Posts Tagged ‘Tolerance’


October 20, 2015

There’s a movement in progress to keep Donald Trump from hosting SNL on November 7.

Some on the left want to once again abandon any right to free speech if that speech includes conservative thought. They say that the program will embarrass NBC because of Trump’s views. In order to reinforce their biased viewpoint, they are spreading the word that it will alienate NBC’s Latino and pro-immigrant viewers by showing how little the corporation cares. Unlike any of the comedic skits skewering conservatives, the claim is that Trump spews hateful rhetoric that cannot be reconciled in comedy.

Whoa! He doesn’t say what I believe and inherently know, so shut him down. This is typical of the tolerant, inclusive and diversity driven left. If you feel as I do, you’re welcome and we can have a discussion. If you have a different viewpoint, you are wrong and therefore a bigot.

I quit watching Hannity some years ago because he tends to overtalk and shut down liberals as they attempt to make their points known. I say let them speak their own words so the world can find out just how factually bereft they really are. Offer a counterpoint when he or she has made a complete fool of themself, but let the world see just how self contradictory liberalism can truly be.

And I say the same for NBC and SNL. Allow the station and program an opportunity to showcase what might be the progressive’s premier exposure to Donald Trump. After all, there possibly isn’t a liberal who has ever listened to what he has to say. Most liberals, because they hate to hear opposing viewpoints, generally get their news about conservatives through filtered and distorted news sources such as the former Daily Show and the totally partisan MSNBC, NPR, etc. while occasionally tuning in to CNN (Clinton News Network).

Hey liberals, let the Donald make a complete fool of himself right in front of you and millions of others. You’ll have even more to misrepresent for the coming weeks or months.

But then, he could make a salient point for the liberal world to hear. That would infuriate you and cause you to find ways to pervert it before fellow liberals realize they agree with him. Could that possibility be what’s really behind your protest?


October 12, 2015

For those of you who are yet unaware, Dr. Ben Carson is the bane of the left. He is exactly the stuff from which conservatives are made and the left doesn’t know how to react. Young Ben grew up extremely poor in Detroit. Dr. Carson is a conservative. He is black. He is educated. He is extremely intelligent, capable of and uses, independent thought.

To the left this man is a plethora of contradictions. If you are born to wealthless parents, you are expected to remain poor and dependent on the government. If you are born to parents of meager means, your education is meant to help you become literate, but not educated. If you are raised by a single mother, surely you are expected to piggyback on every possible entitlement. If you are black, well, you have to be a Democrat, the party that can keep you poor, uneducated and of group-think mind.

Dr. Carson is seeking the Republican nomination for president. That, combined with the above description, infuriates the left. The media doesn’t know how to question this man because his intellect is so far superior to any journalist, he or she can’t understand his explicit and forthright answers. The vocabulary of his explanation is beyond their comprehension.

Here’s an excerpt from a typical interview of the man by a, shall I say, left-of-center interviewer.

Ryssdal: All right, so let’s talk about debt then and the budget. As you know, Treasury Secretary Lew has come out in the last couple of days and said, “We’re gonna run out of money, we’re gonna run out of borrowing authority, on the fifth of November.” Should the Congress then and the president not raise the debt limit? Should we default on our debt?

Carson: Let me put it this way: if I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut.

Ryssdal: To be clear, it’s increasing the debt limit, not the budget, but I want to make sure I understand you. You’d let the United States default rather than raise the debt limit.

Carson: No, I would provide the kind of leadership that says, “Get on the stick guys, and stop messing around, and cut where you need to cut, because we’re not raising any spending limits, period.”

Ryssdal: I’m gonna try one more time, sir. This is debt that’s already obligated. Would you not favor increasing the debt limit to pay the debts already incurred?

Carson: What I’m saying is what we have to do is restructure the way that we create debt. I mean if we continue along this, where does it stop? It never stops. You’re always gonna ask the same question every year. And we’re just gonna keep going down that pathway. That’s one of the things I think that the people are tired of.

Ryssdal: I’m really trying not to be circular here, Dr. Carson, but if you’re not gonna raise the debt limit and you’re not gonna give specifics on what you’re gonna cut, then how are we going to know what you are going to do as president of the United States?

