# This level of tolerance is amazing.



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

https://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/MNG6OHU6RR1.DTL

Anybody else find irony in an official condemnation of a gathering of young Christians from the nation's most tolerant city.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

HS,

More proof that leftists love "humanity" but hate their fellow man.

Karl


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The leftists are overreacting (as usual) but the people knew what they were getting into when they chose San Francisco as a place to have this rally.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Leno: "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

That's quite a statement.

I wonder what was the last rally officially condemned by the council.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Let's see... Can you tell any difference between this guy and a Muslim terrorist? I sure cannot.



> quote:
> "This is more than a spiritual war," Luce said. "It's a culture war."
> 
> "an enemy has launched a brutal attack on them." "terrorists of a different kind" -- advertisers -- were targeting them and that they were "caught in the middle of the battle."
> ...


Tolerance is a two way street. For me to leave you alone, you need to leave me alone. I see no evidence that this rally exhibits any tolerance for the beliefs and lifestyles of those who live in the town they invaded.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Well one of these same 'young christians' informed me orthodox was catholicism with different costumes. I was joining a 'man made' cult and was going to Hell. They have a rather energetic cell locally. I can only hope the ACLU supports their cause as it did the Nazi Marchers, Oliver North et al. I would also assume since the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of protestors outside of abortion clinics this sillyness over nude cance clubs near schools and churches be dropped. This is coming down to a simple Turf War with all the gravitas of some Homies driving into the enemie's Barrio. At least restrooms still have doors on the stalls.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Haivng lived in San Francisco for more than thirty years, I have had this argument with many of my fellow citizens. San Francisco is not much more tolerant and open than Saudi Arabia. If you do not drink the iltra-Liberal Kool Aid then you are really not welcome. Tolerance is about tolerating those who disagree with you, not just tolerating freaks who you happen to agree with.

Thank you for posting the link as it allowed me to finally prevail in a decade old argument with my wife.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

It often seems that conservatives think that liberals have bad ideas, but liberals think that conservatives are bad people.

Carpe Diem


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Quote:

Let's see... Can you tell any difference between this guy and a Muslim terrorist? I sure cannot.

quote:
"This is more than a spiritual war," Luce said. "It's a culture war."

"an enemy has launched a brutal attack on them." "terrorists of a different kind" -- advertisers -- were targeting them and that they were "caught in the middle of the battle."

"Are you ready to go to battle for your generation?" he asked, and the young people roared "yes!" and some waved triangular red flags flown from long, medieval-looking poles."
___________________________________________________________

Well, let's see if I can tell any difference...

Has Luce bombed or publically advocated bombing anyone/anything?
Has he flown or advocated flying airplanes into buildings?
Has he slashed any throats?
Has he taken any hostages?

Well, how did I do? I think I did find a few subtle differences. Do you agree?

Your statement is really incredible.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

I'm comparing the rhetorical language. Violent speech leads to violent actions.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Relayer,

I thought the same thing about android's daft statement. Of course there are Christian extremists, even some violent ones, but they are so few in number and have so little support that they are a mere footnote. Plus I don't know of any Christian extremists trying to develop nuclear weapons. 

And on a side note, I bet SF would practically welcome an Islamist rally (you should see pictures of how pro-life marchers were treated.) One of my best friends is an FBI special agent out there and the stories he tells would curl your hair about how radical some in the city are. Its one thing to be a lefty city that embraces every stripe (and really we need places like that!)but SF goes beyond the pale.

Karl


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> I'm comparing the rhetorical language. Violent speech leads to violent actions.


have to say, while I totally disagree with what they are saying, I do not see violent language. I suggest you read up a little about the type of violent language and rhetoric that is being used by islamic fundementalists today.

