Should I post my collection of posts that give liberals nightmares?
-
This sort of post is EXACTLY why I think there shouldn't even be a political forum on this site. I think just from the title of the original post it's clear that this was intended to anger other forum members. Why would you behave so stupidly, when I might read this and decide never to upload anything here again - because why share with someone like you?
I suppose you enjoy the attention you get from picking online fights. That alone says enough about you for me to know that I don't like you, don't want to share my porn collection with you, and that any site that gives you a soapbox to stand on is probably not one I'll enjoy.
Good job.I totally get where you're coming from- normally I would just ignore the politics and debate section- unless I know I can shrug it off and not let myself get upset because I know that both politics and religion are the minefields which can make people lose their temper.
That said, I echo the sentiment stated by some here that BOTH sides have an extreme faction which are guilty of their own selective realities, and biases which demonize their opponents.
I'm not too impressed by the OP's initial salvo against liberals, specially since both sides are guilty of actively trying to silence/shut out all dissenting voices and proitect their respective echo-chambers. And more than half his post is more about the pitfalls of the system of checks and balances on FB.
Now if I were to post a critique of say, the Republicans- I would choose something which highlights their brand of villainy using humor. It says something about how you're running things when you translate so easily to a Dungeons and Dragons campaign and come off like absolute Douchebags. So here you go OP- enjoy! http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/03/23/_gopdnd_uses_dungeons_dragons_to_explain_the_republican_party_s_villainy.html :laugh:
-
This sort of post is EXACTLY why I think there shouldn't even be a political forum on this site. I think just from the title of the original post it's clear that this was intended to anger other forum members. Why would you behave so stupidly, when I might read this and decide never to upload anything here again - because why share with someone like you?
I suppose you enjoy the attention you get from picking online fights. That alone says enough about you for me to know that I don't like you, don't want to share my porn collection with you, and that any site that gives you a soapbox to stand on is probably not one I'll enjoy.
Good job.The category of this forum is "POLITICAL DEBATE". If you don't like political debate, I would suggest you don't enter the portion of the forum dedicated to Political Debate.
As for your suggestion that you won't upload anything here again…. I compared my stats to yours.. and I upload an average of 70 times as much per day as you do.. hmm...
-
Why do people come to this section just to complain that this section exists?
I bet they would have no problem with this section if every post was slagging off non SJWs.
-
Why do people come to this section just to complain that this section exists?
I bet they would have no problem with this section if every post was slagging off non SJWs.
Next, there will be people complaining that there is nudity on this site, and it promotes homosexuality… HORRORS!!! :afr:
By the way.. for those like me who didn't know what SJW means.. it's a "Social Justice Warrior" aka a whining malcontent.
-
I have found that getting political often results in flame wars.. but I see that there is a political debate group here. Is there an administrator or moderator that would object to me posting things that expose how awful and vile the liberals are?
I would like to share my "proof" so that others in the group could use what I post to "spread the word". I am cautious about getting political. Last month, someone I had chatted with weekly for over 20 years unfriended me on Facebook because I criticized ultra liberal talk show host Seth Myers.
Who cares about your backwards USA bullshit? I suggest you keep it to yourself or share it during your local bible bashers meeting.
-
Who cares about your backwards USA bullshit? I suggest you keep it to yourself or share it during your local bible bashers meeting.
You are just upset because when Angela Merkel tried kissing up to Trump, he refused to shake her hand or even look at her. Trump did tell her that Germany needs to stop being a deadbeat nation and pay their share for NATO. Before Merkel became dictator 15 years ago, Germany was a major NATO ally, now look at them.
-
F*** Nato. De Gaulle in 66 opted out. best choice ever ;D
http://www.rpfrance-otan.org/Lettre-from-President-Charles-de
-
I will dig up my comments from months ago.. and have new ones. In fact, I rarely offer my OPINIONS, I stick to facts, which drives people NUTS.
facts tend to have a liberal bias.
The most recent travesty affected me personally. I commented on Democratic Representative Adam Shiff's Facebook page. I chastised him for attacking Trump constantly. I reminded him that during a CAMPAIGN it is fair to attack a CANDIDATE.. but after an election, it is a crime called SEDITION to attack the president of the United States. After the election, politics need to end, so that the process of actual governing can begin.
So, you are saying the entire eight years of the Obama administration, where the entire GOP was attacking Obama, they were guilty of sedition?
And Donald Trump himself, who for eight years attacked the legitimacy of the Obama administration by perpetuating the lie that he was not born in Hawaii is guilty as well?
