into open endorsement. Just because you're tolerating something for the moment, it doesn't mean you have to stop fighting against it...but constantly insulting and/or demeaning those not on your side of an issue isn't tolerant, either. Most liberal leftists want active promotion and support from the government, plus increased limits on those who disagree; that's about as far from tolerance as you can get.


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Mar 2014, 6:13 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If someone is intolerant to one group or another, why should liberals be tolerant toward them? If someone calls people on welfare leaches, or another person hates blacks, or thinks the gay lifestyle shouldn't be tolerated, why should liberals be tolerant of that sort of hatefulness?
Tolerance is temporary acceptance that things you don't like currently exist in the world...but it ends there. Embracing anything as morally right for everyone goes beyond tolerance, and into open endorsement. Just because you're tolerating something for the moment, it doesn't mean you have to stop fighting against it...but constantly insulting and/or demeaning those not on your side of an issue isn't tolerant, either. Most liberal leftists want active promotion and support from the government, plus increased limits on those who disagree; that's about as far from tolerance as you can get.


If you mean by liberals wanting "increased limits on those who disagree" for those who want to be able discriminate against other ethnic or religious groups, or people of differing sexual orientation, etc, then by all means, yes. No one says they can't speak their minds, but when it comes to depriving people of equal treatment, job opportunities, or the right to shop or live where they like, then that's when they have crossed the line.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

24 Mar 2014, 7:21 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Those gun fetishists-


See Bill, when you start doing stuff like this, it takes a political disagreement and makes it personal, for no good reason. Based on your posting history, I could make a strong case for addressing you as a partisan hypocrite each and every time we interact, but I choose not to do that because it would serve no useful purpose and antagonize you for no gain, but apparently you have different standards than I do.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 944
Location: Texas

24 Mar 2014, 10:36 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
If you mean by liberals wanting "increased limits on those who disagree" for those who want to be able discriminate against other ethnic or religious groups, or people of differing sexual orientation, etc, then by all means, yes. No one says they can't speak their minds, but when it comes to depriving people of equal treatment, job opportunities, or the right to shop or live where they like, then that's when they have crossed the line.
Everyone has the right to live as they want, but not without consequences, be they positive or negative. Freedom is always best when tempered with responsibility, and it goes both ways. For example, people who want to have committed relationships with those of their own gender can already marry in several states, and no one stops them. That is in direct agreement with the U.S. Constitution, which left all political marital decisions to the states, not the Feds. However, what many "gay activists" want is for the Feds to provide homosexuals with the same financial benefits and adoption services as those who choose opposite sex relationships...which goes against the Constitution.

Like it or not, the Founders did not want an all-powerful federal branch, overriding the states and deciding how each citizen would live. If the state government where you live doesn't agree with your choices, and legal attempts to change it don't work, move.


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Mar 2014, 10:57 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Like it or not, the Founders did not want an all-powerful federal branch, overriding the states and deciding how each citizen would live. If the state government where you live doesn't agree with your choices, and legal attempts to change it don't work, move.

Psssst.....Whenever you mention anything supportive of or even acknowledging states rights to a progressive, you're automatically a racist (or homophobe) in their minds.


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


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Mar 2014, 11:02 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If you mean by liberals wanting "increased limits on those who disagree" for those who want to be able discriminate against other ethnic or religious groups, or people of differing sexual orientation, etc, then by all means, yes. No one says they can't speak their minds, but when it comes to depriving people of equal treatment, job opportunities, or the right to shop or live where they like, then that's when they have crossed the line.
Everyone has the right to live as they want, but not without consequences, be they positive or negative. Freedom is always best when tempered with responsibility, and it goes both ways. For example, people who want to have committed relationships with those of their own gender can already marry in several states, and no one stops them. That is in direct agreement with the U.S. Constitution, which left all political marital decisions to the states, not the Feds. However, what many "gay activists" want is for the Feds to provide homosexuals with the same financial benefits and adoption services as those who choose opposite sex relationships...which goes against the Constitution.

Like it or not, the Founders did not want an all-powerful federal branch, overriding the states and deciding how each citizen would live. If the state government where you live doesn't agree with your choices, and legal attempts to change it don't work, move.


In answer to your claim that marital laws being left to the states, I offer Loving Vs. Virginia.
The federal government had sided with interracial couples to marry, regardless of what the states wanted.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Mar 2014, 11:08 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Those gun fetishists-


See Bill, when you start doing stuff like this, it takes a political disagreement and makes it personal, for no good reason. Based on your posting history, I could make a strong case for addressing you as a partisan hypocrite each and every time we interact, but I choose not to do that because it would serve no useful purpose and antagonize you for no gain, but apparently you have different standards than I do.


