liberals

Word-banning seems to be a trend of late. It's become fashionable to try to ban words we're uncomfortable with, which you really can't do in the first place. You can no more ban a word than you can ban the air. In fact, language is a lot like air _ ban it all you want, it's still there.

You're sexist. I'm so sick of liberal lefty men practicing sexual discrimination under the guise of protecting women against sexual discrimination.

When women turn on women, and take cheap shots at their decisions purely to score political points it serves as proof that feminism, as a movement, is dead and no longer relevant or credible.

This is just another reason for these __omen_ (and I use the term loosely) to be gross and obscene and call it a __olitical statement._ It__ not helpful. If anything, it__ demeaning and insulting to women who think with more than our genitals and who are concerned with issues bigger than our ladyparts. But by all means, keep acting the fool. All you__e doing is exposing yourselves for what you really are. The rest of us want no part of your nonsense.

Feminists are incapable of crafting a coherent argument using their words. It almost always involves menstrual blood or some sort of reference to ladyparts.

Every new generation believes its own period to be absolutely superior intellectually - greater than all past cultures yet equal among its modern cultures.

too many left-wing student groups treat no one as badly as students of color or women who consider themselves to be classical liberals, libertarians, or conservatives, or who merely disagree with the actions of progressive protesters on campus. They__e seen as special kinds of traitors.

But seriously _ how is this a good example of womanhood? How is this something we should be propping up and praising? Think about the women in your life _ your mom, your aunts, your grandmothers, your sisters, your daughters, your nieces, your friends. Would you like ANY of them reduced to one small part of their anatomy? Would you tell them to their faces that they are nothing more than a walking life support system for their vaginas? __ause that__ the message that feminism is sending to women the world over.I thought feminists cared more about a woman__ mind and heart, and less about her body parts....Ladies, we are so much more than our body parts. Don__ take Hollywood airheads like Cate Blanchett as your life example.

Individual heterosexual women came to the movement from relationships where men were cruel, unkind, violent, unfaithful. Many of these men were radical thinkers who participated in movements for social justice, speaking out on behalf of the workers, the poor, speaking out on behalf of racial justice. However when it came to the issue of gender they were as sexist as their conservative cohorts.

In the old days, a liberal and a conservative (a __ove_ and a __awk,_ say) got their data from one of three nightly news programs, a local paper, and a handful of national magazines, and were thus starting with the same basic facts (even if those facts were questionable, limited, or erroneous). Now each of us constructs a custom informational universe, wittingly (we choose to go to the sources that uphold our existing beliefs and thus flatter us) or unwittingly (our app algorithms do the driving for us). The data we get this way, pre-imprinted with spin and mythos, are intensely one-dimensional.

Like the far-right that they claim to be so staunchly opposed to, the far-left is based entirely around hate....not only is she a white person who isn__ self-flagellating, but she__ also a woman who doesn__ see herself as a victim of some evil patriarchal conspiracy. To an SJW, that__ heresy: all white people are evil and all women are victims. If a woman doesn__ think that she__ a victim, then she has __nternalized misogyny_ and she just doesn__ know any better, so she needs SJWs to speak on her behalf. Likewise, if a black person doesn__ tow the SJW line exactly, then they will be immediately labeled an __ncle Tom_ or __ouse nigger_ by the extremely patronizing SJWs who see minorities as nothing more than political props and tools and who view all races as monoliths with intrinsic characteristics .

Now I think that a true liberal will always prioritize individuals over the group, will always prioritize heresy over orthodoxy, will always prioritize the dissenting voice over the status quo.

This would be the last moment of the primary during which I felt as though I inhabited a different planet than everyone else in my party, that I had heard a different speech, seen a different person, been in a different room than everyone else. But I can't say that I was unhappy that they had heard what they did. If they thought Hillary was telling them to fuck off, that was okay with me. For just one last day, before I joined their ranks, I wanted them to fuck off too.

A second marked characteristic of the Liberal in debate with the conservative is the tacit premise that debateis ridiculous....Many people shrink from arguments over facts because facts are tedious, because they require a formal familiarity with the subject under discussion, and because they can be ideologically dislocative. Many Liberals accept their opinions, ideas, and evaluations as others accept revealed truths.

At the end of the day, I do not care how many Democrats or Republicans are in office. What I do care about is whether our leader is truly serving THE PEOPLE or only his/her own pockets. Is our leader in tune with the concerns and needs of the man on the street - or only issues concerning private interests? Is this leader uniting or dividing the country? Milking or contributing to it? Building and preserving it -- or bringing it all down?

I grew up in Germany. Europe is far more liberal than America. Even most conservative right-wing parties over there are to the left of the US Democrats on many issues. For example, it wouldn't occur to even the most right-wing party in Europe to oppose universal healthcare. But this isn't a book about politics. It's about sex and drugs. You know, the good stuff.

In 1959, Vice-President Nixon, speaking to members of California__ Commonwealth Club, was asked if he__ like to see the parties undergo an ideological realignment__he sort that has since taken place__nd he replied, __ think it would be a great tragedy . . . if we had our two major political parties divide on what we would call a conservative-liberal line._ He continued, __ think one of the attributes of our political system has been that we have avoided generally violent swings in Administrations from one extreme to the other. And the reason we have avoided that is that in both parties there has been room for a broad spectrum of opinion._ Therefore, __hen your Administrations come to power, they will represent the whole people rather than just one segment of the people.

[T]he enduring problem for liberals, as for everyone else, is not whether history will judge them wise or foolish regarding the war on terrorism; it is, rather, the way that the past decade has splintered them away from other Americans. This fracture comes with a steep price: in today's toxic atmosphere, liberals are no less cynical, shortsighted, and parochial than anyone else, and they understand their fellow-Americans just as badly as they themselves are understood. When liberals look at red-state voters, they see either a mob of pious know-nothings or the insensible victims of militarism and class warfare. Yet.... [such people] defy fixed categories, which means that they have to be figured out the hard way--on their own terms.