Not the Daily Mail - if I want this forum to read a post, I've learned better than to do that. ;)

That's a bit of a mouthful! :P

 

Ii's probably more about stroppy socialists & anarchists threatening violence to stop right-wing speakers from appearing. Some of them seem to consider even moderate right wingers as 'fascist'... :rolleyes:

 

and yet the ones who get murdered are the liberals.....

and yet the ones who get murdered are the liberals.....

 

I doubt any more of them get murdered than right-wingers. And in any case, you don't need to murder someone to intimidate them...

I doubt any more of them get murdered than right-wingers. And in any case, you don't need to murder someone to intimidate them...

 

liberals, by the very definition, are tolerant. Right-wingers who veer towards fascism, by the very definition are intolerant.

 

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality."

"Fascism is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy"

 

See, it's in the job description....

 

and yes it's always liberals getting assassinated or murdered by right-wingers, not the other way around, check the history books, or perhaps cast your mind back to 2016 and the referendum....

 

You are free to bring examples to me of right-wingers getting randomly murdered by liberals, of course, and then I'll counter (if you can find any) with a whole book-full of examples proving you wrong.

liberals, by the very definition, are tolerant. Right-wingers who veer towards fascism, by the very definition are intolerant.

 

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality."

"Fascism is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy"

 

See, it's in the job description....

 

No, liberals are as intolerant as anyone else when it comes to people disagreeing with their views. Say one word against political correctness, and the left is all over you!

 

And like the Americans as a whole, you confuse left with liberals. The left, and I don't really think this is a bad thing, do call out bigots and those being intolerant of minorities because there is one thing that they believe (and I believe) that we should be intolerant of, and that is intolerance.

 

Liberals are as John said, by definition, tolerant of everything. No matter what you wish to do with your bodies, no matter what race you are, they are okay with it.

And like the Americans as a whole, you confuse left with liberals. The left, and I don't really think this is a bad thing, do call out bigots and those being intolerant of minorities because there is one thing that they believe (and I believe) that we should be intolerant of, and that is intolerance.

 

There is no confusion - in America in most cases liberal=left - they just pretend otherwise because 'socialism' is a taboo word there.

 

I should point out that 'being intolerant of intolerance' is itself an act of intolerence... :lol:

Edited March 24, 20196 yr by vidcapper

There is no confusion - in America in most cases liberal=left - they just pretend otherwise because 'socialism' is a taboo word there.

 

I should point out that 'being intolerant of intolerance' is itself an act of intolerence... :lol:

 

No it isn't. Liberal means liberal. There isn't a historical far-left tradition in America, and when it does pop its head up (see 50's McCarthyism) the right take the opportunity to portray what we would regard as socialist-leaning as Commies. As Ive said before take a look at the history of the USA and it's own self-perception.

 

Being intolerant of intolerance is a fake argument, lols or not. I'm not in favour of racism or murder because it's wrong. There is no argument anyone can offer to justify it as a good thing, therefore anyone who who feels that way goes straight to anger, aggression and vitriol because they can't justify their intolerance. If you tolerate hate then you are guilty of hate, there is no moral twisting going on here arguing semantics. You are being tolerant by showing that you are willing to defend the right to not be abused by intolerant hate-filled people and by not adopting the same methods.

 

Arguing about where the line between liberal and far-left socialism lies is fairly easy to prove with a bit of background study (PS I did a uni course on American Studies, and am well aware of their own self-image through fiction, laws, and culture, cos it's been a life-long interest of mine from pre-colonial days through The Wild West right up to the current crisis in "self")

No it isn't. Liberal means liberal. There isn't a historical far-left tradition in America, and when it does pop its head up (see 50's McCarthyism) the right take the opportunity to portray what we would regard as socialist-leaning as Commies. As Ive said before take a look at the history of the USA and it's own self-perception.

 

Being intolerant of intolerance is a fake argument, lols or not. I'm not in favour of racism or murder because it's wrong. There is no argument anyone can offer to justify it as a good thing, therefore anyone who who feels that way goes straight to anger, aggression and vitriol because they can't justify their intolerance. If you tolerate hate then you are guilty of hate, there is no moral twisting going on here arguing semantics. You are being tolerant by showing that you are willing to defend the right to not be abused by intolerant hate-filled people and by not adopting the same methods.

 

Arguing about where the line between liberal and far-left socialism lies is fairly easy to prove with a bit of background study (PS I did a uni course on American Studies, and am well aware of their own self-image through fiction, laws, and culture, cos it's been a life-long interest of mine from pre-colonial days through The Wild West right up to the current crisis in "self")

I know you’re old, but I didn’t realise you were old enough to have lived through the Wild West years :o

I know you’re old, but I didn’t realise you were old enough to have lived through the Wild West years :o

 

Hah! I have a painting in my attic :lol:

Being intolerant of intolerance is a fake argument, lols or not. I'm not in favour of racism or murder because it's wrong.

