Jump to content

What happened to tolerance???


ready182
This topic is 6612 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

I would think that in a community like ours, dominated by gays and gay-friendly people, that most of us would understand the importance of tolerance in our society. For example, tolerence of people with different sexual preferences -- isn't that what gay rights is all about?

 

An yet, a least a few "vocal" posters seem to have zero tolerance for anyone who might be straight, or those who express political views different from their own. The most utterly offensive example of this can be found in multiple recent posts where members of this board were compared to Nazis, simply for having politcal beliefs different that those of the vocal few.

 

Don't you think we ought to treat each other a little better???

 

Ready

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very sound thought Ready, and one I agree with. Although I enjoy poking a little fun from time to time, vicious attacks on people's characters are uncalled for. (Although I must admit that they can be amusing, when done with smart panache as in Miss Woodlawn's drop-dead style of posting!)

I seem to have missed the "straight people" argument you refered to, so I can't comment on that. But when it comes to politics, it should come as no surprise that debates might get a little heated. And it does seem rather ironic that a republican would seek tolerance on a gay- oriented site, when the republican president is attempting to write intolerance of homosexuality into the US constitution.

But, it is such ironies that make life truly interesting! So why not? So far as I'm concerned, you can be part of our club.

 

La Trix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the best things about being an American is our right to free speach and free expression. As a proud Far-left wing liberal. I am extremely opinionated and love to express my views. While some people here naturally do not share my views, I celebrate their rights to be as conservative as they want.

 

I do not know anyone here well enough to pass judgement on them. I love the spirited debates and in fact have actually learned a thing or two from a few Repuiblicans here.

 

I hope we never stop hearing from our right winged brothers and sisters in here. Just because they are wrong about virtually everything :p doesn't mean their contributions aren't as valuable as ours.

 

Through honest debate will the truth finally shine.

 

God bless America

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lie Your Ass Off

 

>An yet, a least a few "vocal" posters seem to have zero

>tolerance for anyone who might be straight, or those who

>express political views different from their own.

 

Speaking only for myself, I have no tolerance for people whose "views" consist of repeating the same lies over and over and over again. If you don't have enough respect for other posters to post real arguments rather than a bunch of stupid, transparent lies, you don't deserve to be treated with respect by them. I believe it was Paul Krugman who said of Bush that he doesn't keep mouthing stupid lies like "The terrorists hate us because of our freedom," because he is stupid, but because he thinks WE are stupid. When you disrespect others, you get disrespected. Deal with it.

 

 

>The most

>utterly offensive example of this can be found in multiple

>recent posts where members of this board were compared to

>Nazis, simply for having politcal beliefs different that those

>of the vocal few.

 

If anyone is comparing you to a Nazi, it's because your "views" include support for a leader who wants to take away the civil rights of a group of people due solely to their sexual orientation. That is, in fact, one of the very things the Nazis did. If your views are comparable to those of the Nazis, you shouldn't complain about being compared to them, Adolf.

 

>Don't you think we ought to treat each other a little

>better???

 

One of my biggest complaints about American liberals is that many of them don't seem to have the stomach to treat the right-wing crazies who support Bush with the contempt and disdain their ravings deserve. As in all things, I try to set a good example.

 

People who want to take away my civil rights should expect to be treated like shit by me. If that is their expectation, they'll never be disappointed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Functioning Democracy

 

Woodlawn presents his case in the most vigorous terms possible, and that helps make his passion known, as well as underlining his serious concerns with hyperbole and invective. He is not alone, with such voices raised high on both sides: Bush is a nazi, Kerry hates America.

 

Neither of course is true. Both love this country, and both believe in democracy and the rule of law. But we need vigorous discourse to highlight issues which might not otherwise receive serious consideration: the issue of the protection of civil rights under Bush and Ashcroft, and the issue of national security under a man who has made his career in opposing a lot of national security issues. These are serious matters, and any intelligent voter needs to weigh the two, because clearly Bush veers in one direction and Kerry in the other, and there will be serious consequences for the nation with the election of either man, which is why I haven't yet decided who to vote for.

 

But there is another consideration. Assuming that one of them is in fact clearly elected, he needs to be able to govern, and that means that his opponent and his opponent's supporters need to give it a rest and let him get on with the business of government. A democracy cannot function if those who lose the election do not accept the result and cooperate, in supporting the nation's choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: More Lies, Please

 

>But there is another consideration. Assuming that one of them

>is in fact clearly elected, he needs to be able to govern, and

>that means that his opponent and his opponent's supporters

>need to give it a rest and let him get on with the business of

>government.

