Conservatives are supposedly the people who are intolerant, at least if you listen to the liberal left. So why is it that time and time again we see stories like this?
I guess attacking a conservative is one way for Barry Manilow to prove he's still alive. Who knew?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The only thing Barry Manilow is doing is depriving a television audience of a performance and I don't really see how he was attacking Hasselbeck. He wasn't even trying to silence her. A textbook example of Manilow practicing free speech. When conservatives are intolerant it usually manifests itself in an active attempt to deprive individuals of their personal rights and freedom.
"I think she's dangerous and offensive" I consider that an attack, albeit a pretty simplistic one.
I didn't suggest he was trying to silence her... but really, what do you think Barry is trying to accomplish by not appearing if she is on the show? If enough guests the View wanted to book followed his lead, what do you think would happen? After the press died down, if the View couldn't book guests... Mrs. Hasselback would be gone.
Is there anything wrong with that? NO. Is it a violation of free speech? No. The producers of the View have the right to hire or fire anyone for any reason. But is the agenda of the people who might desire that to happen correct? No, I don't think so either.
Just because Barry has the right to say what he wants doesn't mean I can't call him out on it as being intolerant... and that is what he is.
Are there much worse and more blatant examples of intolerance in the world... absolutely. But the left as a whole are hypocrites. They want to preach tolerance until you disagree with their ideas... then you are stupid or "dangerous and offensive". Mrs. Hasselback is none of the above.
Will, I don't agree with you politically, but I don't refuse to have you over for dinner. I don't refuse to have dialog with you. If I did, it would make me a small and intolerant person. That is exactly what Barry is.
I almost forgot...
"When conservatives are intolerant it usually manifests itself in an active attempt to deprive individuals of their personal rights and freedom."
Really? Conservatives want less government, less laws, less interference, not more. Anyone who tells you otherwise is almost certainly not a conservative.
Please by all means give me a couple examples (just a couple, I do have a day job) of conservatives depriving individuals of their personal rights and freedom.
I'd like to hear some. I can give you quite a number by liberals, but can't think of any that stand out on top of my head by conservatives. Of course maybe it depends on what our definitions of a conservative is.
I am not opposed to intolerance. Again, it's a form of free speech and is rightly protected by the Constitution (from Manilow, to Hasselbeck, to the KKK). I will concede that yes, Manilow is being intolerant, but his intolerance was not harming anyone. Your argument that Manilow's actions could result in the downfall of Elizabeth Hasselbeck is a slippery slope. There's no reason to believe (at this point) that any potential View guest would follow Manilow. His actions and statement seemed entirely personal as opposed to a battle cry as you're interpreting it.
Examples of conservative intolerance? Just off the top of my head I can cite laws against abortion and gay marriage as trampling upon the rights of women and homosexuals, respectively. Similarly, certain drug laws devour limited law enforcement resources all to prevent some schmuck, who isn't motivated to leave the house anyway, from passing out on his living room couch while watching TV.
When intolerance becomes a problem is when it is imposed on others. Conservatives (i.e. Republicans) have a long and storied history of trying to write their obscenely intolerant views into the law books. The abortion and homosexual examples are debatable on ideological grounds (which never accomplishes anything), but I do not think it can be rationally argued that any law that denies a woman control of her own body or a homosexual the right to happiness is a model for tolerance in a supposedly free society!
There's a simple rule that should be a universal but sadly isn't: if it doesn't harm or infringe on the rights of another living, (independently) breathing human being, the government should absolutely stay out of it.
p.s. - I like my steak mid-well;)
Actually, my argument was that Manilow was being intolerant, which you just agreed with. Discussing if it could lead to other liberal guests refusing to come on and cause the "downfall of Elisabeth Hasselbeck" (as you put it) was not my initial argument... but a dissection of what Manilow might be trying to accomplish.
I'm going to leave drug policy to another time. I don't believe that drug policy is a conservative/liberal issue... and many conservatives will disagree with some of the drug enforcement in this country. But that's a third issue, and I said you only get two. :)
I don't disagree with your simple rule... to a point, although I don't believe that you define another living human being by independently breathing... that seems like a simple crutch to deny the rights of the unborn. And what homosexual rights are you referring to? I can only assume you mean gay marriage, which I find odd based on your argument. If the government should stay out of it (agreed) then why do you want the government to create a new law supporting it? Homosexuals are not denied any rights that the rest of us have.
Anyway... you win the prize this week and get a full post in response. As soon as the Redskins game gets to half time.
Post a Comment