Liberals Want You to Die if You Disagree with Them

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Libs 'claim' to be defenders of women's rights, then they defend Islam.

Islam like Christianity has it's sects that embrace equality of the sexes and those that don't. But it's difficult to get to that conversation when the freedom to practice a religion is under threat. In places like Syria, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan before coups and wars, women were legally and socially considered equal. Equality and safety for women is one of the first things to be lost or the hardest to gain in a destabilized society.

I wonder, why do these far-less-than-an-IQ-of -2 libtards not defend nazism in the same way??

There is a current Antifa movement that subscribes to a "punch a Nazi" theory. They are a small fraction of Leftists and a bunch of young college kids that don't know anything about Leftism but hate racism and run around half-cocked. Most of us on the Left defend the Nazi's right to speak, to rally, to demonstrate, to march... just because there will probably be Leftists of some kind there to counter rally, march etc... doesn't mean they are trying to shut them down.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: kaylaluv

Tolerance is the key to the so called "progressives" true feelings.

You shouldn't tolerate anyone, you should accept them or not accept them.
The conceit of tolerating someone is a flawed concept.

No.

Tolerance is all anyone has a right to expect from anyone else.

Acceptance means approval. Tolerance merely means you accept that they have a right to be who they are whether or not you approve of it. There are a lot of things in people I can tolerate that I do not and will never approve of. They have every right to live that way and I get that, but at the same time, I don't accept it as right or proper, if I did, I would live that way myself.

And let's turn that one on its head:

How many *accept* my Christian lifestyle?

How many *accept* how I choose to live my life and my family practice as a result?

I would hazard a guess many do not, nor do I expect them to. If you ask me my opinion, you get it, but in regular life, I'm simply doing what I do according to how I feel it should be done without preaching about it. I neither ask nor demand that everyone around me do likewise until what they do causes me seriously issues with how I have to go around in life.

But that's the definition of your rights ending where mine begin, and this is where we need to find ways to navigate around one another. Why must I learn to *accept* naked male bodies in my changing and locker rooms to assuage someone's mental discomfort when what's really going on is the shifting of the mental discomfort from them to me and others like myself? Isn't there another answer? If there is a right to use a locker or changing facility without that mental discomfort, then don't I have the same right they do? And if so, their right ends where mine begins, so the answer we have reached is imperfect and violates me as much as it ever did them.

I understand the idea of tyranny of the majority, but in liberating the minority, we have simply created another kind of tyranny.

There is no *share* involved in this. There is no thought to how we can compromise. There is simply my way trumps yours.

I am tired of it. If your way is valid, then so is mine, and you can't declare it invalid just because it's either the way things have always been done or the way you would prefer they not be done.

a reply to: veracity

Absolutely, it couldn't be possible that you're wrong.

I'm learning to tolerate you.

a reply to: ketsuko

Tolerance is a word bigots use to hide their bigotry.

Look at the definitions. You cannot tolerate something you agree with.

Saying you're tolerant is no different to saying you object.
It just means you pretentiously reject something.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Being a bigot is legal. It's disgusting but as long as a person is not acting on their bigotry by doing harm of any kind then there's not much else anyone can or should do about it. You can talk to them about their bigotry if they're willing to listen, that's it really. Otherwise we wander into thought police territory.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: ketsuko

Tolerance is a word bigots use to hide their bigotry.

Look at the definitions. You cannot tolerate something you agree with.

Saying you're tolerant is no different to saying you object.
It just means you pretentiously reject something.

I think maybe you also should look at the definition.

According to my American Heritage:

tolerate:

1. to allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit
2. to recognize and respect (the rights, opinions, or practices of others)
3. to put up with

If you look at the first two definitions, I can easily be said to tolerate things I also agree with. The United States is tolerant to or tolerates homoseoxuality and gay marriage under definition one. Someone who both agrees with and disagrees with gay marriage can tolerate the opinions and views of their ideological opponents under definition 2 (even definition 1).

It is only when you start to look at definition three that you start to deal exclusively with people who disagree with or dislike a thing and endure it as a part of tolerance. Today's left have no shown no signs of learning to tolerate a Trump presidency as an example of definition three.

And in fact, to go further, you cannot be both tolerant and a bigot.

