The Myth of Liberal Tolerance: Will This Make the Nightly News? I Doubt It

The Myth of Liberal Tolerance

If there’s one thing liberals pride themselves on it’s the myth that they’re “tolerant” of others. But what liberals mean by the word is not what the word means, nor is it what they practice.

The word “tolerate” means to put up with, to allow to exist. But liberals don’t mean it that way. They don’t preach tolerance, they preach conformity. Look up what these bastions of tolerance have said about the Tea Party. Look what they say about Allen West. Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Clarence Thomas or anyone who dare creep outside the left-wing’s assigned box for them.

See, many liberals are, in reality, are the most intolerant human beings you’ll ever come across. They preach a “live and let live” philosophy, but relentlessly attack anyone with whom they disagree.

They can also be the most bigoted people you’ll ever meet. By bigoted I mean racist.

The most famous examples of this have been directed at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1994, political commentator Julianne Malveaux said on PBS that she wished Justice Thomas’ wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease,” continuing, “Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” And in 1996, Emerge magazine ran a cover drawing of Justice Thomas dressed as a lawn jockey with the headline “Uncle Thomas: Lawn Jockey for The Far Right.

What was the unforgivable sin Justice Thomas committed to warrant such a disgusting attacks? He thought differently than the accepted liberal orthodoxy. That orthodoxy is where the true bigotry lies in liberalism.

At its worst, liberalism sees skin color, gender or sexual orientation and assigns a belief system, their belief system, on those people.


One response to “The Myth of Liberal Tolerance: Will This Make the Nightly News? I Doubt It

  1. I don’t know about “liberals” today. I don’t understand their thinking – I have a problem with some of the logic. For instance, I do have a serious problem with our Commander-in-Chief that lies freely if it will serve his purpose, and I have a problem with those that support him with no basis. In order for me to understand their arguement for or against something, I need to know the basis – what information are you siting it from. How did you form your opinion. Some of his supporters do not seem to have “grown-up.” I see nothing “cool” in him. It is not “cool” to run around the Country lying from State to State pretending to be some kind of rock star. It is just plain fraud. You know I have tried real hard to find a redeemable quality and I just can’t. From my perspective, he is a completely selfish man that had and still may have designs to deliberately destroy this Country. He has been “behaving” only because he wants to get re-elected. I believe that there are other Countries behind him and supporting him and I bet they are not our friends. You know every single time, when he pulls some kind of un-American stunt, I think that he just can’t sink any lower, and then he does. Why have they not started impeachment proceedings like they did with Clinton and Bush? Where are the Republicans?

    I had to go through journalism in college. At that time, there were only about 27 newspapers in operation – most from the Hearst Company. There use to be hundreds. Basically, I was “taught” how to make a mountain out of a mole hill. But, I thought, that reason and common sense should apply. I could have hurt my college campus with the information I acquired, but I chose not. The punishment should be appropriate to the deed.

    As far as Clarence Thomas, I don’t have a problem with any decisions he wants to make, but I did sit through the hearings with Anita Hill. To some of those older Senators, their behavior was shameful to say the least. You ought to read the text on that. Maybe she had a political motive – I don’t know. It did cause me to question.