I didn't say that all gun owners were "gun fetishists." Just those asshats who claimed Adam Lanza hadn't killed anyone, and that those grieving parents were actors hired by the Obama administration. Trust me, I could call them a lot worse, and I refuse to back down from calling those people just what they are. And as a matter of fact, they had made those hurtful, outlandish claims because they do apparently have an unhealthy relationship with their guns.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Mar 2014, 11:10 pm

Raptor wrote:
Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Like it or not, the Founders did not want an all-powerful federal branch, overriding the states and deciding how each citizen would live. If the state government where you live doesn't agree with your choices, and legal attempts to change it don't work, move.

Psssst.....Whenever you mention anything supportive of or even acknowledging states rights to a progressive, you're automatically a racist (or homophobe) in their minds.


Only when states rights are brought up for racist or homophobic reasons.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Mar 2014, 11:19 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Those gun fetishists-


See Bill, when you start doing stuff like this, it takes a political disagreement and makes it personal, for no good reason. Based on your posting history, I could make a strong case for addressing you as a partisan hypocrite each and every time we interact, but I choose not to do that because it would serve no useful purpose and antagonize you for no gain, but apparently you have different standards than I do.


I didn't say that all gun owners were "gun fetishists." Just those asshats who claimed Adam Lanza hadn't killed anyone, and that those grieving parents were actors hired by the Obama administration. Trust me, I could call them a lot worse, and I refuse to back down from calling those people just what they are. And as a matter of fact, they had made those hurtful, outlandish claims because they do apparently have an unhealthy relationship with their guns.

Uh huh....
Call me a mind reader but I think when I pressed you for a definition of "gun fetishist" that you wanted to say "people with an unhealthy relationship with their guns", meaning firearms aficionados. However, your knew you'd get slammed so you scavenged for something else and trimmed your sails accordingly. It's no secret that anti-gun progressives like yourslelf consider an interest in weapons as "unhealthy".


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


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Mar 2014, 11:26 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Those gun fetishists-


See Bill, when you start doing stuff like this, it takes a political disagreement and makes it personal, for no good reason. Based on your posting history, I could make a strong case for addressing you as a partisan hypocrite each and every time we interact, but I choose not to do that because it would serve no useful purpose and antagonize you for no gain, but apparently you have different standards than I do.


I didn't say that all gun owners were "gun fetishists." Just those asshats who claimed Adam Lanza hadn't killed anyone, and that those grieving parents were actors hired by the Obama administration. Trust me, I could call them a lot worse, and I refuse to back down from calling those people just what they are. And as a matter of fact, they had made those hurtful, outlandish claims because they do apparently have an unhealthy relationship with their guns.

Uh huh....
Call me a mind reader but I think when I pressed you for a definition of "gun fetishist" that you wanted to say "people with an unhealthy relationship with their guns", meaning firearms aficionados. However, your knew you'd get slammed so you scavenged for something else and trimmed your sails accordingly. It's no secret that anti-gun progressives like yourslelf consider an interest in weapons as "unhealthy".


Well, you need a tune up on your mind reading abilities. I never once said all gun owners were gun fetishists - just the nutso ones who dream up insane conspiracy theories about Barack Obama breaking into their houses to steal their guns. Probably thinking their guns would be stolen right out of their beds, which they've been sleeping with after... no I won't get into that part, for fear of getting this thread locked for vulgar imagery.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Mar 2014, 11:55 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Those gun fetishists-


See Bill, when you start doing stuff like this, it takes a political disagreement and makes it personal, for no good reason. Based on your posting history, I could make a strong case for addressing you as a partisan hypocrite each and every time we interact, but I choose not to do that because it would serve no useful purpose and antagonize you for no gain, but apparently you have different standards than I do.


I didn't say that all gun owners were "gun fetishists." Just those asshats who claimed Adam Lanza hadn't killed anyone, and that those grieving parents were actors hired by the Obama administration. Trust me, I could call them a lot worse, and I refuse to back down from calling those people just what they are. And as a matter of fact, they had made those hurtful, outlandish claims because they do apparently have an unhealthy relationship with their guns.

Uh huh....
Call me a mind reader but I think when I pressed you for a definition of "gun fetishist" that you wanted to say "people with an unhealthy relationship with their guns", meaning firearms aficionados. However, your knew you'd get slammed so you scavenged for something else and trimmed your sails accordingly. It's no secret that anti-gun progressives like yourslelf consider an interest in weapons as "unhealthy".


Kraichgauer wrote:
Well, you need a tune up on your mind reading abilities.
I bet wasn't far off, either.

Quote:
I never once said all gun owners were gun fetishists
You tap dance around it whenever the subject comes up. You don't come out and say it because you know that there are two of us here that will take you to task over it in a skinny minute.
Quote:
- just the nutso ones who dream up insane conspiracy theories about Barack Obama breaking into their houses to steal their guns.
Barack Obama personally coming to bust in and steal their guns? :roll: You're telling me that someone actually said that or published it publicly and you read or heard it. Where??

