Chalk one up for the "tolerance" croud...

[WaterPog]

Yet again it is proven that liberals in general are anything but Tolerant dispite their rantings to the contrary.

Many of you probably know that conservative local talk-show host Lars Larson had plans to put up a Cross in Pioneer courthouse square this coming Monday to try and put a little Christmas back in "The Holidays". The Square annually rents space to a local Jewish organization and allows them to put up a display including a Menorah to celebrate Chaunica and it has never once been the subject of any vandalism or protest. Apparently Tolerance only applies to Minorities, or maybe it just doesn't apply to Christians. As soon as Lars announced the plan to put up the Cross the hate mail started rolling in, along with the threats of violence and vandalism, to the point that the plan was cancled today because the liability just got to be too high.

I for one find it very Offensive that people would make such threats out of a twisted sence of tolerance. Any kind of hate, regardless if it is directed at a minority or a majority group is reprehensable. Lars didn't pettition to have the Menorah removed from the square, and neither did anyone else. Nobody seems to have an issue with the Jewish display, which is every bit as religious as the Cross would have been.

Why the Hypocrisy?

I do want to add that like most americans I don't attend a church. I'm not really a religious person, and I wasn't particularly excited about the Cross in the first place. I'm more of an Agnostic than anything else, I think that there probably is something out there but I really don't think any of the major relidgions have gotten it all right. I AM highly offended however that people would single out one group and threaten them with vandalism and violence for espousing their beliefs.

Thank You,

Eric Eddy

 

[FE_NUT]

amen

 

[Rootus]

Listen to yourself talk. You're a liberal.

And once you realize that, you understand why I dislike it when people post things like this that misuse the term and fling it like some kind of insult.

I suggest toning down phrases like "Yet again it is proven" when you are not going to back it up with anything more than rhetoric .

Also, let's get the definition of liberal out in the open. I think this describes it well enough:

Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which strives to maximize liberty. Liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a free market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent, a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have by law equal rights and an equal opportunity.

And on that defiition, I am quite proud to call myself liberal. I also like the dictionary definition of the word itself, as it is also fitting of my views.

Dave

 

[Merc331]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Read the book "Do as I say and not as I do" You'll see the hypocrisy.

Happy Holy-Days and Merry Christmas!

 

[YardSpecial]

Great POST !! Just keep it nice and no personal attacks...........

Fresh point of view is nice

God Bless !

 

[Rootus]

... nevermind

 

[MTMMAN]

Liberals would never say any thing about Jewish symbols. That would be Anti-semitic! The Holocaust is too touchy of a subject!
Can't we all just get along!

 

[jordanvraptor]

I wish the "Liberals" were actually Liberal by Dave's definition... p.s. I hurt myself playin Army.

 

[Rootus]

I wish the "Liberals" were actually Liberal by Dave's definition... p.s. I hurt myself playin Army.

What we have here is a failure to communicate . Those of us who call us liberals are doing so from the above definition. The other "liberal" is a made up basically non-existent group that the far right wing created to hurl insults at.

IMO cut the far right 25% and the far left 25% out of the world and the rest of us will live happily ever after.

How did you get hurt Jordan? I hope not too badly! You old folks gotta know when to take it easy!

Dave

 

[99GTtony]

http://www.illwillpress.com/xmas.html

Not work safe or kid safe!

 

[jordanvraptor]

What we have here is a failure to communicate . Those of us who call us liberals are doing so from the above definition. The other "liberal" is a made up basically non-existent group that the far right wing created to hurl insults at.

IMO cut the far right 25% and the far left 25% out of the world and the rest of us will live happily ever after.

How did you get hurt Jordan? I hope not too badly! You old folks gotta know when to take it easy!

Dave

Chipped a bone in my left ankle jumping into a stream bed. How does that RPM matching thing work again?

 

[Johnnb]

I could not agree more with the opening post. Liberals insist on using their constitutional rights and forcing that on other people yet when others force theirs back on them they cry foul.

Prime example is the woman wearing the Meet The *****ers t-shirt that got kicked off of the Southwest flight she was on. She insisted on exercising her freedom of speech by wearing that shirt, but did not want to respect and accept Southwest right to private property when they asked her to cover it and then kicked her off.

