Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
guyman1966

More Liberal Bullshit

Recommended Posts

Tolerance, liberal style

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: December 27, 2002

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By David Limbaugh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

It might be easier to stomach liberals sermonizing about tolerance, inclusion and religious freedom if they didn't come to the tolerance table with such thoroughly unclean hands.

Just as the best way to confirm that a pathological liar is lying is to see his lips moving, the surest sign of liberal intolerance in progress is a liberal's denunciation of conservative intolerance. The louder he protests, the more certain you can be of his own culpability.

Two current news stories illustrate the point. One involves liberal mania over the freedom of California judges to associate with the Boy Scouts of America. The other concerns the controversy over President Bush's nomination of a conservative Christian physician to serve on a Food and Drug Administration advisory commission.

Two California bar associations are pressuring the California Supreme Court to amend California's Code of Judicial Conduct to prohibit judges from associating with the Boy Scouts. The Los Angeles Bar Association and the Bar Association of San Francisco claim that if judges affiliate with the Boy Scouts, they will create a perception that they have an anti-homosexual bias.

Why? Because BSA has a policy – ruled legal by the United States Supreme Court – of excluding homosexuals as scout leaders. Presently, the California Judicial Ethics Code prohibits judges from belonging to organizations that practice "invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin or sexual orientation."

"Nonprofit youth organizations" are exceptions to this rule, but the two bar associations are determined to close this "loophole." They are saying, in effect, that California judges should be denied their right to participate in groups whose policies reflect values with which they disagree.

What's the difference between affiliation with the Boy Scouts and membership in a church that not only excludes homosexuals as pastors but openly condemns homosexual behavior as sinful? You can be sure there are plenty of such churches. Does that mean that California judges should not be allowed to be members of those churches lest they give the impression that they may carry the church's values (biases) into the courtroom?

You can dress this up however you want to, but what this boils down to is militant liberal thought police trying forcibly to impose their secular values on our society. If you dispute this, then tell me whether you think these groups, or others like them, would be in favor, for example, of barring the judges' membership in "gay"-rights organizations. Couldn't an argument just as reasonably be made that a judge's affiliation with such organizations would create a perception of his anti-Christian bias?

No, these groups are not champions of tolerance, inclusion or religious freedom, but a certain set of politically correct values. And if you don't share those values, you will not be tolerated, included or accorded religious freedom, much less freedom of speech or association.

If you think I'm just blowing smoke, then look at the next glaring example of liberal intolerance on the front pages today. Radical feminist groups have become hysterical over President Bush's appointment of Dr. David W. Hager, a University of Kentucky obstetrician-gynecologist, to serve on the FDA's Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs. The purpose of this committee is to study and make recommendations on the safety and effectiveness of approved and experimental drugs for obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties.

That exemplar of open-mindedness and tolerance, The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is in an uproar over Dr. Hager's appointment because he is openly pro-life (shhhh – he even promotes abstinence before marriage).

Why, just this year he participated in a Christian Medical Association campaign seeking to reverse the FDA committee's recommendation, in 1996, to approve RU-486, the abortion pill. Anyone who defies the liberal feminist sacrament of abortion must not be permitted to serve in government positions, from judgeships to executive branch advisory positions.

The feminist groups charge that Dr. Hager's ideological views create a conflict of interest that should disqualify him from serving. But Hager insists that his Christianity and pro-life position are "not going to keep me from objectively evaluating medication. I believe there are some safety concerns (about RU-486), and they should be evaluated."

Once again, the liberal position is to exclude participation by those who don't subscribe to the tenets of their secular religion. As we can see, what the left means by tolerance, inclusion and religious freedom is tolerance, inclusion and religious freedom only for those who worship at the altar of humanism and excommunication of all others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats one of the dumbest articles I've ever read....nothing more than an opinion piece.

Its opening paragraph is utter nonsense. Of course, a liberal cannot tolerate certain ideals if it goes against the very core of what they believe in. Especially, when tolerance of that intolerance will lead to the erosion of one's belief system.

How I love when conservatives blab about being patriotic and upholding the constitution, and yet, when someone goes against their belief system, that person is labeled unpatriotic, and a traitor.

So much for upholding the constitution...

Unfortunately, liberal and conservative views cannot be see as black and white..there are many shades of gray in between. Associating "radical feminist groups" with every liberal, is like associating every conservative with the Klu Klutz Klan, or Nazis.

Merry Fuckin Christmas! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by raver_mania

Unfortunately, liberal and conservative views cannot be see as black and white..there are many shades of gray in between. Associating "radical feminist groups" with every liberal, is like associating every conservative with the Klu Klutz Klan, or Nazis.

:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every reactionary conservative should be hung high and swatted like a pinata with a baseball bat.

"If the standards of the Nuremberg Trials were applied today, then every post World War II American President would be hanged as a war criminal." Noam Chomsky

Maybe these standards should be brought back so Bush can hang for his war crimes.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True conservative thought:

“There's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches!†Strom Thurmond in 1948 running for President as a segregationist.

“You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.†Trent Lott in 1980 after a fiery speech by Mr. Thurmond at a rally in Mississippi for Ronald Reagan.

“The platform we had in Dallas, the 1984 Republican platform, all the ideas we supported there - from tax policy, to foreign policy; from individual rights, to neighborhood security - are things that Jefferson Davis and his people believed in." Trent Lott 1984

"You stand for the right principles and the right philosophy." Trent Lott, in 1992, speaking as a guest of the racist Council for Concerned Citizens.

"I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Trent Lott, in 2002, to Strom Thurmond and America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is the legal age for retirement at 94...to work? my professor is 81 and that's what he told me...at 94, you have to quit...while you can choose to retire at 65...someone correct me if i'm wrong...

i think it's really sad that thurmond's only purpose to the republican party is to fill a seat in the senate just so they can have the right amount of people there...

and even sadder such a racist is allowed to be there, and this country is supposed to be based on equal freedom and rights, this is clearly going against what america is about. and who's a hyppocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×