the question I have is not why - but what?

conservatives, chiefly.

lmao

How cute! He's learning to put words together, like a birdling leaving the nest!

Now, he just needs to master grammar and semantics, and maybe he, too, will one day fly!

The emphasis is for YOUR benefit, jmak.

A great example of hypocrisy: When a conservative discriminates against a person based on race - it is called Racism. When a liberal discriminates against a person based on race - it is called Affirmative Action.

I don't know about you guys, but I was raised that two wrongs don't make a right. Libtards, however are intellectually dishonest enough to justify this.

The feedback loop of cons not understanding what racism actually entails is always entertaining.

But two wrongs always make a right winger.

Please don't embarrass yourself by suggesting yours is the ideology of intellectual honesty. The daily deluge of RW dishonesty has created everything from a comedy network to a $2 trillion Iraq bill.

If you want to shorten it, maybe I'll read more. It seems you keep saying the same thing repeatedly, though. The main controversies I've heard regarding "white privilege" occurred on college campuses. Maybe that's why you've never heard of it?

Basically, the author is irritated that liberals demand things with other people's money, yet claim they are compassionate. If you haven't seen the repeated demonization attempts against Republicans on some of the major news networks when they disagree with Democrats on funding, you must be insulated over at Fox News.

Dissecting a piece line-by-line like that just shows you're searching for a flaw, instead of honestly trying to comprehend.

Kurto,

You can dish it, but you can't take it. You don't like your sex life (or lack thereof) being mocked, yet you routinely call good people racist because they disagree with you on voter Id laws. As far as you know, they have never discriminated against someone on the basis of skin color or used a racial epithet, yet you call them "racists" because they are on the other side.

You are such a hypocrite and have the credibility of Michael Borovetz

No, liberals are irritated with how those people earned their money in the first place - quite often via the exploitation of other people, or the planet, or relaxed oversight.

The author never mentions liberals being compassionate with other people's money. The author mentions that liberals are told they are compassionate even when it's just words. He's focusing on liberals being able to be hypocritical and not be called out on it as a 'privilege' .

So, Unions who exploit their workers and shake them down for dues are ok?

It's doubtful the author knows what privilege means though.

Bush didn't have a kill list, did he? (Excuse me. "Disposition matrix", I think, has been the proper Orwellian term over the course of this administration.) Or, did he just not make it public? Mind linking some articles?

But, Bush did kick off the whole "Apocalypse in the Middle East, 20--" football, so I see what you're saying.

What makes these violations so disturbing is that the president can openly flaunt this power, and the majority look the other way.

I mod Video Games you dumb****

fyp

Regarding the book part, you realize that I was referencing real conservative best sellers, right? I think if you looked at the NYTimes best seller lists over the last 2 decades or so you're going to find a lot of big hits like the ones I was referencing and a much smaller liberal corollary. But the bigger point is that the liberals on this forum aren't the ones complaining like proph and cerveza about the other side calling them names while pretending their party is innocent.

For liberals to be as bad as cerveza we'd have to have fly complaining that conservatives call others names instead of taking the high road like he does.

His audience obviously wasn't liberals, so it's easy for you to miss.

Maybe he should've used the word "Democrats", but aren't they interchangeable these days?

Who the **** unbanned proph?

No, he's saying liberals get patted on the back for good intentions regardless of what they do, even if what they do is bad. He's not complaining about about tax is theft, "other people's money", or whatever.

The former el presidente of unchained, the same one who banned him.

The title of the article is a "nice" accusation.

The pairing of the word liberal and privilege is also "nice". Smells like a fart when combined with the accusation of deception.

Behold, Cerveza... champion of the Hegelian Dialectic

PS: No, that's not "OK"

And here's the result of a good-faith effort to try and engage.

There's basically 3 ways to respond to OP's level of nonsense, and 3 predictable responses, all of which have now played out in this thread:

1. Ignore. Response: Liberals are too cowardly to engage on the merits of our arguments! They must know we speak truth! We win!

2. Mock. Response: Liberals are always insulting everybody, just like the professor said they would! We must have touched a nerve! We win!

3. Engage. Response: That was so long and repetitive I'm not going to bother to read it! Picking it apart meticulously line-by-line just shows you're not honestly trying to comprehend. We win!

There is literally nothing that can be done in response -- short of complete agreement that Liberals are all stupid and mean and dishonest and wrong about everything -- that will result in any satisfactory dialogue.

Because it's not about dialogue and never was. It's about rage and name-calling and affirmation from other members of their tribe. FFS "Liberals insult people more than conservatives" is not worth even 1 second of anybody's time.

But I guess it's Friday afternoon and I'm here for the lols like everybody else.