Originally posted by Sabiancym

Since we had another post of unprovoked bashing of a party.  Here's my rant.

 

Why in the hell do you need automatic weapons?  Are there some Rambo deer out there that I don't know of?  The second ammendment was put in to protect the people from it's government, please tell me how some hand guns and assault rifles are going to fend off the tanks and bombers.  Ban all hand guns and automatic weapons.

 

The lower and middle class make the wealthy.  Without the working class, the amount of millionaires in this country would be cut by 75%.  Giving more money to the rich so they can blow it on corporate jets is not going to solve anything.  If we're going to give out money, give it to the people that actually need it, and will use it for something meaningful.  You don't give a cake to the fat girl sitting next to the malnourished. homeless man

 

What is it about gay people that gets all your panties in a bunch?  Why are you attempting to keep these people down just because you feel that it's disgusting?  They aren't hurting anyone.  It all seems to boil down to religion, which baffles me even more.   God made these people gay right?  So......what's the problem? 

 

Speaking of god.  Why are you always trying to shove you're BS religion down people's throats?  "In god we trust"  "One nation under God", keeping the ten commandments in courthouses, etc.  That is the exact opposite of freedom.  Imagine what it feels like to be a muslim walking into a courthouse to defend himself against crimes he's accused of even though he didn't commit them.  Now imagine seeing the ten commandments there and know that there is a good chance that at least half the jury hates him just because their religious leaders tell them to.   Religion is and always will be the most evil thing on earth.

 

The last time there was a democrat in office we had a very prosperous time.  The last couple times we've had a republican in?  Massive debt.

 

 

 

 

And legalize weed already.  You can't die from it, and it has numerous medical and industrial benefits.  Not to mention the billions of dollars you can save by not prosecuting responsible adults.  Plus taxing it like we do alcohol could provide substantial income that could be used for public schools, highways, etc.

 

 

/end rant

Guns -
 

1. It's my right that people with spines fought to provide me with, myself included.

2. 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.

3. No country in the history of the world that has been disarmed and been free. THAT is why we have the 2nd Amendment.

4. Can't stay in a tank forever. Those of us that sacked up and joined the military know this.

5. The US is all but dead soon. You'll wish you had one. Your rainbow dreams and unicorn farts isn't going to cast the liberal shield of love around you.

6. If those black guns scare you, stay away from them. You don't even have to get one.

7. Don't like it, then move.

8. They are semi-automatic weapons, not automatic, you sound like Rep. Waxman trying to make laws he has no clue about.

Spreading the Wealth -

1. Yeah, stop giving bailouts to multi-billion dollar businesses.

2. End the other social welfare programs too. What ever happened to personal responsibliity? Earning a living? Not that it will matter, country is toast soon. That will be the end of the free ride off the working class finally. I can't wait to hear what the excuse will be for the zoo riots. Why I will ALWAYS have guns.

Gays -

1. I could care less about them, but they do make me throw up in my mouth a little.

2. How many more civil rights do people need without infringing on mine? In other words, I want to get a good job based on my experience and knowledge, not because I'm a quota. We suffer from that enough. I damn sure won't be passed over because an unqualified quota filler had to be hired.

3. Plenty of other countries that marry gays.

God -

1. I'm sick of hearing about dieties. It's all a lie. Just another tool to control the masses through fear, just like t.v. Nothing else to say about this, it's pretty straight forward.

Slick Willy -

1. The last time a democrat was in office, banks were forced by executive order to give minorities home loans with no questions asked. Need I have to tell you where that got us? Welfare checks don't pay morgages on $300k homes.

2. Let's see, a big push on "Politically Correctness" which is eating away at the world at this very moment. Ok ok, just the AAA countries, the 3rd world countries are LOVING it.

3. The big push on diversity. How's that working out for you by the way? Watch the news lately? Follow crime statistics? Which brings us back to why I will ALWAYS have guns.

4. What's your excuse for Congress?? Hmm? Oh, wait a sec, they named record-breaking amounts of Post Offices. Oh, and put my non-existant childrens' children in debt.

Shall I go on?

Originally posted by barkjj

Shall I go on?

