The Party of Tolerance: Truth vs. Fantasy

[Meister]

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.

You provided no examples showing that "liberals" are hypocrites in regards to their support for women's rights, minority rights, or the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause.

All you did was provide examples of "liberals" criticizing conservatives, and Democrats taking the phrase "god-given" out of the DNC platform.

Yet, when conservatives criticize Obama the left cries racism.

 

[koshergrl]

The opening post was thoughtful, well sourced, and asked specific questions of posters.

And the trolls arrived en masse...then pretended it was a divisive and trolling post because they trolled it.

Nutz.

 

[Pogo]

The only thing you have done is abandoned your original topic, claiming that liberals are somehow "hypocrites" that infringe on religious liberties and on the rights of blacks and women, and have yet to provide proof.

You then proceeded to engage in historical revisionism, denying the success of the Southern Strategy and the movement of disaffected southern conservatives in the Democrat party to the GOP(like Jesse Helms), saying he "doesn't count".

You have won nothing. any fair-minded person will see this. You are just long winded.

I didn't. You didn't want to discuss it. The original challenge still stands if you wish to ever debate the topic, which I have been prepared to do for the past three hours, Stein. I let you get off on your anti-southern crusade on purpose, simply to show the rest of this board that you have no argument pertaining to the the original topic.

Now, disprove the OP or leave it. They attack those they claim to defend, yet continue to champion them as their own. One woman is better than another. One black man is better than the other, one religion is better than another. If one of their own ever steps out of line, they are viciously attacked and disowned on the spot.

Once again, you're conflating the comedians in your OP with the politicians you pretend they are. They, along with the nonentity "Democrats" in your Sean Hannity video.

Your basic problem, TK, is your material. You're trying to make logical sense out of demagogues like Glenn Beck and the Exhuminer and Fox Noise. That's trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. That news is manipulated for a reason; to change minds on an emotional level, as it's done to yours. When you run it through the intellectual wringer, it doesn't wash. As you're finding out.

The NAACP barring Deneen Borelli from their 104th Convention speaks to that.

How does the NAACP equate to "Democrats" then? Are you saying only black people can be Democrats, or are you saying black people can only be Democrats? Either way this premise doesn't hold up.

Pro life democrats weren't invited to speak at the DNC last year.

Link?

They barred the words "god given", "Israel" and "Jerusalem" from their platform as an obvious sleight at people of faith, namely Jews and Christians.

You could see inside their minds to the point where you know their motivations, huh? Interesting. What kind of technology do you use? I've got the iMindReader but I don't care for the battery you can't change. And having to stick electrodes on people's brains. It's just messy.

And again, neither Israel nor Jerusalem are in the United States, and again the latter is not recognized as a capital in the world community, and again mentioning or not mentioning either one has nothing in itself to do with religion!

And again, are you saying that only Jews and Christians believe in God? Or are "people of faith"? You must be, if omitting them amounts to a "sleight at people of faith".
(and btw you mean "slight" here, not sleight) And again, what the fuck do politics and religion have to do with each other? I mean in a country that is NOT a theocracy?

Liberals promote acceptance of women in the marketplace, but John Edwards in 2007 went on to refer to Ann Coulter as a "she devil" while in the same breath accusing her of using "hateful language."

...... And???

Glenn Beck was attacked by a Van Jones backed group for saying that Obama himself was racist and "held a disdain for white people. That group was named "Color of Change." They got a number of sponsors to back out of supporting Beck's show on Fox News. However this didn't stop this same group from marketing shirts that said "Kanye Was Right" in reference to a remark about the 2005 relief effort during Hurricane Katrina, where Kanye West said "We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way -- and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us! ... George Bush doesn’t care about black people"

Once again, how does "Color of Change", whatever that is, equate to "Democrats"?

which as in and of itself a racist comment.

No, it isn't. Doesn't say anything about the qualities of anyone's race.

Even still, they preach of pay equality, but Obama and Biden both were caught paying their female staffers less than than men.

Again... link? And again, O'bama and Biden equate to "Democrats"?

Time to regroup here; so far I've got
NAACP = "Democrats"
"Color of Change" = "Democrats"
Barack Biden and Joe O'bama = "Democrats"

OK, I'm caught up, do go on.

I can go on and on.

Reeeeally. I had no idea.

And you want to maintain that they're tolerant? Please. I have you far outclassed. I am a research nut, stein, I am actively pursuing relevant information, even during arguments.

