Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Liberals refuse to see themselves as hypocrites

Too often the pseudo title of "peaceful protesters" is portrayed by the media while the camera shows attacks on free speech. Not only are the attacks printed and verbal, but increasingly physicial attacks. 

 

Washington Post;

For too long, the liberal left has been hiding behind a guise of compassion and inclusivity. They claim to care about the forgotten man and pretend to have tolerance for people of all backgrounds, races, religions and political beliefs. Yet, time and time again, their actions prove otherwise.

 

The camera doesn't lie but liberals do. Do anything to anyone who dares disagree. Attack-attack-attack.  To put it crudely, it is no longer clear what liberalism means. Through madern times Freedom has traditionally been the creedo of liberals. However there is good freedom and bad freedom. The good... was to enhance the positive freedom of the dispossessed. However... the bad interwoven into their fabric. Liberals are increasinly ignoring the common good and enbrassing the exploitation others. 

 

Look at how those who are judged by liberals and what liberals produce today. A vile list of malignant words meant to intimidate and smear good people. It's a "machine gun" vocabulary that indiscriminately hits everyone but with intended result... to verbally mame. The fruit of liberalism is what? I'm at a loss if  anything good is produced. Apparently the American voter thinks the same way.


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
388 Views
295
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:


Thank you for your narrow minded perspective on issues.  I could point out numerous errors you have made in your posts, I have chosen not to.  Your response to me is a typical "bully" response, I still say go read 1984.


So we're now resorting to insults?  Please post instances where I was erroneous on major facts; but please include sources to back them up. 

 

As far as 1984, I read it about 70 odd years ago, and have been in countries where voters are required to vote under penalty of imprisonment, and in those elections they are allowed to only vote for government approved candidates.  These were our 'so-called' allies. 

0 Kudos
189 Views
54
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


Thank you for your narrow minded perspective on issues.  I could point out numerous errors you have made in your posts, I have chosen not to.  Your response to me is a typical "bully" response, I still say go read 1984.


So we're now resorting to insults?  Please post instances where I was erroneous on major facts; but please include sources to back them up. 

 

As far as 1984, I read it about 70 odd years ago, and have been in countries where voters are required to vote under penalty of imprisonment, and in those elections they are allowed to only vote for government approved candidates.  These were our 'so-called' allies. 


What does your last sentence have to do with this conversation?  As far as 1984, I was referring to the quotes "Freedom is Slavery", "Ignorance is Strength" and "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them".

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:


What does your last sentence have to do with this conversation?  As far as 1984, I was referring to the quotes "Freedom is Slavery", "Ignorance is Strength" and "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them".


I was attempting to make the point that we have as good a electoral and voting system as could be in the world.  The point is that there are still those that can't get over that Hillary lost the election fairly.  It had nothing to do with '1984' nor the slogans from the book. 

 

Now as far as my 'erroneous' comments about the background of the constitutional electoral system, it appears that you are avoiding researching why it was set up like it is.  And avoiding providing sources for your opinion.

0 Kudos
350 Views
52
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


What does your last sentence have to do with this conversation?  As far as 1984, I was referring to the quotes "Freedom is Slavery", "Ignorance is Strength" and "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them".


I was attempting to make the point that we have as good a electoral and voting system as could be in the world.  The point is that there are still those that can't get over that Hillary lost the election fairly.  It had nothing to do with '1984' nor the slogans from the book. 

 

Now as far as my 'erroneous' comments about the background of the constitutional electoral system, it appears that you are avoiding researching why it was set up like it is.  And avoiding providing sources for your opinion.


Did you even bother to read my posts before replying?  Personally I believe our system would be better if every vote for President was counted equally.  Somehow you keep telling me that I need to study why it was set-up that way, when I have already told you I am well aware of why it was set-up the way it is.  You may like to have your vote diluted, I do not and I don't think most people like to have their vote mean less than somebody in a neighboring state.  You like the fact that it is set-up the way it is to somehow make it "fair" for small states.  Smaller local representation is done through the House.  State representation is done through the Senate.  Electing a President should be nationally and we need to start acting like we are one Country and not 50 separate entities.

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:



.You may like to have your vote diluted, I do not and I don't think most people like to have their vote mean less than somebody in a neighboring state.  You like the fact that it is set-up the way it is to somehow make it "fair" for small states.  Smaller local representation is done through the House.  State representation is done through the Senate.  Electing a President should be nationally and we need to start acting like we are one Country and not 50 separate entities.

