Extreme? Has there ever been a liberal communist dictator who didn’t murder millions of their own citizens for not hewing to the party line? Well, except Castro I mean, since he didn’t have all that large a population to work with in the first place.
Extreme? Has there ever been a liberal communist dictator who didn’t murder millions of their own citizens for not hewing to the party line? (Well, except for Castro that is, since he didn’t have all that large a population to work with in the first place.)
Judging by some of my co-workers, Obama fits this description.
No.
Well, OK, how about a Libertarian dictator?
But here, in this thread, it’s the liberals who advance the position that their disagreement with Schafly’s aims is enough to justify vilifying her, and here oin this board in the Kennedy thread, a considerable sample of conservatives who disagreed with Kennedy’s aims could still praise him.
I’m not talking about the population of the country. I’m talking about the population of HERE.
My conclusion is you don’t really understand what hypocrisy is.
The only specific lie that I recall imputed to her was the same-sex restroom, and the discussion in this thread made it clear that her position was arguably correct – enough so that it’s not fair to call it a lie.
What other lies do you lay at her feet?
I know you know this to be a lie. Thing is, you’ve gone to the “liberal hypocrisy” well so often that it’s become ridiculous easy to predict when you’re about to do so again, and your first post in this thread was a classic example. What was your planned follow-up? You were expecting respondents to say “Oh, no, us liberals only critimacize peoples who derserve it, irregardless of politiks, derp!” and you’d zap us with proof of liberal hypocrisy?
Where the fuck do you get that?
That’s not accurate.
Your argument is, “You accused liberals of hypocrisy, and my proof is that I know you were about to!”
Get what?
You know you’re not charged by the letter here, right?
That her position was arguably correct? There was nothing at all in the ERA that would have led to such a change, any more than the first protects mobs, libel or ritual sacrifice. And nothing in this thread suggests that all or even any liberals here would have been spearheading such a change.
History has shown that changes to the Constitution do not result in dramatic, unintended consequences. She easily could have researched that, in hopes that history would bolster her case, but it does not. So, if she did do the research, then she was indisputably lying. And if she did not do the research, she was spewing spew, which is not effectively any different from lying.
Life does not cut you slack for being ignorant.
Your definition of terms is self-serving, loaded dice. “Arguably correct” depends only on whether or not you continue to argue. Hell, you could even flounce off in a huff, refusing to lower yourself to such standards and claim winning! Because nobody ever totally proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt down the last micron of uncertainty, that you are wrong… AND got you to admit it. Twenty miles of bad road.
You’re offering Republican Poker, where you get seven cards, I get five, all mine are face up and you get to draw twice. And the punch line is how deeply offended you are if we don’t buy it!
She was an odious public figure, not simply an unpleasant person. She was a public scold with a puritanical pickle up her butt. She didn’t care what I thought of her before she died, and she doesn’t care now. Maybe when I get to Hell, I’ll say howdy.
History shows that once liberals, especially liberal judges, get their hands on the Constitution, all bets are off as to what it actually says. And one of the advantages of not being a liberal is having the ability to watch from without and observe how liberals behave. The reason this is an advantage is that liberals themselves are often either blind or ignorant as to how they really behave. So we on the outside are able to observe the phenomenon of how liberals somehow never seem satisfied. Nothing is ever good enough and nothing ever goes far enough to suit them. Enough is enough is a concept with which they are utterly unfamiliar. So having this outside perspective often allows conservatives to predict liberal behavior ahead of the time that liberals themselves actually begin to engage in it.
So, knowing all this, it isn’t a stretch in the minds of people like Phyllis Schlafly that once sexual equality arrives in the form of a constitutional, liberals, in their never-ending quest to take things too far, may very well arrive at the point where they view sexually segregated bathrooms as discriminatory…“Why can’t women use the same restrooms as men? The fact they can’t is sexist and relegates them to second-class citizenship!”, etc., etc., etc. From there it’s a short hop to endless liberal whinging and attempts to bring the adoption of unisex bathrooms to their lackeys in the judiciary. And from there it’s a short hop to judicial findings which hold that sexually segregated bathrooms are indeed discriminatory and are therefore banned.
So you see, when looked at in that light it’s easy to envision how people in the early 70s might foresee that the ERA and endless liberal activism could very well lead to the adoption of unisex bathrooms, and the fact that liberals are embracing them so eagerly now is an indicator that they would have embraced them just as eagerly in the past should the ERA have led to attempts to outlaw the existing sexually segregated bathrooms.
This is why some of this thread’s posters feel that even though the ERA didn’t specifically call for unisex bathrooms, and despite the fact that unisex bathrooms now are being supported primarily in service to transgenderism, the very nature of liberalism itself (in this country, anyway) would have eventually led to demands for unisex bathrooms anyway despite the fact that transgenderism had yet to become an issue.
what?
First thing I wanted was equality in changing stations, I was flying solo with the baby, additional support personnel not available. So, I hung around the Womens, nobody came out for a while, I made my move. Besides, had it down to a science, like changing tires at Indy…rolling, stop, whip strip zip, rolling, twenty seven seconds flat! except the time I pinned my thumb to the diaper, but I digress…
Not having probs, then a dainty woman of mature years walked in, chuckled a bit and stood patiently by. Swear it looked like she was supervising, checking to see if I knew what I was doing!
Doesn’t have to be one now, shrug it off. Make life a little easier for people who aren’t doing any harm, and keep on keepin’ on. Why not, there’s not enough to get uptight about, we got to make shit up?
Back in another thread someone was talking about how protecting natural formations in national parks was moronic. It lookad as if that was the dummest thing posted in the SDMB.
But that is wrong, this one is.
No one in government or the courts has demanded that women use the same restrooms, the issue is about transexual people. What you are talking about here is an attmpt to justify the trolling Republican behavior that, unlike your imaginary point made, it is based on real predictable Republican trollery.
Well, shall we count how many she had to say to support Trump?
Well, some of those can make many Republicans toss their cookies. Schlafly was truly polishing the turd there.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/donald-trump-ronald-reagan-213288
You misunderstand. Crazytroll, there, is referring to the proposed “Equal Rights Amendment” (ERA) to the constitution. There was a claim (cf thread subject person) that the text of the ERA would result in the elimination of privacy in elimination, because we would not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex (gender), so we would all have to use the same restrooms. All that frothing was about what might have probably happened if the ERA had been enshrined in the Constitution. Because, you know, liberals.