Please Do I love a good read ;p

Liberals

The real battle in this country is not between different parties or different ideas, but between people with an unapologetic will to power and those who have lost their will to take a stand. And while the divide between those with a will to power and those who have lost their will is often party-specific, the lesson rises above parties by calling our attention to academia, culture, and politics as a whole, where political correctness fetters a once-strong citizenry and contributes to their demise.

Political correctness is a façade constructed in opposition to reality and sold as “tolerance.” Because of this, its purveyors are given to moral relevance and all who reject it are branded as “intolerant.” When properly implemented, it stifles our ability to think clearly.

Perhaps nothing epitomized this better than Reuters’ post 9/11 refusal to use the word “terrorist” in reporting the news of terrorists blowing up buildings, themselves, and others in acts of terror. Steven Jukes, Reuters global head of news, defended the refusal thus: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word 'terrorist.' To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."I have just one question here: If we can’t speak the truth about terrorists determined to destroy our children, our culture and ourselves, when can we speak truth? (The politically correct response here is “what is truth?”)

We must understand that a major tenet of political correctness is that there is nothing more wrong than the act of pointing out what is wrong. Political correctness is understandably hostile to facts and its followers quite intolerant of anyone who refuses to budge on the fact that absolutes exist; for the rejection of absolutes is a most convenient way to open discussions about “the non-existence of God” in university classrooms throughout the country.

This is not to insinuate that the problem is only in university classrooms. Political correctness reigns supreme throughout our educational system. This why men like John Adams, the second president of the United States, are almost wholly unknown to generations of students, for it was Adams who said: “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may your wishes, your inclinations, or the dictates of your passions, they cannot change the state of facts and evidence.” To this a tenured, politically correct university professor says: “Adams was an intolerant white, slave owner” and suddenly any student who has read Adams on his own or watched David McCullough’s special on him is ashamed to admit it.

This is the power of political correctness in the hands of those who know how to use it -- it literally silences opposition. And this brings us to a second point: political correctness is not just a façade sold as tolerance, but a way to heave guilt upon soft consciences, thereby stagnating courage and the free exchange of ideas. Anyone with their eyes halfway open saw this same tactic used again and again through the past election cycle.
 

Originally posted by frodus

Liberals

The real battle in this country is not between different parties or different ideas, but between people with an unapologetic will to power and those who have lost their will to take a stand. And while the divide between those with a will to power and those who have lost their will is often party-specific, the lesson rises above parties by calling our attention to academia, culture, and politics as a whole, where political correctness fetters a once-strong citizenry and contributes to their demise.

Political correctness is a façade constructed in opposition to reality and sold as “tolerance.” Because of this, its purveyors are given to moral relevance and all who reject it are branded as “intolerant.” When properly implemented, it stifles our ability to think clearly.

Perhaps nothing epitomized this better than Reuters’ post 9/11 refusal to use the word “terrorist” in reporting the news of terrorists blowing up buildings, themselves, and others in acts of terror. Steven Jukes, Reuters global head of news, defended the refusal thus: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word 'terrorist.' To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."I have just one question here: If we can’t speak the truth about terrorists determined to destroy our children, our culture and ourselves, when can we speak truth? (The politically correct response here is “what is truth?”)

We must understand that a major tenet of political correctness is that there is nothing more wrong than the act of pointing out what is wrong. Political correctness is understandably hostile to facts and its followers quite intolerant of anyone who refuses to budge on the fact that absolutes exist; for the rejection of absolutes is a most convenient way to open discussions about “the non-existence of God” in university classrooms throughout the country.

This is not to insinuate that the problem is only in university classrooms. Political correctness reigns supreme throughout our educational system. This why men like John Adams, the second president of the United States, are almost wholly unknown to generations of students, for it was Adams who said: “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may your wishes, your inclinations, or the dictates of your passions, they cannot change the state of facts and evidence.” To this a tenured, politically correct university professor says: “Adams was an intolerant white, slave owner” and suddenly any student who has read Adams on his own or watched David McCullough’s special on him is ashamed to admit it.

