John McCain may have called Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance," but students there lent a respectful ear when McCain recently addressed them. Yet when the senator spoke at the opposite end of the political spectrum, at New York's New School University, the students threw a tantrum and did their utmost to express their contempt-which is, of course, what they do best.
What more can one say about the smug, superior, privileged denizens of the campus left, who most clearly don't believe in open debate, since their favorite tactic is either to bar alternative opinions from their campus fiefdoms or, if that fails, to drown them out with catcalls? It's the intolerant, infantile behavior that keeps the heartland voting for cultural conservatives.
58 Comments for “The Left Exposes Itself.”
posted by kittynboi on
Well, I can’t say I blame them for not liking McCain.
posted by Kevin on
I prefer the far left’s naked shouting down of a speaker they disagree with over the far right’s tactic of listening politely and all the while conducting a “swift-boating”, character assassination whisper campaign.
posted by Michael M. on
I don’t get it. A conservative university invites a conservative Senator to speak at its graduation and its students listen politely. That proves what exactly?
It was, in fact, the liberal university that invited the conservative Senator to speak in the first place. Let’s talk about “open debate” when Liberty University invites Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold to speak.
But don’t hold your breath.
posted by Bobby on
I hate John McCommie, however, the left tactics of shouting down speakers they disagree with resemble the nazis shouting down anyone who disagreed with them in the 1930s. Perhaps the leftwingers are wannabe nazis without the balls. Either way, John McCommie has learned he can’t have it both ways. He can’t pander to the right and the left at the same time. The people in the right already know all his lies about guns, free speech (campaign finance reform), etc. The left will only embrace him if he acts like their puppet, saying only what they want to hear, and associating only with a list of approved subjects. Either way, there’s nothing conservative about the senator from Arizona, he’s not even a neo-con, he’s nothing more than a RINO, the kind of person that mayor Bloomberg probably admires. Shame on whoever calls McCain a conservative. Typical liberal spin! When McCain plays your game, he’s a moderate, when he doesn’t, he’s a conservative. People, he’s a politician! He will play anyone to get elected president or re-elected senator. You have been warned.
posted by JimG on
I think the sorry point of this story is that the Left, which is supposed to be “Liberal” and is nothing close to it (one of the definitionsis “tolerant” which might be stretched to mean listening to another point of view?!?)has become as entrenched, fixated, stuck in its own orthodoxy just like the old status quo that the free speech movement fought to overcome so many years ago. I was there. I saw it. The Laugh-In generation vs Leave it To Beaver. It took awhile (maybe not as long as some may have supposed it would) but the Left has become everything it fought to change. They have adopted the Gloria Allred method of dialogue-shout them down, interupt them and intimidate them so that they don’t dare speak out again. They claim diversity (which to them means anything except a straight white male)in form but not in thought. A day’s listening to Pacifica Radio will illustrate that point.
posted by Avee on
One commenter above calls McCain “a conservative senator,” another labels him “John McCommie.” I guess it’s clear what McCain really is, that rare political bird, a centrist. Which is why the extremes hate him. On the far right, Falwell (seeing he’s the likley GOP nominee) is trying to mend fences, but Pat Robertson recently attacked McCain as dangerous and said he couldn’t be trusted. The left hates anyone who doesn’t preach appeasment of totalitarianism and American guilt for “war crimes” (sad, since McCain actually endored torture as a prisoner of war).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am reminded of the hymn "Once in David’s Royal City: Christian children all must be … Mild, obedient, meek as He." But more to the point, the reason that Senator McCain was invited to speak is that the Reverend Falwell and Senator McCain have had a rapproachment, with both of them falling all over each to make nice. As the Reverend Falwell put it to the Lynchberg News & Advance on March 28, when he announced that he’d picked McCain to speak at the commentment: "I was in Washington with him about three months ago. We dealt with every difference we have. There are no deal breakers now. … He is in the process of healing the breech with evangelical groups." Did you seriously think that Liberty University students would shout down the Reverend Falwell’s hand-picked commencement speaker? Get real, Steve. Since we are talking about Senator McCain, let’s talk about Senator McCain’s views on same-sex marriage. In the News & Advance article, the Reverend Falwell, by the way, noted that while Senator McCain previously took the position that the matter of defining marriage should be handled by state legislatures, Senator McCain now concedes that a federal statute may be necessary. A bit of background. Senator McCain voted againt the FMA in 2004. He’s said he’ll vote against it again when it comes up in a few weeks. But nonetheless, Senator McCain is quite willing to play "faggot, faggot", right in there with the Reverend Falwell. The question is a choice of venue, apparently. Senator McCain says he will vote against the FMA in June because he’s a federalist: "I’m a federalist. I believe that a state ought to decide what happens within that state. I’ve always held that position on a broad variety of issues." However, Senator McCain is cosponsoring a state amendment on the ballot in Arizona that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In addition, Senator McCain assured Falwell that if federal courts overrule the states on their various DOMA laws, he would change his position and support the FMA. The Reverend Falwell is satisfied, apparently. When asked if he was satisfied with Senator McCain’s position, the Reverend Falwell said: "I am. I wish he would shortcut it, because I don’t think there’s any question that the federal courts are one by one going to overrule the state amendments." And to think that Arizona once had a conservative senator with a pair between his legs. How we have fallen.
