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

[Plasmaball]

msnbc host apologizes to mitt romney

that didnt take long

#3

#2

 

[Samson]

......
Legally....they are all within their rights. Morally......not so much. The OP expresses a desire for adult, honest discussion and an end to GLAAD being intolerant. The path to that is to end the oppression and intolerance that illicits the response from GLAAD.

I wish I had a nickel for every time the word "they" or "their" was used in this thread.

Yes, me too

 

[Samson]

You have no problem with people being physically and/or materially punished for being who and what they are?

No, I don't.

I'm glad the Israelis caught up to Eichmann.

I'm happy sexual preditors must register their locations.

I'm thrilled when a bigot loses money because they expressed an unpopular opinion.

Either these people need to take the heat, or get out of the kitchen.

 

[Montrovant]

Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called "jamming" which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda.

Yes. You my friend, have grasped the concept of the OP so far as GLAAD and Phil Robertson are concerned. They demand total immunity from any negatives whatsoever re gays but will not extend even token tolerance to those who promote traditional marriage or certain Christian beliefs or families with a mom and dad providing role models for the kids.

And it isn't just the Gestapo and/or Inquisition tactics of GLAAD demanding not just tolerance, but endorsement, total non criticism, non negative inferences of any kind. There are also groups who target anybody who doesn't interpret women's rights as they interpret them, who refuse to promote the politically correct and often dishonest social dynamics or history of racial minorities, who object to militant Islam, who promote certain Christian beliefs unrelated to homosexuality. And, as I have tried my damndest to point out, there are some rightwing groups who are just as bad.

Is there anybody among us who condones or approves the tacitcs of the Westboro Baptists? What hateful, mean spirited, disgusting, intolerant, and cruel people they show themselves to be. The American Family Association was not so hateful, but still were very very wrong and unAmerican to go after Ellen Degeneres for no other reason than they judged her to be promoting homosexuality purely by appearing in a Christmas ad. That to me is indefensible, wrong, and is an embarrassment to all of us who promote traditional family values as well as the unalienable right to be who and what we are with impunity.

Is there anybody in this thread who supports the tactics of the Westboro Baptists? Is there anybody in this thread who supports that action of the AFA?

How can you condemn one and not also condemn the actions of GLAAD re Phil Robertson?

Foxy, you have just quoted a post and poster who seems to be saying that all gays are 'hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement' and said he gets your OP. He is lumping all gay people together and insulting them and you, by quoting his post and saying he gets your OP, come off as agreeing with that.

It doesn't matter if you are only talking about GLAAD, as the poster you quoted in no way limited himself to that organization.

EDIT - The quote function got screwed up somewhere along the line, sorry about the mislabeled quotes!

 

[Foxfyre]

You have no problem with people being physically and/or materially punished for being who and what they are?

No, I don't.

I'm glad the Israelis caught up to Eichmann.

I'm happy sexual preditors must register their locations.

I'm thrilled when a bigot loses money because they expressed an unpopular opinion.

Either these people need to take the heat, or get out of the kitchen.

Well at least you expressed an honest opinion. I was with you re punishing people for the evil things they DO. I can't agree that we can have liberty when it is okay to punish people purely for being who and what they are. So you are also okay with the AFA petitioning J C Penney to dump Ellen Degeneres? You think that is something that a free people should accept as okay?

 

[Samson]

You have no problem with people being physically and/or materially punished for being who and what they are?

No, I don't.

I'm glad the Israelis caught up to Eichmann.

I'm happy sexual preditors must register their locations.

I'm thrilled when a bigot loses money because they expressed an unpopular opinion.

Either these people need to take the heat, or get out of the kitchen.

Well at least you expressed an honest opinion. I was with you re punishing people for the evil things they DO. I can't agree that we can have liberty when it is okay to punish people purely for being who and what they are. So you are also okay with the AFA petitioning J C Penney to dump Ellen Degeneres? You think that is something that a free people should accept as okay?

Yes, I do think its OK for the AFA to petition JC Penny. Retailors are constantly looking for customer feedback, plus, don't consumers have a right to voice their opinion? Of course they do.

Freedom of expression means EVERYONE, Queers that don't like the Robertsons, people that don't want Dolphins killed to fish for Tuna, and publications that report Kristallnacht, have the right to express themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, I don't.

I'm glad the Israelis caught up to Eichmann.

I'm happy sexual preditors must register their locations.

I'm thrilled when a bigot loses money because they expressed an unpopular opinion.

