The Party of Tolerance: Truth vs. Fantasy

[TemplarKormac]

Well, this is bound to set some heads ablaze. It may even cause a flame war. There might be some negs and mods involved. But hey, that's not the point of this thread. Think about it for a moment. Which party is more tolerant? Who is the least tolerant? For as long as I can remember tolerance has been an issue in America. One party in particular purports to be the champions of tolerance. It claims the other party is racist, bigoted, misogynistic and generally intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

As I am about to demonstrate, I will take apart these assumptions. One by one.

Before I begin, let me say that intolerance exists on both sides of the aisle. Nobody is immune from it. Nobody. But as I see it, I see such intolerance pervading from the left at increasing amounts than the right's.

First, lets address the Democratic claim that they support women's rights, women altogether and are non sexist. They tried to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Paycheck Fairness act despite an existing law passed in 1963 to address the issue. They support a woman's unfettered right to abortive care and contraception. However if a woman from the opposing party dares to buck this trend, this is the result:

1) Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham a "talk slut" on his radio show:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeGQr9TK6g]Libtalker Ed Schultz: Laura Ingraham's 'A Slut' - YouTube[/ame]

2) Bill Maher refers to Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as "Boobs":

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD2_iytlUg4]Bill Maher "It's Not Because they have Breast; it's because..." - YouTube[/ame]

3) Black Tea Partier Mia Love reacts to Liberal Racism and misogyny after her appearance at the RNC in 2012:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Raosit1xQ]Black Tea Party Conservative Mia Love Reacts to Democrats Racist Attacks After RNC Appearance - YouTube[/ame]

4) Bill Maher attacks Sarah Palin's son:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXk_xzI59sY]Bill Maher Appeals to His Lower-Intellect Audience: Attacks Sarah Palin's Son Trig - YouTube[/ame]

------------------------------------------------------------------

On race, they claim to be for the black citizen, except if you are Mia Love, Allen West, Deneen Borelli, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, Stacey Dash or a black Republican in general. Should a black person defect to the other side, this is the result:

Twitter Explodes After Actress Stacy Dash Endorses Mitt Romney As 'The Only Hope For Your Future'

Actress Stacey Dash, who has starred in everything from the 90′s hit Clueless to CSI, prompted a firestorm on Twitter after publicly endorsing Republican nominee Mitt Romney, and then standing by her opinion.

“Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @mittromney @teamromney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney,” Dash wrote on her official Twitter page, accompanied by a photo of herself with an American flag.

Not long after, presumed Obama supporters began insulting Dash for her opinion, saying she isn’t “black” enough, several even asking if the actress would just “kill herself.”

One man wrote: “This hurts but you a Romney lover and you slutting yourself to the white man only proves why no black man married u @REALStaceyDash.”

Twitter Explodes After Black Actress Endorses Romney as the ?Only Choice for Your Future? | TheBlaze.com

Mia Love Wikipedia page vandalized with misogynistic, racial slurs; media silent

The Wikipedia entry for GOP House candidate Mia Love was edited to include racist, misogynistic slurs after her rousing convention speech Tuesday night, Twitchy reported.

Love, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, happens to be a black female.

After the Wikipedia entry was defaced, it called Love a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.”

Mia Love Wikipedia page vandalized with misogynistic, racial slurs; media silent - National Elections | Examiner.com

Lawrence O’Donnell’s Racially Charged Attacks A Political Gift To Herman Cain

Based on his interview with GOP supernova Herman Cain, a cynical person might think that MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell is trying to push the upstart candidate over the finish line for the Republican presidential nomination. On Thursday night’s The Last Word, O’Donnell conducted an interview that surpassed unfair, sped through the tollbooth at offensive, and came to rest in the parking spot marked “Reserved For Despicable.”

If being attacked by a liberal is throwing gasoline on a fire to the conservative base, O’Donnell just threw liquid oxygen on that gasoline.

Let me start by saying this: I like Lawrence O’Donnell, and not just for his contribution to the ultimate liberal television show, The West Wing. O’Donnell is part of a new breed of liberal commentator who doesn’t talk himself into a corner, and viewers into a coma. He takes strong positions, and expresses them with aggression and clarity.

