Liberals are less tolerant of the views of others

cspelts

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Posts
102
Media
10
Likes
124
Points
273
Location
Cincinnati (Ohio, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Politics is all a crock of SHIT!! I have seen the brainwashing of FOXnews on the majority of an entire state!! This NAZI style politics should scare the hell out of everyone!! If you are siding with the likes of Ann Coulter and the hate commissioned Right wing... Then God help you!! This country has never abided by its own constitution!! ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL?? BULLSHIT!! Ignorance feeds on hate! And until their is a higher intelligence to come down and clean this planet up, and people see the bigger picture, instead of the little one that they sit in front of all day, This world will increasingly move to destroy itself! This world is about MONEY and GREED!! And peace and love DON"T MAKE MONEY!! And that goes just as much for the Left wing too!! This world is FUCKED!! So just enjoy the ride on this revolving disaster as long as you can... and hope for an other-worldly intervention!!
 

mallak

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Posts
4,057
Media
0
Likes
1,490
Points
258
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Being opposed to the murder of human beings inside the womb does not constitute one as "intolerant".

As for "anti-gay" I can tell you that there are many Republicans (albeit not the majority) that have no problem with same-sex unions or marriages, me being one of them. I'm of the liberterian philosophy that as long as it doesn't hurt another human being people should be able to do pretty much as they like.

But when you say that I'm "anti-black" you're basically just calling me a racist. I think it's pretty below-the-belt to brand people that way. A truly enlightened and loving person wouldn't do that to another human being, but it seems to be the norm for the "loving" left.

You say we're "anti-poor", which is also completely untrue. Hell, nearly half the country doesn't pay a dime in federal income taxes and on top of that many of them are receiving the fruits of labor of the producers. And you say they're "anti-poor"? You gotta be kidding me. The amount of corruption and fraud in entitlement programs is staggering. But when Ma & Pa from Anytown, USA attend an event to protest the government burning HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars they're called "crazy, racist, tea-baggers that hate poor people". Yea, that's the "tolerant" left of which we frequently hear of but seldom see.

You know who the true 1% is? It's government employees. Yep, that's right! The wealthiest urban area in the nation (based on salaries and benefits) is none other than Washington D.C.! Federal employees in the millions receive compensation far in excess of their counterparts in the private sector, you know, the people that actually create wealth. They have outrageous pension plans that nobody else anywhere gets! And they never lose their job. It doesn't matter how bad or inept they are they will never lose their job. The government takes and takes and takes and takes and what do we get out of it other than shitty government? And someone speaks up to complain and they're villified by the left.

On top of that it seems the left wants to have an open-border policy so that tens of millions can flood our already beleaguered nation and begin receiving food stamps, medical care, housing, education, etc. And when the Republicans ask how can we pay for all this and, by the way, why should we, the left eviscerates them by saying they're racist and anti-latino.

Saying Republicans are anti-this and anti-that is like saying liberals are pro-pedophilia.

There are good rebuttals to everything you just said.
Considering women as nothing more than baby-carriers, is , in fact, intolerant.
Supporting an antigay Republican party is, in fact, intolerant.
Labelling blacks as constant whiners, is, in fact, racist.
Thinking the obscenely unequal distribution of wealth in our society is just, is, in fact, anti-poor.
Attacking government programs that attempt to modestly address some of the inequalities in our society while turning a blind eye to the multibillionaire who pays his employees dirt, is in fact, anti-poor.
Blaming latinos for the poor economy is, in fact, anti-latino.

Maybe if you can type something other than your regurgitations from Fox News I might type a response that is less repetitive.
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
There are good rebuttals to everything you just said.
Considering women as nothing more than baby-carriers, is , in fact, intolerant.
Supporting an antigay Republican party is, in fact, intolerant.
Labelling blacks as constant whiners, is, in fact, racist.
Thinking the obscenely unequal distribution of wealth in our society is just, is, in fact, anti-poor.
Attacking government programs that attempt to modestly address some of the inequalities in our society while turning a blind eye to the multibillionaire who pays his employees dirt, is in fact, anti-poor.
Blaming latinos for the poor economy is, in fact, anti-latino.

Maybe if you can type something other than your regurgitations from Fox News I might type a response that is less repetitive.

