Trump's demand that Mosques be closed -- Here's what Washington said in a letter to the Jews

[theDoctorisIn]

You take internet message boards way too seriously, dude.

This isn't a "debate", and the fact that I'm dismissing you clowns and your fear-mongering doesn't mean I'm "silencing" you - nor am I using "MIGHT" on you.

If you're so into the free exchange of ideas, why are you bitching and whining about what I'm saying?

It is a debate.

I did not accuse you of "silencing" me. Why do you feel a need to stoop to strawmen? Are you unable to counter what I say honestly?

I pointed out that instead of debating the issue and defending your position, you point out that your side has the power to make and enforce the policy. THat is Might Makes RIght. LIbs: All the self awareness of a turnip.

And I am not "bitching and whining" about what you are saying. I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and world view/behavior.

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

See was that so hard?

But you're wrong.

Muslims are not individuals. They are a group. When we are talking about millions of them moving from shitty Third World Shitholes to First World Nations, AND we have to consider how their descendants will or will NOT assimilate and live happily ever after with US in a diverse and wonderfully multi-cultural Utopia under cotton candy clouds and rainbows.

YOur neighbor might not bear personally responsibility.

How does he feel about Jews? Women? Gays? Personal Property rights?

As far as I've been able to see, he's more tolerant to all of those things than most Conservatives that post on this forum.

 

[Correll]

Logical Fallacy Appeal to Ridicule.

The premise that expressing my opinions in the flowery language I prefer is "bullying" is on it's face completely ridiculous.

There's no need to approach it with "logic".

NOpe. Verbal abuse is a common from of bullying. Denying it by ridiculing the person making the argument is fairly ironic.

Libs. All the self awareness of a turnip.

Do you not see the irony in complaining about "verbal abuse" while repeatedly insulting and trying to ridicule me?

Do you not see the difference between using insults WITH a point and using insults INSTEAD of a point?


And you might consider the difference between calling someone a liberal and likening them to a turnip (specifically in terms of self awareness) and calling someone a piece of shit or a asshole.

The only "difference" between calling someone an asshole and calling them a turnip is in one case, you're couching your insult behind a false sense of propriety. There's no practical difference between the two, just an emotional one - calling me a turnip allows you to pretend to take the high road, yet still get your insults in.

NOpe. I'm making a valid point about your lack of self awareness in an attempt to advance the debate.

You are trying to SUPPRESS debate by insulting people INSTEAD of addressing real issues.

Ironically a point I made in my previous post which you ignored.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You take internet message boards way too seriously, dude.

This isn't a "debate", and the fact that I'm dismissing you clowns and your fear-mongering doesn't mean I'm "silencing" you - nor am I using "MIGHT" on you.

If you're so into the free exchange of ideas, why are you bitching and whining about what I'm saying?

It is a debate.

I did not accuse you of "silencing" me. Why do you feel a need to stoop to strawmen? Are you unable to counter what I say honestly?

I pointed out that instead of debating the issue and defending your position, you point out that your side has the power to make and enforce the policy. THat is Might Makes RIght. LIbs: All the self awareness of a turnip.

And I am not "bitching and whining" about what you are saying. I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and world view/behavior.

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

Nothing will change in these countries whilst their men keep 'fleeing'. I'd like to see them stay and fight for their countries, fight for what they want instead of running away.

What if what they want is peace and safety in which to raise their families?

Not everyone worships at the altar of war.

 

[Tilly]

It is a debate.

I did not accuse you of "silencing" me. Why do you feel a need to stoop to strawmen? Are you unable to counter what I say honestly?

I pointed out that instead of debating the issue and defending your position, you point out that your side has the power to make and enforce the policy. THat is Might Makes RIght. LIbs: All the self awareness of a turnip.

And I am not "bitching and whining" about what you are saying. I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and world view/behavior.

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

See was that so hard?

But you're wrong.

