Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[Plasmaball]

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

There is no such thing as a classical liberal any more, I guess Jimmy didn't get the memo. Today they are called 'Libertarians'. Of course there is a natural heirachy as far as wealth and power goes. And yes, liberals believe in it too. Many of the uber wealthy are liberal and many are in government dictating away for all of us. Have you ever heard of Obamacare, for example?

Reality sucks when it differs from your political-religious views.

I will remind the members posting here that the topic for this thread is very specific. And ideology and/or religion is not part of it. The topic is tolerance for the point of view, opinions, beliefs, and convictions of others regardless of their political affiliations or leanings.

nobody cares....

 

[Iceweasel]

I will remind the members posting here that the topic for this thread is very specific. And ideology and/or religion is not part of it.

No, for the left, politics IS religion. That's why when you disagree with them you aren't just wrong, you're evil.

But there ARE still classical liberals i.e. libertarian (little "L" to distinguish it from the Libertarian (large L) party. CATO doesn't try to win sh*t--they are strongly libertarian (small "L") however.

I've never heard anything parsed quite like that before. Libertarians don't try to win anything? In which country? Here, they often eff up elections for Republicans by voting for third party guys that can't win. So the one that does win is farther from what they would have had.

Our Founders were classical liberals and they intended for us to have a constitution that promoted the kind of tolerance that I speak of in the OP. A culture in which the biggest, baddest, and strongest cannot force the others to toe the line in what is acceptable or not acceptable to believe or speak. A culture in which no monarch, dictator, pope, or other potentate would have the power to dictate to the people what they must believe, think, or express or else there would be consequences imposed.

I don't share your religious beliefs so I don't automatically know what you are talking about. Conservativism isn't an ideology that forces its' will onto others. Some conservatives might but that's true for leftists as well. I wonder how the "libertarians" reconciled their hands off policy with slavery since so many owned them. What they set up wasn't a libertarian utopia but a representative democracy, a republic. Where representatives pass laws with their constituents in mind, even if it upsets a minority. But if you don't like the laws you vote in a different representative.

 

[BlackSand]

The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?

Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.

Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.

But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.

.

 

[Mac1958]

This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind. This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.

As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic. Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.

The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated. It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems. Not until then.

Here's the problem, FF: These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence. They WANT heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens. So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction. "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.

That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.

.

holy crap you are still repeating the same stuff over and over again still? Wow...thats just sad.

My goodness, you certainly do pay rapt attention to my posts.

Obviously not everyone sees every one of my posts, because different people keep making the same points to me.

I'll bet you wouldn't be so cranky if you agreed with me.

Calm down. Put me on ignore if it's causing you this much trauma.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?

Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.

Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.

But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.

.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[BlackSand]

The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?

Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.

Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.

But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.

.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Conservatism is based in the idea that you have the freedom to be responsible or irresponsible.
If you cannot handle your responsibilities ... Then I don't see where you could provide better direction for what those of us who can should do.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?

Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.

Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.

But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.

.

Liberals fight for more freedoms? Even if that was appropriate for this thread it is absurd on the face of it given the thesis of this thread. Where are the liberals fighting for Phil Robertson to have freedom to say what he believes that the Bible says? Where are the liberals fighting for freedom to hire who we want, smoke in our own business if we choose to do that, buy the automobile that we want, buy the lightbulb that we want, or put that pesky creche where we want at Christmas? Or to use words that are familiar in our culture if we aren't a memberof a protected class? I could list dozens of other things. Modern American liberalism has become the antithesis of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.

Those who call themselves conservative who would use the federal government to impose whatever 'morality' on the people are not conservatives at all. They are pure statists just as almost all who identify themselves as liberal are statists.

The Founders, to a man, would have condemned GLAAD for going after Phil Robertson for no offense other than Robertson stated an opinion GLAAD didn't like. The Founders, to a man, would have condemned the American Family Association for going after Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is openly gay and promotes gay rights.

And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here? What is freedom? What is liberty? And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?

 

[BlackSand]

And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here? What is freedom? What is liberty? And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?

The only reason they can do that is because too many people have already surrendered their freedom and personal responsibility to the government.
It doesn't matter if it results in corporate welfare, social welfare, any regulatory or budget matter ... Too many people have opened the door and given the government the power to corrupt and abuse.