 

As you must surely acknowledge, I have repeatedly said that I too consider murder & racism deeply wrong.

 

What I disagree with though, is the left's notion of them being 'thought-crimes' - I mean, who hasn't idly thought 'I want to kill that idiot' - but virtually no-one would ever act on that thought. Too often though, those on the left try to smear all those who disagree with them as racist/homophobic/mysoginistic (delete as appropriate) in the hope of closing down the argument. IMO it is those sort of idealogues that led to just enough people voting for Trump. Remember Hilary's fatal 'deplorables' comment...

As you must surely acknowledge, I have repeatedly said that I too consider murder & racism deeply wrong.

 

What I disagree with though, is the left's notion of them being 'thought-crimes' - I mean, who hasn't idly thought 'I want to kill that idiot' - but virtually no-one would ever act on that thought. Too often though, those on the left try to smear all those who disagree with them as racist/homophobic/mysoginistic (delete as appropriate) in the hope of closing down the argument. IMO it is those sort of idealogues that led to just enough people voting for Trump. Remember Hilary's fatal 'deplorables' comment...

 

Yes I do agree that you have never made any racist comments, nor supported murder. I also agree about thought-crimes, and blanket dismissal of other people's opinions, and people making dubious claims about other people in deliberately provocative attempts to shut down debate that they struggle to justify when faced with facts and well-reasoned cases.

 

That said, a fair number of Trump supporters (but not all) have proven that they love his racist rhetoric (yes it exists it's on the record) and some have committed murder in it's name. Hillary was pointing this out, and it was unfortunately applied across the board as if she meant everyone who voted Republican, when it was being applied to those using the methods we have just agreed are wrong as a way of avoiding facts. There is a world of difference between having a discussion and disagreeing, and verbally or physically abusing someone because you disagree, and it's not Clinton and her supporters that use that tactic.

Just to update the Parkland survivors kids, who have become Huge Hate Figures to the Right-wing gun-toting aggressive nasty conscience-free side of the USA, just for asking not to be murdered and starting a campaign against sponsors of the NRA (quite successfully). In the last 2 weeks 2 of them have committed suicide. people have tweeting with joy every misfortune of those in the public eye, such as not getting into the College they chose. So, children who survived a massacre that claimed many of their schoolmates continue to get abuse as they come of age.

 

This is evil behaviour, there is no excuse anyone can give to justify it and those carrying it out should all feel ashamed to walk the earth in such venom and hatred. Note, they are NOT getting the same treatment back from the kids who have behaved with class throughout despite trauma.

Mueller's report has come in - Trump & his campaign did not collude with Russia. It however could not draw a conclusion as to whether there were any obstructions of justice.

 

Let both the left & right's cognitive dissonance begin in 3..2..1..

Excellent news. No collusion. Now here's to re-election in 2020.

Disappointingly inconclusive on one issue, surprisingly cleared on the other. Looking at NYState and the end of his Presidency to see what emerges. Fairly obviously he tried to block the whole investigation which found a large number of his supporters guilty of a range of issues. At the very least he seems to attract moral-free liars and crooks around him. He's still using his position to make his family richer. Still taxes and related issues, sex charges and related issues all pending the end of his time in office.

Disappointingly inconclusive on one issue, surprisingly cleared on the other. Looking at NYState and the end of his Presidency to see what emerges. Fairly obviously he tried to block the whole investigation which found a large number of his supporters guilty of a range of issues. At the very least he seems to attract moral-free liars and crooks around him. He's still using his position to make his family richer. Still taxes and related issues, sex charges and related issues all pending the end of his time in office.

 

With that on his CV, the Tories may have a position for him... :lol:

Trump frequently denounced the investigation as fake. I assume he will now demonstrate his continuing belief that it is fake by handing himself in at the nearest police station this morning.

I enjoy noting that his tweets claimed 'total exoneration' when the summary says 'While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him'.

 

Even with this, it still doesn't leave him looking good.

It's not the official report that is being quoted, it's his appointed employee (the one who has called for the report right now) who has produced the spin on it being reported. So, presumably, this is the most positive version of the report that can be taken. So maybe not that positive once others get to read it.

Trump is currently denying the report to Congress who voted 100% to see it in full, and for the non-secret-service sections (which require anonymity) to be publicly released.

 

Mueller has agreed to be interviewed.

 

So if the report completely exonerates Trump why is he not publishing so we can all see him completely exonerated rather than hear it second-hand from errrr him?