posted by kittynboi on
I guess it’s clear what McCain really is, that rare political bird, a centrist
I think McCain is just an oppurtunist, ready to try and please the anti gay forces just to run in 08. I’ve never hate McCain before this, but I never liked him either. I’ve always thought some of the McCain worship from those who love him was just a bit of hype.
posted by Anthony on
Is anyone seriously surprised that McCain was booed at a liberal institution and not at Liberty? I read a few months ago about the gay Christian organization Soul Force visiting Falwell’s school and being met with generally positive reactions from the students, if not Falwell himself. I’ve also heard Falwell say that gays have every guaranteed right that all Americans enjoy (I think he was talking about denying gays housing in some parts of the country). Yeah, that’s a small concession to make. But in looking at the situation broadly, I think most far-right folks are predominantly concerned about redefining marriage and not legal contracts between consenting adults or housing or other rights we all have. If I sound like an apologist for Falwell and others like him, I accept that. I just think spending too much time being outraged over who said what and where is physically and mentally exhausting. I think it’s highly important to pick our battles. My partner and I choose to break down stereotypes one person, one heart at a time. Others choose to march, carry banners and join organizations aimed at gay equality. I think that’s great. Did I get off-subject here?
posted by Michael M. on
I fail to grasp how anyone can view McCain as a centrist or anything other than a conservative. For Pete’s sake, the man endorsed teaching creationism in the science curriculum. What exactly does a pandering anti-intellectual have to say to inspire people who value education? Sorry, JimG, but I don’t value “diversity” for diversity’s sake. I value truth and intellectual rigor and honesty, not this crap culture of assertion America seems to be embracing: “I believe it, so you have to respect my beliefs, because I believe it.” Bull. If that makes me intolerant, I’m happy to embrace the label. I’ve never been and never will be tolerant of stupidity. Neither should the graduates of the New School be. Bravo to them for shouting him down. Bravo to anyone who stands up to these religious whackjobs who want to pretend that their crazy ideas deserve a place at the table. Stupidity and bigotry don’t deserve respect just because someone relabels them “religion.”
posted by dalea on
From the articles on the subject, what the students were objecting to was McCain’s stump speech. One of the shouters said air: this is a graduation not a get out the vote rally. Which is hardly shouting him down. Just disagreeing with someone who showed up to give a speech that was inappropriate to the occasion.
What I take from this is that conservative students do as they are told to do; liberal students make up their own minds. I do not see any coordinated effort at the New School, just inviduals speaking their mind when confronted with obvious bullshit.
As said above, the true test will come when a conservative school invites a strong backboned liberal to speak. Which we are still waiting for.
What is the point of this article? To oppose the 1967 free speech movement yet again?
posted by Ed Brown on
So because some liberal students exercised their first amendnment right, all liberals are evil, wicked, elitist people?
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
I’ve met Liberty U students who were suspended from class for reading forbidden books. The kids there don’t have free-speech rights, and they have to jump more or less at their administrators’ command. Now, it’s perfectly legal for Falwell’s private university to do these things to its students. But don’t compare them to students at a genuine university, one which places at least a little value on free speech and inquiry.
BTW, when Soulforce riders tried to visit Liberty U this spring, they were arrested for trespassing. So much for Falwell’s nice receptions.
posted by Anthony on
Okay, let me clarify something – I don’t believe that all liberals are mean and evil, just as I don’t regard all conservatives as knee-jerk, bigoted reactionaries. My observation was that some of the students at this school in New York were behaving like immature grade schoolers. Would they think it so brave if someone literally stood with their back to Bill Clinton or Jesse Jackson at a more right-of-center institution? And what about the hullabaloo surrounding Condi’s speech at Boston College? This is a graduation ceremony, not a congressional floor debate or an argument in front of the Supreme Court. Save the theatrics and melodrama for their appropriate time and place.
posted by Avee on
I fail to grasp how anyone can view McCain as a centrist or anything other than a conservative.
Among other things, conservatives won’t forgive him for voting against the Bush tax cuts, and the Federal Marriage Amendment.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
So partisan religious conservative students didn’t respond as negatively to a partisan conservative as partisan liberal students do, and this is evidence of “tolerance?”
Something tells me that Liberty University wouldn’t even allow a liberal gay partisan Larry Kramer or Uravshi Vaid to speak at all, let alone be subject to conservative catcalls.
Apples to oranges. Applauding conservatives for not screaming down one of their own as evidence of “tolerance” is a remarkably low standard.
posted by Bobby on
“I fail to grasp how anyone can view McCain as a centrist or anything other than a conservative.”
