Why do Congressional Democrats fear free speech?

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...there's another FREAKING kitten on the farm and one of my girls is flipping out over the stupid thing and I feel like a total moron for even telling her about it.

Is there any way this could be turned into a stray cat thread? :)

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by lbreder

Can I just bring up one reason as to why the internet might be reguloated/blocked?

Do your tax dollars go to pay for your Representative and his/her staff to be surfing the net? How would you feel if they were trading stocks or buying a new TV on ebay instead of legislating? I work on a government system and there is no facebook, myspace, etc. I know for me, (Stenny Hoyer won't do anything I agree with anyway) I don't want my Representative doing anything more than what he was elected to do there.

The legislation is about 'posting information'. The Rules Committee would get to sanction websites deemed 'appropriate'. The Congressional Members then have to 'moderate' the public discourse, which is impossible. If a Member wants to discuss policy with the public, why not? Sure the Members will abuse the medium, just like they do now on radio and television. But if the Rules Committee says only DailyPOS is an approved website and FreeRepublic is not (for news dissemination from the Members), we can pretty much tell which side of an argument will be presented.

And you thought Vrai's job was a pain!

[RadioPatrol]

because nasty republicans cannot release the facts, about what the Socialists are up to ....

that is why they want to reinstate the fairness doctrine ..... because for the last 20 yrs RUSH and others have been poking a finger in the eye of Socialists in this country and what they are trying to do .....



turn this country into a Socialist Prison Camp .... from taking our guns, so we cannot fight back, silencing decent, to raising taxes on average folks to pay for welfare, and environmental scams ... running off business except what they own or control ...

basically taking this country down to a 3rd world cesspool level ... so they can control everything

[Pete (Premo)]

Why do they fear free speech? Simple, it is harder to reprogram sheep without dissenting opinions screwing it up.

[chernmax]

Originally Posted by Pete

Why do they fear free speech? Simple, it is harder to reprogram sheep without dissenting opinions screwing it up.

BINGO, we have a winner!!!

[ImnoMensa]

If there was fairness in politics the Democrats would have to change their name to the National Socialist party, or is that name already taken.?

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

If there was fairness in politics the Democrats would have to change their name to the National Socialist party, or is that name already taken.?

They hold those ideals, but can't announce that's what they truly want as they would lose millions of voters. But (I think Glenn Beck said it), they accomplish their goals by incrementalism.

Like MADD, they really want Prohibition but won't say that publicly.

[SamSpade]

I admit, I really do not understand the rationale. I've read remarks from the Democratic leadership over the Fairness Doctrine, and you'd think that right-wing radio is the new red scare - a disease insinuating itself dangerously into the minds of our young through propaganda. On the face of it, it just sounds like fascism - that there are ideas that must not be allowed to propagate freely out there. It's the flip side of religious nuts who oppose certain things in the public domain for the sake of morality or decency.

It's not the conservatives or Republicans who typically grouse over political correctness. They're the ones usually making jokes about how absurd it is. But political correctness - not being allowed to SAY certain things because it might be offensive to someone - is censorship.

Every person I've ever known who has gone on record wishing, demanding or hoping that someone would be silenced has been liberal.

It still goes back to what I've said before about liberalism. They see themselves as centrists. Conservatism in their eyes IS extremist, period. They aren't on the other side of the spectrum in their eyes. They don't acknowledge "left-wing" or left-wing extremism. So in typical fascist sentiment, their view is the common view and everyone else are kooks - who don't merit tolerance. They would no more embrace tolerance for the right than they would a gang of screeching baboons.

And so this is where I don't understand them - so what? I don't get the idea of wearing the mantle of tolerance as a badge of honor, but clearly remain intolerant of any views other than their own, which IS intolerance by definition. To love freedom of speech, you have to love everyone's freedom of speech. As I said before, so what? People on here have observed, the best way to deal with extremists is to give them an open mike and let the world see how crazy they are. You only give them respectability by shutting them down - IF they're really crazy.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I admit, I really do not understand the rationale. I've read remarks from the Democratic leadership over the Fairness Doctrine, and you'd think that right-wing radio is the new red scare - a disease insinuating itself dangerously into the minds of our young through propaganda. On the face of it, it just sounds like fascism - that there are ideas that must not be allowed to propagate freely out there. It's the flip side of religious nuts who oppose certain things in the public domain for the sake of morality or decency.

It's not the conservatives or Republicans who typically grouse over political correctness. They're the ones usually making jokes about how absurd it is. But political correctness - not being allowed to SAY certain things because it might be offensive to someone - is censorship.

Every person I've ever known who has gone on record wishing, demanding or hoping that someone would be silenced has been liberal.

It still goes back to what I've said before about liberalism. They see themselves as centrists. Conservatism in their eyes IS extremist, period. They aren't on the other side of the spectrum in their eyes. They don't acknowledge "left-wing" or left-wing extremism. So in typical fascist sentiment, their view is the common view and everyone else are kooks - who don't merit tolerance. They would no more embrace tolerance for the right than they would a gang of screeching baboons.

And so this is where I don't understand them - so what? I don't get the idea of wearing the mantle of tolerance as a badge of honor, but clearly remain intolerant of any views other than their own, which IS intolerance by definition. To love freedom of speech, you have to love everyone's freedom of speech. As I said before, so what? People on here have observed, the best way to deal with extremists is to give them an open mike and let the world see how crazy they are. You only give them respectability by shutting them down - IF they're really crazy.

When facts aren't on your side of the debate you must demonize the opposition. Attack the messenger or shut the messenger up. There is no valid viewpoint other than the socialist agenda. Anyone who opposes their viewpoint is ignorant, bitter, racist, homophobe, angry, white male, gun-loving, religious kook, or a host of other ad-hominem attacks.

Personally, I think it stems from a defiance of social norms that is a result of being told so many times by their parents they were 'special' when they came home from school sobbing after being teased for wearing culots.

[RadioPatrol]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

. On the face of it, it just sounds like fascism - that there are ideas that must not be allowed to propagate freely out there. It's the flip side of religious nuts who oppose certain things in the public domain for the sake of morality or decency.

Have you read "Liberal Fascism" .....