Is discrimination a bad thing?
We all know that racial discrimination is a civil crime and not to be tolerated but discrimination, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. At one time a refined person would have been said to have discriminating tastes and we all discriminate in our personal choices whether it is in our choice of food or our style of hair cut. We also discriminate when we choose not to associate with criminals but in this age of political correctness discrimination, along with profiling, has become the war cry of the Progressive witch hunt.
Leftists, become Socialists, become Liberals, become Progressives. Wearing out each name until it becomes a bad taste in our mouths and then moving on to another label with the same old tired tactics and asking... no DEMANDING, our toleration of the intolerable and intolerant.
A video from I Q al Rassooli.
The old paradox of equality of opportunity does not infer equality of outcomes. If all outcomes are to be equalized then they must be at the lowest common denominator.
ReplyDeleteEquality of opportunity is something we should strive for.
If this doesn't make you and I mean everyone stop and think, I don't know what would. Sharia is the most intolerant legal system on earth! Thank you for the insight.
ReplyDeleteEquality of opportunity is the goal, equality of outcome sinks us to the lowest common denominator.
ReplyDeleteNo man is set higher than another in the eyes of our creator and neither should one man be above another in the eyes of our law. But without inequity there is no reason for the leftist to exist so they create new rights to be "violated".
kind of goes w/ alinsky's RULE # 4 !!!
ReplyDeleteCarol-CS
I have often wondered what did the Roman citizens think before the fall of their thousand year empire? I believe we in the US believe we are somehow immune to the meanderings of history. As though we are better than those people of the past.
ReplyDeleteDo any of you kow of any source material from the Roman empire that might shed light on the thoughts of the everyday person?
As to this post....
ReplyDeleteequality is in the eye of the beholder....in the end the Progressives are despots. They would set themselves up are lords or communist party members or whatever but the results will be the same. You and I afraid to even blog, living in tenement conditions, waiting in line for toilet paper and jeans (see USSR) and they living like kings.....
If you believe any differently you are probably resting your knowledge of the putrid gunk we can a public school education brought to you and your children by people like Ducky
Warren
ReplyDeleteWhat you have stated is what I call the problem of essence and was why I had to walk away from Bad Eagle.
As an American the essence of who and what we are is egalitarian. It is a family of equals bound together by a shared dedication to the wisdom of our founding father. All are equal Americans regardless of race, religion and so forth. Any person who claims patriotism and spouts racial separatism ala the KKK or its Black counterparts
fails to grasp our essence.
I have had this argument with Dr Yeagley about faith as well. All who accept Christ as their savior are equal in his blessing. The idea of racial hierarchies is also a mockery of the core of Christian faith.
Both Judaism and Christianity at the core boiled down to its essence are egalitarian. The problem with Shariah is that it does contain elements of inequality that are Jim Crow like as believers and unbelievers are not equal under the law and even believers are made unequal by gender.
There is the honest left and the dishonest left.
When one is dealing with the honest left the issue is group rights. All of the rights bequeathed to us by our founding fathers are individual rights. Group rights are alien to our American traditions.
When dealing with the dishonest left one is dealing more with a twisted version of faith than politics. The twisted left is really about power for its own sake.
This is why a Marxist like Zinn will attempt to co-opt the history
of American mistreatment of Indians into his indict America by its history game. We can do this technique with any nation or idea.
When done on Marxism itself the usual suspects scream and do not recognize their own tactics. The errors and wrongs done to the American Indian belong first and foremost to Indians themselves and to a lesser degree to the American people as part of our common history, not a fringe political movement.
Marxists have shown that they are quite capable of looking away while Indians are herded onto collectives in the current era.
The bloginator is largely correct but I think there needs to be added the following.
ReplyDeleteForced equality is neither natural nor desirable. As we all differ in abilities the outcomes will differ and as a consequence the rewards differ. Forced equality is to the lowest common denominator and yields less to all except the heirs of the divine faith in Marx or whatever theocracy.
Marxist logic places class enemies in forced labor camps at times. At is essence these gulags and labor camps are neoslavery. Yet Marxists
also need to co-opt the errors of Slavery in Americas past to their indict America by its history game.