—That’s because you only read liberal websites and newspapers. If you visited conservative websites, you’d learn that most conservatives consider him a liberal for his support of gun control and campaign finance reform.
The other issues you mention, like creationism, are just stupid pandering, nothing more. It affects very few people. Only religious nuts and atheists care if God is mentioned in the classroom. Normal Americans don’t break in hives if you mention God once in a while. That’s why every president says “God bless America.”
Pandering means nothing. Today Hillary Clinton can say she supports free speech while tomorrow she’s signing a bill to restrict it. Politicians with convictions vote as they promise. John McCain is a dishonest SOB who uses his vietnam status as a selling point. It didn’t work for Kerry and eventually it’s not going to work for him.
The only people voting for McCain are moderate republicans. Conservative republicans learned their lessons and someday he will be defeated.
posted by Bobby on
“Something tells me that Liberty University wouldn’t even allow a liberal gay partisan Larry Kramer or Uravshi Vaid to speak at all, let alone be subject to conservative catcalls.”
—And why should we? What can I learn from a man who wrote a book called “Faggot” and a woman who makes Fidel Castro look like a moderate?
I’m gay and i’m ashamed of them.
When liberal universities learn to embrace intellectual diversity, then maybe we’ll let some of your radicals come to our campuses. Until then, no deal.
They should call this site liberalgayforum.com. I rarely come here anymore, it’s full of liberal opinions. If I wanted that kind of garbage, I’d go to advocate.com where they think Mary Chenney should be crucified.
Gays like you make me homophobic. What a shame.
posted by dalea on
Looking around on this topic, I did find a little more information. Seems when anti-war Democrats have given commencement speechs, the conservative students have heckled, turned their backs and in one instance the police had to be called into to protect the speaker.
This situation is not solely the provinence of the left: it appears that conservative students are doing as much if not more. Here is the link and a quote.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-wsj-and-instapundit-really-mean.html
“So, to re-cap the rules: (1) When a pro-war politician gives a pro-war speech as part of a graduation ceremony, and students in the audience heckle and boo him, that shows how Deranged the Angry Left is — because they heckled a pro-war speech. (2) When an anti-war politician gives an anti-war speech as part of a graduation ceremony, and students in the audience heckle, walk out and even riot, that also shows how Angry the Left is — because they “provoked a near riot” by pro-war students.”
posted by dalea on
Quote:’What can I learn from a man who wrote a book called “Faggot” and a woman who makes Fidel Castro look like a moderate?’
Actually the book title is plural, “Faggots”. This book was an exploration of the role of promiscuity in the gay world. And in general a denunciation of same. It was a call to action and a meditation on the meaning of being gay. Pre-AIDS also. So, my experience was that there was a lot to learn from the book. But then I actually read it.
Just what makes Uravshi Vaid more extreme than Castro? Examples please. Has she advocated rounding up disenters and putting them into camps? Used the death penalty to silence opponents? Expelled people from the country she rules? She rules a country? What is the point of this gibberish, or does it have one? I feel that I am seeing someone turning up their name calling.
posted by JimG on
To Michael M: I’m glad you have figured out The Truth as well as intellectual rigor and honesty. But you missed my point. I don’t care if you or anyone “respect” my beliefs. I don’t even care if you listen to them. But you, nor anyone else have the right to shout me down. I do not grant you that right, nor will I ever. The responsibility that comes with supporting the assertion of free speech is that somewhere along the way someone is going to say something that you REALLY don’t want to hear. So what do you do then? Accept the label of “intolerant” and shout them down? With the freedom comes the responsiblity. Whether you are on the Right or Left, shouting someone down is undignifiedand immature.
posted by Anthony on
The whole discussion here amplifies what many of us in the gay conservative-Republican camp have known for some time – that our liberal counterparts are great at proclaiming their open-minded, tolerant viewpoint UNTIL someone dares to challenge them. I used to own this great bumper sticker that read: “Bigot: A conservative winning an argument with a liberal.” Think about it folks. And I must agree that this site seems to have attracted far too many lefties. You have plenty of blogs to moan and whine about how unfair life is, so please go there. Some folks aren’t quite so happy with being unhappy.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Bobby’s responses proved my point about the right in spades. They don’t want pluralism, they’re not interested in letting others share less mainstream opinions, and anybody who doesn’t toe the party line on any issue, no matter how small, is automatically a “liberal” who is to be censored and/or ignored.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“this site seems to have attracted far too many lefties”
That’s funny, last time I checked, the site was the Independent Gay Forum, not the Republican Gay Forum. Many who are truly independent here will disagree with Republicans, and that’s what makes us “independent.” Further, conservative purity tests are a hoot… on several issues I bet I’m more “conservative” than the whingy GOP partisans who insist on calling anyone who disagrees with them, on any point, a “liberal.”
posted by Bobby on
And gays want pluralism? Don’t make me laugh. The web is full of stories about how pluralistic and open minded gays/liberals are.
