Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
Listen, I will agree she should have been permitted to present her talk, speech, whatever.

But it amazes me that those who represent THE IDEOLOGY THAT'S CURRENTLY IN POWER whine when others shout them down. Jesus Christ, DtWB, your side won the election. You got your man for another 4 years.



Because it doesn't really matter that Bush/Republicans are in power.

Because Democrats show the same (1) partisan lack of fairness, and (2) contempt and utter lack of civility toward conservatives/Republicans, no matter which party is in power.

And I don't think it's "whining" to point out that there is a clear double-standard.



Also, as I've made clear across any number of topics, while I'm a Republican and G.W. Bush is a Republican, it's a huge assumption on your part that he's my "man".

I've made it clear in my prior posts that it was a choice for the lesser of two evils, and that if the Democrats offered a viable alternative such as Joseph Lieberman or Sam Nunn or some other Democrat who offered more credibility on defense, I would have voted for him.

But they didn't.

I've made it clear in prior posts that I would have preferred McCain as the nominee in 2000, and I voted for Bush in 2004 because Jane Fonda... excuse me... John Kerry was so unthinkable leading a war on terror.



I've made it clear many times where I separate myself from Bush.

    1. I wasn't in favor of tax cuts, I'd prefer the deficit paid down.

    2. When 9-11 occurred, I thought the tax cuts should have been repealed, to cover the additional spending.

    3. I felt that Bush should have gone in with the larger invasion force that the Pentagon Joint Chiefs recommended, of 200,000 to 300,000

    4. I don't like Bush's amnesty proposal for illegal immigrants. It promotes illegal immigration.


And some things I haven't said on the boards yet:

    5. I opposed Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination. It was selecting a partisan supporter of conservative abortion advocacy, rather than the most qualified Constitutional law candidate.
    Although I'm very pleased with the Roberts and Alito selections. But just the same, the Miers nomination made me question Bush's judgement, as have many things I've criticized (above) in his Presidency.

    6. While I advocate Social Security reform, Bush's proposal for reform was disturbingly vague. It may have been a great proposal, but the case for it by Bush's administration was unconvincing, and unsurprisingly, won little support. Lacking further details, it didn't win my support. This was the first thing that made me question Bush's judgement, and reconsider his conduct thus far on the Iraq War.




Finally, I get tired of these discussions where, rather than discussing my perspective of the issue, I have to dig myself out of a hole of false assumptions of what you and others assume to be what I believe or support.

Case in point.
Again.




Quote:

Jim Jackson said:

So what if Ann The Bitch gets shouted down? Her free speech hasn't been violated, since it was not The Government who shouted her down.

Maybe it's time for another Revolution...



Short of speech that incites violence or a riot, Ann Coulter has the right to be heard.
Particularly in a place where hundreds of people have paid money to see her speak. As opposed to the extremely vocal and uncivil minority of 100 or so there who suppressed her constitutional right.

Supression of free speech is still supression of free speech, whether suppression by government, or suppression by private groups.
If this had been a gay or liberal speaker instead of Ann Coulter, there's be an outcry for police protection of their free speech rights at the next meeting.



Quote:

Wednesday said:
Quote:

Wonder Boy said:

And I think that emphasises the double-standard of these U. Conn. liberal protestors quite nicely.

They have no objection to Dean or Jackson.

But simultaneously not only object to, but snuff out Ann Coulter's ability to voice her opinion AT ALL !


Oh, that's definitely mostly true. There was a clear double standard applied here. She was able to get out most of her speech, according to the article, so I don't know about them snuffing out her ability to voice her opinion AT ALL!!! but these protesters are full of shit. They just don't like the fact that the hate is being steered in their direction.



I appreciate the correction, Wednesday, that Ann Coulter was able to speak a bit before she was interrupted.

Although it certainly was the intention of the protesters to prevent her being heard, to whatever degree they could. But you are correct, despite the intentions of her opposition, it wasn't a total shutout.


  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.