Liberal Intolerance

[MO]

Once again, you interpreted my post all wrong. I don't take your comments seriously at all. I moderate and/or post on enough conservative boards to know that there are a few liberals who want honest debate, but most just want to be disruptive. I have a great sense of humor, you just aren't funny. You are a troll!

By the way, if you want to see some liberal "tolerance" to dissenting view points, check out the rules at Democratic Underground. I wouldn't last one post! No conservative does! It's in the rules! They don't allow conservatives!

[guestvito]

Hey! Where did you get a picture of me?!

I was trying to make a serious point and you start in on the spelling (sorry, typing) flames then start throwing your weight around as moderator, dissing my comedic talents, etc., and I'm the troll? Okay, whatever, you just continue to act like a living illustration of what I'm saying.

My point is that "tolerance" has nothing to do with refraining from criticism of public figures and political viewpoints, and also that it's incredible hypocrasy for right wingers to do all the complaining about this that they're currently doing.

I could go on all night posting examples that back up what I'm saying, but to take just one, look back at the post that began this thread. When Al Franken entitled his book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" it was not out of a fit of pique or nastiness, but to make a point; namely that Limbaugh himself makes a habit of tossing mean and mindless insults at people. Franken was right about that. Maybe when that criminal addict Limbaugh gets back from rehab he'll quit (for instance) talking with a drunkard's drawl while imitating Ted Kennedy, but I wouldn't bet on it.

And if you want to talk about "silencing free speech" what do you call it when the Bush administration and its supporters labels anyone who questions their conduct of the so-called war on terrorism as treasonous, soft on terrorism, pro-saddam, anti-American, etc.? Do we have a right to criticise the government or is that something only right-wingers can do when the government is democratic?

Okay, enough for now. I'm sorry if I've mispelled anything or misplaced a comma or (heaven forbid!) forgot to capitalize something. I think I've presented as much substantive commentary here as anyone on this thread so far. If anyone wants to address the issue, fine. If you'd rather just go on about irrelevancies like my keyboard proficiency then, hey, you won't have to kick me off. I deal with enough tedious malcontents in my job.

[MO]

I fail to see how your first post, or any of the ones after addressed the topics in the thread originator. In fact, they just make the point. You are just making unfounded claims about the administration and crying like a baby about being mistreated on a conservative message board. This is what I get when I try to post on the biggest, liberal message board:

democraticunderground.com
Taken from their website-
WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT
We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

-------------End

So much for liberal "tolerance."

The members of the Bush administration are also free to speak their minds. You may not agree with them, but you will not be arrested for it. No one has infringed upon your rights.

[vito]

MO said:

I fail to see how your first post, or any of the ones after addressed the topics in the thread originator.

The first quote cited as an example of liberal "intolerance" the title of Al Franken's book. My most recent post addressed that issue directly and explicitly. Don't know how much clearer I can make it.

You are just making unfounded claims about the administration

Unfounded claims? Do I really have to go hunt down examples of what I said and post quotes and links? Anybody who reads the news knows what I'm talking about.

and crying like a baby about being mistreated on a conservative message board.

right, it's all me. whatever.

This is what I get when I try to post on the biggest, liberal message board:

I'm not responsible for the democratic underground. I'm not too familiar with it, since I actually prefer to challenge myself by seeking out contrasting opinions. I know: what a concept! I notice in the rules you posted that they don't ban conservatives, but "conservative disruptors". If you got banned it's probably because you were being an a**hole like you're being now.

But look, if you want this board to be a conservative circle-jerk instead of a place for the free exchange of ideas, just say so: I'll leave. It's your right to run your website the way you want, just as it is for the operators of democratic underground. I did read on here somewhere that everyone was welcome, though. You may want to change that to prevent future misunderstandiing.

The members of the Bush administration are also free to speak their minds. You may not agree with them, but you will not be arrested for it. No one has infringed upon your rights.

No more than yours have been infringed upon.

[Infantile graphic omitted]

This is really boring, so I'm through jousting with you on this. If anyone wants to discuss the issues with me, here I am.

[MO]

Gee, pardon my ignorance. I didn't read the paper that said President Bush wanted to nuke Mexico. Maybe you can find someone more "enlightened" with which to debate your obviously superior wealth of knowledge.

[guestvito]

My mistake: I wasn't actually saying that Bush wanted to nuke Mexico. It was a hypothetical. (I thought that was pretty obvious but maybe not). So when you accused me of making "unfounded claims" (plural) against the administration I assumed you meant the following, which is the only other claim of any sort I made about the administration as far as I recall.

And if you want to talk about "silencing free speech" what do you call it when the Bush administration and its supporters labels anyone who questions their conduct of the so-called war on terrorism as treasonous, soft on terrorism, pro-saddam, anti-American, etc.?

Now, do you need for me to post you a dozen or so examples of that? I could probably find that many without leaving this discussion board!

[Walter]

Simply put, Vito, just admit it. You have an irrational hatred of Bush.

For example, your accusation that Bush actually accused someone of being treasonous because he questions something is untrue and cannot be supported by any legitimate source.

I'm sure that was an unintentional "humorous" point like Bush nuking Mexico.

Bush won. Get over it. Or to use the name of a left wing group, MoveOn dude. Hate Bush all you want. He's the Pres.

