Right Wing Repugnants Once Argued Moral Grounds For Impeachment

[Flash]

Such as...?

So in your mind, that's the same thing as hate speech? Being intolerant of hate speech is the same thing as intolerant hate speech?

"I hate gay people"
"I hate you because you hate gay people"

These are the same thing?

I was saying some liberals are intolerant because they want to prohibit hate speech. I was just posting with a person recently who claimed hate speech is not constitutionally protected and can be punished and I argued that it is legal free speech.

"I hate you because you hate gay people"
"I hate gay people"

One has a higher purpose but they are both equally intolerant and full of hate. That makes them both counterproductive if one really wants to make things better. Being tolerant, friendly, sympathetic, and understanding could make changes in that person more readily than hating and insulting them which only leads to them become defensive. You are driving them away from change.

For some, telling others they are not prejudiced toward gays is more important than actually not being prejudiced. It gives them a feeling of moral superiority.

 

[Micawber]

You're the one trying to equate intolerance of a minority group with intolerance of that intolerance.

It's the tolerance paradox. You're caught in it because you don't want to admit that one side of the argument has no moral authority because of their inherent intolerance.

You describe liberal intolerance as a reaction to Conservative intolerance. So without Conservative intolerance, there is no liberal intolerance.

This

 

[Flash]

Regarding the last paragraph I was thinking the same thing myself. Not to say it's never happened but I can't recall ever hearing people brag that they hunt when they don't. Or say they own a gun when they don't. (granted I live in an area where hunting and gun ownership is not high)

Yes, I was thinking about that also. If anything, I think it is just the opposite. I have seen pictures or stories of people I know who were hunting or fishing and I never knew they did that. It was never mentioned in conversation. It is hard for me to sit around with a group of guys talking because if that topic comes up I have nothing to say and I am bored.

 

[cawacko]

This

But it's cool to not support gay marriage right?

 

[Micawber]

Uneducated hick is an insult for which is the euphemism is true. It is an undeniable fact that the Trump base is composed largely of white males without college degrees from the country, whereas liberals are advantaged in urban and suburban enclaves with college ed and females.

Saying an uneducated hick is simply an insulting way of stating something that is absolutely valid. Do educated people tend sometimes to look down on the less educated? Sadly they often do, and that is politics aside. So too the beautiful look down on the less attractive, the smart to the dim, the rich to the poorer. It’s not flattering but it’s human nature, a bad facet of it. But it’s not just about politics.

But back to the alleged hypocrisy, pointing hypocrisy out doesn’t mean one adopts the position of the hypocrite, no matter how attractive as that specious argument seems to be to the Trumpkins.

 

[Callinectes]

These and other evangelical leaders wanted Clinton impeached, convicted and removed from office.

Their position, they asserted, was based on fundamental values. As one leader wrote, “Most evangelicals consider what Bill Clinton did … an undermining of … the moral and biblical principles on which [our Constitution] is based … evangelicals are values-based voters, values based on biblical morality … evangelicals believe in moral absolutes.”

AND THEN CAME TRUMP, AND OUT WENT MORALS

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and I wanted to thank democrats for teaching us that none of that stuff matters anymore because we're so "progressive" right?

 

[Micawber]

But it's cool to not support gay marriage right?

No it’s not cool to do that.

 

[Micawber]

I was saying some liberals are intolerant because they want to prohibit hate speech. I was just posting with a person recently who claimed hate speech is not constitutionally protected and can be punished and I argued that it is legal free speech.

"I hate you because you hate gay people"
"I hate gay people"

One has a higher purpose but they are both equally intolerant and full of hate. That makes them both counterproductive if one really wants to make things better. Being tolerant, friendly, sympathetic, and understanding could make changes in that person more readily than hating and insulting them which only leads to them become defensive. You are driving them away from change.

For some, telling others they are not prejudiced toward gays is more important than actually not being prejudiced. It gives them a feeling of moral superiority.

It seems like you are trying to be too clever to equate things that are different and your line of thought just doesn’t pass the straight face test. No pun intended. Only in a Gandhi /Jesus sense are you right. In the real world the tolerant are morally superior to the bigots, even if the tolerant commit the venial sin of telling bigots they are being bad.

Not in pari delicto, not by a country mile.

 

[cawacko]

It seems like you are trying to be too clever to equate things that are different and your line of thought just doesn’t pass the straight face test. No pun intended. Only in a Gandhi /Jesus sense are you right. In the real world the tolerant are morally superior to the bigots, even if the tolerant commit the venial sin of telling bigots they are being bad.

Not in pari delicto, not by a country mile.

What qualities do you posses that make you feel like a tolerant person?

 

[LV426]

Free speech about anything they might disagree with.For example, a speakers who oppose affirmative action have been blocked on college campuses.

Was that why they were blocked, or was it because of other things they've said? I know in the case of Milo Yannopolis, he wasn't blocked because of his stance on Affirmative Action, but rather all the racist trolling he engages in.

 

[LV426]

It is like Muslims because it is still intolerance. Intolerance is not more acceptable because it is aimed at something "worse" than another type.

So being intolerant of Nazis is as bad as being a Nazi?

 

[LV426]

A lot of it is based on anger and hostility that often is not about politics.

