It's Okay To Be Racist, Sexist, Misogynist, Misandrist, Ageist or Mean Generally IF You're Liberal

Liberal commenters over at Cassy Fiano's blog felt free to spew hate toward her because shes conservative and female:

Grebrook:
Dude, she's fat. LOL. And she goes and gives this pathetically condescending interview about how she doesn't date liberal men, as if liberal men really care? It's kind of like a black guy telling the KKK "nah, you're not good enough for me to be a member". They're not exactly inviting him in.

Cassy, you're fat, seriously. Until you lose weight, I think it's safe to say that you don't have much room to talk about "liberal idiots" if you're not intelligent enough to stay healthy.

Grebrook:
Rofl, do you actually read this blog? This girl is a walking cliche. A fat, white angry Republican ...

Fat? A whale? Come on guys, couldn't you come up with anything better than that? I mean, really. That's like, the most boring, unoriginal insult in the book. Try a little harder next time. Please.

It isn't about lack of imagination, Cassy. It's about entitlement. Being liberal entitles a person to say and do anything because their motives are pure and their premise unquestionably correct.

So, Hillary can, with a straight face talk about her white people supporters. Obama can disparage "the other" because he's better, knows better. These are the leaders of the Left. The average Leftist blog commenter is just doing the same thing albeit on a less sophisticated level. The talk will denigrate into fat rolls and vaginas. My personal favorite sexist joke recently here:

What is the smartest thing to come out of a woman's mouth? Albert Einstein's cock.

The joke was in reference to me being a stupid, entitled, fat, old bitch. It was a personal attack to demonstrate my abject stupidness. It was okay, though, because when you're smarter and liberal (read better) using a sexist attack is perfectly acceptable.

Today, James Kirchick writing in The Advocate highlights liberal homophobia:

If John McCain had confessed to being “not comfortable” around “those people,” handed a microphone over to the likes of Donnie McClurkin, cast aspersions about the sexuality of political opponents, or just openly called someone a “fruitcake,” the denunciations from liberals would be swift and unforgiving. Yet Democrats in particular and liberals more broadly always get a pass. Indeed, at the time of Stark’s outburst, the Human Rights Campaign defended the congressman by emphasizing that he "is one of the gay community's staunchest allies." Log Cabin Republicans president Patrick Sammon points to the example of the Democratic mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Jim Naugle, who has made a series of homophobic remarks about the many gay tourists who visit his Florida city. Rarely, however, do news stories ever mention that Naugle is a Democrat. “If he was a Republican, every single story about him would have ‘Republican’ before his name,” Sammon says.

The liberal journalist Eric Alterman, a columnist for The Nation and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress think tank, is a particularly nasty example of the liberal homophobe. Two years ago he challenged gay, HIV-positive journalist Andrew Sullivan to prove a claim Sullivan had made about Alterman regarding military action in Afghanistan, offering to pay “$10,000 to the AIDS charity of Sullivan’s choice.” He mocked Sullivan, “who is HIV positive and likes to discuss this fact with reporters,” for his “remodeled bathroom in P-town.” Alterman regularly refers to Sullivan as “little Roy,” after Roy Cohn, the gay aide to Sen. Joe McCarthy who died of AIDS complications. Following Ann Coulter’s labeling Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot” in 2007, Alterman said, “Look, the word 'faggot' ... is a word one hears in private conversation quite frequently; she just said it in public.” Makes one wonder what sort of company Alterman keeps.

Why do liberals get a pass when they are clearly hypocritical and would, themselves, skewer someone on the right who used the same rhetoric? Because, their ideology is pure. They have good intentions. Their motives are above question.

I'm not arguing for stifling free speech. As I wrote last week in "America Up!", there is far too much victim-claiming behavior by far too many people. The political correctness has stopped honest debate about real solutions and lead to absolutely insane actions. Political correctness has put the emphasis on the superficial rather than the substance. What I am arguing is that the liberals want and get to have it all ways. It is perfectly fine to play dirty, use nasty language, and hold discriminatory beliefs as long as they wear the right name and party.

Democrats and liberals always get a pass. It makes me think that they don't really believe their politically correct rhetoric and just spew it to obtain and retain power. Holding the Right to stringent speech standards restricts the debate and forces only certain kind of conversations with pre-determined outcomes. How convenient. Even better, liberals can attempt to restrict the speech of the opposition by using the very same offensive speech they claim is wrong. Wow, what a great deal.