i don't think that i did but maybe i did

between gid, sean, and dictator col gene at least dictator col gene admits he is a liberal the other two don't

Let's see...I want to end all government welfare and I'm a liberal?

I want to severely cut funding to almost every government program and I'm a liberal?

See, danielost, the problem is that in your myopic field of view only two possibilities exist: one is like you and therefore a conservative, or unlike you and therefore a liberal. The truth is far different.

The liberals won't have me because I'm staunchly prolife, and pro second amendment, as well as targeting their pet programs with the budgetary axe.

The word is "Libertarian", danielost, and while SOME of my platform positions are liberal, I am not by and large a liberal. And your labelling me as such only serves to further prove your inability to grasp an abstract thought.

It's a pity, though. If you'd actually try to LEARN, you might discover a whole new world.

Maybe danielost has been confused by someone from the rest of the world. Libertarianism is the radical wing of liberalism after all, so factually speaking you are a liberal, and a particularly radical one at that. It's only in the US that socialism is called liberalism.

gid you defend everything liberal as far as i have seen

and

a liberal when they can't attack the message they attack the messenger

so keep telling me i am a bigot or what ever you want to think

but in reality i may hate a group but i don't hate the person unless said person has done me personal wrong.

such as someone who disagrees with me keeps calling me a bigot when the real bigot is usually the one calling others bigots. such as Jessie Jackson

Don't worry, Danny, you're not a bigot. You're not literate enough to be a bigot; with your fourth grade literacy I'm sure no one would think to call you anything other than ignorant, or possibly retarded if they were feeling mildly cruel.

He does? I have not read him in so long, that I could not say that. However, when he first started posting, he claimed to be a Reagan republican. Very vociferously too. If he is claiming to be an unabashed liberal now, at least he seems to be getting more honest.

This is where labels do not span borders, as in many countries this would be correct. However, here, Libertarianism is more conservative (I would not say radical as that implies some sort of extremism - which for the most part Libertarians are not) than Conservatives.

Libertarianism spans different parts of our society; social, economic, etc. Libertarians are very conservative economically. They are also very, very liberal socially. They may not hold to those social values in their personal life, like Gid, but they don't believe the government has the right to mandate such.

That, frankly, is why they'll never win an election. Their platform is simply too divisive. You'll have to drive a ways to find a person who is pro-choice, pro-drug legalization, and then also anti-social programs, anti-affirmative action, anti-gun control, etc.

Normally not a big deal; I differ with the Republicans on some issues. But, the ones for the Libertarian party are biggies. Most social conservatives that I know simply would never vote for a party that would fight against pro-life legislation. Most fiscal liberals I know would never vote for a party that opposes gun control or government programs like welfare.

Most people don't define themselves based upon their attitudes toward government handling of issues. They define themselves based upon the issues individually. The problem with people like daniel is they never bother to see what the political philosophy is, they just see that they are pro-drug legalization and lump them in with liberals.

Because you can't read in context, daniel.

Speaking against virulent misguided attacks on an entire religion based on the actions of its most extremist elements isn't liberalism, danielost, not by a long shot.

I hate to break it to you, but the Republican Party is NOT conservative. They have all but abandoned everything conservatives believe.

Every once in awhile I could actually tolerate some of the stuff you write, danielost. The reason I don't? Because you've proven your complete and utter inability to admit when you are wrong, as you have been proven to be numerous times. If you want to be an effective communicator, you gain more traction when you're willing to admit you are wrong. This entire conflict between you and me keyed off over an issue where I was PROVABLY right, and provided proof...in SPADES. Yet instead of acknowledging that, you stuck by your misguided story. And began calling me a "liberal", because in your mind that is the one nasty thing you can think of.

Danielost, if Muslims were wholly committed to our conversion or our extermination, we would have many more deaths than we do. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would have already been slaughtered en masse, rather than the rather small percentage of troops (about 3,500, last I checked, as compared to 150,000 depployed) that have been killed since the conflict began.

plenty of conservatives attack the messenger as well.