Or when they protest without a permit and get kicked out of where they are, especially when the police are left with having to use force because they refuse to leave. Liberals love to exercise their rights and force things on you until you exercise yours back on them.

 

[stock50LX]

Listen to yourself talk. You're a liberal.

And once you realize that, you understand why I dislike it when people post things like this that misuse the term and fling it like some kind of insult.

I suggest toning down phrases like "Yet again it is proven" when you are not going to back it up with anything more than rhetoric .

Also, let's get the definition of liberal out in the open. I think this describes it well enough:



And on that defiition, I am quite proud to call myself liberal. I also like the dictionary definition of the word itself, as it is also fitting of my views.

Dave

That's 19th century liberalism, Rootus.

But eveyone is a liberal. Convservatives just worship dead liberals.

I agree, the far left is as bad and as intolerant as the far right. Just use the term "Red Guard" and "Jacobins" for liberals in that category.

The rational man accepts the world as it is. The irrational man demands that the world change to suit his perspective and ideals. So all changes are made by irrational men. Bertrand Russel

 

[Rootus]

I could not agree more with the opening post. Liberals insist on using their constitutional rights and forcing that on other people yet when others force theirs back on them they cry foul.

That is by definition not what a true liberal is about. Forcing others to abide by your own morals is a conservative point of view.

Prime example is the woman wearing the Meet The *****ers t-shirt that got kicked off of the Southwest flight she was on. She insisted on exercising her freedom of speech by wearing that shirt, but did not want to respect and accept Southwest right to private property when they asked her to cover it and then kicked her off.

She did not get kicked off. She was given the choice of turning the t-shirt inside out, or getting off the airplane in Reno. She and her husband elected to have some dignity and voluntarily got off the airplane.

What you really need to ask yourself is why is the "Meet the Fockers" t-shirt offensive in the first place? It depicts three conservative politicians, not three dieties, so why get bent out of shape in the first place. What does that say about the people who threw a tantrum and demanded that Southwest Airlines do something about it?

The original post in this thread whined about someone (alleged without any basis to be a liberal) suggesting that it was offensive to put Christmas-related objects in Pioneer Square. This is exactly the same issue as the incident you are refering to, but because it might have been a liberal (a point that is very debatable) doing the complaining, it is somehow bad. Nice double standard.

Or when they protest without a permit and get kicked out of where they are, especially when the police are left with having to use force because they refuse to leave. Liberals love to exercise their rights and force things on you until you exercise yours back on them.

And conservatives love to do exactly the same thing. Your point is what? Conservatives have even gone so far as to make it illegal to protest within a certain distance of anywhere the President is going to be. And then they have the gall to suggest that this squashing of free speech has something to do with security. Umm, yeah. So it means that any terrorist who intends to take a pot shot at the President will simply hang a "I love Bush" card around his neck and he will be able to get as close as he wants. That is extremely flawed and scary logic, if it was really true. Fortunately I believe the Secret Service is under no such illusions, it is the conservative politicians who want to spin this policy as a security concern.

That's 19th century liberalism, Rootus.

Not for me, it isn't. That is here, now, 21st century.

I would love to know what people believe they are supporting when they claim to be conservative. Bigger government, more spending, more waste, what? Take notice that this is the opposite of how it was not all that long ago -- it used to be democrats that spent irrational amounts of money, and republicans were supposed to be fiscally conservative. At this very moment we have exceeded EIGHT (8) TRILLION (1,000,000,000,000) dollars of national debt. At the rate we are spending money right now, we are likely to have double the debt at the end of GWB's term as at the beginning. That is anything but fiscally conservative.

One thing I find especially interesting is how the strongest, most single-minded supporters of the conservative policitians are the ones who benefit the least from having them in office. How these people can support someone who consistently stabs them in the back with his policies is beyond me. He's looking out for the rich guys, folks, and that likely does not include anybody here.

What I'd like to see is a new political party, founded on split ideals -- socially liberal (by my definition, given above), and fiscally conservative. None of this irrational spending combined with enforced morality that we have right now.

Dave

 

[ddonaca351]

Also, let's get the definition of liberal out in the open. I think this describes it well enough:

Dave

Dave, the maint problem that I see with Liberals, is that they are very much ANTI liberty. Here is my reasoning for coming to that conclusion....