[vito]

Please, Walter, start reading posts before you respond to them. What I said was:

the Bush administration and its supporters labels anyone who questions their conduct of the so-called war on terrorism as treasonous, soft on terrorism, pro-saddam, anti-American

See? I didn't say Bush himself said anything, and treason wasn't the only charge I ascribed to the administration and its supporters.

Now, if you can't go on google and find at least twenty examples that fit easily within the criteria I set out there, then you're hopeless. Oh, alright, here's one just to give you the idea:

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/13/83413.shtml

Bush himself never says words like "treason". He's happy to let his staff and his supporters play the heavy.

As for "irrational hatred", all I can say is yeah, sure. What was it when all the right wingers were criticising Clinton? Was that "irrational hatred" too?

Nice to see in the latest polls that an ever-growing number of Americans are beginning to feel the same "irrational hatred" that I am.

[eric]

Wow, this is a pretty good dogfight!

Well, my opinion as someone in the center is that we need to tone down the rhetoric and get our facts straight.

One of the things which seems very hypocritical to me is the endless whining of the Republicans about judicial nominations. Last I checked, they've enjoyed a much higher rate of confirmation than they allowed when the Democrats were in charge. Seems a little candy-ass to me to slap someone and then cry when you get slapped back.

The other thing which bugs me is how willing middle-class people are to defend the Republicans on energy policy. Gray Davis got chumped by Enron, and it's good to see him out of office. He is about as worthless as they come. But price-fixing is just plain wrong. I know my energy bills went up 45% after the "energy crisis" of 2 years ago. Who on the right is man enough to stick up for humble rate payer?

Maybe I haven't been totally even-handed, but I think it's important to be able to debate, and not to demonize the other side. Too often we get hung up with left vs. right, and we ignore the real policies. I don't care who's in the White House, so much as I care who's trying to pick my pocket...

Eric

[eric]

So much for conservative "tolerance."

The members of the democratic party are also free to speak their minds. You may not agree with them, but you will not be arrested for it. No one has infringed upon your rights.

how's this for an infantile graphic?

[/quote]

[MO]

they've enjoyed a much higher rate of confirmation than they allowed when the Democrats were in charge.

Wrong! Republicans have never filibustered a court nominee. The Democrats are forcing their will at the expense of the Constitution and the will of the people.

The main reason for the energy crisis in California was Democrats caving into pressure from whacko environmentalists who fought plans to build new power plants.

Sorry, but a conservative rant board seems like a silly place to moan and cry about demonizing the other side.

[Walter]

eric and vito

You guys are normal, 3D liberals and have been permitted to participate on this board even though you clearly HATE BUSH and choose not to provide examples.

MO printed the charter of a liberal website that boasts, "This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.(sic)"

That same charter also includes the following caution, "If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned."

And you two say that Liberals are:

1. Logical?
2. Tolerant?

Interesting because the commentary from the left on this board seems to be consistently permitted and tolerated, albeit we conservatives might feel that it is somewhat misguided.

Sure like a better rationalization about how the left views "tolerance" than was provided by Vito.

[guestvito]

Eric said:

they've enjoyed a much higher rate of confirmation than they allowed when the Democrats were in charge.

Mo responded:

Wrong! Republicans have never filibustered a court nominee. The Democrats are forcing their will at the expense of the Constitution and the will of the people.

Mo, Eric did not say that the Republicans filibustered more than the Democrats, he said that they blocked a higher percentage of Clinton nominees than the current Senate has for Bush. At least I think that's what he meant, and if he did he is absolutely correct. The New York Times had a very informative graphic demonstrating this a couple of weeks ago.

You are correct that the Republicans didn't filibuster under Clinton, but then they didn't have to: They controlled the Senate for all but two years! They did obstruct a number of Clintons nominations through other means, chiefly throught their control of committees and senate procedures. Some of Clinton's nominees were never brought to a vote because of such obstructionary tactics, and I fail to see how that is any more disrespectful of the Constitution than filibustering (which --let's not forget-- is a legitimate procedure under Senate rules).

I think this issue, and the issue of this thread, and a lot of the political issues currently brewing can be boiled down to this: conservatives are all for morality, rule of law, civility ... for the other guy!

Hey! I'm a German Shepherd!

[guestvito]

Like I said before, Walter, the democratic underground (?) site does not represent me or any progressives aside from those who run it.

Are there liberals who are intolerant of other people's opinions? sure! Is that a good thing? No! All I'm saying is that conservatives are at least as guilty, and if they want to criticise the mote in my eye they should first remove the beam from their own.

And I DID post an example in my last message. Didn't you see it? Once again I'm wondering if you actually read a post before you respond to it, or whether you simply spew out knee-jerk conservative boilerplate at the first whiff of a liberal.

[MO]

The point is that liberals are the ones who claim THEY are tolerant and point fingers. They really are only tolerant of people who share their group think. I can't speak for all conservatives but I would certainly admit that there are many types of things that I am not tolerant of. See the difference? I don't CLAIM to be "tolerant" and in fact I despise the fact that society has gotten to the point where it is considered a virtue!

"Tolerance is the last virtue in a virtueless society." D.J. Kennedy

I did not misunderstand Eric's post. Perhaps because I am not a morally bankrupt liberal, I don't consider the dems losing a nomination by a vote of the senate to be "blocking." You see, that is the way it is supposed to work, hun. What the dems are doing now is truly unprecedented.