Apparently not. But do give yourself a medal, it's cute.

I've given several more examples of liberal hypocrisy, in addition to my OP.

Sorry I missed that. And I really thought I'd been reading everything.

I am simply asking you to disprove my contention point by point. It appears to me that you are too lazy, or too scared to. I had plenty of other links to make my points, to be honest.

It appears to me you already took care of that back in post #1 actually...

 

[Erand7899]

TEmplar, which party today is advocating states rights and secession? Could it be that political parties change over time?

Who was it said "Republicans don't belong here"? Wanna give that a go? And while I'm at it, are you saying states shouldn't have any rights? Oh, and I oppose succession. I favor preservation of the union. Oh, and guess which party gave birth to the KKK? Who tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act?

Next.

Oh no he di'int...

You and I have already been through this, and you know it. And from that you know as well as I do that the KKK was not founded by, nor ever associated with, a political party. If you're about to float yet another history revision turd, don't bother.

The KKK was to the Democrat party in the South, as the Brown Shirts were to the NAZI party in Germany. Democrat politicians and the KKK worked hand in glove to achieve the same purpose, and could not exist without each other.

I first came to the South in 1961, and it was akin to going back at least fifty years in time. That was what total Democrat control did to the South, and if they get the chance, that is what they will do to the rest of the United States.

Democrats did not achieve total control of the South because the voters loved Democrats, they achieved it through fear of what might happen if the power structure found out that a voter did not vote for the Democrat candidate. The KKK didn't just limit its brutality to Blacks. Whites that got out of line also got hauled out in the middle of the night. And, just like NAZI Germany with hatred of the Jews, it was unhealthy to attempt to support Blacks.

 

[Esmeralda]

The only thing TK ever does is mis-characterize the opposition. There is a reason there are more female democrats, black democrats, and Hispanic democrats in the House and Senate...more women, blacks, and Hispanics vote democratic. By definition, they are the more inclusive party.

As for liberals versus conservatives on the "inclusive battle", you'd have ideologues on both sides but since more liberals identify with the democrats and more conservatives identify with republicans, it's self-evident who is more inclusive.

TK lost the argument about 5 pages ago but he's simply dumb enough to not realize it; plus he hasn't got anything else to do today, or tomorrow, or next week, month, year....

All the name calling, the threats, the trolling... and I lost the argument? The responses here did nothing but make my point for me.

Yes. You lost the argument. If your point was how lame your argument was, yes the responses re-enforced it quite well. Thanks.

Yep!

 

[koshergrl]

" The last Democratic National Convention featured no pro-life Democrats. I’m not talking about a ban on pro-life advocacy at the podium. I mean that no pro-life Democrat was, for example, permitted to speak on education or healthcare. This continued a virtually unbroken string of exclusively pro-abortion speakers at the DNC following the 1992 decision to prevent pro-life Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey from speaking at the DNC. Kristen Day, the Executive Director of Democrats for Life, has observed that the Democratic Party’s platform now fails to even recognize the existence of pro-life Democratic views. “Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the abortion lobby have a choke-hold on the Democratic Party,” according to Day."


JFK Wouldn?t Even Be Allowed To Speak At Today?s Democratic National Convention

 

[Esmeralda]

The only thing TK ever does is mis-characterize the opposition. There is a reason there are more female democrats, black democrats, and Hispanic democrats in the House and Senate...more women, blacks, and Hispanics vote democratic. By definition, they are the more inclusive party.

As for liberals versus conservatives on the "inclusive battle", you'd have ideologues on both sides but since more liberals identify with the democrats and more conservatives identify with republicans, it's self-evident who is more inclusive.

TK lost the argument about 5 pages ago but he's simply dumb enough to not realize it; plus he hasn't got anything else to do today, or tomorrow, or next week, month, year....

All the name calling, the threats, the trolling... and I lost the argument? The responses here did nothing but make my point for me.

Who made a threat? What'd I miss?

There are no threats: he's just a drama queen.

 

[Pogo]

The opening post was thoughtful, well sourced, and asked specific questions of posters.

And the trolls arrived en masse...then pretended it was a divisive and trolling post because they trolled it.

Nutz.

I don't know why everybody sez you have no sense of humor, because that's some funny shit. Must be that deadpan delivery.

A thread that starts right out with "Well, this is bound to set some heads ablaze. It may even cause a flame war. There might be some negs and mods involved." isn't a divisive and trolling post. The Blaze and the Exhuminer make "well sourced". And any attempt to answer that pleaseth not the Master amounts to "trolling".



