Why is it.................
 

Why is it that Democrats love Freedom of speech as long as it not used to be critical of them? Why is it that when Democrats are not in power "Loyal Oppostion" and "Speaking truth to power" is a Patriotic duty and when its aimed at them when they are in power its classified as "Distraction" "Lies" or even Racist?
The Left in TV media, print media, web media and even individual average folks on furoms like this think anyone who is critical about them are just the worst thing ever, its almost like they wish to have nobody hold them accountable, ask questions, have different views or simply see things another way................and this is all from the party of "Tolerance" and "Individual Freedom", maybe its only for those who walk in lockstep?
Do the Left feel they have a monopoly and sole ownership of these principles?

Criticism is fine, blatant lies are just that - lies. Show me a single Republican in the news who has come up with anything even remotely constructive in the last year.

If there were genuine debate, I think it would be welcomed. More of what we see are sideshows, focus on false issues, and a Republican caucus that forgot what Nancy Reagan was talking about when she urged people to "Just say no."

Honestly, do you think you are inviting serious debate when every post you write advocates taking government sponsored torture to more inhumane level?

Regards,

D-Ray

Trying to stop some of our Presidents more dangerous ideas IS constructive.

To me that depends on the methods used. Lying to people is wrong. But that never stopped em before.

So you don't believe our health care system is broken? Sixty-five percent of personnal bankruptciess in this country are healt expense driven.

About 40 million people do not have health insurance.

The bailouts? Bush's secretary of the treasury started that, but it did keep us from going over the clliff.

What else? Oh yeah, regulation of the big banks that is coming out, that's a bad thing?

"You LIE!!"

Dave

Yes its broken but that doesnt mean Obama has the best fix so its best to not pass a failed idea.

The Bailouts cant be proven to have actually helped stay off an impending doom but its done, Bush and our current Pres are equally guilty.

Regulation of private business is never a good thing, and had it not been for Barney, Dodd and other Left flunkies selling the idea that everyone should get a home even if they cant afford it the banks would never have made those choices that sunk them to begin with.

Funny how all of these problems that were well underway long before January of '09 have all become Obamas fault, isn't it? Interesting how so many things that were already going on during eight years of a Republican administration, six of those years were concurrently during a Republican Majority, everything that's wrong with America is who's fault? And voting for Republicans is supposed to fix it?

Oh, that's right, the "pussy-ass" Democrats wouldn't let them do anything.

Dave

And Hillary has been promising health care for how long now, 17 years.:confused:

I am just glad Obama doesnt use that pesky Negro Dialect:D

Exam time:

What would some of those ideas be and explain why they're dangerous.

John

Since the health care bill isn't finalized yet and, therefore, hasn't been implemented, how can it be a "failed idea"?

So, several major banking institutions were on the verge of collapse, the stock market was in free-fall and the government authorized a huge loan to save the industries. The banks are now in profit and the stock market is in territory it hasn't seen in years but the stimulus didn't help?

No regulation at all? No anti-trust, no health and safety standards, no truth in advertising, no nothing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

John

Wow you hang on every word, its kinda flattering........... its spooky but flattering.
BTW when you look in my window at night I am not wearing green as thats actaully your night vision goggles making me look like that:D
OOOOOOOPS I dropped my remote................enjoy the show!

I guess you could say I'm trying to see what you've got.

John

Sounds to me like ad hominem attacks are an excuse to avoid legitimate questions about unsupportable assertions.

Regards,

D-Ray

So Sue me:D

That last is GOP bullshit and you know it. Home ownership was encouraged but not the way the brokers and lenders did it. Our mortgage ssystem unfortunately is designed to encourage greed because there is no penalty.

I doubt that in a court of law the judge would accept "Your honour they encoraged me to rob the bank" as an excuse. The brokers and the banks did what they did knowingly because they were not at risk out of sheer greed.

But keep parroting that tired old cliche about unfettered capitalism if it keeps you happy.

