Ryan Gill ([info]montieth) wrote,
@ 2008-10-05 12:09:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Is this wahat passes for tolerance?
Sandra Bernhard issued a blistering warning to Sarah Palin during a performance of her new one-woman show.
The Republican V.P. nom would be "gang-raped by my big black brothers" if she enters Manhattan, Bernhard said. Palin is said to be making a campaign stop in New York next week.

Is this what passes for tolerance? In the 2004 election we saw the left and Senator Kerry trying to make an issue of the Cheney's Homosexual Daughter. Why was that? The family has come to terms with their daughter which, is presumably what the Left wants families to do. Accept homosexuals for what they are, YET they use it as a wedge point when the right does in fact adopt the principles.

We see people trying to make issues with the Palin family's daughter. Yet the left also wants us to all accept pregnant teens and not make them feel as if they are a pox on society (they're not) yet, there was a concerted effort there. Some even tried to conflate Gov Palin's pregnancy with that of her daughter Bristol. Some even went as far as blaming Gov Palin for her child's Downs syndrome as due to teratogenic effects rather than actually looking at the real causes of what causes downs. It's genetic, more likely in older women but utterly unrelated to prenatal care and health of the mother during the pregnancy.

Is this what passes for intellect and progressive thinking on the left?

Here we have Governor Sara Palin, a woman who has survived on her own merits, succeeded on her own merits and broken the glass ceiling that Hillary said existed (despite the fact that we had a previous woman VP candidate in the form of Geraldine Ferraro). I'm seeing a great deal of bile, vitriol and disdain for an apparently successful woman from supposedly tolerant and accepting people on the left. And they can't even maintain their dislike for the woman stand on policy, it has to be embellished with childish ridicule and appellations. What dismays me is the practical eating of their own young that the Democrats are doing in their efforts to show Gov Palin as a horrible person, let alone a substandard candidate.

Is this what passes for tolerance in the left? Where does this hate come from?

(Post a new comment)


[info]jordan179
2008-10-05 05:02 pm UTC (link)
For obvious reasons (it's hardly credible), I doubt that much if any action will be taken, but you do realize that Sarah Bernhardt has just made a terroristic threat against a vice-presidential candidate? I wonder if she will be receiving a visit from the Secret Service?

(Reply to this)


[info]sprocketship
2008-10-05 05:04 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I know.

I've witnessed this double mindedness since I got to college in 1990.

It's indicative of the lack of logical thought on the part of people with a Liberal mindset combined with a holier-than-thou attitude and jealousy.

They truly believe that people with a conservative mindset are evil. That people with traditional religious beliefs (ie: Christians) are buffoons, and that people who have made good financial decisions don't deserve to reap the rewards.


Liberals know that in order to win a complex political argument with someone, you have to do your home work on the topic (which is usually insanely complex), site the instances to discredit your opponent's argument, and then persuade him with your own evidence to concede to your position.

Or, you can do it the easy (lazy) way. Mock them and discredit them on issues not related to the topic.

Al Franken doesn't have to beat Rush Limbaugh in a political argument. He need only title his book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot"

And at least 50% of the people in the world will laugh and agree, because they are either A) unable to use what little intellect they have to disprove Franken or are B) unwilling to do so.

So, yes, Rush Limbaugh must be wrong, because he IS big and fat, and, obviously, an idiot.

Sure, Sarah Palin may have broken the glass ceiling, but that's not important. She's evil because she doesn't want a nationalized health care system and because she shoots defenseless animals, she's an idiot because she believes that man and dinosaurs walked the earth together. Oh, and she's a buffoon, too. Because she believes in Jesus.

So, it's kind of obvious that she's at fault for her baby's affliction, right? I mean, she's evil and an idiot. You think she'd wise up about her religion, too since a loving God would never allow an afflicted child to come into this world.

(And we all know how catty women get when there's an even more attractive woman out there. "Sarah Palin is so much cuter than Hillary. I hope she pokes herself in the eye with her mascara!")


There is no such thing as tolerance. It's just simply whether a Liberal can claim that they are more tolerant than YOU.



Democracy. It's two wolves and a sheep, with the wolves telling the sheep what's on the dinner menu.



(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jordan179
2008-10-05 05:21 pm UTC (link)
... she's an idiot because she believes that man and dinosaurs walked the earth together.

