The Rise of Intolerant Liberals

[NYcarbineer]

I pride myself in being intolerant of evil. To the extent that conservatism is evil, I am proud to be intolerant of conservatism.

Why would anyone be otherwise?

That's what we've been saying all along. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. That proves it's religion for you. Based on faith, filled with intolerance, hypocrisy and hate for anyone not like you.

You wish to argue that conservatives are incapable of evil, let's hear it.

 

[Iceweasel]

If I know I'm right, why should I entertain the opinions of those who disagree with me?

Why should I tolerate the beliefs of the anti-abortionists when I know I'm right to be pro-choice?

In fact, how do you tolerate the anti-abortion view? What does that involve?

As you can see, the brainless liberal is utterly incapable of even conceiving of any position other than the one he has been assigned. The notion that anything other than what they insist being completely and exclusively 'right' in every way is like mapping the 5th Dimension for them.

And what beliefs do you hold that in reality immerse you in doubt and apprehension that you may not be right?

The point is that I can conceive of the fact that others may legitimately hold views different than my own. This does not necessitate agreement, but I understand that they exist and that reasonable people may think differently than I do on a number of issues. Brainless liberals like you are kept in another universe, and you cannot even see this one from your pen.

There's a difference between tolerating a belief and tolerating someone acting on a belief.

No one was going to stop Kim Davis from believing that gay marriage is a terrible sin until she acted outside the law on that belief.

Your position is that it is intolerable, to you, that liberals even have strong beliefs that they are confident in being correct.

But here's where the leftist hypocrisy shines. Liberals ignore federal law and support sanctuary cities, block traffic and freedom of movement, illegally occupy public property, etc. and they excuse it all as "freedom of speech". Don't bake a gay cake and you need to be financially ruined.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Your position is .......

Don't presume to tell me what my position is, brainless. You've got your hands full remembering how to tie your shoes. If you have a question, ask. You are unqualified for anything beyond that.

 

[Iceweasel]

I pride myself in being intolerant of evil. To the extent that conservatism is evil, I am proud to be intolerant of conservatism.

Why would anyone be otherwise?

That's what we've been saying all along. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. That proves it's religion for you. Based on faith, filled with intolerance, hypocrisy and hate for anyone not like you.

You wish to argue that conservatives are incapable of evil, let's hear it.

When did I say anything remotely close to that? There's something wrong with you.

 

[Debra K]

Once upon a time people believed in this thing called freedom of speech. Liberals stopped believing in it many years ago, people are just starting to notice.

Too late.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism, ridicule or disagreement. See, e.g., the following:

"The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests."

Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

"But whatever the "willfullness" requirement implies, the statute initially requires the Government to prove a true "threat." We do not believe that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner fits within that statutory term. For we must interpret the language Congress chose "against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). The language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes, see Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U.S. 53, 58 (1966), is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact." - See more at: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Back when liberals were moderately successful and claiming to be the champions of “free speech”, while painting conservatives as the enemies thereof, was a time when “free speech” was all about pornography, foul language, and other evil, degrading things completely removed from the true purpose of free speech.

Most people would agree with the proposition that government censorship is equivalent to oppression. Why do you want the government to be in charge of your reading materials, etc.? Who gets to decide what things are foul, evil, or degrading? You are free to decide for yourself, but not for your neighbor.

The broader liberal view of “freedom” in general, is similar—they are in favor of “freedom” to murder innocent children, to abuse harmful drugs, to engage in all manner of immoral sexual; perversions, to live as unproductive parasites at the expense of productive workers, and so on; while opposing genuine, meaningful, essential freedoms.

Genuine, meaningful, and essential freedom means that you should mind your own business. Apply your morals to yourself. If you want to discuss the issues you mentioned, start a new thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If I know I'm right, why should I entertain the opinions of those who disagree with me?

Why should I tolerate the beliefs of the anti-abortionists when I know I'm right to be pro-choice?

In fact, how do you tolerate the anti-abortion view? What does that involve?

As you can see, the brainless liberal is utterly incapable of even conceiving of any position other than the one he has been assigned. The notion that anything other than what they insist being completely and exclusively 'right' in every way is like mapping the 5th Dimension for them.

And what beliefs do you hold that in reality immerse you in doubt and apprehension that you may not be right?

