Petition to Ban Conservative Websites

[TheBrain]

The hundreds of laws that are already on the books destroying the first is a good start. Then there is the ‘fairness doctrine’ that is pretty close to the same thing as stated here for the radio but don’t let that get in your way. We don’t actally need to stand up for our rights, they protect themselves…

A point that is actually not true though. I have a right to speak but I do not have a right to associate my speech with that of an official viewpoint or do so in uniform. The rules can and do change according to position and rank but the average military man has little restriction on their activities.

Oh, too a certain point military members have less rights than the average citizen, but each has volunteered to live by those standards.

Civilians too. Contracts are binding.

Yes indeed. The government does often require civilian contractors to sign contracts.

 

[bripat9643]

Ban conservative web sites? Absolutely not, they are a great source of comedy for me.

Is that why everything you post has me rolling on the floor?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Ban conservative web sites? Absolutely not, they are a great source of comedy for me.

 

[AVG-JOE]

First, this isn’t a legitimate news source, it’s some weird rightwing blog or the like.

Second, what evidence do you have that there will be any effort to pass laws to preempt the First Amendment?

Third, there’s no evidence provided that the quoted text is indeed the text of the petition. Indeed, all the supporting links take you to more weird rightwing blogs or the like.

Fourth, there’s no evidence those signing the petition are ‘liberals’ or representative of ‘liberals’ as a whole.

Fifth, this is a tedious non-issue.

Thanks for doing the research - I simply ass-u-me-ed the idea was fringe and would get -0- traction.

Glad I was right.

Scratch that... Glad I was correct.

 

[Luissa]

Lock'n load.

Not a shock that you are all about killing your fellow citizens.

There ain't nothing stopping you, big guy, except some suppressed memories of prison rape.

 

[midcan5]

Sounds good to me. Let me add my own thoughts on topic.

Due to the widespread prevalence of Dunning-Kruger effect among conservatives and republicans, a healthcare proviso has been amended to the original bill.

Conservative thought will be banned under the new Healthcare reform act as so much negativity, greed, and self centered narcissism only leads to depression and grouchy, lined faces, and furthermore is contrary to the general welfare clause of our Constitution.

If there were a ban on whining, the right wing would be speechless, slippery slopes, oh, slippery slope - oh wait - let's go back to the days of great depression type crashes, pollution, lead paint, witch doctors, and toxic air, for if we ban them the slippery slope begins and who knows where that might lead.

 

[California Girl]

I'm bored with 'gotcha' politics - from both sides. It serves no purpose other than to incite.

 

[editec]

So we are to believe that the people who created a FAKE PETITION to lure the stupid into signing it are telling us the truth about the people who signed it?

Why would we take the word of people who admit they lied in the first place?

If they lie to the public about the petition, why should we trust their results?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

After hearing news the other day that the Obama administration had appointed a new position to monitor and push back against negative online press we thought some liberals in DC might think it wasn't enough.

I can't speak for the people, in D.C., but I think most Liberals/Progressives feel that "conservative" Hate-outlets are entitled to the same free-speech their cohorts in the KKK are entitled-to.

Everyone, no matter how ignorant, ill-educated or misinformed they are, are entitled to make as big of fools (of themselves) as they are, for all the public to see.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Sounds good to me. Let me add my own thoughts on topic.

Due to the widespread prevalence of Dunning-Kruger effect among conservatives and republicans, a healthcare proviso has been amended to the original bill.

Conservative thought will be banned under the new Healthcare reform act as so much negativity, greed, and self centered narcissism only leads to depression and grouchy, lined faces, and furthermore is contrary to the general welfare clause of our Constitution.

If there were a ban on whining, the right wing would be speechless, slippery slopes, oh, slippery slope - oh wait - let's go back to the days of great depression type crashes, pollution, lead paint, witch doctors, and toxic air, for if we ban them the slippery slope begins and who knows where that might lead.

If there were a constitutional amendment to ban whining, the silence in D.C. would be deafening.

