The Libtard Idea of What Freedomof Speech is, lol

[Amelia]

Cons are ridiculous. You think the world should be tolerant of your intolerance? Well then you should have no problem being tolerant of the rest of the world's tolerance.

You nutters

Why should the supposedly intolerant be tolerant?

The supposedly tolerant are the ones with the onus to be tolerant.

In a few years when Gay people have won the rights denied to them thus far by intolerant people, then I'll have no problem tolerating anti-gay views.

Do you make the mistake of labeling yourself "tolerant"?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Tolerance is a one way street? And what 'way' would that be? According the idiot who said it, his way, his terms. Do all leftists think like this? Don't answer, that was rhetorical.

Tolerance:

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.


Leftists fail time and again to exhibit tolerance. Instead, when someone says they don't believe in ssm or don't agree with the president's policies, the left screams 'homophobe!' 'racist!' or some other term (watch, if Hil becomes president the screams will be 'sexist!' and 'ageist!'), which reinforces to everyone their lack of tolerance. Buncha hypocrites and liars. They don't show tolerance, they don't want tolerance, they want nothing less than full acceptance. Our way or the highway, as it were.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Why should the supposedly intolerant be tolerant?

The supposedly tolerant are the ones with the onus to be tolerant.

In a few years when Gay people have won the rights denied to them thus far by intolerant people, then I'll have no problem tolerating anti-gay views.

Do you make the mistake of labeling yourself "tolerant"?

It depends. I'm tolerant of gay people. I'm tolerant of people who think being gay is a sin. I'm intolerant of people using the law as a means to hurt gay people.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Cons are ridiculous. You think the world should be tolerant of your intolerance? Well then you should have no problem being tolerant of the rest of the world's tolerance.

You nutters

Lord, it is called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I think you are full of shyte, and disagree with almost everything you post, but I don't 1) try to get your fired from your job, 2) I dont release secretly recorded things you have said in private, 3) I don't get you arrested with bullshit charges, 4) I don't audit your tax returns or file a complaint so that the IRS will if they haven't gotten around to it, 5) I don't make fake calls to the police saying I saw you committing crime or threatening people when you haven't done anything of the sort, etc.

Figure it out shit-for-brains, I don't treat you like the PC Nazis treat people they disagree with.

And these bastards are not going to give you a pass when they have the ability to do whatever they want, should that day come. They will nail you to the wall on any misstep you make just like they did James Watson who discovered DNA helix structure.

The controversy about racist remarks by Nobel laureate James Watson should focus on his eugenics.

Watson has eugenics ideas that makes my stomach turn, such as writing off all blacks in the continent of Africa as being below average intelligence. But I don't think the man should be fired for having such ideas if he is an accomplished scientists with significant contributions. That is what tenure is supposed to be about, isn't it, protecting the professoriate from the publics outrage?

 

[JimBowie1958]

In a few years when Gay people have won the rights denied to them thus far by intolerant people, then I'll have no problem tolerating anti-gay views.

Do you make the mistake of labeling yourself "tolerant"?

It depends. I'm tolerant of gay people. I'm tolerant of people who think being gay is a sin. I'm intolerant of people using the law as a means to hurt gay people.

And who is advocating hurting gay people? By not giving them marriage rights? How does that hurt them? Does it hurt polygamists and [people who want to marry their computers?

Lol, lordy, you libtards cant get any more insane.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Tolerance is a one way street? And what 'way' would that be? According the idiot who said it, his way, his terms. Do all leftists think like this? Don't answer, that was rhetorical.

Tolerance:

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.


Leftists fail time and again to exhibit tolerance. Instead, when someone says they don't believe in ssm or don't agree with the president's policies, the left screams 'homophobe!' 'racist!' or some other term (watch, if Hil becomes president the screams will be 'sexist!' and 'ageist!'), which reinforces to everyone their lack of tolerance. Buncha hypocrites and liars. They don't show tolerance, they don't want tolerance, they want nothing less than full acceptance. Our way or the highway, as it were.

You nailed it.

But the question nagging me at the moment is this; 'Are the resident libtards really that stupid that they cant see the point?

Or is their hypocrisy so deep and broad that they know no bounds to what they can fake and posture about?

These PC Nazis are going to have a short and very dark ten to twenty years and then either they lose power or the system will fail and we will have a new society and government in replacement of it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If only there were a bar for posters

lol, and you would be gone.....you rarely contribute any new facts or reason tying together any known facts.

Why do you post? You don't contribute anything from data to aggravation to a war fuzzy, so why bother yourself and others with your senseless bilge?

I know you can be reasonable when you want to be but you havent been for a very long time. It's as if you have had a curveball tossed your way in real life and just haven't recovered emotionally yet. I hope one day you get over it and return to the Realm of reason.

I post when I see someone who needs a reality check. My post was no worse than Pennywise's.

You don't have enough of a grasp on reality to give anyone a reality check, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Cons are ridiculous. You think the world should be tolerant of your intolerance? Well then you should have no problem being tolerant of the rest of the world's tolerance.

You nutters

Why should the supposedly intolerant be tolerant?