This is the power of political correctness in the hands of those who know how to use it -- it literally silences opposition. And this brings us to a second point: political correctness is not just a façade sold as tolerance, but a way to heave guilt upon soft consciences, thereby stagnating courage and the free exchange of ideas. Anyone with their eyes halfway open saw this same tactic used again and again through the past election cycle.
 

I agree.

The EU just passed a law, anything concidered not "PC" is a crime, punished with 3 years in prison. So, for example,  if you think it sucks because you can't put up a X-mas tree and protest it......guess what?

Oh and it's a hate crime to fly the English flag in England because it offends minorities.

We'll soon follow I'm sure.

Originally posted by barkjj

Originally posted by frodus

Liberals

The real battle in this country is not between different parties or different ideas, but between people with an unapologetic will to power and those who have lost their will to take a stand. And while the divide between those with a will to power and those who have lost their will is often party-specific, the lesson rises above parties by calling our attention to academia, culture, and politics as a whole, where political correctness fetters a once-strong citizenry and contributes to their demise.

Political correctness is a façade constructed in opposition to reality and sold as “tolerance.” Because of this, its purveyors are given to moral relevance and all who reject it are branded as “intolerant.” When properly implemented, it stifles our ability to think clearly.

Perhaps nothing epitomized this better than Reuters’ post 9/11 refusal to use the word “terrorist” in reporting the news of terrorists blowing up buildings, themselves, and others in acts of terror. Steven Jukes, Reuters global head of news, defended the refusal thus: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word 'terrorist.' To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."I have just one question here: If we can’t speak the truth about terrorists determined to destroy our children, our culture and ourselves, when can we speak truth? (The politically correct response here is “what is truth?”)

We must understand that a major tenet of political correctness is that there is nothing more wrong than the act of pointing out what is wrong. Political correctness is understandably hostile to facts and its followers quite intolerant of anyone who refuses to budge on the fact that absolutes exist; for the rejection of absolutes is a most convenient way to open discussions about “the non-existence of God” in university classrooms throughout the country.

This is not to insinuate that the problem is only in university classrooms. Political correctness reigns supreme throughout our educational system. This why men like John Adams, the second president of the United States, are almost wholly unknown to generations of students, for it was Adams who said: “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may your wishes, your inclinations, or the dictates of your passions, they cannot change the state of facts and evidence.” To this a tenured, politically correct university professor says: “Adams was an intolerant white, slave owner” and suddenly any student who has read Adams on his own or watched David McCullough’s special on him is ashamed to admit it.

This is the power of political correctness in the hands of those who know how to use it -- it literally silences opposition. And this brings us to a second point: political correctness is not just a façade sold as tolerance, but a way to heave guilt upon soft consciences, thereby stagnating courage and the free exchange of ideas. Anyone with their eyes halfway open saw this same tactic used again and again through the past election cycle.
 

 

I agree.

The EU just passed a law, anything concidered not "PC" is a crime, punished with 3 years in prison. So, for example,  if you think it sucks because you can't put up a X-mas tree and protest it......guess what?

Oh and it's a hate crime to fly the English flag in England because it offends minorities.

We'll soon follow I'm sure.

Huh? Got a source for this or did you just make this BS up? I'm calling you on this because I have friends and family in the EU and there is no such thing as a "PC" crime or the Union Jack being prohibited from flying.
 

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by barkjj

Originally posted by frodus

Liberals

The real battle in this country is not between different parties or different ideas, but between people with an unapologetic will to power and those who have lost their will to take a stand. And while the divide between those with a will to power and those who have lost their will is often party-specific, the lesson rises above parties by calling our attention to academia, culture, and politics as a whole, where political correctness fetters a once-strong citizenry and contributes to their demise.

Political correctness is a façade constructed in opposition to reality and sold as “tolerance.” Because of this, its purveyors are given to moral relevance and all who reject it are branded as “intolerant.” When properly implemented, it stifles our ability to think clearly.

Perhaps nothing epitomized this better than Reuters’ post 9/11 refusal to use the word “terrorist” in reporting the news of terrorists blowing up buildings, themselves, and others in acts of terror. Steven Jukes, Reuters global head of news, defended the refusal thus: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word 'terrorist.' To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."I have just one question here: If we can’t speak the truth about terrorists determined to destroy our children, our culture and ourselves, when can we speak truth? (The politically correct response here is “what is truth?”)

