On November 3, 2011 at 11:06, BigPapa said...
Uh, no. Read the definition again:
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;
And how do you not fit into this webster definition? I dont get your reply, albeit constant and steady, it still doesnt apply.
Ah yes, a classic meme from right wing conservatives that is nothing more than childish antagonism. I could point out that the alternate then must be true, you (and millions more) have succumbed to right wing rhetoric. Or did you think of this childish insult all on your own?
Its a question. YOU took it as an insult. I cannot help how you interpret questions.
You'd probably be surprised by many things. You think I'm liberal: what most conservatives don't know is that their politics would fit into the definition of
classical liberalism. In the sad state of affairs today the term 'liberal' has been turned into a smear, an insult, a lable meant to tarnish, and many conservatives would flip out if you called them a liberal because of that. But classical liberals they are.
I am familiar with "classical liberalism". That has nothing to do with TODAYS liberals. Why make the comparison? There is no comparison. Makes no sense. This is your common method of attack, throw meaningless things out there and hope no one gets it? You post this to make it appear that classical liberalism is the same as todays liberalism? Assuming we are all stupid and dont know the difference? I would stray from posting like this as it makes you become more transparent and less credible. Call me a classical liberal and I would say thank you and dont you wish it was the same as todays liberals? I would have respected you more.
Your response (and a few others) to being told you were bad boys was way overblown. The thread was racially tinged, some said so, you and a few others responded by acting guilty and antagonizing those who said 'this is not cool.' It was Nixonian in that the cover up was worse than the crime, with the intellectual dishonesty and overblown response. And it continues.
The larger issue is you are stuck on your own beliefs and are more narrow minded than you try to lead us into believing. I dont hate you though. :)
This is muddled logic. You acknowledge that civil rights are a necessity, great. However, the Civil Rights Act does not allow a place of business serving the public to discriminate based on race, creed, religion, etc. You seem to think the opposite: that a business owner can discriminate. You then claim it is your 'choice' to discrimate against a liberal (not a right), but despite your categorization that it would be whiney and frivolous, by your own admission the lawsuit would have merit.
You can label the belief of choosing how to conduct business however you want. Are you stating if someone turned away business because the customer was liberal is against the law? What law states I MUST do business with everyone that walks in my door? I dont mean because someonse religion or color. What law protects me from saying NO to someone I dont trust? Is that against the law? What law? While you are literate and have a way with words, you also have a way of twisting comments to tailor others to your belief. Against the law? certainly not, more power to you. Doesnt always work, though.
It just doesn't make any sense.
...how they conduct their business and thoughts...
None of this discussion has to do with 'thoughts.' I don't know where you interpreted or inferred that. Stop listening to Ed!
I sounds like you know it came from Ed? Otherwise, why would you make the comment? Ed who?
WOW, I finally figured out how to break out replies properly, well, for the most part, lol. A first.
Again, I have no hatred towards you or others here. Just healthy debate and encouragement. I would hate to only be around rednecks (although they vary as much as any other group), or whites, or blacks, or muslims or whatever. Diversity is not a bad word or bad thing. What is bad is when one group tries to make that group the ONLY group.
