Senator Clinton: I want to be first U.S. president to march in gay pride parade

[longeyes]

Do they make black leather pantsuits?

[Scout26]

Can y'all imagine a "Gun Pride Parade"?

I was just in one on Tuesday at IGOLD (Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day).  We marched from the Hilton to the Capitol (about 7-8 blocks).  No guns, just flags and some signs. (including one Ron Paul goofball, fortunately not in a Wookie or Star Trek outfit).  When we got to the Capitol, before we went in to lobby, the ISRA director thanked the Springfield Police (and we gave them a round of applause) and apologized to them and the people of Springfield for tying up traffic for the 15-20 minutes it took 2500 people to walk there.

But back to the OP, it'll give Hillary a chance to come out of the closet.

[seeker_two]

I would like President Hillary to be marched on by a Gay Rights parade....or any tracked vehicle would do in a pinch.... 

[The Rabbi]

Tolerance and acceptance are two VERY different things.

Unfortunately far too many people believe that tolerance equals acceptance.

Count me as one of them.
Why don't you delineate the difference.

[BrokenPaw]

Tolerance:

tol?er?ance      /ˈtɒlərəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tol-er-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1.   a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2.   a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3.   interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

Acceptance:

ac?cept?ance      /?kˈsɛptəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-sep-tuhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1.   the act of taking or receiving something offered.
2.   favorable reception; approval; favor.

The difference between tolerance and acceptance is the difference between a "live and let live" attitude, and the embracing of ideas as one's own.

I do not have to accept my neighbor's religion, but I do have to tolerate it.

-BP

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Tolerance is a tricky thing.  So many of those who preach tolerance don't tolerate any but their own kind.  Try going to a gay pride event with your opposite-sex significant other.  Try convincing a hardcore "pro-tolerance" leftist that she should tolerate wealthy oil execs and gun-owning Christians. 

Somebody once said that people don't become more tolerant, they just choose different targets for their intolerance.  I don't know if this is true universally, but it certainly holds true for the American left.

[Tecumseh]

And the President has no business marching in the streets. Good way to give your secret service guys a heart attack.

  So by taking the job as President of the United States, you have to give up your first amendment rights?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Hey!  Welcome back, Tecumseh.  We missed you!

And the President has no business marching in the streets. Good way to give your secret service guys a heart attack.

  So by taking the job as President of the United States, you have to give up your first amendment rights?

Nope, you don't lose your first amendment rights when you become Prez.  But what you can do by right, and what you ought to do, are often two entirely different things.  This is especially true of the POTUS, where public discretion matters a great deal more than in private life.  If you're POTUS, you should be smart enough to stay away from any of the confrontational and antagonistic "pride" marches.

Besides, does anyone believe Hillary would go to a gay pride march because she enjoys the festivities?  It's an obvious attempt at pandering.  Doesn't this insult the gay pride folks? 

Gun owners and hunters were insulted and disgusted when Kerry claimed to hunt dear by crawling through the mud.  Why would it be any different for gays?

[wooderson]

Good for her.

[Tecumseh]

Hey!  Welcome back, Tecumseh.  We missed you!

And the President has no business marching in the streets. Good way to give your secret service guys a heart attack.

  So by taking the job as President of the United States, you have to give up your first amendment rights?

Nope, you don't lose your first amendment rights when you become Prez.  But what you can do by right, and what you ought to do, are often two entirely different things.  This is especially true of the POTUS, where public discretion matters a great deal more than in private life.  If you're POTUS, you should be smart enough to stay away from any of the confrontational and antagonistic "pride" marches.

Besides, does anyone believe Hillary would go to a gay pride march because she enjoys the festivities?  It's an obvious attempt at pandering.  Doesn't this insult the gay pride folks? 

Gun owners and hunters were insulted and disgusted when Kerry claimed to hunt dear by crawling through the mud.  Why would it be any different for gays? 

