How to Test Liberal "Tolerance"

[jasonnfree]

Disagree with them.

Liberals by their very nature are beta males/females. Utilizing notions like "hate speech" and being "offended" as to ascribe to themselves a permanent victim status is the only way they can gain power. This is why conservatives are far more tolerant. No true conservative cries that he/she is "offended." They have enough confidence within themselves to achieve success without demanding that others be forced to suffer for their misgivings and failures. A can-do attitude prevents the conservative from entering the beta territory of liberalism, and thus, they are far less likely to blame their troubles on others, which of course, breeds tolerance. Liberals, on the other hand, lack self confidence, and thus, develop an intolerant attitude to those who exemplify the cultural opposite of their beta notions of "collective well being." Alphas are individuals who can take care of themselves. Betas demand that Alphas partake in taking care of them. Being that we are an Alpha oriented America, liberals need be extra intolerant if they are to achieve their cultural Marxist dream of "sharing" the Alphas bounty.

Where do you get this dribble from. Ann coulter?

 

[Pheonixops]

I suppose you don't know the difference between classical liberalism and the modern term of "liberal" which was adopted to make up for the fact that they were anything but. That and progressivism had become a bad marketing strategy for the left. Indeed, they simply changed their label. So I will function within modern labels.

You were laughing huh? Why did you feel the need to type that you were laughing? Did you want to paint an image in my head of your personal situation? Why? How does that help your argument? If you answer all of these questions honestly then you will see that your making up for something your insecure about. Alphas aren't insecure. Alphas don't need to notify someone that they are laughing because they know that no one really cares and it contributes nothing to the argument. In fact, "LOLing" is rarely typed when people are actually laughing. They therefore do it to portray an image of themselves that is untrue. The question is why? The reason is that portraying themselves as laughing gives them comfort in an argumentative setting as it is only a means betas use to attempt to transfer their insecurity to another by displaying false confidence in their own security.

Your supposition is wrong, I choose to use the actual meaning of Liberal instead of the disparaging and ignorant label of "Liberal" used by the likes of George Wallace, William F. Buckley, limbaugh, hannity, et al.

As far as "feeling the need to type that I was laughing". I was simply correcting your silly misrepresentation when you typed, " You, on the other hand, are exemplifying beta outrage when you type "LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" ". The fact is that I was laughing at the horseshit you were typing.

So "LOL" didn't mean that you felt the need to tell me you were "laughing out loud." Why type it at all?

Because I wanted to type it.

Another thing I find funny with people like you, is when you try to separate "Classical Liberal" from the "Liberal" label. Libertarians, Liberals, Classical Liberals are all Liberals. Just like conservatives, neo-conservatives, and paleo-conservatives are all conservatives.

 

[Bfgrn]

Natural equality and natural hierarchy are coexistent themes. There will always be people who exercise their talents above that of others, and thus, make their way up the ladder higher and faster. Likewise men have always been stronger than women. That's, yet another natural hierarchy that exists in the same sphere of natural equality. No matter how you twist it modern liberalism is about "Social Justice," which is unnatural equality at the expense of natural equality. Nothing is more beta than social justice because it assumes victimhood by virtue of the accomplishments of Alphas.

That is a nice way of defining social Darwinism. But even with lipstick it is still social Darwinism.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

Sounds like what Milton Freidman said at the 1 minute mark of this video [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE]Milton Friedman - YouTube[/ame] . Of course, after that he goes into what makes modern liberals betas.

Milton Friedman? One of the men behind the biggest failure of the 20th century? Reaganomics.

Never forget what conservatism is, always has been and always will be.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

 

[Bfgrn]

Disagree with them.

Liberals by their very nature are beta males/females. Utilizing notions like "hate speech" and being "offended" as to ascribe to themselves a permanent victim status is the only way they can gain power. This is why conservatives are far more tolerant. No true conservative cries that he/she is "offended." They have enough confidence within themselves to achieve success without demanding that others be forced to suffer for their misgivings and failures. A can-do attitude prevents the conservative from entering the beta territory of liberalism, and thus, they are far less likely to blame their troubles on others, which of course, breeds tolerance. Liberals, on the other hand, lack self confidence, and thus, develop an intolerant attitude to those who exemplify the cultural opposite of their beta notions of "collective well being." Alphas are individuals who can take care of themselves. Betas demand that Alphas partake in taking care of them. Being that we are an Alpha oriented America, liberals need be extra intolerant if they are to achieve their cultural Marxist dream of "sharing" the Alphas bounty.