“CAmerica’s Most Tolerant City
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14187779.htm
City officials in San Francisco described as obnoxious, disgusting and unwelcome a group of young Christians who gathered there with the stated intention of steering youth away from a popular culture that glamorizes drugs, sex and violence, according to the AP.
Nevertheless, the rally by a Texas-based evangelical group, lured some 25,000 to the city’s AT&T park over the weekend. It’s organizer, Run Luce, said it was the first time his efforts have been met with official condemnation in America.
The city’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution earlier in the week condemning the gathering as an “act of provocation” by an “anti-gay,” “anti-choice” group aiming to “negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.”
posted by Anthony on
Okay, Mr. Libertarian – are you an independent or are you a libertarian? Oh my – could this mean YOU are aligned in one way or another? Yep, that’s exactly what it means. Ah, you gotta love hypocrisy from those self-proclaimed independents! And yes, this the Independent Gay Forum, but again lefties seem to have made it their own. Honestly, do you ever smile or spend time in your life reflecting on the blessings you have? Or have you so messed things up that you can’t? I don’t know, just guessing here. As for you being more conservative than me, all I can say is I do not care one iota, but your incessant moaning and bitching suggests you’re not.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
NEL: “Further, conservative purity tests are a hoot … on several issues I bet I’m more “conservative” than the whiny GOP partisans who insist on calling anyone who disagrees with them, on any point, a “liberal.”
I’ve watched Republican “conservatism” over about forty years now, and one of the things I’ve noticed is that the so-called “conservatives” who hold dominin in the Republican Party today — the “social conservatives” — are, on the whole quick to whine, and, typical of whiners, quick to bully.
The bullying takes two forms — “labeling” anyone, including most pointedly economic and constitutional conservatives, as “liberals”, and constantly threatening to “withhold the base” if minimum demands are not met. We’ve seen a lot of this in recent months, as we do before every election cycle.
As others have noted in other threads concerning GLBT issues, the “social conservatives” are not, at least on GLBT issues, capable of supporting the political and cultural demands that they make with rational discourse — “social conservative” arguments on GLBT issues quickly fall apart under scrutiny, and before long the only thing left to their argument is “You must do it because I want it …”
Within the modern Republican Party, social conservatives create a dilemma for moderates and economic and constitutional conservatives. Because social conservatives issue “demands” and are typically unwilling to engage in the art of political compromise, Republican moderates and traditional conservatives are forced into a position of “satisfying” social conservatives just enough to get them to the polls each election cycle.
Typically, this takes the form of “talking the talk” while trying to do as little as possible to satisfy the demands of social conservatives while appearing to do so.
I’ve watched the process in Wisconsin this year with some amusement. The Republican Party in this state, which is in trouble because the national leadership has made such a muck, has pulled out all the usual stops to “satisfy” the social conservative “base”. In rapid succession, the Republican-controlled legislature put an anti-marriage, anti-civil union constitutional amendment on the November ballot, enacted a “concealed carry” law (vetoed, so it won’t become law, much to the consternation of GLBT folk in the state who think that it might be a useful and enlightened alternative to a hate crimes law as a way to cut down on gay-bashing), and put a death penalty amendment on the November ballot, among other things. The Republican efforts to “energize the base” are so transparent that local newspapers in the state (not the big-city “liberal” papers, but the small-town papers like the Baraboo News-Republic and the Marshfield News-Herald) are calling the Republicans out on the matter.
Nationally, it is much the same, of course. The FMA is back around again this cycle, as are various other traditional election cycle noisemakers.
All of this would be funny if it weren’t destroying the Republican Party. The party used to be something that I could embrace, because it was the party of small government, fiscal responsibility and constitutional sanity. No longer.
posted by kittynboi on
You have plenty of blogs to moan and whine about how unfair life is, so please go there.
Said right after…..
our liberal counterparts are great at proclaiming their open-minded, tolerant viewpoint UNTIL someone dares to challenge them.
As for you being more conservative than me, all I can say is I do not care one iota, but your incessant moaning and bitching suggests you’re not.
If constant complaining means one is not conservative, then you must be to the left of Micheal Moore.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I’m a small-l libertarian and a large-L Libertarian.
I’m independent in that I’m not a member of the two old parties. I’m also independent in that both the Democrats and Republicans have rejected libertarian ideas utterly and gone about building a big-government, wiretapping, liberty destroying, tax-and-spend, huge and growing government super-hydra which “conservatives” and “liberals” alternately bash or stridently defend depending upon which tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum party is in power at the time.
On “liberal” web sites, I’m told that I can go off to Free Republic and hang out with Fred Phelps for my radical propositions such as liberty isn’t just restricted to the bedroom but also should be part of one’s financial decisions.