Quote:
Probably thinking their guns would be stolen right out of their beds, which they've been sleeping with after... no I won't get into that part, for fear of getting this thread locked for vulgar imagery.
There are a number of legit reasons why someone would sleep with a gun and it has nothing to do with using it as a sex toy. I must admit that I find it rather hypocritical that a liberal, who complains about how conservatives stick their noses into peoples bedrooms, would even think to care about someone sleeping with a gun.

It's past bedtime on Tobacco Road in here in Mudville so that's it for me.....


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


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Mar 2014, 12:12 am

Raptor wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Those gun fetishists-


See Bill, when you start doing stuff like this, it takes a political disagreement and makes it personal, for no good reason. Based on your posting history, I could make a strong case for addressing you as a partisan hypocrite each and every time we interact, but I choose not to do that because it would serve no useful purpose and antagonize you for no gain, but apparently you have different standards than I do.


I didn't say that all gun owners were "gun fetishists." Just those asshats who claimed Adam Lanza hadn't killed anyone, and that those grieving parents were actors hired by the Obama administration. Trust me, I could call them a lot worse, and I refuse to back down from calling those people just what they are. And as a matter of fact, they had made those hurtful, outlandish claims because they do apparently have an unhealthy relationship with their guns.

Uh huh....
Call me a mind reader but I think when I pressed you for a definition of "gun fetishist" that you wanted to say "people with an unhealthy relationship with their guns", meaning firearms aficionados. However, your knew you'd get slammed so you scavenged for something else and trimmed your sails accordingly. It's no secret that anti-gun progressives like yourslelf consider an interest in weapons as "unhealthy".


Kraichgauer wrote:
Well, you need a tune up on your mind reading abilities.
I bet wasn't far off, either.

Quote:
I never once said all gun owners were gun fetishists
You tap dance around it whenever the subject comes up. You don't come out and say it because you know that there are two of us here that will take you to task over it in a skinny minute.
Quote:
- just the nutso ones who dream up insane conspiracy theories about Barack Obama breaking into their houses to steal their guns.
Barack Obama personally coming to bust in and steal their guns? :roll: You're telling me that someone actually said that or published it publicly and you read or heard it. Where??

Quote:
Probably thinking their guns would be stolen right out of their beds, which they've been sleeping with after... no I won't get into that part, for fear of getting this thread locked for vulgar imagery.
There are a number of legit reasons why someone would sleep with a gun and it has nothing to do with using it as a sex toy. I must admit that I find it rather hypocritical that a liberal, who complains about how conservatives stick their noses into peoples bedrooms, would even think to care about someone sleeping with a gun.

It's past bedtime on Tobacco Road in here in Mudville so that's it for me.....


No, I don't care how many of you there are, if I believed all gun owners were gun fetishists, I'd say so. And when I say that gun fetishists are the most nutso conspiracy theorists, I meant just that.
As for Obama personally breaking into gun owners' homes, or that gun fetishists sleep with their guns, I must admit I'm guilty of hyperbole here. I sometimes forget that we Aspies take things too literally.
Well, I hope Tobacco Road is as nice and cozy as the Soviet of Spokane Valley. :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 944
Location: Texas

25 Mar 2014, 2:07 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
In answer to your claim that marital laws being left to the states, I offer Loving Vs. Virginia. The federal government had sided with interracial couples to marry, regardless of what the states wanted.
Well, the laws against inter-ethnic marriage were against the intent of the Constitution to begin with. There's only one race, and that's humanity. Skin tone is caused by various levels of the chemical melanin, nothing more.

Kraichgauer wrote:
Only when states rights are brought up for racist or homophobic reasons.
There's nothing inherently racist about everyone having to show an ID proving legal citizenship to vote. Such a law would encompass all skin tones and heritages, the only restriction being the manner in which an individual chose to immigrate. As for supposed "homophobia", I don;t deny many people are frightened of homosexuals as people, and some even hate them personally...but fear and hate are not the dominant nor sole reason for opposing homosexual behavior as a choice in the political arena.

Raptor wrote:
Psssst.....Whenever you mention anything supportive of or even acknowledging states rights to a progressive, you're automatically a racist (or homophobe) in their minds.
I know, and its pathetic. The main reason they think that way is because their core ideology demands that everything - no matter how contradictory - be seen as equal on every level, especially in moral terms. Liberal leftism can be best summed up with this phrase: "equality always trumps morality". If such people are consistent with and honest about their worldview, they'd openly admit a preference that everyone have a miserable existence in this nation...because at least we'd all be on the same level.


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.