The point is that I can conceive of the fact that others may legitimately hold views different than my own. This does not necessitate agreement, but I understand that they exist and that reasonable people may think differently than I do on a number of issues. Brainless liberals like you are kept in another universe, and you cannot even see this one from your pen.

There's a difference between tolerating a belief and tolerating someone acting on a belief......

By voting, for example, brainless?

By namecalling now you're demonstrating your own intolerance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I pride myself in being intolerant of evil. To the extent that conservatism is evil, I am proud to be intolerant of conservatism.

Why would anyone be otherwise?

That's what we've been saying all along. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. That proves it's religion for you. Based on faith, filled with intolerance, hypocrisy and hate for anyone not like you.

You wish to argue that conservatives are incapable of evil, let's hear it.

When did I say anything remotely close to that? There's something wrong with you.

Don't post what you don't comprehend. Am I allowed to be intolerant of evil or not?

 

[Stephanie]

Surfing the net and look what I come across. Just ONE of many and many examples and why the followers of liberalism have become so Intolerant. Parent's better deprogram your children after attending a school, college University in this day and age.

SNIP:
Adam Falk, President of Williams College, Joins the Fight Against Free Speech

By Roger Kimball February 19, 2016

Adam Falk, President of Williams College, Joins the Fight Against Free Speech
this year's tab: $63,290) and coddled purlieus of Williamstown, Massachusetts, where nearly all the faculty are left-leaning and the students, with rare exceptions, are timid if irritable politically correct babies.

This is not the first time someone scheduled to speak for the Uncomfortable Learning series has been disinvited. Last fall, the author Suzanne Venker was first invited and then disinvited by the organizers themselves. Her tort? Harboring unacceptable opinions about feminism. Imagine, she even had the temerity to publish books with such inflammatory titles as The Flipside of Feminism and The War on Men. Everyone knows that feminism is a wild success and that the only social war in town is the supposed "war on women," punctuated every now and then by a "war on blacks."

Ms. Venker was disinvited by the crybullies who could not bear to contemplate the presence of someone with a different perspective on feminism present in the same geographical space as themselves.

But the invitation to John Derbyshire required bigger ammunition. It couldn't be left to the students themselves to disinvited him. No, Adam Falk had to dust off his lofty horse, trot into the public square, and discharge a smug, emetic proclamation designed first of all to highlight his own greater virtue while also castigating John Derbyshire as the author of "hate speech."

ALL of it here:
Adam Falk, President of Williams College, Joins the Fight Against Free Speech

 

[the_human_being]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Surfing the net and look what I come across. Just ONE of many and many examples and why the followers of liberalism have become so Intolerant. Parent's better deprogram your children after attending a school, college University in this day and age.

SNIP:
Adam Falk, President of Williams College, Joins the Fight Against Free Speech

By Roger Kimball February 19, 2016

Adam Falk, President of Williams College, Joins the Fight Against Free Speech
this year's tab: $63,290) and coddled purlieus of Williamstown, Massachusetts, where nearly all the faculty are left-leaning and the students, with rare exceptions, are timid if irritable politically correct babies.

This is not the first time someone scheduled to speak for the Uncomfortable Learning series has been disinvited. Last fall, the author Suzanne Venker was first invited and then disinvited by the organizers themselves. Her tort? Harboring unacceptable opinions about feminism. Imagine, she even had the temerity to publish books with such inflammatory titles as The Flipside of Feminism and The War on Men. Everyone knows that feminism is a wild success and that the only social war in town is the supposed "war on women," punctuated every now and then by a "war on blacks."

Ms. Venker was disinvited by the crybullies who could not bear to contemplate the presence of someone with a different perspective on feminism present in the same geographical space as themselves.

But the invitation to John Derbyshire required bigger ammunition. It couldn't be left to the students themselves to disinvited him. No, Adam Falk had to dust off his lofty horse, trot into the public square, and discharge a smug, emetic proclamation designed first of all to highlight his own greater virtue while also castigating John Derbyshire as the author of "hate speech."

ALL of it here:
Adam Falk, President of Williams College, Joins the Fight Against Free Speech

How many liberals of note can you name who have been invited, and paid, to speak at conservative colleges?

 

[Stephanie]

If I know I'm right, why should I entertain the opinions of those who disagree with me?

Why should I tolerate the beliefs of the anti-abortionists when I know I'm right to be pro-choice?

In fact, how do you tolerate the anti-abortion view? What does that involve?