On “independent conservative” web sites, I’m told that I’m a liberal who should go elsewhere because I dare criticize the Republican party.
My response is, both ideologies are morally and substantively bankrupt. And they’re both absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid, and represented by stupid people. I want to rip my face off every time Al Franken, Bill O’Reilly, Jeanine Garafalo, George Dubya, Paul Krugman or Malcolm Forbes Jr. deign to lecture us in their smug, condescending, out-of-touch style which puts partisanship over reality.
“As for you being more conservative than me, all I can say is I do not care one iota”
Well, assuming your standard, it’s your whinging and bitching which should go off the site, no?
“your incessant moaning and bitching suggests you’re not”
Well, what can I say. I don’t like Republican administrations who are working to overturn the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. If you expect me to stop voicing legitimate concerns over such egregious predations simply because the guy doing them is “your guy,” I suggest you not waste any further effort on that pursuit. 🙂
posted by dalea on
Bobby seems to be from the Ann Coulter school of research methodology: just make stuff up. Like: Uravshi Vaid is more extreme than Castro. Still wondering what is evidence is for this statement. Since then he has gone on argue that the web is ‘full of’ stories like the one he quotes from a right wing source. AIR the reason that the city council condemned this little get together had to do with the group’s association with promoting sodomy laws (surely an aggresion against gay liberty), exgay thereapy, anti-choice and other loud strident intolerant rhetoric. Please note, they did not try to chose down the meeting. Just condemned it.
This is like the right does with gay people. Refusing to allow gay people to meet for pride. Ballot initiative after initiative about denying us rights to ordinary life. The right has been doing so for over 30 years.
Bobby, could you bring us more examples of liberals doing comparable things? Or is this the only governmental example you can find?
Or do you just want to spew?
posted by Bobby on
Dalea, the fact is that if you don’t tolerate “intolerance,” you’re not really tolerant. You can’t preach tolerance and they discriminate against other people, it doesn’t work that way.
Liberals promote plenty of things that are against conservatives: Gun control, higher taxes, hate speech laws, banning ATV’s from national parks, banning refineries from being built, banning oil from being drilled at ANWAR, etc.
So don’t play me the old conservatives are worse than liberals, there’s plenty of crap on both sides.
Secondly, tonguetied.us is not a rightwing website, all the stories are true and are taken from credible news sources.
If you went to that website everyday, you’d see plenty of examples of liberals banning conservative organizations and newspapers from campus, liberals disciplining kids for bringing a bible to school, praying at the school cafeteria or writing a politically incorrect article, liberals teachers failing students who disagree with htem, etc, etc, etc.
The evidence is out there, I’m sick and tired of posting links, but here’s one from a british newspaper, hardly a conservative source.
It’s about British cab drivers being told by their council not to wear anything associated to their soccer team because it might offend foreigners. Of course, the council has no problem flying a rainbow flag to celebrate gay pride month.
If less homophobia means more intolerance of other people, then I want more homophobia. I do not want freedom if it means enslaving others.
Here’s the link, read it and see the things liberals do.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.htmlin_article_id=387034&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5
posted by Bobby on
Sorry, here’s the link again
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=387034&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5
posted by dalea on
OK, read the article. Typical corporitist tactic. Use the license to enforce an image thing. This is very common with corporations which want their product to be uniform. If this were done by the employer of the drivers would you also object? It appears that the city gives a license subject to certain conditions. Which they went and expanded to include certain kinds of shirts. Looks like a tradeoff to me. Typical dumshit image thing. Sadly common in both public and private undertakings.
But not one word about the ‘left’ in the article. This could have been done by conservatives, as they frequently are very big on micromanaging people’s lives.
posted by Anthony on
Oh my – the trials and tribulations of being gay. What a struggle. What torment and turmoil. I see very, very few examples of proactive approaches to life, but lots of complaining. Yes, I do plenty of it myself, if for no other reason than it baffles me how so many folks here sound eerily similar to those on the left. Interesting. I’ve made a promise to myself to quit posting here because it’s a waste of time and energy. Now I just need to keep that promise.
posted by Bobby on
The point of the article is that now it’s more PC for a corporation to fly a gay flag than to wear celebrate your country’s participation in the world cup. Did you read the reasons the corporation gave? They’re afraid it might offend foreigners. Gee, I guess the rainbow flag is not gonna offend anyone, but a soccer team uniform with the St. George Cross is verbotten.
It’s a free speech issue. The drivers don’t have to wear uniforms at work, only exception is attire that is offensive. According to your liberal friends, a soccer shirt is very offensive.
Maybe if you spent more time on conservative websites, you wouldn’t be defending liberals all the time. That’s what happened to me, I was a hardcore liberal like you, until I decided to meet the enemy and saw he wasn’t so bad.
posted by Bobby on
More liberal handywork. At a Catholic College, a conservative honor student has to apologize for expressing himself honestly on matters of birth control and cohabitation. Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan never apologize for their views no matter how shocking and offensive they are. But conservatives are judged with a different standard. Here, read the story. How’s this for fair and balanced?
