Democrats: "Like a patient etherized upon a table;"

[Robert W]

We will agree to disagree. I know the left and this is who they are, going back at least as far as the Vietnam war.

I can't explain why Nixon trusted the Communist NV but in Paris our government committed to leaving Vietnam and the Communists promised to never again attack the South Vietnamese. 2 years after promising that, the Communists conquered the south.

 

[citygator]

It's sad, your thread of lies has died now you are out dropping links to it.

I get paid on views. That one has about 1,000.. That is about $75 from the Soros fund. Pretty good for a few minutes of work.

 

[BluesLegend]

I get paid on views. That one has about 1,000.. That is about $75 from the Soros fund. Pretty good for a few minutes of work.

Work a shift at your McDonalds job you will earn more money.

 

[citygator]

Conservative: A belief that there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect

 

[BluesLegend]

AND if you think the evil Democratic party is anything new, sorry this has been going on for the past several thousand years. There's always groups of humans who are only interested in TAKING from others. Their wealth, their freedom. The corrupt evil Democratic party is just the latest in a long line of regimes engaged in this human behavior.

 

[citygator]

Conservative: A belief that there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect

 

[Lockback]

TS Eliot


1. How else to explain how the Democrat Party has come to stand for.....

- men can become pregnant and trans women are real women
-the country shouldn't have borders and Americans shsould pay for healthcare for illegals
-human life is not special, and you can kill political opponents
-all religions and cultures are equally valid
-stand for socialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and anti-white racism



2. Professor Gad Saad compares that etherization, that cognetive control, to the wood cricket...
AI Overview
Horsehair worms (phylum Nematomorpha) are specialized parasites that infect wood crickets and other insects, using chemicals to manipulate host behavior.


3. By capturing the schools and academia, and using censorship and cancel culture, the Left has successfully finished what the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc., began.



4.But there is hope.....Professor Saad states exactly how to save Western Civilization.

Number one, pursue knowledge unencumbered by ideological activism. No knowledge is forbidden if gathered objectively using the scientific method.

Number two, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and the pursuit of truth are deontological principles. For those of you who don't know what deentological means, it's an absolute statement. So if I say it is never okay to lie, that would be a deentological statement. If I say it is okay to lie to spare someone's feelings, that would be a consequentialist statement. For many things, it's perfectly fine to be a consequentialist. But when it comes to
freedom of speech, it has to be a deontological principle. You don't say, "I believe in freedom of speech, but as long as it doesn't hurt someone's feelings, then you are being a consequentialist."




5.

Saad is brilliant. I love his work.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Time to get back on track, and save Westerm Civilization.


Professor Saad gives a few more of the rules that will be anathema to Democrats, Socialists, Progressisvses and Islamists...........




Number one, pursue knowledge unencumbered by ideological activism. No knowledge is forbidden if gathered objectively using the scientific method.



Number two, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and the pursuit of truth are deontological principles. For those of you who don't know what deentological means, it's an absolute statement. So if I say it is never okay to lie, that would be a deentological statement. If I say it is okay to lie to spare someone's feelings, that would be a consequentialist statement. For many things, it's perfectly fine to be a consequentialist. But when it comes to
freedom of speech, it has to be a deontological principle. You don't say, "I believe in freedom of speech, but as long as it doesn't hurt someone's feelings, then you are being a consequentialist."





Number three, a just society is rooted in the ethos of a meritocracy.
Some of us are taller, shorter, harder working, less hardworking, more assertive, less. That's why we create hierarchies. So, communism has failed everywhere that it's been tried because it is literally anti-human nature.



Number four, proudly and unequivocally, defend western values. Be proud of the west.

 

[citygator]

Time to get back on track, and save Westerm Civilization.


Professor Saad gives a few more of the rules that will be anathema to Democrats, Socialists, Progressisvses and Islamists...........




Number one, pursue knowledge unencumbered by ideological activism. No knowledge is forbidden if gathered objectively using the scientific method.



Number two, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and the pursuit of truth are deontological principles. For those of you who don't know what deentological means, it's an absolute statement. So if I say it is never okay to lie, that would be a deentological statement. If I say it is okay to lie to spare someone's feelings, that would be a consequentialist statement. For many things, it's perfectly fine to be a consequentialist. But when it comes to
freedom of speech, it has to be a deontological principle. You don't say, "I believe in freedom of speech, but as long as it doesn't hurt someone's feelings, then you are being a consequentialist."





