Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
'You must accept or be destroyed..."if one remembers that fascism is just a variation of the left, that fits perfectly well.
you must love me, or else - is a motto of all the totalitarian regimes of the past century, which ALL happened to be left at it's economic base.
That would have made a great title for this thread. It embodies the entire issue I've been trying to address here.
To the point that they legislate intolerance out of existence...due to their intolerance. SEE where this will head? Absence of liberty.
That's the problem isn't it? When the government or any special interest group can determine what will and will be tolerated - by law or by force or by coercion or by threat - not based on what we do, but on what we believe or profess.
And I want all of you to read Federalist 10 and Federalist 51, where James Madison makes it clear what factionalism, or what we call special interests today, can unduly and adversely affect the course of a nation. It shouldn't be eliminated, but kept in check. People like GLAAD should hold no influence over political discourse in this country. Nor any special interest group for that matter.
Correct. Their action(s), 'so-called tolerance', have infringed upon another citizen's rights as per the First Amendment . NOT what liberty in a free society is all about.That's the problem isn't it? When the government or any special interest group can determine what will and will be tolerated - by law or by force or by coercion or by threat - not based on what we do, but on what we believe or profess.
And I want all of you to read Federalist 10 and Federalist 51, where James Madison makes it clear what factionalism, or what we call special interests today, can unduly and adversely affect the course of a nation. It shouldn't be eliminated, but kept in check. People like GLAAD should hold no influence over political discourse in this country. Nor any special interest group for that matter.
GLAAD is made up of Americans though and have as much right to EXPRESS their point of view as anybody else. But when their point of view extends to efforts to get somebody fired for no other offense than expressing a point of view unpopular with GLAAD, we have entered territory that is sinister, unAmerican, and evil.
'You must accept or be destroyed..."
That would have made a great title for this thread. It embodies the entire issue I've been trying to address here.
can you change the title?
because it is the core essence of the left and the LBGT crowd in particular.
It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.
It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.
It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..
. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.
For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.
Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?
NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.
It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.
It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..
. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.
For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.
Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?
NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
Phil Robertson has every right to express his views and as an Atheist myself I will defend his right to express those views (which does not mean that I endorse them). I will also defend the right of A&E to suspend him. And I will defend the right of all of those who feel outraged that A&E suspended him to express their outrage peacefully. But I won't tolerate threats of violence and death against anyone at A&E.
The line of tolerance is drawn when it comes to violence and threats of violence. That applies to all sides in my opinion. Freedom of expression ends at the point where it infringes on others.
TRUE. We may express our distain, but support their right to express their view(s). Two-way street. Price of a free society, liberty in of itself as expressed in our founding.That would have made a great title for this thread. It embodies the entire issue I've been trying to address here.
can you change the title?
because it is the core essence of the left and the LBGT crowd in particular.
We need to be careful here though. This is not just a problem unique to the Left or the LBGT crowd. It is just as wrong for a conservative group to try to shout down somebody shouting leftist rhetoric as it is for a liberal group to shout down the conservative. You see it here on USMB when somebody expresses approval for some New Deal or Great Society or whatever program and are immediately jumped on and accused of all sorts of nefarious things and that can be accompanied by the infamous
neg reps. The "I don't like what you say or the way you say it" neg rep syndrome. I don't believe for a minute that some on the right don't do that.
A truly tolerant group welcomes all points of view and is respectful to those invited to express them. Can we honestly say that all of us 'conservative' types are truly tolerant?
It becomes a problem when each side considers their intolerance justified or noble while the other side must be punished for their point of view.
That would have made a great title for this thread. It embodies the entire issue I've been trying to address here.
can you change the title?
because it is the core essence of the left and the LBGT crowd in particular.
We need to be careful here though. This is not just a problem unique to the Left or the LBGT crowd. It is just as wrong for a conservative group to try to shout down somebody shouting leftist rhetoric as it is for a liberal group to shout down the conservative. You see it here on USMB when somebody expresses approval for some New Deal or Great Society or whatever program and are immediately jumped on and accused of all sorts of nefarious things and that can be accompanied by the infamous
neg reps. The "I don't like what you say or the way you say it" neg rep syndrome. I don't believe for a minute that some on the right don't do that.
A truly tolerant group welcomes all points of view and is respectful to those invited to express them. Can we honestly say that all of us 'conservative' types are truly tolerant?
It becomes a problem when each side considers their intolerance justified or noble while the other side must be punished for their point of view.
That's the problem isn't it? When the government or any special interest group can determine what will and will be tolerated - by law or by force or by coercion or by threat - not based on what we do, but on what we believe or profess.
