The Liberal Commitment.....

[Debra K]

Oh my! I just heard that Trump was boycotting Oreo cookies! Does that mean he is intolerant? does that make Trump a LIBERAL? <gasp>

Where is our resident "expert" on the issue of tolerance vs. intolerance and liberals vs. conservatives? is she still busy evading the content of my other posts?

 

[CremeBrulee]

But when you use the power of government to punish different views.....that's not American values.

And I totally agree with that..but by donating millions of dollars to organizations (by way of their charitable foundation WinShape) that lobby the government to deny rights based on sexual orientation, the Cathy's are just as guilty. His opinion is not the issue. It's his actions. To his credit, Mr. Cathy has stopped giving to the groups that work overtly against same sex marriage / gay rights.
The Denver city council isn't trying to prevent the restaurant from opening. Because of the past actions of the owner, they want to be sure public property is not used in any discrimination against their citizens.

 

[Debra K]

Between the two of us, I'm not the one who is from Planet Stupid ... so your insult is humorous.

Getting back to the actual content of this thread, you have alleged that liberals are intolerant and I agree to this extent: Liberals are intolerant of conservatives' intolerance ... and two negatives make a positive ... in favor of liberals.

Let's take this hypothetical:

Conservatives are notorious witch-burners. They are intolerant of people whom they have branded as witches and believe they have the right to burn them at the stake.

On the other hand, Liberals are intolerant of conservative witch burners. I mean, why can't the conservatives just let the witches live and perhaps buy a cake at the local bakery?

If Liberals can stop the witch burnings, that's a positive thing.

I think your knowledge of history needs some work ... because, maybe burning "witches" actually happened in the past.

1. I didn't insult you.
I accurately described you.

2. "I think your knowledge of history needs some work ... because, maybe burning "witches" actually happened in the past."
I provided two examples from history...one, WWII, one recent.

Since you couldn't find either to be inaccurate, it pretty much destroys any cachet on your part.

3. You 'inaccuracy' represents your view in every other area,as well.

4. Specifically, your misunderstanding of "intolerance."
It is defined as follows: "1. lack of toleration;unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, "

Pretty much a summary of Liberal attack on Dan Cathy and Chick fil A.


Don't make these mistakes again.

Sticking to the content of this thread, here is someone I just thought about. Kim Davis. Do you know of her? She's the notorious county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses because she is unwilling to respect the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. I think Kim Davis is intolerant.

If Kim Davis is representative of Conservatives, I think she is launching a conservative attack on America.

Do you think I'm mistaken? Please advise.

Do you thing the Supreme Court correctly decided the Dred Scott case?
Please advise.

Yes. Way back in the 1850's, the Supreme Court applied the law and found that slaves were not citizens because, essentially, they were brought to America as property (not as people with rights). All that changed, however, with the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution.

Nevertheless, are you suggesting that the left vs. right dichotomy on the issue of tolerance all hinges upon the correctness of someone's viewpoint?

Are you saying that Conservatives may be intolerant of "incorrect" viewpoints, but that is not "intolerance" as you defined it?

If Dan Cathy and his chicken palace donate millions of dollars to proverbial witch burners for the purpose of supporting their witch burning activity, and there is a public backlash because other people find his viewpoint "incorrect", how would you characterize that public backlash? tolerant or intolerant?

Who gets to decide if a viewpoint is or is not correct?

1. So you agree with the Dred Scott decision.
Because the elites decided it that way.
Right thinking folks would find the decision reprehensible.
And, unlike you, folks who know history would remind you that the decision was not based on 'law,' but on the deal that Taney made with Buchanan.

I never said I agreed with the decision. There's a lot of crap in that decision that I find offensive. Its underlying premise about slaves being property was correct.

Very sadly, the history of our country is clear: Slaves were property.

Your lawn-mowing machine (i.e., lawnmower) is your property. I don't think your lawnmower is a citizen of the United States with rights secured by the constitution. I don't think lawnmowers have the right to marry.

