Petition to Ban Conservative Websites

[daveman]

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?

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

-React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation

-Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals

-Have excessive feelings of self-importance

-Exaggerate achievements and talents

-Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love

-Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment

-Need constant attention and admiration

-Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy

-Have obsessive self-interest

-Pursue mainly selfish goals

 

[editec]

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?

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

-React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation

-Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals

-Have excessive feelings of self-importance

-Exaggerate achievements and talents

-Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love

-Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment

-Need constant attention and admiration

-Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy

-Have obsessive self-interest

-Pursue mainly selfish goals

Yeah, because people who are "normal" never do any of that, right?

 

[daveman]

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

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

-React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation

-Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals

-Have excessive feelings of self-importance

-Exaggerate achievements and talents

-Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love

-Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment

-Need constant attention and admiration

-Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy

-Have obsessive self-interest

-Pursue mainly selfish goals

Yeah, because people who are "normal" never do any of that, right?

I thought you weren't a defender of Obama...?

Surely even you can see how thin-skinned he is.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

BAN THEM NOW!



Rubes.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Don't forget this site!

Yeah Im sure it is all posed and scripted .
If it doesn't come from BBC or NBC is isnt real.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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?

Muslims.

 

[Steelplate]

You know... I find it amusing. Have any of you read the original article that announced the promotion of Jesse Lee and what his responsibilities are going to be, or just the re-hashed article that made it look like an attack on Freedom of Speech?

The truth is, the guy is going to be responsible for keeping an eye on the Right Wing Rumor Mill(you guys really are worse than a bunch of old biddies at a sewing circle), and refute the lies, mis-information and propaganda that you guys spew on a continual basis.

I don't know... whenever you're caught at it, you always say..."Look what they did to Bush!!!". But as God as my witness, I've never seen it as prevalent and as nasty as it is now.

So yeah, I guess in your Chronic distrust of Government(which by the way is extremely Partisan.. Homeland Security?... Cool....Patriot Act?..."if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?, that is, until Obama signs an extension...which I am also against) mindset, a dude refuting the whacky claims of the right would look like a Censorship drive.

But you don't have the right to scream fire in a Theater, which is what a large chunk of your inane ramblings are.


EDIT: BTW, just for the record? No, I would never sign a petition abridging other people's rights. You have the right to say whatever you want. But your opposition has every right to expose the lies and defend themselves.(and vice versa).

 

[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?

Muslims.

Good one, Mr. F. You almost had me there!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

....And, with BUSHCO, is was....

...The MORE, The MERRIER!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

​

 

[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?

Muslims.

Then we're screwed.

 

[daveman]

You know... I find it amusing. Have any of you read the original article that announced the promotion of Jesse Lee and what his responsibilities are going to be, or just the re-hashed article that made it look like an attack on Freedom of Speech?

The truth is, the guy is going to be responsible for keeping an eye on the Right Wing Rumor Mill(you guys really are worse than a bunch of old biddies at a sewing circle), and refute the lies, mis-information and propaganda that you guys spew on a continual basis.

I don't know... whenever you're caught at it, you always say..."Look what they did to Bush!!!". But as God as my witness, I've never seen it as prevalent and as nasty as it is now.

So yeah, I guess in your Chronic distrust of Government(which by the way is extremely Partisan.. Homeland Security?... Cool....Patriot Act?..."if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?, that is, until Obama signs an extension...which I am also against) mindset, a dude refuting the whacky claims of the right would look like a Censorship drive.

But you don't have the right to scream fire in a Theater, which is what a large chunk of your inane ramblings are.


EDIT: BTW, just for the record? No, I would never sign a petition abridging other people's rights. You have the right to say whatever you want. But your opposition has every right to expose the lies and defend themselves.(and vice versa).

So, we'll just put you down as supporting Groupthink and official government sanction of Thoughtcrime.

 

[blastoff]

The lefties signing this one remind me of them signing petitions a few years ago to ban...water!

