The Rise of Intolerant Liberals

[jillian]

Laugh at them, it's funny watching them ball their little hands up, stomp their feet and call you a bigoted, racist homophobic right winger.

You mean as opposed to all the nice things conservatives say about their opponents?

It's all part of it, but we're not the ones screaming TOLERANCE!!!!! I WANT TOLERANCE!!!!!!!!

No you don't. You want a rightwingnut world where everyone who isn't like you gets discriminated against.

Calling bogits on their bigotry is not being a bigot

And not wanting theocratic extremists to impair others' rights is not intolerance.

Now let's see another thread where the religious loons call people who support reproductive choice "murderers"

Damn you lying lions are stupid. Biggest hacks on the planet.

Correct.

Telling those hostile to privacy rights that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the equal protection rights of gay Americans that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the due process rights of immigrants that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to public accommodations laws that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

And telling those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Conservatives have the right to be bigots, to hate homosexuals, to fear immigrants, and to be in general ignorant and wrong – and liberals will always defend the right of conservatives to be intolerant and hateful.

But when conservatives seek to codify their bigotry, hate, and intolerance, in violation of the Constitution, liberals will oppose such efforts and defend the rights of those disadvantaged as they have for decades, where to oppose conservatives' efforts to codify their bigotry and hate is not to be 'intolerant' on the part of liberals.

go and tell that to the family of Kate Steinle, if you have the stones, which I doubt.

how about to the families of Ke'Arre Marcell Steward and Jennifer Tarkovsky?

or is it ok because they were killed by a white christian terrorist?

 

[gipper]

I believe that is delusional, self-aggrandizing thinking that often leads to atrocities ... considerable evil is committed in God's name.

Yet, from what I can see, you ignore the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Why do Christians have to bear the bruntof such an accusation? Christianity isn't the only religion on Earth you know.

Nobody is ignoring what some muslims are doing.
Christians take the brunt of the accusations because they have no moral right to claim muslim atrocities are any worse or any different then the ones committed by them.
Christianity has just as much blood on its hands as islam.
Trying to rationalize it is sheer hubris.

Typical left wing idiocy. Christians are not murdering raping and enslaving TODAY...and no Christians alive today did such things. Asshole!

Do you fucking know what century it is?

Distinction without a difference.

Can't fix stupid.

 

[daws101]

It's all part of it, but we're not the ones screaming TOLERANCE!!!!! I WANT TOLERANCE!!!!!!!!

No you don't. You want a rightwingnut world where everyone who isn't like you gets discriminated against.

Calling bogits on their bigotry is not being a bigot

And not wanting theocratic extremists to impair others' rights is not intolerance.

Now let's see another thread where the religious loons call people who support reproductive choice "murderers"

Damn you lying lions are stupid. Biggest hacks on the planet.

Correct.

Telling those hostile to privacy rights that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the equal protection rights of gay Americans that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the due process rights of immigrants that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to public accommodations laws that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

And telling those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Conservatives have the right to be bigots, to hate homosexuals, to fear immigrants, and to be in general ignorant and wrong – and liberals will always defend the right of conservatives to be intolerant and hateful.

But when conservatives seek to codify their bigotry, hate, and intolerance, in violation of the Constitution, liberals will oppose such efforts and defend the rights of those disadvantaged as they have for decades, where to oppose conservatives' efforts to codify their bigotry and hate is not to be 'intolerant' on the part of liberals.

go and tell that to the family of Kate Steinle, if you have the stones, which I doubt.

Oh no not the tell that to the family ploy again!

I 'll remember that the next time we get another Michael Brown type case.

Golly!

 

[daws101]

I believe that is delusional, self-aggrandizing thinking that often leads to atrocities ... considerable evil is committed in God's name.

Yet, from what I can see, you ignore the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Why do Christians have to bear the bruntof such an accusation? Christianity isn't the only religion on Earth you know.

Nobody is ignoring what some muslims are doing.
Christians take the brunt of the accusations because they have no moral right to claim muslim atrocities are any worse or any different then the ones committed by them.
Christianity has just as much blood on its hands as islam.
Trying to rationalize it is sheer hubris.

