patrick.net

dodgerfanjohn says

Theres even a really large gap between "I don't like gays" and "I want gays to die".

but there is no gap when conservatives cross the line and legislate their Bronze Age morality.

The funny thing is, they are only concerned with enforcing their law on others -- Old Testament morality for thee and not for me.

And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. -- Leviticus 20:10

Too bad, General Petraeus was such a nice man.

dodgerfanjohn says

I don't think Christians...and lets be clear here...your use of the term Conservatives here means exactly "Born again Protestant Christian"....hate anyone.
I think theres a pretty large gap between "I don't think gays should be married" to "I hate people and want them to die". Theres even a really large gap between "I don't like gays" and "I want gays to die".

dodgerfanjohn says

IMO it really won't be too long before we see drastic changes in what is considered freedom of speech. I'm already seeing situations where people are asking to move with like minded people. Where if you don't agree with the lifestyle someone else lives, your immediately branded as a person of "hate". Where you are considered an inappropriate parent if you fail to teach your children an appropriately "tolerant" point of view as part of their upbringing.

I just don't get this republican viewpoint. Look around you, so much time and money has been spent in legislation against gays. Preventing them from getting married, preventing them from visitng loved ones in hospitals, preventing them from adopting kids, calling them all sorts of names. So they fight back and the conservative position is -oh my God my free speech rights are being violated-oh my God the constitution-oh, oh my God-swoon..

The most dramatic drag queen could not compete with some of these republicans. The first amendment works like this-you say what you want and the gays/whoever say what they want. Not you say what you want and they are supposed to shut up and agree with whatever you say. If you don't like what they say-come up with a better argument.

lostand confused says

violated-oh my God the constitution-oh, oh my God-swoon..
The most dramatic drag queen could not compete with some of these republicans. The first amendment works like this-you

And then there is the key word "some".

Personally, I am Christian.

But I do not presume to know what God wants or does not want. He has given us guidelines by which to live. He has not given us instructions to determine who is or is not Christian and who is or is not saved.

If someone is gay...and all indications are that it is indeed caused by a combinations of genetic and environmental factors....its not within the scope of my understanding to judge that person.

If you spoke with Christians in depth, and I'll admit that sometimes there are many layers to peel through, you will find more often than not their understanding will be the same as mine.

What is portrayed in the media is intentional and is from people who desire media attention.

Me personally, I have no agenda against anyone for the way they choose to live, provided they do not hurt others.

Preventing from adoption and marriage...I can see where it comes from although I do not entirely agree with that agenda. Everything else, I think is hyperbole and smoke and mirrors. At least in any sort of mass numbers.

dodgerfanjohn says

I'm slightly below middle aged, I'm overweight but not morbidly obese, I am caucasian, I have a BS, and I am a union member.

Then is sound like you're in the all clear, with the Liberal shitlist.

Conservatives are doing the 'woe-is-me how dare you disrespect my religion' act too with PPACA's requirement that health plans offer contraception coverage.

This is not a small thing in our socio-politics. Conservative Christians dominate the current Republican coalition. They showed up this month at 26% of the electorate and 43% of Romney's total vote.

This is why the Republican power structure is tying itself up in knots. They know all the philosophizing on rape by their conservative Christian senator candidates really killed them at the polls.

And the Goldwater conservatives among them know that dealing with the fundamentalists really sucks.

Yet without the fundies in the tent the modern GOP is just the conservative redneck party, what the Democrats used to be back before Wilson.

dodgerfanjohn says

Exactly when did "liberals" decide to stop being tolerant?

Never

dodgerfanjohn says

The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

And there's your problem. You think "left" and "liberal" mean the same thing. They don't.

A liberal believes that people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want with absolutely no interference from government as long as they are not harming another or infringing upon another's rights (actually, these two things are the same).

Anyone who is not a liberal is a commie scumbag.

dodgerfanjohn says

-that government ought not dictate what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors.
-freedom of press.
-very strong support of free speech.

Basically an overall belief that as long as someone is doing or saying something that doesn't hurt anyone else, they ought to be able to do it and society and government should protect that person and their right to express themselves.

But that has diminished a great deal. The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

This is utter nonsense. The simple act of disagreeing with another is not an abridgment of free speech. You are extremely confused.

Wow, absolutely awesome how several posters go on to prove my point....

Hey, its fine to disagree, but if I think you are incorrect, imma shout you down, use any angle I can to disparage and mischaracterize you and insta invalidate your opinion.

MSNBC.

Amirite?

Homeboy says

dodgerfanjohn says

-that government ought not dictate what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors.

-freedom of press.

-very strong support of free speech.

Basically an overall belief that as long as someone is doing or saying something that doesn't hurt anyone else, they ought to be able to do it and society and government should protect that person and their right to express themselves.