  So it is wrong for politicians to pander?  All politicians do it.  I have been to the pride parade here in town as well as some of the others back home in Chicago and I did not feel it was confrontational and antagonistic.  Either way she should have a chance to march if she wants.  I would argue that we can look at Herr Bush and the way he antagonizes the country. 

Either way I dont think is an insult.  If it is than Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. as well as numerous other people have insulted us gunowners. 

[The Rabbi]

Tolerance:

tol?er?ance      /ˈtɒlərəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tol-er-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1.   a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2.   a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3.   interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

Acceptance:

ac?cept?ance      /?kˈsɛptəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-sep-tuhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1.   the act of taking or receiving something offered.
2.   favorable reception; approval; favor.

The difference between tolerance and acceptance is the difference between a "live and let live" attitude, and the embracing of ideas as one's own.

I do not have to accept my neighbor's religion, but I do have to tolerate it.

-BP

That doesnt really cover it.
A "live and let live" attitude implies an acceptability of the philosophy or dogma.  If my neighbor is a neo-Nazi I might not actively picket his house or throw Molotiv cocktails, but if I dont do what I reasonably can to counter that, then I am tolerating it, and by extension accepting it.

[BrokenPaw]

Not so.  Your neighbor has a right to believe whatever it is that he chooses to believe.  To, his rights require that you tolerate his beliefs; to wit, you do not take action that mitigates those rights. 

Acceptance would require that you embrace or support those beliefs.  That's a different thing entirely, and I think everyone here would be behind you when you chose not to do that.

Now, I'll grant you that there are plenty out there who preach "tolerance" when they really mean "acceptance".  That's a separate issue.

-BP

[MechAg94]

IMO: 

Tolerance = Live and Let Live or "I won't form a mob and come lynch you" or Respect that they also have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 

Acceptance = To me this generally means approval or agreement or support for someone else's position/views/culture. 

IMO, you can hate someone with a pure passion and still tolerate them.  Acceptance implies a bit more than that. 
I don't have to approve of or agree with the lifestyle of a homosexual (for example) or even associate with them if I choose, but I can and will leave them alone and respect their right to choose their own path with the expectation that they will do the same for me and others.  I guess "Neo-Nazi" fits in that as well. 

If you have a different view, that is fine.  It is just the way I use the words. 

[The Rabbi]

Not so.  Your neighbor has a right to believe whatever it is that he chooses to believe.  To, his rights require that you tolerate his beliefs; to wit, you do not take action that mitigates those rights. 

Acceptance would require that you embrace or support those beliefs.  That's a different thing entirely, and I think everyone here would be behind you when you chose not to do that.

Now, I'll grant you that there are plenty out there who preach "tolerance" when they really mean "acceptance".  That's a separate issue.

-BP

Why does he have a right to believe whatever he wants?  I reject that notion.
And if I dont outright reject something, then I am ipso facto endorsing it as a viable alternative.

[MechAg94]

So do you want a law passed saying he can't believe that? 

I reject your implied control over my beliefs. 

[The Rabbi]

So do you want a law passed saying he can't believe that? 

I reject your implied control over my beliefs. 

He can believe anything he wants.  He just can't express it in public.

[MechAg94]

Well, now you are regulating his freedom of speech. 

[BrokenPaw]

Assertion to counter my definition of tolerance:

Why does he have a right to believe whatever he wants?

Self-contradiction, two posts later:

He can believe anything he wants.

"He can believe anything he wants."  That's tolerance.

"He's right."  That would be acceptance.

Tolerance is the one that's required, to avoid hypocrisy.  Acceptance is not required.

-BP

[Dntsycnt]

So how far does tolerance stretch?  Is it merely an avoidance of physical violence?   That one won't stomp them into the ground but will call them fags to his friends and try to stop the "gay agenda"?  "I'll try to crush you in any way but physically."   Are the members of the Westboro Crazy Bastards therefore "tolerant"?

