Why do people talk about "liberal bias" when the phrase is technically an oxymoron?

[LoneLaugher]

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.
.

Okay, great. Now we're getting somewhere. What "PC Police" tactics played a part in THIS exact tragedy? What environment did the "PC Police" create in this event?

You apparently agree that the protesters have a right to protest. You seem to have indicated that they might even have reason to protest, yes? How are you then turning around and saying that the protesters protesting were in part responsible for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual?

Let me try another approach here.

I know you don't agree, but you're being civil, and that's much appreciated, so I'll barf it out again.

I have said a zillion times that the PC Police has, over roughly two generations, created and/or exacerbated an increasingly divisive environment. How? A constant, long-term combination of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Hyphenated America, screaming "racist" at every opportunity. All of this on top of the actual, hateful white-on-black bigotry and racism that still exists. I am NOT talking about any recent protests in a vacuum, I'm talking about a culture, an environment of division that has increased over time.

So let's say a kid grows up in a family of NRA members. He's fed all the regular NRA stuff about the government is coming to get his guns. He attends NRA conventions, he attends NRA rallies, he listens to all the conservative talk shows and frequents conservative web sites. In short, his life is full of NRA-speak, just as many children are raised by people who are steeped in the PC-related environment described above - that white people are literally trying to cause them harm.

One day, out of nowhere, this kid shoots and kills three innocents with his guns.

Would you look at this as a purely isolated incident, that the kid had no reason to do what he did and that must be understood, would you hold the NRA harmless? Or would you also consider the environment in which he grew up, and ask if that environment and the people who created that environment would have played a role in his thought process? Would you not postulate that the culture in which he existed played a role in his actions?

That is my point.

Again, I know you won't agree. But that is my opinion on this.

.

Is the NRA kid in your example sane when he commits the murders? Is his murderous act considered by his family members to be acceptable? Should his family members apologize? Are they to be held legally responsible?

If the answer to any of those questions is "no"......you've failed to make your case.

And....if you want to claim that you don't rely on spin to support your POV and forward your particular ideology.....please tell us what the POTUS meant by the phrase "you didn't build that".

 

[Bfgrn]

OpinionEditorials.com Liberalism is a Psychology - Beltt

Many conservatives are absolutely perplexed by the question of what motivates liberals to take the patently wrong political positions they do. It’s difficult to explain it without believing such obviously wrong ideas like “liberals are just stupid”, or “they want to destroy our country”, but sometimes we resort to those explanations out of pure frustration.
But what is the explanation? Why do seemingly good, intelligent people take positions that cause so much harm in the face of all the facts? I’ve finally stumbled upon the answer, and it’s so stunningly simple, yet profound in its implications, that it’s absolutely mind-boggling. Liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology - the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.
A liberal (or a leftist; I use the terms interchangeably), is a person who only cares about politics to the extent that doing so makes him or her feel good, or avoid feeling bad, due both to external and internal factors. Their motivations can include things like a desire to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance or reverence, and aversion to being ostracized, among many other things.
Now, before I go any further, I have to draw a distinction between liberals and the people who agree with them. Liberals, the people I’m referring to throughout, are the activists and ideologues; the people who truly believe in their leftist ideas and who fight for them.

Let’s take an easy example, same-sex marriage (I’ll come to many more examples later on). Liberals see themselves as fighting the “bigots” on behalf of the “oppressed” minorities, and they constantly compare the battle to the civil rights movement. It isn’t anywhere near, but they do it because it makes them feel important, which is also the reason why this is an issue at the national forefront today.
Liberals press the issue because it makes them feel important, and they support it because it makes them feel morally superior. Whether same-sex couples actually end up “marrying” or not is irrelevant (except to homosexual-leftists, to whom social acceptance is a great ego need), as are the consequences of that. It’s the battle itself that matters to liberals, and as soon as the issue is resolved, you can bet the farm that they’ll move onto something else.

What nonsense.

Of course you would call it nonsense. Now put the dang candy down and behave. We can't afford it and it's bad for you. Don't make me get the belt.