Tolerance is another concept that has been put upon a pedestal. I don't have to tolerate anything that tears down my culture and destroys my country.
ReplyDeleteMilitant America-haters have perfected the blame game, and unfortunately, too many people in this country allow themselves to be guilted and cowed into allowing the apes and the weirdos and the America haters to run rampant.
Warren,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting this video.
I hope that all who stop by here take time to watch it.
And, now, on to my personal and professional schedule for today. Later, folks.
Regarding "tolerance". I once wrote a post
ReplyDeleteon intolerance, in which I explained why I thought the word is overused and misapplied. In a nutshell, the only way one can truly demonstrate intolerance of someone else is if one of the two in disagreement either kills himself or the other.
BTW, another term that has been changed by the progressives is "Global Warming", which they changed to "Climate Change" when it became obvious the planet wasn't warming as they originally said. It really was a brilliant strategy. Now, regardless of whether the world gets warmer or colder or stays pretty much the same the term "Climate Change" is appropriate.
"There is the honest left and the dishonest left"
ReplyDeleteThat statement is a hoot!
Seriously, have you ever met a leftist that was honest? I haven't.
If they were honest they wouldn't be Liberal.
Tolerance and compromise are the same in my book. Look where it has gotton us.
ReplyDeleteI believe that word, "tolerance and discrimination" have been so convoluted by the Left that the true meanings have been misplaced and/or lost.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with having opposing opinions. For example: I will discriminate against a person or group or thing that I feel goes against biblical principles and teachings of Jehovah God.
It's common sense, but then again, we are talking about the Left, so that just got blown out of the water.
I loved the video. A tolerant people should never tolerate an intolerant people. Wise words! Had we Americans been more intolerant of those who created laws out side the precepts of our constitution, we would be a much different country today.
ReplyDelete"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Or in the case of tolerance--you'll just fall.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans became Conservative who have now morphed into wacky, haters called Tea Baggers. They wrote the book on "controlling the masses is through the twisting of language and the redefinition of words."
ReplyDeleteTell me Bd, is it painful to be as stupid as you appear to be or is it true that ignorance is bliss?
ReplyDeleteTolerance and endorsement are TWO completely different concepts... and yet the Left starts with deceiving everyone into believing that they are one and the same. THAT is how we end up with "Homosexual Marriages" and campaigns for "strict equality" of rights. It's turned a plea for tolerance of what was once considered a "criminal" act into an "endorsement" of homosexuality, NOT a "toleration" of it.
ReplyDeleteIn the same vein, many people mistake the "isolationism" of strict Constitutionalists for anti-Israeli or anti-African racial prejudices. As these politicians do not endorse an interventionist foreign policy ANYWHERE, this doesn't mean that they don't sympathize with the underdog countries like Israel in the Middle East, or the Baltic States against the USSR. It merely reflects the fact that these people, like the Founders, do not endorse interventionism into the affairs of other nations.
Did the jerkoff predict that Turkey would turn against Israel? That's happening but I'm sure the poor little Israeli welfare queens are innocents.
ReplyDeleteOf course Obummer and Clintoon are going to use the MB card so that far right Fascists(I'm being discriminating) will back the military rule in Egypt. Right now the most hard core element of the MB are in alliance with the military leadership,
Just mention sharia and the fringe right Dominionists(I'm being discriminating) started barking like trained seals.
BD
ReplyDeleteI am going to be blunt with you about
the Tea Party. AOW and I went to a huge rally in DC. Now I went specifically looking for racists, Nazis and truthers. I never found them and if I did I would have told you.
I saw a bunch of people who thought the country was headed in the wrong direction. I agree with them on 90% of the program.
The only disturbing bit is the Ron Paul aspect. Paul did not found the Tea Party and it is abundantly
clear his followers are not numerous. One can only grasp Paul by learning about Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell.
I can tell you that it doesn't take more then a few minutes to spot Truthers, antisemites and communists at so called Peace Protests.
only one correction; humanity is not ignoring this....liberals are ignoring this; to all our peril.
ReplyDelete"Move on, folks, no story here," huh?
Meanwhile, the story becomes, more and more, OUR story...God forbid.