I would agee with you if you said that this language is just as bad as some of the language that some of the more peaceful fundementalist muslim groups are using, but this is a far cry from the cries to violence that are being heard in some areas.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> It often seems that conservatives think that liberals have bad ideas, but liberals think that conservatives are bad people.
> 
> Carpe Diem


This really hit the nail on the head.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

And also, there is no damn culture war in the US. You choose to allow the crap you claim to despise into your home. This is not 1984. TVs can be turned off and (BIG SURPRISE) you don't even have to own one. You don't have to pay for cable or satellite and nobody drags you to the movies to watch insideous left-wing crap from Hollywood. There are no laws requiring sex before marriage and no laws requiring that you drink or do drugs. In fact, drinking is illegal for those under 21. You can go to church whenever and wherever you want. You can perform any religion ceremony or rite (as long as it doesn't include state-altering drugs or human sacrifice) 

So please explain the problem. Since everyone in the US can worship however they choose, why is it necessary to go out and annoy those that don't believe the same as you? 

My next door neighbor is a Baptist preacher. I have never and will never go over and picket in front of his house and claim that his frequent attendance of church bothers me. And he leaves me alone too. We say hello, collect each other's mail when one of us is on vacation and keep our noses out of each other's business. 

That's tolerance.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You actually believe that statement to be true?


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> have to say, while I totally disagree with what they are saying, I do not see violent language.


Oh, do forgive me. I must have mistaken the speech about war, battles and attacks followed by the brandishing of pikes as violence.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> You actually believe that statement to be true?


In my experience, yes. This falls short when it comes to politicians. A lot of conservatives think Bill Clinton is a bad person...they don't think most liberal voters are bad people. Not only do most liberals I encounter think George Bush is a bad person, they think conservative voters are bad people.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't believe the statement to be true, but I think that a lot of liberal rhetoric seems that way. The left seems to like to paint the right as stone agers who hate women, minorities and the poor. The theo-con right seems that way as well in their hatred of anything immoral. I think you get less of the bad person rhetoric from the non-religious right than anywhere else. They tend to argue more on issues than on emotion and personalities.

The prevelence of this rhetoric from the left is, IMO, why John Kerry lost in the last election.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are correct that those on the religious right hate immoral 'things' (behaviors). However, if they are true to their religious beliefs that should stop short of hating the people who engage in those behaviors. This is not to suggest that they all do, and in such instances the hypocrisy is staggering as well. But yet again, in my experience, most on the political left have a hard time stopping at hating the behaviors of conservatives and dive right in to hating the people.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unfortunately for everybody, I have seen very little evidence that contradicts what you are saying.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it is human nature is to believe the worst of the other side while being blind to your own side's deficiencies. I think a lot of conservative rhetoric sounds exactly the same way you perceive liberal rhetoric. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are not theo-cons and they are cheerleaders of the "liberals are traitors" movement. And of course one thinks people of their own persuasion argue issues, because one of the most common ways to discount the arguments of others is to say that they aren't arguing based on facts (after all, you know the facts--how can their "facts" be right) they're arguing based on emotion.

It's a stupid statement, one with no basis in the real world, but all to commonly agreed to by people who think in such facile constructions. The problem is that so much of the argument on AAAC and in the larger world is based on these constructions that real discussion can't take place. I can't imagine anyone seriously agreeing with it, which is why I asked the question. Glad to hear that there are some people who don't.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> You are correct that those on the religious right hate immoral 'things' (behaviors). However, if they are true to their religious beliefs that should stop short of hating the people who engage in those behaviors. This is not to suggest that they all do, and in such instances the hypocrisy is staggering as well. But yet again, in my experience, most on the political left have a hard time stopping at hating the behaviors of conservatives and dive right in to hating the people.


Please. I can just as easily say that in my experience most on the political right have a hard time stopping at hating the behaviors of liberals and dive right in to hating the people.

But of course you will howl in protest and say it isn't so and how bad liberals are and blah blah blah blah and so it goes on, pointlessly.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I forgot about all of the traitor crap. I agree with you on that. I consider myself a conservative, albeit one who is only driven by economic issues. Maybe we are the only good people left


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

Everbody is persecuted. Just ask them, no matter what group you associate yourself with you will find that it's under attack. Christians, athesits, Democrats, Republicans, gays, married people, white people, black people, all shades of brown people, rich people and poor people. You can find evidence that your way of life, whatever it is, is under attack by those that hate you. 
Have we become such a society of victims? No matter who we are we are being oppressed? Really?