BTW Stop taking money from the wallets of everyone in the store to pay for your ideology. And your credit cards are cut off.

We're in debt because of Republicans, not Democrats.

Don't be fooled, we are in debt because of both parties.

We are in debt because of Republicans.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

 

[Mac1958]

So I take it this means you don't want to know my opinions on those issues?

Sorry, deflection doesn't work with me.

Yes or no?

.

No, I want to know what makes me a far left ideologue?

So now we're past that transparent "you're a conservative, Mac" game.

Good. Wasn't that easy?

Now, I'll be happy to answer your question. When a person can be counted on to always take the side of either conservatives or liberals, and when they can be counted on to utilize spin, hyperbole, distortion, deflection, straw man arguments and outright lies to defend their partisan flank, I refer to them as a "partisan ideologue" or a "hardcore partisan ideologue", depending on the frequency and intensity of those behaviors.

Thinking back, I don't know if I've ever been proven wrong, but it may have happened.

Now, if I'm wrong, if there are issues on which you agree with conservatives, if you can show me an impassioned disagreement you had with a liberal in which you defended a conservative stance, great! I'd love to see it. But otherwise, this is a forum in which we share our opinions, and this is just my little opinion. The fact that my little opinion is clearly so important is very instructive, I must say. You are not required to agree with it.

There, a comprehensive, honest answer, something I rarely receive in return.

.

You have every right to your opinions. But what would YOU call a person who is always attacking the left?

Call me whatever you want. I would just prefer you didn't lie.

.

I don't lie Mac. You are always attacking the left and ignore all the vile posts by the right.

Could be! If I were to attempt a little self-psychology, it may be that the Left frustrates me more with their behavior.

That doesn't make me a conservative.

.

 

[eagle1462010]

We live with politicians who when asked to cut 1% of Federal Spending can't do it. They can't even freeze spending at current levels.

It a bounch of shop a haulics with an unlimited credit card. They refuse to cut anything unless it's something they don't like the military.

Your side yells and screams like the spoiled brats you are anytime ANYONE wants to cut up the credit cards. Exploding the debt and saying the rich need to give all their money to you so you can pay for your bloated spending.

Conservatives are always pushing for cutting the spending of Gov't, To live within our means, and please don't sample the current crop of Rhino's in the GOP party. As they are freaking spoiled brats as well.

 

[Seawytch]

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.
.

Okay, great. Now we're getting somewhere. What "PC Police" tactics played a part in THIS exact tragedy? What environment did the "PC Police" create in this event?

You apparently agree that the protesters have a right to protest. You seem to have indicated that they might even have reason to protest, yes? How are you then turning around and saying that the protesters protesting were in part responsible for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual?

Let me try another approach here.

I know you don't agree, but you're being civil, and that's much appreciated, so I'll barf it out again.

I have said a zillion times that the PC Police has, over roughly two generations, created and/or exacerbated an increasingly divisive environment. How? A constant, long-term combination of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Hyphenated America, screaming "racist" at every opportunity. All of this on top of the actual, hateful white-on-black bigotry and racism that still exists. I am NOT talking about any recent protests in a vacuum, I'm talking about a culture, an environment of division that has increased over time.

So let's say a kid grows up in a family of NRA members. He's fed all the regular NRA stuff about the government is coming to get his guns. He attends NRA conventions, he attends NRA rallies, he listens to all the conservative talk shows and frequents conservative web sites. In short, his life is full of NRA-speak, just as many children are raised by people who are steeped in the PC-related environment described above - that white people are literally trying to cause them harm.

One day, out of nowhere, this kid shoots and kills three innocents with his guns.

Would you look at this as a purely isolated incident, that the kid had no reason to do what he did and that must be understood, would you hold the NRA harmless? Or would you also consider the environment in which he grew up, and ask if that environment and the people who created that environment would have played a role in his thought process? Would you not postulate that the culture in which he existed played a role in his actions?

That is my point.

Again, I know you won't agree. But that is my opinion on this.

.