Either these people need to take the heat, or get out of the kitchen.

Well at least you expressed an honest opinion. I was with you re punishing people for the evil things they DO. I can't agree that we can have liberty when it is okay to punish people purely for being who and what they are. So you are also okay with the AFA petitioning J C Penney to dump Ellen Degeneres? You think that is something that a free people should accept as okay?

Yes, I do think its OK for the AFA to petition JC Penny. Retailors are constantly looking for customer feedback, plus, don't consumers have a right to voice their opinion? Of course they do.

Freedom of expression means EVERYONE, Queers that don't like the Robertsons, people that don't want Dolphins killed to fish for Tuna, and publications that report Kristallnacht, have the right to express themselves.

Okay. I thank you for expressing your opinion. I just hope there aren't a large number of people who agree with you. Or we will lose rest of the liberties that we have.

 

[Samson]

Well at least you expressed an honest opinion. I was with you re punishing people for the evil things they DO. I can't agree that we can have liberty when it is okay to punish people purely for being who and what they are. So you are also okay with the AFA petitioning J C Penney to dump Ellen Degeneres? You think that is something that a free people should accept as okay?

Yes, I do think its OK for the AFA to petition JC Penny. Retailors are constantly looking for customer feedback, plus, don't consumers have a right to voice their opinion? Of course they do.

Freedom of expression means EVERYONE, Queers that don't like the Robertsons, people that don't want Dolphins killed to fish for Tuna, and publications that report Kristallnacht, have the right to express themselves.

Okay. I thank you for expressing your opinion. I just hope there aren't a large number of people who agree with you. Or we will lose rest of the liberties that we have.

So you think, to preserve liberty, only selected groups should be able to voice opinions

Who selects these?

 

[Plasmaball]

Well at least you expressed an honest opinion. I was with you re punishing people for the evil things they DO. I can't agree that we can have liberty when it is okay to punish people purely for being who and what they are. So you are also okay with the AFA petitioning J C Penney to dump Ellen Degeneres? You think that is something that a free people should accept as okay?

Yes, I do think its OK for the AFA to petition JC Penny. Retailors are constantly looking for customer feedback, plus, don't consumers have a right to voice their opinion? Of course they do.

Freedom of expression means EVERYONE, Queers that don't like the Robertsons, people that don't want Dolphins killed to fish for Tuna, and publications that report Kristallnacht, have the right to express themselves.

Okay. I thank you for expressing your opinion. I just hope there aren't a large number of people who agree with you. Or we will lose rest of the liberties that we have.

nobody has lost any liberties.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. You my friend, have grasped the concept of the OP so far as GLAAD and Phil Robertson are concerned. They demand total immunity from any negatives whatsoever re gays but will not extend even token tolerance to those who promote traditional marriage or certain Christian beliefs or families with a mom and dad providing role models for the kids.

And it isn't just the Gestapo and/or Inquisition tactics of GLAAD demanding not just tolerance, but endorsement, total non criticism, non negative inferences of any kind. There are also groups who target anybody who doesn't interpret women's rights as they interpret them, who refuse to promote the politically correct and often dishonest social dynamics or history of racial minorities, who object to militant Islam, who promote certain Christian beliefs unrelated to homosexuality. And, as I have tried my damndest to point out, there are some rightwing groups who are just as bad.

Is there anybody among us who condones or approves the tacitcs of the Westboro Baptists? What hateful, mean spirited, disgusting, intolerant, and cruel people they show themselves to be. The American Family Association was not so hateful, but still were very very wrong and unAmerican to go after Ellen Degeneres for no other reason than they judged her to be promoting homosexuality purely by appearing in a Christmas ad. That to me is indefensible, wrong, and is an embarrassment to all of us who promote traditional family values as well as the unalienable right to be who and what we are with impunity.

Is there anybody in this thread who supports the tactics of the Westboro Baptists? Is there anybody in this thread who supports that action of the AFA?

How can you condemn one and not also condemn the actions of GLAAD re Phil Robertson?

Foxy, you have just quoted a post and poster who seems to be saying that all gays are 'hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement' and said he gets your OP. He is lumping all gay people together and insulting them and you, by quoting his post and saying he gets your OP, come off as agreeing with that.

It doesn't matter if you are only talking about GLAAD, as the poster you quoted in no way limited himself to that organization.

EDIT - The quote function got screwed up somewhere along the line, sorry about the mislabeled quotes!