I would attack the message, Danielost...but you deny my response even when I PROVE it...so what's the point. Go back to our discussion on the 2nd amendment. I provided you with link after link to prove my assertions. You did not check the links, you did not offer links to prove your own point (but insisted that the US does not allow its citizens to see the REAL Constitution, except for a copy in the basement of the SF public library). Absurdity at its finest. I began by addressing the message; you won't debate the message.

So don't accuse me of attacking the messenger when YOU left me little recourse.

I have made the comment that this is why we see libertarian writers who are immensely successful without seeing a corresponding level of success among Libertarian politicians. People want politicians who agree with their PACKAGE of ideals rather than taking someone who agrees more than disagrees.

By the way, before you point it out, I noticed my key stuck on the "p" in "deployed", but I can't go back and edit at this point, so it's gonna hafta stand!

true but all liberals do i am not the one who is pointing out misspells and bad gramme as a way to discuss a point. i discuss the point and all tho i may call names. i have never called anyone except Jessie Jackson a bigot on here. and i don't believe that any of my posts have been totally on name calling.

there are points that i agree with bush. removing Saddam was right, and there are things i disagree with him on. such as homeland security

No, danielost. Back to the point. The point is, I ATTEMPTED debate with you, you refused to even examine the MOUNTAIN of evidence i gave to support my position. let's get back on track, shall we?

What I said in regards to grammar and spelling was that if you cannot WRITE at a third grade level, i found it doubtful that you can READ above a third grade level. And I stand by that.

I'd be happy to debate the issues, but only if you will actually debate and not call me a liar when I solidly support my position.

As for "all liberals" attacking the messenger, I trust you don't know many liberals. That's bigotry right there, as you're creating a stereotype based on rather limited knowledge. Locamama is a liberal. have you seen her attack the messenger?

From my perspective, I'm wondering why people ever address daniel directly at all after the first response. A jab here and there is fun, but a debate is like talking to the old conversational bot A.L.I.C.E.

After a while you realize that the responses really don't have a damn thing to do with what you are saying. Like Alice, he keys on particular words, and the context is totally lost on him. That's why he sees Gid as a liberal.

Good point, Baker.

I have a certain fascination with madness in all its forms. And he is very mad.

Nah, mad is interesting. daniel is tediously "garden variety".

unsure as i am about damn near everything, i'm convinced bakerstreet's concerns expressed here and elsewhere are both valid and correct.

even if that wasn't the case, we are most certainly increasingly endangered by far worse than any threat posed by this group--whether by fact of their existence and/or their intentions--along with each and all of the 10 or 12 others previously rounded up so triumphantly over the past 6 years.

yall are right about one thing...there IS an insidious element common to those earlier arrests: the icecream vendor jihadists in lodi, ca, the islamist pizzaguy in new york state, that cell of terrrorists in detroit who were grabbed almost immediately after 911, the florida fanatics who were just the price of a bus ticket away from taking down the sears tower in chicago.

islam? we might be better off in that case.

sad fact is they were all in some way the creation not of osama bin laden but some low-life scammers working as confindential informants who were paid large sums of money, escaped prosecution for their own serious crimes and/or given free license to deal drugs and defraud honest citizens. .

what's the reason this very dangerous charade has been permitted to go on--from reagan sending cakes, bibles and tow missles to the iranians who blew up the barracks in beirut to chalabi and his buddies in the whitehouse derailing what might have been a real victory in afghanistan to this bullshit? why is it possible for a real tony soprano to play a real agent harris by snitching out his arab crime partners?

i'd suggest it's the same reason there were still 15 of the 19 hijackers on the no-fly list as recently as last march--a list that was over 500 pages fulla names as common as robert johnson but didn't include the names of for-real terrorists (for fear of compromising ongoing investigations).

like it or not, this kinda stuff flows down from the top.

unfortunately there's been nothin there since 2001.

i truly hope we aren't gonna have to be the victims of another successful attack to finally wake up and realize how much of the very limited time we had and how many of those precious opportunities we squandered creating new enemies while pretending to protect ourselves from those we'd already acquired.