Carson: OK, let me try to explain it in a different way. If, in fact, we have a number of different areas that are contributing to the increasing expenditures and the continued expenditures that are putting us further and further into the hole. You’re familiar I’m sure with the concept of the fiscal gap.

“A candidate who knew what they were talking about would have answered yes or no to this simple question. Since Ben Carson seemed to have no idea what the debt limit is, his answer turned into a stumbling expedition for an explanation”. (comment by Jason Easley of American Public Radio’s “Marketplace”)

Biased reporters really shouldn’t ask questions if they can’t understand the answers. Either Ryssdal refuses to hear the explanation or he is incapable of understanding it. Perhaps he didn’t understand his own question.

I understood Carson say that he would not allow the continued deficit spending and certainly not escalate the debt through increased deficit spending (increased budget).  Instead, he would reduce wasteful spending and use the savings to service and perhaps even pay down the debt.

Dr. Carson is not privy to all the internal minutia of government fiscal manipulation at this point.  Thus, it is impossible for him or any candidate of either party to be explicit as to where necessary cuts might be made or in what amounts until he has that insider line. The attempted gotcha question didn’t work well.

Ya just gotta love the understanding, caring, tolerant, inclusive, diverse pool of thought shared by the left.  If this had been Obama or any liberal of color, the screams or racism would have begun as soon as it was aired; perhaps even as soon as the producer scheduled the interview.

The full interview can be found here.


September 29, 2014

Fair is good. Fair is great. Forcing fairness, however, creates hostilities and fragile egos.

For an adult or big kid, taking candy from a baby is not right, it’s not fair, it’s not moral. It is evil. Everyone except the evil knows that and generally adheres to the doctrine. So what makes it right, fair, moral or righteous for a government to take an adult’s earnings or possessions without their permission? When is it “fair” to limit one’s speech because it does not conform to another person’s beliefs, what they choose to accept or want to hear?

At what point does fairness or political correctness hinder society? Political correctness, in virtually every situation, diminishes one party or viewpoint to promote another. Thus, fairness under this facade is not fair. An atheist barking about having to see a cross at a cemetery, a gay or transgender bellowing about access to his/her choice of public restroom facilities, a young girl demanding admission to a boyscout jamboree or a white congressman forcing the black caucus to accept his or her membership are just a few examples of how political correctness interferes with personal fairness, opportunity, and natural diversity.

When demands are made upon a person or group to accept and embrace the viewpoints or wants of another, that is not fair. Societal engineering for homogeneity destroys will and limits ascension. It is contrary to human norms. It is a method of control and nothing less.

I have no outward biases against women, gays, atheists, Muslims (in general), blacks, Hispanics or any other people distinctly different from myself. However, I don’t feel I should have to change to be more like a certain aspect of them. Don’t tell me I have to participate in homosexual activities in order to prove to you that I’m not a homophobe. And, don’t call me a racist or misogynist because my views don’t coincide with the perspectives of a person of color or different gender. It’s not fair to me.

We give trophies to our youth, not for doing an outstanding job, but for merely showing up for soccer practice. They receive a “B” in class, not for having the right answers or doing the assignments completely and correctly, but for professing to have made an effort. We have to be fair to every student. When Johnny is sad, he gets a pill to alter his mood. As adults, they have learned that putting forth an effort for accomplishment is not necessary and are likely to sue when fired for inferior performance.
Society has progressively created a generation that is fragile, less tolerant and more aggressive toward others of differing opinion or actions. What was once a heated discussion has become a call to arms, to draw knives or guns and eliminate the opposing viewpoint. Or, worse yet, trashing a young individual in the best way possible…on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr or Instagram. That will make them feel so bad that the Zoloft will be rendered ineffective and they will take their own life.

Social engineering for acceptance and tolerance is causing more animosity, more hatred and more hostility than ever before. It could be a transitional stage before becoming a Stepford society. It may also create an enormous population of snowflake personalities so fragile they will melt at the first occurrence of discord. It may also lead to a violently contentious uprising that can only be controlled through outright warlike aggression with the victor then dictating what is fair.


August 23, 2014

There have been a few stories making national headlines lately about restauranteurs offering discounts for religious patrons. Perhaps you’ve seen some of them.