War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. And most apropos here:
Ignorance is Strength.

 

[koshergrl]

Let's look at the history of the Party of Tolerance:

"First, there was Andrew Jackson, whose presidency marked the beginning of the modern Democratic Party and was when that name was first used (it had previously been the “Democratic-Republican” party). Jackson and his compatriot and successor Martin Van Buren, ignoring a Supreme Court decision and for reasons of political interest, forcibly relocated the Cherokees and other Indian tribes from the southeastern U.S. This included the “Trail of Tears,” where many of the Indians died in the difficult journey westward. Next, was the Mexican War, which was prosecuted by Democrat James Knox Polk and fiercely objected to by a little-known Whig Congressman named Abraham Lincoln who was later to become the first Republican president. The war, which was probably undertaken for expansion in the throes of Manifest Destiny, resulted in the massacres of Mexican civilians in occupied territories, the growth of slavery in the Southwest, and illicit seizures of private lands in violation of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. As far as slavery was concerned, it was always the Democratic Party that was the major political defender of it, as it was later on of Jim Crow. We sometimes forget that the old segregated South was one-party Democratic until the end of the 1960s, and that the major opponents of federal civil rights laws were the powerful, entrenched southern Democrats in Congress."

The Democratic Party and Human Rights: The History Defies the Claims | Crisis Magazine

 

[koshergrl]

"Woodrow Wilson, the quintessential Democratic “progressive,” presided over probably the most severe restriction of civil liberties in American history during the course of World War I. Any dissent against American war policy was vigorously put down. Then, of course, there was the Japanese internment on the West Coast carried out by the twentieth century’s most famous Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt. FDR also refused to support federal anti-lynching legislation (which was mostly pushed by Republicans). Finally, we return to the fact that the Democrats have been the party of legal abortion. Not only have they been impervious to the facts that abortion represents an assault on the most basic human and civil right—to life—and is a clear example of a denial of rights to a whole group of persons, they have rabidly supported it."

Oooh...awkward.

The Democratic Party and Human Rights: The History Defies the Claims | Crisis Magazine

 

[koshergrl]

"We hear time and again that the Republicans and their allies, like the Tea Party, are hostile to civil rights. The left is quick to pin the label of “hypocrite” on their opponents, but doesn’t the history of America’s leftist political party readily qualify it for this very accusation?"

Yup.

The Democratic Party and Human Rights: The History Defies the Claims | Crisis Magazine

 

[Pogo]

Who was it said "Republicans don't belong here"? Wanna give that a go? And while I'm at it, are you saying states shouldn't have any rights? Oh, and I oppose succession. I favor preservation of the union. Oh, and guess which party gave birth to the KKK? Who tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act?

Next.

Oh no he di'int...

You and I have already been through this, and you know it. And from that you know as well as I do that the KKK was not founded by, nor ever associated with, a political party. If you're about to float yet another history revision turd, don't bother.

The KKK was to the Democrat party in the South, as the Brown Shirts were to the NAZI party in Germany. Democrat politicians and the KKK worked hand in glove to achieve the same purpose, and could not exist without each other.

I first came to the South in 1961, and it was akin to going back at least fifty years in time. That was what total Democrat control did to the South, and if they get the chance, that is what they will do to the rest of the United States.

Democrats did not achieve total control of the South because the voters loved Democrats, they achieved it through fear of what might happen if the power structure found out that a voter did not vote for the Democrat candidate. The KKK didn't just limit its brutality to Blacks. Whites that got out of line also got hauled out in the middle of the night. And, just like NAZI Germany with hatred of the Jews, it was unhealthy to attempt to support Blacks.

That would be a crock o' bullshit there, Errin'. The KKK was founded by a band of Confederate veterans and has never had a political affiliation at all. It called itself a "social" organization and concerned itself with social mores (like "loose women"), religious bigotry (like anti-Catholic, anti-Jew) and of course, racism.

Concurrent with that you had a South dominated by the Democratic Party since the Civil War (what do you think they were gonna do, go with the party of Lincoln who defeated them?) so that's where the power was. The few times the KKK got any way involved in politics at all was in electing a governor in Indiana and some city councilmembers in Anaheim. All of them, as it happens, were Republicans. And that doesn't make the RP the "KKK party" any more than it makes the DP.

Oh and I first came to the South in 1952 if you have some kinda scoreboard goin' on, so yeah, spew your wisdom...

