In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[LoneLaugher]

Except...you lie about our hatred of particular races and sexual orientations in order to justify removing freedoms from people you hate...and you are completely oblivious and uncaring that in doing so, you perpetuate hate yourselves.

The progressive left is the party of hate. They breathe it, they live it, and they eternally manufacture it, using the most disgusting, and dishonest, means possible.

Currently, they maintain that to be Christian is to be stupid, bigoted, racist, and dangerous. It's exactly what every oppressive, human rights-violating, fascist regime in the history of mankind has said in order to justify and facilitate removal of rights from hated majorities...with the ultimate goal of exterminating them altogether.

You have highlighted one of the clearest examples of hypocrisy and double standard that exists in the topic.

Phil Robertson has encouraged nobody to be vindictive toward gay people. He has encouraged just the opposite. He doesn't hate or even dislike gay people. He is clearly on the record that he loves his gay brothers and sisters as much as anybody else and wishes no harm come to them or anybody. His ONLY sin is that he interprets the Bible as including homosexuality with a whole bunch of other 'sins' and, when asked a specific question by a GQ interviewer, he expressed his interpretation honestly and without vindictiveness. He did so crudely, but then as his family describes him, he is a crude guy. A lot of people are.

So some are okay with going after Phil Robertson, okay with getting him fired, okay with physically and materially punishing him, because he expressed an opinion they don't like.
So would our friends here who have described Christianity in crude, unkind, and erroneous ways be okay with us going after them? Getting them fired? Physically and materially punished them because they describe Christianity in a way we see as intolerant, crude, and unkind?

What is the difference between these two things?

I am not okay with any of that. Who are you talking about?

 

[koshergrl]

If you're a progressive, you do..and you're lying about it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Progressives always villify others by accusing them of behavior/actions they are themselves guilty of. It's part and parcel of being without honor, and patently and deliberately dishonest. They have an objective, and they think any foulness on their part is justified to bring about that objective
And that objective is to eliminate religion, reduce the population, and remove all rights from the remaining population so that they live only in subjugation to, and at the pleasure of, the state.
Somehow, they perceive that they themselves will be immune from the human rights violations that they promote...which just shows how stupid and blind they really are.

YOU are ridiculous.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Except...you lie about our hatred of particular races and sexual orientations in order to justify removing freedoms from people you hate...and you are completely oblivious and uncaring that in doing so, you perpetuate hate yourselves.

The progressive left is the party of hate. They breathe it, they live it, and they eternally manufacture it, using the most disgusting, and dishonest, means possible.

Currently, they maintain that to be Christian is to be stupid, bigoted, racist, and dangerous. It's exactly what every oppressive, human rights-violating, fascist regime in the history of mankind has said in order to justify and facilitate removal of rights from hated majorities...with the ultimate goal of exterminating them altogether.

I don't. Who are you talking about?

You.

As the old saying goes "the hit dog always hollers first." Don't sit there and think folks haven't forgotten how you used to refer to conservatives as "inmates." You haven't gone untarnished in this regard, carbine. You're very intolerant of any view. Yeah, you put on a good face in my speech thread, but that's merely a facade.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you're a progressive, you do..and you're lying about it.

Nope. I most certainly do not.

 

[Montrovant]

Except...you lie about our hatred of particular races and sexual orientations in order to justify removing freedoms from people you hate...and you are completely oblivious and uncaring that in doing so, you perpetuate hate yourselves.

The progressive left is the party of hate. They breathe it, they live it, and they eternally manufacture it, using the most disgusting, and dishonest, means possible.

Currently, they maintain that to be Christian is to be stupid, bigoted, racist, and dangerous. It's exactly what every oppressive, human rights-violating, fascist regime in the history of mankind has said in order to justify and facilitate removal of rights from hated majorities...with the ultimate goal of exterminating them altogether.

You have highlighted one of the clearest examples of hypocrisy and double standard that exists in the topic.

Phil Robertson has encouraged nobody to be vindictive toward gay people. He has encouraged just the opposite. He doesn't hate or even dislike gay people. He is clearly on the record that he loves his gay brothers and sisters as much as anybody else and wishes no harm come to them or anybody. His ONLY sin is that he interprets the Bible as including homosexuality with a whole bunch of other 'sins' and, when asked a specific question by a GQ interviewer, he expressed his interpretation honestly and without vindictiveness. He did so crudely, but then as his family describes him, he is a crude guy. A lot of people are.

So some are okay with going after Phil Robertson, okay with getting him fired, okay with physically and materially punishing him, because he expressed an opinion they don't like.

So would our friends here who have described Christianity in crude, unkind, and erroneous ways be okay with us going after them? Getting them fired? Physically and materially punished them because they describe Christianity in a way we see as intolerant, crude, and unkind?

What is the difference between these two things?