Everything you just said is a straw man to the person you were responding to.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I agree. I've never encounted more racist, bigotted, close-minded, anti-intellectual, name calling group of people in my life than the liberals on this board.

He says, while calling names, with no hint of irony.

I'd say I'm shocked, but it would be a lie.
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
There are good rebuttals to everything you just said.
Considering women as nothing more than baby-carriers, is , in fact, intolerant.
Supporting an antigay Republican party is, in fact, intolerant.
Labelling blacks as constant whiners, is, in fact, racist.
Thinking the obscenely unequal distribution of wealth in our society is just, is, in fact, anti-poor.
Attacking government programs that attempt to modestly address some of the inequalities in our society while turning a blind eye to the multibillionaire who pays his employees dirt, is in fact, anti-poor.
Blaming latinos for the poor economy is, in fact, anti-latino.

Maybe if you can type something other than your regurgitations from Fox News I might type a response that is less repetitive.

I think your characterizations are pretty extreme. Labeling an entire party as intolerant because they oppose gay marriage is, well, counterproductive. There are many Republicans that support your right to that basic premise in society yet you denigrate us all just the same. We may have different perspectives on various social and political matters but you villify many good people that are actually on your side on a lot of things.
 

Hoss

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Posts
11,801
Media
2
Likes
586
Points
148
Age
73
Location
Eastern town
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I have seen intolerance from all sides at one time or another.

Some so called tolerant liberals would include the jerk Ruben Diaz a Democrat who voted against gay marriage in New York State.

A liberal will say and do anything to gain a vote and then when you turn your back they stab you repeatedly. The not so liberal usually just takes the dagger and starts towards you which gives you a chance to fight back.

Nobody holds the record for being overall most tolerant or overall most intolerant, all sides have their share of intolerance, liberals just put a fancy crayon drawing on it.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,674
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Since when do liberals have to be tolerant? In the long history of liberalism, most of the famous ones were highly intolerant of what they disagreed with and I see no reason for that to change.

Thomas Paine wrote "Common Sense" because he was disgusted and alarmed at the threat of British tyranny and couldn't tolerate it any longer.

Martin Luther King would not tolerate the denial of civil rights nor the opinions of those bigots who did try to keep black Americans "in their place"

Rosa parks did not tolerate being told to sit in the back of the bus.

Susan B Anthony, Betty Friedan, Margaret Sanger, and thousands of other women were not tolerant of being told they should accept being as less than equal to men.

Millions of American youths in the 1960s and 70s refused to tolerate being sent to their deaths Vietnam. Or to sit idly by and watch their friends and brothers be sent to fight that illegal, immoral and pointless war.

The list of intolerant liberals goes on and on. Abe Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington. They were so intolerant they went to war for their liberal convictions.

I'm intolerant of a American president who lead an administration so criminally incompetent as to invade the wrong f...ing country, who tolerated the worst practices and basest instincts of capitalism gone crazy until it brought his nation to the edge of economic collapse, and who at one point mumbled semicoherently about his support of the embarrassing non-theory of "Intelligent Design," to the detriment of about 300 years of confirmed science.

Yeah, I'm totally fucking intolerant when it comes to the opinions of people who voice support for politicians such as Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry. I'm not one to sit idly and let ignoramuses tell me that someone who would codify homophobia into the US Constitution is fit to be POTUS. I'll tell them they are a bloody fool. (But not in the Politics Forum of LPSG! :wink: )
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
sometimes I feel like if liberals started to advocate for conservative policy, conservatives would then reject those policies to continue to try to upset liberals, which seems to be mission #1
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Since when do liberals have to be tolerant? In the long history of liberalism, most of the famous ones were highly intolerant of what they disagreed with and I see no reason for that to change.

Thomas Paine wrote "Common Sense" because he was disgusted and alarmed at the threat of British tyranny and couldn't tolerate it any longer.

Martin Luther King would not tolerate the denial of civil rights nor the opinions of those bigots who did try to keep black Americans "in their place"

Rosa parks did not tolerate being told to sit in the back of the bus.

Susan B Anthony, Betty Friedan, Margaret Sanger, and thousands of other women were not tolerant of being told they should accept being as less than equal to men.

Millions of American youths in the 1960s and 70s refused to tolerate being sent to their deaths Vietnam. Or to sit idly by and watch their friends and brothers be sent to fight that illegal, immoral and pointless war.