I think you picked a rather poor analogy. Your NRA kid was not a member of an oppressed minority all his life and you didn't mention what his mental state was. The man who shot the cops appears to have been mentally disturbed and was not being treated for it.

A black teen is 21 times more likely to be shot by the police than a white teen. Where's your NRA kid in that statistic?

And where does the couple that shot those police officers in Las Vegas fall into your theories on "PC Police"?

 

[Bfgrn]

No, I want to know what makes me a far left ideologue?

So now we're past that transparent "you're a conservative, Mac" game.

Good. Wasn't that easy?

Now, I'll be happy to answer your question. When a person can be counted on to always take the side of either conservatives or liberals, and when they can be counted on to utilize spin, hyperbole, distortion, deflection, straw man arguments and outright lies to defend their partisan flank, I refer to them as a "partisan ideologue" or a "hardcore partisan ideologue", depending on the frequency and intensity of those behaviors.

Thinking back, I don't know if I've ever been proven wrong, but it may have happened.

Now, if I'm wrong, if there are issues on which you agree with conservatives, if you can show me an impassioned disagreement you had with a liberal in which you defended a conservative stance, great! I'd love to see it. But otherwise, this is a forum in which we share our opinions, and this is just my little opinion. The fact that my little opinion is clearly so important is very instructive, I must say. You are not required to agree with it.

There, a comprehensive, honest answer, something I rarely receive in return.

.

You have every right to your opinions. But what would YOU call a person who is always attacking the left?

Call me whatever you want. I would just prefer you didn't lie.

.

I don't lie Mac. You are always attacking the left and ignore all the vile posts by the right.

Could be! If I were to attempt a little self-psychology, it may be that the Left frustrates me more with their behavior.

That doesn't make me a conservative.

.

Behavior like standing up for the rights of all people? Or not subscribing to severe punishment and corporal punishment the right embraces?

 

[Mac1958]

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.
.

Okay, great. Now we're getting somewhere. What "PC Police" tactics played a part in THIS exact tragedy? What environment did the "PC Police" create in this event?

You apparently agree that the protesters have a right to protest. You seem to have indicated that they might even have reason to protest, yes? How are you then turning around and saying that the protesters protesting were in part responsible for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual?

Let me try another approach here.

I know you don't agree, but you're being civil, and that's much appreciated, so I'll barf it out again.

I have said a zillion times that the PC Police has, over roughly two generations, created and/or exacerbated an increasingly divisive environment. How? A constant, long-term combination of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Hyphenated America, screaming "racist" at every opportunity. All of this on top of the actual, hateful white-on-black bigotry and racism that still exists. I am NOT talking about any recent protests in a vacuum, I'm talking about a culture, an environment of division that has increased over time.

So let's say a kid grows up in a family of NRA members. He's fed all the regular NRA stuff about the government is coming to get his guns. He attends NRA conventions, he attends NRA rallies, he listens to all the conservative talk shows and frequents conservative web sites. In short, his life is full of NRA-speak, just as many children are raised by people who are steeped in the PC-related environment described above - that white people are literally trying to cause them harm.

One day, out of nowhere, this kid shoots and kills three innocents with his guns.

Would you look at this as a purely isolated incident, that the kid had no reason to do what he did and that must be understood, would you hold the NRA harmless? Or would you also consider the environment in which he grew up, and ask if that environment and the people who created that environment would have played a role in his thought process? Would you not postulate that the culture in which he existed played a role in his actions?

That is my point.

Again, I know you won't agree. But that is my opinion on this.

.

I think you picked a rather poor analogy. Your NRA kid was not a member of an oppressed minority all his life and you didn't mention what his mental state was. The man who shot the cops appears to have been mentally disturbed and was not being treated for it.

A black teen is 21 times more likely to be shot by the police than a white teen. Where's your NRA kid in that statistic?

I went out of my way to point out that the kid was raised in a culture. No two situations are precisely the same. Analogies cannot be exact.

We're not going to agree. But I did want to get that all out for future reference, when someone here lies about my position.