Typical left wing idiocy. Christians are not murdering raping and enslaving TODAY...and no Christians alive today did such things. Asshole!

Do you fucking know what century it is?

Distinction without a difference.

Can't fix stupid.

In your case that's a fact.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe that is delusional, self-aggrandizing thinking that often leads to atrocities ... considerable evil is committed in God's name.

Yet, from what I can see, you ignore the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Why do Christians have to bear the brunt of such an accusation? Christianity isn't the only religion on Earth you know.

The right's unwarranted hostility and bigotry toward Muslims is yet another manifestation of conservative intolerance.

 

[eagle7_31]

You mean as opposed to all the nice things conservatives say about their opponents?

It's all part of it, but we're not the ones screaming TOLERANCE!!!!! I WANT TOLERANCE!!!!!!!!

No you don't. You want a rightwingnut world where everyone who isn't like you gets discriminated against.

Calling bogits on their bigotry is not being a bigot

And not wanting theocratic extremists to impair others' rights is not intolerance.

Now let's see another thread where the religious loons call people who support reproductive choice "murderers"

Damn you lying lions are stupid. Biggest hacks on the planet.

Correct.

Telling those hostile to privacy rights that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the equal protection rights of gay Americans that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the due process rights of immigrants that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to public accommodations laws that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

And telling those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Conservatives have the right to be bigots, to hate homosexuals, to fear immigrants, and to be in general ignorant and wrong – and liberals will always defend the right of conservatives to be intolerant and hateful.

But when conservatives seek to codify their bigotry, hate, and intolerance, in violation of the Constitution, liberals will oppose such efforts and defend the rights of those disadvantaged as they have for decades, where to oppose conservatives' efforts to codify their bigotry and hate is not to be 'intolerant' on the part of liberals.

go and tell that to the family of Kate Steinle, if you have the stones, which I doubt.

how about to the families of Ke'Arre Marcell Steward and Jennifer Tarkovsky?

or is it ok because they were killed by a white christian terrorist?

Another selective memory lib? Say it aint't so!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not disagreement that makes something "evil". It's the abuse of government power to impose your "morals" on everyone else in society that constitutes the evil at issue.

So, when the power of government is used to force a baker to provide a cake for a homosexual mockery of a wedding, in violation of that baker's sincerely-held moral beliefs, or to punish him for refusing to do so, then will you admit that this is “evil” by the definition that you have given? It does, after all, constitute the use of government to impose someone's “morals” on someone else.

Same for the use of government force to compel girls and women to accept the pretense of men (who claim to “identify” as women) in what are supposed to be women's-only dressing and restroom facilities. Will you condemn this as well, since it also meets the definition that you just gave of “evil”.

There is, of course, more to genuine evil than just the abuse of government force.both sides support the use of government force to enforce their notions of right and wrong. The crucial difference is that yours is the side that supports overt evil, and yours is the side that supports the use of government force to uphold that which is evil over that which is good. Yours is the side that supports the killing of innocent children; yours is the side that supports all manner of immoral sexual perversions and madness; yours is the side that supports parasitism; yours is the side that supports the breakdown and destruction of marriage and family; and yours is the side that supports the use of government force to promote these evils, and to punish those who stand against them.

This isn't just a conflict between conservatism and liberalism; it is the conflict between good and evil. It is not a conflict between right and left, but between right and wrong.

And you have taken the side of evil.

If your 'moral' belief were that

I believe that is delusional, self-aggrandizing thinking that often leads to atrocities ... considerable evil is committed in God's name.

Yet, from what I can see, you ignore the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Why do Christians have to bear the bruntof such an accusation? Christianity isn't the only religion on Earth you know.

Nobody is ignoring what some muslims are doing.
Christians take the brunt of the accusations because they have no moral right to claim muslim atrocities are any worse or any different then the ones committed by them.
Christianity has just as much blood on its hands as islam.
Trying to rationalize it is sheer hubris.