All you have to do is tell these morons they'll be better off by signing and they turn into lemmings. Friggin' idiots, all of them. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw]YouTube - ‪Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition‬‏[/ame]

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You know... I find it amusing. Have any of you read the original article that announced the promotion of Jesse Lee and what his responsibilities are going to be, or just the re-hashed article that made it look like an attack on Freedom of Speech?

The truth is, the guy is going to be responsible for keeping an eye on the Right Wing Rumor Mill(you guys really are worse than a bunch of old biddies at a sewing circle), and refute the lies, mis-information and propaganda that you guys spew on a continual basis.

I don't know... whenever you're caught at it, you always say..."Look what they did to Bush!!!". But as God as my witness, I've never seen it as prevalent and as nasty as it is now.

So yeah, I guess in your Chronic distrust of Government(which by the way is extremely Partisan.. Homeland Security?... Cool....Patriot Act?..."if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?, that is, until Obama signs an extension...which I am also against) mindset, a dude refuting the whacky claims of the right would look like a Censorship drive.

But you don't have the right to scream fire in a Theater, which is what a large chunk of your inane ramblings are.


EDIT: BTW, just for the record? No, I would never sign a petition abridging other people's rights. You have the right to say whatever you want. But your opposition has every right to expose the lies and defend themselves.(and vice versa).

Got a few examples of said lies?

 

[hipeter924]

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.

Yet liberals have no problems associating with terrorists on a Turkish flotilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHH_%28Turkish_NGO%29*), or publicly supporting Hamas and Fatah, that want to set up an Islamic theocracy in 'Palestine' and ethnic cleanse/exterminate all the Jews. How about shutting down those sites first? I guess advocating mass genocide isn't 'hate'.

*

Congressional Research Service

According to report of the United States Congressional Research Service, the İHH is not designated as a terrorist group by the US State Department. However, it is part of the Saudi-based, Hamas-created umbrella group of Muslim charities called Union of Good that the US Treasury has designated as a terrorist organization.[55] A US State Department spokesman confirmed that although the government is aware of İHH’s possible radical connections, the group is not subject to counterterrorism restrictions.[56]
The US assistant secretary of state for public affairs, P. J. Crowley, said, "We know that İHH representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria, and Gaza over the past three years. That is obviously of great concern to us. That said, the İHH, which stands for the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, has not been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States."[56] When asked whether the US believes İHH has connections to al-Qaida, Crowley replied, "We cannot validate that."[56] The director of the State Department press office, Mark Toner, when asked whether İHH should be listed as a terror group, said, "I believe we are looking at the İHH, but it's a long process to designate something a foreign terrorist organization and ... there's nothing to announce on that."[57]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know... I find it amusing. Have any of you read the original article that announced the promotion of Jesse Lee and what his responsibilities are going to be, or just the re-hashed article that made it look like an attack on Freedom of Speech?

The truth is, the guy is going to be responsible for keeping an eye on the Right Wing Rumor Mill(you guys really are worse than a bunch of old biddies at a sewing circle), and refute the lies, mis-information and propaganda that you guys spew on a continual basis.

I don't know... whenever you're caught at it, you always say..."Look what they did to Bush!!!". But as God as my witness, I've never seen it as prevalent and as nasty as it is now.

So yeah, I guess in your Chronic distrust of Government(which by the way is extremely Partisan.. Homeland Security?... Cool....Patriot Act?..."if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?, that is, until Obama signs an extension...which I am also against) mindset, a dude refuting the whacky claims of the right would look like a Censorship drive.

But you don't have the right to scream fire in a Theater, which is what a large chunk of your inane ramblings are.


EDIT: BTW, just for the record? No, I would never sign a petition abridging other people's rights. You have the right to say whatever you want. But your opposition has every right to expose the lies and defend themselves.(and vice versa).