.

 

[eagle1462010]

OpinionEditorials.com Liberalism is a Psychology - Beltt

Many conservatives are absolutely perplexed by the question of what motivates liberals to take the patently wrong political positions they do. It’s difficult to explain it without believing such obviously wrong ideas like “liberals are just stupid”, or “they want to destroy our country”, but sometimes we resort to those explanations out of pure frustration.
But what is the explanation? Why do seemingly good, intelligent people take positions that cause so much harm in the face of all the facts? I’ve finally stumbled upon the answer, and it’s so stunningly simple, yet profound in its implications, that it’s absolutely mind-boggling. Liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology - the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.
A liberal (or a leftist; I use the terms interchangeably), is a person who only cares about politics to the extent that doing so makes him or her feel good, or avoid feeling bad, due both to external and internal factors. Their motivations can include things like a desire to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance or reverence, and aversion to being ostracized, among many other things.
Now, before I go any further, I have to draw a distinction between liberals and the people who agree with them. Liberals, the people I’m referring to throughout, are the activists and ideologues; the people who truly believe in their leftist ideas and who fight for them.

Let’s take an easy example, same-sex marriage (I’ll come to many more examples later on). Liberals see themselves as fighting the “bigots” on behalf of the “oppressed” minorities, and they constantly compare the battle to the civil rights movement. It isn’t anywhere near, but they do it because it makes them feel important, which is also the reason why this is an issue at the national forefront today.
Liberals press the issue because it makes them feel important, and they support it because it makes them feel morally superior. Whether same-sex couples actually end up “marrying” or not is irrelevant (except to homosexual-leftists, to whom social acceptance is a great ego need), as are the consequences of that. It’s the battle itself that matters to liberals, and as soon as the issue is resolved, you can bet the farm that they’ll move onto something else.

What nonsense.

Of course you would call it nonsense. Now put the dang candy down and behave. We can't afford it and it's bad for you. Don't make me get the belt.

BTW Stop taking money from the wallets of everyone in the store to pay for your ideology. And your credit cards are cut off.

We're in debt because of Republicans, not Democrats.

Don't be fooled, we are in debt because of both parties.

We are in debt because of Republicans.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

Reagan rebuilt the military from it's defunct state. It was badly needed and gave pay raises to those serving. The ships and equipment in the Navy were in a defunct state and all Presidents since then have benefitted from a retrofitted military.

He had plans to cut the spending and pay for it. Yet the Congress didn't go along, as once they increase spending on anything they don't want to cut anything to help pay for it. His full plan was never implemented, and he took over from Peanut head in a destroyed economy in a very deep recession. Carter is the STAGFLATION MAN.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So I take it this means you don't want to know my opinions on those issues?

Sorry, deflection doesn't work with me.

Yes or no?

.

No, I want to know what makes me a far left ideologue?

So now we're past that transparent "you're a conservative, Mac" game.

Good. Wasn't that easy?

Now, I'll be happy to answer your question. When a person can be counted on to always take the side of either conservatives or liberals, and when they can be counted on to utilize spin, hyperbole, distortion, deflection, straw man arguments and outright lies to defend their partisan flank, I refer to them as a "partisan ideologue" or a "hardcore partisan ideologue", depending on the frequency and intensity of those behaviors.

Thinking back, I don't know if I've ever been proven wrong, but it may have happened.

Now, if I'm wrong, if there are issues on which you agree with conservatives, if you can show me an impassioned disagreement you had with a liberal in which you defended a conservative stance, great! I'd love to see it. But otherwise, this is a forum in which we share our opinions, and this is just my little opinion. The fact that my little opinion is clearly so important is very instructive, I must say. You are not required to agree with it.

There, a comprehensive, honest answer, something I rarely receive in return.

.

You have every right to your opinions. But what would YOU call a person who is always attacking the left?

Call me whatever you want. I would just prefer you didn't lie.

.

I don't lie Mac. You are always attacking the left and ignore all the vile posts by the right.

