Well I apologize if I hurt anyone’s feelings and I can assure you that I’m not here to troll anyone.
Is that what you meant here?
Stormfront, Free Republic, wherever, you can go back there any time, and regale them all with stories of your exploits in the Reality-Based Community.
I assure you that nobody has hurt feelings. We’re all just laughing about how much you suck at this.
Do you think it’s acceptable to put labels on people you don’t know and to group them with others which have different views than you? If I think about it long enough I might be able to come up with another group of people who like to do the same.
Like libtards?
My feelings were really hurt. I cried a lot. Especially the libtards part. That one… it’s just too, too cruel. It’s like he’s saying I’m a lib, but he’s also saying I’m a tard! HOW CAN THAT NOT HURT?
No, I don’t think he likes us at all.
That would also be an inaccurate statement.
Nope, not in the list of the most notorious ones, the ones that check for extremist activity do not see it as you do.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups
You did intend for this to be a joke?
Nope, trying to figure out if you are one. You may be one 
but so far only your standard of what is supposed to be a hate group is what it is a joke.
It’s sad to see the depths of sewage to which the Grand Old Party, the Party of Lincoln, and the conservative wing of American politics, have descended. May God have pity on the United States of America, for her most ardent self-professed patriots clearly will not.
I especially like the bit where “you libtards” are guilty of calling rude names. Gosharooty.
Oh well, Rained got banned, that troll sock smell was a bit familiar…
Good nose. All I smelled was the reek of hypocrisy. And extremism. And really, really arrant stupidity.
But, then, socking SDMB isn’t done by people with any brains.
So we’re never gonna find out why the biggest hate groups in this country are the NAACP and the ACLU?
What a fucking cocktease.
Perhaps he meant fattest, per average member.
Yeah, they could have banned him after he enlightened us!
That would be a great argument if there was such a thing as a freedom to beat up your spouse. If there was, we wouldn’t need government in the first place. Government exists to guarantee our rights, whether we are weak or strong, majority or minority.
In a world where people did not discriminate against each other for all kinds of shallow reasons, or where such a thing was rare behavior, we wouldn’t need anti-discrimination laws. They exist because there was a problem that needed to be solved, and in order to solve it, we had to limit people’s freedom to avoid those they didn’t like because of their skin color. Later on we added religion, sex, age, disability, etc.
If no one committed murder, if no one beat their spouse, if no one committed rape, we’d still have laws against those things because there is no right infringed by having such laws. Anti-discrimination laws by contrast, involved a HUGE debate over decades and decades precisely because it forced people to change behavior that they considered their God-given right. And not just a God-given right, a natural right to boot, since it’s natural for people to form themselves into tribes. It was an evolutionary response:
Obviously a modern democracy can’t function this way, so the government had to force us to get along at least well enough to function economically. But to act as if this is just nothing, that it didn’t infringe on what people had regarded as their rights and natural behavior since man first wrote shit down, is just immature. Integration was a pretty controversial concept among African-Americans too.
Okay, then how about the legal term, “Substantially burdened?”
The Phantom Tollbooth?