The Party of Tolerance: Truth vs. Fantasy

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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

Nobody is claiming that the conservative Southern wing of the Democratic Party was a champion of civil rights.

That's why it was called 'conservative' - because it OPPOSED civil rights.

Correct.

Indeed, it is to the credit of democrats to have acknowledged the failed and un-Constitutional policies of the time, such as segregation advocated by most conservatives, and move the party in support of civil rights.

In essence the Democratic Party abandoned the conservatives in the South, and with them the conservative doctrine of discrimination and hate.

This, then, is why the OP’s premise fails; not only is the premise a hasty generalization fallacy concerning democrats today, but it also reflects the OP’s ignorance of the Civil Rights Era and its aftermath.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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":

........

Um....thanks for acknowledging that Maher is not just a comedian. Thanks for indirectly acknowledging that he says something and idiots like you sit up and take notice.
I've always thought he provides edgy conversation that provokes us out of (y)our stupor, too.

Isn't it funny that there are no comedians on the far right who have nationally syndicated television shows? Why is that? (Because they're NOT fucking funny or very intelligent, either!)

 

[Redfish]

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":

........

Um....thanks for acknowledging that Maher is not just a comedian. Thanks for indirectly acknowledging that he says something and idiots like you sit up and take notice.
I've always thought he provides edgy conversation that provokes us out of (y)our stupor, too.

Isn't it funny that there are no comedians on the far right who have nationally syndicated television shows? Why is that? (Because they're NOT fucking funny or very intelligent, either!)

and you my (only type in bold because I am an idiot) friend are the worst kind of poster, one who has never had an original thought and is only capable of repeating what he gets from some left wing blog.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

An anecdote of a liberal talk show host insulting a conservative talk show host is of no material value in making the case that Democrats do not support women's rights.

1. There is nothing in the incident that constitutes a Democrat taking any action to deprive a woman of her rights.

2. Even if it met the criterion, which it doesn't, it is the act of one individual that cannot be shown to be representative of Democrats as a group.

Therefore, the example fails completely on two counts and thus offers zero support for the argument being attempted in the OP.

Okay, since the author of this thread, who was repeatedly crowing that no one wanted to debate his argument seriously, point by point, and was demanding that someone do so,

has apparently changed his tune in that regard, I guess I'll have to proceed without him.

 

[koshergrl]

So. He makes and defends his points, his thread is trolled, the trolls therefore claim it's a bait thread, try to change the topic, then claim victory when he doesn't take the bait.

Typical from the left, who have no understanding of discussion or even debate. All they know is propaganda and lies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So. He makes and defends his points, his thread is trolled, the trolls therefore claim it's a bait thread, try to change the topic, then claim victory when he doesn't take the bait.

Typical from the left, who have no understanding of discussion or even debate. All they know is propaganda and lies.

Every point I've made here has been substantive debate. He won't engage with me because he knows he can't win.

 

[Nyvin]

So. He makes and defends his points, his thread is trolled, the trolls therefore claim it's a bait thread, try to change the topic, then claim victory when he doesn't take the bait.

Typical from the left, who have no understanding of discussion or even debate. All they know is propaganda and lies.

Nearly every single right wing rebuttal I see on this forum is some kind of generic statement like "obama drone" "obama bots" "left wing propaganda" "libtard lies" "far left propaganda" "stupid libtards" "dumb left wing sites"

Anything someone post on here that's constructive is just deflected with the same generic statements of personal attacks. It's so repetitive it's hardly worth responding to.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So. He makes and defends his points, his thread is trolled, the trolls therefore claim it's a bait thread, try to change the topic, then claim victory when he doesn't take the bait.

Typical from the left, who have no understanding of discussion or even debate. All they know is propaganda and lies.

Nearly every single right wing rebuttal I see on this forum is some kind of generic statement like "obama drone" "obama bots" "left wing propaganda" "libtard lies" "far left propaganda" "stupid libtards" "dumb left wing sites"

Anything someone post on here that's constructive is just deflected with the same generic statements of personal attacks. It's so repetitive it's hardly worth responding to.

Which is understandable given the fact the premise of the thread is false.

When errant, subjective conservative dogma is exposed to facts, showing that dogma to indeed be false, all most conservatives have left are personal attacks.

 

[American4Americ]

Uh hes a liberal political talk show host, genius. Second, liberals claim they stand for women. Except when they are Laura Ingraham and company. It isn't "one talk show host slams another." It's one liberal belonging to a party who stands for women, slamming a woman. Hence the relevance and the hypocrisy.

That makes no sense at all. Standing for equality for (in this case) women does not mean and can not mean that no woman can ever get criticized for anything. HOly shit this is like fourth grade logic here.