I also don’t like Herman Cain, for a variety of good reasons, some of which O’Donnell touched on in his interview. His victory in the GOP primary race would be great for America, as it would keep a party, hell-bent on fundamentally crippling the government’s ability to govern, out of the White House for at least four more years.

That’s why my reaction to O’Donnell’s interview with Cain was so shocking. I’m not the kind of person who says things out loud to himself, or to the TV screen, but throughout O’Donnell’s grilling of Cain, I found myself doing just that. “What the f***?…Are you f***ing kidding me?”

Lawrence O?Donnell?s Racially Charged Attacks A Political Gift To Herman Cain | Mediaite

------------------------------------------------------------------

As for homosexuals, and the aspect of bigotry, President Barack Obama showed no real concern for the hopes and feelings of the gay community by repeatedly shifting his stances on gay marriage from 1996 until the first term leading up to his re-election campaign. To put it mildly, they were used as pawns for his political agenda:

Full circle

Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.

In 1996, as he ran for Illinois state Senate, Chicago’s Outlines gay newspaper asked candidates to fill out a questionnaire. Tracy Baim, the co-founder and publisher of Outlines, dug up a copy of the questionnaire in 2009, cataloging the president-elect’s shift.

He had written on the 1996 questionnaire, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

Just two years later, on another Outlines questionnaire, Obama wasn’t so sure. Did he favor legalizing same-sex marriage? "Undecided." Would he support a bill to repeal Illinois legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage? "Undecided." Would he co-sponsor it? "Undecided."

Later years offered greater clarity — and a shift from 1996. Civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? No.

As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. ..."

He described his hesitation to endorse same-sex marriage as strategic and political.

"What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. … I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. … Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game."

When he wrote his 2006 memoir, The Audacity of Hope, he offered a religious explanation for his definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. But he left the door open for yet another shift.

"I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. …" he said. "(But) it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

He said his doubts didn't make him a bad Christian — but human, limited in his understanding of God’s purpose and therefore "prone to sin."

"When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must continually be open to new revelations — whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion."

Still, in a 2007 Democratic primary debate sponsored by a gay rights group and a gay-oriented cable TV channel, he spoke instead about his support for civil unions with "all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage" — but not for legal recognition of "marriage" between same-sex couples. It should be up to religious denominations to determine whether they wanted to recognize that as marriage or not, he said.

In August 2008, he told Southern California megachurch Pastor Rick Warren his definition of marriage: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."

He later added: "I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions."

In November 2008, he said much the same thing to a rather different audience: MTV.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

President Barack Obama's shifting stance on gay marriage | PolitiFact

----------------------------------------------

As for their tolerance for people of faith, they were seen striking the word "God" from their platform in 2012 during their convention in Charlotte. They did later revise their platform to return those words to the platform, not 24 hours later:

Democrats Shift Language on Israel, Remove ‘God-Given’ From Platform

CHARLOTTE — For Democrats, there is no God in 2012 — at least as far as the party’s platform is concerned.

Nor is there a Jerusalem.

Democrats removed those two words, and the passages surrounding them, from the 2012 party platform as it was released this week.

In Charlotte on Monday, the Democratic National Committee released its 2012 party platform after the DNC Platform Committee approved it under the leadership of Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker. The Platform Drafting Committee, led by Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, gathered feedback for an initial draft in Minneapolis over the summer.

Gone are three sentences identifying Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, now and forever. There is no mention of Jerusalem in the 2012 document, after the 2008 version included this mention:

Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Also gone is this reference to Hamas:

The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.

President Obama has publicly endorsed a two-state solution for Israel. Disagreements between his administration and Israel have at times become public, as the president has opposed new settlement construction, and the Jewish state’s more hawkish supporters have relentlessly criticized him for his handling of U.S./Israeli relations.

“The Obama Administration has followed the same policy towards Jerusalem that previous U.S. Administrations of both parties have done since 1967,” a DNC spokeswoman said of the change in platform language. “As the White House said several months ago, the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians – which we also said in the 2008 platform. We will continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue as part of a two state solution that secures the future of Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.”

Also gone is a previous reference to “God.”

The Democratic Party’s 2008 platform mentioned “God” once, in this passage (emphasis added):

We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.