 

Bush was NOT "clearly elected" in 2000, as we all know. But instead of forming a government of national unity and pursuing policies he knew would unite the country, he chose to pretend that he had a mandate for a right-wing agenda. The divided, hostile state of politics in this country today is entirely his fault.

 

 

>A democracy cannot function if those who lose the

>election do not accept the result and cooperate, in supporting

>the nation's choice.

>

 

How true! But that is not a point that should be made by someone who does not respect laws that are passed by democratically elected legislators -- like the laws on prostitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Functioning Democracy

 

>Woodlawn presents his case in the most vigorous terms

>possible, and that helps make his passion known, as well as

>underlining his serious concerns with hyperbole and invective.

> He is not alone, with such voices raised high on both sides:

>Bush is a nazi, Kerry hates America.

>

>Neither of course is true. Both love this country, and both

>believe in democracy and the rule of law.

 

I agree, they both do love their country, but there is serious question as to whether Bush believes in democracy and the rule of law. One of the fundemental components of a healthy democracy is fair elections. As a Floridian, I can tell you that there are serious questions about our last Presidential election and how the courts and the state election's officials were used to seat our current President. For the first time, our Presiedential elections seemed tainted. From the Gov. of the State, Bush's brother, to the elections commisioner, Bush's State campaign chairman, to the decision from the majority of the supreme court, Republicans who know the Bush family well, we may have seen the end to true democracy as we once knew it. It scares me to know that men with powerful conections can and will rob our nation of our voice at election time.

 

As far as his believe in the rule of law, again Bush falls short. His actions in Iraq may be true to the letter of the law, but it stops there. Bush wanted to go into Iraq from the very beginning. But public opinion, Congress and the UN were all against it. Sec. Powel told the President to ask the UN for resolutions stating an ultimatum. He then suggested that the President go before congress and state his case. Congress said flatly. "No, we do not think it is time to go to war with Iraq. Focus on the war on terror and get Bin laddin. Let the inspectors do their job in Iraq. Bush then went back and said. Give me something to threaten Saddam with. Congress gave him the authority to use "The threat" of war as a deterent to force Saddam to comply with UN inspectors. Nothing more.

Bush then did the unthinkable, he construde the authority to use the threat of war as permission to go to war. He never intended to use threat as a means to get UN compliance, he wanted to oust Saddam. We wont even go into the lies he told America about WMD's and the yellow and orange alerts his administration announced almost weekely to put fear in our hearts. Isn't it amazing how as soon as the President got what he wanted, those alerts abruptly stopped?

 

He used the Security Alert system to scare our citizens into supporting a war with a country that wasn't a Terrorist state. (But it is now) That is not only imorral, it is ilegal also. He likely stole the last election, that is ilegal too. While he may not have broken the law when he used the authority to use "threat of war" as a tool of deterent as permision to go to war, it certainly does not follow the spirit or the intent of what Congress authorized.

 

Bush does not believe in the letter of the law. He is like a mafia Boss. When he doesn't like the outcome, he simply does it anyway.

 

>But there is another consideration. Assuming that one of them

>is in fact clearly elected, he needs to be able to govern, and

>that means that his opponent and his opponent's supporters

>need to give it a rest and let him get on with the business of

>government. A democracy cannot function if those who lose the

>election do not accept the result and cooperate, in supporting

>the nation's choice.

 

I agree with you to some degree. However, we must never suggest that we should not voice our concerns with a President or any other elected official if we see wrong doing. Bush and his administration have made people feel it is wrong to suggest that he is wrong about anything. To do so would be unpatriotic or a smack in the faces of the soldiers he put in harms way. Nothing could be further from the truth. This war is a disaster. Well over a thousand Americans are dead, thousands more are mamed and injured. Countless Iraqis are dead or injured and their country was destroyed. Now Iraq is, for the first time a haven for terrorists. They have come from all over the world to defend the Iraqi people. Conditions are far worse for the people their. With the exception of the puppets, Bush has put in positions of power, the Iraqi people now hate us more than they hate Saddam.

 

We should not quietly and blindly support any elected official. If we disagree with his/her actions, then we must voice our opposition.

 

But you are right, we should not stand in the way of an elected official for political reasons alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shut Their Mouths

 

> Bush and

>his administration have made people feel it is wrong to

>suggest that he is wrong about anything. To do so would be

>unpatriotic or a smack in the faces of the soldiers he put in

>harms way. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Excellent point. For those Republicans who demand tolerance for other points of view on this board, I suggest they speak to Doug69, who recently threatened to report you to the Secret Service because you made a joking remark to the effect that you wish some harm would come to Bush.

