BF2S Forums Liberals are mean

Pubic wrote:

Acceptance of views isn't the issue liberals have; its the imposing of views on others that liberals take issue with.

Sorry?  What u say?


Ever been to San Fransisco?

jonsimon wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Acceptance of views isn't the issue liberals have; its the imposing of views on others that liberals take issue with.

Sorry?  What u say?


Ever been to San Fransisco?

Want to offer more evidence than a city name and a loose stereotype in your defense?

I am not defending anything.  You seem defensive here.


*edit*  I am not stereotyping, I have been there many times and that is my opinion of the place.

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-06-23 09:45:03)

usmarine2005 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Sorry?  What u say?


Ever been to San Fransisco?

Want to offer more evidence than a city name and a loose stereotype in your defense?

I am not defending anything.  You seem defensive here.

No, your just spewing some FUD. Have you been to SF? Its more the financial center of the west coast, not the communist liberal enclave you seem convinced it is. Now Berkley IMO is, well interesting.  Bottom line, SF is a city about making money. Thats what the vast majority of people there are concerned with.  But I guess facts are useless in the fact of talking points. Using SF like that would be like me assuming the entire mid-west was tweaked out kkk members. Which I know not to be true. But this goes back to the eternal spread of misinformation and baseless assumptions from both sides.

*edit*
you said you've been there. So what did you see that was so convincing. I've been there more times that I can count, and SF is like a simi valley compared to Berkley.

Last edited by golgoj4 (2007-06-23 09:50:53)

usmarine2005 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Sorry?  What u say?


Ever been to San Fransisco?

Want to offer more evidence than a city name and a loose stereotype in your defense?

I am not defending anything.  You seem defensive here.


*edit*  I am not stereotyping, I have been there many times and that is my opinion of the place.

You are defending your argument. Either that or you are agreeing with Pubic. Second, so long as your do not present evidence you are only using a stereotype and a city name. I asked you to present evidence, why don't you follow through and prove it?

usmarine2005 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

I asked you to present evidence, why don't you follow through and prove it?

Because I have done it too many fucking times on here.  Sick of repeating myself.

For what it's worth, I actually agree with usmarine on this one.  San Francisco is a good example of liberal dogma.  Hell, they wanted to ban the Blue Angels over petty issues.

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

I asked you to present evidence, why don't you follow through and prove it?

Because I have done it too many fucking times on here.  Sick of repeating myself.

For what it's worth, I actually agree with usmarine on this one.  San Francisco is a good example of liberal dogma.  Hell, they wanted to ban the Blue Angels over petty issues.

A plane crash in a residential area is petty? You'd scared too if it happened in your neighborhood and you had kids.

usmarine2005 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

For what it's worth, I actually agree with usmarine on this one.  San Francisco is a good example of liberal dogma.  Hell, they wanted to ban the Blue Angels over petty issues.

A plane crash in a residential area is petty? You'd scared too if it happened in your neighborhood and you had kids.

A Blue Angel crashed in San Fran?

No, but one crashed in April in a residential area in South Carolina.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/bluean … index.html

I thought you knew it, it's pretty recent.

golgoj4 wrote:

Come on ATG, for every asshat on the left, he has a bizarro twin on the right. And I still say eff Jerry Falwell. I agree that there should be more temperate comments made when debating. Hell,  I know i've come off as one of those asshats.  I guess everyone should take a deep breathe before they say what they wanna say.

I do agree that for every really kooky nutbag on the left, there is a kooky nutbag on the right.  Basic law of averages.  But the right wing nutjobs, the serious ones, shut themselves off from society as a whole and are very hush hush and secretive, avoiding notice of the evil 'guberment.' Left wing ones, just as equally crazy, are louder and scream for notice and support.  They are finding each other more on the internet.  The left ones are louder.  Granted, the right sided ones may end up shooting from a bell tower with an M-60. 

Yes, this post contains blatent stereotypes and generalizations.  I do not need to be told this.

imortal wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

Come on ATG, for every asshat on the left, he has a bizarro twin on the right. And I still say eff Jerry Falwell. I agree that there should be more temperate comments made when debating. Hell,  I know i've come off as one of those asshats.  I guess everyone should take a deep breathe before they say what they wanna say.

I do agree that for every really kooky nutbag on the left, there is a kooky nutbag on the right.  Basic law of averages.  But the right wing nutjobs, the serious ones, shut themselves off from society as a whole and are very hush hush and secretive, avoiding notice of the evil 'guberment.' Left wing ones, just as equally crazy, are louder and scream for notice and support.  They are finding each other more on the internet.  The left ones are louder.  Granted, the right sided ones may end up shooting from a bell tower with an M-60. 

Yes, this post contains blatent stereotypes and generalizations.  I do not need to be told this.

I disagree.  There are quite a few right-wing nutjobs that are very active politically.  Pat Robertson fits this description.

Also, the group that screams the most as of late is the Westboro Baptist Church.  They are so far right-wing that just about all other conservatives hate them.  Still, they certainly aren't liberals.

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

I do agree that for every really kooky nutbag on the left, there is a kooky nutbag on the right.  Basic law of averages.  But the right wing nutjobs, the serious ones, shut themselves off from society as a whole and are very hush hush and secretive, avoiding notice of the evil 'guberment.' Left wing ones, just as equally crazy, are louder and scream for notice and support.  They are finding each other more on the internet.  The left ones are louder.  Granted, the right sided ones may end up shooting from a bell tower with an M-60. 

Yes, this post contains blatent stereotypes and generalizations.  I do not need to be told this.

I disagree.  There are quite a few right-wing nutjobs that are very active politically.  Pat Robertson fits this description.

Also, the group that screams the most as of late is the Westboro Baptist Church.  They are so far right-wing that just about all other conservatives hate them.  Still, they certainly aren't liberals.

the minority that proves the rule.  If you look at loud left wing nutjobs and loud right wing nutjobs, the left ones far outnumber the right ones.  That could mean three things. 1> that there are many more left leaning people in the country than right leaning people (which is not borne out by voting or any other data) or 2> That being left is more likely to make you nutjob (no comment on that one) or 3> that there are equal numbers, but fewer of the ones on the right are that loud.

Yes, still stereotyping and generalizing.  I am looking to add universally insulting soon.

I guess this is a matter of opinion, because I'd include 90% of the Religious Right in the "nutjob" category.  That's a lot of people.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good points, Jon and Lost, but how often does that happen?  They do tons of shows, and it's extremely rare for something like that to occur.

Not really good points.  Planes crash all the time.  Sure not the big airliners or even military jets in the US, but it happens.  Mostly GA aircraft. 

But, they think high speed maneuvers low to the ground are dangerous?  Tell that to someone who lives across the street from Chicago Midway where they have big planes screaming down at 160 mph + in near zero visibility sometimes.

Either ban all or STFU.  That is my position.

Bravo! BTW... San Fran is a shit hole of libs.

Harmor wrote:

Miller wrote:

Bravo! BTW... San Fran is a shit hole of libs.

The city is also a shithole.  Have you been there recently?  I swear if I see another bum crapping while I'm eatting dinner, I'm going to throw up.

Let me guess? It's a homeless Republican that has been robbed of his money by the Dems trying to make him poor and make his buddies rich?

ATG wrote:

I  thought I went away.
Why are my threads still being worked?

Because some of them are actually interesting.