Why do people hate Liberals?

[Pogo]

It is coherant, with a little punctuation, but to rephrase: as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way. Tolerance does not require you to accept, endorse, appreciate, emulate, or respect my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle. It only requires you to not interfere.

And I am not talking about social mores being evil. What is evil is Citizen A intentionally trying to harm or punish or destroy Citizen B for no other reason than Citizen B uses words or expresses opinions or endorses a lifestyle that Citizen A does not like or accept.

I don't care whether a person is Republican, Democrat, a little green man from Mars, or what label he puts on himself. To attempt to destroy somebody who has not violated anybody's rights is evil and is the antithesis of what liberty is.

OK I agree with the revised, of course. I think we're all good with that.

The second part, still not sure what you're getting at. Can you give an example of "attempting to destroy"?

I gave you three:
Rush Limbaugh
Chick fil a
Paula Deen

Sorry, I missed that part while I was away.
I'm not familiar with Chick-Fil-A; I know the Limblob story and read up on Paula Deen. Neither of those are legislation or political issues. In Deen's case she had a lawsuit flung on her which (presumably) resulted in a business decision, but that TV channel is well within its rights to decline to renew their own contract, are they not?

And then in Limblob's case if you're talking about the advertiser dynamic, from the consumer's standpoint again it's within the consumer's rights to make their purchases as they see fit, and from the advertisers' standpoint they're within their rights to run or not run ads as benefits their public image, are they not?

Who's being "destroyed" by any of this?

And to state the converse, on what basis would you force a consumer to buy, say, a Sleep Train product after they've decided not to because of its association with Limblob?

In any case you're still talking about social mores at the base of these energies, not politics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Conservatives are too busy enjoying life to care about all the stupid stuff that is life and death to liberals. If we don't like a show we don't watch it. When a liberal is ordered not to like a show they try to drive it off the air

 

[Foxfyre]

...as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way.

And your last phrase is an escape hatch for evil big enough to drive a truck through.

In the complexity of modern society, it is almost impossible to do anything that does not affect other people.

I will give you a concrete example. I live in a beautiful, scenic area. The housing in my neighborhood was designed and built in the more socially responsible 1950's. A great deal of thought and care went into building so as to give every house a view of the ocean and hills.

Recently, an executive of an oil company, no doubt paid more than he was worth, bought a house nearby, demolished it, and, by clever manipulation of construction and the zoning regulations (and, I suspect, by money passing under the table to the inspectors) he built a "monster house" which blocked off the ocean view of three houses, and reduced the value of these properties. My view was not affected, but I and my neighbors were disgusted by the arrogance and thoughtlessness of this interloping clod. We all took to calling his house the "view dam." As you may expect, we all gave him the cold shoulder, and he has since moved away, but the damage was done. And, to add insult to injury, the extra height of his construction served no useful purpose; it was not an extra floor, but pure, empty space -- no doubt meant to give an interior impression of lofty space.

The "freedom" of this vain, vulgar cad very much affected three of my neighbors. He cannot be sued for the damage he did; people like him make the laws -- to suit their own convenience!

Examples like this can be multiplied by millions of times in a complex society -- and your antiquated, childish, ill thought-out notions of "freedom"
collapse utterly in such a society.
.

This is a case where clearly the actions of the one affected the others. It could have been avoided with a well thought out social contract specifying the kinds of zoning, construction, etc. that would benefit all.

But how does my using the 'N" word years ago affect you in any way? If you are offended, nobody makes you do business with me or buy any product I endorse.

How does my support of traditional marriage as a worthy goal for people injure you or diminish your enjoyment of life or require anything whatsoever or take anything away from you?

How does a radio talk show host referring to a woman who is paid to have sex a 'slut' damage you in any way? If you find it morally offensive, can you not simply turn off the radio or change the station? If you find the word itself offensive, then petition the station or the FCC to outlaw it along with a number of other words that are not allowed on the public airways. But you expect others to not interfere with your unalienable right to your own thoughts, words, and opinions. Tolerance requires that you allow others the same.

Tolerance is allowing other people to be who they are as long as they stay out of our faces and our business. It is not a requirement to endorse or accept who they are.

 

[Bfgrn]

...as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way.

And your last phrase is an escape hatch for evil big enough to drive a truck through.

In the complexity of modern society, it is almost impossible to do anything that does not affect other people.

I will give you a concrete example. I live in a beautiful, scenic area. The housing in my neighborhood was designed and built in the more socially responsible 1950's. A great deal of thought and care went into building so as to give every house a view of the ocean and hills.