Mind you, if she was running for Natural History Professor I'd vote against her based on that one. However, that's not the office for which she is running.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]montieth
2008-10-05 06:45 pm UTC (link)
And yet, we have two Legal Scholars who have trouble parsing the constitution and apply states rights concepts to one very clearly articulated portion of the Constitution and say reasonable limits are fine and on the other hand eschew ANY limits and ANY federalist interpretation to a right which is not clearly articulated in the Constitution.

And the two of them are considered 'nuanced'.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mattcaron
2008-10-07 01:01 am UTC (link)
So, it's kind of obvious that she's at fault for her baby's affliction, right? I mean, she's evil and an idiot

Ironically, it is in the same vein as the logic employed by the Westboro baptist church - but don't tell either of them that. I believe both groups would be offended.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]sydneyrodriguez
2008-10-07 04:26 pm UTC (link)
They truly believe that people with a conservative mindset are evil. That people with traditional religious beliefs (ie: Christians) are buffoons, and that people who have made good financial decisions don't deserve to reap the rewards.

As a moderate, I get the *ahem*...joy...of watching both sides tear each other apart both logically and illogically. I've seen just as many conservatives that believe the liberal mindset is evil, that people with non-traditional religious beliefs (ie: Non Christians) are just plain stupid, and that even showing a hint of liberal views automatically makes you a minion of Satan himself and wrong in every aspect as I have seen liberals with the attitude you've mentioned.

On the same token, I've seen just as many people on both sides who know how to present their case logically after having done their homework and who have valid points for their respective positions.

Neither side is better than the other, be it morally, socially, or financially. Sadly, both sides have the blinders of "we're better than them" on, so the best thing for everyone is for them to fight over things, because the result generally ends up in some form of rough compromise thanks to the inherent balance in having two polar opposites going at each others' throats.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sprocketship
2008-10-07 04:31 pm UTC (link)
"Neither side is better than the other, be it morally, socially, or financially. Sadly, both sides have the blinders of "we're better than them" on, so the best thing for everyone is for them to fight over things, because the result generally ends up in some form of rough compromise thanks to the inherent balance in having two polar opposites going at each others' throats."

I've always felt that gridlock on Capital Hill is a good thing. It means that our system of government is working. I always get scared when I see Congress shotgun legislation through. (Like last week!)

Hopefully our system of checks and balances can survive. Without it, we are well and truly screwed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sydneyrodriguez
2008-10-07 07:37 pm UTC (link)
Indeed, seeing bills get pushed that fast (especially when a 500 page bill gets pushed through faster than most people can read it) is scary.

I think the checks will be there, at least in some rudimentary fashion. Everyone has different ideas of what's right, and one person's "right" is inevitably going to be the polar opposite of another's. Because of this, there will always be people making sure that they get "their fair share" and the result is something more balanced (not necessarily perfect, but less extreme than either side).

It actually reminds me of one of the old principles of governing dynamics -- In competition, individual ambition serves the common good (of course, better results would come if everyone did what was best for themselves and the group, but then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]montieth
2008-10-07 04:42 pm UTC (link)
As a moderate, I get the *ahem*...joy...of watching both sides tear each other apart both logically and illogically. I've seen just as many conservatives that believe the liberal mindset is evil, that people with non-traditional religious beliefs (ie: Non Christians) are just plain stupid, and that even showing a hint of liberal views automatically makes you a minion of Satan himself and wrong in every aspect as I have seen liberals with the attitude you've mentioned.

I think it's more fair to argue that the liberal mindset, when carried to the usual extreme abets evil. The best example is how Orwell attributes pacifist with abetting the evils of nazism and imperialism in the context of the axis powers and the USSR. In both examples, the Pacifists in the Free world effectively aid the evil powers. In those nations, their pacifists are utterly mute because they cannot exist (witness the White Rose movement in Berlin).

Off the cuff, I can't see how a conservative religious view, at least a pro-western one, can abet evil in the context of above, except perhaps when taken into an isolationist view, which I also strongly oppose and eschew. I guess there is a case for that.

There is CERTAINLY a case for a radical religious views or radical liberal views being or abetting evil in the context of a theocracy (which we're nowhere near in the west) or in the context of the perfect workers paradise (Khmer Rouge).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sydneyrodriguez
2008-10-07 07:24 pm UTC (link)
Even outside the context of a theocracy, radical conservative religious people try to influence government in much the same way radical liberal people do (or at least as much as the radical conservatives believe the liberals do).