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/448725.html
Tell me, do liberals ever apologize to conservatives? I’m sure it will happen on a cold day in hell.
posted by kittynboi on
I’ve made a promise to myself to quit posting here because it’s a waste of time and energy. Now I just need to keep that promise.
Will you keep it just as good as you did before?
posted by Bobby on
A 15-year-old girl led a small protest march Monday against her high school’s ban on Confederate flag clothing, which she is also challenging in court.
Candice Hardwick walked with about a dozen people, about half of them family members and some wearing Confederate T-shirts, a few blocks to her school. Hardwick wore a Confederate belt buckle and button and had the Confederate flag on her mobile phone cover. She removed those items before entering the school, where she is a sophomore…
Hardwick says she wants to wear the emblem to pay tribute to ancestors who fought in the Civil War. She said she has been forced to change clothes or turn her shirt inside-out, and has been suspended twice and threatened with being kicked off the track team.”
———
Of course, for a liberal free speech is a one way street, their way. If the student had worn rainbow colors or pro-gay t-shirts, the ACLU would be suing to make sure nothing happens to her. But when southeners want to celebrate their heritage, it’s “hate speech.”
Yet another reason why conservatives hate liberals.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196478,00.html
Yet another reason why I will keep voting republican until liberals change!
posted by Randy R. on
yeah, yeah, yeah. The Left is a bunch of intolerant meanies with superior attitudes. Unlike all those wonderful conservatives, like Trent Lott and David Duke, who are so open minded and eager to learn about foreign lands and peoples.
Please: there are jerks on all sides, and well meaning people on all sides too. People of fervent beliefs often try to suppress the beliefs of others. This is news?
No it is not. But what is alarming is that people try to use an example to explain their own superiority.
posted by Randy R. on
Question: Had an anti-gay speaker been invited to give the commencement address, would you all argue that the students at the New School should have sat there politely and listened carefully? How about a Holocaust denier? Someone arguing for intelligent design to be taught in the schools? I suppose the students should have listened because, afterall, they might learn something.
My point: How disagreeable does a speech or a speaker have to be before you all agree it’s okay to stand up and protest? Stand up and heckle?
posted by Scott on
Nah Randy I think the only person I couldn’t stomach delivering a speech anywhere at anytime would be you. LOL
posted by Bobby on
An anti-gay speaker was invited to give the commencement at my University years ago. You know that black republican politician with the lesbian daughter?
Well, when I found out about it, I tried to write an article in the college newspaper against him, but they wouldn’t let me. And when he started to speak, I sat there quitely. I didn’t clap, but out of respect for the other students in the school, I didn’t ruin their graduation by injecting my politics into the event. And when hardcore democrats give speeches at the Gay Community Center, I don’t start shouting like a madman every time they speak about gun control or whatever issue I don’t like.
Besides, what’s wrong with someone arguing for intelligent design to be taught in school? You see how intolerant you are? People like you make me sick, always preaching about diversity but never practicing diversity.
“How disagreeable does a speech or a speaker have to be before you all agree it’s okay to stand up and protest? Stand up and heckle?”
—You can stand up and leave, but you have no right to ruin the speech for other students. A speech is not a debate and it’s only polite to talk back if there’s a question and answer portion. If the Campus Republicans invite Ann Coulter to speak at the auditorium, I want to listen to her. I don’t want some radical lefty to start heckling and ruining the speech.
posted by Ed Brown on
“What’s wrong with someone arguing for intelligent design to be taught in school?”
Nothing prevents a student from doing so, in a public school — beyond time, place and manner restrictions.
The question is do we have the government pass off something that is a religious theory as a scientific theory.
posted by dalea on
Bobby, you still have not shown that the taxi drivers are dealing with liberals. To my eye this looks very much like a Chamber of Commerce thing. Which is a conservative thing. Do you have some more information that implicates the ‘left’ or is this just a conclusion you jumped to?
BTW I am not a ‘liberal’. I am a libertarian with social democrat leanings. OK? One thing I tend to be big on is ‘contract’, which is a very Rothbardian position. Which is why I got so worked up about the video duplicator story. There is just no way anyone can be in the type of business he is in without agreeing to be a public accomodation. No one had any evidence otherwise.
Actually, heckling is an ancient tradtion, so conservatives should endorse it. After all, they claim to like tradition.
posted by Bobby on
Dalea, do you think conservatives would do this?
“Cabbies in Blackpool were told they will be stripped of their licences if they sport anything featuring the word England, the Cross of St George or the Three Lions shield. One claims he was told it might prove offensive to visitors from other parts of the UK.”
Conservatives can be PC about sex and music, not patriotism.
Read on
“Blackpool cabbies reluctantly agreed a dress code last year which bars football shirts or clothing bearing “abusive, indecent or provocative words or images”.”