Where do you get this dribble from. Ann coulter?

More Ayn Rand...

 

[Pheonixops]

Conservative victim-hood...

"All people are born alike—except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.
The Ideological Animal | Psychology Today

That's probably why some of them have to post on a thread (this one in particular) that they're "Alphas".

 

[OODA_Loop]

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

Liberal tolerance = your beliefs, being different than mine, have no place in the world.

Could not ask for a better example.

 

[jasonnfree]

Liberals by their very nature are beta males/females. Utilizing notions like "hate speech" and being "offended" as to ascribe to themselves a permanent victim status is the only way they can gain power. This is why conservatives are far more tolerant. No true conservative cries that he/she is "offended." They have enough confidence within themselves to achieve success without demanding that others be forced to suffer for their misgivings and failures. A can-do attitude prevents the conservative from entering the beta territory of liberalism, and thus, they are far less likely to blame their troubles on others, which of course, breeds tolerance. Liberals, on the other hand, lack self confidence, and thus, develop an intolerant attitude to those who exemplify the cultural opposite of their beta notions of "collective well being." Alphas are individuals who can take care of themselves. Betas demand that Alphas partake in taking care of them. Being that we are an Alpha oriented America, liberals need be extra intolerant if they are to achieve their cultural Marxist dream of "sharing" the Alphas bounty.

Where do you get this dribble from. Ann coulter?

More Ayn Rand...

The alpha, a man who acts without thinking sometimes - gotta just go in there and kick ass sometimes, like bush and the iraq fiasco. Blame bush? Sure, he cost us trillions. No more alphas like reagan or bush pleeze.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I suppose you don't know the difference between classical liberalism and the modern term of "liberal" which was adopted to make up for the fact that they were anything but. That and progressivism had become a bad marketing strategy for the left. Indeed, they simply changed their label. So I will function within modern labels.

You were laughing huh? Why did you feel the need to type that you were laughing? Did you want to paint an image in my head of your personal situation? Why? How does that help your argument? If you answer all of these questions honestly then you will see that your making up for something your insecure about. Alphas aren't insecure. Alphas don't need to notify someone that they are laughing because they know that no one really cares and it contributes nothing to the argument. In fact, "LOLing" is rarely typed when people are actually laughing. They therefore do it to portray an image of themselves that is untrue. The question is why? The reason is that it gives them comfort in an argumentative setting by portraying themselves as laughing at an argument of another as to attempt to transfer their insecurity to another by displaying confidence in their own security.

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

Natural equality and natural hierarchy are coexistent themes. There will always be people who exercise their talents above that of others, and thus, make their way up the ladder higher and faster. Likewise men have always been stronger than women. That's, yet another natural hierarchy that exists in the same sphere of natural equality. No matter how you twist it modern liberalism is about "Social Justice," which is unnatural equality at the expense of natural equality. Nothing is more beta than social justice because it assumes victimhood by virtue of the accomplishments of Alphas.

Yes.... in the end. "social justice" weakens the species by seeking to spend otherwise better used limited resouces on the slow, weak and stupid.

 

[francoHFW]

So brainwashed ignorant loudmouths are alphas...great psycho babble, for dupes only...

 

[Bfgrn]

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

Natural equality and natural hierarchy are coexistent themes. There will always be people who exercise their talents above that of others, and thus, make their way up the ladder higher and faster. Likewise men have always been stronger than women. That's, yet another natural hierarchy that exists in the same sphere of natural equality. No matter how you twist it modern liberalism is about "Social Justice," which is unnatural equality at the expense of natural equality. Nothing is more beta than social justice because it assumes victimhood by virtue of the accomplishments of Alphas.

Yes.... in the end. "social justice" weakens the species by seeking to spend otherwise better used limited resouces on the slow, weak and stupid.

Right out of Mein Kampf.

 

[rdean]

Republicans want to say ****** and fag and women who get contraception are whores and we should ban Muslims or their religion and atheists are like Hitler or Stalin.

And anyone who suggests these Republican attacks are incendiary is "intolerant".

True Story.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't tolerate murder or rape no matter who's doing it...Black, white, or yellow.

These two issues we all should agree on.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Duck Dynasty proves the point.