Ah, the maturity and open-mindedness of the far left....

[75th]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3pg1.htm

'PLAYGIRL' EDITOR FIRED AFTER OUTING SELF AS REPUBLICAN
Mon Mar 21 2005 10:09:48 ET

**Exclusive**

PLAYGIRL editor-in-chief Michele Zipp has been stripped of her duties after she revealed how she voted Republican in the 2004 election.

Zipp, in an e-mail, claims she was fired after an onslaught of liberal backlash.

"Hello Drudge,

"After your coverage of my article about coming out and voting Republican, I did receive many letters of support from fellow Republican voters, but it was not without repercussions. Criticism from the liberal left ensued. A few days after the onslaught of liberal backlash, I was released from my duties at Playgirl magazine.

"After underlings expressed their disinterest of working for an outed Republican editor, I have a strong suspicion that my position was no longer valued by Playgirl executives. I also received a phone call from a leading official from Playgirl magazine, in which he stated with a laugh, "I wouldn't have hired you if I knew you were a Republican.

"I just wanted to let you know of the fear the liberal left has about a woman with power possessing Republican views."

Developing...


and

DNC Chair calles Republicans "Brain-Dead"

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...968793972154&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

 

[n0th1ng]

I've always wondered why they called the magazine "Playgirl". Who are they kidding? Its a fag mag.

 

[mrplunkey]

Sounds like they are intolerant of intolerance... but a republican working at playgirl sounds kinda tolerant (and then some). So.... maybe it's just plain old mean-spirited intolerance?

Btw, you see this kind of thing in graduate schools all the time. It's fine and wonderful to take-on liberal positions in the name of academic freedom but conservative positions don't enjoy the same treatment.

 

[jerseyart]

It's in every aspect of life. Liberals have no tolerance for opposing points of view, and attempt to squash them at every turn.

This is true whether it be on the university level, mass media, or even here on a silly internet board.

 

[ChefWide]

replace every instance of liberal with neocon in this thread.. yawn.. whatever.

 

[jerseyart]

replace every instance of liberal with neocon in this thread.. yawn.. whatever.

I offer up Matt the Skywalker as exhibit 1.

Constantly ragged on, poked fun at, and attacked on his ideas. I have noted zero cases of editing or post deletion, even when thet attack was particularly personal against him. He articulated his point of view, and gave back as good as he got.

The "free speech" liberals have a much less honorable record, despite hundreds of hypocritical threads to the contrary.

 

[bluepeter]

I offer up Matt the Skywalker as exhibit 1.

Constantly ragged on, poked fun at, and attacked on his ideas. I have noted zero cases of editing or post deletion, even when thet attack was particularly personal against him. He articulated his point of view, and gave back as good as he got.

The "free speech" liberals have a much less honorable record, despite hundreds of hypocritical threads to the contrary.

I offer up Chefwide as contrary exhibit number one. I offer up SSS as contrary exhibit number 2. I humbly offer myself up as contrary exhibit number 3. Liberal points of view all and nothing but articulate and tolerant points of view with an ear to both sides.

It happens on both sides of the fence, sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Thanks JA.

The liberal side of politics, while usually well-intended, is based on the idea that individuals are incapable of doing for themselves, and that a state based or society-based initiative must supersede individuals' attempts to provide for their own wants and needs.

It is therefore impossible for a liberal perspective to support objective criticism of itself; such criticism must (by defintion) undermine the liberal position's ideas.

Liberal ideas can only be adopted when people are silenced; their aims of subsidizing others through wealth redistribution (the hallmark of ALL liberal programs, however they are cloaked) can only be achieved by silencing those from whom the wealth is taken.

By "virtue" of their redistributive underpinnings, liberals are inherently person-hating - they do not recognize the basic right of a man to keep what he himself has produced. According to liberals, it must be given (in whole or part) to another. This is even more insidious than it sounds; perhaps intentionally, or perhaps as an unforeseen consequence: people then abandon the idea of doing for themselves and cling to a position that allows them to benefit from the redistribution of wealth.

Modern US liberals have used the "tyranny of the majority" to silence opposition; for example, wealthy people are painted as "greedy capitalist pigs" and their objections to redistributive programs are silenced as "just more greed".

Liberals must silence opposition if they are to obtain any power; the common means of doing it include class warfare, and appealing to emotion (We can't change Social Security...we'll have people dying in the street. What if it was YOUR grandma?)

These types of discussions are designed to restrict logical thinking and suppress our desires to be individuals. The comparison with the conservative movement, "neo" or otherwise, is just incorrect. it gains some measure of correctness when viewed through the lens of American politics, which has become a race to the bottom for vote pandering.

 

[mrplunkey]

The liberal side of politics, while usually well-intended, is based on the idea that individuals are incapable of doing for themselves, and that a state based or society-based initiative must supersede individual needs.

That is so true when it comes to fiscal and economic issues. There is an underlying intellectual arrogance of "we know what is best for the little people" that turns my stomach. People know what to do with their own money and even if someone else disagrees with their choice -- it's still their choice.

In all fairness, the old-guard conservatives made a similar mistake on social issues. I'm ultra-conservative, but pro-choice and "liberal" on a number of other purely social issues.

The good news is, there is an up-and-coming generation of conservatives that have fewer ties to the extreme religious right but that still retain basic conservative values (including morality!). High moral standards and strong values are great -- I just don't want them imposed on me.

 

[jerseyart]

I offer up Chefwide as contrary exhibit number one. I offer up SSS as contrary exhibit number 2. I humbly offer myself up as contrary exhibit number 3. Liberal points of view all and nothing but articulate and tolerant points of view with an ear to both sides.

It happens on both sides of the fence, sorry to burst your bubble.

Bor the example was relevant only in as much as it offered up someone in a position of authority to act differently. You and I and others arent capable of silencing criticism on the board, unlike Matt.

I believe Chef wouldnt either, but there is no track record to judge by, and Im not certain Id classify him as anything other than a left leaning moderate in any case.