Yeah because of the mislabeled quotes, it's hard to determine what are Greenbean's thoughts and what are somebody else's.

Here is exactly what I think he said:

Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called "jamming" which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda

I could have taken him to task for the blanket characterization of gays, but I haven't taken anybody else to task for blanket characterizations so I went with what I thought he intended instead of taking the statement literally as posted. I honestly do try to cut everybody that much slack and I do try to be consistent. I wish I was perfect and never made mistakes, but alas I do. Greenbean may indeed feel much more negatively about gays than I do--since I don't feel negatively about gays at all--but Greenbean is entitled to be who and what he is just as GLAAD is entitled to be who and what they are and just as Phil Robertson is entitled to be who and what he is.

I have no problem with anybody expressing their beliefs or opinions in a forum appropriate to do that.

I have a HUGE problem with anybody presuming to dictate to somebody else what beliefs or opinions they are allowed to express anywhere.

I took Greenbean's post to be focused on GLAAD's tactics intended to punish Phil Robertson for no reason other than he expressed a belief that they don't share. I probably should have been clearer, but it was THAT which addressed the OP. It was THAT which I thought Greenbean got.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well at least you expressed an honest opinion. I was with you re punishing people for the evil things they DO. I can't agree that we can have liberty when it is okay to punish people purely for being who and what they are. So you are also okay with the AFA petitioning J C Penney to dump Ellen Degeneres? You think that is something that a free people should accept as okay?

Yes, I do think its OK for the AFA to petition JC Penny. Retailors are constantly looking for customer feedback, plus, don't consumers have a right to voice their opinion? Of course they do.

Freedom of expression means EVERYONE, Queers that don't like the Robertsons, people that don't want Dolphins killed to fish for Tuna, and publications that report Kristallnacht, have the right to express themselves.

Okay. I thank you for expressing your opinion. I just hope there aren't a large number of people who agree with you. Or we will lose rest of the liberties that we have.

When you depend on public opinion for any or all of your livelihood, you've given up the liberty to do or say what you please without any material impact on that livelihood.

...and you've done so voluntarily.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's funny is that in reality not a single conservative on this board agrees with FF,

despite some pretending to.

The next time a liberal says something that is offensive to conservatives in the media, count how many of those people defend him or her.

This very well may be true. Which is okay. I AM willing to allow people to be who and what they are and I have never required anybody in my work, in my family, among my friends and associates, or on message boards to agree with me. Nor is agreement necessary in order for me to hold the beliefs I believe or the convictions I embrace. So if nobody else on the planet or on this board agrees with me about anything, so be it.

It is too bad, however, that you have such severe cognitive reading deficiencies or you would know that I also defend a liberals right to be offensive to conservatives. I just don't defend any, liberal or conservative, demanding that others not offend them and assuming the right to physically and/or materially harm those who do.

The intelligent understand that. Alas, some of you never will.

Let me try once more:

You don't have the right to prevent people from criticizing you. And you don't acquire that right just because you've become a public figure in a job that depends on favorable public opinion of you for you to prosper.

 

[Montrovant]

Foxy, you have just quoted a post and poster who seems to be saying that all gays are 'hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement' and said he gets your OP. He is lumping all gay people together and insulting them and you, by quoting his post and saying he gets your OP, come off as agreeing with that.

It doesn't matter if you are only talking about GLAAD, as the poster you quoted in no way limited himself to that organization.

EDIT - The quote function got screwed up somewhere along the line, sorry about the mislabeled quotes!

Yeah because of the mislabeled quotes, it's hard to determine what are Greenbean's thoughts and what are somebody else's.

Here is exactly what I think he said:

Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called "jamming" which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda

I could have taken him to task for the blanket characterization of gays, but I haven't taken anybody else to task for blanket characterizations so I went with what I thought he intended instead of taking the statement literally as posted. I honestly do try to cut everybody that much slack and I do try to be consistent. I wish I was perfect and never made mistakes, but alas I do. Greenbean may indeed feel much more negatively about gays than I do--since I don't feel negatively about gays at all--but Greenbean is entitled to be who and what he is just as GLAAD is entitled to be who and what they are and just as Phil Robertson is entitled to be who and what he is.

I have no problem with anybody expressing their beliefs or opinions in a forum appropriate to do that.

I have a HUGE problem with anybody presuming to dictate to somebody else what beliefs or opinions they are allowed to express anywhere.

