RE: Suggested reading for all liberals

RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 3:11:22 AM)
quote: Cant' stand democrats more than I can't stand republicans.) Huh, well for someone who cant stand them, you sure spend a lot of time defending and supporting them. quote: I was paraphrasing your attitude and the article. No you weren't, you clearly just assigned a preconceived attitude to me based on your ideological blinders.

Phydeaux -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 8:10:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Cant' stand democrats more than I can't stand republicans.) Huh, well for someone who cant stand them, you sure spend a lot of time defending and supporting them. quote: I was paraphrasing your attitude and the article. No you weren't, you clearly just assigned a preconceived attitude to me based on your ideological blinders. Preconceived? Hardly. My attitude towards you reflects the snark and positions demonstrated in your posts.

Phydeaux -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 8:12:41 AM)
But returning to topic at hand: http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelReagan/Calif-/2016/04/26/id/725791/ What do you think liberals? Fair game because conservatives must be crushed, right?

vincentML -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 9:15:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: What constitutes bigotry in a religious value may be a misinterpretation of the value. But, as long as a person's free exercise of his/her chosen religion isn't infringing on the rights of another, the Federal Government should have no authority to infringe on a religion's "bigotry." And that is the crux of the matter, innit? Absolutely. Your rights don't trump mine. They are equal. So, as long as my freely made choices don't have any impact on your ability to freely choose, I should be free to choose to do whatever I want (as it pertains to any interactions between you and I). When someone refuses to serve another in a public accommodation or business because of their religious values there is an impact on others.

Lucylastic -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 9:18:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux But returning to topic at hand: http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelReagan/Calif-/2016/04/26/id/725791/ What do you think liberals? Fair game because conservatives must be crushed, right? LOL In some other terms. Koch brothers buy more power to hide their dark money.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 2:04:59 PM)
Preconceived? Hardly. Actually yes, seeing as I have not once expressed the attitude you assigned to me, therefore it is a preconceived attitude, a contention which is further backed up by the fact that it is an attitude you assign to others who disagree with you and is espoused by several of the articles you link. quote: My attitude towards you reflects the snark and positions demonstrated in your posts. Your attitude towards me has nothing to do with what is being discussed, rather it is the attitude you have assigned to me. This would be a much more productive discussion if you would slow down a little and take the time to read and understand what you were responding to. quote: But returning to topic at hand: That isn't actually the topic at hand, that was the supposed smugness of the left. quote: What do you think liberals? Well, I'm not a liberal, but (assuming the article is accurate, which given the source and the rhetoric in it is somewhat suspect) I agree with the judge. The AG should have to demonstrate some valid legal need for that information, which they clearly failed to do. Also the publishing of such confidential information is unforgivable and her "promise" to keep this list confidential is pretty laughable. quote: Fair game because conservatives must be crushed, right? No, they do not require crushing, they provide a valid and valuable counter to the wilder aims of some on the left. Too much of either camp is generally detrimental, so having a healthy conservative movement to point out flaws and weaknesses in the plans of the progressive movement is essential to insuring that the inevitable advance of social justice is not done pell mell and without careful consideration.

Phydeaux -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 3:27:31 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Preconceived? Hardly. Actually yes, seeing as I have not once expressed the attitude you assigned to me, therefore it is a preconceived attitude, And its not at all possible, hmm, that you have blinders hmm? So when you say: "It also smacks of "white man's burden" to me OR - That's just the cover for a much more insidious bill which prohibits employees from suing for discrimination in state courts. That you don't display liberal values? Or when you say Well it's hardly surprising you think so, given your adoration of the one and hatred of the other. Or "Remember the Maine" Or "No it's not. It, like all articles that try to assign any given characteristic to a huge population, is ridiculous. " That its not snark? Boiling it down - you're saying I can't possibly have formed a conception of you from what you say. Since you have no facts in the matter, how can you possibly put forth that as a serious logical argument. Frankly, you're smart, pithy, snarky, terse, well read, and reasonably fair. You're fun to debate. But your argument here holds no water.

Phydeaux -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 3:36:38 PM)
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7528

Lucylastic -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 4:07:41 PM)
An anti feminist, a con talk show, and a mra who believes rapes should be legal, walk into a class of students. Sounds like a bad bar joke

DesideriScuri -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 5:41:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: What constitutes bigotry in a religious value may be a misinterpretation of the value. But, as long as a person's free exercise of his/her chosen religion isn't infringing on the rights of another, the Federal Government should have no authority to infringe on a religion's "bigotry." And that is the crux of the matter, innit? Absolutely. Your rights don't trump mine. They are equal. So, as long as my freely made choices don't have any impact on your ability to freely choose, I should be free to choose to do whatever I want (as it pertains to any interactions between you and I). When someone refuses to serve another in a public accommodation or business because of their religious values there is an impact on others. Only if there are no alternatives.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 8:25:41 PM)
quote: So when you say: "It also smacks of "white man's burden" to me OR - That's just the cover for a much more insidious bill which prohibits employees from suing for discrimination in state courts. That you don't display liberal values? Nope, see, I'm not a liberal. quote: Or when you say Well it's hardly surprising you think so, given your adoration of the one and hatred of the other. Or "Remember the Maine" Or "No it's not. It, like all articles that try to assign any given characteristic to a huge population, is ridiculous. " That its not snark? Nope, those are all valid points. quote: Boiling it down - you're saying I can't possibly have formed a conception of you from what you say. Nope, I didn't say that, I said you have tried to fit me into a preconceived notion of some sort of "liberal" and so run all my comments through that filter rather than actually paying attention to what I say