The supposedly tolerant are the ones with the onus to be tolerant.

In a few years when Gay people have won the rights denied to them thus far by intolerant people, then I'll have no problem tolerating anti-gay views.

Eat shit, you fucking Nazi.

 

[Plasmaball]

Nazis to the core of their being.

They can only be Nazis or Communists, not both, when will you decide? Truth is that MSNBC is neither, it is just a media corporation like any other, with a goal to make money - hardly 'Communist' or 'Nazi' as it just a business. If you don't like MSNBC, don't watch, as no one is forcing you (the same rule should be applied to Fox News).

Nazi's and "commies", are both collectivist totalitarian based systems of government. Thus they are fundamentally the same.

Sure but no

 

[TheOldSchool]

Do you make the mistake of labeling yourself "tolerant"?

It depends. I'm tolerant of gay people. I'm tolerant of people who think being gay is a sin. I'm intolerant of people using the law as a means to hurt gay people.

And who is advocating hurting gay people? By not giving them marriage rights? How does that hurt them? Does it hurt polygamists and [people who want to marry their computers?

Lol, lordy, you libtards cant get any more insane.

Why do you think gay people remain in the closet for so long? How much emotional damage is inflicted on gay people in order to "tolerate" intolerant conservatives?

People like you multiply that damage by allowing the law to reinforce the stigma against gay people.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Tolerance is a one way street? And what 'way' would that be? According the idiot who said it, his way, his terms. Do all leftists think like this? Don't answer, that was rhetorical.

Tolerance:

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.


Leftists fail time and again to exhibit tolerance. Instead, when someone says they don't believe in ssm or don't agree with the president's policies, the left screams 'homophobe!' 'racist!' or some other term (watch, if Hil becomes president the screams will be 'sexist!' and 'ageist!'), which reinforces to everyone their lack of tolerance. Buncha hypocrites and liars. They don't show tolerance, they don't want tolerance, they want nothing less than full acceptance. Our way or the highway, as it were.

You nailed it.

But the question nagging me at the moment is this; 'Are the resident libtards really that stupid that they cant see the point?

Or is their hypocrisy so deep and broad that they know no bounds to what they can fake and posture about?

These PC Nazis are going to have a short and very dark ten to twenty years and then either they lose power or the system will fail and we will have a new society and government in replacement of it.

They don't care that they are hypocrites, they don't care that they are liars, they only care about having things be their way. They will accept nothing less than acceptance. They spout tolerance but do not practice it while at the same time denigrating anyone who is anything less than accepting. They want equality but continually bring up race and sexuality. Equality would be no BET, equality would be talking about Michale Sam without the "first openly gay football player" prefacing everything. They want equality on their terms. Period.

Joanna Lohman and Lianne Sanderson: Everyone Wants to Be Accepted : People.com

 

[Mac1958]

.

The PC Police pretends it has no choice but to punish.

Which, of course, is a lie.

Authoritarians are like that.

.

 

[mamooth]

Is there a point to this thread? I mean, other than that Jim and the other conservatives want to make it illegal for liberals to laugh at them. We already knew that.

It's free speech, conservatives. You can't stop us from mocking you, no matter how much you wish you could. If you want us to stop mocking you, just stop acting like such shitheads.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Which this do you refer to?

I mean the story in your OP doesn't match your thread title.

The OP has nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

Jonathan Capehart replied:

"Tolerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It’s a one-way street. "

How can tolerance be a 'one-way street' and NOT be about freedom of speech for those going the wrong way in the libtard perspective?

And I am not talking about the very narrow legalistic perspective o free speech vrs government infringement of rights.

I am talking about social norms that tolerate someone simply expressing a point of view that is main stream to their religion and those who hate the religion then using shout down tactics, boycott extortion and terrorism to silence that sector of the population.

I am speaking of freedom of speech in its broadest social sense, fuck the god damned lawyers and what centuries of accumulated case law barnacle encrustation has to say.

So, rather than "freedom of speech" in terms of the law, you're saying that people who are mean to you shouldn't be allowed to speak?

You have the freedom of speech to say whatever you want. So does the idiot host on MSNBC. It's really not that fucking complicated.

 

[hipeter924]

Is there a point to this thread? I mean, other than that Jim and the other conservatives want to make it illegal for liberals to laugh at them. We already knew that.

It's free speech, conservatives. You can't stop us from mocking you, no matter how much you wish you could. If you want us to stop mocking you, just stop acting like such shitheads.

Liberals are authoritarians, according to conservatives, when they stand up against discrimination. But conservatives have no qualms in trying to make America a theocracy, and restrict abortion rights and same-sex marriage. Not that it works of course, as the Supreme Court forces Republicans to accept that the US was founded a constitution that values freedom of expression, speech, and religion - not just one or the other (as obviously Republicans want America to be a 'christian nation' where free speech only applies to them).

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You May Do A Double-Take When You Hear What An MSNBC Host Say What Tolerance Means to Liberals

fellow contributor Jonathan Capehart was dismayed. He replied:

Tolerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It’s a one-way street.