You know on the streets of Milan they're saying tedious is the new black. Why else Paris Hilton?

You gotta get with the fashion, Baker.

what makes you clowns think that my opionion is not as valid as yours. just becouse i am not able to write as well as you.


gid said i was a bigot becouse i cannot write as well as he can.


bigot
n
Definition: intolerant, prejudiced person
Antonyms: humanitarian, liberal, tolerator


that makes all most everyone on here a bigot since it seems most are intolerant of someone who is not able to write as good as they can.


bigot
n.

One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain


again this defines all most everyone on this site


bigot

IN BRIEF: A narrow-minded person who is intolerant of beliefs other than his or her own.

The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye: The more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. — Oliver Wendell Holmes
Tutor's tip: A "bigot" (person with intolerant prejudices) can "beget" (cause) anger.


and this one describes dictator col gene, sean, and gid at least


The noun bigot has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own


this also describes most people on this site


now i will tell you what i am and what i believe.



i do not like the following groups gays, muslims, liberals. gays try to tell everyone that they are gay. example president lincoln is now being called gay becouse when he was a lawer and traveling to practice he used words that are now used exclusivily by the gay community. problem is those words were in common use during his time ie everyone used them. and then he would share a bed with another man in the inns and motels that he stayed in. this problem is if you stayed in an inn or hotel of that time period you shared beds with others becouse there wasn't enough beds.


muslims becouse they want to control what you believe.

liberals becouse they want to control what you think and how you live.


now if i meet any of the above i treat them just like i would want to be treated. up and until they do something that could cause me or someone i know harm mental, physical, or emotional.


so yes i may be a bigot from the above definitions but then so is everyone on this site.

so again i ask you why is my opionion no more important than yours just becouse i am not able/will not write as good as you people do.

now this thread is supposed to be about terriosts in the usa not me so lets get back to that subject.

I don't think one leads to the other, I think they are both symptoms of the same problem. The carelessness with which you express your opinions is akin to the carelessness with which you form them. Given that you have shown you know almost nothing about Muslims, Gays, and Liberals, it's tough to really have much confidence in your opinions about them.

Here's a bit of advice. Use "they" sparingly. If you can't say who is doing something, like, accusing Abraham Lincoln of being gay, then it would be best to find out, instead of just tarring a whole segment of the population. The same with terrorism, Liberalism, etc.

Try saying:

"Muslims, because (insert the actual people in question here) want to control what you believe."

Then, even if you are generalizing, you've at least offered an example instead of a stereotype. If you try and try and can't find a name, maybe you're just perpetuating a nasty stereotype and would be better served to leave it out.

Oh, and if you were to notice your posts looking like William Carlos Williams poems, maybe crack open a case of punctuation and capitalization...




so much depends
upon

the unused shift
key

covered with dusty
crumbs

near the period
key

OK i am sorry not Muslims just the Muslim leaders and the ones who want to die in a holy war so they know they will go to heaven

and lets not forget the ones who were calling for the death of the pope those were moderate Muslims

and lets not forget the ones on the train in India who called all non Muslims because of one man, these also were moderate Muslims.

and the ones who wanted to wipe the Netherlands off of the map because one paper had a cartoon of Mohammad


as for Lincoln this was the group that is trying to normalize being gay

and as for my writing i have been hiding under a rock for 40 years what is your excuse.

Again, why not something specific? Why not quote someone, by name? How about posting a link to a news article, or some reference to this train thing you keep talking about?

Which gay group in particular? I would think according to your opinion up there that there are a lot more than one group trying to "normalize" being gay. Who made the specific accusation against Lincoln?

As for an excuse for my writing, I don't need one. I think I hold my own pretty well. You seemed to genuinely want to know why your posts weren't getting the respect you felt they deserved. I was just letting you know.