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford. 

John Adams


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> I forgot about all of the traitor crap. I agree with you on that. I consider myself a conservative, albeit one who is only driven by economic issues. Maybe we are the only good people left


I'd hate to think we're the only good people left (or, to defer to you, the only good people right) but we have to start somewhere. If you're ever in Boston, drinks are on me.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> Tolerance is a two way street. For me to leave you alone, you need to leave me alone. I see no evidence that this rally exhibits any tolerance for the beliefs and lifestyles of those who live in the town they invaded.


Android, last I read in the U.S. Constitution, this group, along with most any other, has the opportunity to travel to, and speak in any city in the US. Theirs is certainly no "invasion".

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Let me see if I can make this clear. From the conservative view, liberals are not selfish, evil people who enjoy taking advantage of people or doing harm to others. Rather, the idea is that when liberals act on their (wrong-headed, by conservative standards) ideas and attempt to do good, be it through government entitlement programs, stopping wars, affirmative action, raising the minimum wage, gun control, or environmental legislation, they actually end up doing harm, or if you agree with Ann Coulter, sometimes being treasonous. But conservatives recognize, however loud and shrill their rhetoric, that all this harmful liberal activity results from a mistaken attempt to do good.

Liberals, however, often take a different view of conservatives. To many of them, Republicans are evil. Bush is evil. Bush is the real terrorist. Bush = Hitler. Republicans hate minorities, gays, women, and the poor. Republicans don't care about the environment. Republicans are selfish, exploit the working class for their own gain, and enjoy seeing poor people suffer without health care or a living wage. Republicans are working to dismantle the middle class because it will make them richer. Republicans are mean, selfish, and greedy.

Do you see the distinction?


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Let me see if I can make this clear. From the conservative view, liberals are not selfish, evil people who enjoy taking advantage of people or doing harm to others. Rather, the idea is that when liberals act on their (wrong-headed, by conservative standards) ideas and attempt to do good, be it through government entitlement programs, stopping wars, affirmative action, raising the minimum wage, gun control, or environmental legislation, they actually end up doing harm, or if you agree with Ann Coulter, sometimes being treasonous. But conservatives recognize, however loud and shrill their rhetoric, that all this harmful liberal activity results from a mistaken attempt to do good.
> 
> ...


Yes, I see the difference. You feel the need to think yourself superior and blameless.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I have been thinking of shunning the Interchange just because it seems to be more of a breeding ground for acrimony than anything else and degrades the overall civility of the Andy Fora as a whole.

However, I am some what puzzled by what constitutes a "medieval-looking" pole. (As opposed to an "ancient-looking" or "modern-looking" pole, perhaps?) I could see if the pole were topped by a halberd or something similar, maybe. Perhaps they mean that the triangular banners were hung from a crosspiece attached by cords to the pole proper. Anyway, the phrase piqued my curiosity.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I took note of that, also. However, I did not really find it curious. I believe the implication was abundantly clear, if not terribly clever.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They have only the legal right. Nazis have the legal right to parade in Skokie. That still doesn't make it right.

Why would there be any need to go and make a deliberate attempt to create conflict with those that don't share your beliefs?

How and why is it "Christian" to do this?

Where in the blessed gospels did Jesus command his disciples to go out and create conflict and attract media attention?

I expect this behavior from the Nazis.

Would somebody please explain this behavior from the Christians.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not at all. Where on earth did you get that?


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let's see. All conservatives believe that liberals, while misguided about tactics, are trying to do good. Liberals, on the other hand, believe conservatives are selfish, greedy, and mean. Pretty much seems like an absolution of conservatives and a demonization of liberals to me. Oh, I forgot the part where any time a liberal tries to do good, it actually causes harm. But conservatives are so big-hearted and understanding of motives that they would never deign to you know, call liberals bad people for causing all that harm.


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

"They have only the legal right."

That's a very telling statement.

We only have a _legal_ right to free speech. Interesting!

Patrick


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

I for one am tired of people dropping the Nazi-bomb so casually in political discussions. Does anything currently going on in America even remotely resemble Nazi Germany and their actions/tactics? 