But you would be ok if our national leader was elected by several states such as California, Washington, Oregon, etc.   What if those states turned Republican, conservative?  Would you still be advocating the popular vote?  You don't think your vote would be diluted if those states wasn't liberal?

 

And why are not interested in the background and the benefits to the Republic with it set up like today?  You still refuse to do any background research to see why it is that way.  And I remember my grade school civics classes about the government.  Back then they didn't concentrate of social engineering like today.

 

Can you give a direct answer of why you can't answer why my posts are erroneous with sources to prove me wrong?  We learned that in the fourth grade when I was in school.  If you can't answer this then there is no use in replying...I want to discuss that instead of personalities. 

0 Kudos
393 Views
50
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:



.You may like to have your vote diluted, I do not and I don't think most people like to have their vote mean less than somebody in a neighboring state.  You like the fact that it is set-up the way it is to somehow make it "fair" for small states.  Smaller local representation is done through the House.  State representation is done through the Senate.  Electing a President should be nationally and we need to start acting like we are one Country and not 50 separate entities.

But you would be ok if our national leader was elected by several states such as California, Washington, Oregon, etc.  


Using the popular vote would not mean that California or any other state would elect the president. It would mean that the majority of the votes casted in the entire country would elect the president. But nice try.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:


Using the popular vote would not mean that California or any other state would elect the president. It would mean that the majority of the votes casted in the entire country would elect the president. But nice try.


Apparently you didn't pay attention to the map of where the most liberal votes was cast.  Another post by the faithful that only believes what they want to believe.  

0 Kudos
283 Views
40
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


Using the popular vote would not mean that California or any other state would elect the president. It would mean that the majority of the votes casted in the entire country would elect the president. But nice try.


Apparently you didn't pay attention to the map of where the most liberal votes was (were) cast.  Another post by the faithful that only believes what they want to believe.  


Another post by the faithful that support Trump because they hated Hilary and choose to blindly defend anything Trump says or does.

 

California and other larger states are part of America. Americans reside in all states.

 

The electoral vote system nullifies many American's votes. If we used the popular vote it would reflect what the majority of Americans wanted. Nothing you have said or will say makes my statement untrue.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

The electoral vote system nullifies many American's votes. If we used the popular vote it would reflect what the majority of Americans wanted. Nothing you have said or will say makes my statement untrue.


Can you come up with a source to indicate why the writers of the Constitution came up with the Electoral system?  Hint:  Trump had nothing to do with it.

 

Are you questioning their reasoning about this?  I've asked another to furnish it, but so far he's being dancing all around a sourceful answer.  Can you help him? 

0 Kudos
277 Views
13
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

The electoral vote system nullifies many American's votes. If we used the popular vote it would reflect what the majority of Americans wanted. Nothing you have said or will say makes my statement untrue.


Can you come up with a source to indicate why the writers of the Constitution came up with the Electoral system?  Hint:  Trump had nothing to do with it.

 

Are you questioning their reasoning about this?  I've asked another to furnish it, but so far he's being dancing all around a sourceful answer.  Can you help him? 


Txgrandpa, you evidently did not bother to read all of the posts in our discussion.  You accused me in many of your posts of not doing any research as to which elections in the Country where the majority winner may not win.  Eventually all you did was cite Presidential elections where this did not occur as "proof".  This was despite the fact that I originally posted this: "

Sorry Txgrandpa2 but we really disagree on this one.  The bilateral Congress was set up to give smaller states equal representation with smaller ones.  In every election we have, except one, one vote is the same as another.  When voting for a Senator, one cities votes do not carry more weight (within the State) than another city.  In Congressional votes, one neighborhood does not have more of a say than another.  In every other election, the candidate who gets the majority wins."

 

I am really sorry if you did not understand that.  As far as Historical perspective, I don't know how much simpler I can make that saying if you really believe in Democratic principles, all votes should be treated equally and the Electoral College needs to go away.  What other perspective do you need.  Maybe you should do some research and see how many votes it takes in each state to equal one electoral vote.  It is easy to do you take either the number of people in a state (since that is how electoral votes are allocated), or the number of actual voters and divide that number by the number of electoral votes.  Hint, a high number means your vote does not count as much as a low number.  If you believe in Democracy and the concept of one man, one vote, then how you can defend what you have been saying.  If you don't believe in one man, one vote, just say so.

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

The electoral vote system nullifies many American's votes. If we used the popular vote it would reflect what the majority of Americans wanted. Nothing you have said or will say makes my statement untrue.


Can you come up with a source to indicate why the writers of the Constitution came up with the Electoral system?  Hint:  Trump had nothing to do with it.

