Liberals who call everyone racist.

What do you think of liberals who just go around calling people racist, even other liberals.

I think they're giving liberals a bad name

I think they are giving racists a bland name

I think that generation of liberals is dying off.

Since liberals support fagetry I'm guessing that they're all secretly faggets.

>>5

Since all conservatives are against abortion I'm guessing that they're all are against abortion of liberal babies

>>6
liberals aren't human so they don't have souls to abort.

nancy pelosi riding a broom skywriting SURRENDER over the capitol building.

>>5
CHICA, RICA Y SENSASIONAL
YOUR SOO YUMMY MAMA
I HOPE TO SEEE YOU SOON IN "SCREWMANITY LAND"
LOTS OF LOVE
KASHMIR DOOR HOST AND SCREWMANITY EMCEE:VICTOR VICTORIA

Don't know any, so I guess I don't think anything of them.

>>4
yea right, all these young people with their Ipods, designer clothes, and Macs(thanks to capitalism)are always complaining about the big companies that designed their trendy products

Truth. Whenever liberals lose an argument (frequently) they resort to just calling people racist or in the case of blacks calling them oreos. If you want to know who's a racist and who isn't ask Chris Rock, or any other libertarian. Here it's even worse, the slightest mention of the many obvious facts that completely crush all of liberal ideology and you are declared a racist hick, even if you are actually on the other side of the Atlantic and/or not even white.

>>12

The same can be said about conservatives that resort to calling people "traitors" or "terrorist sympathizers" whenever they lose arguments.

Both sides have their share of justifiable points, and to an extent, neither side is willing to admit defeat, no matter what. The fact that you come here to an anonymous board to make relatively false claims about the opposing side shows you're one of the less intelligent of your ilk; the ones that people base their stereotypes on. People like you are what give your side such a bad name, whether it be false (in most cases), or (in your case) rather true.

>>13
Yeah, conservatives can be stupid, but you're talking about conservatives from the 50s or 1% of conservatives or something. The extremism situation is much more serious with liberals.

Oh andconsider this.

You think I am a conservaative just because I criticise liberals.

There is no real evidence that I am a conservative, whilst the fact that you think I am a conservaative just because I am a liberal suggests strongly that you are a liberal apologetic. I am in fact a libertarian, as was kind of suggested in my post.

>>14

Once again, assuming. This is why people don't take you seriously. I was arguing not in favor/defense of liberals or their agenda, but in favor of rationality (a quality which I believe both sides of the spectrum need a little bit more of). Since you conveyed your argument using very selective information, I just stated the information that you chose to leave out. You argued one side, and seeing a fallacy in your argument, I argued the other, and in the process, corrected you. It's as simple as that.

But the more you say about yourself, as well as what you think I am, based on what you gleaned from my arguments, goes to show that when you are criticized, you resort to calling me a liberal (which you seem to use as to convey negative connotations, otherwise, you wouldn't use it in conjuntion with the term "sympathizer"). You are no better than liberals that call people "racists" mentioned in the OP, or as I stated previously, conservatives that call people "traitors."

>>15

Sorry, I meant "apologetic" which is similar to "sympathizer."

>>1
RACIST!

>>15
Stop nitpicking,I argued one side because I couldn't be botherred to say "don't worry, I'm not picking on just you, I hate other stupid fucks aswell".

I agree with you on the point that some conservatives use the same tactic. But I've never heard a conservative going around saying that people are terrorists, whilst with liberals it's endemic. I have every right to say this is a huge problem with liberals and rip the shit out of them for it.

>>15
But I've never heard a conservative going around saying that people who criticise them are terrorists, whilst with liberals calling people racist just for not having the same opinion completely neglecting the logic of the opposing argument is endemic.

>>18
>>19

I've heard an equal amount, if not the contrary, when it comes to liberals and conservatives using such stereotypes when arguing amongst each other. As with you, this relates only to my personal experiences, though.

In fact, the pro-war counter-protest that was held last weekend in Washington DC included as one of its most prominent banners one that called their opponents (anti-war protesters who we'll for the clarity of this argument say include many liberals) "traitors," which was the other word I mentioned. It was a rather large banner, and prominent as it was, was probably accepted by the majority of the group, especially those who helped hold it up, as something that accurately displayed their opinions and feelings toward the opposite side.

I'm sorry that I don't have a photo of it (as I wasn't there), but I saw a video of it on the news, as well as a corresponding photo on Yahoo! News, so I'm sure if you rifle through the list of images for that day, you'll find it. In fact, you probably saw it already, and know what I'm talking about if you watched the news for that day.

And it's not nitpicking when you find fault in a statement that an opponent in discourse bases their entire argument around, and wish to argue against it or correct it.