It only seems that way. Mac's gig is trying to be above the fray. He spends more time "debating" lefties because he can count on lefties to carry their case a long way.....and not run away or make a complete mess of the discussion. Mac isn't stupid. He doesn't confront the idiot righties because doing so bears no fruit. They can't defend their POV with any consistency. In addition.....the nutters all agree with Mac's primary ideological theory...and one that he brings into every discussion that he has here.....that liberals are the PC Police and are ruining the country.

Mac holds many liberal views. He just isn't passionate about them....and never argues them here.

 

[deltex1]

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.
.

Okay, great. Now we're getting somewhere. What "PC Police" tactics played a part in THIS exact tragedy? What environment did the "PC Police" create in this event?

You apparently agree that the protesters have a right to protest. You seem to have indicated that they might even have reason to protest, yes? How are you then turning around and saying that the protesters protesting were in part responsible for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual?

Let me try another approach here.

I know you don't agree, but you're being civil, and that's much appreciated, so I'll barf it out again.

I have said a zillion times that the PC Police has, over roughly two generations, created and/or exacerbated an increasingly divisive environment. How? A constant, long-term combination of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Hyphenated America, screaming "racist" at every opportunity. All of this on top of the actual, hateful white-on-black bigotry and racism that still exists. I am NOT talking about any recent protests in a vacuum, I'm talking about a culture, an environment of division that has increased over time.

So let's say a kid grows up in a family of NRA members. He's fed all the regular NRA stuff about the government is coming to get his guns. He attends NRA conventions, he attends NRA rallies, he listens to all the conservative talk shows and frequents conservative web sites. In short, his life is full of NRA-speak, just as many children are raised by people who are steeped in the PC-related environment described above - that white people are literally trying to cause them harm.

One day, out of nowhere, this kid shoots and kills three innocents with his guns.

Would you look at this as a purely isolated incident, that the kid had no reason to do what he did and that must be understood, would you hold the NRA harmless? Or would you also consider the environment in which he grew up, and ask if that environment and the people who created that environment would have played a role in his thought process? Would you not postulate that the culture in which he existed played a role in his actions?

That is my point.

Again, I know you won't agree. But that is my opinion on this.

.

I think you picked a rather poor analogy. Your NRA kid was not a member of an oppressed minority all his life and you didn't mention what his mental state was. The man who shot the cops appears to have been mentally disturbed and was not being treated for it.

A black teen is 21 times more likely to be shot by the police than a white teen. Where's your NRA kid in that statistic?

And where does the couple that shot those police officers in Las Vegas fall into your theories on "PC Police"?

I always wonder how the left explains all the exceptions to the "inescapable fate" of the "oppressed minority".

 

[Bfgrn]

What nonsense.

Of course you would call it nonsense. Now put the dang candy down and behave. We can't afford it and it's bad for you. Don't make me get the belt.

BTW Stop taking money from the wallets of everyone in the store to pay for your ideology. And your credit cards are cut off.

We're in debt because of Republicans, not Democrats.

Don't be fooled, we are in debt because of both parties.

We are in debt because of Republicans.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

Reagan rebuilt the military from it's defunct state. It was badly needed and gave pay raises to those serving. The ships and equipment in the Navy were in a defunct state and all Presidents since then have benefitted from a retrofitted military.

He had plans to cut the spending and pay for it. Yet the Congress didn't go along, as once they increase spending on anything they don't want to cut anything to help pay for it. His full plan was never implemented, and he took over from Peanut head in a destroyed economy in a very deep recession. Carter is the STAGFLATION MAN.

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher


Stagflation started with Nixon, as did the dismantling of the military. Carter INCREASED military spending and began upgrades to weapons systems and strategies. Reagan went off the reservation with Star Wars and wasteful spending. But the NUMBER ONE change brought about by Reagan was he switched government from a tax and spend policy to a borrow and spend policy.

Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent. It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

 

[BlackSand]

Purist Liberalism expresses the desire for equality and liberty for all. Liberty can be achieved where equality is impossible (equality doesn't exist outside of mathematics).