And I want all of you to read Federalist 10 and Federalist 51, where James Madison makes it clear what factionalism, or what we call special interests today, can unduly and adversely affect the course of a nation. It shouldn't be eliminated, but kept in check. People like GLAAD should hold no influence over political discourse in this country. Nor any special interest group for that matter.
GLAAD is made up of Americans though and have as much right to EXPRESS their point of view as anybody else. But when their point of view extends to efforts to get somebody fired for no other offense than expressing a point of view unpopular with GLAAD, we have entered territory that is sinister, unAmerican, and evil.
It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.
It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.
It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..
. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.
For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.
Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?
NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.
It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.
It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..
. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.
For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.
Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?
NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
Phil Robertson has every right to express his views and as an Atheist myself I will defend his right to express those views (which does not mean that I endorse them). I will also defend the right of A&E to suspend him. And I will defend the right of all of those who feel outraged that A&E suspended him to express their outrage peacefully. But I won't tolerate threats of violence and death against anyone at A&E.
The line of tolerance is drawn when it comes to violence and threats of violence. That applies to all sides in my opinion. Freedom of expression ends at the point where it infringes on others.
Do you defend GLAAD demanding A&E fire Robertson?
I'm okay with A&E making whatever business decision they wish. I'm okay with whomever watchng or choosing not to watch Duck Dynasty for whatever reason. I'm okay with Phil Robertson stating his religious beliefs and I'm okay with those who think he was crude and unkind in the way he did it.
I am NOT okay with those who demand Phil Robertson be punished because he expressed a view GLAAD didn't like.
And I want all of you to read Federalist 10 and Federalist 51, where James Madison makes it clear what factionalism, or what we call special interests today, can unduly and adversely affect the course of a nation. It shouldn't be eliminated, but kept in check. People like GLAAD should hold no influence over political discourse in this country. Nor any special interest group for that matter.
GLAAD is made up of Americans though and have as much right to EXPRESS their point of view as anybody else. But when their point of view extends to efforts to get somebody fired for no other offense than expressing a point of view unpopular with GLAAD, we have entered territory that is sinister, unAmerican, and evil.
Hate to say it, but that "Green Eggs and Ham" speech by Ted Cruz, that just never stops being relevant to American politics. The gays and lesbians, not the normal ones but the political activists, they about the same business model in politics that an angry rapist has in romance. They're the last ones to learn that No Means No. As it is now, all 50 States are obsessed with sexuality on par with insecure, hormonal teenagers paranoid what others whisper about them behind their backs. So now people want some kind of penetration to prove to themselves and others they're normal. It's rather disgusting.
It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.
It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.
It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..
. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.
For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.
Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?
NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.
It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.
It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..
. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.
For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.
Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?
NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
I am not against true Christians who think homosexuality is morally wrong based on religious doctrine, but what I do not tolerate are actual bigots who use religion as an excuse for their prejudice. I think Phil is an example of this. It's one thing to say you oppose homosexuality for religious reasons, it is quite another to group them in with drunks and terrorists. That is an example of hate.
Red herring alert: To my knowledge, nobody has suggested he doesn't have the right to say what he did. Please post a link if someone has done so.Is this why they scream bloody murder when someone voices (as their God-given right, and codified with the First Amendment), in an attempt to SHAME, silence opposing views? Sorry, NOT buying it.The LGBT crowd is not asking you to do ANYTHING any way other than the way you want to.So they live in a 'my way or the highway' existence? I say they do. They do NOT practice what they preach. Perfect hypocrisy.
On the other hand, there are a good number of citizens in this nation who are more than ready to impose their own preferences on the LGBT minority without any valid justification.
This isn't new - we had this with slavery, voting rights, and interracial marriage. It is to be expected that some percent of humans will behave in this manner, at least until they get yanked into line with the fact that individuals have rights.I AM correct as to their hypocrisy.
It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.
It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.
It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..
. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.
For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.
Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?
NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
What makes this intolerance wrong, is that what Phil actually said was insulting and degrading about gays. Had he just said that his faith makes him intolerant of homosexuality, there wouldn't be this huge backlash. It is the content of his intolerance is what makes this guy a douche bag.
I don't even care about the show itself's future. It is a stupid, faux television show. It takes "reality television" to a new low.
It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.
It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.
It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..
. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.
For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.
Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?
NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
King James Bible
Matthew 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake........
It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.
It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.
It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..
. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.
For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.
Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?
NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
I am not against true Christians who think homosexuality is morally wrong based on religious doctrine, but what I do not tolerate are actual bigots who use religion as an excuse for their prejudice. I think Phil is an example of this. It's one thing to say you oppose homosexuality for religious reasons, it is quite another to group them in with drunks and terrorists. That is an example of hate.
"True Christians"? I take offense to that. You have your definition of what a "true christian" is, or a Christian who accepts, not merely tolerates homosexuality. Elsewise they are seen as bigots.