 

Conservatives in this country have a long history of trying to smear their political opponents by linking them to America's enemies, and Bush's friends and supporters have made a fetish of this in recent years. After 9/11 Bush embraced Tom Daschle on the floor of the House after addressing a joint session of Congress. In 2002, however, Bush's supporters ran commercials suggesting that Daschle was the same as Saddam because he disagreed with some of Bush's decisions. They did the same thing to Senator Cleland, a disabled Vietnam Veteran. This year Bush is supporting a candidate running against Daschle who has repeatedly said Daschle is helping America's enemies by disagreeing with Bush. Daschle is a distinguished military veteran, while his opponent never served, yet Daschle has to put up with attacks on his patriotism from this Republican shithead. Bush's Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, called the largest teacher's group in America a "terrorist organization" because they disagreed with some of Bush's policies. Disgusting!

 

It is time for Republican posters here to shut their mouths on the subject of tolerance so long as members of their party attack the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: More Lies, Please

 

>How true! But that is not a point that should be made by

>someone who does not respect laws that are passed by

>democratically elected legislators -- like the laws on

>prostitution.

 

This is not quite worthy of you. Viz. last fall's debate here on the moral authority of law.

 

But that quibble is prelude to saying you are resoundingly right to observe: "One of my biggest complaints about American liberals is that many of them don't seem to have the stomach to treat the right-wing crazies who support Bush with the contempt and disdain their ravings deserve."

 

The only weakness of this diagnosis and attack is that it does not go far enough: What is to be done about the fact that Bush and his cabal are so effective because they do not act or speak in good faith? Treating them with disdain and contempt is appropriate on the merits, but it is a response that is on the level. By comparison, their actions and pronouncements, as you note elsewhere in this thread, are coldly calculated deceptions, thus deadly effective in swaying large portions of public opinion.

 

Given that, what can be effective except to respond directly in kind?

 

But then, one descends to their level. What way out?

 

(Posting this message from a room in the shadow of the Brandenburg Gate, not long after wandering around the Reichstag and other sobering sites. Let the right wing nuts scream at the comparison, but it drives one's thoughts to whether the worst that humankind can do is in a separate realm, or only at the edge of a continuum our leaders are already embarked on. The banality of evil.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: More Lies, Please

 

>>How true! But that is not a point that should be made by

>>someone who does not respect laws that are passed by

>>democratically elected legislators -- like the laws on

>>prostitution.

>

>This is not quite worthy of you. Viz. last fall's debate here

>on the moral authority of law.

 

I see nothing unworthy about it. It's certainly true that democracy cannot function if everyone who disagrees with a law enacted by our democratically elected representatives simply ignores or tries to circumvent that law. That is why school desegregation in this country has been such a failure and why the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy put in place during the Clinton years has failed to eliminate harassment of gay service members, as it was designed to do. Liberals can't very well take the position that when we succeed in getting legislation passed everyone should respect it even if they don't agree with it, but when it comes to legislation we don't like we should be free to ignore it. Right?

 

 

>Given that, what can be effective except to respond directly

>in kind?

 

 

I see no need for deception in responding to the filth of conservatives like Limbaugh, Coulter and the rest, and thus no dilemma. It's not a deception to state that Bush is trying to take away civil rights that have been bestowed on a group of American citizens by one of our states and to prevent other states from doing the same. Can you remember another occasion since the Civil Rights Era when a politician has championed a measure designed to take away rights from a group of law-abiding American citizens? I can't. Deception isn't needed. The truth is shocking enough.

 

As for the commentators I've mentioned and all those who repeat their cant, they deserve nothing but to have their faces shoved in a stopped-up toilet, repeatedly. They deserve it both rhetorically and literally. I'm ready to do my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Functioning Democracy

 

>Assuming that one of them

>is in fact clearly elected, he needs to be able to govern, and

>that means that his opponent and his opponent's supporters

>need to give it a rest and let him get on with the business of

>government. A democracy cannot function if those who lose the

>election do not accept the result and cooperate, in supporting

>the nation's choice

 

[blockquote]"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president.. is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonous to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt, in 1918 during the First World War.[/blockquote]

 

[blockquote]"Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy... if that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments they are welcome to it.. because the maintenance of the right to criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a good deal more good than it will do the enemy." - Senator Robert A. Taft, after Pearl Harbor.[/blockquote]

 

 

BM, I have to take issue with what you wrote above. It echoes what Republicans did in the wake of 9/11. They equated anyone who did not agree with George Bush as a traitor and unpatriotic. It was one of the most unAmerican things any Administration has ever done.

 

Dissent, and the right to dissent, is what makes this country work. I believe that any time we have one party in control of all branches of government, we are doing ourselves a grave disservice. Bill Clinton needed a Republican House as much as George Bush needs a Democratic Senate (or House of both). A democracy cannot function if those who lose the election bow down before the winner as a Stepford wife would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...