The definition of bigotry according to the same American Heritage is a person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I can't be both tolerant and a bigot by definition, but I can very much be tolerant in the since of simply enduring a thing I personally am not fond of myself. A bigot would do his or her best to not allow that thing at all.

a reply to: ketsuko

According to the Constitution though, gay marriage shouldn't even be a debate due to the legal protections and privileges marriage offers. Everyone should be entitled to those protections and privileges.

It's sad that the 14th Amendment even had to be written let alone adopted but I'm so glad it was. It's unfortunate that people keep voting against equal protection and that we as a society can't just live and let live. It seems that we'd rather stay endlessly mired in the mud, despite how clearly our Constitution is written.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Excellent response. There are loony's on both sides. I would note that the difference is how pervasive it is on the left. They've gotten to the point that they can't even debate anymore without resorting to personal attacks and vitriol. I know, I've tried. I used to be able to say "agree to disagree" at the end of most debates. Now I'm told I'm an evil, science denying, uneducated bully. By any objective measure, I'm none of those, but they can't articulate their point so it's my fault for not getting it.

a reply to: Kali74

That's not true at all. Any man could marry any woman and receive those protections and privileges. The definition of marriage had to be redefined to accommodate homosexuals.

Using your logic the progressive income tax is in violation of the 14th amendment.

a reply to: Kali74


Perhaps this is best left to the people in the relationship. But....

Sanctioning by govt is a prelude to the benefits of spousal privileges. And was this at the center if the debate?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

According to the Constitution though, gay marriage shouldn't even be a debate due to the legal protections and privileges marriage offers. Everyone should be entitled to those protections and privileges.

It's sad that the 14th Amendment even had to be written let alone adopted but I'm so glad it was. It's unfortunate that people keep voting against equal protection and that we as a society can't just live and let live. It seems that we'd rather stay endlessly mired in the mud, despite how clearly our Constitution is written.

Please quote me the part of the Constitution that claims anyone (you, me, the gorilla down the street ...) has the right to be married.

All the 14th said was "Equal treatment under the law." It is the single most abused piece of law ever, and it wasn't even ratified the same way all the other Amendments were.

a reply to: seasonal

ohh here we go with this bull# ..

what you see and think is liberal isn't a liberal in my View
So should be call by some other Name

as I said Before and Ill say it again ..

What a Liberal had Ment at one Time was Pro Choice , Freedom of Movement ..
Not too Control ,your Life or Destiny

Basically
Conservatives are afraid of Change

The Meaning of Liberal 20 years ago was way different what it means now ..
just a Conservatives...

here some pics



and yet




Heres soome old Actual Xmass cards Fox News a very Conservative Broadcast that had Out
as showing that its Viewers are all Sheep


www.huffingtonpost.com...

although what most forget is The World is a Bussiness
and the Now President Trump had even said so ..
he himself predicted what the outcome would be if he had became president
over 20 years ago ..

instead of Obama its Trump Now


and for the So called Liberals protesting the Ban ...
most forget....



Dearly Deported
A record number of people were "removed" from the U.S. during President Obama's tenure as President.
www.snopes.com...

Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President
By SERENA MARSHALL Aug 29, 2016, 2:05 PM ET
abcnews.go.com...

its Going to be Fun

a Red State Cons vs Blue State Libs civil war ...
America is going to Destruct itself ...

Ill just sit back and eat some popcorn

a reply to: Wolfenz

You are already operating under a flawed paradigm when you use the European political axis as your basis for the left/right divide. As I'm sure you are thinking you are clever to note with that meme, either end ends in statist tyranny bouncing between communism and fascism where you claim freedom is the center.

But if you really study the American Founding and the ideals of the American Founders who were truly liberal in the classical sense, the American axis is between all forms of statist tyranny and state of existence with maximal personal liberty and the least government possible to stave off true anarchy.

In the end, a tyranny is a tyranny and it makes no difference whether your slave masters claim they are communists or fascists. The "end" of the political spectrum for the people is the same. So the only really different end you can seek is maximal freedom. In other words, the Euro axis is a lie.

a reply to: Wolfenz

Wow lot's of work that was not needed to be done. Congrats.