Muslims are not individuals. They are a group. When we are talking about millions of them moving from shitty Third World Shitholes to First World Nations, AND we have to consider how their descendants will or will NOT assimilate and live happily ever after with US in a diverse and wonderfully multi-cultural Utopia under cotton candy clouds and rainbows.

YOur neighbor might not bear personally responsibility.

How does he feel about Jews? Women? Gays? Personal Property rights?

As far as I've been able to see, he's more tolerant to all of those things than most Conservatives that post on this forum.

But if he was posting anonymously on a forum things might look a little different.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The premise that expressing my opinions in the flowery language I prefer is "bullying" is on it's face completely ridiculous.

There's no need to approach it with "logic".

NOpe. Verbal abuse is a common from of bullying. Denying it by ridiculing the person making the argument is fairly ironic.

Libs. All the self awareness of a turnip.

Do you not see the irony in complaining about "verbal abuse" while repeatedly insulting and trying to ridicule me?

Do you not see the difference between using insults WITH a point and using insults INSTEAD of a point?


And you might consider the difference between calling someone a liberal and likening them to a turnip (specifically in terms of self awareness) and calling someone a piece of shit or a asshole.

The only "difference" between calling someone an asshole and calling them a turnip is in one case, you're couching your insult behind a false sense of propriety. There's no practical difference between the two, just an emotional one - calling me a turnip allows you to pretend to take the high road, yet still get your insults in.

NOpe. I'm making a valid point about your lack of self awareness in an attempt to advance the debate.

You are trying to SUPPRESS debate by insulting people INSTEAD of addressing real issues.

Ironically a point I made in my previous post which you ignored.

I'm not SUPPRESSING anything at all, clown, and polite insults are still insults, no matter how you try to spin it.

But if it makes you feel better to paint yourself a story in which you're the high-road taking persecuted hero, I can't stop you.

 

[Tilly]

It is a debate.

I did not accuse you of "silencing" me. Why do you feel a need to stoop to strawmen? Are you unable to counter what I say honestly?

I pointed out that instead of debating the issue and defending your position, you point out that your side has the power to make and enforce the policy. THat is Might Makes RIght. LIbs: All the self awareness of a turnip.

And I am not "bitching and whining" about what you are saying. I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and world view/behavior.

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

Nothing will change in these countries whilst their men keep 'fleeing'. I'd like to see them stay and fight for their countries, fight for what they want instead of running away.

What if what they want is peace and safety in which to raise their families?

Not everyone worships at the altar of war.

Of course they don't, but if your leaders are destroying your country there comes a point surely where you have a responsibility to fight for it as opposed to running. The women, the children, the elderly should be placed in safety of course.

 

[Correll]

It is a debate.

I did not accuse you of "silencing" me. Why do you feel a need to stoop to strawmen? Are you unable to counter what I say honestly?

I pointed out that instead of debating the issue and defending your position, you point out that your side has the power to make and enforce the policy. THat is Might Makes RIght. LIbs: All the self awareness of a turnip.

And I am not "bitching and whining" about what you are saying. I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and world view/behavior.

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

See was that so hard?

But you're wrong.

Muslims are not individuals. They are a group. When we are talking about millions of them moving from shitty Third World Shitholes to First World Nations, AND we have to consider how their descendants will or will NOT assimilate and live happily ever after with US in a diverse and wonderfully multi-cultural Utopia under cotton candy clouds and rainbows.

YOur neighbor might not bear personally responsibility.

How does he feel about Jews? Women? Gays? Personal Property rights?

As far as I've been able to see, he's more tolerant to all of those things than most Conservatives that post on this forum.

How very unusual.

And thus irrelevant when discussing immigration policy that will effect hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

See was that so hard?

But you're wrong.

Muslims are not individuals. They are a group. When we are talking about millions of them moving from shitty Third World Shitholes to First World Nations, AND we have to consider how their descendants will or will NOT assimilate and live happily ever after with US in a diverse and wonderfully multi-cultural Utopia under cotton candy clouds and rainbows.