It's personal because the Conservative intolerance is personal. You're saying that Conservatives have a naturally inherent intolerance that must be accommodated. Why?

 

[LV426]

Hunting and fishing and gun ownership are also very common in the South.

It's actually not. This is a stereotype. A pretty shitty one too. I live in Georgia. Hunting and fishing is just as common here as it is in New England.

 

[Flash]

While I understand the point you are making I don’t believe it to be true. Democrats abandoned the working man only to the extent the party bought into free trade globalization during bill Clinton and thereafter. Democrats never (in my lifetime) were for anyone who displays the blatant racism of Trumptards. Only to that extent is the white working man being rejected. Dems are for a host of programs from Obamacare, welfare, more money for VA and troop pay, educational grants, etc etc that serves the white working man more than Republicans do. Uneducated Hicks is simply counter trolling the KKK people on this board. You won’t hear that otherwise.

I have experience with a lot of union guys who would never consider voting anything but Democratic. Most of them, however, are liberal on nothing. They are prejudiced against blacks, Hispanics, and gays, but it is just tradition. One of them recently said of Obama "I always said I would vote Democratic even if they ran a n... and sure enough they did."

As far as those programs you mention that Democrats favor, in practice both parties have continued to support those programs and spending has continued to increase under both parties.

There are many social attitudes today that are more important than political issues. Such things as income level used to be the best predictor of how we vote. In the 2000 election the best predictor was "frequency of church attendance. "

I don't think the Democrats abandoned the working class as much as they drove them away. Calling them deploreables and Hillary claiming she was going to put coal miners out of work was just bad politics. Opposing tax cuts did not help, either. Many of those working class guys are not religious, but they object strongly to criticisms of religion.

About 13% (8-9 million) Obama voters in 2012 voted for Trump. I think some of that is our tendency to like newer candidates.

 

[LV426]

And I was not talking about liberals smirking about a conservative posturing, but when a person with those characteristics was mentioned in conversation among liberals.

Again, most of the time, it's because they're posturing. They say they're "hunters", but have rarely hunted. It's more about posturing than anything else. They're just as lazy couch potatoes as anyone else in America.

Posturing jackasses deserve derision.

'm not sure I have heard anybody posturing by saying he hunts, fishes, or owns guns who does not.

Well I have, and I live in the South.

 

[LV426]

Being overturned by a judge doesn't take away that our state voted to ban gay marriage

Yeah, back in 2008 when the national sentiment over gay marriage was still negative. There was also a very dishonest campaign run out of Utah by Mormons who bullshitted and lied about Prop 8, even in court.

That's the will of the people in action. So how can we as Californians be intolerant of intolerance when we ourselves are intolerant?

Prop 8 is the past. Since 2008, the national attitude on gay marriage has changed. So representing CA of 2008 is a reflection of CA intolerance in 2018 is a load of horseshit, and you know it.

 

[LV426]

Regarding the last paragraph I was thinking the same thing myself. Not to say it's never happened but I can't recall ever hearing people brag that they hunt when they don't. Or say they own a gun when they don't. (granted I live in an area where hunting and gun ownership is not high)

Are you kidding? They do that all the fucking time.

It's posturing to make you think they're rugged individualists when they're just dependent couch potatoes.

 

[LV426]

I was saying some liberals are intolerant because they want to prohibit hate speech.

Liberals would agree they are intolerant of hate speech. Why aren't you?

So once again, you're trying to say "intolerance" and "intolerance of intolerance" are the same thing. That way you can make a false equivalency in order to cast yourself as some sort of moderate trying to figure it out, when all you're doing is accommodating inherent intolerance among Conservatives.

Liberal "intolerance", by your own admission, is a reaction to something else. So liberals are reacting intolerantly to intolerant speech by Conservatives.

So how are they equivalent?

 

[LV426]

"I hate you because you hate gay people"
"I hate gay people"

One has a higher purpose but they are both equally intolerant and full of hate.

If you think those two positions are equally intolerant, then you're a coward. You can't bring yourself to admit that sometimes, things are black and white.

The inherent position of Conservatives, you seem to be arguing, is intolerance. So any reaction to that intolerance you deem as equal intolerance, yet one intolerance doesn't exist without the other, not vice versa. If Conservatives stopped hating gay people, then liberals wouldn't have anything to be intolerant of. You see how that works? One side of the equation starts off in a place of intolerance and the other side reacts to it. But the inherent intolerance is only on one side.

So they're not equal, not in the least.

 

[Micawber]

I was saying some liberals are intolerant because they want to prohibit hate speech. I was just posting with a person recently who claimed hate speech is not constitutionally protected and can be punished and I argued that it is legal free speech.

"I hate you because you hate gay people"
"I hate gay people"

One has a higher purpose but they are both equally intolerant and full of hate. That makes them both counterproductive if one really wants to make things better. Being tolerant, friendly, sympathetic, and understanding could make changes in that person more readily than hating and insulting them which only leads to them become defensive. You are driving them away from change.

For some, telling others they are not prejudiced toward gays is more important than actually not being prejudiced. It gives them a feeling of moral superiority.

What qualities do you posses that make you feel like a tolerant person?

I am patiently waiting for my suite at Marriott to become ready without pestering the front desk.