Petition to Ban Conservative Websites

[daveman]

That's the whole point... no one is trying to BAN anything. But, if someone is throwing bullshit around, don't you think that the opposition should have an opportunity to REFUTE it? That's what this is all about... but as usual, you guys go off the deep end about it.

True – and that’s it in essence: the right doesn’t want the Administration to have an opportunity to rebut the opposition – as if they’re 'denying' the WH its ‘free speech.’

With much of the media printing White House press releases verbatim and with no hint of a critical eye, do you really think the rights of the White House are being trampled upon?

 

[Steelplate]

[
Now we can talk the rest of the prime time crew at AOATT (MSNBC) Chris Matthews is a leftie, Ed Schultz is a leftie jerk and Lawrence O'Donnell is a socialist as well as a jerkoff.
(AOATT=All Obama All The Time.)
I have never seen Ratigan slam a liberal but I have to admit I seldom watch his show. Daytime anchors Chris Jansing, Andrea Mitchell and Martin Bashir are lefties as well.

Fox News has a number of lefties on their programs, but only Shepherd Smith is an anchor.

Ummm... Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Greta?

If MSNBC is what you call AOATT, then FOX must be BOATT(Bash Obama All The Time).

BTW, What's wrong with a Channel like MSNBC? Why is FOX's bullshit OK, But MSNBC's bullshit not OK?

I have seen Ratigan Slam people from both sides. But like me, he understands what the hell is going on. Corporations are taking over... They are creating this astro-turf movement that you guys like to call the Tea Party. Because if you look at the agenda, it benefits no one but those at the top. I know, you expect them to sprinkle "trickle down fairy dust" to you once they achieve their goal... but they won't. They are much too busy helping China build their economic landscape and ignoring ours.

One of Ratigan's biggest gripes about our deficit that no one wants to talk about is the Trade Deficit. You see, while you guys love to talk about the "Free Market".... there isn't one until this issue gets fixed.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's the whole point... no one is trying to BAN anything. But, if someone is throwing bullshit around, don't you think that the opposition should have an opportunity to REFUTE it? That's what this is all about... but as usual, you guys go off the deep end about it.

EVERYTHING this administration does is nothing more that a Communist plot for you folks.

You want to talk about Beck and Limbaugh and the like? Great, let's do it. Beck comes on and calls the President a Freedom hating Racist. You guys believe he's a freedom hating Racist. Limbaugh says he wants to destroy American.... you guys believe he wants to destroy America. Hannity says he's nothing more than a card carrying Communist Muslim From Kenya... you guys are the first to see the Birth Certificate and no matter how many times or how many people back the guy up.... He's still a Communist Muslim Kenyan.

So why shouldn't His Administration keep an eye on these OPINIONS... and refute them somewhere else? No one is calling for BANS... that is your sides ever increasing paranoia.

Actually, the exact point of the op is that there are liberals that want to ban conservative opinions. Then there are bills that have been introduced that does that as well. I brought up the ‘fairness doctrine earlier as an example of a bill that has been introduced multiple times.

Sure there are... just like there are Conservatives who are White Supremacists and the like... so what? You want to talk about the "Fairness Doctrine"? What's wrong with that... displaying both sides of an argument. Before FOXNews went Full Retard they used to do that with Hannity and Colmes. One of the Cable Channels Used to have James Carville AND his Republican wife on, arguing the political events of the day... .Can't remember which one.

To this day MSNBC has Joe Scarborough on in the Morning and he doesn't mince words about his Conservative leanings. Dylan Ratigan slams both sides equally and shares MY view that neither Conservatism nor Liberalism is destroying this country nearly like the way Corporatism surely is.

So, your argument is that they are fringe and not the norm as well as that there are other on the ruight that would do the same. Interesting that you did not go on that tirade but instead went right on how no one wants to ban anything despite the fact there are bills being introduced to do just that. Ii would agree that the OP is fantastical and you can get some random group of people on camera for almost anything but you were not going in that direction.

