How about a SINCERE WilliamPitt Appreciation Thread?

[Orrex]

188. Your straw-man definition of "liberal" is worthless

Liberals are more apt to be open minded and let people speak their minds even if they don't agree.

Even if we accept your arbitrary definition, liberals are under no obligation to tolerate bullshit or ostentatious look-at-me displays of public rhetorical masturbation.

Non-liberals on the other hand, like to shout people down, alert, lock, hide, ban.

That is a preposterously self-serving definition, and it foolishly ignores the multitude of entirely legitimate reasons to shout people down, alert, lock, hide or ban them.

Your implication is that these dastardly non-liberals object to free speech and expression, and that's always the go-to complaint for people who want totry to make nonsense look like depth.

If you disagree, make your case instead of name calling "you are a passive aggressive blowhard."

But you *are* a passive aggressive blowhard. Or, perhaps more accurately, your posts are entirely consistent with what one would expect from a passive aggressive blowhard. Your own posts are all the evidence we need, in which you opine that "this objectionable type of person demonstates these qualities" which you have identified in your opponent's post immedately previously. That is, rather than having the integrity to say "you're not a liberal," you rattle off a bullshit checklist with the unambiguous implication that your opponent meets those criteria, and then when the opponent objects, you can say "but I didn't say you aren't a liberal--you must think that you really aren't a liberal."

That's a cowardly and passive aggressive tactic, and you roll it out again and again. Compare that with my tone here, for instance, where I'm spefically identifying your cowardly, passive aggressive tactic.


Your schtick is trite and obvious.