Number three, a just society is rooted in the ethos of a meritocracy.
Some of us are taller, shorter, harder working, less hardworking, more assertive, less. That's why we create hierarchies. So, communism has failed everywhere that it's been tried because it is literally anti-human nature.



Number four, proudly and unequivocally, defend western values. Be proud of the west.

The right has NO INTEREST in free speech. They are trying to crush free speech. A few of the clearest examples are cases where the FCC (under Brendan Carr) used its regulatory leverage over broadcast licenses, mergers, or funding to pressure companies that own news outlets critical of Trump.

EXAMPLES:

1. Threatening ABC/Disney’s broadcast licenses after Jimmy Kimmel criticized Trump​

This is the cleanest example.

After Jimmy Kimmel mocked Trump and Melania on ABC, Trump publicly demanded ABC fire him. Within days, the FCC accelerated review of Disney’s ABC station licenses years ahead of schedule, a move critics called “nearly unprecedented.” (Reuters)

Even FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez called it a First Amendment violation and politically motivated retaliation. (The Washington Post)

2. Using the FCC’s Paramount–Skydance merger approval to pressure CBS /​

This is the most consequential example.

The FCC had to approve the Paramount–Skydance merger, which gave the government major leverage over CBS’s parent company. At the same time:

• Trump sued CBS / 60 Minutes over its Kamala Harris interview.
• FCC Chair Carr revived and amplified “news distortion” complaints against CBS.
• Carr explicitly said the complaint could factor into the merger review. (Wikipedia)

That created a clear pressure structure: punish CBS editorially, hold up the merger, force concessions.

The fallout was hard to miss:

• 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens resigned, saying he had lost editorial independence. (Wikipedia)
• CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon also resigned. (Wikipedia)
• Paramount settled Trump’s lawsuit for $16 million while admitting no wrongdoing. (Wikipedia)

This is one of the starkest examples because the FCC didn’t need to win a censorship case — it only needed to make corporate ownership fear regulatory delay.

3. Reviving investigations into ABC, NBC, and CBS - but not Fox​

Shortly after taking office, Carr reopened or revived complaints against ABC, NBC, and CBS over alleged bias, while notably not targeting Fox. (Wikipedia)

That asymmetry is the point. The issue was not neutral content regulation; it was selective scrutiny aimed at outlets critical of Trump, while exempting the network most favorable to him.

That kind of selective enforcement is exactly what raises First Amendment concerns:

• not banning criticism outright,
• but making criticism expensive and legally risky for disfavored outlets.

4. Investigating Comcast (NBC parent) after criticism of Trump​

Carr also opened investigations into Comcast, parent of NBC News, officially framed around DEI and public-interest obligations. (Wikipedia)

Formally, these were not “content” cases. Practically, critics argue they functioned the same way: target the corporate parent, create regulatory exposure, pressure the newsroom downstream. That is the pattern: don’t censor the anchor directly, threaten the company that owns the microphone.

5. Threatening NPR and PBS through funding and FCC scrutiny​

Carr also targeted NPR and PBS by:

• opening FCC inquiries into underwriting practices,
• urging Congress to cut funding,
• and helping build the case for later federal defunding. (Wikipedia)

Again, the mechanism matters. Not “you can’t say this,” but “we can investigate you, strip support, and make your model harder to survive.” That is still speech pressure, just through financial coercion instead of direct censorship.

​

6. Public threats to revoke licenses for unfavorable coverage​

Carr publicly floated using the FCC to discipline broadcasters for failing to operate in the “public interest,” including suggesting CBS’s license could be at risk. (Wikipedia)

That matters because “public interest” is broad and subjective enough to become a political weapon if used selectively.

The chilling effect is obvious. You do not need to actually revoke the license, you only need every media executive to believe you might try. That alone can change editorial behavior.


The core issue is not classic prior restraint (“you are forbidden to publish this”). It is something subtler and more dangerous:

• use FCC licensing power,
• use merger approvals,
• use investigations,
• use funding threats,
• target owners rather than reporters,
• make criticism of government costly.

That is not the government formally banning speech.

It is the government using regulatory power to make protected speech harder, riskier, and more expensive to produce. That is why critics describe it less as traditional censorship and more as state coercion aimed at inducing self-censorship.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The right has NO INTEREST in free speech. They are trying to crush free speech. A few of the clearest examples are cases where the FCC (under Brendan Carr) used its regulatory leverage over broadcast licenses, mergers, or funding to pressure companies that own news outlets critical of Trump.