Explaining the removal, a Democratic official explained: “The 2008 platform reference is ‘God-given’ and is about growing the middle class and making America fair, not actually about faith. The platform includes an entire plank on the importance of faith based organizations and the tremendous work that they do. Further, the language we use to talk about faith and religion is exactly the same vocabulary as 2008. I would also note that the platform mentions: ‘faith’ 11 times; ‘religion’ or ‘religious’ 9 times; ‘church’ 2 times (one is a quote); and, ‘clergy’ 1 time.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...age-on-israel-remove-god-given-from-platform/

So are they the party of tolerance? That is for you the reader to decide.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sorry if it's a bit long, but this highlights an inherent double standard in one party's quest for tolerance.

 

[HenryBHough]

Only bad part about the length is that the liberal elite stops reading after the first half of the first sentence. Any post that won't fit on a bumper strip is lost on 'em.

 

[whitehall]

The democrat party makes a big issue about tolerance for jihad extremism but apparently they have little or no tolerance for the traditions and beliefs of Christians.

 

[occupied]

You went through all that effort for nothing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Only bad part about the length is that the liberal elite stops reading after the first half of the first sentence. Any post that won't fit on a bumper strip is lost on 'em.

No matter. At least there are people like you who take the time. In a nutshell, I accuse liberals of being hypocrites for claiming they are for women, blacks, gays and free exercise of religion. I listed examples.

 

[Nyvin]

Maybe in 2014 African Americans will vote 95% GOP

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe in 2014 African Americans will vote 95% GOP

Maybe tonight you can address my thread with an actual argument.

 

[HenryBHough]

Maybe in 2014 African Americans will vote 95% GOP

Certain, though, that 98.357% of the voting deceased will (again) vote Democrat.

The few others will spoil their ballots by dripping spoilage on them.

 

[tinydancer]

The democrat party makes a big issue about tolerance for jihad extremism but apparently they have little or no tolerance for the traditions and beliefs of Christians.

I'd love just one liberal to explain to me how they can embrace hard core muslim extremists like the Iranian government who hang gays with regularity.

But hell's bells Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty expresses his opinion that he doesn't understand how anyone could prefer an asshole to a vagina and the progressives lose their freaking minds.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives spend so much time pretending to be what they're not it's no wonder they can't ever remember who they really are in the first place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Conservatives spend so much time pretending to be what they're not it's no wonder they can't ever remember who they really are in the first place.

Speak for yourselves. The party of tolerance, isn't.

 

[Nyvin]

The democrat party makes a big issue about tolerance for jihad extremism but apparently they have little or no tolerance for the traditions and beliefs of Christians.

I'd love just one liberal to explain to me how they can embrace hard core muslim extremists like the Iranian government who hang gays with regularity.

But hell's bells Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty expresses his opinion that he doesn't understand how anyone could prefer an asshole to a vagina and the progressives lose their freaking minds.

Embracing Iran isn't a "liberal" thing...it's an Obama administration thing. It has strategic value as Iran is practically the last bastion of stability to the middle east and it's beyond obvious that Iran will become the key partner to Iraq going forward. Also neither Iran or the USA wants to see the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan ever again.

It's heavily influenced by the military, and also the regime change in Iran.

 

[Dutch]

Well, this is bound to set some heads ablaze. It may even cause a flame war. There might be some negs and mods involved. But hey, that's not the point of this thread. Think about it for a moment. Which party is more tolerant? Who is the least tolerant? For as long as I can remember tolerance has been an issue in America. One party in particular purports to be the champions of tolerance. It claims the other party is racist, bigoted, misogynistic and generally intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

As I am about to demonstrate, I will take apart these assumptions. One by one.

Before I begin, let me say that intolerance exists on both sides of the aisle. Nobody is immune from it. Nobody. But as I see it, I see such intolerance pervading from the left at increasing amounts than the right's.

