Liberals are less tolerant of the views of others.

[thereisnospoon]

At best, this suggests differences in social networking behavior associated with political views, and nothing more.

There's probably a dozen things wrong with this analysis, such as the undefined categories of "very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, very liberal" for example, but I'm just not in the mood to hash it out at the moment.

or you could just say what's true...

that the o/p is a liar.

you know... that whole, lies, lies and damned lies thing. *shrug*

but maybe if he/she/it says it often enough, that will make it true.

Uh huh...Yours is another example of weakness all liberals exhibit in argument.
You accuse those of other viewpoints of lying or being liars.
That is not much of a response.
Your intolerance is shown in your response.

 

[Staidhup]

And to think people are actually beginning to understand this small little fact?

 

[The T]

Liberals are less tolerant of the views of others.



Yeah, it goes way back to those southern good old boys that roamed the countryside during the 60s in the Civil Rights era doesn't it.

Those dadgum liberals...

Oh, you mean the KKK? The terrorist arm of the Democratic Party?

Weren't they considered liberals? Or were the liberals protesting along side the NAACP?

Look at the color of the southern states today. Those democrats vote straight republican today...Both sides switched during this era.

Could it be that Conservatives took over and kicked the Racist Democrats in those States to the curb?

 

[daveman]

You guys speak of "liberals" as a single-minded group, pushing all of us into your pre-defined little box - which I've always thought was funny, coming from the folks who are all about "personal responsibility".

I think it's funny that you're pushing all us guys into your pre-defined little box.

Or is it different...somehow...when you do it?

See my previous post.

I did. Good form.

 

[Immanuel]

Most books on political idologies usually list one of the characteristics of liberalism as tolerating a wider range of behavior. Liberals, the authors write, seem to accept a wider range of behavior than conservatives. Conservatives they say want more restrictions on people's actions.
Watch these boards and one might find a clue, right before our very eyes, sort of a mini social science reserch project. Of course I know few or none one will do anything that might change their political perspective by trying to find the truth.

I read this board and it is pretty apparent to me that it is in fact the liberals that are more interested in restricting people's actions: smoking tobacco, driving without a seatbelt, religious freedoms and free speech to name a few.

Immie

 

[initforme]

In the end it all comes down to the haves vs the hard working barely getting by have nots. Things shall even out in the end. No need for anger. Pretty easy to figure out. The working class slobs can only be pushed so far by those who want to control everything. Everyone has a breaking point.

 

[daveman]

Studies have revealed that liberals are far less tolerant than conservatives when it comes to other peoples' opinions According to an article written by Thomas Lifson on March 13, 2012:

“The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That's double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.”

Lifson also observed that liberals were more prone to change the subject or to become angry when someone disagrees with them:

“When the realization hits that a cherished belief might be wrong, negative emotions will rush in, and the conversation will be terminated by tears, a change of subject to another emotional topic (this is frequent with family members), or an angry outburst.”

Mr. Lifson's entire article can be read in The American Thinker, March 14, 2012 at the following link:

Blog: Liberal intolerance, by the numbers

War on blacks

War on gays

War on women

War on Hispanics

War on Muslims

War on athiests

Yet

it's

the

Republicans

who

are

tolerant.

I feel no obligation to defend myself against your irrational-hate-driven bigotry and delusions.

Meanwhile, why don't you report on us all to ATTACKWATCH, you little Stasi wannabe?

 

[daveman]

Liberals are less tolerant of the views of others.

You mean less tolerant of destructive lies and BS propaganda, dittohead morons. LOL

See sig pp3- Dupes love lies...

No, I will NOT worship your little tin god.

Report me. Do it. Go ahead. You know you want to.

 

[daveman]

Liberals are less tolerant of the views of others.



Yeah, it goes way back to those southern good old boys that roamed the countryside during the 60s in the Civil Rights era doesn't it.

Those dadgum liberals...

Oh, you mean the KKK? The terrorist arm of the Democratic Party?

Weren't they considered liberals? Or were the liberals protesting along side the NAACP?

Look at the color of the southern states today. Those democrats vote straight republican today...Both sides switched during this era.

Ahh, yes, the ol' "Liberal = good, conservative = bad" ploy.

Popular among the history-ignorant everywhere.

 

[daveman]

Most books on political idologies usually list one of the characteristics of liberalism as tolerating a wider range of behavior. Liberals, the authors write, seem to accept a wider range of behavior than conservatives. Conservatives they say want more restrictions on people's actions.
Watch these boards and one might find a clue, right before our very eyes, sort of a mini social science reserch project. Of course I know few or none one will do anything that might change their political perspective by trying to find the truth.

I read this board and it is pretty apparent to me that it is in fact the liberals that are more interested in restricting people's actions: smoking tobacco, driving without a seatbelt, religious freedoms and free speech to name a few.