I'm tired of hearing the pro-terrorist, Islamonazi sympathizers called "anti-war."  They're not anti-war at all.  They're ON THE OTHER SIDE.

>>21
Why do you hate freedom?

>>22
Why do YOU hate freedom?

>>23
WHY do you hate freedom?

Why do THEY hate Western Civilization?  Why do THEY wish to see the West defeated and destroyed?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24853_Leftists_Supporting_the_Troops&only

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/03/356017.shtml

Why do THEY hate peace? Why do THEY hate progress? Why do THEY hate stem cell research? Why do THEY hate the UN and the ICC? Why do THEY hate truth? Why do THEY hate justice? Why DONT THEY hate war, murder, massacres, rape, landmines, clusterbombs, napalm, agent orange?

>>1
I think there Papa gave it to them in the Poopa when they were children, srsly.

>>20
I saw that coming. Stop blowing it out of proportion.

Go to a conservative and state a fact like "the government lied to us about weapons of mass destruction" and you won't be called a traitor, in facy many conservatives will agree with you and the conservatives shown on TV who call everyone a traitor are not taken seriously. Whilst if you go to any liberal and state a fact such as "mass immigration must be stopped or it will cause overpopulation and poverty" you will be branded a racist before you can finish the sentence.

>>20

I suppose the other signs noticed in the past such as"Baby Killers", "Murderers" and "War Criminals" were just peaceful attemts to open public discussion. You do realize that if everything we are accused of were true no one would dare say it?

Um, that's not a fact. The government never lied about anything in regards to weapons of mass destruction, we had incorrect intelligence, coming from the intelligence agencies of multiple countries. How is that a lie?

>>30
Idiot, they had CONFLICTING intel. The weapon inspectors and done a thorough sweep of the country, and the iraqis had been cooperative (meaning that the inspectors could go whereever whenever) and they hadnt found anything. This facts were known to everybody. There were other pieces of intel that corroborated this. The government chose to believe on one type of intel because it suited them, because they had already planned the attack etc, and they knew there this was not a clear case yet thats not what they said. They said: "This is a clear case, there is no doubt, the inspections have failed because the iraqis are lying etc". These were all lies and you are a silly little worm of a man if you cant admit to this. Come on, it will feel better afterwards...

>>30
>>31
Well that's something for another discussion. My point is the majority of conservatives think saying that doesn't make me a traitor, whilst the number of liberals who resort to assuming people are racist just becasue they disagree with them is endemic. Whenever talking to liberals in RL or the internets I have come to expect to be called an oreo or a racist respectively.

No actually the weapons inspectors found plenty of missiles that were in violation of the same treaty, they just didn't find the actual warheads to load them with. The existence of the missiles was an indisputable fact and he wouldn't have had those unless he intended to make WMDs for them. There was good intelligence to say that Saddam had WMDs and even if he didn't he was certainly a dangerous man to have in power. That's why no one opposed the war when we went into it, but people forget the facts over the years.

There was good intelligence to say that Saddam had WMDs
If the intelligence was wrong, how could it have been good?

Just wonderin'.

>>33
"That's why no one opposed the war when we went into it"

Are you on drugs?

No, but you must have completely forgotten the state of the country at the time. Certainly a given citizen might have been against the concept of war, you get all kinds of crazy fanatics, but based on the information available at the time, no one who wasn't completely opposed to the idea of war thought it was a particularly bad idea. Even Hillary Clinton supported it, the number was something like 98 of the senators voted in support of it. There were no lies involved, it was simple the intelligence we had at the time.

Certainly a given citizen might have been against the concept of war, you get all kinds of crazy fanatics, but based on the information available at the time, no one who wasn't completely opposed to the idea of war thought it was a particularly bad idea.
Repeat after me: baaaaaa! baaaaaaaaaa! BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! <chew grass>

I've lost much of my faith in humanity, simply because it's so stinking obvious how easy it is to lead people around by the nose. Don't see it? All you need is basic knowledge of propaganda during WWI & II (and turn off the TV).

Baaa.

>>33
I for one have never heard of this. Source please? And please remember that there were a lot of international opposition from former allies like Germany and France, governments who had access to the same intel and they still didnt think that it was enough. You may have conspiracy theories to explain this, but you at least have to retract the claim that no one opposed the war. Btw, werent the anti war demonstrations the largest demonstrations ever? And why were Blix opposed the war if he had found missiles? He had ulterior motives too?

You mean those countries collecting billions in oil under the table with the connivance of the UN? I'm sure it would have never been enough.

>>39
As i said, conspiracy theories. The no opposition claim is forfeit though. And if you accept that Germany and France can lie and not go to war because of oil, is it that great leap to imagine that the US can lie and go to war because of oil? If not then you are a nationalist fanatic who will never accept rational arguments. /Newpol/ was created for people liek you, welcome!