YOur neighbor might not bear personally responsibility.

How does he feel about Jews? Women? Gays? Personal Property rights?

As far as I've been able to see, he's more tolerant to all of those things than most Conservatives that post on this forum.

But if he was posting anonymously on a forum things might look a little different.

It's possible.

But I'm Jewish, and there are two gay couples living in the building, and he's never been anything other than sweet and kind to everyone. He's had us over for dinner countless times, and does a barbecue in the yard every couple of weeks that he invites the whole building to.

 

[Votto]

There are one billion Muslims in the world. We can't win a war against all of them.

The US can't even win a war in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

Nothing will change in these countries whilst their men keep 'fleeing'. I'd like to see them stay and fight for their countries, fight for what they want instead of running away.

What if what they want is peace and safety in which to raise their families?

Not everyone worships at the altar of war.

Of course they don't, but if your leaders are destroying your country there comes a point surely where you have a responsibility to fight for it as opposed to running. The women, the children, the elderly should be placed in safety of course.

I don't agree. I'm a pacifist, have been my whole life.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

See was that so hard?

But you're wrong.

Muslims are not individuals. They are a group. When we are talking about millions of them moving from shitty Third World Shitholes to First World Nations, AND we have to consider how their descendants will or will NOT assimilate and live happily ever after with US in a diverse and wonderfully multi-cultural Utopia under cotton candy clouds and rainbows.

YOur neighbor might not bear personally responsibility.

How does he feel about Jews? Women? Gays? Personal Property rights?

As far as I've been able to see, he's more tolerant to all of those things than most Conservatives that post on this forum.

How very unusual.

And thus irrelevant when discussing immigration policy that will effect hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

Not at all. I've lived around American muslims my entire life, and he's pretty much par for the course.

 

[Correll]

NOpe. Verbal abuse is a common from of bullying. Denying it by ridiculing the person making the argument is fairly ironic.

Libs. All the self awareness of a turnip.

Do you not see the irony in complaining about "verbal abuse" while repeatedly insulting and trying to ridicule me?

Do you not see the difference between using insults WITH a point and using insults INSTEAD of a point?


And you might consider the difference between calling someone a liberal and likening them to a turnip (specifically in terms of self awareness) and calling someone a piece of shit or a asshole.

The only "difference" between calling someone an asshole and calling them a turnip is in one case, you're couching your insult behind a false sense of propriety. There's no practical difference between the two, just an emotional one - calling me a turnip allows you to pretend to take the high road, yet still get your insults in.

NOpe. I'm making a valid point about your lack of self awareness in an attempt to advance the debate.

You are trying to SUPPRESS debate by insulting people INSTEAD of addressing real issues.

Ironically a point I made in my previous post which you ignored.

I'm not SUPPRESSING anything at all, clown, and polite insults are still insults, no matter how you try to spin it.

But if it makes you feel better to paint yourself a story in which you're the high-road taking persecuted hero, I can't stop you.

Responding to reasonable points with ridicule and bullying is suppressing debate, especially when it becomes widespread practice by a ideological movement.

And the difference between WITH and INSTEAD is still a real difference.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you not see the irony in complaining about "verbal abuse" while repeatedly insulting and trying to ridicule me?

Do you not see the difference between using insults WITH a point and using insults INSTEAD of a point?


And you might consider the difference between calling someone a liberal and likening them to a turnip (specifically in terms of self awareness) and calling someone a piece of shit or a asshole.

The only "difference" between calling someone an asshole and calling them a turnip is in one case, you're couching your insult behind a false sense of propriety. There's no practical difference between the two, just an emotional one - calling me a turnip allows you to pretend to take the high road, yet still get your insults in.

NOpe. I'm making a valid point about your lack of self awareness in an attempt to advance the debate.

You are trying to SUPPRESS debate by insulting people INSTEAD of addressing real issues.

Ironically a point I made in my previous post which you ignored.