Specific to the fairness doctrine, I can’t believe you do not see what the issue is when the GOVERNMENT decided what will be on any particular program based on what the government feels is a balanced view. What if it were Hannity or Limbaugh heading the agency that deemed what was a left and right view? Would you be all right with that? There is also this little part in the constitution that gives you the freedom of speech. Political speech is of particular importance here and should NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be subject to governmental oversight. Far more than anything, that will threaten our freedoms.

On a side note: Limbaugh is in my spellchecker library!!! Scary how common that must be to be loaded.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's the whole point... no one is trying to BAN anything. But, if someone is throwing bullshit around, don't you think that the opposition should have an opportunity to REFUTE it? That's what this is all about... but as usual, you guys go off the deep end about it.

True – and that’s it in essence: the right doesn’t want the Administration to have an opportunity to rebut the opposition – as if they’re 'denying' the WH its ‘free speech.’

With much of the media printing White House press releases verbatim and with no hint of a critical eye, do you really think the rights of the White House are being trampled upon?

I don’t see a problem with the Whitehouse getting its message across or defending their points but they have gone overboard a bit on this, particularly when they start banning specific news organizations when they do not agree with them. The interesting part here though (and the fact no one else pointed this out yet) is the fact that you are framing your point in the frame of reference that the government has rights. I find this somewhat funny. The government has POWERS that are subject to our rights but I have never thought of the government actually having ‘rights.’ I see that as a rather dangerous viewpoint. Barrack Obama has rights as an American, the administration does not.

I would also point out here that the ONLY purpose to that committee is getting Obama reelected. The sole purpose of an agency that is policing the political news for ‘misinformation’ is to promote the specific parties version of ‘information’ for political gains. If you support the president’s actions in this you are inherently supporting a sitting president’s ability to use some public resources to push their party/candidates/reelection.

 

[Woyzeck]

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

The video reminds me of videos and skits like Jay Leno's 'Jaywalking,' where someone goes around asking people pretty basic questions, and the answers are always extraordinarily incorrect.

 

[daveman]

True – and that’s it in essence: the right doesn’t want the Administration to have an opportunity to rebut the opposition – as if they’re 'denying' the WH its ‘free speech.’

With much of the media printing White House press releases verbatim and with no hint of a critical eye, do you really think the rights of the White House are being trampled upon?

I don’t see a problem with the Whitehouse getting its message across or defending their points but they have gone overboard a bit on this, particularly when they start banning specific news organizations when they do not agree with them. The interesting part here though (and the fact no one else pointed this out yet) is the fact that you are framing your point in the frame of reference that the government has rights. I find this somewhat funny. The government has POWERS that are subject to our rights but I have never thought of the government actually having ‘rights.’ I see that as a rather dangerous viewpoint. Barrack Obama has rights as an American, the administration does not.

It's Jones who's hand-wringing about the poor downtrodden oppressed White House, not me.

I would also point out here that the ONLY purpose to that committee is getting Obama reelected. The sole purpose of an agency that is policing the political news for ‘misinformation’ is to promote the specific parties version of ‘information’ for political gains. If you support the president’s actions in this you are inherently supporting a sitting president’s ability to use some public resources to push their party/candidates/reelection.

Indeed. The DNC should be paying for this, not the American taxpayers.

 

[TheBrain]

That's the whole point... no one is trying to BAN anything. But, if someone is throwing bullshit around, don't you think that the opposition should have an opportunity to REFUTE it? That's what this is all about... but as usual, you guys go off the deep end about it.

True – and that’s it in essence: the right doesn’t want the Administration to have an opportunity to rebut the opposition – as if they’re 'denying' the WH its ‘free speech.’

With much of the media printing White House press releases verbatim and with no hint of a critical eye, do you really think the rights of the White House are being trampled upon?

LOL Clayton thinks the freedom of speech means a TV station has to provide the opposition equal air time. He's such an idiot.

 

[daveman]

True – and that’s it in essence: the right doesn’t want the Administration to have an opportunity to rebut the opposition – as if they’re 'denying' the WH its ‘free speech.’

With much of the media printing White House press releases verbatim and with no hint of a critical eye, do you really think the rights of the White House are being trampled upon?

LOL Clayton thinks the freedom of speech means a TV station has to provide the opposition equal air time. He's such an idiot.

