How it began -
Gayle: ...you are being very reasonable here so I don't think many liberals will agree with you. You can give them all the facts in the world and they will ignore them. It's so darned frustrating!I struggled with that question myself, Gayle. I came to see that what I was doing by allowing the crazies to spout-off was not so much adhering to freedom of speech and liberty as one sees it, nor was it an act of tolerance. It was really an act of fear - fear of being called racist, fascist, hater, un-American, NAZI, or any of the other labels the anti-lablers like to plaster about. Too many people are frightened from speaking out for fear of being branded a racist, etc. Being branded a coward by one's family and peers is preferable because they will understand and will love us anyway, is not what the Founders had in mind. Those brave souls pledged thier "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to the cause in which they believed. Shouldn't we be as brave, or at least a little bit as brave as that?
Me: Fortunately, Gayle, I write this blog for my own amusement and for like minded individuals such as yourself. The few liberal moonbats, knuckle-draggers, and assorted elite loons who venture here, I generally find annoying and worthy only of being voted off the space island we call Earth.
I do this in the absolute certainty that the truly smart people, those who reason with facts will out-breed the moonbats who practice a secular religion that involves the killing of their young. The pathetic moonbats will be rendered to street corner conversions to increase their herd. Throwing facts in their faces is much like pouring water on the Wicked Witch; it is grand sport watching them melt.
Gayle: So I take it you don't like moonbats, Indigo? LOL! I hear you. I visit some conservative blogs where the moonbats change the subject and in general absolutely take over the blog. I don't understand why the administrators of those blogs let them do that.
It is none of those ugly labels to say that some speech is unacceptable, that some commenters are unwanted. The 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech actually applies to speech between the citizens and the government not between citizen and citizen. There are many laws restricting C-C speech and expression - libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater. Liberal celebrities take advantage of these laws as suits their needs. The concept of tolerance has not been reasoned or debated, but simply imposed upon an unwitting society.
Tolerance is 'forbearing or lenient treatment'. It is synonymous with charitableness, charity, forbearance, indulgence, leniency, but nowhere is the word defined as chaos, anarchy, absolute personal freedom to do as one chooses regardless of consequences to one's self, to others, or property. There are limits. Those limits are defined by what the majority of people deem tolerable, acceptable, and bearable. We could end all crime in 15 minutes if we decided all acts currently defined as criminal to be tolerable, acceptable, and bearable. Done, all crime wiped out, aren't we all righteous and just people!
Islam claims it can do just that - eliminate all crime, all poverty, all want, all disease, all disagreement, if we all define our lives as enslaved to the one true god of the universe, allah the merciful and benevolent, the god who has not been able to provide his followers with one single straight up victory in 700 years, nor bring his people out of the 7th century. "If allah is willing" the adherents say, but they haven't realized allah isn't willing, so, PLEASE, curb your god.
The Democrats also claim they can eliminate all personal, societal, environmental, and civilizational problems if we all rendered more unto Caesar than we do to our own well being and that of our family. The secular god of benevolent government is insatiable, and since we've run out of virgins to sacrifice (praise be to the government god of education), then more and more money from the electorate will have to do. But, the electorate isn't willing, so, PLEASE, curb your god.
There are things that are intolerable, unacceptable, and unbearable. Chopping off of heads is intolerable. Forcing people to believe something as true and eternal which many find abhorrent is unacceptable. Stoning women for being rape victims is unbearable. Listening to my fellow citizens defend a Muslims right to do such things is intolerable. Demanding that a woman's right to choose only includes the choice to abort is unacceptable. Attempting to restrict my right to bear arms is unbearable. Witnessing Western Civilization being dismantled by the wreaking ball of tolerance is intolerable.
Those who speak of the absolute need for absolute tolerance are really nothing more than spoiled children decrying the fact they can't go the party where alcohol, drugs, and sex will be available. The word "No" as it applies to them is not in their lexicon while the rhetoric of "Yes" prevails. They want people to respect them when they are being disrespectful. They want respect for ideas that have no gainful purpose, do not advance the individual or general welfare, nor enhance the well being of society. They want respect without doing the hard work of earning it. They want credit where credit is not due. They want love when they themselves pander to the voices of hate, division, and nullification. They want...they want. They will manufacture "facts" to suits their need at the moment, abandoning that "fact" if it has no purchase in favor of another - it's global cooling, no wait, global warming! That's the ticket. Anything that comes close to substantiated fact is anathema, like daylight to Dracula, or kryptonite to Superman.
"All men [and women] are created equal" liberals throw in our faces, 'it's in the Constitution', they will cry, not knowing the phrase is not in the Constitution. Neither does the phrase mean that all men are equal throughout their lives. We start from the same line and what we do with our lives is up to us as individuals. Life is fair that way. The idea is that, in a Republic, the vast majority of people want the same thing. By allowing individuals to vote their conscience, an equitable solution will result and we will know it to be so because everyone will disagree with the result, but will find it tolerable, acceptable, and bearable.
So go ahead and call me intolerant, racist, fascist, hater, un-American, NAZI, or any of the other epithets favored by the dead-end tolerant liberals. I can take it. However, I still reserve the right to decide what I will bear on my own blog and in my own life. I will continue to resist the politically correct nonsense in my society and the intolerable threat of backward thinking religions to Western Civilization. If that is not acceptable, well aren't you just the intolerant, racist, fascist, hater, un-American, NAZI one.
The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.