But that has diminished a great deal. The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

This is utter nonsense. The simple act of disagreeing with another is not an abridgment of free speech. You are extremely confused.

You entirely misunderstood my posting.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

I believe everything has gone completely shithouse since the 9th Century and that 8th Century values are the basis upon which the Constitution was written and the Framers codified. Therefore, all those radical amendments, like the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments must fucking go!

8th and 9th century? Actually, that probably wasn't a typo.

If you can't carry a sword, you are peasant meat.

So according to conservatives, people should love these right wingers?
http://www.youtube.com/embed/X1Ck4m9EXeo&feature=related

Dan8267 says

dodgerfanjohn says

Exactly when did "liberals" decide to stop being tolerant?

Never

dodgerfanjohn says

The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

And there's your problem. You think "left" and "liberal" mean the same thing. They don't.

A liberal believes that people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want with absolutely no interference from government as long as they are not harming another or infringing upon another's rights (actually, these two things are the same).

I think this is probably the most correct answer in the entire thread.

IMO, Liberals have never been tolerant and are really only pro-choice on abortion. On everything else they want the government to decide what's best for you.

tolerance have limits. even the most well-engineered bridge has to stop tolerating certain forces that cause it to collapse.

Privatize everything and "pay-as-you-go" seems the fairest way for goods to be distributed to those opposed to a progressive tax and believe everyone should be paying exactly for what they get. It seems the people against 'unfair' redistribution hate that some people benefit more than others for certain governmental services. They lament the diabetic milking medicaid while having to pay for his own health costs out of pocket. They (at least in theory should) lament a family needing 30 firefighters to put out a fire on their estate while never having needed the services of firefighters themselves. These 'fairists' seem to lean towards one of two directions.

In one direction, there are those okay with taxes, provided everyone pays the exact same rate in income tax or in consumption tax. They also HATE free-loading thieves and believe the redistribution of services must be absolutely equatable in their eyes, which usually means no welfare of any sort, no gov't subsidized health care, no tax deductions and most other programs. Basically, they are okay with taxes that provide some sort of defense from danger, enforces laws and pays for transportation (except public transportation because that's a waste of money and no one uses it and it's unamerican).

The other direction are the "pay-as-you-goers" hardcore libertarians or minarchists. They believe everything should be privatized with the government role to be to be absentee politicoids who ensure everything is privatized and the constitution is strictly adhered to. Their hierarchy of governance: Federal politicians, "Leave it up to the states to decide." State politicians, "Leave it up to the city/counties to decide". City/county politicians, "Leave it up to the districts/towns/lowest level of governance to decide." District/town/lowest level governance politicians, "leave it up to the most powerful and influential groups to decide."

Exactly when did "liberals" decide to stop being tolerant?

I suppose about the same time aggressive conservatives decided to become whiners...

Sorry dude, when I look back over the posts on this site I see a lot more aggression and vehemence from those who identify as conservatives. The angst you're expressing now is simply frustrate at not feeling "on top" anymore.

Who knows if you are or aren't anymore but maybe try to handle the feeling with a bit more dignity.

dodgerfanjohn says

In otherwords he builds a strawman. I never argued about anyone abridging free speech.

vs:

"IMO it really won't be too long before we see drastic changes in what is considered freedom of speech. "

head asplode

dodgerfanjohn says

As I remember, one of the core tennents of the "liberal" belief system was tolerance of others...in esence, an emphasis on the ideas:

The problem with conservatism is that it attracts stupid people.

There's a core of intelligence within the movement, but it is overwhelmed by Teh Stupid.

As J.S. Mill said 100+ years ago:

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left

At this point I do want to point out that I have maybe encountered one or two intelligent things said by conservatives on this site. For one, I can remember Honest Abe going on about silver coinage prompting me to research what money actually was and supposed to be, and that opened my eyes to how I had just grown up with money around me and hadn't actually thought about what it really was all that much.

This is not about "toleration". Toleration implies accepting the somewhat unacceptable. Intelligent ideas need no "toleration"!

It's the stupid shit -- the lies, the bullshit unfounded slagging on the 'left' -- here that requires our toleration, and there's a lot of that. Be intelligent and we can all get along : )

Bellingham Bill says

There's a core of intelligence within the movement, but it is overwhelmed by Teh Stupid.

It's "The" you maraughn.

Until an acceptable definition of "liberal" can be agreed to by those commenting, this is pretty much a pointless argument. For example, I have a real hard time with your premise that many of yesterday's liberals are today's libertarians.

If a more general interpretation of your thesis could be summarized as it seems that people are more entrenched in their own, intolerant ideology than ever before, I would say, "Welcome to the internet!"

Am I reading right? I thought it was tea party and conservative who are very intolerant.

CaptainShuddup says

The problem with conservatism is that it attracts stupid people.