I took Greenbean's post to be focused on GLAAD's tactics intended to punish Phil Robertson for no reason other than he expressed a belief that they don't share. I probably should have been clearer, but it was THAT which addressed the OP. It was THAT which I thought Greenbean got.

I happen to have just seen a post of his in another forum here at USMB, and based on that, I'm pretty certain he meant to use a blanket statement. I've only seen a few posts, but they are all anti-gay.

But I completely understand you not being sure what he meant and giving him some benefit of the doubt. I just thought I'd point out how it sounded so you'd be aware.

 

[Foxfyre]

Intelligent people know the difference between telling somebody off and hitting that person. Intelligent people know the difference between disciplining a child and spanking that child.
Intelligent people know the difference between public criticism and opinion and demanding that somebody be fired for nothing more than expressing an opinion that an organization didn't like.

 

[Plasmaball]

Intelligent people know the difference between telling somebody off and hitting that person. Intelligent people know the difference between disciplining a child and spanking that child.
Intelligent people know the difference between public criticism and opinion and demanding that somebody be fired for nothing more than expressing an opinion that an organization didn't like.

i can demand you be banned from this forum, and i have that right too. the mods have the right to tell me no.

you are anti freedom,but wont come out and own up to it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah because of the mislabeled quotes, it's hard to determine what are Greenbean's thoughts and what are somebody else's.

Here is exactly what I think he said:


I could have taken him to task for the blanket characterization of gays, but I haven't taken anybody else to task for blanket characterizations so I went with what I thought he intended instead of taking the statement literally as posted. I honestly do try to cut everybody that much slack and I do try to be consistent. I wish I was perfect and never made mistakes, but alas I do. Greenbean may indeed feel much more negatively about gays than I do--since I don't feel negatively about gays at all--but Greenbean is entitled to be who and what he is just as GLAAD is entitled to be who and what they are and just as Phil Robertson is entitled to be who and what he is.

I have no problem with anybody expressing their beliefs or opinions in a forum appropriate to do that.

I have a HUGE problem with anybody presuming to dictate to somebody else what beliefs or opinions they are allowed to express anywhere.

I took Greenbean's post to be focused on GLAAD's tactics intended to punish Phil Robertson for no reason other than he expressed a belief that they don't share. I probably should have been clearer, but it was THAT which addressed the OP. It was THAT which I thought Greenbean got.

I happen to have just seen a post of his in another forum here at USMB, and based on that, I'm pretty certain he meant to use a blanket statement. I've only seen a few posts, but they are all anti-gay.

But I completely understand you not being sure what he meant and giving him some benefit of the doubt. I just thought I'd point out how it sounded so you'd be aware.

In this thread too he has obviously been more negative re gays than most of us, maybe more than any of the rest of us. But he has not wished any harm on gays. He has not suggested that gays be discriminated against or not enjoy the blessings of liberty any more than the rest of us. Therefore he is as entitled to his feelings or opinions as are those who feel negatively toward conservatives or Republicans or white people or Americans or Christians or accordian players.

Tolerance means allowing people to be who and what they are. It does not mean we have to like them, respect them, appreciate them, or condone their attitudes. It only means as long as they don't require contribution or participation by us and don't intend any danger or harm to us, we allow them to be who and what they are.

 

[Samson]

Intelligent people know the difference between telling somebody off and hitting that person. Intelligent people know the difference between disciplining a child and spanking that child.
Intelligent people know the difference between public criticism and opinion and demanding that somebody be fired for nothing more than expressing an opinion that an organization didn't like.

Again, I ask: Who decides which people are intelligent, and which are not?

 

[Mac1958]

Let me try once more:

You don't have the right to prevent people from criticizing you. And you don't acquire that right just because you've become a public figure in a job that depends on favorable public opinion of you for you to prosper.

And I'll try once more:

This isn't about preventing people from criticizing you. If it were, there would be no problem. It's about the PC Police's tactic of putting people on the defensive with threats of job loss or other significant punishment.

Criticize all you want -- I REPEAT, CRITICIZE ALL YOU WANT -- great, maybe that will lead to a conversation, to communication. But the PC Police don't appear to want that, they'd rather intimidate so that they can divert from the debate.

Just as you do when you toss out the straw man that we're trying to stop criticism.

And I'd love to know one thing: Are you FORCED to threaten people with retribution, job loss, etc.? Are you FORCED to use these straw man arguments? Let me answer that for you: No, you're NOT forced to behave like that. You do it because it puts your target on the defensive and it has worked so well for so long.

That's changing now, right before our eyes.