 

Are you questioning their reasoning about this?  I've asked another to furnish it, but so far he's being dancing all around a sourceful answer.  Can you help him? 


Did I suggest that Trump had anything to do with it? Of course I didn't. At least you didn't bring Hillary into it.Smiley Wink

 

Actually, the electoral vote was created because the elite didn't think the rest of the population to be smart enough to pick a president, among other reasons.

 

You claim to know history so you shouldn't have to ask.

 

I believe that the popular vote best represents what the majority of Americans want (whether you like where they live at or not).


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Actually, the electoral vote was created because the elite didn't think the rest of the population to be smart enough to pick a president, among other reasons.

 

You claim to know history so you shouldn't have to ask.

 

 


Apparently you have no idea otherwise you wouldn't hesitate to give an answer based on history rather then the partisan answer based on this past presidential election.

0 Kudos
441 Views
10
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Actually, the electoral vote was created because the elite didn't think the rest of the population to be smart enough to pick a president, among other reasons.

 

You claim to know history so you shouldn't have to ask.

 

 


Apparently you have no idea otherwise you wouldn't hesitate to give an answer based on history rather then the partisan answer based on this past presidential election.


I gave you an answer based on History so why do you try and keep this part going. You were wrong period.

Honored Social Butterfly

First post prediction.... then this. There's a pattern associated with shutting down free speech.... and it's coming from the left.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-de...

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
434 Views
8
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Ok fish ,  you defend Trump telling us every news source is fake news unless it says something good about him !!! Get real !!!

Honored Social Butterfly

Mandm84...

Examples? What I've consistently done is, to not judge or convict anyone, until the outcome is established. I will judge a tree by it's fruit... the outcome. I also call balls and strikes as their pitched to me. Some I like some I don't. If I see warts on Trump I've pointed it out, if I see stars and rainbows.... I'll point that out to.

Posting what you just did suggests you're accusing me of ''something" that isn't true and is a self convicting statement on your part.

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
454 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

You called Trump out ??? I must have missed that !!! You also said the left was shutting down free speech , but what in the world is Trump doing ???

0 Kudos
446 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Back up mandam .... you're accusing me of "something"so I asked for examples. .... I'm a big boy, I'll own up to my mistakes, sins, and hypocrisy, I've done it before and I'll do it again, but you have to give me an example of what I posted. Come on.... counselor, evidence.

Your throw out BS hoping it sticks...






Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
458 Views
0
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:
First post prediction.... then this. There's a pattern associated with shutting down free speech.... and it's coming from the left.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-de...

 Fox News, Briebart lies are not an attack on free speech?  Do Nazis and the Klan have a right to spread their hate filled agendas throughout this land while claiming it's their right under free speech?  We had to defeat Nazism once in Europe and Africa and now we allow them to peddle their hate here ?

Honored Social Butterfly

And nothing about the article?

Define free speech... apparently your definition is different than the constitutions. In an attempt to deny free speech with "good intentions" isn't the danger to become more governed by those who have mastered the art of good intentions?

Either way the outcome will be to governed by masters. Resist those who wish to destroy and empower those who wish to build.

Those people in black masks are everyone's enemy.

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
440 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Free Speech does NOT include "fighting words". Words that can be expected to provoke the one they're directed at to commit a violent act have NO Constitutional protection, so sayth the SCOTUS in 1942.

 

The nazi symbols and salutes envoke the highly organized slaughter of innocents by Government forces. Being confronted with words praising a political ideology that found it perfectly acceptable to turn your grandmother into a bar of soap to scrub some Nazi's hairy arse can only be defined as "fighting words" by anyone who is not a Nazi.

 

Your attention should be directed at the ones issuing the fighting words, not the ones who respond as the words intended. Why is it that Republicans find it deplorable for people who break windows, but praise those who break bodies and destroy lives? Is this just another proof that the GOPers value property above people (unless the people are property of course)?

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

Free Speech does NOT include "fighting words". Words that can be expected to provoke the one they're directed at to commit a violent act have NO Constitutional protection, so sayth the SCOTUS in 1942.

 

The nazi symbols and salutes envoke the highly organized slaughter of innocents by Government forces. Being confronted with words praising a political ideology that found it perfectly acceptable to turn your grandmother into a bar of soap to scrub some Nazi's hairy arse can only be defined as "fighting words" by anyone who is not a Nazi.

 

Your attention should be directed at the ones issuing the fighting words, not the ones who respond as the words intended. Why is it that Republicans find it deplorable for people who break windows, but praise those who break bodies and destroy lives? Is this just another proof that the GOPers value property above people (unless the people are property of course)?