EXAMPLES:

1. Threatening ABC/Disney’s broadcast licenses after Jimmy Kimmel criticized Trump​

This is the cleanest example.

After Jimmy Kimmel mocked Trump and Melania on ABC, Trump publicly demanded ABC fire him. Within days, the FCC accelerated review of Disney’s ABC station licenses years ahead of schedule, a move critics called “nearly unprecedented.” (Reuters)

Even FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez called it a First Amendment violation and politically motivated retaliation. (The Washington Post)

2. Using the FCC’s Paramount–Skydance merger approval to pressure CBS /​

This is the most consequential example.

The FCC had to approve the Paramount–Skydance merger, which gave the government major leverage over CBS’s parent company. At the same time:

• Trump sued CBS / 60 Minutes over its Kamala Harris interview.
• FCC Chair Carr revived and amplified “news distortion” complaints against CBS.
• Carr explicitly said the complaint could factor into the merger review. (Wikipedia)

That created a clear pressure structure: punish CBS editorially, hold up the merger, force concessions.

The fallout was hard to miss:

• 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens resigned, saying he had lost editorial independence. (Wikipedia)
• CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon also resigned. (Wikipedia)
• Paramount settled Trump’s lawsuit for $16 million while admitting no wrongdoing. (Wikipedia)

This is one of the starkest examples because the FCC didn’t need to win a censorship case — it only needed to make corporate ownership fear regulatory delay.

3. Reviving investigations into ABC, NBC, and CBS - but not Fox​

Shortly after taking office, Carr reopened or revived complaints against ABC, NBC, and CBS over alleged bias, while notably not targeting Fox. (Wikipedia)

That asymmetry is the point. The issue was not neutral content regulation; it was selective scrutiny aimed at outlets critical of Trump, while exempting the network most favorable to him.

That kind of selective enforcement is exactly what raises First Amendment concerns:

• not banning criticism outright,
• but making criticism expensive and legally risky for disfavored outlets.

4. Investigating Comcast (NBC parent) after criticism of Trump​

Carr also opened investigations into Comcast, parent of NBC News, officially framed around DEI and public-interest obligations. (Wikipedia)

Formally, these were not “content” cases. Practically, critics argue they functioned the same way: target the corporate parent, create regulatory exposure, pressure the newsroom downstream. That is the pattern: don’t censor the anchor directly, threaten the company that owns the microphone.

5. Threatening NPR and PBS through funding and FCC scrutiny​

Carr also targeted NPR and PBS by:

• opening FCC inquiries into underwriting practices,
• urging Congress to cut funding,
• and helping build the case for later federal defunding. (Wikipedia)

Again, the mechanism matters. Not “you can’t say this,” but “we can investigate you, strip support, and make your model harder to survive.” That is still speech pressure, just through financial coercion instead of direct censorship.

​

6. Public threats to revoke licenses for unfavorable coverage​

Carr publicly floated using the FCC to discipline broadcasters for failing to operate in the “public interest,” including suggesting CBS’s license could be at risk. (Wikipedia)

That matters because “public interest” is broad and subjective enough to become a political weapon if used selectively.

The chilling effect is obvious. You do not need to actually revoke the license, you only need every media executive to believe you might try. That alone can change editorial behavior.


The core issue is not classic prior restraint (“you are forbidden to publish this”). It is something subtler and more dangerous:

• use FCC licensing power,
• use merger approvals,
• use investigations,
• use funding threats,
• target owners rather than reporters,
• make criticism of government costly.

That is not the government formally banning speech.

It is the government using regulatory power to make protected speech harder, riskier, and more expensive to produce. That is why critics describe it less as traditional censorship and more as state coercion aimed at inducing self-censorship.

Here is Professor Saad's response to scum like you who endorse the murder of political opponents.

( You can deny it if you like)


Number four, proudly and unequivocally, defend western values. Be proud of the west.

 

[citygator]

Here is Professor Saad's response to scum like you who endorse the murder of political opponents.

( You can deny it if you like)


Number four, proudly and unequivocally, defend western values. Be proud of the west.

You made a declaration about the importance of free speech... let me quote it since you likely didnt write it but you plagiarized it. I assume the weird breaks were part of your copy/paste:

But when it comes to

freedom of speech, it has to be a deontological principle. You don't say, "I believe in freedom of speech, but as long as it doesn't hurt someone's feelings, then you are being a consequentialist.