Careful. You're close to committing Thoughtcrime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not the lunkhead here, you are.

Tell me something, what do we do if the government is the one spreading lies and misinformation? If we give the government the power to argue their version of truth, and they are lying, then it will attack people who are actually spreading truth and information and simply refute it with lies and mis information. It is not the government's job to maintain truth, and I do not understand why most of the people that understand this are labelled as right wingers. This is not a partisan issue, and never has been, but some people insist on making it one.

If you ban lobbying groups and PACs you deny people the right to band together and let their government know how they feel. Take a look at the top 10 lobbying groups from this list.

Top 10 lobbying groups. Explore the offcial sites of the top lobbying groups.

I have no idea what criteria they used, nor do I care, I am just using the list to illustrate the point that lobbying groups and PACs are not just about corporations trying to buy elections, they are also about people coming together to make a difference in the world. Since there is no way to allow the groups I support and oppose the groups I do not without being a hack I simply support the right of everyone, even people I vehemently disagree with, to come together and lobby politicians, make issue ads, and even get stupid laws passed if they can. This preserves my right to do the same thing.

Public financing of elections, it is a bad idea precisely because it removes the public from elections. Have you ever noticed how many incumbent politicians support public election financing? The reason for that is that it takes a lot more money to get your message out if you are challenging a person who has the resources of the government at his beck and call. This effectively doubles the available money

The system you want would have more in common with a tyranny than anything that would arise out of our current system. Eliminating the public input into our government means that it will be less responsive, less likely to care about issues that have immediate impact, and less likely to change things that are bad for everyone.

If you really want an open government you should speak up and argue for, not against, everything you hate.

Damn that rep cap. This is extremely well put. Thank you.

Bullshit. Once again... no one is calling for bans.. LEAST OF ALL ME!!!(lunkhead). You are making a big stink about this fake petition and that some ignorant lefties are willing to sign it.

The last sentence is ridiculous. Are you arguing FOR Universal Health Care? Are you arguing FOR Social Programs in general? No... you are arguing against it, because you hate it.

I hate Corporatism. You think I should "speak up and argue for" the continuation of the wholesale rape of our country, that expects us then to pay retail? Right. Over my dead body.

I have never argued against universal health care, I think it is a grand idea. I just want people to understand that government health care is not free. We will pay for it with less access to health care and higher prices. I actually like the system we have now. No one has ever been able to point to anyone that was unable to get health care that they needed, and the results of our system is that sick people have the best overall chance of surviving of any country in the world.

I am sure you are going to start whining about people not get health insurance and going bankrupt. Before you do I would like to point out that there is a difference between insurance and health care.

Personally, I do not hate social programs, so I see no reason to argue for them. I am concerned about the cost of them, but I also see the need.

What I do is live in the real world, and in that world cost matters. I understand that money cannot simply be printed when you run short. Unless you can figure out a way to pay for your pet projects you cannot have them.

That is my argument, and always will be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's the whole point... no one is trying to BAN anything. But, if someone is throwing bullshit around, don't you think that the opposition should have an opportunity to REFUTE it? That's what this is all about... but as usual, you guys go off the deep end about it.

EVERYTHING this administration does is nothing more that a Communist plot for you folks.

You want to talk about Beck and Limbaugh and the like? Great, let's do it. Beck comes on and calls the President a Freedom hating Racist. You guys believe he's a freedom hating Racist. Limbaugh says he wants to destroy American.... you guys believe he wants to destroy America. Hannity says he's nothing more than a card carrying Communist Muslim From Kenya... you guys are the first to see the Birth Certificate and no matter how many times or how many people back the guy up.... He's still a Communist Muslim Kenyan.

So why shouldn't His Administration keep an eye on these OPINIONS... and refute them somewhere else? No one is calling for BANS... that is your sides ever increasing paranoia.

Actually, the exact point of the op is that there are liberals that want to ban conservative opinions. Then there are bills that have been introduced that does that as well. I brought up the ‘fairness doctrine earlier as an example of a bill that has been introduced multiple times.

