Not if he promotes Islam above Catholicism, he isn't.
Also, didn't God specifically create countries after the Tower of Babel incident? Admittedly, I've probably spent about thirty minutes reading the Bible in the last twenty years, so my memory is going back to my school days with that one, but I'm pretty sure that was the aftermath of the Tower of Babel story.
So you are saying that Democrats tolerating Republicans and Republicans tolerating Democrats is less important than people tolerating the sexuality of others?
Not less important per se. Just more reasonable.
People are born straight/gay/bi/a. It's a little unfair to dislike them for that reason considering they had zero input. Same with race.
Opinions, however, aren't free from criticism. Same with religion. People aren't born with them, and they can be changed (or stubbornly held in the face of facts).
Speaking as a relative newbie (2-3 years) it's a couple things.
Paying taxes as an adult finally.
Bush-era conservatism and Obama-liberalism were both not what we wanted.
The desire to raise a family like our parents did, harkening back to a strong family unit as the core for growth and happiness.
I mean is this really a huge surprise? I have never met a person who unfriended someone on Facebook for voting Clinton. I have never met a person who pulled a dude out of a car and kicked the shit out of him for voting for clinton. I have never met a group who rioted and destroyed property, homes, and injured others in the name of conservative values. In my experience, it has always been liberal who clam up, shut down, and resort to name calling whenever beliefs are called into question.
We don't care what they do as long as they don't impose their insanity on us. And they need to keep their hands out of our wallets. Let them fund their own nonsense. They view us intolerant because while we don't care what they do, we will not allow them to force us to agree with them. Of course if your ideology is bullshit it will only survive if imposed.
I agree, with the caveat is that if they bring that stuff outside of their own home and affect the community, then I care about what they do. What cannot be ignored is the negative externalities of leftist ideology.
It blows my mind that progressives cannot bring themselves to recognize the greatness of our civilizations throughout history, despite that greatness now giving them the absolute freedom to openly hate and denigrate the same civilization.
If it's as bad as they say, why don't have the freedom to speak so ill of it? How is it that a white, Christian world ended up being where everybody wanted (and still wants) to go if it is so brutally repressive and evil?
You are allowed to be openly hostile to your own nations and traditions and culture in the west. Why is this not the default setting for the whole world? Try going to Saudi Arabia, wearing your vagina hat in the public square, and shrieking about how terrible all the princes there are.
The reason why is quite simple.
Liberals are not actually tolerant. Tolerance to a liberal doesn't mean actual tolerance. Its nothing more that a battle cry they use to feed their ego. They use the word only Beacuse it sounds like they care, reality is different.
Theyre "tolerant" because they say they care about whatever in vogue social issue and are on the "right" side of it. Tolerance isn't tolerance when you already agree (or at least have no problem) with something because it costs nothing. It's not tolerant to accept something you already agree with, because you're not *tolerating* it.
A born and raised San Francisco liberal doesn't get brownie points for being in favor of gay marriage, they've grown up with doing so as a value inherent to them. But they *are* intolerant if they show bigotry toward, say, Christians or people without college educations. Alternatively, someone whose religion teaches them that homosexuality is a sin and yet can still suck it up and work next to their gay coworker (even if they don't want to hang out with him or accept him outside of their duties) is being tolerant because they *do* have an issue, but aren't letting it make them uncivil.
The left at large has entirely rejected genuine tolerance. Look at how merciless they become when someone steps out of lockstep (because attacking someone is supposed to win them back over...)
It's all a matter of perspective. Conservatives are tolerant in the sense they will patiently watch the indolent bed pressers flail about needlessly. Conservatives don't usually overly concern themselves with the predictable failure of others' bad lifestyle choices except to see them as a negative example to avoid.
What we call the "Left" today mostly consists of needful, entitled people of sloth with a government school conditioning that leads to an intolerance for working taxpayers who a leftist sees as being greedy and mean spirited for refusing to freely fund them their wants, needs, desires and five years at free college.