Recently, an executive of an oil company, no doubt paid more than he was worth, bought a house nearby, demolished it, and, by clever manipulation of construction and the zoning regulations (and, I suspect, by money passing under the table to the inspectors) he built a "monster house" which blocked off the ocean view of three houses, and reduced the value of these properties. My view was not affected, but I and my neighbors were disgusted by the arrogance and thoughtlessness of this interloping clod. We all took to calling his house the "view dam." As you may expect, we all gave him the cold shoulder, and he has since moved away, but the damage was done. And, to add insult to injury, the extra height of his construction served no useful purpose; it was not an extra floor, but pure, empty space -- no doubt meant to give an interior impression of lofty space.

The "freedom" of this vain, vulgar cad very much affected three of my neighbors. He cannot be sued for the damage he did; people like him make the laws -- to suit their own convenience!

Examples like this can be multiplied by millions of times in a complex society -- and your antiquated, childish, ill thought-out notions of "freedom"
collapse utterly in such a society.
.

This is a case where clearly the actions of the one affected the others. It could have been avoided with a well thought out social contract specifying the kinds of zoning, construction, etc. that would benefit all.

But how does my using the 'N" word years ago affect you in any way? If you are offended, nobody makes you do business with me or buy any product I endorse.

How does my support of traditional marriage as a worthy goal for people injure you or diminish your enjoyment of life or require anything whatsoever or take anything away from you?

How does a radio talk show host referring to a woman who is paid to have sex a 'slut' damage you in any way? If you find it morally offensive, can you not simply turn off the radio or change the station? If you find the word itself offensive, then petition the station or the FCC to outlaw it along with a number of other words that are not allowed on the public airways. But you expect others to not interfere with your unalienable right to your own thoughts, words, and opinions. Tolerance requires that you allow others the same.

Tolerance is allowing other people to be who they are as long as they stay out of our faces and our business. It is not a requirement to endorse or accept who they are.

This takes the cake of self centered narcissism. Liberals should be afforded first amendment right, just as long as they remain SILENT and don't USE those rights, otherwise they are intolerant.

Did I miss anything FF???

Oh yea I did. NEITHER Deen or Limbaugh's problems were brought about by liberals. Their problems are with corporations who either advertize or air their product.

And tell me FF, did anyone force either one to say what they said? Oh, that's right, personal responsibility only applies when liberals are at fault. Ask Howard Dean... Yeah!!!

 

[Trajan]

And your last phrase is an escape hatch for evil big enough to drive a truck through.

In the complexity of modern society, it is almost impossible to do anything that does not affect other people.

I will give you a concrete example. I live in a beautiful, scenic area. The housing in my neighborhood was designed and built in the more socially responsible 1950's. A great deal of thought and care went into building so as to give every house a view of the ocean and hills.

Recently, an executive of an oil company, no doubt paid more than he was worth, bought a house nearby, demolished it, and, by clever manipulation of construction and the zoning regulations (and, I suspect, by money passing under the table to the inspectors) he built a "monster house" which blocked off the ocean view of three houses, and reduced the value of these properties. My view was not affected, but I and my neighbors were disgusted by the arrogance and thoughtlessness of this interloping clod. We all took to calling his house the "view dam." As you may expect, we all gave him the cold shoulder, and he has since moved away, but the damage was done. And, to add insult to injury, the extra height of his construction served no useful purpose; it was not an extra floor, but pure, empty space -- no doubt meant to give an interior impression of lofty space.

The "freedom" of this vain, vulgar cad very much affected three of my neighbors. He cannot be sued for the damage he did; people like him make the laws -- to suit their own convenience!

Examples like this can be multiplied by millions of times in a complex society -- and your antiquated, childish, ill thought-out notions of "freedom"
collapse utterly in such a society.
.

This is a case where clearly the actions of the one affected the others. It could have been avoided with a well thought out social contract specifying the kinds of zoning, construction, etc. that would benefit all.

But how does my using the 'N" word years ago affect you in any way? If you are offended, nobody makes you do business with me or buy any product I endorse.

How does my support of traditional marriage as a worthy goal for people injure you or diminish your enjoyment of life or require anything whatsoever or take anything away from you?

How does a radio talk show host referring to a woman who is paid to have sex a 'slut' damage you in any way? If you find it morally offensive, can you not simply turn off the radio or change the station? If you find the word itself offensive, then petition the station or the FCC to outlaw it along with a number of other words that are not allowed on the public airways. But you expect others to not interfere with your unalienable right to your own thoughts, words, and opinions. Tolerance requires that you allow others the same.

Tolerance is allowing other people to be who they are as long as they stay out of our faces and our business. It is not a requirement to endorse or accept who they are.