2. Earlier, you actually said "I think your knowledge of history needs some work."
Turns out, that was the joke of the day.

Yes, I laughed very much over your stunning lack of knowledge about history. I'm still chuckling ... thank you very much for the entertainment value that you bring to the discussion board.

3. "If Dan Cathy and his chicken palace donate millions of dollars to proverbial witch burners for the purpose of supporting their witch burning activity,"
Please....provide such a 'proverb' that refers to witch burning, and links to gay marriage.
'Else, you appear to be quite the windbag.

Huh?

I said "proverbial witch burners"

Now I understand why you repeatedly evade the content of my posts with irrelevancies ... you don't know the meaning of the words that I use. If you need my help, I can provide (meaning "give") you with a link to an excellent (meaning "very good") online dictionary (a book that defines words).

I will try to simplify my "windbag" posts in the future because I don't want all that wind that's blowing from one ear through your empty head and out the other ear to upset you.

Now, back to the content of this thread. If Dan Cathy and his chicken palace donate (meaning "give") millions of dollars (money) to an organization (look it up) that supports a point of view that you don't like, are you arguing that Dan Cathy is tolerant or intolerant? are you arguing that you're tolerant or intolerant?

You are sending mixed messages, and I'm giving you this opportunity to set the record straight on your thesis about tolerance and intolerance.

4. There was no such " a public backlash" based on Dan Cathy's statements.
There was only fascists in government and academia punishing a dissenting viewpoint.
"Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR"
Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar Despite Bad PR

You're really looking more and more like a fool, aren't you.

Who are the fascists? I want names. What did they actually do to punish his viewpoint? If his sales soared, then he wasn't punished ... he was rewarded. So, when "fascists" criticize a conservative and the conservative then makes a lot of money, it seems to me that making "fascists" take notice of your activities is a profitable thing.

For example, look at your poor darling Melissa from Sweetcakes by Melissa. I hear reports that she made over a half-million dollars and is whining because she wants more donations in support of her conservative martyrdom. Can you help her out?

5. "Nevertheless, are you suggesting that the left vs. right dichotomy on the issue of tolerance all hinges upon the correctness of someone's viewpoint?"
I don't 'suggest,' I make very clear what I believe.
One must be quite the dunce not to understand my views: anyone can have any view...including fascists such as you.
That's freedom in America.
But when you use the power of government to punish different views.....that's not American values.

I beg to differ. Your messages are very mixed and contradictory. For one thing, I don't understand your idea of "freedom in America". When conservatives use the power of the government to impose their discriminatory or bigoted views on society, is that an American value? Do you think it is possible that you might have double standards?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You seem to have a big problem with government by the will of the people.

And here we have a perfect example of the premise of this thread:
Opposition to to tolerance, freedom of thought, and belief...


One more Lock-Step Totalitarian...er, Liberal.

I'm for letting the good people of the great city of Denver govern their city as they choose, within the limits of their power as a local government.

Why aren't you? Somehow that makes you the totalitarian doesn't it?

Let's outlaw Muslim Restaurants then.

Is that what they want to do where you're from?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Between the two of us, I'm not the one who is from Planet Stupid ... so your insult is humorous.

Getting back to the actual content of this thread, you have alleged that liberals are intolerant and I agree to this extent: Liberals are intolerant of conservatives' intolerance ... and two negatives make a positive ... in favor of liberals.

Let's take this hypothetical:

Conservatives are notorious witch-burners. They are intolerant of people whom they have branded as witches and believe they have the right to burn them at the stake.

On the other hand, Liberals are intolerant of conservative witch burners. I mean, why can't the conservatives just let the witches live and perhaps buy a cake at the local bakery?

If Liberals can stop the witch burnings, that's a positive thing.

I think your knowledge of history needs some work ... because, maybe burning "witches" actually happened in the past.

1. I didn't insult you.
I accurately described you.

2. "I think your knowledge of history needs some work ... because, maybe burning "witches" actually happened in the past."
I provided two examples from history...one, WWII, one recent.

