Yes, liberals are the "tolerant" ones....they respect EVERYONES opinion...
Why is it only conservatives that get protested and have their free speech stepped on?
Why are liberals so intolerant?
Why are they so hateful?
This happens constantly....why do liberals get to even mention the word "tolerant" to describe themselves?
They are tolerant of speech, but only the speech they agree with...
Friday, May 05, 2006
Faculty, Students Organize to Block Rice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
As Kos put it -- "It's all about winning." You can read everything from the left in the last 50 years from Foucault to Marcuse, but Kos sums up their anti-humanist outlook on life nicely.
I cant get the link to work. Is there something wrong with them protesting? Or, are you just commenting that they are bad in doing so?
Not being a liberal, I cant really say. Personally, I would love for all sides to get together for a big "Brawl for it All", but I dont see it ever happening. Though, I do know why those particulars get protested...they lie. Coulter, especially, spews hate in a nearly constant flow. I mean, I am the first person to laugh hysterically whenever I hear Howard Dean's name, but you cant really protest the guy cuz he is merely embarassing, not venomous or malicious. Nobody protests Billy Graham like that. Nobody protests McCain like that. Even Newt doesnt gather that much spite from the Left. These people have credentials and experience, even in their mistakes. People like Coulter, do not. Also, because Bush is such a clown and jagoff, anybody associated with the administration is tainted, too. It doesnt help that Cheney represents everything that people hate about conservatives and Republican stereotypes. There is a reason why FOX News exists, because most of the people on it cant hold up to criticism or find a real news organization to spew their gossip and falsehoods.
keep drinking your kool-aid rhyno...
It is embarassing that you are so ignorant about the basic 'why's of the way the world works. Once again, in complete hypocrisy of your comments to other people, you failed to enter one single ounce of counter argument to what I said. You went the low, low road and went to name-calling and standard, "that cant be it" attitude.
Oh, and I dont drink tainted Kool Aid, I huff gold paint.
rhyno is right on!
so rhyno, I'm supposed to waste my time responding to stuff like this:
There is a reason why FOX News exists, because most of the people on it cant hold up to criticism or find a real news organization to spew their gossip and falsehoods.
See, it is sooooooo wrong, so stupid, so full of crap where do I begin...
I go over the same things over and over, prove you wrong with example after example, I just get tired of doing it over again since you are obviously unable or unwilling to change your mind
Rice is a great success story which is to be applauded, and is to a point.
The problem is that Rice is a liar. And she is probably the most incompetent National Security Advisor the nation has had in 50-60 years.
I have cited before that she said that the aluminum tubes could only have been used for nuclear weapons when we absolutely know that she knew that was not true. She knew it wasn't true, she said it, she lied.
She was warned about terrorism and given a plan by the previous administration, yet she did absolutely nothing about it prior to 9/11.
It makes no difference if she grew up poor, if she's black, and she rose to the level of Secretary of State.
She's incompetent, and she's a liar.
Again, I read what Jim or rhyno writes, and why should I spend time going around and around in a circle?
Jim doesn't get mad that Clinton and the entire incompetent administration of felons helped 9-11 happen...no no, its all Bush's fault...
Bush and his administration DO things...Clinton TALKED about things...big difference...I admire people who try and fix problems...their downfall is that they have liberals and media who get all over them for their actions...you can't get all over someone like Clinton, because he did NOTHING.
"...the entire incompetent administration of felons". You can't name more than one or two insignificant figures in the Clinton administration who were convicted of felonies.
You think because Clinton didn't start a war, he did nothing?
You are uninformed.
there it is...the liberal answer...you are not informed, you are not smart enough to understand what us liberals know..
Maybe because you still fail to post sources to back up your generalizations.
But then, so does everyone else here.
Post a Comment