The big difference would be that this is an anonymous message board, making any sort of action against a poster of that sort difficult, and Phil Robertson being a public figure making statements under his own name. It leaves a person much more open to criticism and attack when they are a celebrity.

But yes, if it is ok for GLAAD to threaten harmful but legal acts because of what Phil Robertson says, it is ok for anyone here to do the same.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Except...you lie about our hatred of particular races and sexual orientations in order to justify removing freedoms from people you hate...and you are completely oblivious and uncaring that in doing so, you perpetuate hate yourselves.

The progressive left is the party of hate. They breathe it, they live it, and they eternally manufacture it, using the most disgusting, and dishonest, means possible.

Currently, they maintain that to be Christian is to be stupid, bigoted, racist, and dangerous. It's exactly what every oppressive, human rights-violating, fascist regime in the history of mankind has said in order to justify and facilitate removal of rights from hated majorities...with the ultimate goal of exterminating them altogether.

I don't. Who are you talking about?

You.

As the old saying goes "the hit dog always hollers first." Don't sit there and think folks haven't forgotten how you used to refer to conservatives as "inmates." You haven't gone untarnished in this regard, carbine. You're very intolerant of any view. Yeah, you put on a good face in my speech thread, but that's merely a facade.

I have never referred to a conservative as an "inmate". I refer to some conservatives as "nutters". It is my pet name for some of you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Except...you lie about our hatred of particular races and sexual orientations in order to justify removing freedoms from people you hate...and you are completely oblivious and uncaring that in doing so, you perpetuate hate yourselves.

The progressive left is the party of hate. They breathe it, they live it, and they eternally manufacture it, using the most disgusting, and dishonest, means possible.

Currently, they maintain that to be Christian is to be stupid, bigoted, racist, and dangerous. It's exactly what every oppressive, human rights-violating, fascist regime in the history of mankind has said in order to justify and facilitate removal of rights from hated majorities...with the ultimate goal of exterminating them altogether.

You have highlighted one of the clearest examples of hypocrisy and double standard that exists in the topic.

Phil Robertson has encouraged nobody to be vindictive toward gay people. He has encouraged just the opposite. He doesn't hate or even dislike gay people. He is clearly on the record that he loves his gay brothers and sisters as much as anybody else and wishes no harm come to them or anybody. His ONLY sin is that he interprets the Bible as including homosexuality with a whole bunch of other 'sins' and, when asked a specific question by a GQ interviewer, he expressed his interpretation honestly and without vindictiveness. He did so crudely, but then as his family describes him, he is a crude guy. A lot of people are.

So some are okay with going after Phil Robertson, okay with getting him fired, okay with physically and materially punishing him, because he expressed an opinion they don't like.

So would our friends here who have described Christianity in crude, unkind, and erroneous ways be okay with us going after them? Getting them fired? Physically and materially punished them because they describe Christianity in a way we see as intolerant, crude, and unkind?

What is the difference between these two things?

The big difference would be that this is an anonymous message board, making any sort of action against a poster of that sort difficult, and Phil Robertson being a public figure making statements under his own name. It leaves a person much more open to criticism and attack when they are a celebrity.

But yes, if it is ok for GLAAD to threaten harmful but legal acts because of what Phil Robertson says, it is ok for anyone here to do the same.

Happens every day.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're libertarian, you think everybody except fellow libertarians and outright anarchists are authoritarian.

You don't have the "authority" to speak for me. I clearly stated what I meant to state. Thus your accusation is a BLATANT LIE.

 

[koshergrl]

If you're a progressive, you do..and you're lying about it.

Nope. I most certainly do not.

Of course you do. To be progressive is to be a foul, anti-Christian, anti-human miasma of hatred and putrid, human-rights violating (in theory if not in actuality) dishonesty.

If you aren't those things, then you're not a progressive.

 

[RKMBrown]

Progressives always villify others by accusing them of behavior/actions they are themselves guilty of. It's part and parcel of being without honor, and patently and deliberately dishonest. They have an objective, and they think any foulness on their part is justified to bring about that objective
And that objective is to eliminate religion, reduce the population, and remove all rights from the remaining population so that they live only in subjugation to, and at the pleasure of, the state.

Somehow, they perceive that they themselves will be immune from the human rights violations that they promote...which just shows how stupid and blind they really are.

Authoritarians always vilify others by accusing them of behavior/actions they are themselves guilty of. It's part and parcel of being without honor, and patently and deliberately dishonest. They have an objective, and they think any foulness on their part is justified to bring about that objective and that objective is to eliminate liberty by removing all rights from the population so that they live only in subjugation to, and at their pleasure.

Somehow, they perceive that they themselves will be immune from the human rights violations that they promote...which just shows how stupid and blind they really are.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you're a progressive, you do..and you're lying about it.

Nope. I most certainly do not.

Of course you do. To be progressive is to be a foul, anti-Christian, anti-human miasma of hatred and putrid, human-rights violating (in theory if not in actuality) dishonesty.