Why doesn't he keep track of the left wing sites and refute the lies, mis-information, and propaganda that spews out of them? Would you support this if a Republican administration decided to target left wing sites and not the right wing ones? Do you see that you are acting like a partisan hack, or are you actually a hack who cannot see the truth when it is right in front of you?

 

[The T]

You know... I find it amusing. Have any of you read the original article that announced the promotion of Jesse Lee and what his responsibilities are going to be, or just the re-hashed article that made it look like an attack on Freedom of Speech?

The truth is, the guy is going to be responsible for keeping an eye on the Right Wing Rumor Mill(you guys really are worse than a bunch of old biddies at a sewing circle), and refute the lies, mis-information and propaganda that you guys spew on a continual basis.

I don't know... whenever you're caught at it, you always say..."Look what they did to Bush!!!". But as God as my witness, I've never seen it as prevalent and as nasty as it is now.

So yeah, I guess in your Chronic distrust of Government(which by the way is extremely Partisan.. Homeland Security?... Cool....Patriot Act?..."if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?, that is, until Obama signs an extension...which I am also against) mindset, a dude refuting the whacky claims of the right would look like a Censorship drive.

But you don't have the right to scream fire in a Theater, which is what a large chunk of your inane ramblings are.


EDIT: BTW, just for the record? No, I would never sign a petition abridging other people's rights. You have the right to say whatever you want. But your opposition has every right to expose the lies and defend themselves.(and vice versa).

Why doesn't he keep track of the left wing sites and refute the lies, mis-information, and propaganda that spews out of them? Would you support this if a Republican administration decided to target left wing sites and not the right wing ones? Do you see that you are acting like a partisan hack, or are you actually a hack who cannot see the truth when it is right in front of you?

Why would the poster IF it bolsters HIS point of view? Your description of 'HACK" would ring true...and I belive that it does.

 

[Steelplate]

You know... I find it amusing. Have any of you read the original article that announced the promotion of Jesse Lee and what his responsibilities are going to be, or just the re-hashed article that made it look like an attack on Freedom of Speech?

The truth is, the guy is going to be responsible for keeping an eye on the Right Wing Rumor Mill(you guys really are worse than a bunch of old biddies at a sewing circle), and refute the lies, mis-information and propaganda that you guys spew on a continual basis.

I don't know... whenever you're caught at it, you always say..."Look what they did to Bush!!!". But as God as my witness, I've never seen it as prevalent and as nasty as it is now.

So yeah, I guess in your Chronic distrust of Government(which by the way is extremely Partisan.. Homeland Security?... Cool....Patriot Act?..."if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?, that is, until Obama signs an extension...which I am also against) mindset, a dude refuting the whacky claims of the right would look like a Censorship drive.

But you don't have the right to scream fire in a Theater, which is what a large chunk of your inane ramblings are.


EDIT: BTW, just for the record? No, I would never sign a petition abridging other people's rights. You have the right to say whatever you want. But your opposition has every right to expose the lies and defend themselves.(and vice versa).

So, we'll just put you down as supporting Groupthink and official government sanction of Thoughtcrime.

No... what you can put me down for is anti-slander. If you assholes are lying and misrepresenting the truth... you should be called out for it. If a leftie does the same... they should be called on it.

BTW... GroupthinK? WTF do you think you numbnuts engage in every single post? You guys are so lockstep that it's not even funny. I had to actually stop laughing to type this.

 

[steveculpepper1]

The right a bunch of paranoid lunatics think someone is stealing their freedom.Social change needs to happen. middle class isn"t in good shape.The rich has to step up and pay more if thats socialism count me in

 

[Meister]

The right a bunch of paranoid lunatics think someone is stealing their freedom.Social change needs to happen. middle class isn"t in good shape.The rich has to step up and pay more if thats socialism count me in

Why? So more people can sit on their asses and reap the spoils of those who work to get ahead?
I have no doubt that your for socialism, son.