We must understand that a major tenet of political correctness is that there is nothing more wrong than the act of pointing out what is wrong. Political correctness is understandably hostile to facts and its followers quite intolerant of anyone who refuses to budge on the fact that absolutes exist; for the rejection of absolutes is a most convenient way to open discussions about “the non-existence of God” in university classrooms throughout the country.

This is not to insinuate that the problem is only in university classrooms. Political correctness reigns supreme throughout our educational system. This why men like John Adams, the second president of the United States, are almost wholly unknown to generations of students, for it was Adams who said: “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may your wishes, your inclinations, or the dictates of your passions, they cannot change the state of facts and evidence.” To this a tenured, politically correct university professor says: “Adams was an intolerant white, slave owner” and suddenly any student who has read Adams on his own or watched David McCullough’s special on him is ashamed to admit it.

This is the power of political correctness in the hands of those who know how to use it -- it literally silences opposition. And this brings us to a second point: political correctness is not just a façade sold as tolerance, but a way to heave guilt upon soft consciences, thereby stagnating courage and the free exchange of ideas. Anyone with their eyes halfway open saw this same tactic used again and again through the past election cycle.
 

 

I agree.

The EU just passed a law, anything concidered not "PC" is a crime, punished with 3 years in prison. So, for example,  if you think it sucks because you can't put up a X-mas tree and protest it......guess what?

Oh and it's a hate crime to fly the English flag in England because it offends minorities.

We'll soon follow I'm sure.

Huh? Got a source for this or did you just make this BS up? I'm calling you on this because I have friends and family in the EU and there is no such thing as a "PC" crime or the Union Jack being prohibited from flying.
 

Literally from the horses' mouth.
 

www.ejpress.org/article/32645

I'll look for the detailed one and e-mail it to you. This article seems to only address racism.

i'll get the flag one too. It's the St George flag. Not Union Jack. Maybe you should talk to your folks in EU more often.

St. George Flag (England) is racist.

www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/2288512.motorist_told_flag_could_be_racist/

Don't worry, there's much more cases worse than that.

Aussie Flag is racist.

www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24467397-3102,00.html

Originally posted by barkjj

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by barkjj

Originally posted by frodus

Liberals

The real battle in this country is not between different parties or different ideas, but between people with an unapologetic will to power and those who have lost their will to take a stand. And while the divide between those with a will to power and those who have lost their will is often party-specific, the lesson rises above parties by calling our attention to academia, culture, and politics as a whole, where political correctness fetters a once-strong citizenry and contributes to their demise.

Political correctness is a façade constructed in opposition to reality and sold as “tolerance.” Because of this, its purveyors are given to moral relevance and all who reject it are branded as “intolerant.” When properly implemented, it stifles our ability to think clearly.

Perhaps nothing epitomized this better than Reuters’ post 9/11 refusal to use the word “terrorist” in reporting the news of terrorists blowing up buildings, themselves, and others in acts of terror. Steven Jukes, Reuters global head of news, defended the refusal thus: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word 'terrorist.' To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."I have just one question here: If we can’t speak the truth about terrorists determined to destroy our children, our culture and ourselves, when can we speak truth? (The politically correct response here is “what is truth?”)

We must understand that a major tenet of political correctness is that there is nothing more wrong than the act of pointing out what is wrong. Political correctness is understandably hostile to facts and its followers quite intolerant of anyone who refuses to budge on the fact that absolutes exist; for the rejection of absolutes is a most convenient way to open discussions about “the non-existence of God” in university classrooms throughout the country.

This is not to insinuate that the problem is only in university classrooms. Political correctness reigns supreme throughout our educational system. This why men like John Adams, the second president of the United States, are almost wholly unknown to generations of students, for it was Adams who said: “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may your wishes, your inclinations, or the dictates of your passions, they cannot change the state of facts and evidence.” To this a tenured, politically correct university professor says: “Adams was an intolerant white, slave owner” and suddenly any student who has read Adams on his own or watched David McCullough’s special on him is ashamed to admit it.