I'm not SUPPRESSING anything at all, clown, and polite insults are still insults, no matter how you try to spin it.

But if it makes you feel better to paint yourself a story in which you're the high-road taking persecuted hero, I can't stop you.

Responding to reasonable points with ridicule and bullying is suppressing debate, especially when it becomes widespread practice by a ideological movement.

And the difference between WITH and INSTEAD is still a real difference.

I don't represent an "ideological movement".

For a Conservative, you seem to have a big problem with individuality.

 

[Correll]

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

See was that so hard?

But you're wrong.

Muslims are not individuals. They are a group. When we are talking about millions of them moving from shitty Third World Shitholes to First World Nations, AND we have to consider how their descendants will or will NOT assimilate and live happily ever after with US in a diverse and wonderfully multi-cultural Utopia under cotton candy clouds and rainbows.

YOur neighbor might not bear personally responsibility.

How does he feel about Jews? Women? Gays? Personal Property rights?

As far as I've been able to see, he's more tolerant to all of those things than most Conservatives that post on this forum.

How very unusual.

And thus irrelevant when discussing immigration policy that will effect hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

Not at all. I've lived around American muslims my entire life, and he's pretty much par for the course.

Anecdotal evidence that flies in the face of statistical evidence.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

BIGOT - A person who is intolerant to other people's opinions. Lol.

Perhaps "raging anti-American asshole" is a more appropriate term. Or "prejudiced piece of shit".

Just other ways of showing how intolerant you are, bigot.

LIbs. THey have spent so long railing against "Bigotry" that they have forgotten what it is they are supposedly railing against.

I will agree that I used the wrong word.

But I'm not the slightest bit ashamed that I'm "bigoted" against all you hateful fucks.

When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation.

Who the fuck cares whether you "entertain the idea of accepting Muslims"?

You don't get a say, bigot. Muslims will continue come to this nation and make up an important part of American culture, whether you like it or not.

I thought the US was a democracy.

You should take a civics class then.

Maybe I should. I'm not American but I could've sworn the US is a democracy. You, however, are convincing me otherwise. Well done .

The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a "Democracy".

We vote for politicians to represent us, we don't get to vote on issues.

Indeed, but the politicians we vote for are expected to at least give constituents' views a modicum of respect.

Considering the lack of respect currently shown, perhaps we should demand all be put to referendum.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

See was that so hard?

But you're wrong.

Muslims are not individuals. They are a group. When we are talking about millions of them moving from shitty Third World Shitholes to First World Nations, AND we have to consider how their descendants will or will NOT assimilate and live happily ever after with US in a diverse and wonderfully multi-cultural Utopia under cotton candy clouds and rainbows.

YOur neighbor might not bear personally responsibility.

How does he feel about Jews? Women? Gays? Personal Property rights?

As far as I've been able to see, he's more tolerant to all of those things than most Conservatives that post on this forum.

How very unusual.

And thus irrelevant when discussing immigration policy that will effect hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

Not at all. I've lived around American muslims my entire life, and he's pretty much par for the course.

Anecdotal evidence that flies in the face of statistical evidence.

Show me the "statistical evidence" of American Muslims that that "flies in the face of".

 

[Correll]

Do you not see the difference between using insults WITH a point and using insults INSTEAD of a point?


And you might consider the difference between calling someone a liberal and likening them to a turnip (specifically in terms of self awareness) and calling someone a piece of shit or a asshole.

The only "difference" between calling someone an asshole and calling them a turnip is in one case, you're couching your insult behind a false sense of propriety. There's no practical difference between the two, just an emotional one - calling me a turnip allows you to pretend to take the high road, yet still get your insults in.

NOpe. I'm making a valid point about your lack of self awareness in an attempt to advance the debate.

You are trying to SUPPRESS debate by insulting people INSTEAD of addressing real issues.

Ironically a point I made in my previous post which you ignored.

I'm not SUPPRESSING anything at all, clown, and polite insults are still insults, no matter how you try to spin it.