Yeah, that includes you.

To days Liberals are either happy people that don't want to be marginalized by other happy people. So they want the other would be happy people to give up things that makes them the happiest the most. I'm talking to you, Warren Buffet.

Or unhappy people that don't want anyone happier than they are, so they spend a lot of time crafting up ways to crap on every ones parade.
"What do you mean I can't ride my "Big Al's gay boat ride" float in the St. Patrick's day parade?"

Stalin and Mao were extremely intolerant.

dodgerfanjohn says

Homeboy posted "The simple act of disagreeing with another is not an abridgment of free speech".

In otherwords he builds a strawman. I never argued about anyone abridging free speech.

You wrote, in the very first post, that one of the core "tennents" [sic] of the liberal belief system was "very strong support of free speech." Then you wrote "But that has diminished a great deal". And later, you wrote, "IMO it really won't be too long before we see drastic changes in what is considered freedom of speech."

How can you now say that you "never argued about anyone abridging free speech"? Did someone steal your screenname?

mmmarvel says

dodgerfanjohn says

As I remember, one of the core tennents of the "liberal" belief system was tolerance of others...in esence, an emphasis on the ideas:

like I said above, what I hate is all the stupidity. Southern rednecks, christian fundamentalists, and conservative republicans don't have the market cornered on stupidity, but it's close and there's certainly a massive nexus of the stuff to be found in these three communites -- which, to be honest here, largely overlap.

The Southern Baptist bible belt is in the South, and while there's a libertarian unabomber streak in the midwest, the midwest is also very much fundamentalist Christian -- "Christianist" actually -- these days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/blue-states-red-states_n_1976768.html

like I said above, what I hate is all the stupidity. Education Union elitists, gay fundamentalists, and Liberal Democrats don't have the market cornered on stupidity, but it's close and there's certainly a massive nexus of the stuff to be found in these three communites -- which, to be honest here, largely overlap.

The California Liberal belt is in the West, and while there's an elitists Weathermen streak in the North East, the North East is also very much deviant perversion -- "Perversionist" actually -- these days.

(I'm finding it hard to spoof a guys post about IDIOTS that riddled with typos and bad grammar everywhere. I'm just as bad, but hey I don't go around calling everyone I disagree with an Idiot.)

Oh look who it is? If it ain't Mr. "Guess what I'm bitching about?"

I was told there wouldn't be any Math.

In the recent election we had conservative Republicans actively monkey with early voting in the attempt to limit certain people from voting.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13682483-florida-limits-early-voting-black-churches-may-move-souls-to-polls-to-saturdays?lite

even to the point of appealing to the supreme court:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/31/federal-judge-restores-3-early-voting-days-in-ohio/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/ohio-appeals-to-supreme-court-on-early-voting/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/us/politics/justices-reject-appeal-over-early-voting-in-ohio.html

Now THAT was a nexus of stupidity. Conservative southern racists (back before the 1970s they were all Democrats) were very successful with similar institutional vote-suppression bullshit but eventually got beaten back by liberals, including liberal Republicans.

But you guys are still at it with this active stupidity, after the conservative Dems mostly turned Republican and the liberal Republicans disappeared from the map.

There is nothing to "disagree" about this particular issue. If you support conservative Republican attempts at vote suppression, you are both evil AND stupid.

Stupid, because you can't learn from history.

Similarly, there is nothing to "disagree" about not demonizing gay couples, not being afraid of "darwinian" evolution, studying climate change and making draconian economic policies if the science indicates to future disaster, the Republican party's neocon-led warmongering in 2002-2003 was a massive mistake, etc.

Conservatives need to figure out that you guys are living in the 21st century and you can't go back to the 19th, no matter how bad you want to.

Change is going to happen.

Bellingham Bill says

nexus

It only sounds smart if you use it once per thread.

Bellingham Bill says

If you support conservative Republican attempts at vote suppression, you are both evil AND stupid.

Stupid, because you can't learn from history.

California has 55 electorate votes, don't lecture people about election fixing.

We live in a democratic society where most of the 50 states have closed primaries while the majority of registered voters are independents. Don't lecture people about election fixing.
The media can saturate the pop American psyche with douche bags that don't warrant a second mention, while stone walling the greatest men our country has to offer. Don't lecture me about election fixing.

Republicans losing touch with the electorate of California isn't vote suppression.

You guys just suck too much. Here's a nickel, go find a new ideology, one that doesn't suck as much.

CaptainShuddup says

like I said above, what I hate is all the stupidity. Education Union elitists, gay fundamentalists, and Liberal Democrats don't have the market cornered on stupidity, but it's close and there's certainly a massive nexus of the stuff to be found in these three communites -- which, to be honest here, largely overlap.