I'm not making accusations, just exploring the idea as it has been expressed.

[keeleon]

He can believe anything he wants.  He just can't express it in public.

And yet you stated that you would feel wrong in your own mind if you didn't express your opinion ON his opinion in public.

To me the difference is tolerance is when you see something you don't like, and just walk away from it.  Acceptance is when you see something that you might not like but grow to "accept" it and maybe even smile if you see it.  "Intolerance" is when you voice your disapproval for it.  No one is saying that your not allowed to be intolerant of neo-nazis, and hell I agree with you of not "tolerating" them, as I don't either.  I will tell them to back the eff off.  I "accept" gay people, however, because while I don't "agree" with it, I have several gay friends that I don't mind hanging out with as long as they don't throw it in my face.  I "accept" them existing as gay, but I "tolerate" when they do "gay" things.  But that's where the difference is.  Just don't say you are "tolerant" of everyone when you actually aren't.  I don't think that we should have to be.  Everyone preaches "tolerance" but who says we even have to?  They should have the same rights as all other human beings, true, but we shouldn't have to like it when they flaunt their differences in our face.

[The Rabbi]

He can believe anything he wants.  He just can't express it in public.

And yet you stated that you would feel wrong in your own mind if you didn't express your opinion ON his opinion in public.

And your point is?

[Paddy]

Are the members of the Westboro Crazy Bastards therefore "tolerant"?

No, they are not tolerant.   The root cause for intolerance and injustice is ignorance. In their case, that ignorance goes all the way to the bone.  Now I won't try to second guess God, because I have no idea what He will do.  But I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes when it comes time for them to account to Him.

[Ex-MA Hole]

I would argue that we can look at Herr Bush and the way he antagonizes the country. 
 

Tecumseh, welcome back.  Please note Mike Irwin's sticky at the top of this particular forum. 

Thank you.

[roo_ster]

Given:

Many folks nowdays use the word "tolerance" but really mean "acceptance."

In today's PC multi-cultist milieu, the worst sins are "intolerance" and being "judgmental."  No thought is given to the consequences.

=======

As you might expect, I urinate on the PC multi-cultist POV.  I heap derision on it and bash it over the head with contempt. 

This whole notion that we are required to tolerate anything and everything is a tool developed and used by those who would destroy W civ.

Some things are intolerable. 

Take, for example, TR's Hypothetical Neo-nazi Neighbor (HNN).  Why should TR keep his mouth shut when HNN goes off on a HNN rant?  Why should he tolerate HNN in the "fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward" sense?  Why should TR not use the means available to him to run HNN out of town on a rail?

I would draw the line at physical violence to persons or property and the use of the law to silence HNN.  Pretty much every other tool ought to be considered fair game, especially the use of TR's speech/writing, social stigma, social discrimination*, refusal to do business with, etc.

Such tools can and ought to be used against those whose views are antithetical to Western civ in general, and American constitutional republicanism in particular.  Why tolerate the speech of those who would end our freedom to speak?  Such is deserving of all the social brickbats the community can muster.

The freedom of speech does not come with a freedom from criticism codicil.  Same thing goes for legal actions: just because it is legal does not grant immunity from criticism. 

* Another fine word and practice deplored by the self-anointed

[keeleon]

And your point is?

My point is that it is not fair of you to state that he is "not allowed" to express his beliefs publicly, when in the next breath you state that you feel obligated to PUBLICLY EXPRESS your disapproval of his opinions.  You are both entitle to your opinions, and as long ass neither one of you causes harm to anyone else then you can do whatever you want.  Of course, since most neo-nazis promote violence, and I'm sure you don't it is a moot point.  But he can march and protest just as much as you.  Again I state that I personally do not tolerate that kind of behavior either, but I also don't state that they shouldn't be allowed to display their opinion either.  If their opinion causes people to be hurt or harmed, then yes they do need to stop.