But if it makes you feel better to paint yourself a story in which you're the high-road taking persecuted hero, I can't stop you.

Responding to reasonable points with ridicule and bullying is suppressing debate, especially when it becomes widespread practice by a ideological movement.

And the difference between WITH and INSTEAD is still a real difference.

I don't represent an "ideological movement".

For a Conservative, you seem to have a big problem with individuality.

i'm sure you're a special snowflake with many interesting and wonderful personality traits.

BUt politically you come across as a standard issue lib.

Say, who's your avatar? Some Icon of NOn-partisan Individuality?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Perhaps "raging anti-American asshole" is a more appropriate term. Or "prejudiced piece of shit".

Just other ways of showing how intolerant you are, bigot.

LIbs. THey have spent so long railing against "Bigotry" that they have forgotten what it is they are supposedly railing against.

I will agree that I used the wrong word.

But I'm not the slightest bit ashamed that I'm "bigoted" against all you hateful fucks.

Who the fuck cares whether you "entertain the idea of accepting Muslims"?

You don't get a say, bigot. Muslims will continue come to this nation and make up an important part of American culture, whether you like it or not.

I thought the US was a democracy.

You should take a civics class then.

Maybe I should. I'm not American but I could've sworn the US is a democracy. You, however, are convincing me otherwise. Well done .

The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a "Democracy".

We vote for politicians to represent us, we don't get to vote on issues.

Indeed, but the politicians we vote for are expected to at least give constituents views a modicum of respect.

Considering the lack of respect currently shown, perhaps we should demand all be put to referendum.

If you want to live under mob rule, do it somewhere else, please. This country was designed specifically to prevent that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The only "difference" between calling someone an asshole and calling them a turnip is in one case, you're couching your insult behind a false sense of propriety. There's no practical difference between the two, just an emotional one - calling me a turnip allows you to pretend to take the high road, yet still get your insults in.

NOpe. I'm making a valid point about your lack of self awareness in an attempt to advance the debate.

You are trying to SUPPRESS debate by insulting people INSTEAD of addressing real issues.

Ironically a point I made in my previous post which you ignored.

I'm not SUPPRESSING anything at all, clown, and polite insults are still insults, no matter how you try to spin it.

But if it makes you feel better to paint yourself a story in which you're the high-road taking persecuted hero, I can't stop you.

Responding to reasonable points with ridicule and bullying is suppressing debate, especially when it becomes widespread practice by a ideological movement.

And the difference between WITH and INSTEAD is still a real difference.

I don't represent an "ideological movement".

For a Conservative, you seem to have a big problem with individuality.

i'm sure you're a special snowflake with many interesting and wonderful personality traits.

BUt politically you come across as a standard issue lib.

Say, who's your avatar? Some Icon of NOn-partisan Individuality?

I don't give a shit what you think I "come across as".

If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside to call me a "lib", feel free to. Although I wouldn't consider myself one, I certainly don't take it as an insult to be compared to Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, John Dewey, and countless other brilliant minds.

I have no doubt that you think everyone who disagrees with you is a "standard issue lib", anyway.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Just other ways of showing how intolerant you are, bigot.

LIbs. THey have spent so long railing against "Bigotry" that they have forgotten what it is they are supposedly railing against.

I will agree that I used the wrong word.

But I'm not the slightest bit ashamed that I'm "bigoted" against all you hateful fucks.

I thought the US was a democracy.

You should take a civics class then.

Maybe I should. I'm not American but I could've sworn the US is a democracy. You, however, are convincing me otherwise. Well done .

The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a "Democracy".

We vote for politicians to represent us, we don't get to vote on issues.

Indeed, but the politicians we vote for are expected to at least give constituents views a modicum of respect.

Considering the lack of respect currently shown, perhaps we should demand all be put to referendum.

If you want to live under mob rule, do it somewhere else, please. This country was designed specifically to prevent that.

That is not mob rule.