This takes the cake of self centered narcissism. Liberals should be afforded first amendment right, just as long as they remain SILENT and don't USE those rights, otherwise they are intolerant.

Did I miss anything FF???

Oh yea I did. NEITHER Deen or Limbaugh's problems were brought about by liberals. Their problems are with corporations who either advertize or air their product.

And tell me FF, did anyone force either one to say what they said? Oh, that's right, personal responsibility only applies when liberals are at fault. Ask Howard Dean... Yeah!!!

thats the second time you've said basically the something, where is she saying that you need to keep silent?


and I would wager your idea of rights and mine differ....

 

[Trajan]

OK I agree with the revised, of course. I think we're all good with that.

The second part, still not sure what you're getting at. Can you give an example of "attempting to destroy"?

I gave you three:
Rush Limbaugh
Chick fil a
Paula Deen

Sorry, I missed that part while I was away.
I'm not familiar with Chick-Fil-A; I know the Limblob story and read up on Paula Deen. Neither of those are legislation or political issues. In Deen's case she had a lawsuit flung on her which (presumably) resulted in a business decision, but that TV channel is well within its rights to decline to renew their own contract, are they not?

And then in Limblob's case if you're talking about the advertiser dynamic, from the consumer's standpoint again it's within the consumer's rights to make their purchases as they see fit, and from the advertisers' standpoint they're within their rights to run or not run ads as benefits their public image, are they not?

Who's being "destroyed" by any of this?

And to state the converse, on what basis would you force a consumer to buy, say, a Sleep Train product after they've decided not to because of its association with Limblob?

In any case you're still talking about social mores at the base of these energies, not politics.

I think I see what FF is saying the operative word think, as in my opinion. An example of where I think shes coming from;

a deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America had over 10 bus-loads of picketers show at his home, his personal residence.......waving signs, chanting etc.



do you think that that was a legitimate venue to protest? (and I don't think an abortion doctors home is legitimate either)


bear with me

 

[Bfgrn]

This is a case where clearly the actions of the one affected the others. It could have been avoided with a well thought out social contract specifying the kinds of zoning, construction, etc. that would benefit all.

But how does my using the 'N" word years ago affect you in any way? If you are offended, nobody makes you do business with me or buy any product I endorse.

How does my support of traditional marriage as a worthy goal for people injure you or diminish your enjoyment of life or require anything whatsoever or take anything away from you?

How does a radio talk show host referring to a woman who is paid to have sex a 'slut' damage you in any way? If you find it morally offensive, can you not simply turn off the radio or change the station? If you find the word itself offensive, then petition the station or the FCC to outlaw it along with a number of other words that are not allowed on the public airways. But you expect others to not interfere with your unalienable right to your own thoughts, words, and opinions. Tolerance requires that you allow others the same.

Tolerance is allowing other people to be who they are as long as they stay out of our faces and our business. It is not a requirement to endorse or accept who they are.

This takes the cake of self centered narcissism. Liberals should be afforded first amendment right, just as long as they remain SILENT and don't USE those rights, otherwise they are intolerant.

Did I miss anything FF???

Oh yea I did. NEITHER Deen or Limbaugh's problems were brought about by liberals. Their problems are with corporations who either advertize or air their product.

And tell me FF, did anyone force either one to say what they said? Oh, that's right, personal responsibility only applies when liberals are at fault. Ask Howard Dean... Yeah!!!

thats the second time you've said basically the something, where is she saying that you need to keep silent?


and I would wager your idea of rights and mine differ....

Try to follow along, OK? FF is blaming liberals for Deen and Limbaugh's problems. Their problems have nothing at all to do with liberals. It is corporate America who is pulling sponsorships or not airing their product.

This is NOT rocket science Trajan.

 

[Trajan]

This takes the cake of self centered narcissism. Liberals should be afforded first amendment right, just as long as they remain SILENT and don't USE those rights, otherwise they are intolerant.

Did I miss anything FF???

Oh yea I did. NEITHER Deen or Limbaugh's problems were brought about by liberals. Their problems are with corporations who either advertize or air their product.

And tell me FF, did anyone force either one to say what they said? Oh, that's right, personal responsibility only applies when liberals are at fault. Ask Howard Dean... Yeah!!!

thats the second time you've said basically the something, where is she saying that you need to keep silent?


and I would wager your idea of rights and mine differ....

Try to follow along, OK? FF is blaming liberals for Deen and Limbaugh's problems. Their problems have nothing at all to do with liberals. It is corporate America who is pulling sponsorships or not airing their product.

This is NOT rocket science Trajan.

Well, I will, though provoked pass on making any personal remarks.