 

[Pogo]

Thirdly, you're attempting to generalize. We don't do that in the arena, stein.

What the fuck do you think your entire joke of an OP is??

/thread

 

[Pogo]

You haven't been doing your homework, stein. I dig. By dig, I dig to China and back for links and relevant information. I don't revise anything. What you see is what you get. Secularism in American society means an inherent shift away from Christianity.

It can't mean that unless we started with Christianity. As a country. Read the First Amendment and quote me where it makes us "Chrisitian".

If it were intended to allow for a "pluralism" of religions, why the hostility towards Christians?

What hostility? Bull O'Liarly's "war on Christmas"? It's already been pointed out that a political party not mentioning God ---- which has zero to do with politics anyway ---- does not comprise "hostility".

Democrats support women, but attack them if they are of the opposing party. They do the same with black men and women alike whom they claim to support. "How dare they buck the trend?!"

You're saying women and black people should be exempt from criticism because they're women and black.

Allll righty then....

Templar, so let me get this straight. If you advocate for the rights of black people or women, you can't ever criticize the political views of certain blacks or certain women?

My read exactly.

 

[Pogo]

Your article says it was in the DNC platform in 2008. So not mentioning Jerusalem as the undivided capital, doesn't mean Obama and the DNC don't necessarily believe it, they may very well have done it to be politically expedient(which is cowardly towards Iran and one of the reasons I voted for Romney). Even if they dont believe it, it doesn't make them anti-Jewish. Obama has several Jews as advisors and in top positions in the cabinet(not to mention donors). I think they are ill-informed and naive, certainly not anti-semitic. As a Jew, I have some tolerance for foreign policy stupidity, but none for anti-semitism. I would speak out against it if it were occurring.

Also, you keep harping on removing the god language. I wouldn't mind if the GOP did this either. It doesn't make one anti-christian to remove the term, secularism is not anti-christian, secularism allows for religious pluralism and inclusion, things I support. I would not stand for intolerance towards any religious group, including Christians.

As for the NAACP, they may support Democrats on the whole, but they aren't controlled by the Democratic leadership. They do as they wish. You said so yourself, they are a black and primarily liberal organization, why should they be obligated to give airtime to black conservatives? And how does this make democrats anti-black? All this shows is that regardless of color, Democrats and liberals attack people for their conservative or republican ideology. That isn't racist at all.

I think you take yourself too seriously. You are just a guy on a message board. You come off a bit weird when you talk about yourself as a "research machine" and talking about a forum as an "arena".

Excellent points throughout.

 

[Pogo]

If only you knew what "pluralism" really meant. A tolerance or acceptance of multiple varying views or ideas in this case, religion. Two of them are seen hostily.

Really now? How does it NOT make them racist or sexist? Why make a contention say "we support women" or "we support diversity of opinion" but then say a pro life woman or a black female republican enters the fold. That mindset goes right out the window. You make some really strange assetions, stein. Simply by acknowledging them they aren't racist or sexist? Are you kidding me with this?

So you are only tolerant if you support conservative views? I got ya.

Interesting definition of tolerance and acceptance you got their buddy.

Generally tolerance means you allow dissenting views, doesn't mean you have to agree with them, believe it or not, you can tolerate an opinion and strongly debate the issue and attack the opinion of the other person. Tolerance doesn't mean no criticism.

So you are only tolerant if you support conservative views? I got ya.

Where did I say that? I am tolerant of all views. I allow people to have their own views as opposed to certain liberals. Freedom of opinion is something I hold dear, whether you are a liberal or a republican or anyone else. I have risen to the defense of many liberals on this board. I am friends with blacks, liberals, gays, women and Muslims in real life.

I am calling out hypocrisy. If you can't hold that one view equally and for all without applying different versions of it to certain people, you are a hypocrite, and thus intolerant. That's it, that's all.

Sadly this seems to be TK's pattern: when faced with rhetorical blowback, melts down, declares the adversary a "hypocrite", "liar", etc, declares himself the winner, and brilliant if he do say so hisself, and then storms out the door. Somebody needs to grow up.

 

[Pogo]

Templar, so let me get this straight. If you advocate for the rights of black people or women, you can't ever criticize the political views of certain blacks or certain women?

Believe it or not, I support the equal treatment of homosexuals under the constitution. Same with blacks, and women. I don't know how you came up with that, but it's clear you're reaching for other points.

Scenario 1:

Liberal A says: "Black People should be treated equally, fairly and protected from racism!"

