Petition to Ban Conservative Websites

[daveman]

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.

Scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian.

 

[daveman]

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?

Did you hear what the signees were saying?

You idiots are desperate to deny what these videos reveal: That some on the left are willing to take away the rights of people they disagree with.

 

[daveman]

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

And who gets to define intolerance?

 

[daveman]

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.​

Yes. What I said is consistent with what the liberals in the video were saying.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Lock'n load.

oooooooooooooooooooooooo......another....

....John Wayne fan!!!

How intimidating!!

 

[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.

Your youth & inexperience are showing.


​

Really? It's not conservatives calling for liberals to be silenced because our widdle fewwings are hurt. That would be liberals.

 

[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

and the board is flooded with posts saying if the repblicans get in control again it will be like nazi germany, amazing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g]YouTube - ‪Bush Dictator‬‏[/ame]​

 

[editec]

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.

Scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian.

Scratch a partisan, find an idiot.

 

[Ravi]

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

If the guy would go around and lie about what he's doing there is nothing to stop him from getting other fauxcons to pose as liberals and sign his petition.

Was this video made by Brietbart?

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

i hear ya.....when you have Dicks like Dean,Chris,Truth,Midcant and Douger,.......its comedy at its finest.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

....see what i mean?......this Dick is sometimes funnier than Dean.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

here is another example.....a real Dick here....but funny.....

 

[California Girl]

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.

Scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian.

Scratch a partisan, find an idiot.

Need a band aid?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Remember the saying folks,

SCRATCH A LIBERAL FIND A FASCIST

Got Link?

I ask because history does not support the saying... the root of 'Liberal' is 'Liberty' and the root of 'Fascism' is the ultimate in conservative, status quo protecting "Fuck you".

If not for the support of the top 10%, latching on to the promised security of Fascism in an attempt to protect their wealth in the unpredictable political environment of early 20th Century Europe, Fascism and its designers would have been a minor blip in earth history.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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?

Did you hear what the signees were saying?

You idiots are desperate to deny what these videos reveal: That some on the left are willing to take away the rights of people they disagree with.

You absolutely hit the nail square on the head there daveman!

Some on the right are dicks too.

Good thing most of us are no matter which side we hang toward.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

And who gets to define intolerance?

Who among you is fit to judge ME?

First question of organizing a society.

Religions and nations come and go but the question that causes them remains: Who among us is fit to judge ME and MY thoughts & actions?


Wouldn't you like to have been there when the first suggestion of a Supernatural Being be given the job and, oh by the way - "I know just how he feeeeeeeeeels about this particular subject".

 

[daveman]

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.

Scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian.

Scratch a partisan, find an idiot.

It's funny how you think you're neither a partisan nor an idiot.

 

[daveman]

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?

Did you hear what the signees were saying?

You idiots are desperate to deny what these videos reveal: That some on the left are willing to take away the rights of people they disagree with.

You absolutely hit the nail square on the head there daveman!

Some on the right are dicks too.

Good thing most of us are no matter which side we hang toward.

 

[FuelRod]

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

Have we ever had a President more concerned about his critics?

 

[daveman]

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

And who gets to define intolerance?

Who among you is fit to judge ME?

First question of organizing a society. Religions and nations come and go but the question that causes them remains.

Who among us is fit to judge ME and MY thoughts & actions?


Wouldn't you like to have been there when the first suggestion of a Supernatural Being be given the job and, oh by the way - "I know just how he feeeeeeeeeels about this particular subject".