I created a very detailed take down of the current republican leadership's war on free speech. It was too well cited and well written for you so you simply did what you always do: Copy & paste your original post that doesnt address the issue in debate or you deflect to trying to talk about abortion. Those are PoliticalChic's Play #1 and Play #2. Play #3 is see the other two plays.

How can you make such a definitive statement on free speech but sit silently while the current administration destroys the idea of it?

 

[toobfreak]

Sanctity of life? From the party of this guy?

What, because a guy who tried to railroad Trump up the creek without a paddle for something Trump didn't even do expressed relief or satisfaction that the guy had finally met his maker?

You equate that with people wishing a live person dead? Shot in the throat? Assassinated in cold blood in front of his children? A sitting US president???

I can still remember all the times and ways the Left have prayed for, called for, wished for, demanded that Trump be murdered over the past decade. You celebrated America being attacked. You defend criminals. You hate and attack law enforcement. You defend the peaceful transfer of power as VITAL to our democracy then when you LOSE an election, you do everything within your power to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power and make it anything but peaceful.

Isn't there ANYTHING you tards can cast a stone at that you have not already lived yourself 10X more from inside your own glass houses?

 

[citygator]

What, because a guy who tried to railroad Trump up the creek without a paddle for something Trump didn't even do expressed relief or satisfaction that the guy had finally met his maker?

You equate that with people wishing a live person dead? Shot in the throat? Assassinated in cold blood in front of his children? A sitting US president???

I can still remember all the times and ways the Left have prayed for, called for, wished for, demanded that Trump be murdered over the past decade. You celebrated America being attacked. You defend criminals. You hate and attack law enforcement. You defend the peaceful transfer of power as VITAL to our democracy then when you LOSE an election, you do everything within your power to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power and make it anything but peaceful.

Isn't there ANYTHING you tards can cast a stone at that you have not already lived yourself 10X more from inside your own glass houses?

In your world the "left" is an anonymous twitter account or someone you never heard of.

In my world the "right" is the leader of the right, and President of the US.

You cultists excuse Trump's idiocy because "libsoftiktok" posted a random person's rant. I dont know how you made it to this old age and are still this obtuse.

No one celebrated America being attacked, or defend criminals, or hate law abiding law enforcement officers, or prayed and wished for Trump's death. You are literally making shit up. We are a nation of 330M people and you can find anything - liberal leaders never do what conservative leaders do, and in the rare instance they do, they are called out.

Shit this site loved making fun of Alex Preti and Renee Good's death.. here let me search what you said:

There is so much worse you posted, I just grabbed the first two.

And your leaders:
Trump loving Mueller's death
Trump Jr having a good ole time with Pelosi's husband's attack

Please. You are living in a fantasyland.

 

[toobfreak]

In your world the "left" is an anonymous twitter account or someone you never heard of.
In my world the "right" is the leader of the right, and President of the US.

Wow, what a bunch of disjointed babble. I never got past the first few lines to see there was nothing but rambling here.

To be sure, the "Leader" of the right is tradition and the rule of law for preserving the values of independence and liberty our Founders most instilled in this country.

And to be sure, the "leader" of the Left is chaos and obstruction fueled by a deep hatred of this country by a few rich billionaires profoundly jealous of the USA seeing us as an obstacle, such as Soros and Neville, the two people most behind the funding of the Left's sellout to China and Islam in trying to "fundamentally change" America.

You cannot at the same time claim you love and support America while simultaneously declaring your wish to change it all the way down to its most fundamental level.

 

[citygator]

Wow, what a bunch of disjointed babble. I never got past the first few lines to see there was nothing but rambling here.

To be sure, the "Leader" of the right is tradition and the rule of law for preserving the values of independence and liberty our Founders most instilled in this country.

And to be sure, the "leader" of the Left is chaos and obstruction fueled by a deep hatred of this country by a few rich billionaires profoundly jealous of the USA seeing us as an obstacle, such as Soros and Neville, the two people most behind the funding of the Left's sellout to China and Islam in trying to "fundamentally change" America.

You cannot at the same time claim you love and support America while simultaneously declaring your wish to change it all the way down to its most fundamental level.

I cited you making fun of dead liberals and posted it. I cited the leader of the right celebrating dead opposition. I dared you to post a leader of Trump's caliber doing anything close to that - you didnt. I asked for some evidence you claim exists of liberal leaders 'praying' for death. You cant. You are a blowhard who backs down when your lies are intellectually dismantled.