Neither side has done much more than whine about the other sides proposals since the turn of the century. Kind of sad, really.

 

[Bfgrn]

Paradox of tolerance

The philosopher Karl Popper perhaps said it best in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies when he explained the Paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

"The Paradox of Tolerance," Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. I, Chapt. 7, n.4, at 265 (Princeton University Press 1971) Karl Popper

 

[Mr. Shaman]

After hearing news the other day that the Obama administration had appointed a new position to monitor and push back against negative online press we thought some liberals in DC might think it wasn't enough. So we sent Joe Schoffstall out to see just how far liberals would go to silence conservative speech. Joe went around Georgetown in DC with a petition to "Ban Conservative Hate Sites" that said this:

"The undersigned hereby adamantly demand that the United States government shut down right wing hate sites. The hate speech propagated by sites like the Drudge Report, Hot Air, Instapundit, Big Government, and others must not be allowed to corrupt our political discourse any longer. These sites are dangerous not only to truth and freedom but also to our society as a whole. BAN THEM NOW!"
That is pretty radical rhetoric that no reasonable, freedom-loving, red-blooded American could possibly agree with, right? Well, see for yourself:

video of these patriots

Read more: Video: DC Liberals Sign Petition to Ban Conservative Websites | NewsBusters.org

Saw this. Now that Obama has appointed another 'Mouth to feed' in the Gubmint...

After hearing news the other day that the Obama administration had appointed a new position to monitor and push back against negative online press we thought some liberals in DC might think it wasn't enough. So we sent Joe Schoffstall out to see just how far liberals would go to silence conservative speech

Gee, I surely-do hope that position comes with the title of "czar"!

We can't very-well expect "conservatives" to constantly ply their imagination, and come-up with their own straw-men. After all, it's got to be a new full-time job (alone), for "conservatives", teaching the Teabaggers to wear shoes, full-time.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You're taking this all out of context. Liberals love free speech. No, really. And if you disagree, the government should silence you.

I guess you should be given credit, for (at least) trying to sound consistent.​

 

[daveman]

yeah ok, let me know when this actually happens. I might give a shit.

That wasn't the point of the video and petition. The point was showing the left's hypocrisy.

And it succeeded.

 

[daveman]

You're taking this all out of context. Liberals love free speech. No, really. And if you disagree, the government should silence you.

You are so right Dave. We are always free to agree with them, and when we forget to, it is under the bus for us. Remember 4+1=5 only for as long as we are told it does.

I am a Democrat because I fervently believe in tolerance. Tolerance is critical in our diverse society, and if you have a problem with that, mister, then I will inform the authorities and I bet that after a few hours in their "special room" you too will agree that tolerance is critical.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So DC Liberals want to put the kabosh on free speech for everybody except themselves?

That's what Mr. Fitnah is suggesting.​

May I remind them of Bush Derangement Syndrome and how many of their Dan Rathers got fired for unsubstantiated published lies written to get rid of someone everybody else loved?

By-all-means.....list them!!

<tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick>...​

 

[daveman]

You know I always found it interesting how one gives up their first ammendment right when they volunteer to defend our country.

Not a major point, just interesting.

Not all of it.

 

[daveman]

First, this isn’t a legitimate news source, it’s some weird rightwing blog or the like.

Second, what evidence do you have that there will be any effort to pass laws to preempt the First Amendment?

Third, there’s no evidence provided that the quoted text is indeed the text of the petition. Indeed, all the supporting links take you to more weird rightwing blogs or the like.

Fourth, there’s no evidence those signing the petition are ‘liberals’ or representative of ‘liberals’ as a whole.

Fifth, this is a tedious non-issue.

And someone else who doesn't get it.

 

[Stephanie]

Remember the saying folks,

SCRATCH A LIBERAL FIND A FASCIST

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You're taking this all out of context. Liberals love free speech. No, really. And if you disagree, the government should silence you.

You are so right Dave. We are always free to agree with them, and when we forget to, it is under the bus for us.

Your youth & inexperience are showing.


​