Well if you don't want to see it hypocrite WTF are doing coming to it, and then continue to POST ON IT for...............
You must have been wanting a fight. Sure looks it. I do not. I just didn't feel it was a topic that was appropriate for here. Maybe I am wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
Of course I saw it. I can't very well read anything here with my eyes closed. With a title like that you can't miss it. Only reason I am posting in it now is because I am being attacked over my POV.
You're being attacked because you're a stupid leftist ***** who wants to shut down any speech that doesn't meet your approval.
Like all leftist bitches.
That is pretty darn hysterical since I am about as conservative as they come. Read my posts if you want proof. You can also stop the name calling, if you do not mind.
Bullshit.
Conservatives believe in free speech and don't try to shut it down like a stupid leftist ***** like you. Leftists try to win every argument by silencing all opposing thought.
Just like you do.
saintmichaeldefendthem yes and no.
1. I remember when Sarah Palin was called hypocritical for arguing that people speaking out against someone for free speech constituted stifling free speech:
What separates Palin from many conservatives who have come out in support of Robertson is the way she approached her defense: mainly, she argued against his critics and the way they spoke out against him. In her argument, she made the case that
those speaking out against Robertson (with criticism of his racist and anti-gay rhetoric) are stifling his freedom of speech.
I understand cutting off someone's facebook for what they say could be argued as not respecting free speech.
But private groups do have the right to exercise boycotts and responding to boycotts by advertisers.
So if you don't like their policies on handling free speech, you can boycott them also (or buy them out as I
think free speech groups ought to band up and do with yahoo and twitter and stop the censorship wars)
2. The DIFFERENCE
saintmichaeldefendthem
is where Conservatives and Christians have faith in Constitutional petitioning and due process of law,
and will give and take rebukes back and forth, to keep the channels of free speech and press open
to address issues until they are resolved. People with faith that the truth governs the process
are more open to keep communicating.
So I DO find that the Conservatives tend to be more open to giving and taking rebuke,
whereas politicized liberals without this faith, who rely on govt and not on their own ability
to establish truth by consensus, will rely on party leaders and officials to bully for them.
So they give up when they don't want to take further responsibility "to fight against a bigger bully" they can't outshout or outargue and prefer to rely on govt and party leaders to speak for them.
Sadly I find it is the knowledge of Christian and Constitutional laws on the right that give this extra weight
and confidence in self-representation, which tend to be lacking on the left which is why they rely on party to act as that authority they don't have equal ability or experience to invoke as Christians and Constitutionalists on the right.
I would love to find more fellow Constitutionalists on the progressive left,
but most of the left are so "relative" and open to the ideas of others they are not the
authoritarian types to go around pontificating and establishing law for others.
Only the bigger bullies willing to mandate end up in positions of power in the party,
while the "relative liberal" types end up as followers and don't go around imposing on others.
The Greens and also the Occupy ran into this same problem with the "relative" approach to policy:
the loudest mouths and pushiest leaders were the bullies who obstruct, silence and dictate to others,
while the cooperative accommodating types were the moderators and followers who didn't impose.
I find the real leaders who believe in equal inclusion and consensus decisions are not going to found at the top of the totem pole, trumpeting their own commands and claiming authority to govern others, but are going to be at the bottom doing all the work with others as equals, and we don't see these in the media. Only the loudmouths like Trump or the people taking credit like Clinton who can outbully to get to the top. Of these two, I understand Trump is better at respecting equal free speech than Clinton who censors and controls all the press. Trump isn't afraid to go too far with free speech and make huge messes for himself, while Clinton takes the opposite approach and plays it safe.