Poland wants Reagan statue.

[rexbo 104]

aumd03 gives the modern Republican view of "free speech". He's a totalitarian. That's what Bush has tapped into.

Free Speech? Are you kidding me? Bush has given more people (50 MILLION) the right to free speech than any Democratic President since Roosevelt. No doubt there are some far-rights that don't understand what liberty is about. But, what Bush has tapped into is the dream of freedom and democracy and we are witnessing this mighty struggle in the Middle East; just as Reagan tapped into the dream for the Eastern Europeans. There are no freer people right now than Americans, there has never been a freer country, and there has never been a country so willing to fight for other people's freedoms. If you cannot see that, there is no hope for you.

[AURaptor 1,126]

aumd03 gives the modern Republican view of "free speech". He's a totalitarian. That's what Bush has tapped into.

Bush hasn't 'tapped into ' any such thing. The basic point here is that there are lines of decency which most here, even you , think BF has crossed. This goes well beyond simple 'free speech' issues, and I suspect you know it.

I think BF's post was in bad taste. There are numerous posts I've seen on this board that I consider to be in bad taste. Most of them either go ignored by those on the Right, or agreement is noted because most of those posts are made by people on the right about people on the left. Spare me the selective indignance.

Got any examples which preceed BF's most recent ugly display ? Cite them, if you can. Show us this selective indignance.....Or go away. Don't make baseless claims on your quest for 'fairness' .

[TexasTiger 13,026]

aumd03 gives the modern Republican view of "free speech". He's a totalitarian. That's what Bush has tapped into.

Free Speech? Are you kidding me? Bush has given more people (50 MILLION) the right to free speech than any Democratic President since Roosevelt. No doubt there are some far-rights that don't understand what liberty is about. But, what Bush has tapped into is the dream of freedom and democracy and we are witnessing this mighty struggle in the Middle East; just as Reagan tapped into the dream for the Eastern Europeans. There are no freer people right now than Americans, there has never been a freer country, and there has never been a country so willing to fight for other people's freedoms. If you cannot see that, there is no hope for you.

"There ought to be limits to freedom."

George W. Bush talking about a website that criticized him.

"Freedom" is rhetoric to Bush. If you STILL can't tell the emperor has no clothes, there is no hope for you.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

aumd03 gives the modern Republican view of "free speech". He's a totalitarian. That's what Bush has tapped into.

Bush hasn't 'tapped into ' any such thing. The basic point here is that there are lines of decency which most here, even you , think BF has crossed. This goes well beyond simple 'free speech' issues, and I suspect you know it.

I think BF's post was in bad taste. There are numerous posts I've seen on this board that I consider to be in bad taste. Most of them either go ignored by those on the Right, or agreement is noted because most of those posts are made by people on the right about people on the left. Spare me the selective indignance.

Got any examples which preceed BF's most recent ugly display ? Cite them, if you can. Show us this selective indignance.....Or go away. Don't make baseless claims on your quest for 'fairness' .

I'm not going to waste a minute searching for something that you will dismiss anyway. I realize I'm dealing with the super closed minded-- that's only worth so much effort, if any. On the other hand, BF can't make a post without you responding. He really pulls your strings. He's your puppet master in a strange sort of way.

[aumd03 2]

Of course, the preceeding post didn't offend the "good Republicans" here.

aumd03 gives the modern Republican view of "free speech". He's a totalitarian. That's what Bush has tapped into.

I think BF's post was in bad taste. There are numerous posts I've seen on this board that I consider to be in bad taste. Most of them either go ignored by those on the Right, or agreement is noted because most of those posts are made by people on the right about people on the left. Spare me the selective indignance.

Actually, You should probably use the quote feature, because if you did, I said this was a privately owned site, and free speech doesn't apply here. The person that directs this site has a choice what to allow and what not to allow. Don't put words in my mouth and tell me what I am. As much as I dislike Clinton, I have more respect for the office of the Presidency than to disgrace it with comments like that.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Of course, the preceeding post didn't offend the "good Republicans" here.

aumd03 gives the modern Republican view of "free speech". He's a totalitarian. That's what Bush has tapped into.

I think BF's post was in bad taste. There are numerous posts I've seen on this board that I consider to be in bad taste. Most of them either go ignored by those on the Right, or agreement is noted because most of those posts are made by people on the right about people on the left. Spare me the selective indignance.

Actually, You should probably use the quote feature, because if you did, I said this was a privately owned site, and free speech doesn't apply here. The person that directs this site has a choice what to allow and what not to allow. Don't put words in my mouth and tell me what I am. As much as I dislike Clinton, I have more respect for the office of the Presidency than to disgrace it with comments like that.

"Free speech" applies as much as the mods want it to. The Constitution doesn't mandate it, but most political discussion sites either allow for such comments or don't have much discussion. I glad you respect the presidency so much as to not make such comments about Presidents you don't like. Most folks with your political bent don't seem to share that and make comments in poor taste with little policing from their peers.

[aumd03 2]

I didn't view what BF said as much as discussion as just inflamatory speech. Which it worked. The internet has become a forum for people to express views that although protected, would never be said in everyday conversation for fear of backlash.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

I didn't view what BF said as much as discussion as just inflamatory speech. Which it worked. The internet has become a forum for people to express views that although protected, would never be said in everyday conversation for fear of backlash.

Do you include comments such as this in that category?

Homeless people should be arrested and thrown in jail.

[aumd03 2]

Yes. I'm not saying it was illegal. I'm saying social norms constrain what we do without being anonymous.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I'm not going to waste a minute searching for something that you will dismiss anyway.

Ahhh, here we see the classic example of where a Left winger makes an extraordinary claim, but isn't capable of supporting said claim. You can't find an example because there IS no example. Which is precisely why it would be a waste of time.

I realize I'm dealing with the super closed minded-- that's only worth so much effort, if any.

Followed by the standard empty ad hominem, which usually follows the unsubstantiated claim. Seems the Lefties get their panties in a bunch when they're called out, so they respond by name calling. Again, there's no standard by which one is ' super closed minded', but TT is sure fire ready to accuse someone of it anyway.

On the other hand, BF can't make a post without you responding. He really pulls your strings. He's your puppet master in a strange sort of way.

And finally, the diversionary non sequitur. Well done, TT!

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I didn't view what BF said as much as discussion as just inflamatory speech. Which it worked. The internet has become a forum for people to express views that although protected, would never be said in everyday conversation for fear of backlash.

I'll say out loud at Walmart with a Bammer shirt on. As a matter of fact, I might just tape it and post it on youtube.com, minus face shots of course. Maybe distort my voice a bit. But, the reactions from nearby southern illiterates (Bammers) will be recorded live.

[rexbo 104]

aumd03 gives the modern Republican view of "free speech". He's a totalitarian. That's what Bush has tapped into.

Free Speech? Are you kidding me? Bush has given more people (50 MILLION) the right to free speech than any Democratic President since Roosevelt. No doubt there are some far-rights that don't understand what liberty is about. But, what Bush has tapped into is the dream of freedom and democracy and we are witnessing this mighty struggle in the Middle East; just as Reagan tapped into the dream for the Eastern Europeans. There are no freer people right now than Americans, there has never been a freer country, and there has never been a country so willing to fight for other people's freedoms. If you cannot see that, there is no hope for you.

"There ought to be limits to freedom."

George W. Bush talking about a website that criticized him.

"Freedom" is rhetoric to Bush. If you STILL can't tell the emperor has no clothes, there is no hope for you.

Wait, this is exactly your criticism of the situation in Iraq, too much freedom. Which way do you want it?