Typical left wing idiocy. Christians are not murdering raping and enslaving TODAY...and no Christians alive today did such things. Asshole!

Do you fucking know what century it is?

Paul Hill, a Christian minister, murdered an abortion doctor.

In the 20th century.

 

[daws101]

It's all part of it, but we're not the ones screaming TOLERANCE!!!!! I WANT TOLERANCE!!!!!!!!

No you don't. You want a rightwingnut world where everyone who isn't like you gets discriminated against.

Calling bogits on their bigotry is not being a bigot

And not wanting theocratic extremists to impair others' rights is not intolerance.

Now let's see another thread where the religious loons call people who support reproductive choice "murderers"

Damn you lying lions are stupid. Biggest hacks on the planet.

Correct.

Telling those hostile to privacy rights that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the equal protection rights of gay Americans that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the due process rights of immigrants that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to public accommodations laws that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

And telling those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Conservatives have the right to be bigots, to hate homosexuals, to fear immigrants, and to be in general ignorant and wrong – and liberals will always defend the right of conservatives to be intolerant and hateful.

But when conservatives seek to codify their bigotry, hate, and intolerance, in violation of the Constitution, liberals will oppose such efforts and defend the rights of those disadvantaged as they have for decades, where to oppose conservatives' efforts to codify their bigotry and hate is not to be 'intolerant' on the part of liberals.

go and tell that to the family of Kate Steinle, if you have the stones, which I doubt.

how about to the families of Ke'Arre Marcell Steward and Jennifer Tarkovsky?

or is it ok because they were killed by a white christian terrorist?

Another selective memory lib? Say it aint't so!!!

Really how ?

 

[Kosh]

I believe that is delusional, self-aggrandizing thinking that often leads to atrocities ... considerable evil is committed in God's name.

Yet, from what I can see, you ignore the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Why do Christians have to bear the brunt of such an accusation? Christianity isn't the only religion on Earth you know.

The right's unwarranted hostility and bigotry toward Muslims is yet another manifestation of conservative intolerance.

Yes you far left drones supporting and appeasing the extremists has done wonders!

Silly far left drone citing far left religious narratives.

 

[jillian]

It's all part of it, but we're not the ones screaming TOLERANCE!!!!! I WANT TOLERANCE!!!!!!!!

No you don't. You want a rightwingnut world where everyone who isn't like you gets discriminated against.

Calling bogits on their bigotry is not being a bigot

And not wanting theocratic extremists to impair others' rights is not intolerance.

Now let's see another thread where the religious loons call people who support reproductive choice "murderers"

Damn you lying lions are stupid. Biggest hacks on the planet.

Correct.

Telling those hostile to privacy rights that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the equal protection rights of gay Americans that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the due process rights of immigrants that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to public accommodations laws that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

And telling those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Conservatives have the right to be bigots, to hate homosexuals, to fear immigrants, and to be in general ignorant and wrong – and liberals will always defend the right of conservatives to be intolerant and hateful.

But when conservatives seek to codify their bigotry, hate, and intolerance, in violation of the Constitution, liberals will oppose such efforts and defend the rights of those disadvantaged as they have for decades, where to oppose conservatives' efforts to codify their bigotry and hate is not to be 'intolerant' on the part of liberals.

go and tell that to the family of Kate Steinle, if you have the stones, which I doubt.

how about to the families of Ke'Arre Marcell Steward and Jennifer Tarkovsky?

or is it ok because they were killed by a white christian terrorist?

Another selective memory lib? Say it aint't so!!!

how is that selective memory, winger?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, in essence, you're saying Gay rights are fine so long as Gays learn their place and relent to being treated as second class citizens who are the worthy of the same level of services offered by public businesses. Why?

Because in turn, they may as well treat those with religiously held beliefs like "second class citizens." They don't want rights, they want revenge.

And for the record, gays enjoy far more freedom here in the US than in any country on Earth, because we ARE the freest nation on Earth. They have the great fortune of living here instead of the middle east, where being gay can get you executed.

Rather ungrateful, don't you agree?