Please - this is horses----. Come up with something better.


Patrick


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by patbrady2005_
> 
> "They have only the legal right."
> 
> ...


I asked some very simple straightforward questions in the same post, but rather than answer those, you choose to quibble about how I phrase a sentence.

Please answer the questions. Why would Christians choose to use their legal rights to intrude on the lives of others? Where does Jesus say you need to do this? And why would you expect to do this and then not be criticized?


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by patbrady2005_
> 
> I for one am tired of people dropping the Nazi-bomb so casually in political discussions. Does anything currently going on in America even remotely resemble Nazi Germany and their actions/tactics?
> 
> ...


Patrick:

The Nazi reference in this thread relates to the right of American Nazis (the Nationalist Socialist Party) to parade in Skokie, Illinois. The ACLU defended the right of the American Nazis to free speech, at the cost of losing thousands of members. A chronology can be found here:


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by patbrady2005_
> 
> I for one am tired of people dropping the Nazi-bomb so casually in political discussions. Does anything currently going on in America even remotely resemble Nazi Germany and their actions/tactics?
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but the parallel here is quite plain. The common thread is certain groups choosing to hold rallys and gathering in US cities where they know they will not be welcome and where they are sure to create a conflict with the local residents.

This is a US issue with a US parallel that you happen to not like. Too bad, it's a perfectly valid comparison. The only difference is the NSP had to go to court to win the right to gather.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wasn't there, and I am not a member of this organization. But my first inclination is to ask you why ANYONE chooses to use their legal rights to "intrude" on the lives of others in the form of public rallies?


> quote: Where does Jesus say you need to do this?


The one that pops to mind (without doing any research - I'll leave that to the professionals) is what's often referrd to as "The Great Commission" in the Gospel according to Matthew:

â€œAll authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the worldâ€ Mt. 28:18-20 ASV.



> quote:And why would you expect to do this and then not be criticized?


I don't know what their expectations were, actually. I think the OP was just pointing out the irony of intolerance of such a "tolerant" citizens.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

android,

I suggest you carefully re-read the New Testament. You will discover that Jesus was considered quite the rabble-rouser in His day.

Your questions and assertions continue to astound.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> I'm sorry but the parallel here is quite plain. The common thread is certain groups choosing to hold rallys and gathering in US cities where they know they will not be welcome and where they are sure to create a conflict with the local residents.


Can we say the same thing next time the left gathers to protest?


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

"The common thread is certain groups choosing to hold rallys and gathering in US cities where they know they will not be welcome and where they are sure to create a conflict with the local residents"

Your "common thread" is so non-specific as to be meaningless; one might as well say that since Nazis carried signs and gave speeches any form of protester can be compared to a Nazi.

Typically people don't protest in areas where everyone agrees with them and everything is perfect (by the protester's standards.)They seek an area where something is unsatisfactory and their efforts will be noticed.



Patrick


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by KenR_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, this weekend, all the leftist liberals were out protesting against immigration reform. Although I think they're a bunch of idiots and that all illegal immigrants should be tossed out of the country on their ear without amnesty, at least they protested against an economic and political issue, not somebody else's lifestyle.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> android,
> 
> ...


I've read it. To the best of my recollection, the only people that Jesus ever critized were the pharisees that manipulated religion to their own means. Jesus never criticized people that didn't share the same beliefs. He just presented them with a better way and allowed them to choose it.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> https://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/MNG6OHU6RR1.DTL
> 
> Anybody else find irony in an official condemnation of a gathering of young Christians from the nation's most tolerant city.


 No, since it is a condemnation, not an injunction. But I DO find irony in that the Christian protestors are fighting against 'popular culture' whilst wearing the rubbish fashions of said culture:

The public policy which permits glassy-eyed fanatics of_ any_ stripe to make noisy spectacles of themselves on the town square is quite beyond me. These youth would have made a far better impression with a Savile-Row style protest.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

They should all be clapped in the stocks as public nuisances.

