Liberal Intolerance

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14579

 

[Schweddy]

Fonz, this is good stuff... mind posting relivant quotes of the editorial?

thanks!

 

[Squawker]

Modern liberalism is a leftist and nihilistic rebellion against the inherently unequal nature of the human condition. If we conservatives named this ideology for what it is, we would have a fair chance to defeat it or at least stem its advance. But if we go on imagining that leftists are liberals who share with us a common moral consensus as Americans—if we continue to regard their hateful assaults on us and our institutions as expressions of "silly" political correctness rather than of their fundamental drive to abolish our system of government and destroy us as a people, then we will be unable to oppose them in any way that counts, and they will keep driving us and our civilization backwards, step by step, until finally nothing remains. If we are effectively to oppose modern liberalism with its destructive double standards, we must oppose it on principle.

This sums it up pretty well. The Kennedy type Democrats left the party a long time ago; some with Reagan, some later. The gradual take over of the party by Liberals began with the Johnson administration IMO. What remains is a skeleton of anything the Democrats used to believed in.

 

[ShamMol]

Then I am proud to be part of that skeleton that remains. I stand for peace, I stand for tolerance, I stand for human rights, I stand for tax and spend programs, I stand for a whole lot. But I sure as hell do not stand for intolerance. I like free and open conversation as long as it is not idiotic as some of these threads have been this day.

You liberals say you believe in openness, tolerance, and diversity. Yet you want to exclude and silence conservatives. We conservatives believe in a true diversity of viewpoints that would include both liberals and conservatives."

As I said, open, smart and civilized discussion. Watch the attack from Sq. come...right...now.

Oh, and this guy ain't balanced whatsoever. Check his blog. "O’Connor has resigned, good riddance. " Good for him. One of the most respected jurists in the nation (hell, even I understand and appreciate her written opinions) and he says that. Great writing to talk about.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You guys are so full of it. In terms of liberalism, JFK was far more liberal than just about any of the current crop of Dems. Johnson's Great Society was all almost all originally proposed during the Kennedy years. I mean, Reagan was no JFK, and Bush, is certainly no JFK. To compare the current Republicans to JFK or Truman is like comparing a dime to a dollar. Do you think JFK met with corporate lobbyists every Tuesday like the number two Republican in the Senate, Rick Santorum? Do you think JFK, had a list of his contributors on his desk and would only deal with those contributors and their lobbyist like Tom Delay has?

The only similarity between JFK and Reagan or the current crop of Republicans is that JFK was very strong on defense. Then again, it’s better said that JFK was strong on defense, and Republicans today are strong on lining the pockets of defense contractors. Just write out a big check to the GOP and you can bilk the American Taxpayer for all the $700 toilet seats and $500 dollar hammers you want.

JFK had this to say about the difference between Democrats and Republicans:

“We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.”
John F. Kennedy, 1960

This is what JFK had to say about economics:

“Economic growth without social progress lets
the great majority of the people remain in
poverty, while a privileged few reap the benefits
of rising abundance.”

That is at its core a liberal ideal.

This is what JFK had to say about the environment:

“The Supreme Reality of Our Time is...the Vulnerability of our Planet"

“It is our task in our time and in our generation to
hand down undiminished to those who come after us,
as was handed down to us by those who went before,
the natural wealth and beauty which is ours.”
John F. Kennedy, March 1961

“Never before has man had such capacity to control
his own environment, to end thirst and hunger, to
conquer poverty and disease, to banish illiteracy
and massive human misery. We have the power to make
this the best generation of mankind in the history
of the world--or to make it the last.”

John F. Kennedy, UN address, 9-20-1963

Not exactly notions that Republicans would accept.

On poverty:

“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor,
it cannot save the few who are rich.”

John F. Kennedy 1-20-1963

Another very liberal ideal.

“There is inherited wealth in this country and also
inherited poverty.”

John F. Kennedy, 10-26-1963

A totally foreign concept to any Republican these days.

The only difference between Democrats today and Democrats during Kennedy’s time is that if anything Democrats today are by and large more moderate and with less principle than the liberals of JFK era. Republicans on the other hand are more conservative. Barry Goldwater represented the far right of the Republican Party during the 60s, today he would be considered a liberal Republican.

 

[Squawker]

I was born in 1948 and have some knowledge of the history of Democrats since I stubbornly hung on to the party until about 1995. I also live in the North East and have watched the Liberal movement take control of our government and systematically destroy the very fabric of what the party used to stand for. It took under two minutes before my post was attacked and turned into a Bash Republican thread. Nice work of accusing me of attacking what you say ShamMol. This is what the Liberals now call "debating" so you just made a good example to show it first hand. There is no debating with Liberals, there is only attacks and twisting words.