—So tell me, Dalea, do you think a soccer shirt bearing national symbols is abusive, indecent or provocative? I think not.
posted by Bobby on
“Nothing prevents a student from doing so, in a public school — beyond time, place and manner restrictions.”
—Do those time and manner restrictions apply the same to a student who wants to form a Gay Straight Alliance? I think not. I will not have one group treated better than another group. Justice for all or justice for none. It’s a black and white issue. That’s how a fair minded persons sees it.
“The question is do we have the government pass off something that is a religious theory as a scientific theory.”
—Teachers say all kinds of crap in public schools. But whenever the crap comes out of the conservative side, it’s suddenly a no-no. Intelligent Design is a theory just like global warming is a theory, just like the “save sex for marriage” is a theory. Schools are supposed to expose you to all kinds of ideas so you can make up your mind. They’re supposed to have ideological balance. They’re not supposed to brainwash you with environmentalism, gay rights, abortion rights, secularism, anti-American values and socialism. I don’t mind those topics discussed if opposing views are provided.
When opposing views aren’t provided, people get pissed off. Why are liberals so afraid of ideas they dislike?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I don’t know what’s funnier, reading comments from conservatives insisting that they’re so open about the world (hint: it ain’t the liberals leading the “intolerant to others” campaigns in most parts of the world), or idiotic statements like:
“If less homophobia means more intolerance of other people, then I want more homophobia.”
Finally, if these conservatives are so tolerant, understanding and pluralist, why have they made “liberal” into a dirty word and insult?
As a libertarian, I find such sports-team hypocritical politics to be amazingly hypocritical — along with a plurality of my fellow voting citizens.
posted by Bobby on
Conservatives never made “liberal” into a dirty word and insult, it’s an objective description of an ideology and if liberals had any guts, they would stick to that word and not come up with “progressive.” But who knows, maybe in 10 years liberals will think that “progressive” is a dirty word, and they will call themselves something else.
And don’t give me that bullcrap about liberals being pluralistic. It’s liberals who support “hate speech” laws! Nobody who supports such laws can call themselves open minded. Furthermore, to them it’s only a “hate crime” if it’s against blacks and muslims, but if it’s against whites and christians, it’s not a hate crime but acceptable revenge or an economic crime or any PC label they can find.
Liberals even contradict their own activist history. Today there segregated college campuses, with all-gay, all-black, all-women, etc, dormitories. There are even all-black student graduations, separate from the general student body.
Here’s an example, the liberals at Starbucks Corporation brag about how many women and minority owned businesses they deal with. Imagine the outcry if they bragged about how many white and male people they buy from?
As for “sports-team” politics, don’t be silly. Voting libertarian is also voting sports-team politics.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Voting libertarian is also voting sports-team politics.”
Not at all. Voting Libertarian will get you a candidate who is actually a libertarian.
Voting Republican or Democrat will get you. . . what, exactly? Libertarians aren’t going to nominate someone without strong libertarian positions — while the GOP or Democrats will nominate whoever they think is going to win. Hence the ongoing spectacle of “small government” Republicans going to bat for George W. Bush, who has increased the size, scope and reach of government to an unprecedented level. . . and “government assistance social liberal” Democrats going to bat for Bill Clinton, who cut welfare benefits and signed anti-gay legislation.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Conservatives never made “liberal” into a dirty word and insult, it’s an objective description of an ideology”
Oh yes. I’m sure that whenever the neconservative of the moment ala Limbaugh or Hannity says “liberal” with a sneer on his face, he really is just objectively describing their ideology. He’s not trying to paint an inaccurate picture.
Ooops, hold on, in this parallel universe, Republicans also reduced the size and scope of government, cut taxes, and paid down the national debt! Wow, funky place.
posted by dalea on
For some unknown reason my previous comments do not appear.
Bobby, you have still not shown any plausible reason that the shirt issue is related to liberals. It look to me like a Chamber of Commerce, ie Conservative, move. And as this would involve English conservatives, the idea that ‘appearances’ are important, is definitely conservative.
Looking over your posts, they appear incoherent and unformed. What other than dumping on liberals, are they about. Do you have any sort of rational standard for what you favor and oppose?
posted by raj on
Stevie’s post is really funny. He has reverted to form: praise the “Stepford Wives” conservatives at Jerry Falwell’s ridiculously-named “Liberty” University for dutifully sitting quietly while the Falwell-selected John McCain spoke at their graduation ceremony, and lambast the “leftie” students at the New School who refused to be so respectful to someone whose only claim to fame is that he got shot down over North Vietnam.
Ah, well, reading Stevie’s post, one would believe that it is only “leftie” students that heckle speakers who say things that they don’t want to hear. No, that would be in error. One only needs to recall the 2003 incident in which the anti-Iraq-War Christopher Hedges was heckled when he gave the commencement speech at Rockford College, a rather conservative college in Rockford IL. Indeed, Hedges received death threats for his speech–so much for conservative “tolerance.” Similar things have happened in recent weeks at other conservative colleges.