.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Okay, I've done my damndest to keep this thread non partisan and on point, but alas, the more sensible people here just can't help themselves. You wouldn't put the trolls on ignore when I requested and you just can't resist responding to them when requested. So I can't report the off topic posts without nailing the rest of you. LOL. Ah well. At least world peace or the eradication of hunger or who wins the Super Bowl doesn't hinge on this thread.

But what seems crystal clear in all of this:

1. With one or two exceptions it is the Lefties--and I can say unequivocably now that it is ONLY the lefties on this thread--who are unable to be objective, honest, fair, or any form of reasonable. They have accused those of us who are trying to debate the topic with every slur and insult short of us being Hitler, and I'm not sure that wasn't in there somewhere, and have accused us of being blindly partisan and much worse. I still say it is something in the water they drink that makes them unable to discuss anything without being personally insulting or partisan or ad hominem and keeps them from being able to understand what the point of the topic is.

Yes, some of those on the right are equally as insulting, but at least everybody on the right at some point in all of this has addressed the point of the topic.

2. With one or two exceptions, those on the left have not been willing or capable to address the topic itself. They are focused strictly on Phil Robertson as being the devil personified and/or any of us who think what GLAAD did was reprehensible. When asked if they think GLAAD and the AFA were right to do what they did, they will not answer that question with a yes or no. They go off into some other tangent or accuse me for asking the question.

In fairness to those on the left, so far very few on the right have commented that the AFA was every bit as reprehensible as GLAAD. I have now mentioned that several times and yet some, even some I consider friends, still accuse me of being partisan among a number of other unflattering adjectives. They also accuse me of defending Phil Robertson though I now numerous times have said I don't agree with his interpretation of scriptures in this issue and I didn't like the way he expressed it.

Nevertheless, amidst all the childishness, pettyness, hatefulness, deliberate derails, and other nonsense, whether you have agreed with me or not, I hope the intelligent few who have understood the point of the OP and were grown up enough to actually discuss it, have been able to raise the consciousness a bit of those who have been reading in.

At some point, if good people do not begin demanding that we push back against those who demonstrate nothing but hate in the name of political correctness and who would demand that everybody share their views and opinions or else, we will lose all of our unalienable right to be who and what we are. Maybe the GLAAD and Phil Robertson bruhaha is the place where we start turning that around.

Oh, what a bunch of bullshit. You are anything but neutral. What a shame that you decided to play the "I am neutral" game just to shit on liberals. You should shame yourself all the way down to your toes, Fyrefox. For every posting that you claim is over the top by Libs here on this thread, I am pretty sure that I can show you two posts by Cons that are equally lacking in class, or even worse.

6 times I confronted you about the "physical harm" issue. I brought facts to the table. You avoided. And now you want to impugne Libs for bad behaviour on a thread.

I think you have had too much Christmas Punch, really!

And I do think it must be something in the water you libs drink that causes such reading dysfunction. I have stated my position on the 'physical harm' concept several times now and you have yet to address that, so you can just get off your high horse about that please. I have also very clearly addressed that I think some on the right side of the line have also behaved badly and you seem to be incapable of reading that too. If it isn't reading dysfunction, it is selective reading.

But one thing I haven't done is attack any of you on the left or right personally and hatefully which almost every one of you on the left - none on the right - have now done to me. Which is probably why you think it is just fine and dandy that GLAAD attacked Phil Robertson personally and you have no moral or ethical problem with that whatsoever. Phil Robertson isn't on 'your side' and he is not politically correct. Therefore he can be personally destroyed and, with a couple of exceptions, you folks on the left think that's just hunky dory okay.

I think that is also a common trait of the Left if the posts in this thread are any indication. None of you are capable of making a rational argument to rebut a concept you don't like. It's pretty hard to rebut a concept of allowing people to be who and what they are without fear of physical and/or material harm from some mob, group, or organization. So you attack the messenger.

I tried to keep this non partisan and on point. You folks on the left wouldn't let me. So since you have insisted, let's make it about that.

Just how tolerant and open and honest and fair minded do you think you are? Is Phil Robertson such a terrible person because of his interpretation of the Bible that he deserves to be personally destroyed? You all apparently think so. So who gets to decide what and who somebody is allowed to be? And who gets punished for who and what they are?

The bolded: No. Wrong.

I queried you FIVE times and FIVE times you ignored me. Finally, the SIXTH time, you gave a lukewarm water answer that a boycott could lead to losing a job which in your mind, means physical harm.