Immie

And you'll put a curly lightbulb in your lamp and LIKE it, buddy.

 

[daveman]

In the end it all comes down to the haves vs the hard working barely getting by have nots. Things shall even out in the end. No need for anger. Pretty easy to figure out. The working class slobs can only be pushed so far by those who want to control everything. Everyone has a breaking point.

 

[Immanuel]

Most books on political idologies usually list one of the characteristics of liberalism as tolerating a wider range of behavior. Liberals, the authors write, seem to accept a wider range of behavior than conservatives. Conservatives they say want more restrictions on people's actions.
Watch these boards and one might find a clue, right before our very eyes, sort of a mini social science reserch project. Of course I know few or none one will do anything that might change their political perspective by trying to find the truth.

I read this board and it is pretty apparent to me that it is in fact the liberals that are more interested in restricting people's actions: smoking tobacco, driving without a seatbelt, religious freedoms and free speech to name a few.

Immie

And you'll put a curly lightbulb in your lamp and LIKE it, buddy.

I know, I know, they all know what's best for me.

Immie

 

[Vidi]

Oh, you mean the KKK? The terrorist arm of the Democratic Party?

Weren't they considered liberals? Or were the liberals protesting along side the NAACP?

Look at the color of the southern states today. Those democrats vote straight republican today...Both sides switched during this era.

Could it be that Conservatives took over and kicked the Racist Democrats in those States to the curb?

That would be saying racism in dead in this country...and we know THAT isnt true.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Studies have revealed that liberals are far less tolerant than conservatives when it comes to other peoples' opinions According to an article written by Thomas Lifson on March 13, 2012:

“The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That's double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.”

Lifson also observed that liberals were more prone to change the subject or to become angry when someone disagrees with them:

“When the realization hits that a cherished belief might be wrong, negative emotions will rush in, and the conversation will be terminated by tears, a change of subject to another emotional topic (this is frequent with family members), or an angry outburst.”

Mr. Lifson's entire article can be read in The American Thinker, March 14, 2012 at the following link:

Blog: Liberal intolerance, by the numbers

If this were the case, then conservatives would not campaign against gay rights and gay marriage, or campaign against the freedom to choose, or campaign for school prayer. they would simply respect other people beliefs and values. but we all know that is not the case.

Mainstream conservatives are generally socially right leaning moderate. In other words we would not permit our own kids to do certain things( right leaning) But tolerate the actions of others as a choice. We believe in choice.
As for your examples of gay marriage for instance, we really do not care if gays can marry or not. We just do not wish to see these things institutionalized or sanctioned by government.
We do not "campaign' for school prayer. Kids can pray in school now. The school administration and faculty by law cannot sanction prayer. It is liberal intolerance for the Christian religion which has begun a movement to ban all references to Christmas in public school. Reason given: to relieve non Christians of all possibility of offense.
Respect and tolerance are two different things.
You people do not respect nor tolerate opposing viewpoints. It is your side which wishes to have them squashed and silenced. Case and point...The Fairness Doctrine. Liberals sought to hamper electronic media to the extent that they wanted to make sure the liberal viewpoint was dominant. They came up with the brilliant idea of mandating equal time.
Once again, the federal government sought to artificially control the marketplace. The end result was NO opinion. No political commentary. As a matter of fact radio station managers were so frightened of the government questioning their broadcast license, the mere mention of political opinion, they all but banned it from their airwaves.
Very boring. Now we have liberals, who's point of view cannot gain any traction in talk radio, screaming for legislation to once again place controls on talk radio.
And of course we had the liberal false indignation over the comments made by Rush Limbaugh. Liberals came out of the woodwork threatening his sponsors and calling for Premier radio to fire him. Intolerance.
Your side cannot hide from it.

 

[Unkotare]

In the end it all comes down to the haves vs the hard working barely getting by have nots. Things shall even out in the end. No need for anger. Pretty easy to figure out. The working class slobs can only be pushed so far by those who want to control everything. Everyone has a breaking point.

Oh, another lefty keyboard revolutionary... I'm sure we'll see you out manning the barricades any day now...

 

[thereisnospoon]

I've noticed just in this thread that certain posters immediately resorted to name calling without any explanation of why they disagreed with the OP. Interesting. I have had 2 liberal friends drop me from Facebook after I posted some articles on immigration. Intolerant? You bet.

I see anyone disagreeing with the administration being called names, ridiculed and vilified. Anyone disagree with so-called immigration reform? Well, get used to being ridiculed by our president in front of a group of amnesty supporters. Remember the moat with alligators comment?and anyone agreeing with the administration is a COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST, MUSLIM SYMPATHIZER

Tea party members were accused of being violent and racist. All of them. No proof of racism and not a hint of violence. Yet the same people supported the violent and nasty WS Occupoopers.Violent and nasty? Isolated incidents that have been overblown by the AM Radio crowd. BTW....I don't know ANYONE that calls all of the Tea Party racists. Methinks your full of shit.... But nice to know you have no problem with the name calling thing.