Education Union elitists? wtf?
Gay fundamentalists. really?
But liberal democrats, I see your point. The liberal democrats are the ones that give Obama shit for selling out to wall street and the fed. The liberal democrats are the ones who have problems with Obama's executive power abuse. And yes, those annoying liberal democrats who want to rebuild the fucking decimated middle class.

Captain, you could be the poster dude for the old white guys with a bleak future who ironically rail against the only people who will save them.

You are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome. Wealthy conservatives have held you hostage and yet you have sympathy for them while you hate those who are trying to save you.

You sir, remind me of a certain Berkeley coed:

Excellent analysis, and good photoshop job.

Bellingham Bill says

Now THAT was a nexus of stupidity. Conservative southern racists (back before the 1970s they were all Democrats) were very successful with similar institutional vote-suppression bullshit but eventually got beaten back by liberals, including liberal Republicans.

When Nixon made his deal with the devil, and set about the business of curing the Democratic Party of the South, some of his fellow Republicans feared they would lose the black vote for a generation. That proved wildly optimistic. No Republican since has come close to Nixon's Republican predecessor --Eisenhower-- who got 40% of the black vote.

Ohio Republicans tried to take away Sunday voting this year. It was a blatant attempt to suppress the black vote. One of them even admitted it. [1] The black share of voter turnout in Ohio went up more than 30% from 2008.

You're absolutley right that voter suppression targetting minorities is stupid. Especially when you're this blatant about it.

[1] http://www.plunderbund.com/2012/08/19/ohio-republicans-finally-admit-limited-hours-intended-to-suppress-black-voters/

What's worse is that the Ohio Republicans wanted to open the early polls for only military members!

That's something Godwin-worthy.

Plus the turncoat governor Crist is spilling the beans on Florida's GOP voter suppression effort apparently.

Former GOP chair, governor - both on outs with party - say voter fraud wasn’t a concern, but reducing Democratic votes was.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/

If people come to the realization that this crap was actually happening, say goodbye to the Republican party as a going concern.

What do you do for an encore? Whoops, our bad! We're not so anti-American any more! Or do they double-down, "don't vote for us, we don't need your vote anyway, moochers!"

Or maybe us liberals are just supposed to "tolerate" this?

dodgerfanjohn says

As I remember, one of the core tennents of the "liberal" belief system was tolerance of others...in esence, an emphasis on the ideas:
-that government ought not dictate what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors.
-freedom of press.
-very strong support of free speech.

...

There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

What utter nonsense. You have a profound misunderstanding of what free speech is all about.

Free speech is not a guarantee that others will be polite to you when you say stupid things. It is not there to shelter your preconceptions from the winds of harsh criticism. On the contrary: free speech is the right of others to expose the stupidity of what you're saying. When speech is so exercised, it is the opposite of intolerance. It is an attempt to set you straight. Whether you take it that way or not is entirely up to you.

You have the same right, of course, but be warned: the genius of free speech is that shitty ideas lose in a fair fight. If you think you can do better than your fellows who are --I'm sorry: whose ideas are-- getting evicerated, then sack up and sit down. If you have a defense of your point of view, stop bitching, and field it. The only risk you run is the same as everyone else: the risk of coming off a fool.

When that happens, just remember: the other guy is only the messenger.

I try to be as civil as possible when discussing politics unless I believe that someone advocates physical violence or taking away rights of their political opponents. Otherwise, I try to do my best to treat political discussions in the format that I would have in a coffee shop - a certain 19th century russian civilized decorum you could say. There's no reason why politics have to be so emotionally charged and bring out the worst in the debaters.

And I thought I had too much time.

msilenus says

You're absolutley right that voter suppression targetting minorities is stupid. Especially when you're this blatant about it.

[1] http://www.plunderbund.com/2012/08/19/ohio-republicans-finally-admit-limited-hours-intended-to-suppress-black-voters/

no.. such comments were actually twisted to sound that way..

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/ohio-republican-stands-by-jab-at-black-turnout-ma

Preisse's comment to today's Columbus Dispatch were taken as a smoking gun by Democrats and progressives, who said — as one liberal Ohio blogger wrote — that Preisse had acknowledged an effort to "suppress black voters."

Preisse scoffed at the criticism, telling BuzzFeed of a disputed voting plan put forth by Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, "I believe it should be easy to vote, and I believe that under this plan it is.

"I believe that Republicans and Democrats of good will can have a difference of opinion, an honest difference of opinion here, but I also believe that there is no question that the forces of Obama and the other side of the aisle would love to just throw the barn doors open and have 24-hour voting and just go too far in the other direction," Preisse said. "It seems to me we can have a reasonable discussion about this."

Of Democrats' early voting efforts, he said, "How far should the taxpayers be asked to go to accommodate that political operation? That’s where we’re having a difference of opinion."