If you aren't those things, then you're not a progressive.

You have figured that out all by yourself, huh?

Name 10 progressives, please.

 

[koshergrl]

You name them, and I'll point out their lies and their anti-human qualities.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You name them, and I'll point out their lies and their anti-human qualities.

I want to see who you think is progressive. My naming them is therefore pointless.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you're a progressive, you do..and you're lying about it.

Nope. I most certainly do not.

Of course you do. To be progressive is to be a foul, anti-Christian, anti-human miasma of hatred and putrid, human-rights violating (in theory if not in actuality) dishonesty.

If you aren't those things, then you're not a progressive.

Whatever happened to fat people being jolly?

I guess the Pope is anti-Christian now, being as progressive as he is.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You name them, and I'll point out their lies and their anti-human qualities.

I want to see who you think is progressive. My naming them is therefore pointless.

You should start a thread about that, then.

Meanwhile, I promise you that any progressive you name is a lying, anti-human piece of shit. Name any you like, and I will confirm it...that will prove my point.

If you just think I don't know what a progressive is, you are welcome to start a thread about that. Otherwise, meh.

You can't name 10...can you? OK....three. name three.

 

[koshergrl]

Start another thread, troll.

Meanwhile...joeb, rtard, and bode.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Start another thread, troll.

Meanwhile...joeb, rtard, and bode.

Cool! Three USMB members.

Let me go back and see what you claim they promote......brb.

 

[LoneLaugher]

"To be progressive is to be a foul, anti-Christian, anti-human miasma of hatred and putrid, human-rights violating (in theory if not in actuality) dishonesty."

Hmmmm. I think you will have a hard time proving that claim about your three examples.

Anti-human?
Human rights violating?

JoeB might have an issue with all religions. You might get a point there.

Is our President a progressive?

 

[Foxfyre]

Except...you lie about our hatred of particular races and sexual orientations in order to justify removing freedoms from people you hate...and you are completely oblivious and uncaring that in doing so, you perpetuate hate yourselves.

The progressive left is the party of hate. They breathe it, they live it, and they eternally manufacture it, using the most disgusting, and dishonest, means possible.

Currently, they maintain that to be Christian is to be stupid, bigoted, racist, and dangerous. It's exactly what every oppressive, human rights-violating, fascist regime in the history of mankind has said in order to justify and facilitate removal of rights from hated majorities...with the ultimate goal of exterminating them altogether.

You have highlighted one of the clearest examples of hypocrisy and double standard that exists in the topic.

Phil Robertson has encouraged nobody to be vindictive toward gay people. He has encouraged just the opposite. He doesn't hate or even dislike gay people. He is clearly on the record that he loves his gay brothers and sisters as much as anybody else and wishes no harm come to them or anybody. His ONLY sin is that he interprets the Bible as including homosexuality with a whole bunch of other 'sins' and, when asked a specific question by a GQ interviewer, he expressed his interpretation honestly and without vindictiveness. He did so crudely, but then as his family describes him, he is a crude guy. A lot of people are.

So some are okay with going after Phil Robertson, okay with getting him fired, okay with physically and materially punishing him, because he expressed an opinion they don't like.

So would our friends here who have described Christianity in crude, unkind, and erroneous ways be okay with us going after them? Getting them fired? Physically and materially punished them because they describe Christianity in a way we see as intolerant, crude, and unkind?

What is the difference between these two things?

The big difference would be that this is an anonymous message board, making any sort of action against a poster of that sort difficult, and Phil Robertson being a public figure making statements under his own name. It leaves a person much more open to criticism and attack when they are a celebrity.

But yes, if it is ok for GLAAD to threaten harmful but legal acts because of what Phil Robertson says, it is ok for anyone here to do the same.

I'm going to ignore all of you, left or right, who can't seem to focus on a topic without making it something personal against everybody else. Sigh. The need to be hateful, accusatory, and spiteful from so many of you is indeed frustrating. The inability to focus on a concept instead of attacking each other seems to be epidemic lately. You'll no doubt get your wish soon and the mods will shut down the thread or bust it to the flame zone where it will disappear. And I'm sure you'll all glad hand each other and celebrate when that happens. That is your intent after all isn't it?

So thank you Montrovant for focusing on the topic and not joining in on the schoolyard food fight. Maybe we can get in a bit more grown up discussion before that happens.

So okay. Your statement I would see is fair and equitable. What's good for the goose and all that. And yes, my analogy was hypotheticl because I do not have the ability to identify those posting here, nor do I have any desire to attack anybody in real life any more than I want to attack people on message boards. I personally have a hard time respecting anybody who attacks and insults people for no other reason than they hold an unpopular opinion or because they represent some group some think are unacceptable. I don't think that is what grown up, intelligent, freedom loving people do.

But that is what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson.
That is what American Family Association did to Ellen Degeneres.

Is that okay?