As you can see, the brainless liberal is utterly incapable of even conceiving of any position other than the one he has been assigned. The notion that anything other than what they insist being completely and exclusively 'right' in every way is like mapping the 5th Dimension for them.

And what beliefs do you hold that in reality immerse you in doubt and apprehension that you may not be right?

The point is that I can conceive of the fact that others may legitimately hold views different than my own. This does not necessitate agreement, but I understand that they exist and that reasonable people may think differently than I do on a number of issues. Brainless liberals like you are kept in another universe, and you cannot even see this one from your pen.

There's a difference between tolerating a belief and tolerating someone acting on a belief.

No one was going to stop Kim Davis from believing that gay marriage is a terrible sin until she acted outside the law on that belief.

Your position is that it is intolerable, to you, that liberals even have strong beliefs that they are confident in being correct.

But here's where the leftist hypocrisy shines. Liberals ignore federal law and support sanctuary cities, block traffic and freedom of movement, illegally occupy public property, etc. and they excuse it all as "freedom of speech". Don't bake a gay cake and you need to be financially ruined.

yep, we could go on and on to show their double standards and Intolerance for others who they deem not worthy to stand up for them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As you can see, the brainless liberal is utterly incapable of even conceiving of any position other than the one he has been assigned. The notion that anything other than what they insist being completely and exclusively 'right' in every way is like mapping the 5th Dimension for them.

And what beliefs do you hold that in reality immerse you in doubt and apprehension that you may not be right?

The point is that I can conceive of the fact that others may legitimately hold views different than my own. This does not necessitate agreement, but I understand that they exist and that reasonable people may think differently than I do on a number of issues. Brainless liberals like you are kept in another universe, and you cannot even see this one from your pen.

There's a difference between tolerating a belief and tolerating someone acting on a belief.

No one was going to stop Kim Davis from believing that gay marriage is a terrible sin until she acted outside the law on that belief.

Your position is that it is intolerable, to you, that liberals even have strong beliefs that they are confident in being correct.

But here's where the leftist hypocrisy shines. Liberals ignore federal law and support sanctuary cities, block traffic and freedom of movement, illegally occupy public property, etc. and they excuse it all as "freedom of speech". Don't bake a gay cake and you need to be financially ruined.

yep, we could go on and on to show their double standards and Intolerance for others who they deem not worthy to stand up for them.

Why should I be tolerant of you? You're a bad person, with bad ideas.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Back when liberals were moderately successful and claiming to be the champions of “free speech”, while painting conservatives as the enemies thereof, was a time when “free speech” was all about pornography, foul language, and other evil, degrading things completely removed from the true purpose of free speech.

Most people would agree with the proposition that government censorship is equivalent to oppression. Why do you want the government to be in charge of your reading materials, etc.? Who gets to decide what things are foul, evil, or degrading? You are free to decide for yourself, but not for your neighbor.

The point, I think, is the selectivity of expression that wrong-wingers practice; choosing to protect that which, at best, serves no worthwhile purpose, and is generally degrading, such as pornography; while activity fighting to punish those who express genuine, meaningful opinions and beliefs which wrong-wingers find disagreeable. Those of you on the wrong make a ridiculous mockery of the very concept of free expression.

The broader liberal view of “freedom” in general, is similar—they are in favor of “freedom” to murder innocent children, to abuse harmful drugs, to engage in all manner of immoral sexual; perversions, to live as unproductive parasites at the expense of productive workers, and so on; while opposing genuine, meaningful, essential freedoms.

Genuine, meaningful, and essential freedom means that you should mind your own business. Apply your morals to yourself. If you want to discuss the issues you mentioned, start a new thread.

The classic cry of the wicked, “Don't force your morals on me!” And yet your side happily abuses the power of government to force your immorality and outright evil on those of us who want no part in it. Yours is the side that wants to force women to share restrooms and dressing facilities with creepy male perverts who claim to “identify as women”. Yours is the side that wants to force bakers and caterers and photographers and other professionals to participate in and support sick homosexual mockeries of weddings. Yours is the side that defends the cold-blooded slaughter of thousands of innocent children every day, who are never even allowed the chance to ask not to have this murderous “choice” forced on them.

You want decent people to “keep your morals to yourselves”, while demanding the right to flaunt your wickedness and your immorality and to condemn as “hateful” and “bigoted” anyone who doesn't want anything to do with it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"There's a difference between tolerating a belief and tolerating someone acting on a belief."