They trusted their own desires and intentions to the extent they convinced themselves that the responsible thing to do was to give the fox a key to the hen-house.

.

 

[Plasmaball]

As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic. Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.

The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated. It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems. Not until then.

Here's the problem, FF: These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence. They WANT heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens. So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction. "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.

That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.

.

holy crap you are still repeating the same stuff over and over again still? Wow...thats just sad.

My goodness, you certainly do pay rapt attention to my posts.

Obviously not everyone sees every one of my posts, because different people keep making the same points to me.

I'll bet you wouldn't be so cranky if you agreed with me.

Calm down. Put me on ignore if it's causing you this much trauma.

.

yawn.

 

[hunarcy]

The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?

Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.

Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.

But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.

.

Well, talking about rights, if we could push the Federal Government back to their enumerated duties and leave all other topics to the individual states, as the 10th Amendment says they should be, then everyone would be happier as we debate rights.

THEN cities like Chicago could continue their experiments in gun control without being rebuked by SCOTUS. I'll bet the Left wishes they'd never moved to the Federal Courts with their gun control arguments.

But, as long as it's a Federal issue, then everyone in the nation has to follow the same rules and Chicago gets its gun ban slapped down.

 

[Montrovant]

The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?

Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.

Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.

But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.

.

Liberals fight for more freedoms? Even if that was appropriate for this thread it is absurd on the face of it given the thesis of this thread. Where are the liberals fighting for Phil Robertson to have freedom to say what he believes that the Bible says? Where are the liberals fighting for freedom to hire who we want, smoke in our own business if we choose to do that, buy the automobile that we want, buy the lightbulb that we want, or put that pesky creche where we want at Christmas? Or to use words that are familiar in our culture if we aren't a memberof a protected class? I could list dozens of other things. Modern American liberalism has become the antithesis of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.

Those who call themselves conservative who would use the federal government to impose whatever 'morality' on the people are not conservatives at all. They are pure statists just as almost all who identify themselves as liberal are statists.

The Founders, to a man, would have condemned GLAAD for going after Phil Robertson for no offense other than Robertson stated an opinion GLAAD didn't like. The Founders, to a man, would have condemned the American Family Association for going after Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is openly gay and promotes gay rights.

And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here? What is freedom? What is liberty? And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?

Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.

Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues. They were not in agreement on a lot of things.

 

[hunarcy]

Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.

Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues. They were not in agreement on a lot of things.

AND, that's why they advocated tolerance in speech so all ideas could be heard.

 

[R.D.]

The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?

Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.

Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.

But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.

.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate....

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being....

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

While you insist on trying to make it political you shoot yourself in the foot trying to do so

 

[Foxfyre]

Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.

Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.

But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.

.

Liberals fight for more freedoms? Even if that was appropriate for this thread it is absurd on the face of it given the thesis of this thread. Where are the liberals fighting for Phil Robertson to have freedom to say what he believes that the Bible says? Where are the liberals fighting for freedom to hire who we want, smoke in our own business if we choose to do that, buy the automobile that we want, buy the lightbulb that we want, or put that pesky creche where we want at Christmas? Or to use words that are familiar in our culture if we aren't a memberof a protected class? I could list dozens of other things. Modern American liberalism has become the antithesis of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.

Those who call themselves conservative who would use the federal government to impose whatever 'morality' on the people are not conservatives at all. They are pure statists just as almost all who identify themselves as liberal are statists.

The Founders, to a man, would have condemned GLAAD for going after Phil Robertson for no offense other than Robertson stated an opinion GLAAD didn't like. The Founders, to a man, would have condemned the American Family Association for going after Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is openly gay and promotes gay rights.

And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here? What is freedom? What is liberty? And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?

Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.

Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues. They were not in agreement on a lot of things.

The Founders left a wealth of information behind that fully informs us about their thought processes that went into every aspect of the Constitution. So I am very confident that the principles that guided them in their convictions and ultimately allowed them to achieve consensus would be just as applicable today. And I am quite confident that to a man, they would advocate for a Phil Robertson or Ellen Degeneres to be able to be who they are and state what they believe without fear that bullies would set upon them and try to hurt them.