Can you point out the Republicans that are praising "body breakers"? If not, an apology would be in order to your fellow posters who you have maligned.

0 Kudos
505 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Interesting to note how the hypocrisy manifested within the democratic party last election. Have we forgot how the debate questions provided to Hillary? and how the "Bern" was treated? Does anyone believe the modus operandus of "Debbie does the democrats" has changed? Anyone?
Hypocrisy, cheating, lying is the play book of the liberal left democrats... and then the money comes in. 30 million is a lot of money for trying to buy a congressional seat in GA.
What about the queen? Maxine Waters. You can't attend her town hall unless you have an ID but is against voter ID. really? and lives in a mansion outside her congressional district but represents the poor? really?

Can anyone who calls themselves a liberal see the hypocrisy? Beuller?

There is an organization out in Berkeley, California called By Any Means Necessary. BAMN. So they are trying to shut down a planned march against Marxism in Berkeley.

So, the rally organizer says it's not a right-wing rally. He just doesn't like Marxism. BAMN, which is openly Marxist and full of liberals from the democratic party, says, "we're going to shut it down and if violence is necessary we're going to use it. We're going to use it."

So the people in Charlottesville were condemned for violence. Should we expect the liberal left to do the same in Berkley? does anyone believe hypocrisy won't' rear it's ugly head?

What about sanctuary cities? more hypocrisy.


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


Using the popular vote would not mean that California or any other state would elect the president. It would mean that the majority of the votes casted in the entire country would elect the president. But nice try.


Apparently you didn't pay attention to the map of where the most liberal votes was cast.  Another post by the faithful that only believes what they want to believe.  


How can you not understand majority of votes cast in the entire country?  California is 12% of the population and could not decide an election by itself.  It sounds like you simply want to dismiss large portion of the Citizens in the US because you don't like their views.

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:


How can you not understand majority of votes cast in the entire country?  California is 12% of the population and could not decide an election by itself.  It sounds like you simply want to dismiss large portion of the Citizens in the US because you don't like their views.


It's not the total population but the political views of the state and the number that exercises those views in their voting.  It sounds like you want to just express your opinion and not do any research.

0 Kudos
320 Views
22
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


How can you not understand majority of votes cast in the entire country?  California is 12% of the population and could not decide an election by itself.  It sounds like you simply want to dismiss large portion of the Citizens in the US because you don't like their views.


It's not the total population but the political views of the state and the number that exercises those views in their voting.  It sounds like you want to just express your opinion and not do any research.


Attempt at deflection.  I asked you for an example of another election where the winner did not win and simply want to tell me to do research because you cannot come up with an example.  So who is just expressing their opinion with no research?  If you agree that the present system should stay than explain to me how it is still relevant in what should be one Country and already let's smaller states have disproportianate representation through the Senate.

Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


How can you not understand majority of votes cast in the entire country?  California is 12% of the population and could not decide an election by itself.  It sounds like you simply want to dismiss large portion of the Citizens in the US because you don't like their views.


It's not the total population but the political views of the state and the number that exercises those views in their voting.  It sounds like you want to just express your opinion and not do any research.


Are you just trying to be obstinate or are you in favor of the views of a minority of the population being more important than the views of the majority?  You will have to explain to me how one man one vote is not the ideal of a Democratic process.  You also fail to ackowledge that if somebody gets more votes in a National election (and I am NOT talking about the last election which was not campaigned nationally) that by any stretch of your logic it is somehow fair that they do not win.  As usual, you continue to insult my views on the subject by passing it off as a need to do more research.  I am saying the founders got this WRONG and it needs to be changed.

0 Kudos
322 Views
20
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:


I am saying the founders got this WRONG and it needs to be changed.

You are still saying that you don't care about any facts as to why this is...PERIOD.

 

So Hillary lost and now is at the job she is suited for...being memaw to her grandchildren.  But her losing is the only reason liberals keep obfuscating about the topic.

0 Kudos
220 Views
19
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


I am saying the founders got this WRONG and it needs to be changed.

You are still saying that you don't care about any facts as to why this is...PERIOD.

 

So Hillary lost and now is at the job she is suited for...being memaw to her grandchildren.  But her losing is the only reason liberals keep obfuscating about the topic.


Starting to look like the nation has lost.  

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:


Starting to look like the nation has lost.  


If the nation has lost, then it would be because of 'Memaw' and those who enabled her to be the Democratic candidate.  Of course it was her time to be President, and she was the one who lost.

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png