Correct.

Liberals defend the right of conservatives to be hateful bigots, oppose their efforts to codify their hate and bigotry, where such opposition does not manifest as "intolerance."

 

[Unkotare]

And what beliefs do you hold that in reality immerse you in doubt and apprehension that you may not be right?

The point is that I can conceive of the fact that others may legitimately hold views different than my own. This does not necessitate agreement, but I understand that they exist and that reasonable people may think differently than I do on a number of issues. Brainless liberals like you are kept in another universe, and you cannot even see this one from your pen.

There's a difference between tolerating a belief and tolerating someone acting on a belief.

No one was going to stop Kim Davis from believing that gay marriage is a terrible sin until she acted outside the law on that belief.

Your position is that it is intolerable, to you, that liberals even have strong beliefs that they are confident in being correct.

But here's where the leftist hypocrisy shines. Liberals ignore federal law and support sanctuary cities, block traffic and freedom of movement, illegally occupy public property, etc. and they excuse it all as "freedom of speech". Don't bake a gay cake and you need to be financially ruined.

yep, we could go on and on to show their double standards and Intolerance for others who they deem not worthy to stand up for them.

Why should I be tolerant of you? You're a bad person, with bad ideas.

The OP is officially proven.

 

[daws101]

The hardcore left has gone from priding itself on being open-minded to priding itself on being intolerant in about one generation.
.

Well look at the schools, universities especially, the Socialist Democrat party and all the nasty hateful people in it they follow like sheep, the leftwing hate sites, etc, they get pounded day in and day out with nasty and hate. so I guess it's be expected, but they should have more self control at least.

Bitch please!

 

[daws101]

Liberals and liberalism is a passed fad, soon to be discarded.

Conservatives have been spewing that steaming pile of propaganda since the terms liberal and conservative were invented.

 

[daws101]

I pride myself in being intolerant of evil. To the extent that conservatism is evil, I am proud to be intolerant of conservatism.

Why would anyone be otherwise?

That's what we've been saying all along. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. That proves it's religion for you. Based on faith, filled with intolerance, hypocrisy and hate for anyone not like you.

Intolerance and hypocrisy are are considered virtues by conservatives.
Everything thing you post proves that.

 

[daws101]

Back when liberals were moderately successful and claiming to be the champions of “free speech”, while painting conservatives as the enemies thereof, was a time when “free speech” was all about pornography, foul language, and other evil, degrading things completely removed from the true purpose of free speech.

Most people would agree with the proposition that government censorship is equivalent to oppression. Why do you want the government to be in charge of your reading materials, etc.? Who gets to decide what things are foul, evil, or degrading? You are free to decide for yourself, but not for your neighbor.

The point, I think, is the selectivity of expression that wrong-wingers practice; choosing to protect that which, at best, serves no worthwhile purpose, and is generally degrading, such as pornography; while activity fighting to punish those who express genuine, meaningful opinions and beliefs which wrong-wingers find disagreeable. Those of you on the wrong make a ridiculous mockery of the very concept of free expression.

The broader liberal view of “freedom” in general, is similar—they are in favor of “freedom” to murder innocent children, to abuse harmful drugs, to engage in all manner of immoral sexual; perversions, to live as unproductive parasites at the expense of productive workers, and so on; while opposing genuine, meaningful, essential freedoms.

Genuine, meaningful, and essential freedom means that you should mind your own business. Apply your morals to yourself. If you want to discuss the issues you mentioned, start a new thread.

The classic cry of the wicked, “Don't force your morals on me!” And yet your side happily abuses the power of government to force your immorality and outright evil on those of us who want no part in it. Yours is the side that wants to force women to share restrooms and dressing facilities with creepy male perverts who claim to “identify as women”. Yours is the side that wants to force bakers and caterers and photographers and other professionals to participate in and support sick homosexual mockeries of weddings. Yours is the side that defends the cold-blooded slaughter of thousands of innocent children every day, who are never even allowed the chance to ask not to have this murderous “choice” forced on them.

You want decent people to “keep your morals to yourselves”, while demanding the right to flaunt your wickedness and your immorality and to condemn as “hateful” and “bigoted” anyone who doesn't want anything to do with it.

This post reeks of false morality.