Because the bigotry of some merchants is more viable and valuable rights than those you would grant other Americans because they do not fit into the narrow moral template you would have imposed on the larger American society.

I'm sorry, so one person's rights trump (no pun intended) another person's beliefs? How is that fair? How do you accommodate one but not the other?

How does that translate into freedom and liberty?

Because in essence what you want to do is take "freedom and liberty" from someone in order to grant someone else "freedom and liberty."

Essentially you want to rob Peter to pay Paul. The ideal situation is granting accommodations to both sides, not just one. But you won't have it, will you?

Well, it's very American if you have not progressed beyond 1950.

Actually, this whole "for me and not for thee" attitude dates back to the dawn of humankind.

 

[Kosh]

It's not disagreement that makes something "evil". It's the abuse of government power to impose your "morals" on everyone else in society that constitutes the evil at issue.

So, when the power of government is used to force a baker to provide a cake for a homosexual mockery of a wedding, in violation of that baker's sincerely-held moral beliefs, or to punish him for refusing to do so, then will you admit that this is “evil” by the definition that you have given? It does, after all, constitute the use of government to impose someone's “morals” on someone else.

Same for the use of government force to compel girls and women to accept the pretense of men (who claim to “identify” as women) in what are supposed to be women's-only dressing and restroom facilities. Will you condemn this as well, since it also meets the definition that you just gave of “evil”.

There is, of course, more to genuine evil than just the abuse of government force.both sides support the use of government force to enforce their notions of right and wrong. The crucial difference is that yours is the side that supports overt evil, and yours is the side that supports the use of government force to uphold that which is evil over that which is good. Yours is the side that supports the killing of innocent children; yours is the side that supports all manner of immoral sexual perversions and madness; yours is the side that supports parasitism; yours is the side that supports the breakdown and destruction of marriage and family; and yours is the side that supports the use of government force to promote these evils, and to punish those who stand against them.

This isn't just a conflict between conservatism and liberalism; it is the conflict between good and evil. It is not a conflict between right and left, but between right and wrong.

And you have taken the side of evil.

If your 'moral' belief were that

I believe that is delusional, self-aggrandizing thinking that often leads to atrocities ... considerable evil is committed in God's name.

Yet, from what I can see, you ignore the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Why do Christians have to bear the bruntof such an accusation? Christianity isn't the only religion on Earth you know.

Nobody is ignoring what some muslims are doing.
Christians take the brunt of the accusations because they have no moral right to claim muslim atrocities are any worse or any different then the ones committed by them.
Christianity has just as much blood on its hands as islam.
Trying to rationalize it is sheer hubris.

Typical left wing idiocy. Christians are not murdering raping and enslaving TODAY...and no Christians alive today did such things. Asshole!

Do you fucking know what century it is?

Paul Hill, a Christian minister, murdered an abortion doctor.

In the 20th century.

Another far left drone debunked narrative being run!

Please cite the portion of the bible that commands people to kill anyone!

 

[jillian]

I believe that is delusional, self-aggrandizing thinking that often leads to atrocities ... considerable evil is committed in God's name.

Yet, from what I can see, you ignore the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Why do Christians have to bear the brunt of such an accusation? Christianity isn't the only religion on Earth you know.

The right's unwarranted hostility and bigotry toward Muslims is yet another manifestation of conservative intolerance.

Yes you far left drones supporting and appeasing the extremists has done wonders!

Silly far left drone citing far left religious narratives.

oh jeez... shut up you pathetic little imbecile. you're like a freaking parrot that only knows how to say "far left drone" "far left drone".

stop watching nonsense so you learn how to say something else, fifth grader.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, in essence, you're saying Gay rights are fine so long as Gays learn their place and relent to being treated as second class citizens who are the worthy of the same level of services offered by public businesses. Why?

Because in turn, they may as well treat those with religiously held beliefs like "second class citizens." They don't want rights, they want revenge.

And for the record, gays enjoy far more freedom here in the US than in any country on Earth, because we ARE the freest nation on Earth. They have the great fortune of living here instead of the middle east, where being gay can get you executed.