First, lets address the Democratic claim that they support women's rights, women altogether and are non sexist. They tried to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Paycheck Fairness act despite an existing law passed in 1963 to address the issue. They support a woman's unfettered right to abortive care and contraception. However if a woman from the opposing party dares to buck this trend, this is the result:

1) Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham a "talk slut" on his radio show:

Libtalker Ed Schultz: Laura Ingraham's 'A Slut' - YouTube

2) Bill Maher refers to Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as "Boobs":

Bill Maher "It's Not Because they have Breast; it's because..." - YouTube

3) Black Tea Partier Mia Love reacts to Liberal Racism and misogyny after her appearance at the RNC in 2012:

Black Tea Party Conservative Mia Love Reacts to Democrats Racist Attacks After RNC Appearance - YouTube

4) Bill Maher attacks Sarah Palin's son:

Bill Maher Appeals to His Lower-Intellect Audience: Attacks Sarah Palin's Son Trig - YouTube

------------------------------------------------------------------

On race, they claim to be for the black citizen, except if you are Mia Love, Allen West, Deneen Borelli, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, Stacey Dash or a black Republican in general. Should a black person defect to the other side, this is the result:

Twitter Explodes After Actress Stacy Dash Endorses Mitt Romney As 'The Only Hope For Your Future'

Actress Stacey Dash, who has starred in everything from the 90′s hit Clueless to CSI, prompted a firestorm on Twitter after publicly endorsing Republican nominee Mitt Romney, and then standing by her opinion.

“Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @mittromney @teamromney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney,” Dash wrote on her official Twitter page, accompanied by a photo of herself with an American flag.

Not long after, presumed Obama supporters began insulting Dash for her opinion, saying she isn’t “black” enough, several even asking if the actress would just “kill herself.”

One man wrote: “This hurts but you a Romney lover and you slutting yourself to the white man only proves why no black man married u @REALStaceyDash.”

Twitter Explodes After Black Actress Endorses Romney as the ?Only Choice for Your Future? | TheBlaze.com

Mia Love Wikipedia page vandalized with misogynistic, racial slurs; media silent

The Wikipedia entry for GOP House candidate Mia Love was edited to include racist, misogynistic slurs after her rousing convention speech Tuesday night, Twitchy reported.

Love, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, happens to be a black female.

After the Wikipedia entry was defaced, it called Love a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.”

Mia Love Wikipedia page vandalized with misogynistic, racial slurs; media silent - National Elections | Examiner.com

------------------------------------------------------------------

As for homosexuals, and the aspect of bigotry, President Barack Obama showed no real concern for the hopes and feelings of the gay community by repeatedly shifting his stances on gay marriage from 1996 until the first term leading up to his re-election campaign. To put it mildly, they were used as pawns for his political agenda:

Full circle

Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.

In 1996, as he ran for Illinois state Senate, Chicago’s Outlines gay newspaper asked candidates to fill out a questionnaire. Tracy Baim, the co-founder and publisher of Outlines, dug up a copy of the questionnaire in 2009, cataloging the president-elect’s shift.

He had written on the 1996 questionnaire, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

Just two years later, on another Outlines questionnaire, Obama wasn’t so sure. Did he favor legalizing same-sex marriage? "Undecided." Would he support a bill to repeal Illinois legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage? "Undecided." Would he co-sponsor it? "Undecided."

Later years offered greater clarity — and a shift from 1996. Civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? No.

As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. ..."

He described his hesitation to endorse same-sex marriage as strategic and political.

"What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. … I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. … Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game."

When he wrote his 2006 memoir, The Audacity of Hope, he offered a religious explanation for his definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. But he left the door open for yet another shift.

"I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. …" he said. "(But) it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

He said his doubts didn't make him a bad Christian — but human, limited in his understanding of God’s purpose and therefore "prone to sin."

"When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must continually be open to new revelations — whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion."

Still, in a 2007 Democratic primary debate sponsored by a gay rights group and a gay-oriented cable TV channel, he spoke instead about his support for civil unions with "all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage" — but not for legal recognition of "marriage" between same-sex couples. It should be up to religious denominations to determine whether they wanted to recognize that as marriage or not, he said.

In August 2008, he told Southern California megachurch Pastor Rick Warren his definition of marriage: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."

He later added: "I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions."

In November 2008, he said much the same thing to a rather different audience: MTV.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

President Barack Obama's shifting stance on gay marriage | PolitiFact

----------------------------------------------

As for their tolerance for people of faith, they were seen striking the word "God" from their platform in 2012 during their convention in Charlotte. They did later revise their platform to return those words to the platform, not 24 hours later:

Democrats Shift Language on Israel, Remove ‘God-Given’ From Platform

CHARLOTTE — For Democrats, there is no God in 2012 — at least as far as the party’s platform is concerned.