In New England we know how to deal with this. We taunt them with our button-down collars.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> They should all be clapped in the stocks as public nuisances.
> 
> In New England we know how to deal with this. We taunt them with our button-down collars.


The Puritans would have had them hanged, like some of the Quakers who ventured into the Massachusetts Bay Colony.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Their rights are what this is all about! Christ's disciples certainly stirred things up among the un-converted. Their preaching of the gospel stirred people, sometimes violently, into action. This is the way of all revolutionary changes.

The Nazi's, marching in Skokie, certainly espoused a message of hate. However, their greatest success was the howl of outrage by the Jews living there. The Nazi's garnered so much publicity, that they succeeded in broadcasting the message beyond their wildest dreams.

San Francisco, in the last forty years, has always been home to the most extreme left views of social issues. They continue to show their true lack of tolerance when they call someone's convention an invasion.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> Their rights are what this is all about! Christ's disciples certainly stirred things up among the un-converted. Their preaching of the gospel stirred people, sometimes violently, into action. This is the way of all revolutionary changes.
> 
> The Nazi's, marching in Skokie, certainly espoused a message of hate. However, their greatest success was the howl of outrage by the Jews living there. The Nazi's garnered so much publicity, that they succeeded in broadcasting the message beyond their wildest dreams.
> ...


Yes, if they wanted to make the Christians feel at home and put it in a biblical context, they should have called it a "swarm of locusts" instead.

To my knowledge the Nazis never actually marched in Skokie, and nobody abridged the rights of the Christian youth who met in San Francisco.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dopes. But never mind that - did you get your CD?


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. Sent an email Saturday. Just sent it again.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Just to make a note about the original topic. There is no doubt in my mind (as a long time SF resident) that San Francisco, despite it's reputation, is no more tolerant than any other city in the US. In many cases, its ultra-liberal echo chamber makes San Franciscans less tolerant as a group than individual San Franciscans may be.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Thanks for clarifying that Matt. I would expect that citizens of a "tolerant city" would not elect representatives that would pass legislation making it the official position of the city that there were certain opinions they did not want present in the city.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> Thanks for clarifying that Matt. I would expect that citizens of a "tolerant city" would not elect representatives that would pass legislation making it the official position of the city that there were certain opinions they did not want present in the city.


Google Chris Daly and see what the San Francisco supervisors are like. Freaks!


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So are all elections in SF just a race to see which can position himself farthest to the left?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

I've come up with an idea: there should be a reality TV series where we take the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and have them switch places with the Dover, Pennsylvania school board--you remember, the intelligent design folks--I predict wackiness will ensue!


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> I've come up with an idea: there should be a reality TV series where we take the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and have them switch places with the Dover, Pennsylvania school board--you remember, the intelligent design folks--I predict wackiness will ensue!


Perhaps we will learn that urinating on the street should be legal because the old "Intellligent Designer" made it possible for us to do so.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The pole the young lady on the far right of the photo is wielding appears to be made of PVC, which sure doesn't strike me as very medieval, to say the least.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Jan, A medieval Pole can be seen in the old Yul Brenner, Tony Curtis movie about Taras Bulba I may join you in avoiding this interchange. I am by self assessment and frequent condemnation mostly liberal in politic. Somehow I manage to have conservative friends and count as my finest university professor a retired career diplomat and lifelong republican. But then visiting Doctor Angela Davis commented I was " a very dangerous person" to which he replied ,"No, just irish with real world experiences." But I suppose that will be likewise condemned as Baron Munchausen storytelling by those who paint me with the airbrush of fellow travellor and the big C word.I know I mentioned in passing on another web forum one of your past observations and was called a liar there too.The real Jan Libourel must be the nom de plume personae of a contracted writing team.Surely I boasted of your false acquaintance. In any case, I'm probably just one of those dogs on the internet, and not even an intresting breed like yours. So, to reduce grumbling below decks I will probably confine myself to the minutae of mufti ( thats evil Islamist clothing for all you champions of Truth, Justice and the American Way.) Bow wow and bowing out of this pissing match beween skunks.


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

The so-called medieval poles are in the background. I can only guess it is because they have pennants attached that they are thus named. 