In other countries, attacking the leader would get one put in prison, or even shot. Even in England which has "freedom of the press" there is an exception.. the press are forbidden from attacking the Queen (and to some degree the other Royals). To do so is a crime. It is ironic that decades ago, there were fairly credible news programs. In fact, believe it or not, CNN used to be the most credible news outlet in the world!
It still is, to people who do not read the fake news of the alt-right.
The term "fake news", by the way, means reporting completely made up propaganda, like that the Clintons are behind a child sex slave ring.
The alt-right, and Trump, misuse the term "Fake News" to mean anyone that criticizes the dictator-in-chief.
Does my comment sound reasonable?
NO, not in the least bit reasonable. You complain about mainstream news, who report the unvarnished truth, because that truth makes Trump look bad. You think the mainstream media should put truth aside and only sing the praises of Trump.
And you do that, while applauding alt-right media that attacked Obama for eight years with pure propaganda.
Talk about censorship!
Private businesses can do whatever they want.
Are you against Capitalism?
I have been banned from numerous conservative websites for simply telling the truth, and I realize it is their right to do so.How did I do for my first political post? :crazy2:
It was a typical conservative parinoid rant.
-
This sort of post is EXACTLY why I think there shouldn't even be a political forum on this site. I think just from the title of the original post it's clear that this was intended to anger other forum members. Why would you behave so stupidly, when I might read this and decide never to upload anything here again - because why share with someone like you?
I suppose you enjoy the attention you get from picking online fights. That alone says enough about you for me to know that I don't like you, don't want to share my porn collection with you, and that any site that gives you a soapbox to stand on is probably not one I'll enjoy.
Good job.The category of this forum is "POLITICAL DEBATE". If you don't like political debate, I would suggest you don't enter the portion of the forum dedicated to Political Debate.
As for your suggestion that you won't upload anything here again…. I compared my stats to yours.. and I upload an average of 70 times as much per day as you do.. hmm...
"Should I post my collection of posts that give liberals nightmares? " is not political debate - it is flaming obvious that is just pure bs trolling
may I remind you back "The category of this forum is "POLITICAL DEBATE""
all i've seen from you and at least 4 others is baiting/trolling language then freaking out at others that argue back - if you don't like the bait being taken then don't put it on your fishing line
-
"Should I post my collection of posts that give liberals nightmares? " is not political debate
You don't get to decide what is and is not political debate. If a provocative title scares you, that's no one's problem but your own.
-
"Should I post my collection of posts that give liberals nightmares? " is not political debate
You don't get to decide what is and is not political debate. If a provocative title scares you, that's no one's problem but your own.
I did not say I was scared of anything - thankyou for twisting my words - that title was not provocative it was blatant
This forum has rules
Anyway…Apologies, I must have read the forum rules wrong.
-
Are you triggered because your president is a failure? Either way we win. He gets impeached for being a traitor and colluding with Russia = win. He sticks around loses a war in Syria and North Korea and Iran and causes the economy to collapse = win.
I love being right something deplorables have never and will never experience in their life.
-
Seth Meyers isn't a liberal show. It's just anti-Trump like all good Americans.
Seth Meyers isn't a liberal show? WOW! Just what DO you consider to be liberal?
Seth Meyers is so liberal that he wears a diaper and sleeps with a pacifier in his mouth. He also enjoys Play-Doh. -
Are you triggered because your president is a failure? Either way we win. He gets impeached for being a traitor and colluding with Russia = win. He sticks around loses a war in Syria and North Korea and Iran and causes the economy to collapse = win.
I love being right something deplorables have never and will never experience in their life.
You must live in some parallel universe where everything is opposite.
Trump is doing great. He sent the world a message with that attack on Syria. The attack itself was no big deal. FYI, the Cold War with the Soviet Union ended 25 years ago.. as did communism in that region. Russia is not the enemy anymore.. but is a rival. Frankly, Russia is less of an enemy to the government in power in the USA than the liberals in the USA are! It boggles my mind that you imply that Trump is a traitor.. and yet Obama got a free pass for doing things such as bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia and secretly giving $8 billion to Arab states in his final year in office.. including a blatant payoff to Iran of several hundred million dollars.
It also bothers me that you think that losing a war and having the economy collapse is a WIN. What country do you represent? North Korea? You are sick in the head. -
I will dig up my comments from months ago.. and have new ones. In fact, I rarely offer my OPINIONS, I stick to facts, which drives people NUTS.
facts tend to have a liberal bias.
