“A Liberal can tolerate anything -

except a conservative.”

But it once was a specific term to indicate a specific demographic type or person, and it had NOTHING to do with politeness. Using that word on someone who was not a gentleman would indicate that you were either stupid or a troublemaker. It would be like calling an Army general “sailor”.

I didn’t include that part of the definition because for purposes of this post, it was irrelevant. – Admin

Public Urination…
I have been known to release without the aid of a restroom [it is an advantage of being male]. I always made sure to thoroughly obscure myself, however.

Tolerance and litigiousness…
I thing Mr. La Roi pretty well summed that up.

We also have to seriously think about the phrase “The Constitution is not a suicide pact”.

We need an Amendment in the Constitution for the seperation of the legal profession & unaccountability.

A normal person would yell and scream and be mad at themselves for doing something like that. This woman decided to sue. Why did she decide to sue? Because someone before her had sued over some other stupid issue. Why are these people allowed to sue over no-common sense issues? Because courts are entertaining these cases. If a judge had the guts to say “Are you crazy? I’m not hearing this case!” These things would dwindle.

The problem is, fewer and fewer judges are doing this. Why? Becuase they’d get sued and some other judge would hear the case.

So now we have gentlemen rapists, misunderstood murderers, and innocent victims of criminally good-tasting and readily available food.

OW! My wrist is sore from typing this! I’m gonna sue! Oh wait…OSHA beat me to it.

‘Course, my stomach is a little bit uncomfortable. Darn that Pizza Hut for making their pizza so good. They made me eat more and now my stomach hurts!

SOMEBODY CALL ME A LAWYER!!

Yes, and providing convenient trash cans would solve the problem of armed robbers leaving all those empty cartridge casings on the street.

Liberals make a big deal of tolerating a wide range of aberant behavior. They equate tolerance of the weird or immoral with the acceptance of varying norms of moral activity.

Not me! If you raise your kids like goats and do drugs in the street while espousing a religion of hate, I will NOT tolerate your idiocy. I am coming after you for the sake of your poor kids and to get your hind parts out of the area.

La Shawn made ironic reference to the use of the word “gentleman.” I recall watching two teen girls scratch, bite, patch hair, tear clothing and curse on a professional level as an adult cried, “ladies, ladies, let’s be civil!” Frankly, I didn’t see a lady anywhere nearby.

Positive Tolerance is accepting all beleifs as equal (I believe it’s perfectly fine to kill people…so you have to accept that as a fact)

Negative Tolerance: You can have your belief, and I can have mine, but that doesn’t make yours just as true as mine. That’s where we can get into a debate on Christianity vs. other religions.

But with our modern definition of tolerance, we must accept ALL VIEWS. ALL VIEWS means ALL VIEWS does it not?

As I said in an column on Virtue Magazine:

“Say I believe it is all right to steal from a local gift shop because I’ve donated to it before but I never got anything in return for my services. So I decide I’m going to get my reward. But I get caught in the act. According to the view above, I didn’t do anything wrong. I believed it was fine to steal. It’s my truth, and you can’t say that it’s wrong. So with no moral absolutes, and nothing black and white, we have a society that truly has no law. But the law must be absolute—it cannot change from person to person.

Increased lawlessness results from the view of no absolute truth. Because how can you condemn anyone if you believe in tolerating others beliefs? Yes, a tolerant person must even be tolerant of the intolerant. How can you call me a bigot if, according to your view of tolerance, it’s true if I believe it’s true?”

I rest my case (perhaps.)