Why have Most Liberals Become What They Hate?

Page 4 of 6 [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

06 Oct 2013, 2:48 pm

My views havent changed at all. I don't have as much sympathy for voluntary drug use as I do for sexual orientation. But I have some. The country can usually only handle one liberalization crusade at a time. We didnt deal with women's suffrage, civil rights and gay marriage all in one decade.

As for being a hawk, well, Ive always been a hawk. I voted for Obama knowing that he didnt have a problem with Afghanistan. Because I know my letters and numbers and do that fancy reading stuff.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Oct 2013, 11:42 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Modern-day liberalism is founded on one core principle: total rejection of discrimination regarding anything. As a result, they have no basis for morality beyond their own opinions, and fail at every stance they take on social and political matters. Evan Sayet's great at detailing this...

Ah, the straw liberal appears.
(sarcasm)Don't forget the part where liberals want equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity.(/sarcasm)



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Oct 2013, 12:55 am

LKL wrote:
Ah, the straw liberal appears.
(sarcasm)Don't forget the part where liberals want equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity.(/sarcasm)


Annoying when people project motives and goals onto you, isn't it?


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


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

07 Oct 2013, 1:15 am

Have I done so to you recently?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Oct 2013, 1:20 am

LKL wrote:
Have I done so to you recently?


Nah, more like you've been sort of defending some of the people I've taken to task for it lately, I just think it's a dick move and should be called out whenever someone does it.


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


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

07 Oct 2013, 1:14 pm

LKL wrote:
...
BS. Calling any male between the ages of 15 and 60, and located within 10 miles of a target, an "enemy combatant," is worse than cynical, it's on the level of NewSpeak out of 1984.
.


The constitution is not a suicide pact. If airstrikes are the only way to kill our enemies, then that's what we have to do. Let's not fool ourselves and pretend there is a wide variety of political opinion, debate, and dissent in these areas. Also, if we invade, which is the other option, we kill many, many more.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

07 Oct 2013, 4:11 pm

Arguing that drones/airstrikes are necessary is a different claim than arguing that every male killed by a drone was an 'enemy combatant' to falsely deflate the estimated number of civilian casualties.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

07 Oct 2013, 6:57 pm

LKL wrote:
Arguing that drones/airstrikes are necessary is a different claim than arguing that every male killed by a drone was an 'enemy combatant' to falsely deflate the estimated number of civilian casualties.

It's a reasonable assumption is some tribal areas.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

07 Oct 2013, 8:50 pm

No, it is not. Neither the average 16 year old nor the average 50 year old should be classed as an 'enemy combatant' just because of their proximity to a drone strike.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

07 Oct 2013, 11:09 pm

Still better than nuking the site for morbid, which is well within our power.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

07 Oct 2013, 11:26 pm

dude, seriously? That's your argument? 'It's ok to lie about the civilian casualties, because at least we aren't nuking them'?



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

08 Oct 2013, 9:07 pm

LKL wrote:
dude, seriously? That's your argument? 'It's ok to lie about the civilian casualties, because at least we aren't nuking them'?


Who cares what we call them? Seriously that's your objection? They aren't innocent until proven guilty, it's a freaking war.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

08 Oct 2013, 11:54 pm

Are you completely unaware of the difference between the administration saying, 'We have killed thousands of innocent civilians with our drone strikes,' and 'we have killed less than 100 innocent civilians with our drone strikes'? Do you not understand the political significance of that?

Not to mention that more than one of them was an American citizen, tried, convicted, and executed entirely by the administrative branch without due process (i.e., completely unconstitutionally, in case you haven't read the BoR recently).



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

09 Oct 2013, 1:05 am

^
I'm kinda glad it's not just me that gets the monkey business when talking to Obama partisans...

Image


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


Last edited by Dox47 on 09 Oct 2013, 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

09 Oct 2013, 1:12 am

AspE wrote:
LKL wrote:
dude, seriously? That's your argument? 'It's ok to lie about the civilian casualties, because at least we aren't nuking them'?


Who cares what we call them? Seriously that's your objection? They aren't innocent until proven guilty, it's a freaking war.

Who's war?


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


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

09 Oct 2013, 11:39 am

Misslizard wrote:
AspE wrote:
LKL wrote:
dude, seriously? That's your argument? 'It's ok to lie about the civilian casualties, because at least we aren't nuking them'?


Who cares what we call them? Seriously that's your objection? They aren't innocent until proven guilty, it's a freaking war.

Who's war?

The war between the West and the Islamists.