Apparently to Stevie, conservative=good but liberal/leftie=bad. It really is unfortunate that recovering lefties such as Stevie have such a skewed view of the real world.
posted by raj on
Stevie’s post is really funny. He has reverted to form: praise the “Stepford Wives” conservatives at Jerry Falwell’s ridiculously-named “Liberty” University for dutifully sitting quietly while the Falwell-selected John McCain spoke at their graduation ceremony, and lambast the “leftie” students at the New School who refused to be so respectful to someone whose only claim to fame is that he got shot down over North Vietnam.
Ah, well, reading Stevie’s post, one would believe that it is only “leftie” students that heckle speakers who say things that they don’t want to hear. No, that would be in error. One only needs to recall the 2003 incident in which the anti-Iraq-War Christopher Hedges was heckled when he gave the commencement speech at Rockford College, a rather conservative college in Rockford IL. Indeed, Hedges received death threats for his speech–so much for conservative “tolerance.” Similar things have happened in recent weeks at other conservative colleges.
Apparently to Stevie, conservative=good but liberal/leftie=bad. It really is unfortunate that recovering lefties such as Stevie have such a skewed view of the real world.
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | May 24, 2006, 5:15am |
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/30954.html#978
>>>”this site seems to have attracted far too many lefties”
That’s funny, last time I checked, the site was the Independent Gay Forum, not the Republican Gay Forum.
Actually, it pretty much is the Republican (or at least Conservative) Gay Forum. Take a look at Stevie’s blog roll, and tell me the number of center or liberal/left web sites he has listed there–in relation to the number of conservative/right web sites. As in the fact that one can usually tell the expected audience of a TV or radio program by the advertisements that are run, one can also usually tell the expected audience of a weblog by the proprietors’ blog roll. And any advertisements they might have posted on the weblog, of course.
Stevie has admitted that he is a recovering leftie, and they are worse than recovering smokers.
posted by raj on
Anthony | May 24, 2006, 8:12am | #
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/30954.html#989
And yes, this the Independent Gay Forum, but again lefties seem to have made it their own.
Maybe you should consider inviting your rightie friends to comment here. Whether or not they are gay. There’s nothing preventing you from doing that, is there? If they did, maybe you’d feel more at home here.
Of course, if all you want is that your opinions be repeated back to you, why don’t you just repeat them to yourself in the mirror?
posted by raj on
I’ll break my resolve not to respond to this cretin.
Bobby | May 24, 2006, 8:44pm | #
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/30954.html#1056
The point of the article is that now it’s more PC for a corporation to fly a gay flag than to wear celebrate your country’s participation in the world cup. Did you read the reasons the corporation gave? They’re afraid it might offend foreigners.
Well, I had been led to believe that you were involved in public relations. If I were head of a multi-national corporation headquartered in one country (say, the UK), whose products are manufactured who-knows-where (where are the German company Addidas’s products manufactured? China; and where are they designed? mostly Portland, Oregon) and if I wanted to sell my products into other countries (such as Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Switzerland…I could go on), I probably would be reticent to appear to be too one sided–for the “home team”–whatever “home team” means in that context.
PC? No. Astute business decision? Yes.
posted by raj on
I don’t know what’s funnier, reading comments from conservatives insisting that they’re so open about the world (hint: it ain’t the liberals leading the “intolerant to others” campaigns in most parts of the world), or idiotic statements like:…
I do know what’s even funnier, reading comments from conservatives who believe they know what they’re talking about, but don’t.
Again from the cretin…
Bobby | May 26, 2006, 7:08pm | #
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/30954.html#1280
“Nothing prevents a student from doing so, in a public school — beyond time, place and manner restrictions.”
—Do those time and manner restrictions apply the same to a student who wants to form a Gay Straight Alliance? I think not. I will not have one group treated better than another group.
“You think not” is correct. Apparently, you are unaware of the fact that the federal law under which most GSAs are being formed, the so-called “Equal Access” laws, was passed at the behest of conservative Christians, who believed that public schools were forbidding extra-curricular bible study classes from meeting on public school property. There was some truth to that, but not much. But the law waw passed anyway. The law essentially required that, if a school allowed any extra-curricular club to meet on school property, the school had to allow all extra-curricular clubs to meet on school property.
Fast forward. Public schools are allowing extra-curricular bible study clubs to meet on school property. Gay people want to form GSAs with similar “equal access” rights. Who are the opponents of the GSAs? Conservative Christians, of course. The very groups that pushed for the passage of the “equal access” law. Otherwise stated: equal rights for me, but not for thee.
Going down a bit…
Intelligent Design is a theory….
Actually, no it isn’t. You can educate yourself at http://www.talkorigins.org but I doubt that you will do so.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Oh fab. Spam-bots.