The most recent travesty affected me personally. I commented on Democratic Representative Adam Shiff's Facebook page. I chastised him for attacking Trump constantly. I reminded him that during a CAMPAIGN it is fair to attack a CANDIDATE.. but after an election, it is a crime called SEDITION to attack the president of the United States. After the election, politics need to end, so that the process of actual governing can begin.
So, you are saying the entire eight years of the Obama administration, where the entire GOP was attacking Obama, they were guilty of sedition?
And Donald Trump himself, who for eight years attacked the legitimacy of the Obama administration by perpetuating the lie that he was not born in Hawaii is guilty as well?
In other countries, attacking the leader would get one put in prison, or even shot. Even in England which has "freedom of the press" there is an exception.. the press are forbidden from attacking the Queen (and to some degree the other Royals). To do so is a crime. It is ironic that decades ago, there were fairly credible news programs. In fact, believe it or not, CNN used to be the most credible news outlet in the world!
It still is, to people who do not read the fake news of the alt-right.
The term "fake news", by the way, means reporting completely made up propaganda, like that the Clintons are behind a child sex slave ring.
The alt-right, and Trump, misuse the term "Fake News" to mean anyone that criticizes the dictator-in-chief.
Does my comment sound reasonable?
NO, not in the least bit reasonable. You complain about mainstream news, who report the unvarnished truth, because that truth makes Trump look bad. You think the mainstream media should put truth aside and only sing the praises of Trump.
And you do that, while applauding alt-right media that attacked Obama for eight years with pure propaganda.
Talk about censorship!
Private businesses can do whatever they want.
Are you against Capitalism?
I have been banned from numerous conservative websites for simply telling the truth, and I realize it is their right to do so.How did I do for my first political post? :crazy2:
It was a typical conservative parinoid rant.
You are wrong. To begin with, get a spell checker.. it's "paranoid" not "parinoid". As for that "born in Hawaii" topic. I have gone over this before, and liberals turn a blind eye to it. I will briefly re-cap it:
1. Obama did not produce any form of birth certificate until he was already in office 1.5 years - and was forced to.
2. The birth certificate had fields filled in which the checksums on the certificate indicated were not filled in.
3. One of the fields filled in at some recent time listed Obama's race as being African American. The term African American did not exist when Obama was born. That field should have said either "African" or "Black". African American is a politically correct term that was invented decades later.
4. The woman in Hawaii that certified that birth certificate mysteriously died a year later in a plane crash. She was the ONLY person on that plane that died.. the other 20 survived.
5. Regardless of the birth certificate. Obama was not raised in the USA. He never stepped foot into the USA until he was a teenager. He was raised in Indonesia by a devout muslim. Obama's name for all those years was Barry Soetoro. In fact, looking at photos of Barry and the father that adopted him leads some people to speculate that Barry is the biological son of Soetoro.All of the above are what are known as FACTS.. not opinions. Good day!
-
Are you triggered because your president is a failure? Either way we win. He gets impeached for being a traitor and colluding with Russia = win. He sticks around loses a war in Syria and North Korea and Iran and causes the economy to collapse = win.
lol. I genuinely wonder what it's like to live in your bizzaro world.
-
"Even in England which has "freedom of the press" there is an exception.. the press are forbidden from attacking the Queen (and to some degree the other Royals). To do so is a crime."
I take it from this phrase you are referring to the laws of England & Wales rather than the individual country of England? There is no separate judicial system purely for England. The United Kingdom is made up of 4 separate countries, namely England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. Scotland & N.I. have separate legal systems from England & Wales, however none of the 4 countries have any laws against the press reporting anything about the Royal family as would be patently obvious if you tried visiting UK & read any of the tabloid press. Please get your "facts" right & stop spreading fake news.
-
it is a crime called SEDITION to attack the president of the United States.
Can you point to a law or piece of legislation that backs up your statement? There have been a number of times that what you are asserting was true, but no longer.
-
The Sedition Act of 1789, made it illegal to make "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or Congress. However,
this law was allowed to expire at the end of John Adams's term as President in 1801. It, along with the other acts commonly referred to as the Alien and Sedition Acts, were one reason why Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party was able to beat the Federalist Party in the election of 1800. -
The Sedition Act of 1918 also outlawed criticizing the United States Government. Like the Sedition Act of 1789, it is no longer law (it was repealed in 1921)
Now there are laws relating to advocating the overthrowing of the United States Government, referred to as seditious conspiracy. Attacking and criticizing the President does not mean that the individual is arguing for the overthrowing of the US governemnt.
