This past summer was an eventful one in more ways than one, both positive and negative. On the negative side, the summer got off to a lousy start with the passing of our Boston Terrier, Buster, and then got worse with some philosophical and practical changes in the company I work for which caused me no small amount of inconvenience and irritation. On the positive side, in August we picked up our new Boston Terrier puppy, Cage, which helped more than I can describe to fill the void left in my heart by Buster's passing; I also got to spend some quality time with my parents and my wife, and get in some riding on top of that. All in all it was a good summer, but quite an eventful and educational one at that.
The one lesson I learned this past summer that has stuck with me the most was taught to me by the Liberals in our nation, and I wish I could say it was a good one but I'd be lying if I said that. The Liberals taught me all about tolerance - or, rather, their lopsided and self-serving version of it.
Let's start out by looking at what the Webster's definition of "tolerance" is:
Definition of TOLERANCE
1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
b: the act of allowing something : toleration
It goes on to give a couple more definitions of the word, all of which are correct but none of which have anything to do with what I'm talking about here. (Like the amount of variance allowed when constructing machinery, etc. See what I mean?)
No, the part I'm specifically referring to is #2, the "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." But after the events of this past summer, it is apparent to me that the Liberals in our country have an entirely different definition of the word, one that is warped beyond all reasoning.
In a nutshell, the Liberals believe that their way is the only way, that anything they choose to do or believe is right and above reproach, and everyone must accept their beliefs in their entirety without debate or recourse, while at the same time the Liberals have the right to totally and completely dismiss any other belief held by any other group no matter what, and may ridicule and deride those beliefs without fear of retribution or retaliation. Anyone who dares dispute their beliefs or voice objections to them or their ridiculing of conflicting beliefs is immediately branded either a "hater," a "racist," or a "bigot."
In short, to fully and completely accept their beliefs is being "tolerant." They, of course, are not required to be "tolerant" of your beliefs since theirs are right and yours are automatically wrong.
The proof of this is the big flap over the Chick-fil-A president's comments concerning his religious beliefs. All of the liberals out there automatically took issue with his beliefs because they were drastically different than their own, and immediately began flooding his corporate and personal telephones and mail boxes with death threats. That's right, death threats.
That's a really good way to show how "tolerant" you are, huh? God forbid that a Liberal should receive a death threat for voicing their opinion...should that happen, the next thing you know MSNBC or CNN will be doing a feature story on it!
The Liberals have also taught me the true meaning of the words "hypocrite" and "hypocrisy." Case in point: after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook, Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association suggested that a good way to keep our children safe at school was to post either police officers or armed guards at the schools. The Liberals, of course, took issue with this, saying that it was "silly" and "ridiculous" to post armed guards at schools. During the invevitable gun control debate that followed, one New York newspaper, "The Journal," even went so far as to publish the names and addresses of concealed weapon permit holders in their county in the newspaper.
So how is this hypocritical? Those actions alone are not; however, when the President of the United States refuses to entertain the idea of posting armed guards at public schools while his children attend a private school with armed guards, THAT is hypocritical. The various liberal congressmen who cry about needing more gun control laws while doing so from behind the protection of their own armed guards is also hypocritical, as is the number of those very congressmen who themselves are in possession of a concealed weapons permit - like Chuck Schumer of New York. And last but not least, when the newspaper that published the list of permit holders began to get hate mail, they posted armed guards at the entrances to their buildings.
So what they're all trying to tell us is that it's okay for them to use guns to protect themselves, but it's not okay for us to do it.
That, friends and neighbors, is the absolute height of hypocrisy - and I despise a hypocrite.
I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I also believe that those opinions are neither "right" nor "wrong," they're just different. I've always believed that, and I always will. And I truly don't have an issue with differing opinions - my issue starts when the intolerance and hypocrisy starts, and unfortunately we've seen a plethora of both in the past seven months or so.
And with the looming inauguration of the Buffoon In Chief to his second Reign of Terror, I have a feeling it's only going to get worse.
IHC
No comments:
Post a Comment