Sure there are... just like there are Conservatives who are White Supremacists and the like... so what? You want to talk about the "Fairness Doctrine"? What's wrong with that... displaying both sides of an argument. Before FOXNews went Full Retard they used to do that with Hannity and Colmes. One of the Cable Channels Used to have James Carville AND his Republican wife on, arguing the political events of the day... .Can't remember which one.

To this day MSNBC has Joe Scarborough on in the Morning and he doesn't mince words about his Conservative leanings. Dylan Ratigan slams both sides equally and shares MY view that neither Conservatism nor Liberalism is destroying this country nearly like the way Corporatism surely is.

You really do not understand how the fairness doctrine would work, do you?

Since you used MSNBC as an example, the fairness doctrine would require them to devote exactly as much air time to conservative opinions as they do liberal ones. That does not mean having one token conservative on Morning Joe, it means giving every possible viewpoint equal time. They would have to let liberals, conservatives, moderates, communists, anarchists, libertarians, and on and on equal air time every single time anyone expressed an opinion.

The main problem I have with that is, again, money. Why should the owners of MSNBC be forced to spend their money and devote their resources to airing views they disagree with? Shouldn't they have the right to decide how to spend their money? Why should I, or anyone else, be able to tell them that they have to let me air an opinion that disagrees with them?

The fairness doctrine is rooted in the past and is designed to solve a problem that disappeared 50 years ago when access to different media sources became the norm. I really do not understand why progressives keep saying conservatives look to the past and want to maintain the status quo when they are the ones that want us to go back in time and fix those problems.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

True – and that’s it in essence: the right doesn’t want the Administration to have an opportunity to rebut the opposition – as if they’re 'denying' the WH its ‘free speech.’

With much of the media printing White House press releases verbatim and with no hint of a critical eye, do you really think the rights of the White House are being trampled upon?

LOL Clayton thinks the freedom of speech means a TV station has to provide the opposition equal air time. He's such an idiot.

Give him a break. Clayton is obviously not familiar with all this newfangled tech like cable, satellite, and the internet. He still lives in a world where the only news comes from the one newspaper he gets in the afternoon.

 

[TheBrain]

Damn that rep cap. This is extremely well put. Thank you.

Bullshit. Once again... no one is calling for bans.. LEAST OF ALL ME!!!(lunkhead). You are making a big stink about this fake petition and that some ignorant lefties are willing to sign it.

The last sentence is ridiculous. Are you arguing FOR Universal Health Care? Are you arguing FOR Social Programs in general? No... you are arguing against it, because you hate it.

I hate Corporatism. You think I should "speak up and argue for" the continuation of the wholesale rape of our country, that expects us then to pay retail? Right. Over my dead body.

I have never argued against universal health care, I think it is a grand idea. I just want people to understand that government health care is not free. We will pay for it with less access to health care and higher prices. I actually like the system we have now. No one has ever been able to point to anyone that was unable to get health care that they needed, and the results of our system is that sick people have the best overall chance of surviving of any country in the world.

I am sure you are going to start whining about people not get health insurance and going bankrupt. Before you do I would like to point out that there is a difference between insurance and health care.

Personally, I do not hate social programs, so I see no reason to argue for them. I am concerned about the cost of them, but I also see the need.

What I do is live in the real world, and in that world cost matters. I understand that money cannot simply be printed when you run short. Unless you can figure out a way to pay for your pet projects you cannot have them.

That is my argument, and always will be.

My position to a tee. It always cracks me up when someone writes "you're against universal healthcare" we already have universal health care, by law no hospital can turn down ANY ONE if they are in need of care.

Also, like you I am not against the idea of a one payer system. I AM against the idea of the government being in charge of anything. If they REALLY concerned with making sure everyone has insurance it would be this simple.

All insurance companies which qualify put into a giant pool to form a separate entity which manages healthcare for all US citizens, and their profit margin is capped at a certain level. Problem solved. No need for Obamacare's bureaucracy and paperwork.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's Jones who's hand-wringing about the poor downtrodden oppressed White House, not me.

I did not mean to infer that it was you. I quoted you because I was piggybacking off your statements made in reference to his quote. That’s why the original quote was also included.