 

[Squawker]

I don’t want to disappoint ShamMol so the “attack” follows. You got it coming buddy, so take it like a man.
ShamMol said:

I stand for peace,

I stand for Freedom and Liberty for all.

I stand for tolerance,

I stand for Equal Justice.

I stand for human rights,

I stand for the Bill of Rights.

I stand for tax and spend programs,

I stand for helping those who cannot help themselves.

I sure as hell do not stand for intolerance. I like free and open conversation as long as it is not idiotic as some of these threads have been this day.

I stand for equal protection, even when people make idiotic posts.

 

[ShamMol]

I don’t want to disappoint ShamMol so the “attack” follows. You got it coming buddy, so take it like a man.

I stand for Freedom and Liberty for all.
I stand for Equal Justice.
I stand for the Bill of Rights.
I stand for helping those who cannot help themselves.

I stand for equal protection, even when people make idiotic posts.

Ah, you are losing your edge, that ain't an attack. Well, here is mine.

You stand for equal protection, because you need it because you are the one who "make(s) idiotic posts."

 

[ShamMol]

I was born in 1948 and have some knowledge of the history of Democrats since I stubbornly hung on to the party until about 1995. I also live in the North East and have watched the Liberal movement take control of our government and systematically destroy the very fabric of what the party used to stand for. It took under two minutes before my post was attacked and turned into a Bash Republican thread. Nice work of accusing me of attacking what you say ShamMol. This is what the Liberals now call "debating" so you just made a good example to show it first hand. There is no debating with Liberals, there is only attacks and twisting words.

No, when people start idiotic threads like this, I don't see any point to debate. Especially considering where it comes from is a Republican think tank. You have the twisting words down, you have the attacking done. I see no point to debate in this topic considering that it isn't anything more than an attack article to start.

We don't make threads about Conservative idiocy, well, I don't at least. These type of threads serve absolutely no purpose and thus I don't have to treat them like they do. I could make all the "I hate bush" threads I wanted to, but I don't. I like actual debating. Your first post in the Supreme Court O'connor thread was an attack, mine was discussion. MY second was discussion. You just attack and criticize, at least I try and discuss. Maybe I should do what you did to 26x, it would make it that much easier for myself not to see you (even though I think it is wrong to do that).

 

[Squawker]

Teacher is right -- you folks have too much starch in your undies. :mrgreen:

 

[ShamMol]

Teacher is right -- you folks have too much starch in your undies. :mrgreen:

You guys...is it always us vs. them with you?

Anyway...I wear boxers. Love those nice soft cotton that allows you to breathe...

 

[Squawker]

You guys...is it always us vs. them with you?

The last time I looked we had a two party system. I will never vote for another Liberal dressed up like a donkey's ass, so yes it is us vs them. You can unsubscribe from a thread through your User CP.

The key point is that the double standard results automatically from the demand for equality between inherently unequal things. The double standard is not a mere excess or defect of leftism, but its essence.

As this relates to this thread. Democrats/Liberals have posted hundreds of Republican attacks in different threads in this forum. A Republican posts an article about Liberals, and look at the outrage and accusations of imagined vicious attacks. The article was right on the money.

 

[WiseRufus]

It took under two minutes before my post was attacked and turned into a Bash Republican thread. Nice work of accusing me of attacking what you say ShamMol. This is what the Liberals now call "debating" so you just made a good example to show it first hand. There is no debating with Liberals, there is only attacks and twisting words.

This is hysterical.

This thread and article were obvious "Bash Liberals" pieces. Excuse me Sq...but it seems to me that your definition of debate is to insult and attack someone and get all huffy-puffy-offended, then throw a hissy-fit when that someone swings back.

If you can't take it Sq...don't dish it.

 

[ShamMol]

The last time I looked we had a two party system. I will never vote for another Liberal dressed up like a donkey's ass, so yes it is us vs them. You can unsubscribe from a thread through your User CP.

As this relates to this thread. Democrats/Liberals have posted hundreds of Republican attacks in different threads in this forum. A Republican posts an article about Liberals, and look at the outrage and accusations of imagined vicious attacks. The article was right on the money.

You. You. You are the one and only conservative on this forum whose sole purpose is to annoy us. You don't come here to debate. You don't do jack ***** except try and annoy us. You even had in your sig that it was your job. PO.

You start threads, the liberals don't. We respond to your bs, you say it is an attack. We are not all the same, but you are always the same. Stop it. Grow up. I just said that to my elder, what does that say Squawker.

