Left Wing Haters

What a psychotic op.
Please, log off the internet as soon as possible,
else, the Jews may get you.

Banning free speech until the cows come home

In recent days, an even more hare-brained plan has arisen, courtesy of Sen. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, New York Democrat. They're sponsoring a bill to have federal researchers comb through broadcast radio and television, cable and public-access TV, "commercial mobile services and other electronic media" and, get this – the Internet – for any communications that may have prompted violent acts and "hate crimes."

Given that our governing elites insist that merely stating that marriage necessarily involves a man and a woman is evidence of "hate," this is scary stuff.

The bill's language assures us that the eventual report on all this data will include recommendations "consistent with the First Amendment."

Remember, this crowd thinks the Constitution is a "living document" constructed primarily of judicial Silly Putty.

The good news is that the Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014, introduced in early April, is not going anywhere in the current Congress – we hope.

Let's talk about the hate, not me.

OMG, conservatives are such victims.

I love irony.

without it, I would never have known that that president illegally using that government land was also a worthless racist ass pimple.

Coercion and liberalism

For many advocates of gay marriage, liberalism is a holistic, comprehensive ideology with its own distinctive vision of the human good. This vision advocates the autonomy of individuals from received traditions, and their liberation from constraints both external (political, social, cultural, religious) and internal (psychological), which it invariably treats as forms of oppression. Liberalism in this sense denies that sexuality should be subject to moral judgment or evaluation of any kind, beyond the consent of the parties involved in the sexual act. As long consent has been given, anything goes.

In addition to holding out this ideal of individual autonomy, comprehensive liberalism demands that each individual’s choice of how to live be recognized and positively affirmed by everyone else, no matter what it involves (as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s equally free lifestyle choice). Comprehensive liberals also tend to treat the refusal to grant this recognition and affirmation as an act of illiberalism that ought not be tolerated. Many go so far as to think that liberal governments should force the recalcitrant to comply with the liberal ideal, at least in any area of life that can plausibly be described as public.




Liberalism in this sense is a zero-sum game, since its advance through public life often requires the equal and opposite retreat of non-liberal visions of the good.

Uzi in a pregnant Palestinian woman's face.

Liberal coercion

On Tuesday, Washington residents will vote in a referendum that has national significance because of a controversy about disclosing the names and addresses of those who signed petitions to trigger the referendum. Disclosure threatens the right to privacy, which is under assault by a spreading movement - call it thuggish liberalism - that uses intimidation to suppress political participation.

The referendum is on a new state law that some say establishes same-sex marriage. This is a matter about which people differ. What is, however, unambiguously wrong is the attempt by some supporters of the law to force disclosure of the names and addresses of the 138,000 people who signed the petition bringing about the referendum. This can have no other purpose than to make it possible to harass those signers.

In most of the polite conversations I have with people where I can actually discuss the issue I have found that the majority of people rationally agree that a business should not be forced to participate in or have their brand used for a cause or event they strongly disagree with.

This comes in examples such as the tattoo artist who refuses to tattoo Nazi images for a person asking. Gay business owners being required to use their physical location or other services to promote or celebrate Christian events. Advertisers pulling out of networks, shows or radio programs due to content concerns or religious minorities being forced to participate in activities that violate their beliefs.

Most people seem to agree that it would be wrong to require a person to participate in an event or have their brand used for a cause they do not agree with on most issues. Liberalism is fairly defined by its position that businesses with specific religious ties or owners with religious points of view should be boycotted. They spend a great deal of energy on attempting to remove speech or punish businesses they do not agree with.

Colleges have banned conservatives speakers when Republican or Conservative student groups bring them.
Liberals demand radio hosts be removed because they disagree with them.
Religious counseling for gays has been banned in California.
Liberal and Gay groups advocated boycotting Chik Fil A because the owner expressed his views of Traditional Marriage.

Liberals use discrimination against those who hold ideologies they disagree with all the time and are incredibly proud of it. Just browsing the Huffington Post on any given day you will see great celebrations for any legal or social punishment against those who hold positions they believe to be wrong. Haters.

Yet the various bills across the country attempting to protect religious groups from being required to participate in events they disapprove of has created a firestorm of panic throughout the gay and liberal communities.

OP's such as the one at the top of this unnecessary thread do not deserve replies from honest, intelligent people.