And though we wander there now and then--I have been guilty of that too and I apologize--again this has nothing to do with government or the Constitution and it is not a legal issue.

It is an issue of right and wrong, morality and ethics. It is an issue of whether we will be a culture of liberty or a culture of bullies.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.

Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.

But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.

.

Liberals fight for more freedoms? Even if that was appropriate for this thread it is absurd on the face of it given the thesis of this thread. Where are the liberals fighting for Phil Robertson to have freedom to say what he believes that the Bible says? Where are the liberals fighting for freedom to hire who we want, smoke in our own business if we choose to do that, buy the automobile that we want, buy the lightbulb that we want, or put that pesky creche where we want at Christmas? Or to use words that are familiar in our culture if we aren't a memberof a protected class? I could list dozens of other things. Modern American liberalism has become the antithesis of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.

Those who call themselves conservative who would use the federal government to impose whatever 'morality' on the people are not conservatives at all. They are pure statists just as almost all who identify themselves as liberal are statists.

The Founders, to a man, would have condemned GLAAD for going after Phil Robertson for no offense other than Robertson stated an opinion GLAAD didn't like. The Founders, to a man, would have condemned the American Family Association for going after Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is openly gay and promotes gay rights.

And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here? What is freedom? What is liberty? And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?

Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.

Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues. They were not in agreement on a lot of things.

Then, why may I ask, did they leave behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Those document both sides of the field. One side for government, the other against. All of these opinions and observations later went into the creation of our Democratic Republic, taking in the best of both worlds.

 

[Montrovant]

Liberals fight for more freedoms? Even if that was appropriate for this thread it is absurd on the face of it given the thesis of this thread. Where are the liberals fighting for Phil Robertson to have freedom to say what he believes that the Bible says? Where are the liberals fighting for freedom to hire who we want, smoke in our own business if we choose to do that, buy the automobile that we want, buy the lightbulb that we want, or put that pesky creche where we want at Christmas? Or to use words that are familiar in our culture if we aren't a memberof a protected class? I could list dozens of other things. Modern American liberalism has become the antithesis of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.

Those who call themselves conservative who would use the federal government to impose whatever 'morality' on the people are not conservatives at all. They are pure statists just as almost all who identify themselves as liberal are statists.

The Founders, to a man, would have condemned GLAAD for going after Phil Robertson for no offense other than Robertson stated an opinion GLAAD didn't like. The Founders, to a man, would have condemned the American Family Association for going after Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is openly gay and promotes gay rights.

And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here? What is freedom? What is liberty? And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?

Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.

Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues. They were not in agreement on a lot of things.

Then, why may I ask, did they leave behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Those document both sides of the field. One side for government, the other against. All of these opinions and observations later went into the creation of our Democratic Republic, taking in the best of both worlds.

I'm not sure how that's an argument that we can know what the founders would think of modern issues.

Look, it may be hard for us to understand, but just the concept of television is something so foreign to them that we can't know how they would react to it. I don't think that gays were much appreciated in the founders' time, either. And from everything I've read, the founders were very much of different minds about any number of fundamental issues.

So the idea that we know they would all agree about threats of boycotts or lawsuits regarding a reality tv star and a gay tv talk show host is asinine. At best one can take a somewhat educated guess.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.

Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues. They were not in agreement on a lot of things.

Then, why may I ask, did they leave behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Those document both sides of the field. One side for government, the other against. All of these opinions and observations later went into the creation of our Democratic Republic, taking in the best of both worlds.

I'm not sure how that's an argument that we can know what the founders would think of modern issues.

Look, it may be hard for us to understand, but just the concept of television is something so foreign to them that we can't know how they would react to it. I don't think that gays were much appreciated in the founders' time, either. And from everything I've read, the founders were very much of different minds about any number of fundamental issues.

So the idea that we know they would all agree about threats of boycotts or lawsuits regarding a reality tv star and a gay tv talk show host is asinine. At best one can take a somewhat educated guess.

It is a very strong argument that we do know the principles the Founders used to form this republic. They left behind, as TK mentioned, the federalist and anti-federalist papers and a massive amount of their notes, diaries, transcripts of speeches, letters, and opinions written.