Aus_MD


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

When I listen to talk hosts like Rush and others it would seem that Conservatives think liberals are bad people..........that is a very strong message coming from these folks and they have lot's of sheep.



> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> It often seems that conservatives think that liberals have bad ideas, but liberals think that conservatives are bad people.
> 
> Carpe Diem


guit


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

"The Medieval Poles" would be a good name for a band.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> "The Medieval Poles" would be a good name for a band.


Thank you, Mr. Barry.

CT


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Bosthist,

I love your idea. I would watch that show religiously, or ummm.....secularly! Could you imagine some Bible Thumpers in the Castro or some radical, SF lefty at a Promisekeepers meeting? But you know maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Karl


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It seems, bosthist, with all due respect, that you just proved hopkins student's point. Rojo, a conservative, admits to disagreeing with liberal policy but admits they are, in their as-he-sees-it misguided way, trying to do good. While bosthist, apparently pretty liberal, responds by accusing rojo of trying to make himself superior and blameless. Conclusion: conservatives think liberal policies are bad, liberals think conservatives are bad people.

That aside, I am starting to agree with JLibourel who wrote:

"I have been thinking of shunning the Interchange just because it seems to be more of a breeding ground for acrimony than anything else and degrades the overall civility of the Andy Fora as a whole."

It really does. And there are some people (neither of the above two gentlemen, I should add) who seem to use ONLY the Interchange of these fora, never contributing about clothes, always contributing often unpleasantly, to a heated discussion.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

C24,

Most of the nasty, heated exchanges I have seen have taken place in the Fashion Forum. I think its inevitable that controversial issues will produce a heated debate. Give me a spirited debate over a poliite "lets agree to disagree" kabuki dance anyday. But I would hope that you and JLibourel would continue to wade into the fray even if you aren't always impressed by the lack (sometimes, rarely in my opinion) of civility in some of the threads.

Karl


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Coolidge24_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Coolidge24:

I didn't say that the need to feel blameless and superior makes rojo a bad person. As I tried to make clear in a prior post, it is the natural tendency of both sides to feel that way: one is predisposed to think well of those one agrees with, and to think poorly of those one disagrees with.

All I was pointing out is that rojo was continuing to repeat the demonstrably false assertion that conservatives think liberals have bad ideas/liberals think conservatives are bad people by refusing to acknowledge that conservatives, even in the slightest way, think liberals are bad people. His statement is absolute in its assurance that conservatives don't think liberals are bad people. Yet, there is abundant evidence that conservatives believe liberals are bad people, starting with the "liberals are traitors" nonsense and working our way on from that. So how does rojo explain that away? My conclusion is that conservatives feel an incredible need not only to be right, but to refuse to believe that they could ever be wrong, thus they are superior and blameless for the current state of political discourse.

Folks on both sides need to step outside of themselves and look dispassionately at the conversational dynamic if we're ever going to have a serious discussion of the issues. I should hope that you would be able to see that.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> I didn't say that the need to feel blameless and superior makes rojo a bad person. As I tried to make clear in a prior post, it is the natural tendency of both sides to feel that way: one is predisposed to think well of those one agrees with, and to think poorly of those one disagrees with.
> 
> All I was pointing out is that rojo was continuing to repeat the demonstrably false assertion that conservatives think liberals have bad ideas/liberals think conservatives are bad people by refusing to acknowledge that conservatives, even in the slightest way, think liberals are bad people. His statement is absolute in its assurance that conservatives don't think liberals are bad people. Yet, there is abundant evidence that conservatives believe liberals are bad people, starting with the "liberals are traitors" nonsense and working our way on from that. So how does rojo explain that away? My conclusion is that conservatives feel an incredible need not only to be right, but to refuse to believe that they could ever be wrong, thus they are superior and blameless for the current state of political discourse.
> ...


Speaking in absolutes is always dangerous ground, unless of course we're debating the color of the sky or the attractiveness of Victoria Secret models. And it seems to me entirely silly to frame the argument with regards to this topic in those terms.

Better to use real world examples to illustrate the point.