 

[Debra K]

Back when liberals were moderately successful and claiming to be the champions of “free speech”, while painting conservatives as the enemies thereof, was a time when “free speech” was all about pornography, foul language, and other evil, degrading things completely removed from the true purpose of free speech.

Most people would agree with the proposition that government censorship is equivalent to oppression. Why do you want the government to be in charge of your reading materials, etc.? Who gets to decide what things are foul, evil, or degrading? You are free to decide for yourself, but not for your neighbor.

The point, I think, is the selectivity of expression that wrong-wingers practice; choosing to protect that which, at best, serves no worthwhile purpose, and is generally degrading, such as pornography; while activity fighting to punish those who express genuine, meaningful opinions and beliefs which wrong-wingers find disagreeable. Those of you on the wrong make a ridiculous mockery of the very concept of free expression.

The point you missed is this: Who gets to decide that something "serves no worthwhile purpose" and where do you draw any discernible line? Who would you appoint to serve as our national "morality police"? Our country was formed and, ultimately, our constitution was written to secure individual liberty against arbitrary government oppression. What might be pornography to you might be art to someone else:

Moral disapproval alone cannot serve as a legitimate basis for government oppression of liberty. For instance, if you don't want to view the Venus de Milo, avert your eyes. You also have freedom of speech. You may write an article or a book about your views on pornography. You may write posts on a discussion board expressing your disgust. The discussion might become robust because there are some people who vehemently disagree with you. But robust disagreement is not suppression of speech. Those who disagree with you have just as much of a right to express their views as you have. What you cannot do, however, is impose your view on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws.

The broader liberal view of “freedom” in general, is similar—they are in favor of “freedom” to murder innocent children, to abuse harmful drugs, to engage in all manner of immoral sexual; perversions, to live as unproductive parasites at the expense of productive workers, and so on; while opposing genuine, meaningful, essential freedoms.

Genuine, meaningful, and essential freedom means that you should mind your own business. Apply your morals to yourself. If you want to discuss the issues you mentioned, start a new thread.

The classic cry of the wicked, “Don't force your morals on me!” And yet your side happily abuses the power of government to force your immorality and outright evil on those of us who want no part in it. Yours is the side that wants to force women to share restrooms and dressing facilities with creepy male perverts who claim to “identify as women”. Yours is the side that wants to force bakers and caterers and photographers and other professionals to participate in and support sick homosexual mockeries of weddings. Yours is the side that defends the cold-blooded slaughter of thousands of innocent children every day, who are never even allowed the chance to ask not to have this murderous “choice” forced on them.

You want decent people to “keep your morals to yourselves”, while demanding the right to flaunt your wickedness and your immorality and to condemn as “hateful” and “bigoted” anyone who doesn't want anything to do with it.

I am not wicked. I understand that there can be no such thing as "liberty" if the "morality police" has the power to impose their moral disapproval on our entire society through the operation of our laws. Because we live in a diverse society, the protection of minorities from the oppressions of shifting majorities is necessary to secure the blessings of life, liberty, and property for ALL. And "ALL" includes people you define as creepy or immoral or sick. I think it's sad and unfair to people who are very good people, but who are just different in some way from the majority, to treat them with hate and scorn. Your sense of morality stands in condemnation of people who don't deserve condemnation.

I don't approve of abortion and I don't think I would have ever chosen one for myself during my "child bearing years". I'm much older now, but one of my most painful memories was being a young woman who just learned she was pregnant. My boyfriend was upset and demanded that I get an abortion and I said "No!" He screamed and begged for hours demanding that I do as he commanded. I still said "No!" The abuse and turmoil was too much for my body, I miscarried that night, and I was sad and angry. I felt like my choice was ripped away from me.

The most important aspect of the Roe v. Wade decision is that it puts the power to decide in the hands of the pregnant woman. The justices made it clear, if the individual does not have the power to determine her own procreative destiny ... if that power resides with the government, then the pendulum may swing both ways. If I don't have the right to choose my own procreative destiny and the government has the power to prohibit abortions, then it also has the power to require abortions. I don't want the government to have the power over procreation and, under our constitution, the government doesn't have that power.

I understand that some people don't appreciate a woman's right to make her own choice, but the power over procreation cannot be surrendered to the government. You might think it's immoral to have an abortion, but others might think it's immoral for a woman to give birth to a child that will be a drain on societal resources. Again, who gets to be in charge of the morality police? Be careful what you wish for ...