I made a comment to ichabod1 about disagreeing with his definition of what a social liberal is. There was no brow beating there. Another person responded to my comment and tried to change the subject. I wasn’t interested in that so I stayed on subject.
Am I the person who “changed the subject”?
Saxxon - this individual is trying to cause trouble, playing some kind of word games. I’m looking at it’s posting history right now. A few oddities pop up.
Armscor38: None of which I see having a government price tag.
********************
lyby: How distant is your vision?
*************************
Armscor38: Another person responded to my comment and tried to change the subject. I wasn’t interested in that so I stayed on subject.
**********************
You have yet to answer MY question.
Perhaps you ignore/are not “interested” due to your self-imposed blindness that there is indeed a financial burden placed upon taxpayers by those who choose social, liberal tolerance. But this point has already been addressed by others on the thread.
What are *these* kind of people called? Oh. Yeah. TROLL begone!
Agreed! I made a statement, you disagreed. THen I realized it was a very long time ago that I read that statement, and I didn’t remember it well enough to defend my point, so I let it go. Bagster was kind of onto my point - the cost may be indirect but it’s always costly.
Sorry to be so late to the discussion of tolerance. I think it is really a matter of semantics and definition. The “ tolerance” of deviance you see appears to be “allowing” for political gain to me. The liberals don’t extend the same “tolerance” to conservatives who happen to be gay.
If the liberals ever gain full control, those sexual deviants not a part of the elites will be destroyed just like the media that puts the elite in power will be.
The media and the perverted are just a commodity to be used to destroy society and then discarded by liberals. So they appear to tolerate to use them. I see that as “allowing” not true tolerance.