Plan B Forum

One of them might assassinate the orange fascist!

Sadly, liberal people - while muchly imperfect - just don't leap to such violent acts in celebration of the jihad for tolerance.


Trump is a sick, sick fuck. What he said and tweeted following Orlando brings him beyond incompetent to serve. He's DISGRACEFUL. We are over if we elect him.

Never heard of the ELF?

Yes, I have heard of it.

Want to list the mass killings of human beings perpetrated by that non-organization founded in the UK and consisting of 'members' of a wide diversity of alternative political views few of which could be described as typical liberalism?

M'kay, didn't think so.

The situation in the USofA regarding 'radical Muslim terrorists' reminds me of Russia and Europe and even America, in the late 19th century in their response to anarcho-communism, and the followers of Mikhail Bakunin.

snailgate

If ONLY there were liberal terrorists . . .

Until you can get four liberals in a room and have them all agree with each other I think we're safe.

"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." Frost

yrs,
rubato

Why would you need four?

Gob wrote:Why would you need four?

Four was given as merely an example above to indicate that even a very small number of liberals are unlikely to agree. If it makes you happier you can say "three" or "six" without substantially changing the meaning of it. I do not think the post said that specific number was essential. Why did you think it did?


yrs,
rubato

I think yoit's couldn't do it if you put one in a room alone.

Crackpot wrote:I think yoit's couldn't do it if you put one in a room alone.

Can you make that into a sentence?


yrs,
rubato

rubato wrote:

Gob wrote:Why would you need four?

Four was given as merely an example above to indicate that even a very small number of liberals are unlikely to agree. If it makes you happier you can say "three" or "six" without substantially changing the meaning of it. I do not think the post said that specific number was essential. Why did you think it did?


yrs,
rubato

Well you posited that the reason there are no liberal terrorists is that putting four in a room would lead to arguments.

Your point makes no sense. Did Lee Harvey Oswald need three backup men?

Did Lee Harvey Oswald need three backup men?

Of course not...not three...

Just the one, on the grassy knoll...

Gob wrote:

rubato wrote:

Gob wrote:Why would you need four?

Four was given as merely an example above to indicate that even a very small number of liberals are unlikely to agree. If it makes you happier you can say "three" or "six" without substantially changing the meaning of it. I do not think the post said that specific number was essential. Why did you think it did?


yrs,
rubato

Well you posited that the reason there are no liberal terrorists is that putting four in a room would lead to arguments.

Your point makes no sense. Did Lee Harvey Oswald need three backup men?

Was Lee Harvey Oswald a liberal terrorist?

The suggestion seems quite stupid.

yrs,
rubato

You expect mainstream conservatives to "own" right-wing extremists, (you make that belief of yours clear here day-in and day-out) but mainstream liberals aren't expected to own left-wing extremists...

dou·ble stand·ard
noun
noun: double standard; plural noun: double standards

a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.

rubato wrote:
Was Lee Harvey Oswald a liberal terrorist?

The suggestion seems quite stupid.

yrs,
rubato

'
Your stupidity knows no bounds does it not?

Can you explain why "liberal", unlike other terrorists need to operate in teams, as you indicated by your "put four in a room," stupidity.

Why is it not possible to have a singular "liberal terrorist?"

Lee Harvey Oswald was a pro-soviet hard leftist. Not anywhere close to "liberal" by any measure.


To an educated and intelligent person. at least.


yrs,
rubato

Can you explain why "liberal", unlike other terrorists need to operate in teams, as you indicated by your "put four in a room," stupidity.

Why is it not possible to have a singular "liberal terrorist?"

Gob wrote:Can you explain why "liberal", unlike other terrorists need to operate in teams, as you indicated by your "put four in a room," stupidity.

Why is it not possible to have a singular "liberal terrorist?"

Of course that wasn't the point of the original quote. It's a riff on the old saw, put four [Bostonians/Welshmen/Plumbers/Whoevers] in a room and you'll have five different opinions.

Is there a need for this continued poking and sneering at each other. Isn't there enough hate in the world these days without the group of you adding to the total?

Please knock it off.

Gob wrote:Can you explain why "liberal", unlike other terrorists need to operate in teams, as you indicated by your "put four in a room," stupidity.

Why is it not possible to have a singular "liberal terrorist?"

just for the very very very dim.

Four was given as merely an example above to indicate that even a very small number of liberals are unlikely to agree. If it makes you happier you can say "three" or "six" without substantially changing the meaning of it. I do not think the post said that specific number was essential. Why did you think it did?

yrs,
rubato

rubato wrote:

Four was given as merely an example above to indicate that even a very small number of liberals are unlikely to agree. If it makes you happier you can say "three" or "six" without substantially changing the meaning of it. I do not think the post said that specific number was essential. Why did you think it did?

yrs,
rubato

Right, so why could not an individual "liberal terrorist" exist then?

You originally gave the reason;

Until you can get four liberals in a room and have them all agree with each other I think we're safe.

Indicating that there would have to be a conspiracy of more than one "liberal terrorists" for it to happen, why?