(10-17-2017, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Dokey, as I told Matt if you want to consider actions at a political debate by one of the candidates Protesting Conservative Speakers, then I'm not going to change your mind.

Just know that I disagree with the two examples provided as examples of protesting Conservative Speakers and I doubt you're going to change my mind. We'll just have to leave it to the unbiased to determine if the examples provided are apt.

(10-17-2017, 05:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know you like to mock my positions, but at least my retorts to you are done in a genuine fashion. I know you are often one that likes to point out the childishness of the behavior in here, but the vast majority of my responses to you are sincere and when it is in a joking manner it is intended to be sharing a joke with you, not at your expense. You respond with petty mockery. Just wanted to point this out for you to reflect on the next time you get in a snit about the behavior on the forum.

(10-17-2017, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you genuinely believe that dispute among politicians on political stances is the same as protesting Conservative Speakers then you have my apologies; if you do not then you have me saying pot meet kettle.

(10-17-2017, 05:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was sincere in saying that protest is merely expressing objection to an action or assertion. That's what protesting is. It isn't always demonstrating in the streets.

(10-17-2017, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Dokey, as I told Matt if you want to consider actions at a political debate by one of the candidates Protesting Conservative Speakers, then I'm not going to change your mind.

Just know that I disagree with the two examples provided as examples of protesting Conservative Speakers and I doubt you're going to change my mind. We'll just have to leave it to the unbiased to determine if the examples provided are apt.

(10-17-2017, 06:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you genuinely believe that dispute among politicians on political stances is the same as protesting Conservative Speakers then you have my apologies; if you do not then you have me saying pot meet kettle.


So is an apology in order or a mirror? 

(10-17-2017, 06:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, but those have widely lost interest in that technicality. The examples provided are not "apt". But they probably were not really meant to be. 

Belsnickle Wrote:Yes, my sentiment was sincere, because he was protesting conservative speakers.

(10-17-2017, 08:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well Matt was being sincere in his example. He genuinely considered Trump speaking out against politicians whom he views their stance as being too conservative the same as Protesting Conservative speakers. 

(10-17-2017, 08:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: _using yet another technicality, this time the definition of the word "protest". Similar type of argument as you defining "the same" in a very narrow, literal way. You both found ways to be technically right.

(10-13-2017, 06:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This is some of the funniest shit, yet.

The guy who falsely portrays himself as some sort of civil rights victim because he can't use insults as "descriptors," just abdicated not only his civil rights, but the civil rights of all Americans who aren't black.

Are you really going to keep up this libertarian charade any longer?

(10-17-2017, 09:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I used "the same" as they gave their's in rebuttal to Trump not Protesting Conservative Speakers; as I found that not to be a trait of Trump as proposed.

I too thought Matt was looking to change his comparison to the meaning of the word protest and not defend it as a genuine comparison, but he has assured me he simply meant his example to be a genuine comparison.

For this I apologized to Matt as I often read his genuine comparisons as being less than. But he seems to be a forthright guy. 

(10-17-2017, 01:25 AM)Benton Wrote: You typed “intolerant left” and went on to describe Donald trump.

(10-17-2017, 10:24 PM)Vlad Wrote: Um no, that's not what he implied. By him stating "Gay people do not need civil rights. Civil rights are for black people" he meant gays are not being denied civil rights. Blacks certainly were.
If I were black I would be insulted at someone equating gay "struggles" to the struggles of those who came before me.
What a joke.

(10-17-2017, 03:36 PM)Benton Wrote:



He did everything he could to disrupt conservatives speaking.

(10-17-2017, 10:24 PM)Vlad Wrote: Um no, that's not what he implied. By him stating "Gay people do not need civil rights. Civil rights are for black people" he meant gays are not being denied civil rights. Blacks certainly were.
If I were black I would be insulted at someone equating gay "struggles" to the struggles of those who came before me.
What a joke.

(10-17-2017, 11:40 PM)Vlad Wrote: Gee, can you go anymore more in another direction?

The most violent and vile pieces of human waste reside on the left, but continue to pretend like they don't.
Let me also remind you of the filth that Occupied Wall Street.

Those vermin on your side so smug think violence is their God given right...that is, if they believed in God.

You're a mod. Can I post a picture of one of those you defend literally shitting on a US flag?

(10-17-2017, 10:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: I laughed. Not so much about you, it's just funny. But this is a bit too detail-oriented for me... this whole debate very well started with the "intolerant left". Which of course is kind of a trigger, for a logical immediate reaction to that is "you (not "you", but whoever said that), you talk intolerance and cheer for Donald Trump", as others stated. There's an irony obviously invisible to some people, most of them probably not seeing Trump as that kind of master of intolerance that he is to other people like me.


Isn't that what this was all about, intolerance and how the left is intolerant? Or was it the right because there is a Trump? This whole debunks are so distracting... so what's your opinion, is it good, irrelevant or bad that Trump spoke at an anti-LGBT summit? What does the book of presidents say. I didn't say "hate group", so the question can be answered without further ado.

(10-18-2017, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the irony lies in the fact that the left tries to mask their intolerance by suggesting they are simply doing what is required to "combat hate".

The left has always prided itself on "acceptance", but that changes quicker than a blink when someone does/says something they do not accept.

In this very thread it was pointed out that the liberal protests (at times violently) free speech from conservative sources. This quickly became equal to a Presidential debate or Politicians disagreeing over policy in an attempt to mask the intolerant protests.