Progressive Liberalism is not the same creature at all. The progressive agenda is no longer looking at liberty in attempts to address equality. They would rather use government to access equality than applying liberty and opportunity.

Progressive Liberalism cannot exist without bias because it requires the cooperation of others to succeed.




.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[jknowgood]

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.
.

Okay, great. Now we're getting somewhere. What "PC Police" tactics played a part in THIS exact tragedy? What environment did the "PC Police" create in this event?

You apparently agree that the protesters have a right to protest. You seem to have indicated that they might even have reason to protest, yes? How are you then turning around and saying that the protesters protesting were in part responsible for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual?

He doesn't agree that the protestors have a right to protest, because he has blamed the cops' deaths on the protestors. He has assigned them the responsibility for 2 cops being murdered.

Logically one cannot believe that anyone has the RIGHT to take actions that are ultimately responsible for murders.

Liberals blamed Limbaugh for Giffords shooting. Till you found out it was a crazy liberal and we didn't blame your ideology. Now the cops that got killed was because of the protest. You cannot in public call for dead cops and it not happen. You have blood on your hands.

 

[eagle1462010]

National debt began to rise after going off the gold standard. Nixon went off the gold standard because foreign countries were wanting payment in gold. So he ditched a standard and we began the printing presses.

The growing debt is a clear and present danger to our children's future and the future of this nation. It destroys our currency, and our Gov't refuses to do anything about it. If a CEO of a major company couldn't cut 1% of the spending he would be a FIRED ASS...............yet our gov't does it endlessly even with all the waste and fraud that is reported every year.

A TRUE CONSERVATIVE abhors debt and irresponsible spending by the Gov't, whether it be a GOP or Dem policy. Liberals think we can fix it by taxes alone and de nutting our military. They refuse to cut anything, and make up fake attacks that don't exist in reality. Say we want to cut funding on condoms and say it's a WAR ON WOMEN.

Liberals are a party of BS SLOGANS...............And get my way irregardless of the damage your ideologies cause. If your Solar power isn't cost effective, then raise the price on everything else until it becomes affordable. LOL

Obama promised to kill Coal. There is a massive cost to that policy. And that cost will be paid by the very people the Liberals profess to champion. Power rates are going up up and away now because of the attacks via the EPA on this industry,

 

[konradv]

There's no defense against ignorant bullshit. I agree with Bripat: You're an idiot.

He may be an idiot, but you just made the his point. You're biased! Way to go, shortbus.

 

[jknowgood]

No bias or hatred in liberalism, unless you disagree with them. Just ask a conservative black man.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.
.

Okay, great. Now we're getting somewhere. What "PC Police" tactics played a part in THIS exact tragedy? What environment did the "PC Police" create in this event?

You apparently agree that the protesters have a right to protest. You seem to have indicated that they might even have reason to protest, yes? How are you then turning around and saying that the protesters protesting were in part responsible for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual?

He doesn't agree that the protestors have a right to protest, because he has blamed the cops' deaths on the protestors. He has assigned them the responsibility for 2 cops being murdered.

Logically one cannot believe that anyone has the RIGHT to take actions that are ultimately responsible for murders.

Liberals blamed Limbaugh for Giffords shooting. Till you found out it was a crazy liberal and we didn't blame your ideology. Now the cops that got killed was because of the protest. You cannot in public call for dead cops and it not happen. You have blood on your hands.

I wasn't at the protest fuckwit.

Goddam you people get more retarded every day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No bias or hatred in liberalism, unless you disagree with them. Just ask a conservative black man.

Liberals are supposed to agree with a conservative just because he's black? lol

How many liberal black men do you agree with?

 

[BlackSand]

No bias or hatred in liberalism, unless you disagree with them. Just ask a conservative black man.

Liberals are supposed to agree with a conservative just because he's black? lol

How many liberal black men do you agree with?

Liberals usually cannot tell the difference between disagreement and bias or hatred. If they could understand the difference ... They would have to address the fact they are not perfect and don't have the correct answer to every equation.

.