You've disconnected from the world and created your own fantasyland where Soros run's everything and people like me (liberal capitalist who believes in democracy) you call communists. Take a look in the mirror and challenge your beliefs. They are wrong.

 

[eagle7-31]

During the 2025 Virginia Attorney General election, leaked text messages from Jay Jones, the Democratic candidate, revealed he had expressed graphic violent fantasies regarding Republican House Speaker Todd Gilbert and his family. [1, 2]

Details of the Messages
In an August 2022 text exchange with Republican Delegate Carrie Coyner, Jones wrote that if he had to choose between shooting Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, or Todd Gilbert, Gilbert would get "two bullets to the head". [1, 2]
The exchange further escalated regarding Gilbert’s children:

• Wished death on children: When Coyner expressed discomfort at his violent rhetoric, Jones reportedly doubled down.
• "Pain" as a political tool: He suggested that Gilbert’s wife should have to "watch her own child die in her arms" so that Gilbert might finally change his political stance on gun safety.
• Justification: Jones defended the comments in the texts by stating, "Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy," and referred to Gilbert’s young children as "little fascists". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

So you support this sort of homicidal party.


You've been an excellent witness.


Dismissed.

If a Republican had said that about a Democrat candidate we would be hearing this 24/7. But as we know the dems can do most anything and not be held accountable for it.

 

[toobfreak]

I cited you making fun of dead liberals and posted it.

Pretty amazing considering that I never made fun of any dead liberals.

I cited the leader of the right celebrating dead opposition.

Pretty amazing considering I know of no such "leader" who "celebrated" anything.

I dared you to post a leader of Trump's caliber doing anything close to that

You must have done that in your sleep or in a previous life you imagine.

I asked for some evidence you claim exists of liberal leaders 'praying' for death. You cant.

Yet I see people posting the video of their doing so here every day.

You are a blowhard who backs down when your lies are intellectually dismantled.

Impressive considering that you tards invented blowing hard and never backing up your claims with anything, yet here you are allegedly demanding more non-existent "proof" from me in just one post than I ever managed to collectively get out of every tard here put together in NINE years--- including you.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Jumbo???


I am puzzled by this, a constant hallmark of your posts


I suspect that I weight less than you do, and probably am far more attractive, as I have had my pic up on the left since I joined, and posted a number of my pictures over time....yet you haven't done so .
Are you waiting for Halloween????



I have asked you to do so often but you have steadfastly declined.

That must mean something.......

I even put up in the computer forum a cartoon version of myself.....

Could it be that you feel you have no real way to combat the posts that I provide, and pretend that I "waddle" while the fact is that you are horribly grotesque both politically and in your physiognomy???


Fess' up.

Awsome post.

And I agree....Candythorn is projecting. My guess.....400+

 

[HikerGuy83]

Another random whine-fest from Jumbo.

Hey, it's Alicia J's twin sister.

Don't know who the one in the middle is.

And if you look candycorn is complety blocking out the fourth.

 

[DonGlock26]

TS Eliot


1. How else to explain how the Democrat Party has come to stand for.....

- men can become pregnant and trans women are real women
-the country shouldn't have borders and Americans shsould pay for healthcare for illegals
-human life is not special, and you can kill political opponents
-all religions and cultures are equally valid
-stand for socialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and anti-white racism



2. Professor Gad Saad compares that etherization, that cognetive control, to the wood cricket...
AI Overview
Horsehair worms (phylum Nematomorpha) are specialized parasites that infect wood crickets and other insects, using chemicals to manipulate host behavior.


3. By capturing the schools and academia, and using censorship and cancel culture, the Left has successfully finished what the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc., began.



4.But there is hope.....Professor Saad states exactly how to save Western Civilization.

Number one, pursue knowledge unencumbered by ideological activism. No knowledge is forbidden if gathered objectively using the scientific method.

Number two, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and the pursuit of truth are deontological principles. For those of you who don't know what deentological means, it's an absolute statement. So if I say it is never okay to lie, that would be a deentological statement. If I say it is okay to lie to spare someone's feelings, that would be a consequentialist statement. For many things, it's perfectly fine to be a consequentialist. But when it comes to
freedom of speech, it has to be a deontological principle. You don't say, "I believe in freedom of speech, but as long as it doesn't hurt someone's feelings, then you are being a consequentialist."




5.

You can't save the Democrat Party. It has been captured by the Cultural Marxists.