"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:j8SdnT808NDNF7jVnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Bringing back the regulation will ensure more even-handed coverage of
political issues, said Jeff Lieberson, spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey
(D-N.Y.), who has proposed the "Media Owner****p Reform Act."
The Fairness Doctrine is a key component of Hinchey's bill, which also
sets
tighter limits on media owner****p. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has
proposed
a companion bill in the Senate.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070117a.html
> 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".
Yes it does. Barely a week goes by that there isn't an instance of it. Dan
Rather just didn't tell you. Shouting people down and attempts to prevent
free speech is decidedly left-wing and you can't come up a single example
of
the right being guilty of the crime.
Congrats. You lose.
-Eddie Haskell
|