dcnovice -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 8:41:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: What constitutes bigotry in a religious value may be a misinterpretation of the value. But, as long as a person's free exercise of his/her chosen religion isn't infringing on the rights of another, the Federal Government should have no authority to infringe on a religion's "bigotry." And that is the crux of the matter, innit? Absolutely. Your rights don't trump mine. They are equal. So, as long as my freely made choices don't have any impact on your ability to freely choose, I should be free to choose to do whatever I want (as it pertains to any interactions between you and I). When someone refuses to serve another in a public accommodation or business because of their religious values there is an impact on others. Only if there are no alternatives. Any thoughts on this situation? I'm sure there's some sort of alternative. http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/04/interracial_couple_evicted_from_mississippi_rv_park.html

dcnovice -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 8:55:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux But returning to topic at hand: http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelReagan/Calif-/2016/04/26/id/725791/ What do you think liberals? Fair game because conservatives must be crushed, right? This liberal thinks . . . -- Newsmax and I define "news" differently. This was a far-from-subtle opinion piece by an author whose paramount credential appears to be his surname. -- It might have edged toward marginal credibility by including a quote from Harris or from pertinent documentation about why she wants the list and what she cites as her authority for seeking it. Or from legal experts. -- The judge has an interesting record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Real#Other_cases. -- Few things demonstrate the decline of American thought more starkly and sadly than anyone's confusing this with actual journalism.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 9:15:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism Great analysis. Great insight. And to think it came from vox. I'd have titled it. . Misunderestimating the right... Phydeaux, I can't believe this thread has gone on this long! I haven't posted to this thread because I don't grant your initial premise. Having the 10-12 literate liberals there are in this country read this would do little good. Michael

mnottertail -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 9:35:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism Great analysis. Great insight. And to think it came from vox. I'd have titled it. . Misunderestimating the right... Phydeaux, I can't believe this thread has gone on this long! I haven't posted to this thread because I don't grant your initial premise. Having the 10-12 literate liberals there are in this country read this would do little good. Michael there isnt one, not one of you felching nutsuckers that could suck out a good felch. dont toiltelick among people who can use three syllable words cuz your biggest one is "I am a dicklicker' and that is it for you dickwiggle.

Phydeaux -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 11:40:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: So when you say: "It also smacks of "white man's burden" to me OR - That's just the cover for a much more insidious bill which prohibits employees from suing for discrimination in state courts. That you don't display liberal values? Nope, see, I'm not a liberal. So you say. My experience differs.

Phydeaux -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/27/2016 11:42:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux But returning to topic at hand: http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelReagan/Calif-/2016/04/26/id/725791/ What do you think liberals? Fair game because conservatives must be crushed, right? This liberal thinks . . . -- Newsmax and I define "news" differently. This was a far-from-subtle opinion piece by an author whose paramount credential appears to be his surname. -- It might have edged toward marginal credibility by including a quote from Harris or from pertinent documentation about why she wants the list and what she cites as her authority for seeking it. Or from legal experts. -- The judge has an interesting record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Real#Other_cases. -- Few things demonstrate the decline of American thought more starkly and sadly than anyone's confusing this with actual journalism. So you immediately presume the facts as presented are incorrect merely because of the venue its presented in, and the name of the author. Can you show any material fact is in error? Or is it just that you don't like it and therefore put your hands on your ears and go "la la la - I can't hear you?"

DesideriScuri -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 12:49:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: What constitutes bigotry in a religious value may be a misinterpretation of the value. But, as long as a person's free exercise of his/her chosen religion isn't infringing on the rights of another, the Federal Government should have no authority to infringe on a religion's "bigotry." And that is the crux of the matter, innit? Absolutely. Your rights don't trump mine. They are equal. So, as long as my freely made choices don't have any impact on your ability to freely choose, I should be free to choose to do whatever I want (as it pertains to any interactions between you and I). When someone refuses to serve another in a public accommodation or business because of their religious values there is an impact on others. Only if there are no alternatives. Any thoughts on this situation? I'm sure there's some sort of alternative. http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/04/interracial_couple_evicted_from_mississippi_rv_park.html I'm sure there are alternatives, and the couple did move to a different trailer park. They didn't get evicted because the park owner's religious beliefs. They got evicted because of the park owner's racism. Now that this has become a story, more people will know. Now, people will be able to choose to do business with that trailer park owner, or not, and can base those decisions, at least in part, on his racism. Would you prefer to do business with a racist, or someone that isn't a racist? I'd prefer the latter myself, but it's not like we have some way of accurately identifying them simply by looks. But, let them open their ignorant mouths and tell us what they believe and let them act and show us what they believe. Now we know they are ignorant racists. That trailer park might be filled with racists. Do you think that couple is going to be willing to face that? Do you think they'd be willing (or even able) to change the hearts and minds of those racists? And, therein, lies a problem. The NAACP gets involved and will likely get something done, but it won't be to change the hearts and minds of the racists. It will likely be some form of punishment which will increase the racial tension and could very easily make the problem worse. So, my thoughts are the church is hypocritical, the trailer park owner is a racist, and the tenants of the trailer park that complained are racists. Let them identify themselves so people can have more information to base their decisions on.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 1:15:09 AM)
quote: So you say. My experience differs. Well that tells me two things. 1) You really don't know anything about me, which is understandable because you are trying to fit me into your preconceived molds 2) You really don't know what a liberal is, which is also understandable because you are an American, and Americans rarely have any understanding of political terminology.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 1:19:05 AM)
quote: They didn't get evicted because the park owner's religious beliefs. They got evicted because of the park owner's racism. And that makes a difference? How is racial bigotry any different from religious bigotry? Is not bigotry bigotry?

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875