Liberals came up with PC-ism... which has virtually eliminated free speach in every form, either written or verbal. If anything is going to be insulting to anyone EVEN IF IT WAS MISINTERPRUTED... it is there-by VERBOTEN!!

Liberals came up with gun controll... now explain to me again how making it illegal to own a gun, will stop someone who BREAKS THE LAW FOR A LIVING from owning one? Near as I can tell since Wash DC, LA, NY, etc.. have some of the toughest gun controll laws in the country and have some of the worst crime rates, it should be obvious that this idea doesnt work. But the liberals just keep pushing it on me year after year... taking away my law abiding rights in the interest of "public safety", which has been proven not to work... (above cited examples).

Liberals also came up with afermative action quotas, so that regaurdless of who is best qualified a minority MUST be hired. (the minority may have been best qualified, but shouldnt it be decided by the qualifications, not a gov mandate)

Liberals came up with laws that tell me what I can and can-not do on my own land..... (wtf) I own a piece of land, and the city has the right to tell me I can or cant plant trees, or can or cant cut down the ones I have now.... oh, now thats spells liberty if ever I heard it.

Now in their defense, I do agree with *some* of their ideals about the enviornment and human rights, but in short my philosophy (and that of many conservatives) is we acknowledge their right to think what they want, we just wish they would do the same... they always want to stop us from expressing our views because it might offend somebody, someday.

Long live liberty, down with liberalism.

DD
(you are now being returned to your regularly scheduled soap box speaker...)


Yeah I know my spelling sucks, but Im ok with that. :Zip2:

 

[stock50LX]

That is by definition not what a true liberal is about. Forcing others to abide by your own morals is a conservative point of view.

She did not get kicked off. She was given the choice of turning the t-shirt inside out, or getting off the airplane in Reno. She and her husband elected to have some dignity and voluntarily got off the airplane.

What you really need to ask yourself is why is the "Meet the Fockers" t-shirt offensive in the first place? It depicts three conservative politicians, not three dieties, so why get bent out of shape in the first place. What does that say about the people who threw a tantrum and demanded that Southwest Airlines do something about it?
The original post in this thread whined about someone (alleged without any basis to be a liberal) suggesting that it was offensive to put Christmas-related objects in Pioneer Square. This is exactly the same issue as the incident you are refering to, but because it might have been a liberal (a point that is very debatable) doing the complaining, it is somehow bad. Nice double standard.

And conservatives love to do exactly the same thing. Your point is what? Conservatives have even gone so far as to make it illegal to protest within a certain distance of anywhere the President is going to be. And then they have the gall to suggest that this squashing of free speech has something to do with security. Umm, yeah. So it means that any terrorist who intends to take a pot shot at the President will simply hang a "I love Bush" card around his neck and he will be able to get as close as he wants. That is extremely flawed and scary logic, if it was really true. Fortunately I believe the Secret Service is under no such illusions, it is the conservative politicians who want to spin this policy as a security concern.

Not for me, it isn't. That is here, now, 21st century.

I would love to know what people believe they are supporting when they claim to be conservative. Bigger government, more spending, more waste, what? Take notice that this is the opposite of how it was not all that long ago -- it used to be democrats that spent irrational amounts of money, and republicans were supposed to be fiscally conservative. At this very moment we have exceeded EIGHT (8) TRILLION (1,000,000,000,000) dollars of national debt. At the rate we are spending money right now, we are likely to have double the debt at the end of GWB's term as at the beginning. That is anything but fiscally conservative.

One thing I find especially interesting is how the strongest, most single-minded supporters of the conservative policitians are the ones who benefit the least from having them in office. How these people can support someone who consistently stabs them in the back with his policies is beyond me. He's looking out for the rich guys, folks, and that likely does not include anybody here.

What I'd like to see is a new political party, founded on split ideals -- socially liberal (by my definition, given above), and fiscally conservative. None of this irrational spending combined with enforced morality that we have right now.

Dave

The terms liberal and conservative are vague and mean different things to different people. Best to talk about specific issues, as you did above, and avoid labels altogether. For my part, I wouldn't disagree with your above statements. The national debt is a threat to our way of life. It is ironic that the present government has touted efficient government and less spending, but has done the opposite. The only period, during the 20th Century, when the rich did not widen the gap between themselves and the poor, was during the New Deal. I don't foresee that trend changing, but I'd like it to. It seems taboo in the US to talk about class conflict. The wealthy and powerful have always managed to pit one segment of the American working class against the other, and in so doing, divert antagonism away from their own conduct and actions. They seem to be getting better at it.