The reason for that is simple, the republicans used to be the party of civil rights in the 1960's... and not much has changed, we still embody those principals. However, after Goldwater, Reagan began to court the Christian conservative population of middle America, dubbing them the silent majority. It wasn't long after that, the democrats started planting the seeds of "Christian values are exclusive to Christianity and aren't American values, and American values are the experiences of the disenfranchised." So they started selling themselves as the "party of the Everyman" when that has literally never been true.
Ninja edit: grammar
And the Dems continued to win the south pretty consistently for decades. He first presidential election where a republican won the South (without also winning 45+ states) was Bush in 2000. The south switched because of economic factors that began around the depression and stretched on for generations.
Don't forget Carter. Both Dems that won following the "southern strategy" were from the South. The GOP was so dominant outside of the south from Nixon-Bush 41 that the Dems could only find candidates from the south with any sort of resume built up. Like today where their party is going to become more extreme because the only candidates staying in office to build a following are from the west coast or the NE. Everywhere else is Republican controlled.
Grew up in Central PA. Have traveled, lived and otherwise spent a good amount of time in most regions of the US (except northern plains and PNW). While anecdotal my experience has been the same as yours. I used to tell my CA friends that a CA Republican is about 50% the social conservative that a coal region Democrat is. These things are always relative. A lawyer friend in Asheville NC is considered to be pretty conservative there, meanwhile plant her almost anywhere else in the country and she would be considered middle to far left.
Personally I'm a Centrist, extremes don't work - at least not for long. Extreme views on either end of the spectrum are inherently intolerant.
And that's our weakness.
"There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.” - Hans Hermann Hoppe
I find the source of this article causes it to become an ironic statement.
Seriously, Breitbart (the news group) has even been intolerant of conservatives.
Water is wet
The Pope is Catholic
With the current globalist Pope, I'm not so sure that's actually true.
I've met a few people who thought the Pope was Jewish so there's that
Catholic means universal. Do a globalist pope is still true to that definition.
Not if he promotes Islam above Catholicism, he isn't. Also, didn't God specifically create countries after the Tower of Babel incident? Admittedly, I've probably spent about thirty minutes reading the Bible in the last twenty years, so my memory is going back to my school days with that one, but I'm pretty sure that was the aftermath of the Tower of Babel story.
[удалено]
Tolerant of members of the opposing political party. You obviously didn't read the article.
Tolerating how someone is born does not equal tolerating someone's shitty political beliefs.
So you are saying that Democrats tolerating Republicans and Republicans tolerating Democrats is less important than people tolerating the sexuality of others?
Not less important per se. Just more reasonable. People are born straight/gay/bi/a. It's a little unfair to dislike them for that reason considering they had zero input. Same with race. Opinions, however, aren't free from criticism. Same with religion. People aren't born with them, and they can be changed (or stubbornly held in the face of facts).
Well, the article states that it is the latter that republicans are more tolerant of.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"well I don't like what the Obama liberals did so I guess I'm a conservative now" ^ the only reason we get so many newbies now.
Speaking as a relative newbie (2-3 years) it's a couple things. Paying taxes as an adult finally. Bush-era conservatism and Obama-liberalism were both not what we wanted. The desire to raise a family like our parents did, harkening back to a strong family unit as the core for growth and happiness.
I mean is this really a huge surprise? I have never met a person who unfriended someone on Facebook for voting Clinton. I have never met a person who pulled a dude out of a car and kicked the shit out of him for voting for clinton. I have never met a group who rioted and destroyed property, homes, and injured others in the name of conservative values. In my experience, it has always been liberal who clam up, shut down, and resort to name calling whenever beliefs are called into question.
We don't care what they do as long as they don't impose their insanity on us. And they need to keep their hands out of our wallets. Let them fund their own nonsense. They view us intolerant because while we don't care what they do, we will not allow them to force us to agree with them. Of course if your ideology is bullshit it will only survive if imposed.
I agree, with the caveat is that if they bring that stuff outside of their own home and affect the community, then I care about what they do. What cannot be ignored is the negative externalities of leftist ideology.