Islamists understand open societies like ours, hate them, and are playing us like fine violins because they know we can do nothing without looking hateful.... and we must never be hateful, even if it means protecting our country, right? (gad)
We're dealing with an enemy which thrives on collateral damage, the more dead Americans the better!, while the beauty of our ethos in America is we try not to have collateral damage; how do you get around a difference like that?
Will we be toast for our beliefs? And for not waking up and doing something to really fight? And fight HOW when it comes to a liberal media which undermined and insulted our attempts in, for example, Iraq..?
And how do we fight when our own government is suing US in attempts to keep our Southern border free of terrorists and illegals sneaking in?
the perfect Islamist storm.....
meanwhile, we're 'tolerant'.
Not endorse or defend the Left for their language abuse, but the Right has done the same thing. We remenber fewer abuses by the Right because we tend to agree with the Right more often. Remember when Reagan raised taxes and denied that taxes were being raised by renaming the raised taxes 'revenue enhancements?' And Nixon calling the abandonment of South Vietnam 'peace with honor' when it was neither? The whole Iran'Contra affair was filled with Orwellian newspeak. We no longer have battles, but firefights, surgical strikes, engagements and limited engagements, and the terms are becoming even more benign all the time. It was under a Republican president that the old term 'panic' was replaced with 'depression' because it was less upsetting to the economic markets if people thoought it was just a low spot in the eceonomy. Propaganda is propaganda no matter who's doing it and the result is always the same - we are being led around by a bunch of lying scum because they know we'll follow.
ReplyDeleteAttempts to do what in Iraq, z?
ReplyDeleteWhen you're finished with that one you can tell the class what, beyond destabilizing Pakistan, we are doing in Afghanistan.
Indigo Red, not the same thing at all. Neither was trying to sway public opinion by changing the semantic meaning of words. Reagan was being facetious and Nixon was trying to withdraw from a war that was quickly loosing public support under the best possible terms. Besides that, you have taken both statements out of context treating them as if they happened in a vacuum.
ReplyDeleteLeftist semantic games are tools of Marxism. Ever hear of dialectic materialism, dictatorship of the proletariat, fenestration, social justice, Pravda.
I could go on.
Warren
ReplyDeleteCorrection Iran Contra was a fantasy
of Gary Sick. It also wasn't really about Iran either.
Congress passed an illegal Boland Amendment and cut off aid to the Contras. The Sandanistas were massacring Indians with Soviet Weaponry and foreign mercenaries.
Rather than hang the contras out to dry arms were funneled to the contras.
The Iran part was not as unpopular. At the time the Reagan position was to keep both sides in a stalemate. Iraq used Soviet poison gas and the Iranians used children with plastic keys to heaven to clear mines.
The usual fantasy has Reagan making a pre election day deal to disgrace Carter.
True Beak.
ReplyDeleteAnd firefights, surgical strikes, engagements and limited engagements, are terms that have been in use since Vietnam and some of those terms earlier.
You don't call a shootout between a few insurgents and a squad of Marines a "Battle". I seem to remember "The Battle of Baghdad" and a first and second "Battle of Fallujah" also.
There was a "bank panic" and "run on the banks" but the depression was afterwards and lasted for years. Again, terms describing different things.
I'm not a Republican, never have been. I never voted for a Republican or Democrat for President until W ran for President I voted for him because the thought of Al Gore as President turned my stomach.
I'll tell you this, The Republicans didn't order the trail of tears, own slaves, start the KKK, write the Jim Crow laws, lynch blacks, institute poll taxes, segregate the military by executive order (Woodrow Wilson,) introduce the Sullivan act and other "gun control laws" (to keep minorities from protecting themselves by owning guns).
The Democrats did all those things. Sure there are corrupt Republicans but the Democrat Party is the party of institutional criminality, institutional corruption, institutional racism and oppression.
Hi!
ReplyDeleteI’m a bigot proud of it and discriminate all the time!
Otherwise I would have to deal with morons on a daily bases when I don’t have to.
I know what you are saying Warren. Nice post!
I'll never vote for a liptard!
Down with socialism!
They can move with the pisslamist over to Eurabia with all the other apologists giving up their freedom but don't know it!
ReplyDelete