Black Republican B says: "I agree! Black folks shouldn't live in poverty, they should be able to find jobs and get rich!"

Liberal A says: "You're a traitor to your party and to your race! How can you be a Republican?! You... you UNCLE TOM!"


Scenario 2:

Liberal Woman A says: "I want women to be treated with respect and fairness!"

Republican Woman B says: "Yes, that would be great! Would that apply to me if I am pro-life?"

Liberal Woman A replies: "No. How can you be against women's rights? You're a whore."


Scenario 3:

Liberal A says: "I support religious diversity and tolerance! People should be able to believe and worship what they want!"

Christian Conservative B replies: "I am a Christian, I don't believe in gay marriage and I think abortion is wrong."

Liberal A says: "Why is your faith so mean and intolerant to gays and women?"


If this doesn't illustrate my point, I don't know what would short of a pop up picturebook would.

Oboy - a whole field of strawmen!

Anybody got a match?

 

[Pogo]

There is a big difference between bloggers and talking heads calling people names and actual legislation being passed by political parties

Show us some GOP sponsored legislation that improves tolerance for minorities, women, gays, handicapped.....

The Bill Of Rights.

BTW, tolerance is just another word for favouritism to a liberal.

The correct term is equality, not tolerance. Liberals are extremely intolerant of those in the opposition.

The Bill of Rights was written by the same founders who wrote the rest of the Constitution -- Liberals.
Republicans wouldn't even be invented until 1854. You could look it up.

 

[Pogo]

The 88% of Misssissippians who voted for Goldwater in 1964, after a hundred years of voting Democrat.

Yup - and LBJ got 94 percent of the black vote that year, still a record for any presidential election. Imagine That ! The President who is quoted as saying

"I'll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years"

Funny how they used to talk in 1964 isn't it?

Especially in an unconfirmed quote that only one guy writing a book ever claims to have heard...

 

[TemplarKormac]

You haven't been doing your homework, stein. I dig. By dig, I dig to China and back for links and relevant information. I don't revise anything. What you see is what you get. Secularism in American society means an inherent shift away from Christianity.

It can't mean that unless we started with Christianity. As a country. Read the First Amendment and quote me where it makes us "Chrisitian".

If it were intended to allow for a "pluralism" of religions, why the hostility towards Christians?

What hostility? Bull O'Liarly's "war on Christmas"? It's already been pointed out that a political party not mentioning God ---- which has zero to do with politics anyway ---- does not comprise "hostility".

Democrats support women, but attack them if they are of the opposing party. They do the same with black men and women alike whom they claim to support. "How dare they buck the trend?!"

You're saying women and black people should be exempt from criticism because they're women and black.

Allll righty then....

Templar, so let me get this straight. If you advocate for the rights of black people or women, you can't ever criticize the political views of certain blacks or certain women?

My read exactly.

It can't mean that unless we started with Christianity. As a country. Read the First Amendment and quote me where it makes us "Chrisitian".

A) I never said anything of the sort.

B) I said that while other religions enjoy this "plurality" he speaks of, Christianity seems to be taking the brunt of the hostility.

What hostility? Bull O'Liarly's "war on Christmas"? It's already been pointed out that a political party not mentioning God ---- which has zero to do with politics anyway ---- does not comprise "hostility".

"Bill O'Liarly" what are we, in Kindergarten? Grow up. You think this is funny? Guess again. Of course it has plenty to do with politics! Why was it in the platform to begin with? It's a political platform is it not? The crowd booed when vote was handed down to remove God from the platform. Yes, they didn't boo God, but the decision to remove God.

1. Texas School bans Christmas, and the colors red and green:

Texas Elementary School Bans Colors Red and Green, Christmas Trees from Class Party - The Hollywood Gossip

2. Girls kicked out of a store for singing Christmas carols

Yahoo!

3. Wyoming City limits Christmas displays to 14 days

Wyoming city limits Town Square holiday displays to 14 days | Fox News

You're saying women and black people should be exempt from criticism because they're women and black.

Allll righty then....

Mischaracterizing my words huh? Alllrighty then....

I'm saying that if a party is to criticize then they do it equally, if they praise them (heres the kicker) praise them equally. But if you're going to sit there and say "I stand for this group or another group" then exclusively bash members of that same group who happen to be of a different mindset and not of yours, what does that say about your stance? Are you really standing for them all? Or those who simply agree with you?

Democrats are saying "you're only worth defending if you agree with me."