I will say it is my opinion, The operative word being opinion, that I think you are not comprehending or translating her words, uhm....equitably, and I think, that there is not adequate employment of critical thinking applied as to how point a takes you to b as in corporate sponsorship etc. .....as in cause, effect etc.

 

[AVG-JOE]

News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats. There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats. What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.

The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.

So tolerance is a two way street. To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance. There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist. And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.

The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights. The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness. They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.

But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality. Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is. There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world. And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent. They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.

And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives. The contempt is not for what the liberal believes. The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.

A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...

As have I. But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things. To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation. To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.

And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.

When have I ever threatened you or yours?

Step one is to understand that liberal opinions are just as valid as conservative opinions and, like you said, ignorant, intolerant, extremist assholes occupy both sides of the aisle.

Extremism and intolerance remain the problem, not you and I.

 

[koshergrl]

I wouldn't be so convicted that you aren't the problem, joe.

Everything is not always equal, and there are certain political/idealogical concepts that lend themselves more readily to brutality and dishonesty. And just because you or this person or that think that such an ideology is fine does not make it fine, nor does it compel us to pretend it is.

There is right and wrong. And regardless of what you believe, there is always the chance that you are the one that is wrong. Everybody isn't right all the time.

 

[AVG-JOE]

what I see in this thread , appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation…..

Now, someone’s opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION. It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more valid in that debate(?).

Facts that are made or refuted don’t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over…..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty, to say yea, “ you’re right there” , separation is lost, the debate becomes; “ you’re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you’re wrong”.

That dovetails into the; ‘my crap don’t stank ‘ side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc. a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group…..where really, examples of dopes with signage from the ‘other side’ exist but when posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.

And in the end, what I see to is [that] there doesn’t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn’t get labeled as ‘hateful’. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you’re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay marriage, you’re a homophobe.

It's worse than that Traj.

Just on the issue of gay rights alone:

In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that. But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.

If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.

If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.

From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year. Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.

So a town should be able to run all the gays out on a rail if 51% vote for it?

​

Why not a state?

How about the whole country?

That's what was behind DOMA, a shrinking majority foisting their bedroom morals on the rest of the country through national legislation.

Shouldn't protecting the minorities be a role for government?

Like you said... opinions are opinions and policy is policy.

 

[Beachboy]

Having been both a conservative and a liberal, I can tell you how to beat either one in a debate. With conservatives just present fact/links. All they have to support their positions are Fox News and a cadre of conservative organizations. Challenge their facts/links/sources and you win every time.

Basically, liberals believe "Everything for everyone." A nice easy political opinion that appeals to the masses. What they won't talk about when the "rubber meets the road" is the limitations on natural resources. There just is not enough to go around. The easiest subject to nail them on is "overpopulation and how to solve it." When they realize that some form of international birth control is the only alternative, the collapse like a cheap tent. They can not make decisions about who lives, and who dies, and leaving it up to the laws of nature negates their arguments.

At least conservatives get credit for making a decision even when all the choices are bad. What good is discussion if in the end you can not make a decision?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I wouldn't be so convicted that you aren't the problem, joe.

Everything is not always equal, and there are certain political/idealogical concepts that lend themselves more readily to brutality and dishonesty. And just because you or this person or that think that such an ideology is fine does not make it fine, nor does it compel us to pretend it is.

There is right and wrong. And regardless of what you believe, there is always the chance that you are the one that is wrong. Everybody isn't right all the time.

Unless you can point to a standing CIVIL Law I have broken, you have NOTHING but your opinion concerning my sins.

Right and wrong are MEANINGLESS opinions outside of Civil Law. Your opinion of me is irrelevant.

 

[koshergrl]

Often, the laws are the problem. And you are the problem for following them, or proposing them.

There is right and wrong. Legality is not the same as "right".

 

[AVG-JOE]

Wrong and right are subjective outside of Civil Law. That's why Civil Law MUST trump Religious Law whenever the two conflict.

Any indications of right and wrong outside of Civil Law are irrelevant, including the ancient religious stories we are so carefully tap-dancing around. Anything else opens the door to the intolerance of things like Sharia Law or worse.

 

[Bfgrn]

what I see in this thread , appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation…..

Now, someone’s opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION. It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more valid in that debate(?).

Facts that are made or refuted don’t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over…..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty, to say yea, “ you’re right there” , separation is lost, the debate becomes; “ you’re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you’re wrong”.

That dovetails into the; ‘my crap don’t stank ‘ side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc. a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group…..where really, examples of dopes with signage from the ‘other side’ exist but when posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.