That wasn't the porkulus bill, that was Bush's bailout.

Pete

I would simply suggest that you all take a look at the rankings of citizen's health for all the countries of the world and tell me what you think of our place on that list. Pretty piss poor showing for the "best health care system in the world". Hell Teddy Roosevelt was promoting healthcare or is thinking about it for 100 years "rushing things".

Don't forget Jack we has the GOP in charge for eight of those years and control of Congress for 12 so as long as the know nothings are in charge don't expect miracles.

IMHO you are expressing no toughts or ideas. What I read is child like parroting of Fox.
I would ask a question:
Why?
What good does it do?


First you stereotype folks, then you tell them what they do (as you have been told). Along the way you play victim while claiming a superior agenda.

Why?

Just why?

I just don't get the enthusiasm for a thoughtless agenda.

I have nothing against passion. But you have yet to express passion for anything. Your passion is in repeating propaganda.

Sorry my friend I just don't get it.

Why?

Just why?

Why, why, why is it the libs have all the questions while the cons have the
answers. Guess thats why they have 99% of the money.

That's why they are called cons.:D

You failed to reply to his comments though.

Does that mean that you understand his points to be valid and have changed your opinion?

Or does it mean that you cannot explain why you disagree?

Please give an answer.

Both Bush and Obama. Plus, my good friend Writewing included both in his criticism.

John

Obama continuing Bush's failed policies? ;)

The Dems' talk of 'fair speech' gives me chills.

Pete

why?


...

Free speech is the bulwark of all freedom. Fair speech is regulated speech, which isn't free speech.

I didn't use the word speech enough, it's starting to look weird :)

Pete

Which "speech" word?
"Fair speech" or "regulated speech?"
or
"Free speech" or "isn't free speech?"

:D

Sure, if you want. The policies did stave off, or at least delay, a catastrophe. There are many watys in which the policy did fail, IMO, like the fact that there was nothing in it which directly benefited individual homeowners.

This is a new one for me, Pete. Can you point me to a source on this?

John

All this talk of freedom, people don't want to be free they want to be safe. If that was not the case we would be spared all this yammering about catching terrorists. So far we manage to kill more people on our highways than the terrorists have. So where is the outcry about testing drivers?

Some of the Democrats had been talking about reenacting the Fairness Doctrine. It's dead in the water, Obama doesn't even support it publicly.

Chas

I think the larger issue is the fact a dangerous number of the Left actually are dead serious and would love to pass the Fariness Doctrine and Net Nuetrality. I applaud our President for rational thinking on this un-American idea but the bigger point is so may harbor these un-American ideals, and these folks are in power. It is really scary.

Lmao!!

Pete

Oh, that old thing. Right. It ain't going anywhere. Now that Left Wing talk is beginning to carve out a niche in the media nobody wants a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

By the way, Pete, the Fairness Doctrine was never about restricting speech but about achieving a balanced presentation of opposing views. My side got a chance to state its case and so did yours.

John

How do you do that, when there are 8 million talk shows on the radio, and the only left one (Air America) went bust?

Well except NPR.

Pete

Why are these ideas un-American?

John

Air America was never the only source for left talk and in any case it's still around. Rachel Maddow is still on Air America but it's just a rebroadcast of her MSNBC show from the previous day. Other shows are Ron Reagan and "Ring of Fire" with Bobby Kennedy, Jr.

Some of the shows that used to be on Air America are still around like Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy. They're in syndication now. Others, like Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, which were never on Air America, are going strong too.

In some markets a lot of these shows beat out the right wing talkers consistently. It's just that they're not on in as many markets.

John

We'll try it here. A strict count of left-leaning posts and right-leaning posts will be kept.

Because some are more right or left than others, a point system will be used. If at any time the point count is not even then the 'not fair' side will be silenced until the count is equal again.

Sound good? It gets better: who decides?

Pete