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.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
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.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
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.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
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?
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?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
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?
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...
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?"
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
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?"
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
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.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
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?
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?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