Since you couldn't find either to be inaccurate, it pretty much destroys any cachet on your part.

3. You 'inaccuracy' represents your view in every other area,as well.

4. Specifically, your misunderstanding of "intolerance."
It is defined as follows: "1. lack of toleration;unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, "

Pretty much a summary of Liberal attack on Dan Cathy and Chick fil A.


Don't make these mistakes again.

Sticking to the content of this thread, here is someone I just thought about. Kim Davis. Do you know of her? She's the notorious county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses because she is unwilling to respect the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. I think Kim Davis is intolerant.

If Kim Davis is representative of Conservatives, I think she is launching a conservative attack on America.

Do you think I'm mistaken? Please advise.

Do you thing the Supreme Court correctly decided the Dred Scott case?
Please advise.

Yes. Way back in the 1850's, the Supreme Court applied the law and found that slaves were not citizens because, essentially, they were brought to America as property (not as people with rights). All that changed, however, with the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution.

Nevertheless, are you suggesting that the left vs. right dichotomy on the issue of tolerance all hinges upon the correctness of someone's viewpoint?

Are you saying that Conservatives may be intolerant of "incorrect" viewpoints, but that is not "intolerance" as you defined it?

If Dan Cathy and his chicken palace donate millions of dollars to proverbial witch burners for the purpose of supporting their witch burning activity, and there is a public backlash because other people find his viewpoint "incorrect", how would you characterize that public backlash? tolerant or intolerant?

Who gets to decide if a viewpoint is or is not correct?

1. So you agree with the Dred Scott decision.
Because the elites decided it that way.
Right thinking folks would find the decision reprehensible.
And, unlike you, folks who know history would remind you that the decision was not based on 'law,' but on the deal that Taney made with Buchanan.

You want to abolish the Supreme Court because they've made decisions you don't agree with?

lol, infantile.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You have no right to penalize folks for what they think.

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But when you use the power of government to punish different views.....that's not American values.

And I totally agree with that..but by donating millions of dollars to organizations (by way of their charitable foundation WinShape) that lobby the government to deny rights based on sexual orientation, the Cathy's are just as guilty. His opinion is not the issue. It's his actions. To his credit, Mr. Cathy has stopped giving to the groups that work overtly against same sex marriage / gay rights.
The Denver city council isn't trying to prevent the restaurant from opening. Because of the past actions of the owner, they want to be sure public property is not used in any discrimination against their citizens.

What one does with their legally obtained earnings is none of your business, especially as the Supreme Court has found that such contributions are an extension of free speech.

Citizens United: "....the court continued a proud tradition of protecting our right to free political speech."
Citizens United: It's about free speech


To demand a change in this marks you as a fascist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have no right to penalize folks for what they think.

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

"Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good."

I truly appreciate it when you fascists slip up and reveal yourselves.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You have no right to penalize folks for what they think.

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

"Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good."

I truly appreciate it when you fascists slip up and reveal yourselves.

Nothing fascist about it. Liberals have little patience for stupid people. They can either up their game or go plow the fields. In your case you can bring them water...

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have no right to penalize folks for what they think.

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

"Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good."

I truly appreciate it when you fascists slip up and reveal yourselves.

Nothing fascist about it. Liberals have little patience for stupid people. They can either up their game or go plow the fields. In your case you can bring them water...

"Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good."

Have to think like you...and talk like you????

Yup, you're a fascist.



Now....don't be a coward to boot! Let everyone know you're a fascist!

 

[Debra K]

But when you use the power of government to punish different views.....that's not American values.

And I totally agree with that..but by donating millions of dollars to organizations (by way of their charitable foundation WinShape) that lobby the government to deny rights based on sexual orientation, the Cathy's are just as guilty. His opinion is not the issue. It's his actions. To his credit, Mr. Cathy has stopped giving to the groups that work overtly against same sex marriage / gay rights.
The Denver city council isn't trying to prevent the restaurant from opening. Because of the past actions of the owner, they want to be sure public property is not used in any discrimination against their citizens.