This is the power of political correctness in the hands of those who know how to use it -- it literally silences opposition. And this brings us to a second point: political correctness is not just a façade sold as tolerance, but a way to heave guilt upon soft consciences, thereby stagnating courage and the free exchange of ideas. Anyone with their eyes halfway open saw this same tactic used again and again through the past election cycle.
 

 

I agree.

The EU just passed a law, anything concidered not "PC" is a crime, punished with 3 years in prison. So, for example,  if you think it sucks because you can't put up a X-mas tree and protest it......guess what?

Oh and it's a hate crime to fly the English flag in England because it offends minorities.

We'll soon follow I'm sure.

Huh? Got a source for this or did you just make this BS up? I'm calling you on this because I have friends and family in the EU and there is no such thing as a "PC" crime or the Union Jack being prohibited from flying.
 

Literally from the horses' mouth.
 

www.ejpress.org/article/32645

I'll look for the detailed one and e-mail it to you. This article seems to only address racism.

i'll get the flag one too. It's the St George flag. Not Union Jack. Maybe you should talk to your folks in EU more often.

I talk to them just about every week if not more. This article is about hate crimes that involve destruction of property and  the disrtibution of rasist propaganda which is punishable to jail time in this country as well you know. I didn't see anything about "PC" crimes that you mentioned. I'll look forward to seeing your source for the St. George flag (my mistake for refering to it as the Union Jack) as being a symbol of hate.
 

Adding Sweden...

www.thelocal.se/8401/20070905/

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by barkjj

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by barkjj

Originally posted by frodus

Liberals

The real battle in this country is not between different parties or different ideas, but between people with an unapologetic will to power and those who have lost their will to take a stand. And while the divide between those with a will to power and those who have lost their will is often party-specific, the lesson rises above parties by calling our attention to academia, culture, and politics as a whole, where political correctness fetters a once-strong citizenry and contributes to their demise.

Political correctness is a façade constructed in opposition to reality and sold as “tolerance.” Because of this, its purveyors are given to moral relevance and all who reject it are branded as “intolerant.” When properly implemented, it stifles our ability to think clearly.

Perhaps nothing epitomized this better than Reuters’ post 9/11 refusal to use the word “terrorist” in reporting the news of terrorists blowing up buildings, themselves, and others in acts of terror. Steven Jukes, Reuters global head of news, defended the refusal thus: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word 'terrorist.' To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."I have just one question here: If we can’t speak the truth about terrorists determined to destroy our children, our culture and ourselves, when can we speak truth? (The politically correct response here is “what is truth?”)

We must understand that a major tenet of political correctness is that there is nothing more wrong than the act of pointing out what is wrong. Political correctness is understandably hostile to facts and its followers quite intolerant of anyone who refuses to budge on the fact that absolutes exist; for the rejection of absolutes is a most convenient way to open discussions about “the non-existence of God” in university classrooms throughout the country.

This is not to insinuate that the problem is only in university classrooms. Political correctness reigns supreme throughout our educational system. This why men like John Adams, the second president of the United States, are almost wholly unknown to generations of students, for it was Adams who said: “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may your wishes, your inclinations, or the dictates of your passions, they cannot change the state of facts and evidence.” To this a tenured, politically correct university professor says: “Adams was an intolerant white, slave owner” and suddenly any student who has read Adams on his own or watched David McCullough’s special on him is ashamed to admit it.

This is the power of political correctness in the hands of those who know how to use it -- it literally silences opposition. And this brings us to a second point: political correctness is not just a façade sold as tolerance, but a way to heave guilt upon soft consciences, thereby stagnating courage and the free exchange of ideas. Anyone with their eyes halfway open saw this same tactic used again and again through the past election cycle.
 

 

I agree.

The EU just passed a law, anything concidered not "PC" is a crime, punished with 3 years in prison. So, for example,  if you think it sucks because you can't put up a X-mas tree and protest it......guess what?

Oh and it's a hate crime to fly the English flag in England because it offends minorities.

We'll soon follow I'm sure.

Huh? Got a source for this or did you just make this BS up? I'm calling you on this because I have friends and family in the EU and there is no such thing as a "PC" crime or the Union Jack being prohibited from flying.
 