North Carolina Diner Offers Customers 15 Percent Discount for ‘Praying in Public’

Taking a moment to pray, meditate or simply reflect on the value of your life saves you 15% on your meal at Mary’s Gourmet Restaurant in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Atheists Bully Arkansas Pizza Shop for Offering Discount to Churchgoers

Bring a bulletin from any church, synagogue, temple, mosque or other legitimate house of worship to Bailey’s Pizza in Searcy, Arkansas and a 10% discount will be applied to your tab.

Our tolerant friends at Freedom From Religion take offense at these discounts because they choose not to believe. They claim the discounts are discriminatory against atheists. The discounts might be discriminatory against stupid people in general, but not necessarily just atheists.

You see, even an atheist could sit down and lower their head or stare at the wall for a moment and receive a 15% discount at Mary’s. No employee will request a prayer transcript. And, there is no mandatory attendance at a house of worship to receive a discount at Bailey’s either. All one has to do is stop by the front door of a church and take a bulletin out of the display on their way to get a bite of pizza. If an atheist fears proximity to a church, he or she could ask a neighbor or friend for one, should they have a friend other than another atheist.

Really, for the truly unhappy and/or chemically depressed, there are other things that you can protest or bring to the overburdened courts. There are senior discounts everywhere that might be opposed by the young and ignorant. There are discounts available for military and veterans to which the weak and timid might object. Having a membership to an auto club might get you a bit better rate at a motel. Not having a towing service might be right for you, though.

Shoot! To stand up against the anti-gun lobby, Langtry Cafe in Brownsdale, Minnesota offers a two tier discount for gun owners every Thursday. Show them a CCW and you get 15% off your bill. Display a sidearm on your hip and receive a 25% reduction in your tab. If you don’t own a gun, that’s your choice.

Additionally, there are talented people who earn a living with their abilities. Singing, carpentry, painting, baking, computer programming, athletics all bring in handsome earnings. Perhaps suing a capable individual for doing well might be on someone’s bucket list.

Unhappy people will always try to bring others down to their level. However, these are the very people who shouldn’t be allowed the gun discount at the Langtry Cafe.


July 11, 2012

Liberals; those who preach kindness, tolerance and acceptance of others that might be different from us are almost never so kind themselves.  It shows up repeatedly with the expression of different viewpoints.

Last week, Brad Pitt’s mom, Jane Pitt (we’ll call her Mrs. Pitt since Brad’s wife prefers not to be called Mrs. Pitt), wrote a letter to the editor of her local newspaper responding to a previous sentiment by a fellow Springfield, Missouri resident.  The original letter questioned how Christians could vote for Mitt Romney, a Mormon.

With acknowledgment of the differences between Mormonism and Christianity, she went on to say that he shared the Christian convictions regarding abortion and concerns about homosexuality.  She stated that, differences between religions aside, the shared morals and family values along with Romney’s business experience rise above those of Barack Obama warranting a reasoned consideration at the polls in November.

Expressing her 1st Amendment right of free speech is, to the left, blasphemy of the highest degree when it is not in accordance with the leftist agenda.  Newspapers nationwide picked up the Springfield News-Leader’s opinion column and ignited hatred from people who have never known her as an individual.  Articles by “neutral” journalists contort her words to excite readers with headlines and lead lines like:

“Brad Pitt’s mother pens anti-gay, anti-Obama letter to local newspaper”.  
“Brad Pitt’s mom unleashes anti-gay, anti-Obama fury in letter.”
One rag reported that Pitt actually “hates Obama, ‘gay’ people.”

Yes, newspapers also share the right of free speech.  However, like yelling FIRE in a crowded auditorium causes mayhem and panic, is it right to instigate violence or threats of violence?

Because she expressed a rebuttal opinion backed with facts, Mrs. Pitt is the recipient of vile name calling and death threats through tweets and other public comment.  Here are a few tweets as reported by Jack Minor of WND:

“Brad Pitt’s mom, die,” wrote one Twitter-poster.
“Brad Pitt’s mom wrote an anti-gay pro-Romney editorial. Kill the b—-.”
“F— you, brad pitt’s mom, the gay community made your kid a star, you whacko,” and, “Brad Pitt’s mom is a dumb c—.”

Oh, those kind, tolerant and accepting liberals.  They’re like terrorists-in-waiting.