Don't like the EPA having unlimited powers and the ability to create regulations that make cap and trade a reality and others that prevent border patrol from doing their job? Be prepared to get accused of wanting dirty water and air. (even though that is not the goal of the EPA these days)Who says the EPA has unlimited powers? Which one? Rush, Hannity, Savage? That's BS and you know it.

Don't like giving illegal aliens the opportunity to vote in our elections, which they will in droves since it's been made clear how easy it is and how states will be sued if they try to do anything about it. The problem ISN'T that we want illegals to vote.... it's that there has been no real proof of voter fraud to any real extent, but you have no problem making poor people(who coincidentally tend to vote Democratic) to jump through hoops to vote.

Want health care repealed like 51% of Americans? No liberal is willing to discuss the details of the oppressive health care bill, which has little to do with health. You'll simply be accused of racism again because you don't want minorities to get health care.Not at all... we just want what EVERY ONE OF OUR FOREIGN COMPETITORS HAVE...Health Care where Individuals and Businesses don't have to carry that financial burden alone... that's PART of the reason why we are losing business to foreign countries.

If you don't vote for Obama, you're racist. No liberal will recognize that his radical views might turn people off, must be color. It's always about color with liberals.If you vote FOR Obama... you're a Communist

I've never had a decent discussion with a liberal on issues. I get some worn out talking points, then the name calling starts. Perhaps they don't understand the effect the liberal policies have on the average person. Perhaps they don't care. As if liberals don't get worn out talking about Right Wing Talking points? Gimme a break.... you see, that's the problem...when a liberal has a position on a given issue... it's a "TALKING POINT". But when a Conservative has a position... it's not(According to...once again... The AM Radio/Fox boys.

I just know I have never had a meaningful politician discussion with any liberal anywhere.

Did you ever consider that perhaps the problem is one where you only want to do the talking and never consider any other viewpoint? Just sayin'

Oh please....This is not true...Wanna know why I state this?
Ok....For the most part, conservative talk radio hosts will take liberal callers and place them at the head of the line. The thing is we WANT to hear what the other side has to say.
It's all about the debate, the expression of ideas. The argument.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Most books on political idologies usually list one of the characteristics of liberalism as tolerating a wider range of behavior. Liberals, the authors write, seem to accept a wider range of behavior than conservatives. Conservatives they say want more restrictions on people's actions.
Watch these boards and one might find a clue, right before our very eyes, sort of a mini social science reserch project. Of course I know few or none one will do anything that might change their political perspective by trying to find the truth.

I read this board and it is pretty apparent to me that it is in fact the liberals that are more interested in restricting people's actions: smoking tobacco, driving without a seatbelt, religious freedoms and free speech to name a few.

Immie

That's "law and order liberalism"...Or...Do as I say. Not as I do.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In the end it all comes down to the haves vs the hard working barely getting by have nots. Things shall even out in the end. No need for anger. Pretty easy to figure out. The working class slobs can only be pushed so far by those who want to control everything. Everyone has a breaking point.

That is YOUR problem. You people have it in your minds that it is your business what others have. It isn't.
Because of your feelings of self loathing and your own self imposed inability to make an attempt to improve yourselves, you look to take down those who you view has having enough or having too much. To a greater extent, you feel entitled to what others have.
Instead of carrying envy for those who have achieved, you should look inward and work to make your life better. Instead you petition government to issue sanctions to punish success.

 

[regent]

Most books on political idologies usually list one of the characteristics of liberalism as tolerating a wider range of behavior. Liberals, the authors write, seem to accept a wider range of behavior than conservatives. Conservatives they say want more restrictions on people's actions.
Watch these boards and one might find a clue, right before our very eyes, sort of a mini social science reserch project. Of course I know few or none one will do anything that might change their political perspective by trying to find the truth.

I read this board and it is pretty apparent to me that it is in fact the liberals that are more interested in restricting people's actions: smoking tobacco, driving without a seatbelt, religious freedoms and free speech to name a few.

Immie

That's "law and order liberalism"...Or...Do as I say. Not as I do.

Well it was in American Thinker and that's about as scientific and objective as one can get. I was only using college or university texts as evidence. And so it goes.

 

[Immanuel]

I read this board and it is pretty apparent to me that it is in fact the liberals that are more interested in restricting people's actions: smoking tobacco, driving without a seatbelt, religious freedoms and free speech to name a few.

Immie

That's "law and order liberalism"...Or...Do as I say. Not as I do.

Well it was in American Thinker and that's about as scientific and objective as one can get. I was only using college or university texts as evidence. And so it goes.

A large percentage of college professors seem to be liberal themselves... what would you expect them to say?

Immie