Mirror, mirror, on the wall......

I was thinking about those media elitist who extend the freedom of speech and idea to themselves, but find fault when those in disagree, disagree.
They will use the word tolerance, or lack of, coupled with a claim of narrow-mindedness on those who extend their rights of free speech.

We have just seen this at Yale and other campuses who wanted to set up free zones if your ideology doves with theirs.

You see claims that the right has fueled hate, by disagreeing with the left, and creating the Trumps....
Well, way before Trump a void existed by the left wing media and in the absences of tolerance of opposing views, Rush was born.....

Not for a second am I minimizing some of the very good ideas that came from the left. It's a fact they were forefront on a lot of social issues important to a growing democracy.
However, when you preach tolerance, you better practise it, as any ideology forced is the the same reasoning the terrorist use to enact their own actions justified.

Freedom is just that, a freedom to disagree, you can not justify it any other way or you have destroyed the very essences of freedom.

Oh, BTW, you are free to disagree  

If Rush didn't have hate, he wouldn't have anything,...
...of him, with him, and out of him... it's all a paycheck for him... ...

raydawg wrote on 12/08/15 at 08:17:21:


I'm an Independent and having heard Rush's ranting I would not classify it as "ironic satire".   Will Rogers was ironic satire, Mark Twain was ironic satire. Rush L. is not......

old.indian wrote on 12/08/15 at 08:31:20:


You are absolutely correct OI, they were indeed masters at the skillful craft. Today some would say they were passive - aggressive in doing what they did, a total misrepresentation of the skill it took to do what they did.

Rush is a JV'er, to borrow a term, and lazy at its implimentation. Yes, it's a fact he is a hypocrit and can be insensitive in some of his remarks, however, I don't think it changes the thrust of my comment. The left can dish it out, but not take it....

thumperclone wrote on 12/11/15 at 22:24:48:


Yep...... you are so right.

If you listen to the old Rush, let us say, a stretch I know, but compared to the present Rush..... he was a wee bit humble.
He was way better and the novelty of taking on the mainstream media, academia, entertainment leftist, gave opportunity to debate and challenge the status quo, which the left hated, and went into their attack mode and showed they know not one twit about what they preach..... tolerance  

It was good times and as always, when we challenge our thinking and beliefs, we better our understanding of self.

But yes, he sold out just like those he use to fault  

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 12/13/15 at 06:34:10:


Well JOG, you just uncovered the chink in the ideology of thinking gubbermint can do all.
I think I touched on this a while back, not sure.
Anyway, when the people rely on the government to do the things they themselves can and should do, like helping a neighbor in need, we have in all honesty forfeited our say in the matter.

I believe Kennedy's thinking behind his " Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" was his illustration that we were wanting our government to do what it was never intended to do.
These programs become way too massive, and just the accountability of ensuring it (the program)  is functioning as intended, takes another program to over see that....

We can blame the politicians all we want, but it won't solve it.
Look at most of the past leadership, they were governing for the most part in a reactionary mode dictated by the emotions of the masses.
In other words, they were not true leaders.

Maybe, not sure, as frankly I am still in the dark about Trump, but maybe this "boldness of mind-speak" is what propelling this guy, as society has become tired of government that is trying to govern on a "one size fits all" platitude mindset, which by its very good intentions removes all the diversity and uniqueness each one of us bring to the "melting pot" of the soul food kettle  

Christians want to be accepted and understood by atheist, then extend the dialogue and show them your intention by exposing your heart to ridicule for being honest.
We can add Muslims to that list, or atheist, or Asians, Blacks, Gays, Hispanics, etc....

Laws won't change a persons heart ( almost the exact words Hillary told the BLM people and then went on to say we need more laws) ) it only means they have to live in a system that rules over them, not very pleasing if your "group of shared beliefs" ain't in power.  

Your example of private business is a shining example of how it won't work. We have forced the government to alienate one, to include the other.....WTF, how did that solve twiddling?

All it did was to set up a confrontation, adding more diversion and more strain on the political process, which will then consume more time and energy away from governing against other issues that have a greater capacity to disrupt our system of governing ( as it was originally intended ).

You described the repair and fix to this problem, and it is where the "people" decide, not the government.   We are back to the word, or question, " Is our beliefs and actions sustainable?"

If they choose not to bake a cake for somebody, and by doing so, it causes their business to fail, on its OWN accord, by folk extending the same rights,  these bakers extended to themselves.....
By choosing not to support a business they don't agree with, then golly, look, society fixed itself, and it cost the government nothing....

Of course this is an over simplification of many existing problems, but they became bigger problems and have sprouted more problems, because we tried forcing a solution because the repair was not......

SUSTAINABLE with democracy.

Of course tyranny, and socialism, and...... changes the whole dynamics of governing. If we are willing to forfeit some of the freedoms we were granted in our early documents, then we have abrogated those rights to another.

And.......

That is the threshold this country stands upon presently.

This.......

Is what those who designed terrorist activities against the USA and its allies foresaw, and decided to push us to that brink.

Are we willing to surrender our freedom that we say we believe in, or, try and bend it into a new shape that we think will assure us protection?

Laws against second hand smoke and business, owning guns, junk food, or suspecting a person of possible devious motivation based solely on assumptions, is this what the founding fathers imagined?

You decide for yourself......

Serowbot wrote on 12/13/15 at 07:58:36:


Thanks for your sarcastic example at how crazy, and trapped,  we have become in our thinking, perfect!

No, I don't think you think, again.
Your participation around here is nothing but regurgitation of the left wing talking points.
Your one liners is all you offer, and don't engage in intellectual exchange.
Your reply here is exampled. You take the civil rights movement and toss everything else under the bus, very lazy dude.
Even that argument is lame, your fix is to punish the whites by having s black only drinking fountain, and the stupidity of that escapes you.