Take a second and go over my responses, you will find we agree.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Funny, I hear a lot of the same kind of stuff from the right. "Libtard", "diseased mind", "snowflake", "you're just butthurt, go play with your coloring book and play-dough", etc. I am clearly not retarded, my mind is disease-free, and I ain't no snowflake, nor do I act like an immature adult.

The world seems to have gotten so much uglier lately.

originally posted by: Kali74

Islam like Christianity has it's sects that embrace equality of the sexes and those that don't. But it's difficult to get to that conversation when the freedom to practice a religion is under threat. In places like Syria, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan before coups and wars, women were legally and socially considered equal. Equality and safety for women is one of the first things to be lost or the hardest to gain in a destabilized society.

Yep. I'd just like to add that the Quran gives women equal rights. Women were allowed to run businesses, own property, travel alone, make the decision on whom they will marry -- all of that is allowed for in the Quran. Certain ultra conservative sects (Wahhabism) came along and tried to change that. In these destabilized countries, they won out.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wolfenz

You are already operating under a flawed paradigm when you use the European political axis as your basis for the left/right divide. As I'm sure you are thinking you are clever to note with that meme, either end ends in statist tyranny bouncing between communism and fascism where you claim freedom is the center.

But if you really study the American Founding and the ideals of the American Founders who were truly liberal in the classical sense, the American axis is between all forms of statist tyranny and state of existence with maximal personal liberty and the least government possible to stave off true anarchy.

In the end, a tyranny is a tyranny and it makes no difference whether your slave masters claim they are communists or fascists. The "end" of the political spectrum for the people is the same. So the only really different end you can seek is maximal freedom. In other words, the Euro axis is a lie.

and Thats what im getting at

So you are saying this isn't Accurate a little to far Right or too far left
the Middle is the balance
in all ,it actually its the Fight of Who is right in the battle of the Blue Hat vs Red hat


and say European ? LOL

Our Whole American Government System is Based on Roman Law System !
which the Entire Land of Europe goes By...

and what does that Fasci and Eagle Represent ??
America is part of the system ..



The Ideals of American Founders ...
are the classic sense of being a Liberal your right..
although most of them were Freemasons with their Secret
individual protection policy within that Society Club ...

and you do believe i assume ?

all need to see is the Top ViewLayout of the Washington D.C.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Wolfenz

Wow lot's of work that was not needed to be done. Congrats.

Take a second and go over my responses, you will find we agree.

We probaly do , I was just Ranting about the ordeal

it wasn't directly focus on you

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Wolfenz

Wow lot's of work that was not needed to be done. Congrats.

Take a second and go over my responses, you will find we agree.

We probaly do , I was just Ranting about the ordeal

it wasn't directly focus on you

it was the first post.... and im sifting through the thread now

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
Right-wing extremist posts thread making a blanket claim which is prima facie false that all liberals are murderous. 25 pages of absurdity ensue. It's a sad thing and I'm afraid a fruitless thing to be a person of thought and nuance in this sea of hatred, selective ignorance, of tribal grooming. ATS is functionally owned by people just this side of Stormfront and so it will always be, as this is how people in editorial positions want it to be. I stop by every now and again these days to remind myself what it looks like to see a bunch of fascists stroking each other's ego in the proverbial bath house.

None of the statements in your word salad are true.

That's adorable, Les Mis! Not only did you find it in your heart to take a swing at me, but you did it so clumsily that it suggests you're a bit rattled by the company that you keep. Or perhaps it's the empty arguments you frame up for them so the masses can take swings at your scarecrows that are getting to you? Maybe there's enough rattling around between your ears that the cognitive dissonance makes you a tad uncomfortable?

Oh yes, I know where your sophistry goes next, moving the ball of fascism down the field. I will say that the title of the thread is nauseating in its grotesque abuse of logic and implication that liberals need to be killed:

"Liberals Want You to Die if You Disagree with Them"

And you will say that only the mentally deranged liberal mind would interpret this to mean all liberals. Clearly an honest reading would prepend the word "some" to the title, conferring upon the author the appropriate benefit of the doubt. No?

Mother told me not to dance with liars, but what can I say. Perhaps I take a perverse joy in tracing the lines of your vile ideology. Perhaps I think this first-hand experience will be important to the goal of educating the next generation as to where your politics lead. I'm only human.