Because he's a comedian. Grow UP already. Public figures are targets for comedians. Public figures have ALWAYS been targets for comedians. And ... this just in... comedians are still not politiicans.



Know that part earlier where I noted, "that makes no sense"? This one has creeped into Negativeland. No, I wasn't the one who edited Mia Love's Freaking Wiki page if that's what you're implying. I don't even know her. But do go on with the hallucinations, this is most fascinating.






Why are you acting stupid? The joke is about Fox News viewers -- not the Palin son. And again, it's a fucking comedian. Not a "Democrat". You're only digging your own fallacy deeper.



No idea what you're talking about. Link?



Are you threatening somebody? What if he runs to the mods?




I didn't watch either convention, but what the fuck do "Christians" have to do with politics?

Oh that's right, you don't answer that one.



No it's not "moot", it's one you got wrong and I corrected you and you can't man up to just admit it, that's what it is. I posted nothing about who recognizes Israel. Nice try.



As noted I didn't watch the convention, so ..... link to where they said this?



Fascinating ... so the guy from the opposition has a say in a political party's platform.
Ya learn sump'm every day.




I don't need to attack you. I have your posts. The arguments are all over the thread by now. You can continue to ignore them, or call me a "troll" or "liar" or 'hypocrite" (like you did Stein) in your little hissyfits, or you can man up and face them.



I don't even know what we're talking about here. Maybe you should have left the quotes in.



Ah, 2 year old. I didn't think of that one. Touché. Guess I'm licked.



What a sore loser. As several people have noted by now, you need to grow up. You can't just live on Danth's Law and expect anything but successful self-delusion.

Why would I argue a point that I didn't think was right?
I mean, why do you do it?

Think what you will of me Pogo. I don't answer to your standards of what "hyperpartisan" are, given you are hyperpartisan yourself. You're probably so far left of center that I seem "hyperpartisan."

I'm sorry if I hurt your feewings, Pogo, but right now, liberals make themselves easy targets with the intolerance they exude toward people who disagree with them. I am quite well aware of what Republicans say and do, and some of it is just as bad as what I've demonstrated with liberals. The difference between the two, is that one side owns up to the mistake, while the other side shields the perp from the consequences of their words.

I made a good point, you made a childish one. I took you for a good debater, but you've done nothing but throw a tantrum tonight.

Yeah yeah, once again, Danth's Law, and once again, boring. Sore loser.

One liners do not an argument make. You will have to come up with something better than "it makes no sense" as an argument. Citing "Danth's Law" ad nauseam does not make up for the lack of a position from you.

Templar Kormac has not even remotely addressed the point...

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

This is exactly what we're discussing about.
It's not enough for liberals to support gay marriage, hence everyone must be forced to support gay marriage. Let's take simpler example, it's not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs, incandescent light bulbs must be banned so nobody can use them. In other words, what liberals like should be mandatory, accepted and cannot be questioned and what they don't like should be forbidden, accepted and cannot be questioned.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

This is GOP logic.

We are 90% white.

We would like to have more women. We would also like to have more blacks, Hispanics, and minorities. We'd also like to have more LGBTs in our ranks.

For some reason, those sluts, bitches, homies, spics, wetbacks, and gooks, rag heads, turban cowboys, queers, lezbos, fudge packers, and sick twisted freaks hate us.

They're the intolerant ones; we're not.​

All I got to say to you is... You don't "logic" someone out of a position that he didn't use "logic" to come up with in the first place.

 

[Ame®icano]

Who the fuck do you think you're dealing with here?

I got no "reprimand", poster. The first I heard about any of this was your (again that's YOUR) reference to "threats". That's why I asked about it. And number two, you do not talk about Mod actions on the forum. Number three, as I told you I had stuff to do, and went and did it; I would have no knowledge of your pissant whining and martyr-complexing while I was away. You seriously seriously need to grow the fuck up and get over this childish obsession with posting bait threads and then throwing tantrums when other posters call you out for bullshit.

You didn't stir the shit but you just happen to be the only one to mention "threat", and you just happen to have the rules by your side verbatim.

Uh huh.

You're a damn coward. And btw I'm loading that Stein guy up with green dots just because you negged him for being right.

But don't go away mad... I have a little song for your diaper rash... mi mi mi...

You're calling me a coward? You don't even have the guts to argue me with a straight face. I didn't neg stein for his points. I negged him for attacking friends of mine. Otherwise I would have never negged him.

By the way:

Watch it, guys.

No threats.

I think I'm dealing with a self absorbed person who thinks he is beyond reproach. I never reported you, I didn't have time to respond before a mod stepped in. I think I'm dealing with someone on his high horse. I don't understand people like you. Calling me all sorts of names, fashioning all sorts of contrivances to dismiss arguments you otherwise didn't have a rebuttal for, or getting into a tizzy when I actually blow your contrivances out of the water. You insult my age and logical reasoning skills, you troll my thread, and you call ME a coward? Who do you think you're talking to, Mister?

