Quote:

It's pretty classic here, with a bunch of puerile liars here who suggest that a person who objects to deliberate, intentional suppression of political speech should move to Venezuela, where suppression of political speech is common.

I don't think this suppression of "political speech" you mentioned rises to the level of egregious. Not even sixteenth egregious.

O'Donnell had made a radio appearrance - emphasis on radio.

She did not think she had agreed to video or film reproduction of the interview and was upset that she had been, to her mind, surreptitiously taking part in a television or video interraction.

It may be as simple as she felt that she would have dressed or been made up differently had she known.

The comments were obviously not a problem, as she had just knowingly participated in a radio interview.

Her content was already broadcast, so it isn't as if she were suppressing some innocent radio station's right to use the material - just the format.

j.j., don't we already have a thread or two devoted to deconstructing your wacky posts? Do we need another?

Buddha, why let the facts and reality impinge on the narrative? JJ never lets those pesky considerations get in the way of his socialist rants. 8)

Trey

Quote:
Buddha, why let the facts and reality impinge on the narrative? JJ never lets those pesky considerations get in the way of his socialist rants. 8)

Trey

We understand your tactic, which is straight out of Goebbels, and that's "Repetition is the linchpin of propaganda".

That's all you've got, accusing the other guy of the same immoral behavior he caught your side doing.

Tsk. Can't you be any more creative? I note that you don't object to the actual substance, which is incontrovertable, no matter how you try to spin it, so you simply accuse me, NBC news, etc, all of being a liar. It must be comforting for you to live in such a powerful delusion.

Quote:
It's pretty classic here, with a bunch of puerile liars here who suggest that a person who objects to deliberate, intentional suppression of political speech should move to Venezuela, where suppression of political speech is common.

That suggestion was in response to your anti-capitalist stance. NOTHING to do with freedom of speech.

It's pretty obvious, as well, that we're back to 1950's style red-baiting when someone points out that the fantastical, imaginary "invisible hand" has done nothing to prevent absurd salaries on the part of people who could not possibly add that much worth to the economy.

Who are you to determine peoples worth in terms of adding to the economy?

This proves the statement above of your overt anti-capitalism.

Who are you to determine, and who gave you the authority to determine how much money one should make?

We have a bunch of people who don't know what the first to 14th amendments to the constitution mean, and who regard any abridgement of their so-called "right" to shove their religion on others faces as "suppression".

Whats religion got to do with economic freedom and liberty? Religion is a personal preference.

In this, they endorse human misery and nothing else.

Total progressive propaganda! NO Conservative is endorsing human misery. I will use your favorite phrase: "Thats a lie." Human misery was experienced in the ex-Soviet Union. It is currently experienced in Cuba, Syria, Iran, Africa and the rest of the communistic/socialistic regimes that destroy the human spirit of freedom. NOT in America. If you are miserable in America, you can't make it anywhere. If you are miserable in your situation, change your situation.

We have people who seem to think that this is a "Christian Country", never mind that many of the prominent founders, the people who wrote the Constitution, were either atheists or held beliefs that any standard-line christian would regard as heretical beliefs, in Thomas Jefferson's case, for instance, the Gnostic Herecy. (Those who doubt that should study the "Jefferson Bible")

TOTAL and UTTER B.S., Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founders signed the Declaration of Independence that stated, " We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are CREATED equal and they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights." etc;

God is acknowledged throughout the writings of the forefathers. The Statists hate that.

So, lets look at a few statements by those Founders who wrote the Constitution that YOU say were atheists.

Benjamin Frankilin wrote: " I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men."

George Washington stated: "And now, Almighty Father, if it is Thy holy will,that we shall obtain a place and name among the nations."

THOMAS JEFFERSON wrote: " God who gave us life, gave us liberty."

John Jay wrote: " and it is the duty,as well as the privilage and interest of our CHRISTIAN NATION to select and prefer Christians as leaders."

Alexander Hamilton wrote: "For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."

....need I go on.. You are obviously on the wrong side of history.

It would be wise to retract your statement about the founders and writers of the Constitution as being atheists.

In short, we see rampant ignorance, bigotry, and know-nothing behavior, that, if successful, will do nothing less than destroy the USA.

Good description of the current administration and the college professors running government agencies that have openly declared thier communism (Van Jones, Obama's ex-Green Czar) or Anita Dunn, White House communications director, that stated Mao Zedong was one of her favorite political philosophers. Hell, even Hillary Clinton advocated Saul Alinsky.

Why do "conservatives" (they are truly nothing of the sort, of course) hate America?

Hate for America? Explain the Obama appointments of Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Cass Sunstein, etc; you will not find where these appointments have ANY respect for the Constitution.

Your political bias toward progressive democrats, and your overt loyalty toward the democrat party has rendered you to mere circular reasoning at best.

Quote:

Quote:

That's all you've got, accusing the other guy of the same immoral behavior he caught your side doing.

..Is it fair to say that all YOU got is accusing the other guy to be a "liar" on every single response to your posts when you have no evidence to the contrary?

Quote:
It's pretty classic here, with a bunch of puerile liars here who suggest that a person who objects to deliberate, intentional suppression of political speech should move to Venezuela, where suppression of political speech is common.

"I don't care!". You are a liar. I am going to report you to the campus police for hate speech.

"If you are miserable in America, you can't make it anywhere. If you are miserable in your situation, change your situation."

It's what I've been saying about the Tea Party all along. But all I hear is blame, pissing and moaning, and the kind of "I know all the answers" kind of talk most people outgrow after college. Oh...is that it? They never WENT to college because education is for elitists. So now is there chance to duplicate the same self serving rallies, dress up funny, and give the finger to everyone in "The Establishment." It's so obvious! How did we not all see it before? Well, that makes me feel better because eventually they will come into contact with the real world and have to grow up.