Eddie Haskell wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:Gf6dnVoKA8a0IbnVnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Eddie Haskell wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:ftydnYo0qoxPMLnVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Eddie Haskell wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ptKdnXOxXIk3F7nVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> Eddie Haskell wrote:
>>>>>>> "Christopher Helms" <Chrishelms132@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
news:6ff896b3-54b4-4ba4-8a7c-6e5c83aa9f4c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> On May 8, 5:48 pm, "NoSpam" <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "beatyerbrainsout" <bill_bone...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
news:a34ec007-2abb-40c2-806c-7bfe7f8eaef9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> By Alexander Mooney
>>>>>>>> CNN
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WA****NGTON (CNN) -- He has publicly urged Republicans to vote for
>>>>>>>> Sen.
>>>>>>>> Hillary Clinton to keep the divisive Democratic nomination fight
>>>>>>>> alive, but talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday he really
>>>>>>>> wants Sen. Barack Obama to be the party's nominee.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rush Limbaugh urged listeners in states with open primaries to
cross
>>>>>>>> party lines and sup****t Hillary Clinton.
>>>>>>> If using the public airwaves to incite violence at the Democratic
>>>>>>> Convention isn't enough to get Limbaugh yanked off the air and
>>>>>>> prosecuted, it is difficult to imagine what actually would be
enough.
>>>>>>> The question is not "Did he break the law?" It's "What ****ing
>>>>>>> difference would it make if he did?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Take a good look at Helms, folks. He's a perfect example of what's
so
>>>>>>> dangerous about these liberal fascist cock-suckers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you can bet your ass the deranged ****wit thinks he's the good
>>>>>>> guy and a guarantor of free speech.
>>>>>> Extremists of both sides only believe in freedom of speech to the
>>>>>> extent they agree with the speech.
>>>>> There are a hellava lot more on the left.
>>>> No, there aren't.
>>> Yes, there is.
>> No, there aren't.
>>
>>
>>>> You're just more sensitive to it coming from there because you're on
the
>>>> right.
>>> No, it's because I see it happen all the time coming from the left and
>>> virtually never see it coming from the right.
>> I doubt you personally see it at all, unless you're on a university
campus
>> somewhere.
>
> You're getting desperate already.
Not in the least.
> I didn't say I *personally* see.
Oh, is that right?
> Ever heard of the internet, youtube? television, the news,
Sure. In that case, it should be easy for you to cite some recent
examples.
> equivocator?
You're misusing the word.
>>> You NEVER see conservatives shouting people down the way we see on
>>> college campuses, and you NEVER hear conservatives advocating taking
>>> liberals off the air because of their views. Nor do you see
republicans
>>> advocating legislation to do so.
>>>
>>>>> Shouting down conservatives on college campuses is commonplace
>>>> No more common than conservatives wanting "dirty" books banned, or
>>>> wanting to lynch flag-burners.
>>> I cannot remember the last time I heard a conservative advocate
"banning"
>>> "dirty books." Give me ONE example.
>> See my response to Larry in AZ.
>>
>>
>>> And believing that setting fires is not a constitutional right does
not
>>> constitute "wanting to lynch flag-burners."
>> It isn't about "setting fires", and you know it. It's about what the
>> foam-at-the-mouth knuckle-dragging conservatives view as "desecration"
of
>> the flag, a piece of cloth that foam-at-the-mouth knuckle-dragging
>> conservatives view as something holy.
>>
>> Don't insult our intelligence by pretending it's about public safety
being
>> threatened by "fires".
>
> Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?
I didn't put words in your mouth.
> Burning a flag is setting a fire. There is no constitutional right to
set a
> fire. That's ludicrous.
Look, STUPID: the proposed constitutional amendment is *NOT* about
"setting a fire", and you ****ing well know it. It's about destroying
the flag, period. You ****ing well know that, too. Here's the language
of the current propose constitutional amendment:
The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of
the flag of the United States.
Not a word about "fire" in there, you stupid smarmy little ****. But
you knew that; you just thought, wrongly, that you were a cute smarmy
little ****, and could play cute.
**** off.
>>>>> and you can bet that should a democrat take office the "fairness
>>>>> doctrine" will rear it's ugly head.
>>>> Yes, they're on record as promoting a resurrection of the UNfairness
>>>> doctrine - the doctrine that prevented conservative opinion from
being
>>>> heard anywhere, even as liberal opinion dominated the "news".
>>> Give me the equivalent example on the right.
>>>
>>> You can't.
>> "When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old
>> retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign
>> proclaiming, 'The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so
many
>> of us.'
>>
>> "The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a 'designated
>> free-speech zone' on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence
a
>> third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.
>>
>> "The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs,
but
>> folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path.
>> Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for
disorderly
>> conduct; the police also confiscated his sign."
>>
>>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL&type=printable
>>
>> Conservatives did that.
>
> Rudy.. Son.. If the secret service didn't cordon those people off
****bag: the *local police*, at the instigation of the administration,
took away all anti-Bush signs while allowing people with pro-Bush signs
to keep them along the motorcade route.
> Besides, you're citing a left-wing fascist hit piece.
Bull****.
You really are a ****ing far-right stooge, aren't you? Yes.
>>>>> I can think of nothing equivalent to either on the right.
>>>> It's there, but you're blind to it.
>>> Your attempt at equivocation was sorely lacking. Try again.
>> No, there was no attempt at equivocation; you don't even know the
meaning
>> of the word.
>
> I looked it up and there was your picture.
You didn't look it up, because it doesn't mean what you are pretending.
You can string a few basic English words together, but you're not
literate, and you don't know what "equivocation" means.
>> Efforts at censor****p are made across the political spectrum,
especially
>> at the extremes. They are just as common on the right as on the left.
>
> No there are not.
Yes, they are; probably more of them and worse.
|
