Much Ado About Blustering For Free Speech

Now I realize that for all their preaching and blustering about free speech, freedom of expression, express yourself, etc., liberals are not very tolerating of opposing viewpoints at all.  These self-proclaimed "liberals" are in fact exceedingly closed-minded.  They cannot stand when anyone expresses disgust or disapproval.

Liberals always say they are in favor of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and freedom of religion.  They say they want people to be more open-minded and to practice tolerance.

Unless it is the liberals themselves that have to showcase some tolerance.  Unless it is the liberals themselves that have to show some respect for others' beliefs.

Case in point:  the dude that wanted the Ten Commandments plaque removed from the front of his child's school.

Geez, liberal.  If you have a problem with it, then don't look at it.  It's as simple as that.  Just don't look at it.  Isn't this exactly the same advice you give to parents, uptight people, and Christians anytime they have a problem with sex and violence on TV?  Just look away.  Just change the channel.  Just turn the TV off.

So why the hell can you liberals not practice what you preach?  Are you not capable of this?  Do you not possess the capacity for self-regulation and control of your own actions?

If you don't like the religious stuff in front of your child's school, then don't look at it.  Just ignore it as you walk by it.  Don't make it a problem for others.  According to your own heavily-thumped doctrine, you have no right to do so.

So, what is it?  It is not okay for them to impose their beliefs on you, but it IS okay for you atheists to impose your beliefs onto Christians,?

you say that they should not be allowed to express their religious beliefs.  why not?  and you think it is okay to tell them not to pray in public.  you say that that the Ten Commandments should not be displayed outside of courthouses or outside of schools.  you think it is okay to tell them where they can and cannot express their religious views.

YOU are oppressing THEM.
You say they should not be allowed to express their religious beliefs.  But why not?  Because you feel that it oppresses you?

And yet you are doing the exact same thing.  By enacting law that they cannot express t___, you are effectively oppressing them.  Why should your rights be more important than Christians' rights?

You say that it offends you?  Well, guess what.  You are offending them.  There seems to be quite a bit of hypocrisy here.

**mention about the thing in high school ""meet me at the flag pole.""

*also the thing about having a problem w prayer in public school
-erm excuse me but couldn't you just, like, not pray?

Oh.  So what you are saying is that you don't **really__ respect other people's opinions.  You are not welcoming to diverse ideas.

No, you do not.  You are not truly open-minded and free speech and freedom of thought.  Freedom of thought means freedom of thought for everybody -- including Christians.

Either practice what you preach and DO be truly open-minded -- or be honest and admit that you are not.

Same with controversial books.  Read the interviews carefully whenever an author is asked whether or not they think it's a good idea for children under the age of twelve to read their books (or under age eighteen for that matter).  These are books that by rights are grown-up books that contain a lot of gruesome subject matter.  If you'll notice, they never come right out and say what they really mean or what they are really thinking.  They kind of give an equivocal response____
Okay, then about when someone--

HHow about you come right out and plainly state that you do not think little 12-year-old kids should be reading those kind of books?  Or do not think little kids should be playing those violent, sickening video games?  If you truly believed in free speech, then you should have no qualms whatsoever to voicing your true opinion.

Sorry sweetie pie, but freedom of speech works both ways.  If you liberals get to express whatever you want, then so too do conservatives have the same privileges extended to them.

 I don't know why destruction of emotional health, erosion of personal barriers, and desensitization to violence are all considered okay.  Especially by way of forms of entertainment.  What is wrong with just having kids play normal, cute video games where they don't savagely rip apart women's limbs?

Back in the day, we played Super Mario Bros. on a Nintendo Entertainment System.  We were thankful for it and we were happy with it.  It was fun, and it was all the fun we needed.  That and Tetris on a little handheld gameboy thing, hehe.  We did not need scenes of gruesome violence to sate our entertainments needs.  We did not feel somehow deprived of some formative experience because of lack of TV screen trauma.

About Beautiful Women

I have no problem at all admitting if another woman is beautiful.  When I express disgust at pornography, strippers, the way women are portrayed in ghetto rap culture, etc.  For some reason some people have an automatic, knee-jerk reflex, go-to stock response-reaction that the reason I am disgusted absolutely must be because I feel jealous, unworthy of love, afraid that I would disappoint a man, unable to reach that "standard" (laugh of laughs), some shit like that.

Oh, Christ.  (Roll eyes.)  Give me a freakin break.  This sort of "logic" completely eludes me. Okay so, that person is the one demeaning themselves, reducing themselves to less than the sum of their body parts...  And you think _I_ am the one that feels inadequate? Really?

I like art and drawing and painting, so I regard beautiful-looking people, both men and women, as being akin to art.  Similar to admiring a breathtaking panorama nature scene in autumn, the Mona Lisa, classical Greek statues, traditional Chinese tapestry works and painted silks.

I think a beautiful woman who has glorious natural curves (I do not mean a euphemism for fat/obese), such as when Jewel and Renee Zellweger used to be sexy, gorgeous, are the ideal of feminine beauty.  I think Christina Hendricks and Nigella Lawson are two of the most beautiful people on the planet. Catherine Zeta-Jones is practically off the charts, she is the embodiment of perfection (although in honesty not nearly as curvy as the former).  And I love that she has a sexy, kind of a growling voice.  Other beautiful women are Kristen Kreuk; Emily Browning (although I feel kind of ooky referring to her as a “beautiful woman -- she’s only a child); Uma Thurman, Salma Hayek (I think she's smarter than people give her credit for), Scarlett Johanssen (in a weird way I respect her as per hollywood standards -- she is really young yet as far as I know she has never done one of those stupid high school teenager movies), Thandie Newton, Angelina Jolie from about five years ago (lately she looks like s---).

Plus, it will sound really not-credible, but some of the girls at my high school were absolutely breathtaking.  Not in the typical small-town average-person way, which is to say cheap-looking, bleached hair, slutty-dressing.  They were actually gorgeous -- hollywood celebrities ain't got nothing on them.  (For the record --same with many of the boys at my high school.  Somehow, the town I grew up in seemed to have an inordinate-sized population of beautiful-looking people.  I will admit to not being one of them.)  They did not have the benefit of plastic surgery, diva-esque personal lackeys staff of twelve, or airbrushing.  I am telling you, they were gorgeous.

Like I said, I have no problem admitting if another woman is beautiful.  But please do not insult my intelligence and try to tell me that those disgusting, disease-ridden, infested, insect-riddled creatures in porn and strip clubs and walking the streets are somehow an ideal of beauty.  I grew up knowing what genuinely beautiful people look like, so I am not falling for this trash that the media tries to pimp out at us.