Posted on 07/31/2012 5:41:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
You’re right - they hate standards that they don’t define for themselves. It has to do with the need for righteousness that God created in us. They don’t want to live to His standards (and we know that’s impossible anyway), and only want to live to their own, self-defined standards.
0bama: “Sin is... being out of alignment with my values.”
Recently ran across this poem from four decades or so ago:
The Angry Man
The other day I chanced to meet
An angry man upon the street —
A man of wrath, a man of war,
A man who truculently bore
Over his shoulder, like a lance,
A banner labeled “Tolerance.”
And when I asked him why he strode
Thus scowling down the human road,
Scowling, he answered, “I am he
Who champions total liberty —
Intolerance being, ma’am, a state
No tolerant man can tolerate.
“When I meet rogues,” he cried, “who choose
To cherish oppositional views,
Lady, like this, and in this manner,
I lay about me with my banner
Till they cry mercy, ma’am.” His blows
Rained proudly on prospective foes.
Fearful, I turned and left him there
Still muttering, as he thrashed the air,
“Let the Intolerant beware!”
Phyllis McGinley
http://holyjoe.org/poetry/McGin3.htm
Side note, interesting bit of trivia -
do you know where the word “sabotage” comes from?
It derives from literally the act of throwing a wooden shoe (sabot) into the gears of a Dutch windmill.
And they forget Hitler was a Socialist, who took guns away from his people. But Liberals call Hitler 'far right'
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
“To liberals, being “open-minded” also means that one “does not judge.””
I’d say it’s more accurate to say they don’t want people to judge for themselves. Liberals have no problem pronouncing judgement on things, but only like to condemn those things that all liberals have collectively agreed to condemn, such as racism, birthers, Christian “fundamentalists”, etc.
As you say, they appeal to moral relativism to say we shouldn’t judge other cultures, but they have collectively pronounced judgement on Western culture, so they feel free to condemn that.
Who would want to do that to some poor dutchmans mill? Was it during a war, that the phrase was coined?
Just like how do we know that bears crap in the woods and steal picnic baskets.
I like it! Thanks for sharing!
The left thinks they should be able to set up a virtual city in a private park, shut down traffic, destroy property, chant idiotic slogans, play drums all night while the police stand by and do nothing, and declare it "free speech".
But let a private citizen owner of a privately owned corporation express a personal opinion, a opinion held by a majority of fellow citizens, and the left demands marshaling the power of government to destroy this verbal tyrant.
No, it was during the industrial revolution. Dutch seamstresses (and their male counterparts) were upset at the way the new "automatic" looms were outproducing them, causing their wages to fall. So they "sabotaged" the machinery powering the new automatic looms...
One of the first recorded cases of "union" violence.
I hadn’t heard of that applying to a windmill, but to industrial machinery in general.
Regardless, it came out of the early years of mechanization, when traditional artisans were fighting to stop the new machines that were increasing production by leaps and bounds while destroying the laborers’ established lives.
Interesting info, thanks
I guess todays computer viruses are an offshoot of that. Just think how many more manufacturing jobs we’d still have in our country if there wasn’t computer-aided engineering, technology and manufacturing.
I saw Larry King ask Peter Jennings whether he thought liberals were “tolerant”. To which, Peter Jennings replied that liberals tolerate people who agree with them. Neither one of them batted an eye or thought anything odd about such a statement. I’ve seen it expressed that exact way before and after. To which I reply to the tolerant liberal “Even Nazis tolerate people who agree with them. Liberals are no more tolerant than Nazis”.
bump
We might expand that to include a discussion of fairness in terms of equality. By this I mean to liberals, "fairness" means the equality of results, whereas to conservatives, "fairness" means equality of opportunity.
This is why we struggle with judicial activism. A liberal would have a judge read law creatively to ensure an equality was achieved in a particular case, whereas a conservative would have a judge read a law simply and let the chips fall where they may.
This is great.
Want to have some fun, send it to all the libs you know and watch their heads explode.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.