Check this site

Quote:

Then freedom of speech has been censored based on the opinions of the owner and mods of this site?

Absolutely. It's in the TOS that you do NOT have the right to write whatever you want here. You willingly give up that right when you sign up for an account.

In someone else's forum, however, people have the right to post whatever they want, so the original suppostion that 'freedom of speech is one thing, but this is going too far' is fallacious.

Quote:

Oh, I think free speech is alive and well, Cyclo. Your admiration of bin Laden (evidenced in your quoting him, albeit a made-up quote) is quite telling

When did I ever say I admired Bin Laden? Take your straw man somewhere else JW.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Freedom of speech is one thing, what I see on that web page is more like the sort of thing which absolutely nobody would have tolerated in 1942

Certainly not. Joseph McCarthy proved that. The national anthem calls this the land of the free. People here are allowed to hold any belief that they want. Joe McCarthy forgot that. All of America forgot that during the Senate hearings, and we are still paying for it today.

JustWonders wrote:

But...keep it up You guys are off to a great start. Seeing you all reach out like this - seeing you show respect and tolerance for those who disagree with you is just ... well, it's just heartwarming. Let the healing begin.

JustWonders wrote:

What was that website again? sorelosers.com...or dramaqueens.com?

Temporary lapse of memory, I'm sure

You could always post your pic here if it's more "exposure" you're after

Hypocritical much??

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Freedom of speech is one thing, what I see on that web page is more like the sort of thing which absolutely nobody would have tolerated in 1942 and yet which democrats are increasingly making paractices of, e.g.

What bullsh*t.

You either believe in free speech or you don't. The concept does not include censorship based upon your opinions.

Cycloptichorn

Freedom of speech doesn't include libel or yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is none and in many places thanks to the machinations of libs and leftists, it no longer includes "hate speech", whatever that's supposed to be.

Whether or not it includes telling Osama Bin Laden to bomb my neighbor but not me because I voted for the stinking gigolo is an open question in my estimation. I can tell you for sure how that would have been tolerated in 1942: the cops wouldn't have gotten to the guy doing it in time to save him.

0 Replies

The way I see it, if I don't like their message, I will not validate it by visiting their site. They do indeed have the freedom to express their views whether I see it as hurting America or not.

Showing the weak, sensitive side of the losing party has it's merits but keep in mind that it may induce vomiting in those that disagree that anyone should be apologizing for our democratic process.

0 Replies

RfromP - call me what you will. Just ...

do
not
apologize
for
me

period.

Could I be any clearer?

0 Replies

They're not apologizing for the process, they are apologizing because so many of our citizens were persuaded to make the wrong choice.

I understand you disagree; but they have a right to their opinion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

RfromP - call me what you will. Just ...

do
not
apologize
for
me

period.

Could I be any clearer?

Well, you could have used bold and colors... :wink: Laughing

0 Replies

Why shouldn't someone apologize on your behalf?

After all, you (well, the cause you support) is fighting a war on OUR behalf that we don't support. So as soon as you stop advocating violence and death as a solution to world problems, we'll stop apologizing, okay?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Freedom of speech is one thing, what I see on that web page is more like the sort of thing which absolutely nobody would have tolerated in 1942 and yet which democrats are increasingly making paractices of, e.g.

good thing it's not 1942.

we keep hearing that "iraq isn't vietnam. true, iraq isn't vietnam. and it's not world war II either, no matter how badly some try to put it in that league.

i find it odd that some people who are always carping about character and values are among the first to insist that others subjugate their values and diminish their character. how is that honest? double standard perhaps? just a little?

for example; gunga here is totally insulted by a picture of someone holding a little sign that says "sorry we lost".

but had no problem at all posting a dozen cute li'l cartoons bashing the bejeezus out of kerry and the dems. the one that looked like a sticker for a kerry/bin laden ticket is the most offensive, perhaps.

anyway, he has the right to say what he wants because of the first amendment.

and so do those that don't really care for what bush has done and is doing.

so get over it.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

RfromP - call me what you will. Just ...

do
not
apologize
for
me

period.

Could I be any clearer?

JustWonders, I respect your opinions and passion but you don't have to be so fussy with me. This is a friendly debate.

0 Replies

RfromP wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
Freedom of speech is one thing, what I see on that web page is more like the sort of thing which absolutely nobody would have tolerated in 1942

Certainly not. Joseph McCarthy proved that. The national anthem calls this the land of the free. People here are allowed to hold any belief that they want. Joe McCarthy forgot that. All of America forgot that during the Senate hearings, and we are still paying for it today.