Rather ungrateful, don't you agree?

Because the bigotry of some merchants is more viable and valuable rights than those you would grant other Americans because they do not fit into the narrow moral template you would have imposed on the larger American society.

I'm sorry, so one person's rights trump (no pun intended) another person's beliefs? How is that fair? How do you accommodate one but not the other?

How does that translate into freedom and liberty?

Because in essence what you want to do is take "freedom and liberty" from someone in order to grant someone else "freedom and liberty."

Essentially you want to rob Peter to pay Paul. The ideal situation is granting accommodations to both sides, not just one. But you won't have it, will you?

Well, it's very American if you have not progressed beyond 1950.

Actually, this whole "for me and not for thee" attitude dates back to the dawn of humankind.

Give us a list of the liberal positions you tolerate.

 

[eagle7_31]

I believe that is delusional, self-aggrandizing thinking that often leads to atrocities ... considerable evil is committed in God's name.

Yet, from what I can see, you ignore the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Why do Christians have to bear the brunt of such an accusation? Christianity isn't the only religion on Earth you know.

The right's unwarranted hostility and bigotry toward Muslims is yet another manifestation of conservative intolerance.

Only the ones carrying bombs. Try again.

 

[Kosh]

No you don't. You want a rightwingnut world where everyone who isn't like you gets discriminated against.

Calling bogits on their bigotry is not being a bigot

And not wanting theocratic extremists to impair others' rights is not intolerance.

Now let's see another thread where the religious loons call people who support reproductive choice "murderers"

Damn you lying lions are stupid. Biggest hacks on the planet.

Correct.

Telling those hostile to privacy rights that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the equal protection rights of gay Americans that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the due process rights of immigrants that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to public accommodations laws that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

And telling those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Conservatives have the right to be bigots, to hate homosexuals, to fear immigrants, and to be in general ignorant and wrong – and liberals will always defend the right of conservatives to be intolerant and hateful.

But when conservatives seek to codify their bigotry, hate, and intolerance, in violation of the Constitution, liberals will oppose such efforts and defend the rights of those disadvantaged as they have for decades, where to oppose conservatives' efforts to codify their bigotry and hate is not to be 'intolerant' on the part of liberals.

go and tell that to the family of Kate Steinle, if you have the stones, which I doubt.

how about to the families of Ke'Arre Marcell Steward and Jennifer Tarkovsky?

or is it ok because they were killed by a white christian terrorist?

Another selective memory lib? Say it aint't so!!!

how is that selective memory, winger?

Because you are running the standard debunked far left religious narrative without question or hesitation..

Please cite the portion of the bible that commands people to kill anyone!

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not disagreement that makes something "evil". It's the abuse of government power to impose your "morals" on everyone else in society that constitutes the evil at issue.

So, when the power of government is used to force a baker to provide a cake for a homosexual mockery of a wedding, in violation of that baker's sincerely-held moral beliefs, or to punish him for refusing to do so, then will you admit that this is “evil” by the definition that you have given? It does, after all, constitute the use of government to impose someone's “morals” on someone else.

Same for the use of government force to compel girls and women to accept the pretense of men (who claim to “identify” as women) in what are supposed to be women's-only dressing and restroom facilities. Will you condemn this as well, since it also meets the definition that you just gave of “evil”.

There is, of course, more to genuine evil than just the abuse of government force.both sides support the use of government force to enforce their notions of right and wrong. The crucial difference is that yours is the side that supports overt evil, and yours is the side that supports the use of government force to uphold that which is evil over that which is good. Yours is the side that supports the killing of innocent children; yours is the side that supports all manner of immoral sexual perversions and madness; yours is the side that supports parasitism; yours is the side that supports the breakdown and destruction of marriage and family; and yours is the side that supports the use of government force to promote these evils, and to punish those who stand against them.

This isn't just a conflict between conservatism and liberalism; it is the conflict between good and evil. It is not a conflict between right and left, but between right and wrong.

And you have taken the side of evil.