This from the Yale Daily News:



> quote:Outrage over religious fascism ought to be the province of American liberals. But in Hashemi's case it has been almost entirely trumpeted by Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and right-wing bloggers. A friend of mine recently remarked that part of his and his peers' nonchalance (and in some cases, support for) Hashemi has to do with the fact that the right has seized upon the issue. Our politics have become so polarized that many are willing to take positions based on the inverse of their opponents'. This abandonment of classical liberal values at the expense of political gamesmanship has consequences that reach far beyond Yale; it hurts our national discourse.


I agree 100% that we (both the left and the right) "need to step outside of themselves and look dispassionately at the conversational dynamic if we're ever going to have a serious discussion of the issues." But I find that we've got a long way to go when the left is indifferent to the admittance of the Middle Eastern equivalent of a Nazi to attend one our most prestigious universities. It seems we need to spend more time talking about what we are for, as we have in the immigration thread, than what we are against.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> I agree 100% that we (both the left and the right) "need to step outside of themselves and look dispassionately at the conversational dynamic if we're ever going to have a serious discussion of the issues." But I find that we've got a long way to go when the left is indifferent to the admittance of the Middle Eastern equivalent of a Nazi to attend one our most prestigious universities. It seems we need to spend more time talking about what we are for, as we have in the immigration thread, than what we are against.


I didn't even realize he was in the country, to be honest. How does the Bush administration admit "the Middle Eastern equivalent of a Nazi" into the United States in the first place? I mean, shouldn't he be in Guantanamo? It is easier for me to get worked up about the fact that he is in the country than to worry about the students Yale admits. After all, Yale isn't supposed to be looking out for my best interests as a citizen.

But okay. I'm outraged that he's in the country.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Jan, A medieval Pole can be seen in the old Yul Brenner, Tony Curtis movie about Taras Bulba


I must be sinking into my dotage. It took me a few minutes to get the joke![:I]

However, as I recall, the dramatic date of the story is the 17th century, well after the Middle Ages. Kee-rist, it's probably been well over 40 years since I saw that movie. I can still remember in the L.A. Times' review of it, the critic remarked that Tony Curtis' accent would only pass as Russian "when the Gowanus flowed into the Don"!

A great flick (albeit a Communist one) with Poles in the late Middle Ages would be the Polish movie Knights of the Teutonic Order. I saw it a couple of times at Oxford. Don't know if it ever made it over to this side of the water. Maybe I should do a search and see if I can find a DVD of it.


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Krzyzacy

Amazon has the dvd.

Aus_MD


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> My conclusion is that conservatives feel an incredible need not only to be right, but to refuse to believe that they could ever be wrong, thus they are superior and blameless for the current state of political discourse.


Substitute "everyone" for conservatives and I think you've made a ground breaking statement about humanity.


----------



## undarted (Jul 5, 2005)

By condemning this peaceful protest, not only are city officials directly undermining the Constitution, they're contradicting the notion of SF as a liberal city. Liberals by definition should be tolerant, not only of gay marches, but of Christian ones as well.

If there's any group that's facist, it's the city officials who condemned the protest.

And if I'm not mistaken, anti-gay sentiments were misrepresented by the author of the article. Yes, the author chose to include an anti-gay statement by an individual, but nowhere did it mention that the anti-gay stance was promoted by the protest. To be precise, it targeted how sex and violence was glamorized by society - I suppose homosexuality would be included along with heterosexuality.

The stated motives for the protest:

"Luce...wants teens to find Bible-based solutions for the spread of sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, drug abuse and suicide."

How does a city official condemn something like that? Not only is it anti-religion, it's anti-American, it's anti-morality.

And I'm not even a conservative. I wear jeans.


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> https://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/MNG6OHU6RR1.DTL
> 
> Anybody else find irony in an official condemnation of a gathering of young Christians from the nation's most tolerant city.


Not surprising at all. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihm's "Liberty of Equality" provides a cogent analysis of the intolerant left-wing "liberals." The left is wrong and the right is right.

For insights into the American tendency towards extreme religious/political fevor, please read (or re-read) Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America."

The Gentle Cheetah


----------