In 1942, which is the timeframe I mentioned because a war was getting ramped up under a democrat president, Joe McCarthy resigned his job as a judge and took a job as a Air Intel officer and frequently served as a tailgunner on bombing missions in the Solomons area. Being a tailgunner, of course, was dangerous in the senses that almost all attacks on bombers by fighter planes were from the rear and the tailgunner typically had one or two machinegun barrels to shoot from (since you couldn't realistically make more than that work reasonably from swivel mounts) and was facing a fighter plane with six or eight machine guns firing directly at him.

Now, on the other hand, had Joe McCarthy been the sort of person who we see posting those little placard images on this Sorrow website, he'd have kept his job as a judge and sent letters off to Hitler and Tojo that he was a republican, and asking them therefore to bomb his neighbors but not him. That seems to be the new democrat chic at any rate.

A bit more about Joe McCarthy:

http://members.tripod.com/~BioLeft/mccarthy.htm

0 Replies

McCarthy was a thug, and a plague on America's freedom.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Joe McCarthy singlehandedly and personally made it unrespectable to be a communist in America , and was personally responsible for the defeat of a dozen or so democrat US senators back when there were 46 or 48 of them. That puts the guy right there next to St. George in my book.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/935830/posts

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
RfromP - call me what you will. Just ...

do
not
apologize
for
me

period.

Could I be any clearer?

Well, you could have used bold and colors... :wink:

Haha McG - I'm reserving bold and colors for when I want to be truly "fussy", "malicious", and just plain annoying. :wink: Laughing

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Joe McCarthy singlehandedly and personally made it unrespectable to be a communist in America , and was personally responsible for the defeat of a dozen or so democrat US senators back when there were 46 or 48 of them. That puts the guy right there next to St. George in my book.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/935830/posts

and a little more about joe mccarthy;

Senate Resolution 301: Censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy (1954) - Transcript

Senate Resolution 301: Censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy (1954)

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

In 1942, which is the timeframe I mentioned because a war was getting ramped up under a democrat president, Joe McCarthy resigned his job as a judge and took a job as a Air Intel officer and frequently served as a tailgunner on bombing missions in the Solomons area. Being a tailgunner, of course, was dangerous in the senses that almost all attacks on bombers by fighter planes were from the rear and the tailgunner typically had one or two machinegun barrels to shoot from (since you couldn't realistically make more than that work reasonably from swivel mounts) and was facing a fighter plane with six or eight machine guns firing directly at him.

O.k., so you cut and pasted a portion of his biography which shows he had an admirable character trait. So what? What's your point? Any person probably has at least one redeeming quality about them.

The House Un-American Activities Committee investigated 10 year old Shirley Temple for goodness sakes. If screened, McCarthy's own drink problems and sexual preferences would have resulted in him being put on the list. He was discredited by a Senate censure in 1954. St. George he is not.

0 Replies

Didn't our beloved Ms. Coulter recently write a book on Mr. McCarthy?

0 Replies

RfromP wrote:

O.k., so you cut and pasted a portion of his biography which shows he had an admirable character trait. So what? What's your point?

The point is, that unlike the people who are posting those "Sorry" screeds on the Sorry website, Joe McCarthy was not enough of an ASSHOLE to send some sort of a letter or missive off to our national enemies saying that he was a member of the out party, and therefore asking them to bomb his neighbors but not him.

Quite the opposite, Joe McCarthy signed up and put his own ass on the line in the war which the other political party was fighting. Quite a difference, don't you think?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Didn't our beloved Ms. Coulter recently write a book on Mr. McCarthy?

It's called "Treason".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400050308/102-2468103-0389710?v=glance

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Haha McG - I'm reserving bold and colors for when I want to be truly "fussy", "malicious", and just plain annoying. :wink:

Now that I know the intellectual and maturity level I'm dealing with I can respond appropriately. I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Shocked

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

i find it odd that some people who are always carping about character and values are among the first to insist that others subjugate their values and diminish their character. how is that honest? double standard perhaps? just a little?

for example; gunga here is totally insulted by a picture of someone holding a little sign that says "sorry we lost".
but had no problem at all posting a dozen cute li'l cartoons bashing the bejeezus out of kerry and the dems.

The best comment made so far in my opinion. However the point is lost on those who can't see their own hypocrisy.

0 Replies

Check this site

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know