The list of intolerant liberals goes on and on. Abe Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington. They were so intolerant they went to war for their liberal convictions.

I'm intolerant of a American president who lead an administration so criminally incompetent as to invade the wrong f...ing country, who tolerated the worst practices and basest instincts of capitalism gone crazy until it brought his nation to the edge of economic collapse, and who at one point mumbled semicoherently about his support of the embarrassing non-theory of "Intelligent Design," to the detriment of about 300 years of confirmed science.

Yeah, I'm totally fucking intolerant when it comes to the opinions of people who voice support for politicians such as Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry. I'm not one to sit idly and let ignoramuses tell me that someone who would codify homophobia into the US Constitution is fit to be POTUS. I'll tell them they are a bloody fool. (But not in the Politics Forum of LPSG! :wink: )

I actually think this was very well written and I agree there are lots of things that we should not tolerate. I too am of the opinion that Michele Bachmann is an evangelical nut case and does nothing to better our nation. I guess you can tell on most social issues I am pretty liberterian. My biggest issue with liberal politicians is in their economic ideology. It is a tried and failed ideology that is sinking us all but I suppose that's another thread. :biggrin1:
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
My biggest issue with liberal politicians is in their economic ideology. It is a tried and failed ideology that is sinking us all but I suppose that's another thread. :biggrin1:


Sinking us all? Really?

Last I checked, the economy has steadily been improving slowly since the neo-conservative policies of Bush crashed the economy in 2008.

Having said that, I realize this particular argument is tired and will never be seen on mutual ground from either side so why don't I just put you on IGNORE while I go get another latte
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Sinking us all? Really?

Last I checked, the economy has steadily been improving slowly since the neo-conservative policies of Bush crashed the economy in 2008.

Having said that, I realize this particular argument is tired and will never be seen on mutual ground from either side so why don't I just put you on IGNORE while I go get another latte

Oh yea, the economy is just roaring along. Anyway, we could have this discussion in another thread (so as not to hijack this one) but it seems you're not interested. Oh well.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
sometimes I feel like if liberals started to advocate for conservative policy, conservatives would then reject those policies to continue to try to upset liberals, which seems to be mission #1

Like the individual mandate in the health care law that was originally an idea pushed by the conservative Heritage Foundation that they now frame as 'socialism', a government takeover of health care, unconstitutional. This is what you get when you try to meet them half way, a kick in the teeth.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I actually think this was very well written and I agree there are lots of things that we should not tolerate. I too am of the opinion that Michele Bachmann is an evangelical nut case and does nothing to better our nation. I guess you can tell on most social issues I am pretty liberterian. My biggest issue with liberal politicians is in their economic ideology. It is a tried and failed ideology that is sinking us all but I suppose that's another thread. :biggrin1:

I think the problem I'm having with this thread is that you seem to be conflating liberals as a whole with "liberal politicians." The two populations are not one and the same. On the one hand you have a group of people, arguably between 30 and 40 percent of the population, who have vastly divergent viewpoints that center on a core of common themes. On the other hand you have people who make their livings serving in public office.

When you say "liberals are less tolerant of the views of others" you're not just talking about politicians - you're talking about bankers, bakers, stay-at-home moms, lawyers, gardeners, farmers, school teachers, and yes, politicians. Then, on top of it, you set up an argument that assumes that "tolerance" is a virtue.

Well, as vince pointed out so eloquently, tolerance is NOT a virtue a lot of liberals admire. Nor is it something a lot of us seek. I, for one, don't want Michele Bachmann to tolerate my homosexuality. In fact, I think she already tolerates is just fine. She is, in fact, still alive, no matter how gay I am. That's tolerance. What I want from her is acceptance. I am who I am, and she needs to accept that. When it comes to economic policy, I prefer the economic system of our founding fathers. If the agrarian economic system was good enough for them, and so many of our non-economic policy is still based on working with the agrarian economy, I don't see why it can't be good enough for us! But, I guess, that really makes me a conservative who's just out of his time.

*shrug*

In any case, I'm not a politician. I don't like being lumped in with them. They do the job they do, wether I agree with them or not, and I do the job I do. Please stop taking your distaste for politicians out on me.