 

[Rootus]

Dave, the maint problem that I see with Liberals, is that they are very much ANTI liberty. Here is my reasoning for coming to that conclusion....

I think this is the fundamental problem I have. Labeling a group of people as liberals who are clearly not. Label them scumsucking neo yuppies, or something, but spitting out liberal like it's profane is doing a great disservice to all of us who are liberal. And it makes me kinda irritated .

Here goes...

Liberals came up with PC-ism...

I do not know if I agree that liberals did this. See above comment about SSNY's. I dislike so-called "political correctness" with a passion. The idea of a Holiday Tree saddens me a great deal. As does the erosion of other holidays like Halloween. These are cultural events, even if they originated with a specific religion, and we should not attempt to dimish them. For what it's worth, I'm closer to being an atheist than a devout Christian (though I would not claim either title).

Liberals came up with gun controll... now explain to me again how making it illegal to own a gun, will stop someone who BREAKS THE LAW FOR A LIVING from owning one?

Is this really a liberal thing? One of the biggest gun control measures I can think of is the Brady Bill. Although it was ultimately signed into law by a Democratic President, it was certainly the project of Sarah Brady and her husband, who were probably Republican .

And for what it's worth, the majority of people that I know who own a lot of guns (myself included) and carry them, are all very much liberal. I'm not at all in support of mindless gun control laws that do nothing to actually address criminal posession of firearms and only penalize law abiding citizens.

Liberals also came up with afermative action quotas, so that regaurdless of who is best qualified a minority MUST be hired.

There was a time and place (and even now there may still be places) where affirmative action (or positive discrimination) was the right choice. Call it the lesser of two evils. Personally I think we should drop it altogether. But I do not believe it was always wrong.

Liberals came up with laws that tell me what I can and can-not do on my own land..... (wtf) I own a piece of land, and the city has the right to tell me I can or cant plant trees, or can or cant cut down the ones I have now.... oh, now thats spells liberty if ever I heard it.

Back that one up with fact, Dave ... examples, please . Are you saying all the cities are run by liberals? Perhaps Portland, because of its size. But most of the outlying areas are fairly conservative. And yet they're still telling you what you can & can't do with your land. This is called government, and it really doesn't matter who's at the helm, it's going to happen to some extent either way. So I'm saying this example you gave was bunk.

we acknowledge their right to think what they want, we just wish they would do the same...

Oy. I almost choked on my coke when I read that statement. In the last few years, conservatives have made a sport out of deriding liberals. I'm not at all sure the majority "acknowledge their right to think what they want" . Not even a tiny fraction. Some of the most amazingly outspoken opinionated people I've ever met were conservative, and they aren't the least bit afraid to call me stupid for what I believe. That's what makes the tolerance comments from WaterPog all the more funny.

In my [oh so humble, I know] opinion, the current administration bears the vast majority of responsibility for the division in our nation right now. "Our way or the highway." And "if you don't agree with us, you're not patriotic." Ad nauseum.

For the record, I am vehemently opposed to this war in Iraq. And at the same exact moment I support the troops themselves 110%. I'm really getting sick of the people who can't draw a distinction. GWB told us it was all about WMD when he started the war. And part way through he started shifting his focus, trying to get people to forget what he had said. And just this last week he admitted on national TV that WMD's didn't have anything to do with it. Yes, folks, he lied to us. And now we're stuck in a ****hole on the other side of the planet in an untenable situation. Staying is bad, leaving is worse. And all at a billion dollars per day. And in the meantime, Bin Laden is free to continue making his little videotapes, taunting us while we show a complete inability to actually capture the little bastard. That's what really burns me up. How the hell did we shift focus from the ****er that actually attacked this country to a tiresome but basically harmless little dictator of a piece of sand in the crotch of the world? (Yes, harmless is the word, he wasn't going to be in a position to recreate WMD's anytime soon the way we were sitting on him. And it was a heck of a lot cheaper than what we've gotten into now...)

Anyways. Rant over, again for now...

Long live liberty, down with neocons.

Dave