Nor is there a Jerusalem.

Democrats removed those two words, and the passages surrounding them, from the 2012 party platform as it was released this week.

In Charlotte on Monday, the Democratic National Committee released its 2012 party platform after the DNC Platform Committee approved it under the leadership of Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker. The Platform Drafting Committee, led by Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, gathered feedback for an initial draft in Minneapolis over the summer.

Gone are three sentences identifying Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, now and forever. There is no mention of Jerusalem in the 2012 document, after the 2008 version included this mention:

Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Also gone is this reference to Hamas:

The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.

President Obama has publicly endorsed a two-state solution for Israel. Disagreements between his administration and Israel have at times become public, as the president has opposed new settlement construction, and the Jewish state’s more hawkish supporters have relentlessly criticized him for his handling of U.S./Israeli relations.

“The Obama Administration has followed the same policy towards Jerusalem that previous U.S. Administrations of both parties have done since 1967,” a DNC spokeswoman said of the change in platform language. “As the White House said several months ago, the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians – which we also said in the 2008 platform. We will continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue as part of a two state solution that secures the future of Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.”

Also gone is a previous reference to “God.”

The Democratic Party’s 2008 platform mentioned “God” once, in this passage (emphasis added):

We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.

Explaining the removal, a Democratic official explained: “The 2008 platform reference is ‘God-given’ and is about growing the middle class and making America fair, not actually about faith. The platform includes an entire plank on the importance of faith based organizations and the tremendous work that they do. Further, the language we use to talk about faith and religion is exactly the same vocabulary as 2008. I would also note that the platform mentions: ‘faith’ 11 times; ‘religion’ or ‘religious’ 9 times; ‘church’ 2 times (one is a quote); and, ‘clergy’ 1 time.”

Democrats Shift Language on Israel, Remove ?God-Given? From Platform - ABC News

So are they the party of tolerance? That is for you the reader to decide.

There is no arguement dumbass. A few comedians and so people from msn c is no arguement. I thought you were smarter than this. You don't think some dem could post a thousand videos about cons acting this way? Get a job loser so I can stop supporting you.

 

[KNB]

Search the term "Southern Strategy" and then say that Republicans aren't racist.

Southern Democrat became Southern Republican around 1968, so when you claim to be "the party of Lincoln", you're lying. If Abraham Lincoln were to see the GOP Teabagger party in the 21st century, he'd shoot himself from immense shame.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives spend so much time pretending to be what they're not it's no wonder they can't ever remember who they really are in the first place.

Speak for yourselves. The party of tolerance, isn't.

Tolerating intolerance doesn't make much sense does it?

Do you tolerate those who want draconian gun control? Do you support their cause?

 

[Dutch]

KNB don't even bother. He is the biggest loser on the board.

 

[NYcarbineer]

These idiots think that liberals should be tolerant for example of those on the right who would keep same sex marriage illegal;

liberals should show that tolerance by not standing in the way of conservatives advancing that cause.

THAT is a perfect example of how stupid conservatives are.

 

[KNB]

KNB don't even bother. He is the biggest loser on the board.

Who is? I'm not talking to anyone in particular. Anyone who thinks that the GOP is about inclusion and equality should just type the words "southern strategy" into their search engine and read what comes up.

The Republican party is not the party of Lincoln. Southern red Confederate states fought against Lincoln.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The democrat party makes a big issue about tolerance for jihad extremism but apparently they have little or no tolerance for the traditions and beliefs of Christians.

I'd love just one liberal to explain to me how they can embrace hard core muslim extremists like the Iranian government who hang gays with regularity.

But hell's bells Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty expresses his opinion that he doesn't understand how anyone could prefer an asshole to a vagina and the progressives lose their freaking minds.

Embracing Iran isn't a "liberal" thing...it's an Obama administration thing. It has strategic value as Iran is practically the last bastion of stability to the middle east and it's beyond obvious that Iran will become the key partner to Iraq going forward. Also neither Iran or the USA wants to see the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan ever again.

It's heavily influenced by the military, and also the regime change in Iran.

You lost me at "bastion of stability." Last time I checked, the Middle East is a tinderbox waiting to go off.