If your 'moral' belief were that

I believe that is delusional, self-aggrandizing thinking that often leads to atrocities ... considerable evil is committed in God's name.

Yet, from what I can see, you ignore the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Why do Christians have to bear the bruntof such an accusation? Christianity isn't the only religion on Earth you know.

Nobody is ignoring what some muslims are doing.
Christians take the brunt of the accusations because they have no moral right to claim muslim atrocities are any worse or any different then the ones committed by them.
Christianity has just as much blood on its hands as islam.
Trying to rationalize it is sheer hubris.

Typical left wing idiocy. Christians are not murdering raping and enslaving TODAY...and no Christians alive today did such things. Asshole!

Do you fucking know what century it is?

Paul Hill, a Christian minister, murdered an abortion doctor.

In the 20th century.

Another far left drone debunked narrative being run!

Please cite the portion of the bible that commands people to kill anyone!

Samuel, when God commands the Israelites to perpetrate a genocide upon the Amalekites.

 

[daws101]

I believe that is delusional, self-aggrandizing thinking that often leads to atrocities ... considerable evil is committed in God's name.

Yet, from what I can see, you ignore the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Why do Christians have to bear the brunt of such an accusation? Christianity isn't the only religion on Earth you know.

The right's unwarranted hostility and bigotry toward Muslims is yet another manifestation of conservative intolerance.

Yes you far left drones supporting and appeasing the extremists has done wonders!

Silly far left drone citing far left religious narratives.

The human robocall has chimed in

 

[Kosh]

So, in essence, you're saying Gay rights are fine so long as Gays learn their place and relent to being treated as second class citizens who are the worthy of the same level of services offered by public businesses. Why?

Because in turn, they may as well treat those with religiously held beliefs like "second class citizens." They don't want rights, they want revenge.

And for the record, gays enjoy far more freedom here in the US than in any country on Earth, because we ARE the freest nation on Earth. They have the great fortune of living here instead of the middle east, where being gay can get you executed.

Rather ungrateful, don't you agree?

Because the bigotry of some merchants is more viable and valuable rights than those you would grant other Americans because they do not fit into the narrow moral template you would have imposed on the larger American society.

I'm sorry, so one person's rights trump (no pun intended) another person's beliefs? How is that fair? How do you accommodate one but not the other?

How does that translate into freedom and liberty?

Because in essence what you want to do is take "freedom and liberty" from someone in order to grant someone else "freedom and liberty."

Essentially you want to rob Peter to pay Paul. The ideal situation is granting accommodations to both sides, not just one. But you won't have it, will you?

Well, it's very American if you have not progressed beyond 1950.

Actually, this whole "for me and not for thee" attitude dates back to the dawn of humankind.

Give us a list of the liberal positions you tolerate.

There are not true liberal positions, just far left drone positions as they were hijacked by your kind in the late 70's..

 

[jillian]

Correct.

Telling those hostile to privacy rights that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the equal protection rights of gay Americans that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to the due process rights of immigrants that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Telling those hostile to public accommodations laws that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

And telling those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence that as a fact of Constitutional law they're wrong is not to be 'intolerant.'

Conservatives have the right to be bigots, to hate homosexuals, to fear immigrants, and to be in general ignorant and wrong – and liberals will always defend the right of conservatives to be intolerant and hateful.

But when conservatives seek to codify their bigotry, hate, and intolerance, in violation of the Constitution, liberals will oppose such efforts and defend the rights of those disadvantaged as they have for decades, where to oppose conservatives' efforts to codify their bigotry and hate is not to be 'intolerant' on the part of liberals.

go and tell that to the family of Kate Steinle, if you have the stones, which I doubt.

how about to the families of Ke'Arre Marcell Steward and Jennifer Tarkovsky?

or is it ok because they were killed by a white christian terrorist?

Another selective memory lib? Say it aint't so!!!

how is that selective memory, winger?

Because you are running the standard debunked far left religious narrative without question or hesitation..

Please cite the portion of the bible that commands people to kill anyone!

like i said... moron.