What one does with their legally obtained earnings is none of your business, especially as the Supreme Court has found that such contributions are an extension of free speech.

Citizens United: "....the court continued a proud tradition of protecting our right to free political speech."
Citizens United: It's about free speech


To demand a change in this marks you as a fascist.

Just a minute. Your thesis is that liberals are "fascists" if they boycott a business based on its offensive "speech". But, you don't brand conservatives as "fascists" for doing the same thing. Why the double standards?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have no right to penalize folks for what they think.

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

If you have no objection, I'd like to quote your post in an OP, with attribution.


OK?

 

[Mac1958]

You have no right to penalize folks for what they think.

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

If you have no objection, I'd like to quote your post in an OP, with attribution. OK?

This is what they think, it's what they are. At least they're being honest about it now, give them that.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have no right to penalize folks for what they think.

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

If you have no objection, I'd like to quote your post in an OP, with attribution. OK?

This is what they think, it's what they are. At least they're being honest about it now, give them that.
.

It was amazingly honest to admit it.

I'm gonna put up an OP about Liberal fascists.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You have no right to penalize folks for what they think.

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

If you have no objection, I'd like to quote your post in an OP, with attribution.


OK?

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine. On the other hand, I can't stop you, it's a public forum.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have no right to penalize folks for what they think.

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

If you have no objection, I'd like to quote your post in an OP, with attribution.


OK?

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine. On the other hand, I can't stop you, it's a public forum.

If I don't get your OK, I'll simply use the quote....no name.

C'mon....put your big boy pants on.

You've been hammered before.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You have no right to penalize folks for what they think.

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

If you have no objection, I'd like to quote your post in an OP, with attribution.


OK?

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine. On the other hand, I can't stop you, it's a public forum.

If I don't get your OK, I'll simply use the quote....no name.

C'mon....put your big boy pants on.

You've been hammered before.

You can't honestly use a direct quote without giving credit, here or in the real world. And I've never been hammered except when I drink. Do as you wish...

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have no right to penalize folks for what they think.

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

If you have no objection, I'd like to quote your post in an OP, with attribution.


OK?

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine. On the other hand, I can't stop you, it's a public forum.

If I don't get your OK, I'll simply use the quote....no name.

C'mon....put your big boy pants on.

You've been hammered before.

You can't honestly use a direct quote without giving credit, here or in the real world. And I've never been hammered except when I drink. Do as you wish...

Jeeeeezzzzzzz....

What a whiney "OK."

Quote without name or link.

Then you can ignore it or your usual attacks.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Who told you that nonsense? Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good.

If you have no objection, I'd like to quote your post in an OP, with attribution.


OK?

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine. On the other hand, I can't stop you, it's a public forum.

If I don't get your OK, I'll simply use the quote....no name.

C'mon....put your big boy pants on.

You've been hammered before.

You can't honestly use a direct quote without giving credit, here or in the real world. And I've never been hammered except when I drink. Do as you wish...

Jeeeeezzzzzzz....

What a whiney "OK."

Quote without name or link.

Then you can ignore it or your usual attacks.

Learn to make your own decisions, like an adult. You don't need my permission to quote me but if you quote me and you don't acknowledge it when you know who said it, you're being dishonest.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you have no objection, I'd like to quote your post in an OP, with attribution.


OK?

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine. On the other hand, I can't stop you, it's a public forum.

If I don't get your OK, I'll simply use the quote....no name.

C'mon....put your big boy pants on.

You've been hammered before.

You can't honestly use a direct quote without giving credit, here or in the real world. And I've never been hammered except when I drink. Do as you wish...

Jeeeeezzzzzzz....

What a whiney "OK."

Quote without name or link.

Then you can ignore it or your usual attacks.

Learn to make your own decisions, like an adult. You don't need my permission to quote me but if you quote me and you don't acknowledge it when you know who said it, you're being dishonest.

Simple, you dope.

I'll quote is as I stated, sans name and link....and you proudly claim authorship.


If you dare.