As far as I know, the only people that can be punished for attacking the President of the United States are members of the military. According to Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ),
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Members of the armed forces that are not officers can be punished under the more broad Article 134,
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
You really have two problems with your argument.
-
The Supreme Court of the United States held in Brandenburg v. Ohio, that the First Amendment protects inflammatory speech unless it was "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Basically, the person has to be inciting or encourage a riot or doing something similar to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Is Representative Adam Shiff intending to start a riot or something similar? He's not, and as such, he has the ability to criticize the President because of his First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.
-
Representative Adam Shiff (and all other federal Representatives and Senators) are protected from most legal actions while Members of Congress by the Constitution. Article I, section 6 states that Members of Congress are protected from protected from arrests, except in cases of "treason, felony and breach of the peace." Furthermore, they cannot be punished for what they say on in any speech or debate in the house of which they are a member. Although you might be able to argue that he can be arrested for speech not made on the House floor, attempting to do so would probably bring about a lot of criticism from both sides of the aisle in both houses of Congress if someone tried to do so.
-
As stated above, there is no law barring civilians (meaning individuals not currently serving in the military) from criticizing the President or any other government official (elected or not).
-
-
How did I do for my first political post? :crazy2:
As a moderate conservative, debate judge, and former debate coach, my answer to this question is: if this is the way you present your arguments, you would never pick up one of my ballots. Your facts need evidence. You call opinions facts. And you speak with such a heavy bias that even your facts are so far bent as to be unusable as arguments. I would even go so far as to say, with an argument like this, you'd never make it past prelims. Allow me to elucidate…
If anybody is a liberal.. I will either convert them to being at least moderate and perhaps republican or conservative…
or their heads will explode from the pressure of me stirring up all the shit that is in their liberal skulls.Well, first, you need to establish a valid argument. And in order to do that, you should not be coming in with your guns blazing. You should be coming in to have a conversation, but this statement, along with your opening salvo that you want to "expose how awful and vile the liberals are" immediately weakens your argument. You need to separate yourself from the argument, and make it just a series of statements, not a slanderously biased rant.
I will dig up my comments from months ago.. and have new ones. In fact, I rarely offer my OPINIONS, I stick to facts, which drives people NUTS.
I've seen conservatives get just as angry when they are argued against. But no, you did not stick to facts.
I would also like to set up the definition of fact, against which I will be analyzing your case. A fact is "a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article." As such, it may be true (the more common definition of fact being "a thing that is indisputably the case"), or false. In short, a fact is a piece of data. Believe me when I say, this definition is more generous to you, because I won't be requiring your data to be true, in order to accept that it is a fact. But I will point out when it is not.
I don't yet know where I should begin… The most recent travesty affected me personally.
Calling something a travesty makes it an opinion. And while opinions are necessary to persuasive argument, you can't say you leave opinions out, and then begin with a statement like that, and expect people to belive you throughout. You're setting yourself up for failure.
I commented on Democratic Representative Adam Shiff's Facebook page.
Because this is testimonial, it must be accepted as fact.
I chastised him for attacking Trump constantly.
That you chastized him is a testimonial fact.
That you believe he "constantly" attacks Trump is an opinion.I reminded him that during a CAMPAIGN it is fair to attack a CANDIDATE.
This is a fact, though it borders on opinion because it is hard to concretely define what is "fair."
but after an election, it is a crime called SEDITION to attack the president of the United States.
This is a fact, but it is false. The sedition act, which made it illegal to criticize the president during war time, was passed in 1918 and repealed in 1921. And while the Supreme Court at the time upheld the act, it is very likely that today's justices would not rule in its favor, based on more recent decisions.
After the election, politics need to end, so that the process of actual governing can begin.
While I agree wholeheartedly, this is an opinion.
In other countries, attacking the leader would get one put in prison, or even shot.
