Anti trump protesters, hurling rocks at vehicles,etc.. special poll inside.

[Jhhnn]

Just as I looked back at my support for Obama and cringe.

Fucking disaster.

What part of the slight progress Repubs have allowed makes you cringe?

The inevitably drawn out process of recovering from a class warfare top down looting spree?

Still growing inequality?

FYGM not quite what it used to be?

What?

Do you really think that a guy who says American wages are too high will fix anything?

 

[LegendKiller]

No one is forcing anyone to be silent. Everyone is welcome to their views, but as I mentioned before conservatives not only want to hold their own views, but be free from any consequences for those views.

My decision not to patronize a business isn't any attempt to silence them, it's my choice (and my freedom of speech and association) not to do business with repugnant people.



Except no one has ever argued for limitless tolerance. Like, ever. So yes, you can absolutely argue for tolerance of some things and not others. That's literally what has happened in every argument about tolerance for all of human history.

You've been snookered by a straw man that conservative tell themselves. Ironically this is the same straw man that makes them think liberals are immoral hedonists.

Free from what consequences?

Using the State to enforce intolerance isn't tolerance. Forcing you to bake a cake, or else, isn't freedom from consequences, it is intolerance.

The consequence should have been lost business, not the State stepping in and running them out of business in some forced tolerance intolerance.

 

[LegendKiller]

What part of the slight progress Repubs have allowed makes you cringe?

The inevitably drawn out process of recovering from a class warfare top down looting spree?

Still growing inequality?

FYGM not quite what it used to be?

What?

Do you really think that a guy who says American wages are too high will fix anything?

That you still think this is binary is laughable.

This is what I find very sad about you and Eski, you think I give a fuck about the Repubs, but you guys clearly think that "#IMWITHHER" really is any different. The UniParty dominates.

 

[Jhhnn]

Free from what consequences?

Using the State to enforce intolerance isn't tolerance. Forcing you to bake a cake, or else, isn't freedom from consequences, it is intolerance.

The consequence should have been lost business, not the State stepping in and running them out of business in some forced tolerance intolerance.

Wearing your sheets today? That sounds like Alabama, circa 1964.

 

[fskimospy]

You think I give a fuck what you laugh at? You're the one voting to continue devolving this country, I don't laugh, I pity you.

And when Trump is President I will revel in your dismay.

I will give you that, the amount of people laughing at you doesn't seem to change how you behave. Feel free and puff up all you want about Trump being the president. You can't make me angry, so you're just wasting your time.

You are so easy to tease. I would do it less if you didn't react so much to it, haha. It's a character flaw of mine.

 

[LegendKiller]

I will give you that, the amount of people laughing at you doesn't seem to change how you behave. Feel free and puff up all you want about Trump being the president. You can't make me angry, so you're just wasting your time.

You are so easy to tease. I would do it less if you didn't react so much to it, haha. It's a character flaw of mine.

So you are admitting to being a troll?

 

[LegendKiller]

Wearing your sheets today? That sounds like Alabama, circa 1964.

I'd rather support somebody's ability to speak freely than go down the other path, no matter how much I disagreed with their opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

Free from what consequences?

Using the State to enforce intolerance isn't tolerance. Forcing you to bake a cake, or else, isn't freedom from consequences, it is intolerance.

The consequence should have been lost business, not the State stepping in and running them out of business in some forced tolerance intolerance.

This just gets better and better. Keep going! Tell us some more of your precious opinions. Hahaha.

 

[Indus]

Having an issue with illegal immigration does not make you an anti-immigrant xenophobe. Calling almost all immigrants from Mexico rapists, does.

Sad thing is it's not just immigrants from Mexico. I live in a part of NYC which has a very heavy Asian population and I've personally seen Trump supporters be violent towards who they presume are all illegal immigrants.

Heck my neighbor was run over by a truck by a Trump supporter and it was in the news last August.

Trump supporters who I've seen personally in the flesh, whoever is not like them is an illegal immigrant and that is a very dangerous rhetoric.

 

[fskimospy]

So you are admitting to being a troll?

No, I'm admitting to having a weakness for mocking stupid people.

 

[PokerGuy]

No one is forcing anyone to be silent. Everyone is welcome to their views, but as I mentioned before conservatives not only want to hold their own views, but be free from any consequences for those views.

Oh, so you don't think violence against people who's views you don't like is forcing them to be silent? Because that's exactly what's happening in this case. They don't like Trump and/or his message, so they react violently in an attempt to prevent him from speaking. That's pretty much a textbook example of intolerance.

My decision not to patronize a business isn't any attempt to silence them, it's my choice (and my freedom of speech and association) not to do business with repugnant people.

That is well within your rights to do so, that's your own personal choice.

So yes, you can absolutely argue for tolerance of some things and not others. That's literally what has happened in every argument about tolerance for all of human history.

..... thus confirming my point. You argue for tolerance of the ideas you support, and are intolerant of those you don't. You want other people to tolerate the ideas they don't like (but you do), and at the same time you want to be intolerant of the ideas that you don't like and argue they should not be tolerated. That makes you a hypocrite.