Bullshit. Pure bullshit.

As for my personal tolerance, just to remind you, while you are drinking that Christmas Punch and acting like you really wanted to be fair to libs, while, in reality, all you wanted to do was to trap them so you could whine just like you are doing right now, I went on record for the following a number of times:

1.) Mr. Ducky Ducky things-da has the right to say anything he wants. Just like I have the same right to laugh my ass off over him. Apparently, laughing at him gets a checkmark as "intolerance" in your book. Ok, I accept that.

2.) It is the American Way to have the right to protest, and boycotts have been an accepted form of protest for a long time now.

3.) Lots of to and fro about whether Mr. Ducky Duck directly quoted from the Bible or paraphrased it or not. That is all a non-sequitor and really does nothing. The fact that Mr. Ducky Duck was willing to go from Homosexuality to bestiality all in one sentence tells me enough to know that he is an intolerant bigot. But he has the right to be an intolerant bigot.

It is my opinon that Christians (well, Right-Wing oriented, radical Christians) are losing ground steadily on this issue exactly because they are NOT following the word of Christ, as they call it. Those right-radical Christians have long thrown the baby out with the bathwater and are so consumed with hating on homosexuals that they have completely forgotten the core of what Yeshua preached, namely, unconditional love and forgiveness through God the Father, as they call it, and in their system, with Christ as the intercessor. Ok, if they want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, that is their thing.

But no Christian who parades around their view that Jesus Christ trumps everything from the "Old Testament" through his new blood-covenant, then suddenly turns to two obscure verses, one from Leviticus, the other from Deuteronomy, in order to tell the world that Homosexuality is a deadly sin, that gays should die, can be viewed seriously. That is just laughable. Those people have absolutely no idea what the Hebrew/Aramaic of those verses do say, and at the same time, they are completely ignoring the other 612 commandments. They are cherry-picking in the worst of ways, and it reflects very, very badly upon them. To add insult to their own injury, when reminded that Jesus Christ himself was not even once quoted over homosexuality, most Christians usually go off on me and tell me to fuck off, since I am a Jew, but not one single one of them can produce a quote from him. Why? Because one does not exist. And it is not as if Jesus shied away from unsavory figures of his day. He associated with lepers and whores, considered the bottom of the pile in those days. So, if some consider gays to be unsavory in the 21st century, I can only assume that many, many, many more felt that way 2,000 years ago.

So, lots of Cons have jumped from the free speech issue here to making sure to condemn gays, just as Mr. Ducky Duck has done, but apparently, that is just ok with you. Sure looks like it is not intolerance if a Rightie does it, what?

Finally, and for the EIGHTH time now, I strongly challenge you on use use of "physical harm" as a term related to this. Can you show me even the slightest of physical harm that Mr. Ducky Duck has suffered from this, a rich man, whom practically no one can touch? Please, by all means, show your evidence. I am still waiting.

So, while you are wailing that Libs are somehow intolerant, I have once again quietly and calmly laid out my position and once again I have challenged you over a term that is not only way over the top, it is just plain old dishonest.

I suppose that you will now tell me that challenging dishonesty is intolerance, what?

Not in spite of all of this, I like you very, very much as a person and value the many things you contribute to USMB in so many wonderful ways. I just disagree with the way you have decided to veer this thread against libs, when there are just oodles and oodles of Right-Wing naughtiness on this thread, all dated, long before some libs started flipping out.

Best to you -

Stat

 

[Plasmaball]

Let me try once more:

You don't have the right to prevent people from criticizing you. And you don't acquire that right just because you've become a public figure in a job that depends on favorable public opinion of you for you to prosper.

And I'll try once more:

This isn't about preventing people from criticizing you. If it were, there would be no problem. It's about the PC Police's tactic of putting people on the defensive with threats of job loss or other significant punishment.

Criticize all you want -- I REPEAT, CRITICIZE ALL YOU WANT -- great, maybe that will lead to a conversation, to communication. But the PC Police don't appear to want that, they'd rather intimidate so that they can divert from the debate.

Just as you do when you toss out the straw man that we're trying to stop criticism.

And I'd love to know one thing: Are you FORCED to threaten people with retribution, job loss, etc.? Are you FORCED to use these straw man arguments? Let me answer that for you: No, you're NOT forced to behave like that. You do it because it puts your target on the defensive and it has worked so well for so long.

That's changing now, right before our eyes.



.

and ill try this one more time. this isnt the PC police.