This is a fact, but it does not work in your favor. The First Amendment of the US Constitution is where it is, because the founding fathers believed it protected our most sacred rights: freedom of religion, speech, and peacable assembly, or to petition the government for redress of grievances. Other than the articles themselves, which establish the government, no other law is higher than the first amendment. No presidential order, no congressional legislation, no court decision, not even the other amendments, may supercede the First. It is our most sacred law. The founding fathers placed it so because they had seen too many of their countrymen fined, arrested, beaten, and even killed because they spoke out against King George, Parliament, the colonial governors, or even the Lord Mayors or military leaders of the British Empire. We in the US preserve and protect the right to speak out against the government. In fact, it is not just a right, but it is our duty as members of a republic to not only share what we believe with regards to the government, but to inform the representatives themselves what we believe of their work, whether they should continue to do as they have, or change their behavior. And it is the duty of the media to report what the government is doing, especially in times of scandal, so that the people are rightfully informed and can develop intelligent opinions. It is what makes a republic work! To silence the media or the people is to cripple the republic, and to take the power out of the hands of the people where it rightfully belongs. As Albert Einstein said, "the state is for the people, not the people for the state."
Even in England which has "freedom of the press" there is an exception.. the press are forbidden from attacking the Queen (and to some degree the other Royals). To do so is a crime.
This fact, again, works against your thesis. Not only does the US protect speech as a sacred right, but the founding fathers so firmly believed in the right to speak out against the government that it is a large part of why it is unconstitutional for any US Citizen to hold a title of nobility (article 1 section 9). Any American who has been benighted by the Queen only holds an honorary title. The founding fathers firmly believed that no human being was above reproach, and therefore none should be so far above the law that they could not be reproached.
It is ironic that decades ago, there were fairly credible news programs.
This is an opinion.
In fact, believe it or not, CNN used to be the most credible news outlet in the world!
Without evidence, this is an opinion. The evidence needed: when was it so. According to what source was CNN demonstrated to be so credible?
Now it is fake news, the Clinton News Network of liberal propaganda, and frankly equivalent to a terrorist organization.
This is an opinion, and a strongly biased one at that.
Instead of REPORTING the news, they do little more than fan the flames of anarchy and anti-US sentiments.
This is also a strongly biased opinion.
Again, decades ago, there were credible news programs,
This needs evidence to be a fact.
and then came along programs that parodied the real news such as John Stewart's "Daily Show".
This is acceptably a fact. "The Daily Show" was intended to be comedy, and yes, it did at once point begin to exist.
That show began as being a funny comedy.
Fact.
but then people started preferring to watch the parodies of news (fake news) to real news.
I would say this needs evidence, but the use of what has become a propaganda term, "fake news", makes it opinion.
Most mainstream news media are now a group of ignorant, nihilistic talking heads.
This is an opinion.
I went on to point out that Adam Schiff and his liberal cronies don't care about the welfare of the USA.
This is neither fact nor opinion; it is speculation.
but instead care about covering their own asses, and pandering to the liberal populaces
Speculation.
to keep their worthless asses
Opinion.
in power sitting on a soft leather chair in the halls of Congress.
Speculation.
So much for the first paragraph. Onward! ====================================================================
Does my comment sound reasonable?
Not really, no.
It didn't to Adam Schiff and Facebook.
Speculation. Yes, your account was closed; but you do not know that it was Schiff who did it. It could have been based on a complaint by any user who was offended by your words, or just wanted to silence you. (Which, by the way, appears to be what you hope to do to Schiff. Hence, why I think your statement does not sound reasonable; you seem to be asking to do exactly what you are complaining they did to you.)
The very next day after posting that, my facebook account that I had for 10 years was not just suspended, but permanently disabled with no warning, no explanation, and no opportunity to refute or appeal the punishment.
As a testimonial, I cannot refute this as fact.
I can't even access my OWN comments from that account, to retrieve 10 years of comments and posts and my friends list.
Testimonial fact.
Talk about censorship!
Opinion, unless you have a court ruling declaring it as such.
The way Facebook works now is.. if you dare to say anything that means anything.. you are risking having your account permanently terminated!
Opinion. While there is truth beneath this statement, it is hyperbolically exaggerated.
All facebook wants is all your email addresses, phone numbers, real names, family members names, photos, addresses, cell phone numbers, work history, hobbies..
Speculative, but it's more likely to be false than true. Facebook's primary duty is to the owners of it's more than 20 million shares of stock. It's goal is to make money for them. But facebook does not make money through it's account holders; you are actually its product! Facebook sells you, the user, to its real money makers: advertisers! That's right, you and I and our accounts are the things sitting on the shelves in the Facebook store, to be picked up and sold to its customers, the people placing suggested posts and memetic virii on your wall, and yes, even harvesting general use data from your account. The advertisers are Facebook's end users. We are merely the resource which it uses to make that money. And so, just like in the produce section at the grocery, if the customer finds something which they believe to be rotten, Facebook will dutifully expel it from the sales floor. And that means, if a customer finds your posts to be too politically charged, or too offensive, then yes, they will use the influence of their banking accounts to have Facebook shut you down.
and they DO even sometimes ask for social security numbers as a form of identification
Is this anecdotal? Has this happened to you, or is it hearsay?