And in the end, what I see to is [that] there doesn’t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn’t get labeled as ‘hateful’. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you’re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay marriage, you’re a homophobe.

It's worse than that Traj.

Just on the issue of gay rights alone:

In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that. But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.

If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.

If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.

From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year. Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.

Anything to back up your claim FF, or is that just emotions?

 

[Pogo]

I gave you three:
Rush Limbaugh
Chick fil a
Paula Deen

Sorry, I missed that part while I was away.
I'm not familiar with Chick-Fil-A; I know the Limblob story and read up on Paula Deen. Neither of those are legislation or political issues. In Deen's case she had a lawsuit flung on her which (presumably) resulted in a business decision, but that TV channel is well within its rights to decline to renew their own contract, are they not?

And then in Limblob's case if you're talking about the advertiser dynamic, from the consumer's standpoint again it's within the consumer's rights to make their purchases as they see fit, and from the advertisers' standpoint they're within their rights to run or not run ads as benefits their public image, are they not?

Who's being "destroyed" by any of this?

And to state the converse, on what basis would you force a consumer to buy, say, a Sleep Train product after they've decided not to because of its association with Limblob?

In any case you're still talking about social mores at the base of these energies, not politics.

I think I see what FF is saying the operative word think, as in my opinion. An example of where I think shes coming from;

a deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America had over 10 bus-loads of picketers show at his home, his personal residence.......waving signs, chanting etc.

do you think that that was a legitimate venue to protest? (and I don't think an abortion doctors home is legitimate either)

bear with me

Well, you lost me with that one. Bank of America? Abortion doctor?

As for Foxy's post, on which she didn't elaborate, where she speaks presumably of the Limbaugh boycott it seems to me boycotts (and buycotts) are voluntary exercises of consumer choice; if I elect to avoid Wal-Mart because of my perceptions of it and she elects to shop there because of hers, then both of us have exercised a choice, and neither one was forced. I'm left to infer that Foxy sees only one of those choices as allowable, which ultimately sounds like whining that a mass of people made choice A, where she would have chosen B. But hey, you're outvoted.

As noted before I'm not familiar with the Chick-Fil-A story but they don't look "destroyed" in my travels and neither does Limbaugh.

Boycotts almost never work anyway.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

what I see in this thread , appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation…..

Now, someone’s opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION. It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more valid in that debate(?).

Facts that are made or refuted don’t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over…..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty, to say yea, “ you’re right there” , separation is lost, the debate becomes; “ you’re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you’re wrong”.

That dovetails into the; ‘my crap don’t stank ‘ side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc. a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group…..where really, examples of dopes with signage from the ‘other side’ exist but when posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.

And in the end, what I see to is [that] there doesn’t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn’t get labeled as ‘hateful’. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you’re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay marriage, you’re a homophobe.

It's worse than that Traj.

Just on the issue of gay rights alone:

In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that. But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.

If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.

If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.

From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year. Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.

And how exactly are conservatives going to achieve their ‘Mayberry USA’?

The only logical extrapolation is that there will be laws and policies in place designed to disadvantage those who don’t ‘conform,’ in clear violation of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s also a fallacy that only a ‘conservative community’ of traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education.

Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals, if not more so – indeed, America is always at its greatest and most successful when all are allowed to participate and contribute, not just those who adhere to ‘conservative concepts.’

 

[AVG-JOE]

what I see in this thread , appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation…..

Now, someone’s opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION. It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more valid in that debate(?).

Facts that are made or refuted don’t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over…..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty, to say yea, “ you’re right there” , separation is lost, the debate becomes; “ you’re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you’re wrong”.

That dovetails into the; ‘my crap don’t stank ‘ side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc. a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group…..where really, examples of dopes with signage from the ‘other side’ exist but when posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.

And in the end, what I see to is [that] there doesn’t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn’t get labeled as ‘hateful’. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you’re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay marriage, you’re a homophobe.

It's worse than that Traj.

Just on the issue of gay rights alone:

In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that. But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.

If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.

If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.

From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year. Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.

And how exactly are conservatives going to achieve their ‘Mayberry USA’?

The only logical extrapolation is that there will be laws and policies in place designed to disadvantage those who don’t ‘conform,’ in clear violation of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s also a fallacy that only a ‘conservative community’ of traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education.

Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals, if not more so – indeed, America is always at its greatest and most successful when all are allowed to participate and contribute, not just those who adhere to ‘conservative concepts.'

Would WWII have looked any different if the disenfranchised had refused to participate? Nobody would have blamed them a bit, all things considered.

 

[Unkotare]

Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals,

Who told you those were exclusively "liberal values"? And what makes you think that "Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples" can't be as conservative as any other?