You cannot say to someone that who you are is wrong, an abomination, is horrible, get a room, and all of those other things that people said about Michael Sam, and not be forced — not forced, but not be made to understand that what you’re saying and what you’re doing is wrong.

Nazis to the core of their being.

"freedom of speech"?

Read the second line in my signature and then explain what this has to do with the First Amendment.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It depends. I'm tolerant of gay people. I'm tolerant of people who think being gay is a sin. I'm intolerant of people using the law as a means to hurt gay people.

And who is advocating hurting gay people? By not giving them marriage rights? How does that hurt them? Does it hurt polygamists and [people who want to marry their computers?

Lol, lordy, you libtards cant get any more insane.

Why do you think gay people remain in the closet for so long? How much emotional damage is inflicted on gay people in order to "tolerate" intolerant conservatives?

People like you multiply that damage by allowing the law to reinforce the stigma against gay people.

And they give birth to more gays.

OH! The agony they must endure.

 

[hipeter924]

And who is advocating hurting gay people? By not giving them marriage rights? How does that hurt them? Does it hurt polygamists and [people who want to marry their computers?

Lol, lordy, you libtards cant get any more insane.

Why do you think gay people remain in the closet for so long? How much emotional damage is inflicted on gay people in order to "tolerate" intolerant conservatives?

People like you multiply that damage by allowing the law to reinforce the stigma against gay people.

And they give birth to more gays.

OH! The agony they must endure.

Yep, pure agony.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Tolerance is a one way street? And what 'way' would that be? According the idiot who said it, his way, his terms. Do all leftists think like this? Don't answer, that was rhetorical.

Tolerance:

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.


Leftists fail time and again to exhibit tolerance. Instead, when someone says they don't believe in ssm or don't agree with the president's policies, the left screams 'homophobe!' 'racist!' or some other term (watch, if Hil becomes president the screams will be 'sexist!' and 'ageist!'), which reinforces to everyone their lack of tolerance. Buncha hypocrites and liars. They don't show tolerance, they don't want tolerance, they want nothing less than full acceptance. Our way or the highway, as it were.

You nailed it.

But the question nagging me at the moment is this; 'Are the resident libtards really that stupid that they cant see the point?

Or is their hypocrisy so deep and broad that they know no bounds to what they can fake and posture about?

These PC Nazis are going to have a short and very dark ten to twenty years and then either they lose power or the system will fail and we will have a new society and government in replacement of it.

They don't care that they are hypocrites, they don't care that they are liars, they only care about having things be their way. They will accept nothing less than acceptance. They spout tolerance but do not practice it while at the same time denigrating anyone who is anything less than accepting. They want equality but continually bring up race and sexuality. Equality would be no BET, equality would be talking about Michale Sam without the "first openly gay football player" prefacing everything. They want equality on their terms. Period.

Joanna Lohman and Lianne Sanderson: Everyone Wants to Be Accepted : People.com

True, and it is a disservce to the public. I dont care one bit if Obama is the first black President or Hitlary the first woman Pres, or if Yellen is the first woman head of the Federal Reserve. That talk obscures their POLICIES, their accomplishments and intentions.

Their race and gender are irrelevant to every0one except the race hustlers and libtards.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I mean the story in your OP doesn't match your thread title.

The OP has nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

Jonathan Capehart replied:

"Tolerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It’s a one-way street. "

How can tolerance be a 'one-way street' and NOT be about freedom of speech for those going the wrong way in the libtard perspective?

And I am not talking about the very narrow legalistic perspective o free speech vrs government infringement of rights.

I am talking about social norms that tolerate someone simply expressing a point of view that is main stream to their religion and those who hate the religion then using shout down tactics, boycott extortion and terrorism to silence that sector of the population.

I am speaking of freedom of speech in its broadest social sense, fuck the god damned lawyers and what centuries of accumulated case law barnacle encrustation has to say.

So, rather than "freedom of speech" in terms of the law, you're saying that people who are mean to you shouldn't be allowed to speak?

You have the freedom of speech to say whatever you want. So does the idiot host on MSNBC. It's really not that fucking complicated.

And what I am saying is not that fucking complicated either.

Here I will type slowly so you can keep up.

1) You can say whatever you want, it is your opinion, fine by me. If I disagree I will say so.

2) IF I say what I think is valid I expect the same response. I object when PC Nazis start protests to take away my speech rights, or pass laws criminalizing sermons if they say that homosexual butt fucking is immoral, or who blackmail companies with threats of boycotts to get me fired for saying whatever the hell I want if it is not violent or inciting violence.

3) I don't necessarily agree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it, and I expect you to reciprocate that right. The idiot PC Nazi was saying that no, you and I don't have the right to express our opinions unless it passes his ideology test first. He says you should be subject to any form of coercion, harassment or threats he can bring to bear to shut you up. Unless you are a fucking idiot you should find that disconcerning to say the least.

Fuck him, and fuck the rest of these Nazi bastards.

This is another issue that will rip this country apart of the libtards get 8 more years to press it into normalcy.

This is not a negotiable issue. Period.