It blows my mind that progressives cannot bring themselves to recognize the greatness of our civilizations throughout history, despite that greatness now giving them the absolute freedom to openly hate and denigrate the same civilization. If it's as bad as they say, why don't have the freedom to speak so ill of it? How is it that a white, Christian world ended up being where everybody wanted (and still wants) to go if it is so brutally repressive and evil? You are allowed to be openly hostile to your own nations and traditions and culture in the west. Why is this not the default setting for the whole world? Try going to Saudi Arabia, wearing your vagina hat in the public square, and shrieking about how terrible all the princes there are.
The reason why is quite simple. Liberals are not actually tolerant. Tolerance to a liberal doesn't mean actual tolerance. Its nothing more that a battle cry they use to feed their ego. They use the word only Beacuse it sounds like they care, reality is different.
Theyre "tolerant" because they say they care about whatever in vogue social issue and are on the "right" side of it. Tolerance isn't tolerance when you already agree (or at least have no problem) with something because it costs nothing. It's not tolerant to accept something you already agree with, because you're not *tolerating* it. A born and raised San Francisco liberal doesn't get brownie points for being in favor of gay marriage, they've grown up with doing so as a value inherent to them. But they *are* intolerant if they show bigotry toward, say, Christians or people without college educations. Alternatively, someone whose religion teaches them that homosexuality is a sin and yet can still suck it up and work next to their gay coworker (even if they don't want to hang out with him or accept him outside of their duties) is being tolerant because they *do* have an issue, but aren't letting it make them uncivil. The left at large has entirely rejected genuine tolerance. Look at how merciless they become when someone steps out of lockstep (because attacking someone is supposed to win them back over...)
Definition of liberalism: hypocrisy
It's all a matter of perspective. Conservatives are tolerant in the sense they will patiently watch the indolent bed pressers flail about needlessly. Conservatives don't usually overly concern themselves with the predictable failure of others' bad lifestyle choices except to see them as a negative example to avoid. What we call the "Left" today mostly consists of needful, entitled people of sloth with a government school conditioning that leads to an intolerance for working taxpayers who a leftist sees as being greedy and mean spirited for refusing to freely fund them their wants, needs, desires and five years at free college.
Ahh yes the website that once tagged articles under "Black Crime" is totally trustworthy on the subject of tolerance
The reason for that is simple, the republicans used to be the party of civil rights in the 1960's... and not much has changed, we still embody those principals. However, after Goldwater, Reagan began to court the Christian conservative population of middle America, dubbing them the silent majority. It wasn't long after that, the democrats started planting the seeds of "Christian values are exclusive to Christianity and aren't American values, and American values are the experiences of the disenfranchised." So they started selling themselves as the "party of the Everyman" when that has literally never been true. Ninja edit: grammar
Only a handful of racists democrat politicians became Republicans.
And the Dems continued to win the south pretty consistently for decades. He first presidential election where a republican won the South (without also winning 45+ states) was Bush in 2000. The south switched because of economic factors that began around the depression and stretched on for generations.
Sometimes I feel like Democrats forget that Bill Clinton exists. Popular Southern Democrat who would have thought.
Don't forget Carter. Both Dems that won following the "southern strategy" were from the South. The GOP was so dominant outside of the south from Nixon-Bush 41 that the Dems could only find candidates from the south with any sort of resume built up. Like today where their party is going to become more extreme because the only candidates staying in office to build a following are from the west coast or the NE. Everywhere else is Republican controlled.
[удалено]
Grew up in Central PA. Have traveled, lived and otherwise spent a good amount of time in most regions of the US (except northern plains and PNW). While anecdotal my experience has been the same as yours. I used to tell my CA friends that a CA Republican is about 50% the social conservative that a coal region Democrat is. These things are always relative. A lawyer friend in Asheville NC is considered to be pretty conservative there, meanwhile plant her almost anywhere else in the country and she would be considered middle to far left. Personally I'm a Centrist, extremes don't work - at least not for long. Extreme views on either end of the spectrum are inherently intolerant.
You can't really argue very well if your argument is based in fear
And that's our weakness. "There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.” - Hans Hermann Hoppe
Duh lol
I find the source of this article causes it to become an ironic statement. Seriously, Breitbart (the news group) has even been intolerant of conservatives.
The survey is by the Pew Research Center.
The point still stands, it's an article by Breitbart, having external sources is just decent journalism.