This has been the problem we've had with this topic from the beginning. Everybody wants to talk about legalities, case law, ideology, partisanship, sins of others, sins from the past, sins in the present, and/or are trying to make it a free speech issue. It is none of those things. It is a PRINCIPLE that is applicable no matter what the circumstances, subject matter, or any history that exists.

The principle is a concept of liberty that allows a person his her thoughts, beliefs, opinions, ideas and to be who or what he/she is with impunity so long as he/she does not infringe on the rights of others.

And the Founders, to a man, strongly supported that principle.

 

[Foxfyre]

.
[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], come to think of it, here's another thing:

They even practice their behavior within the context of a discussion about that behavior.

There have been multiple instances here in which I've been called a racist for saying that a racist should be able to speak in public about his views. So they play the "guilt by association" game in an effort to intimidate me and put me on the defensive as we are discussing how they try to intimidate people and put them on the defensive!

Meanwhile, of course, they are avoiding an open and honest discussion about racism.

Here's what I don't know yet: I wonder if they consciously realize they're doing this, or if it's just become implanted in their DNA. Maybe it's both, depending on the situation.

Either way, the bottom line remains this: We cannot solve or fix problems unless and until we can have open and honest discussions about them, and I'd love to know why these people don't want to see that happen.

.

DNA? Hmmm. Have to think about that. I've been usuing the metaphor that I think it is something in the water they drink that prevents some from being able to focus on a concept. But it sure does making open and honest discussions about ANYTHING at USMB extremely difficult if not nigh onto impossible at times.

But yeah, as long as they want to make it about Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, religious, non-religious or whatever, or what contractual arrangements somebody has with somebody else, or our right to protest and boycott, we just spin our wheels or whistle in the wind.

So long as he/she does not tread on the rights of others, each person should be able to express his her beliefs, opinions, thoughts, ideas, or convictions without fear that an angry mob, group, or organization will descend on him/her to inflict physical and/or material punishment.

That is the principle that many are doing everything but stand on their heads to avoid discussing as is. There seems to be some unexplainable compulsion to make that principle into something else. But you are right. It should apply without exception to: the:
--Democrat
--Republican
--Libertarian
--classical liberal
--tea partier
--Moveon.org
--NRA
--GLAAD
--out-of-the-mainstream social or political or think tank group
--educator
--advocate
--religious
--political activist
--racist
--bigot
--anti-semitic
--mysogynist
--humanitarian
--poet, writer, artist
--visionary
--and/or fill in the blank with any other designation

We don't have to like what any of these say. There should be nothing to prevent any of us from disliking or disassociating ourselves with anybody. Nothing to prevent any of us to express our own opinions about what they say, rebut them, condemn them, or applaud them and we should also be able to do so without fear that the angry mob, group, or organization will descend upon us to punish us physically and/or materially.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.

Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.

But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.

.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Conservatism is based in the idea that you have the freedom to be responsible or irresponsible.
If you cannot handle your responsibilities ... Then I don't see where you could provide better direction for what those of us who can should do.

.

This is another way of saying what I have been arguing on this from the beginning. There is no liberty at all unless we each have the right to make wrong choices as well as right choices; unless we have the right to be wrong about something as much as we have the right to be right about something.

What I have been arguing in this thread is a culture that respects the unalienable right of each of us to say what we think, even if it is wrong, if it is ugly, if it is stupid, if it is ignorant, or if it is as right as rain. If our culture does not respect that unalienable right, then there is no freedom.

 

[BlackSand]

This is another way of saying what I have been arguing on this from the beginning. There is no liberty at all unless we each have the right to make wrong choices as well as right choices; unless we have the right to be wrong about something as much as we have the right to be right about something.

What I have been arguing in this thread is a culture that respects the unalienable right of each of us to say what we think, even if it is wrong, if it is ugly, if it is stupid, if it is ignorant, or if it is as right as rain. If our culture does not respect that unalienable right, then there is no freedom.

What you are talking about is when "ugly" became wrong, stupid and ignorant.
Some people don't respond to anything other than ugly ... And think that their ideas are worthwhile, correct and brilliant ... Until someone else tells them to take a flying leap.

They still don't think they are wrong, stupid, intrusive, immoral, unethical or disrespecting when they are told to take a flying leap ... But they may understand how much of their crap we are going to tolerate.

.