The abortion and gay marriage debates are two of the most obvious examples of even relatively moderate conservatives attempting to push their views into the government, since nearly the entire reason they are against either (though gay marriage especially--I've yet to see a secular reason for banning gay marriage) is because of religious reasons. Bear in mind, I'm not saying everyone has to agree with either abortion or gay marriage, but the way both issues are being handled (or the way people are attempting to handle them) are not the answer and in some cases are downright unconstitutional.

I think it's more fair to argue that the liberal mindset, when carried to the usual extreme abets evil. The best example is how Orwell attributes pacifist with abetting the evils of nazism and imperialism in the context of the axis powers and the USSR. In both examples, the Pacifists in the Free world effectively aid the evil powers. In those nations, their pacifists are utterly mute because they cannot exist.

I'm guessing you're referring to the conservative view of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment here (and perhaps similar issues)? The 2nd Amendment is one issue where my views align, more or less, with those of conservatives. I view weapons in general as tools used to accomplish various different goals. To me, there isn't a whole lot of difference between a firearm and a knife (or even a sword), except in the method used to achieve the goal.

However, I'm not one to go into a situation brandishing a weapon, shooting a couple people who approach me, then trying to tell everyone that I'm the Good Guy. I believe in a certain amount of diplomacy first. As such, I agree with our invasion of Afghanistan in search for Bin Laden, but not necessarily with the invasion of Iraq (this is, of course, where I break off from the general conservative view, and I think it was you who I got into a discussion about regarding Iraq recently; I think the situation with Iraq could have been handled far better), particularly when we basically told the UN to go pound salt.

The issue I have with radical conservatives is that they strike me as warmongers. The War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the War against the Evil Liberals. There's a very divisive "us against them" mentality that seems to come with the Far Right point of view. The whole idea of "they're not like us, so they must be evil incarnate."

Then, there's the radical liberals, who, like you said, abet evil through their inaction. Their ideals of tolerance and peace are great on paper, but don't work in the slightest in the real world (primarily because not everyone shares their point of view, and if even one person doesn't share that view, the whole ideal is shattered).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jaigh_taylor
2008-10-05 05:28 pm UTC (link)
Sandra Bernhard is a fucking cunt.

That is all.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]montieth
2008-10-05 06:47 pm UTC (link)
Well, in keeping with the principles I espoused above, I'd have to disagree with that phraseology.

I think I'd put it at her being a simplistic person who should stick to pop culture and NOT try political commentary. She's out of her depth in that realm.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
really?
[info]spiritchaser1
2008-10-05 05:42 pm UTC (link)
Since when does anyone take Sandra Bernhard's potty mouth ranting seriously???

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: really?
[info]montieth
2008-10-05 06:54 pm UTC (link)
It's not just her though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]arianadii
2008-10-05 07:02 pm UTC (link)
Sarah Bernhard has been dropped as a speaker for our local women's shelter because of these vicious and hateful statements. Kudos to the organizers of Rosie's Place in Boston for telling her she is unwanted here.

I found it disturbing how many of the liberal activists who work at the Shelter tried to defend and make excuses for Bernhard. These are the same people who spew their own hateful and obsessive rants about Palin and consider themselves more tolerant and fundamentally decent people than anyone conservative or Republican.

Thankfully, most of the women at the shelter did not want her here. Wishing rape on another women is not a joke to them. Margaret Cho has made similarly vulgar comments about Palin.

In response to these "accusations" Berhard has actually attempted to deny that she made the statements at all. She claims that her words were "taken out of context" and misunderstood. I watched a video of her performance and she is a liar. She did say exactly that and more. It never even crossed her tiny little mind to apologize for or regret what she said. Amazing.

Edited at 2008-10-05 07:03 pm UTC

(Reply to this)


[info]pearlibuttons
2008-10-05 11:05 pm UTC (link)
You do realize that radical liberals are American terrorists? Think about it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]sydneyrodriguez
2008-10-07 04:15 pm UTC (link)
So are radical conservatives.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mattcaron
2008-10-07 12:58 am UTC (link)
Imagine how hopping mad they would be if the Republicans put up Larry Elder as their nominee... or worse - Condi Rice.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…