It isn't right. If you care about this forum, try debating and stop trying to annoy us. It is really quite interesting when that happens. When you look at all my posts, you will see some attacks, but you will notice that they are all against you and one other conservative. I try and actually debate. Can you say the same? No, you cannot.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The last time I looked we had a two party system. I will never vote for another Liberal dressed up like a donkey's ass, so yes it is us vs them. You can unsubscribe from a thread through your User CP.

As this relates to this thread. Democrats/Liberals have posted hundreds of Republican attacks in different threads in this forum. A Republican posts an article about Liberals, and look at the outrage and accusations of imagined vicious attacks. The article was right on the money.

Are you telling me that Conservatives don't attack Liberals? Hello Pot, Meet Kettle! I mean, I remember back in the ninties when most all the right wingers were claiming Clinton was a murderer. There is no debate with a conservative, you treat the term liberal like it was a four letter word.

 

[edb19]

I stand for Freedom and Liberty for all.
I stand for Equal Justice.
I stand for the Bill of Rights.
I stand for helping those who cannot help themselves.

I stand for equal protection, even when people make idiotic posts.

Without getting into all the off-topic vitriol - this sums up my viewpoints beautifully Squawker - thanks for putting it into writing.

All right, I guess I do need to address the vitriol a little bit by pointing out the obvious to a couple of SD & Sham. Squawker is the only one of you who actually remembers Kennedy. He knows the Democrat party of that time - you folks weren't even born then. There's a big difference between experiencing something (which Squawker has done) and reading about it (which is what SD & Sham, by virtue of their age, are doing). Democrats today are much more left leaning than during Kennedy's time. As a person who also remembers the Democratic party of the 60's, I'm not sure that JFK would recognize the party he was so proud of. I'm not sure he'd even recognize his brother! As President Reagan once said "I didn't leave the Democratic party, it left me."

 

[26 X World Champs]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14579

Great job posting a site dedicated to HATING other Americans.

Pathetic is all that comes to mind when I consider the source or the choice to include it.....

 

[26 X World Champs]

As this relates to this thread. Democrats/Liberals have posted hundreds of Republican attacks in different threads in this forum. A Republican posts an article about Liberals, and look at the outrage and accusations of imagined vicious attacks. The article was right on the money.

I find it interesting that someone who has spent so much time writing I HATE LIBERALS posts is now complaining that others are writing anti-Republican posts? To restate the obvious please follow this link to read some gems concerning the HATE of Liberals in this community:

http://debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=32439&postcount=35

 

[Squawker]

I find it interesting that someone who has spent so much time writing I HATE LIBERALS posts is now complaining that others are writing anti-Republican posts? To restate the obvious please follow this link to read some gems concerning the HATE of Liberals in this community:

I think that is quite enough said Champ. Taking quotes out of context, and posting them as hate speech serves no purpose. You made your point, and I took note of it.

 

[ShamMol]

All right, I guess I do need to address the vitriol a little bit by pointing out the obvious to a couple of SD & Sham. Squawker is the only one of you who actually remembers Kennedy. He knows the Democrat party of that time - you folks weren't even born then. There's a big difference between experiencing something (which Squawker has done) and reading about it (which is what SD & Sham, by virtue of their age, are doing). Democrats today are much more left leaning than during Kennedy's time. As a person who also remembers the Democratic party of the 60's, I'm not sure that JFK would recognize the party he was so proud of. I'm not sure he'd even recognize his brother! As President Reagan once said "I didn't leave the Democratic party, it left me." [/COLOR][/FONT]

Good for Squawker, I am part of the Democratic party of today. I don't look to the past glory days. I look to now, what I can do now, what I can't do now. And what I can do now is denounce that editorial because of who wrote it.

Who wrote you may be asking. Well, it is from a group that is dedicated to basically, hating liberals. And we are debating about it like it is news. Ridiculous.

Honestly, how can you expect to have a rational debate with Sq. when all he does is say "another example of liberal bias" or "That'll teach those liberals." Ridiculous.

 

[Squawker]

Honestly, how can you expect to have a rational debate with Sq. when all he does is say "another example of liberal bias" or "That'll teach those liberals." Ridiculous.

Please use full quotes, and links when you reference something you claim I said.

 

[ShamMol]

Fine, you know exactly what I mean though, now don't you. There are quite a few of those one liners in this thread alone.

 

[Squawker]

I understand that you take what I say as a personal attack. I was addressing the topic of the thread which is "Liberal Intolerance." Strangely ironic isn't it.

 

[ShamMol]

I don't take it as a personal attack. I said you use one liners about liberals instead of actually debating.

I posted somethign really long and heart felt and then you post something about my underwear beings starched because I am liberal. Yeah, makes sense. That is what pisses me off.