Funny, I've been accused by others of actually being more of an adult than people twice my age. Your behavior is proving them right.

The title of this thread is "The Party of Tolerance"
There are 108 minority-majority districts in the US where non whites make up over 50% of that district's inhabitants. Ninety nine of them have elected a Democrat. Nine have elected republicans.

What's that tell you? Please apply your "logic" and "reasoning" skills.

Well, ninety eight percent of blacks voted for Barry. Coincidence?

 

[Londoner]

Blacks have voted overwhelmingly Democratic for decades. Not just for Obama. What point are you making?

 

[Ame®icano]

Blacks have voted overwhelmingly Democratic for decades. Not just for Obama. What point are you making?

My point is the same as from the post I quoted. Ask her.

 

[Nyvin]

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.

This is exactly what we're discussing about.
It's not enough for liberals to support gay marriage, hence everyone must be forced to support gay marriage. Let's take simpler example, it's not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs, incandescent light bulbs must be banned so nobody can use them. In other words, what liberals like should be mandatory, accepted and cannot be questioned and what they don't like should be forbidden, accepted and cannot be questioned.

Is it any different on the conservative side? How many states have constitutional bans on same sex marriage?

About light bulbs...please, that's so petty I don't even want to get into it.

 

[HenryBHough]

Petty unless you're one of the thousands of Americans who lost their jobs when the incandescent light bulb factories were forced out of business.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Actually, you on the left spend so much time hating everything these caricatures that you've invented that you've forgotten what they really are.

Seems to me the pretenders are the folks you repeatedly vote for. Obama tried to sound like Reagan during the SOTU address.

You folks forget who was responsible for freeing the slaves and who do you think championed civil rights. You also forget who stood in the way of both. Democrats.

Democrats decided in 2012 they would assign racial or sexist connotations to everything Mitt Romney said. Thus surfaced the binders scandal.

So the Tea Party is full of terrorists/racists but Iran is our friends? Your lives are full of utter fantasies. You are totally out of touch with reality, and you drag everyone around you into this upside down world. You need this mess because without it you'd have to face the fact that the people you vote for can't do anything right. They screw everything up so bad that it seems like they're doing it on purpose. Then they dream up ways to blame it all on Bush, or the Tea Party, or a video, or whomever is the current strawman. But this is simply the product of people who vote with emotion rather than logic.

The GOP has plenty of lousy leaders, but they don't even come close to the screwups in the Democrat party. Not by half. When we discover that our guy sucks ass we get rid of him. You instead embrace him or her and make up excuses for them. This is why the Democrat Party is such a disaster these days. Your party has taken corruption to 3rd world levels. This is the transformation Obama promised and not for the better.

I thought he sounded more Clintonesque.

Obama is no Reagan!

The Sequester cut the deficit. Obama tripled deficit spending his first two years. He only cut his own deficit in half, not the previous administration's deficit. It's nothing to brag about when you triple the deficit and then cut that in half because your deficit is still more. Obama's spent more in the last 5 years than any president. He has twice as much deficit spending in the last 3 months ($345 billion) than Bush's last total deficit ($159 billion) before the Dems took back Congress.

So, Obama has nothing to brag about where the debt is concerned.

 

[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.

This is exactly what we're discussing about.
It's not enough for liberals to support gay marriage, hence everyone must be forced to support gay marriage. Let's take simpler example, it's not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs, incandescent light bulbs must be banned so nobody can use them. In other words, what liberals like should be mandatory, accepted and cannot be questioned and what they don't like should be forbidden, accepted and cannot be questioned.

There may be a bizarro world where you, the anti-gay bigot, are the tolerant one,

but it's not this world.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The Sequester cut the deficit. Obama tripled deficit spending his first two years. He only cut his own deficit in half, not the previous administration's deficit. It's nothing to brag about when you triple the deficit and then cut that in half because your deficit is still more. Obama's spent more in the last 5 years than any president. He has twice as much deficit spending in the last 3 months ($345 billion) than Bush's last total deficit ($159 billion) before the Dems took back Congress.

So, Obama has nothing to brag about where the debt is concerned.

The Deficit shot up on Bush's watch, not Obama's.

His huge tax cuts to the rich and his wars on a credit card did that.

You guys have to really stop trying to exonerate Bush for his incompetence.

 

[BDBoop]

So. He makes and defends his points, his thread is trolled, the trolls therefore claim it's a bait thread, try to change the topic, then claim victory when he doesn't take the bait.

Typical from the left, who have no understanding of discussion or even debate. All they know is propaganda and lies.

Every point I've made here has been substantive debate. He won't engage with me because he knows he can't win.

You should call him out in the bullring.