You've been snookered by a straw man that conservative tell themselves.

I haven't been snookered by anything. You're just blinded by our self righteousness into believing that every idea you support is just and right (and should thus be tolerated), while the ideas you oppose are automatically unjust and should not. You're not alone in that though, there are many such self righteous hypocrites.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd rather support somebody's ability to speak freely than go down the other path, no matter how much I disagreed with their opinion.

Operating a public business is not speech.

 

[LegendKiller]

No, I'm admitting to having a weakness for mocking stupid people.

Ahh, the smell of liberal smugness in the afternoon.

 

[LegendKiller]

Operating a public business is not speech.

You mean a private business?

 

[Vic]

The circus clown is intentionally stirring up people's emotions and dividing them in his lust for the Presidency, so expect this to get worse.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, so you don't think violence against people who's views you don't like is forcing them to be silent? Because that's exactly what's happening in this case. They don't like Trump and/or his message, so they react violently in an attempt to prevent him from speaking. That's pretty much a textbook example of intolerance.



That is well within your rights to do so, that's your own personal choice.



..... thus confirming my point. You argue for tolerance of the ideas you support, and are intolerant of those you don't. You want other people to tolerate the ideas they don't like (but you do), and at the same time you want to be intolerant of the ideas that you don't like and argue they should not be tolerated. That makes you a hypocrite.



I haven't been snookered by anything. You're just blinded by our self righteousness into believing that every idea you support is just and right (and should thus be tolerated), while the ideas you oppose are automatically unjust and should not. You're not alone in that though, there are many such self righteous hypocrites.

You just proved that you have in fact been snookered. You just once again tried to argue that liberals are hypocrites based off a right wing straw man of their position on intolerance. They got you!

 

[Atreus21]

Wait, you actually think that nonsense is right? Sigh. Take a second and think about the incredibly dumb outcomes from that idea. No one wants everyone to be tolerant of everything, they want people to dispense with irrational intolerance.

Well, irrational according to liberals at least.

I'm perfectly fine with anyone holding any opinion they want, but what conservatives actually want is not just freedom of opinion but freedom from consequences for that opinion. That one they don't get, haha.

There is no sane (to say nothing of tolerant) world in which a man should get fined or imprisoned for his willingness to provide any good or service a gay couple wants except for servicing their wedding.

 

[fskimospy]

You mean a private business?

No, a public business. Public accommodation laws only apply to businesses open to the public.

Not speech. End of story.

 

[Subyman]

But it might help those who were still not fully decided to switch to trump. And why would these protesters going violent, disrupting traffic,rioting,etc.. is supposed to help their cause?

I don't think it helps, but I don't see undecideds going for Trump only because people are protesting him. It doesn't make any sense to do that. I can see it causing his current supporters to plant them selves more firmly on his side (them against us kind of junk that people tend to get emotional about.)

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh, the smell of liberal smugness in the afternoon.

Your skin is so thin it might as well be translucent.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Having an issue with illegal immigration does not make you an anti-immigrant xenophobe. Calling almost all immigrants from Mexico rapists, does.

I'm fine with that. But there are those on the left that believe exactly what I stated. Deliberate obfuscation.

 

[PokerGuy]

You just proved that you have in fact been snookered. You just once again tried to argue that liberals are hypocrites based off a right wing straw man of their position on intolerance. They got you!

Right wing straw man? I specifically pointed to your stated position. You want others who disagree with you to be tolerant of your ideas, but you want to be intolerant to the ideas of others you disagree with. That's not a straw man, that's what you stated. You can't get away from that fundamental dichotomy. Either you want people to be tolerant of ideas they disagree with, or you don't. Saying "be tolerant of the ideas I'm OK with, but not of others" is being a hypocrite.

 

[LegendKiller]

Your skin is so thin it might as well be translucent.

Says the guy that can't bear to have somebody disagree that he has to use the State to squelch their opinion. Show us on the picture where the bad guy harmed you with his free speech!

 

[LegendKiller]

No, a public business. Public accommodation laws only apply to businesses open to the public.

Not speech. End of story.

No, it is a private business which the State has no right to enforce their views. A person's personal beliefs shouldn't be trampled on. That was the intent of our country. Don't like that business? Go to another. When enough people go to the other business, the intolerant one goes bankrupt. Simple.

Do you not realize that the pendulum always swings the other direction and, when it does, it won't end well for you?

Keep swinging it to the extreme and you'll see where it gets you.

Be more moderate and live and let live and things will work out fine.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it is a private business which the State has no right to enforce their views.

Do you not realize that the pendulum always swings the other direction and, when it does, it won't end well for you?

Keep swinging it to the extreme and you'll see where it gets you.

Public accommodation laws are a half century old. Government has the indisputable power to regulate businesses, especially ones open to the public.

Saying that businesses who open their doors to the public must serve the public is not an even remotely extreme position and it's one that's accepted by basically everyone. You lost this fight a long time ago. Keep flailing against the 1960's though!

My position is in fact extremely moderate, as public accommodation laws enjoy overwhelming support. Your position is a fringe nutcase position. Try taking your own advice.