(which is a felony).
This is a fact, but it is generally false. Federal Law only says that certain agencies may not require your SSN in order to do business. State agencies must disclose whether it is required or not, and why it is required. Private agencies are not so restricted, at the federal level. Of course, you are required to disclose your SSN when startiong a financial action or making some other action to be reported to the IRS, such as begining a new employment. Some states make it illegal to request your SSN, but not all.
They are like the NSA which collects data on people.
Opinion.
Facebook they directly or indirectly supplies this information to anybody who will pay for it, including telemarketers, advertisers, government, information services that sell your information for big $$$, etc.
As I said above, those are Facebook's end users. You are the product they are selling. It is up to you to decide whether you want to continue to be said product, or to close your account. No one is forcing you to be a Facebook account holder.
This is not my opinion, it is a fact, because I get phone calls and snail mail in my post box addressed to names that I only use on Facebook.
Yes, but it does not support your case.
By the way, name one other social networking site OTHER than Facebook which requires one to provide real names, phone numbers, etc.
Google Plus, unless they've changed their initial opinion. There was quite the stink about it, in their early years. (And by the way, I am not using my real name on Facebook, and there is no penalty being meted against me. Facebook does not have my phone number. And my attached email uses yet another alias.)
There isn't one.
I just disproved this fact.
That is absurd for many reasons.
Opinion.
one reason is if you have a common name such as "John Smith" or "Jose Menendez" there is little chance that anybody could ever find you on Facebook.
This is a fact.
Also, if you had a name such as "Englebert Kleppers" then you have no anonymity at all.
This is also a fact.
In the past, I used to tell people that they were crazy to ever give out their real names, real phone numbers, real addresses, where they work, and pictures of their families.
As a testimonial, this is a fact. And again, I wholeheartedly agree with the opinion you used to share, but it remains an opinion.
That opens the door to all sorts of disasters such as past relationships coming back to haunt the person..
This is a fact.
people in the workplace interfering with one's family life,
Or losing jobs; I actually lost a job because of social media - and not Facebook.
children being put in jeopardy from enemies of their parents, blackmail, impersonation, identity theft, etc.
This is a fact.
And thus ends your second paragraph. ====================================================================
So there you have it, why I, as a debate judge, would not vote in favor of your case, torn down to the micro level. And again, remember that I am a conservative, so I actually lean towards your opinion of liberals. However, I find myself pushing more and more to the center as I see that conservatives are really much the same.
So let me close with this: was there a point to your statement, other than to decry liberals as infectuous pustules, begging to be lanced and sanitzied? Because if that's all it was, then there really is no value to your thesis in the first place. All you're doing is essentially sticking out your tongue at liberals and saying, "Nyah, nyah, poo on you!" There's nothing you're really persuading towards, no point which you wish anyone to believe which isn't already widely held ("Censorship is bad!"), to which you can actually persuade anyone. There simply is no such thing as widespread persuasion to convince someone that their political beliefs are bad and must be abandoned, short of persecution and criminalization, such as has been done by the worst dictators in history, and that is more a persuasion of action, not a persuasion of belief. If anything, it drives those opponents further into their beliefs as they now see the opposition to which they are to be driven as evil and oppressive.
-
Are you triggered because your president is a failure? Either way we win. He gets impeached for being a traitor and colluding with Russia = win. He sticks around loses a war in Syria and North Korea and Iran and causes the economy to collapse = win.
Uh, no.
I'm sticking to my guns on what I was saying throughout September and October of 2016: No matter whether Clinton or Trump wins, the American people will lose. And while I can't provide evidence that we would have lost under Hillary, I can certainly point to evidence that with Trump, We The People are losing.
Even with the Syrian action: I approve that Trump listened to the American people and took action (he stated a few days ago that he had no intention of responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons; it's an internal matter and their problem - but the American people cried out and he changed his mind, and bombed an air field), but I strongly disapprove that he called a Syrian government ally to affirm his action before he took it, and that his so-called attack was as impotent as a 110-year-old man who's never heard of Viagra. The airport was up and running the next day, so all we did was waste 59 rather expensive missiles, and reinforced Daesh's view of American incompetence.