Literally from the horses' mouth.
 

www.ejpress.org/article/32645

I'll look for the detailed one and e-mail it to you. This article seems to only address racism.

i'll get the flag one too. It's the St George flag. Not Union Jack. Maybe you should talk to your folks in EU more often.

I talk to them just about every week if not more. This article is about hate crimes that involve destruction of property and  the disrtibution of rasist propaganda which is punishable to jail time in this country as well you know. I didn't see anything about "PC" crimes that you mentioned. I'll look forward to seeing your source for the St. George flag (my mistake for refering to it as the Union Jack) as being a symbol of hate.
 

I'm looking for it. It is more than what you listed, like 1984 type of shit.

It would be easier to remember the name of the law passed though.

Originally posted by barkjj

Adding Sweden...

www.thelocal.se/8401/20070905/

That's true, it sickens me.

Wearing a shirt with the Swedish flag, or singing the national anthem or anything regarding our nation is considered racist if it's not during the national day.

If I would go around with the Swedish flag singing the national anthem in Stockholm I would get verbally and probaly physically attacked and might get arrested because my actions might get people of foreign decent upset/threatened thus resulting in a hate crime, it's f'd up.

How's that diversity and muliculturisim working out for you over there? Are you "tolerant"? lol

I know, that wasn't very nice. If you guys didn't have your guns taken away maybe you could get your countries back.

I hope you do soon, I can't wait to move away from the US, but not until your "trash" gets taken out, if you know what i mean.

Originally posted by frodus

Liberals

The real battle in this country is not between different parties or different ideas, but between people with an unapologetic will to power and those who have lost their will to take a stand. And while the divide between those with a will to power and those who have lost their will is often party-specific, the lesson rises above parties by calling our attention to academia, culture, and politics as a whole, where political correctness fetters a once-strong citizenry and contributes to their demise.

Political correctness is a façade constructed in opposition to reality and sold as “tolerance.” Because of this, its purveyors are given to moral relevance and all who reject it are branded as “intolerant.” When properly implemented, it stifles our ability to think clearly.

Perhaps nothing epitomized this better than Reuters’ post 9/11 refusal to use the word “terrorist” in reporting the news of terrorists blowing up buildings, themselves, and others in acts of terror. Steven Jukes, Reuters global head of news, defended the refusal thus: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word 'terrorist.' To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."I have just one question here: If we can’t speak the truth about terrorists determined to destroy our children, our culture and ourselves, when can we speak truth? (The politically correct response here is “what is truth?”)

We must understand that a major tenet of political correctness is that there is nothing more wrong than the act of pointing out what is wrong. Political correctness is understandably hostile to facts and its followers quite intolerant of anyone who refuses to budge on the fact that absolutes exist; for the rejection of absolutes is a most convenient way to open discussions about “the non-existence of God” in university classrooms throughout the country.

This is not to insinuate that the problem is only in university classrooms. Political correctness reigns supreme throughout our educational system. This why men like John Adams, the second president of the United States, are almost wholly unknown to generations of students, for it was Adams who said: “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may your wishes, your inclinations, or the dictates of your passions, they cannot change the state of facts and evidence.” To this a tenured, politically correct university professor says: “Adams was an intolerant white, slave owner” and suddenly any student who has read Adams on his own or watched David McCullough’s special on him is ashamed to admit it.

This is the power of political correctness in the hands of those who know how to use it -- it literally silences opposition. And this brings us to a second point: political correctness is not just a façade sold as tolerance, but a way to heave guilt upon soft consciences, thereby stagnating courage and the free exchange of ideas. Anyone with their eyes halfway open saw this same tactic used again and again through the past election cycle.
 

"Political correctness is a façade constructed in opposition to reality" So is hope that doesn't mean you turn your back on it.

Political correctness is nothing more than common courtesy that allow people with different views to form alliances for the common good.

This whole argument sounds like something out of Mien Kampt. Especially this,"calling our attention to academia, culture, and politics as a whole, where political correctness fetters a once-strong citizenry and contributes to their demise."

It reminds me of Cambodia as well, attacking the foundation of society so you can replace it with something vulgar and destructive.