why would I be tolerant of horrible, destructive opinions? especially someone tacitly defending the Iraq war in 2015. what a stupid thing to whine about.

Let's be tolerant of a party that denies climate change, wants to make abortion illegal, takes away the right to vote for millions of citizens, caters to and enables the far right to hate on immigrants, gays, women, Muslims, blacks and Latinos, etc., and refuses to govern because they hate government.

Let's tolerate that.

Thought this was pretty good:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/opini ... ction&_r=0

Doll Is Mine wrote:Let's be tolerant of a party that denies climate change, wants to make abortion illegal, takes away the right to vote for millions of citizens, caters to and enables the far right to hate on immigrants, gays, women, Muslims, blacks and Latinos, etc., and refuses to govern because they hate government.

Let's tolerate that.

We don't tolerate the intolerant

The sarcastic "tolerant left" is just another sign that jh and the Republican base are no better than MRAs yelling that "men have rights, too" or Christians yelling that they're being persecuted in America without a hint of irony.

in 2008, Democrats partied in the streets for a president-elect who was against gay marriage

let's keep personal attacks out of this thread.


housh - what's your point? which party had people in it for marriage equality? which party in 2016 has candidates for president for marriage equality?


society constantly evolves. what was once an acceptable viewpoint is no longer. it happens.

So I haven't seen a source from anything other than the daily mail (lol) but apparently an email was found in the HRC probe that showed Blair and Bush collaborating on finding a pretense for invading Iraq (post 9-11)

in 1848 whigs partied in the street for a president-elect who was pro-slavery

pacino wrote:housh - what's your point? which party had people in it for marriage equality? which party in 2016 has candidates for president for marriage equality?

in both cases, the constituencies were totally fine with their leaders or candidates adopting the stance that was politically expedient

society constantly evolves. what was once an acceptable viewpoint is no longer. it happens.

so in the span of 8 years it's gone from ok for the President to be against gay marriage to unacceptable that a party would have members who are against it? that's a pretty astounding level of vacillation to offer yourself and feel indignant about it

Bucky wrote:in 1848 whigs partied in the street for a president-elect who was pro-slavery

Zachary Taylor was not admittedly pro-slavery, at best he was slavery apathetic. He was only in office for a short time before dying, but even though he was a southerner he did not push to have slavery expand into new territories.

Now apologize to the man.

Soren wrote:So I haven't seen a source from anything other than the daily mail (lol) but apparently an email was found in the HRC probe that showed Blair and Bush collaborating on finding a pretense for invading Iraq (post 9-11)

does this mean Powell can no longer claim he was used and in the dark about the lies of WMD?

Bucky wrote:in 1848 whigs partied in the street for a president-elect who was pro-slavery

they should be so proud of themselves that they evolved by 1866

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

pacino wrote:housh - what's your point? which party had people in it for marriage equality? which party in 2016 has candidates for president for marriage equality?

in both cases, the constituencies were totally fine with their leaders or candidates adopting the stance that was politically expedient

society constantly evolves. what was once an acceptable viewpoint is no longer. it happens.

so in the span of 8 years it's gone from ok for the President to be against gay marriage to unacceptable that a party would have members who are against it? that's a pretty astounding level of vacillation to offer yourself and feel indignant about it

You seem to think there is some all or nothing thing here. I was for marriage equality but the majority of people weren't in 2008. No president in 220some years was. He changed before 2012, and so did the populace. What was the option for those for marriage equality other than what they did? Vote for Obama and pressure him via money and time. It worked!

Yes, in this case a lot changed in 8 years. Entire ways of speaking that were acceptable outside of a few pockets of the country are now persona non grata.

slugsrbad wrote:

Bucky wrote:in 1848 whigs partied in the street for a president-elect who was pro-slavery

Zachary Taylor was not admittedly pro-slavery, at best he was slavery apathetic. He was only in office for a short time before dying, but even though he was a southerner he did not push to have slavery expand into new territories.

Now apologize to the man.

that's amazing

it's amazing that:

(1) 1848 was actually an election year; and
(2) a Whig candidate won

I amaze myself sometimes

But I look at things differently at this point. I've evolved! I'm voting Clinton. I think it's great that Sanders is in the race making sure she's on her toes and not cowtowing to the mushy middle but I wish he'd spend more time on foreign policy. This is her big problem, IMO, and where I disagree with her. But, it hardly came up in the debate.

I'd rather vote for someone I think can get things done for an executive position because I saw early on how obstructive the opposition is going to be.

Bucky wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Bucky wrote:in 1848 whigs partied in the street for a president-elect who was pro-slavery

Zachary Taylor was not admittedly pro-slavery, at best he was slavery apathetic. He was only in office for a short time before dying, but even though he was a southerner he did not push to have slavery expand into new territories.

Now apologize to the man.

that's amazing

it's amazing that:

(1) 1848 was actually an election year; and
(2) a Whig candidate won

I amaze myself sometimes

The Convention was in Philadelphia!

hey, i think i now qualify as a republican presidential candidate! Just make @#$% up and trumpet the one time you happened to get something right and thus infer everything else is correct too!!

pacino wrote:But I look at things differently at this point. I've evolved! I'm voting Clinton. I think it's great that Sanders is in the race making sure she's on her toes and not cowtowing to the mushy middle but I wish he'd spend more time on foreign policy. This is her big problem, IMO, and where I disagree with her. But, it hardly came up in the debate.

I'd rather vote for someone I think can get things done for an executive position because I saw early on how obstructive the opposition is going to be.

I just think JH should be able to have a similarly conflicted relationship with his own party and shouldn't have to answer for every errant statement by a Republican in the same way no Democrat here is expected to explain away all of their party's many indignities