@mld-woody said:

He does this a lot.

Well... when your mere presence is itself an insult...

that is concrete, since as steve mentioned elsewhere...

you usual comment on a subject is:

"ur a idiot"

Liberal extremist?

"no idea about letting other people have opinions different from yours

"

Hahahaha

who surely are justified in disagreeing with me, and they

don't go with the insult retorts - in fits of emotional knee jerky

like you do.

When I see a pattern of personal attacking/insulting, instead of

replying to the op at all...

which is what you nearly always? do.... you end up a woodpecker.

Yes, you are a liberal extremist that has no idea about letting other people

have opinions different from yours, and you have no inkling of accountability

for your own actions, woody. You do it to yourself.

No matter the context, YOU always insult HIM first. Everything he says is justified, its just self defense. Everything YOU say is hate speech, personal insults, etc.

Same song and dance.

Every time.

@gftchris said:

The fundamental problem here (apart from cal's admitted aversion to critical thinking), is the idea among some americans that freedom of speech, as enshrined in the first (?) amendment, means freedom to be a dick. I feel like that should be the first amendment. Don't be a dick. Don't go around offering to rape people. Don't hurl abuse at people whose lifestyles you don't like. Just stop being a dick, and hiding behind the free speech strawman.

Of course you are correct Chris.

Frankly I don't believe we were ever meant to have freedom of speech. I understand the reason they wrote the amendment, during revolutionary times those speaking out against the king would likely windup behind bars or worse.

But today speaking out in many ways against the sacred cows of the power structure will still get you in hot water even if there is no specific jail time.

As with most freedoms we love to talk about them unless they somehow offend us.

WSS

@gftchris said:

Well I think dummies don't consider that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. They think they are being persecuted if everyone else decides to use their freedom of speech to call the dummies out and likely damage any income they are getting from the public.

between the two.

I did not do that.

@calfoxwc said:

So you're comparing and contrasting said examples. This isn't hard dude.

who never did put me on ignore, but said they did.

you and woody can't let other people simply have their opinions, and just disagree.

Ya just have to personally insult them every time. And you do it on the other board, too.

Personal UNWARRANTED attacks are the ignorant fools' port in any storm.

and our country is headed for a storm. The examples aren't the same, but just similar

enough to show hypocrisy of liberals.

Comparing them would fail, but the basic similarities show hypocrisy. idiot.

Are you working on eventually being clevepeckerhead to steal attention from woodpecker?

It isn't about me. It isn't about you....it's about our country and where we are dangerously headed,

and why.

@calfoxwc said:

Do you then write words down on the screen without giving them much thought as to what you're doing? Because you did compare them. You said in one case the left has no problem with someone saying some heinous shit and in the other they do. You compared the two situations as equitable. Obviously if I knew someone that was telling people online that if you disagree with abortion in rape cases lemme come over and rape your wife/daughter and see if your opinion changes, I wouldn't associate with that person. I would put them on "ignore", right? You can't do that in public though can you? That was my point and that was the correction I made to your flawed analysis. I see your habit of flawed and or woefully inaccurate postulates is going as strong as ever.

@calfoxwc said:

I didn't compare, Cleve... just gave two little examples of liberal hypocrisy.

It's easy to twist the intent and substance of posts, so you can rail with

your contradicting hypotheticals...

but it just produces an invalid emotional knee jerk counter-argument.

You were doing better to have "kept me on ignore". ha.

It's easy to twist the intent and substance of posts, so you can rail with

your contradicting hypotheticals...

but it just produces an invalid emotional knee jerk counter-argument.

You were doing better to have "kept me on ignore". ha.

@clevfan4life said:

explain this post please, it made no sense.

Oh please. ..

WSS

@westside-steve said:

explain this post please, it made no sense.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

It caused annoyance

and comedy

@westside-steve said:

Consult the NSA agent who probably has my laptop camera hacked haha.

@logicisforsquares said:

Depends on what the issue is. There are members of the GOP who would be o.k. with the feds being able to mount a camera in my living room just in case I might commit a crime.

How hot is your wife and how often does she walk around butt naked in the house?

WSS

@oldbrownsfan said:

Depends on what the issue is. There are members of the GOP who would be o.k. with the feds being able to mount a camera in my living room just in case I might commit a crime.

@calfoxwc said:

Thankful for the wisdom of the founding fathers of this country and the constitution and bill of rights. Why is it that it is almost always liberals who have problems with our constitution?

@mld-woody said:

Did it cause microaggression?