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. I didn't say I *personally* see. Ever
> heard of the internet, youtube? television, the news, equivocator?
>
>>> 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? No need to answer of
> course. The question is rhetorical. You have no argument so you need a
> strawman.
>
> Burning a flag is setting a fire. There is no constitutional right to
set a
> fire. That's ludicrous.
>
>>>>> 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 the
> president would never be allowed to speak at public events like that.
> Remember, we are talking about liberals. They are taught that shouting
> people down is their god given right. Every event the president attended
> would be a debacle. There is a time and place for everything and if you
want
> to protest, do it own your own time.
>
> Besides, you're citing a left-wing fascist hit piece. You can easily
tell by
> the way it is written. The people they quote. The ACLU. The way they
> characterize things. Left-wing propaganda. The person that wrote this SF
> chronicle tripe would characterize trying to prevent a bunch of
screaming
> liberals trying to shout down a conservative as denying THEM free
speech.
> Here, just take a look at these little pricks in action. Notice how some
> ****-head liberal characterized it as a "Minuteman Protest?" Kinda like
flag
> burning ain't it? The sacred "protest?" Never mind that civil people
would
> prefer that you not be setting fires in the public square.
>
> But thanks for your post and yet more confirmation of my claim.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5mp4tj
>
>>>>> 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.
>
>> 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. The left in America today employs every fascist ploy
known
> to man and you have still come nowhere near showing us where the left's
> shouting down and attempts at legislation to shut-up conservatives is
> anywhere as common as anything perpetrated by the right.
Of course, you can't cite any such attempts at legislation. I don't
doubt there are some, but probably nowhere near as many or as egregious
as attempts by the right. The misnamed monstrosity known as the
"Patriot" Act, of course, has already been used to restrict or chill
speech.
Your problem, stupid, is that rely on a handful of anecdotes of
admittedly outrageous behavior by some extremists to extrapolate to the
entire society. Yes, there have been some instances of "shouting down"
conservatives on university campuses; no, it does not happen "all the
time".
|
