Thanks Al Franken for supporting the freedom of speech of someone who has their own PR machine and appears on TV 24/7 giving speeches and engaging in debates. We all know that Dean hasn't had a chance at expressing himself.

Remember people, freedom of speach only applies to Democrats. I know you were probably taught in high school that freedom of speach was to prevent the government from restricting expression of individuals, either public or private. And I'm sure you learned that there are limitations to that right to protect the rights of others (ie, you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater). NEWS FLASH: It no longer has anything to do with the government anymore. Now, it means that, as a private citizen, you are not allowed to interupt a Democrat. Don't worry, you can still picket and heckle Bush's speaches, that's differant. Don't ask how, it just is. Oh, and if you own a radio station or record company, that means you have money, so you're evil. And that means that you no longer have the freedom to dictate what message your medium puts out. So you are required, by Congress to play the Dixie Chicks even if you don't want to and even if your listeners don't want you to. Don't worry, you can refuse to play Rush Limbaugh, that's differant. Don't ask how, it just is.

Too Funny!

From what I've seen and heard this guy is a real jerk; his actions are speaking much louder than his words.

That Dean clip sounds like a wrestling match

You know this thread will be a flame war since most of the people (not me) on here are liberals right
(or maybe just the most vocal )

Yeah, I was bummed cuz I used to love Franken on SNL. Oh well, same thing happened when I heard Britney Spears talk. Ruined it.

I know that the vocal ones are mostly liberal. Conservatives were probably more vocal during Clinton, I guess it's natural. Nobody voted Democrat during the last round of Congress votes, and most governorships are going Republican too (even California?) so I guess I'd be a little irked too.

I've been good about not getting into the flame wars. I like the people that start them too much to let politics get in the way of my empeg friendships. Kinda like "If I don't have anything nice to say, I'll stay out of the thread".

We'll see what happens here.

I've been good about not getting into the flame wars. I like the people that start them too much to let politics get in the way of my empeg friendships.

I refrained from commenting in the "how about Kerry" thread for that reason, approximately. My opinion is "anybody but Bush", and you won't convince me otherwise. I suspect I won't convince you of my viewpoint, either, so there's no point in fliailing wildly about it...

Hey, I can respect that.

But I will say the George W action figure on the Daily Show ("Show us where the WMD reports touched you.") seemed more intelligent than the Dennis Miller action figure that's going to be on Tough Crowd.

I've been good about not getting into the flame wars. I like the people that start them too much to let politics get in the way of my empeg friendships. Kinda like "If I don't have anything nice to say, I'll stay out of the thread".

That is what I have been doing too. Thats why I wish we had a political forum so it would be easier to ignore.

I think Tony Fabris should get a medal for his ability to never get involved in them! But are bots political by nature?

Perhaps a religion forum too. Although most of the religious/political discussions rarely start out as such.

BTW, weird bug on your first post. When I mouse over the link (expressing yourself) , it starts copying itself over and over and over..... (Netscp 7.1)

That happens to me every so often too. I kept meaning to post about it, just never have.

most governorships are going Republican too (even California?)

Califonia did not "go Republican"... it went for sex appeal.

> Don't worry, you can still picket and heckle Bush's speaches, that's differant.

Actually, you can't heckle Bush's speeches. He has the secret service cordone off anyone with an opposing viewpoint as far away from him as possible and arrests anyone who leaves it to heckle him directly.

So much for your "Democratic only" free speech argument. At least in this case it was one misguided individual instead of the police suppressing free speech, heh?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5004.htm

I know that the vocal ones are mostly liberal

Please be more specific. Do you mean historically or in one instant you are discussing?

You know this thread will be a flame war

Of course I'm one of the ones who loves to talk about religion/politics, so I'd like to point out I've never considered any of our discussions "flame wars". Just differing points of view argued with fervor. But I think of flame wars as being more about character assassination than actually debating a topic intelligently.

Of course, I understand wanting to steer clear either way, but the one reason I enjoy discussing politics/religion here is that people tend to leave personal insults out of their points- a rare atmosphere indeed.

I tried to fix that link, I can see where's it's coming from (a "get" command was put in there from the page I copied it from) but it's too old to edit it out. Sorry.

I just mean that historically, when a "group" is out of power, they tend to spend more of they time being upset about it (as conservatives did during Clinton's stay). It's kind of similar to people only posting on a BBS when their Karma or empeg is broken. When it works, they are too content to bother posting (mlord being an exception, but that was his point.)

ninti, That's an interesting link. Thanks for posting it. I've heard plenty of stories (and read) where Bush WAS heckled during a speach and he chuckles making the comment "isn't free-speach great?" Clinton made the same remark when he was heckled.

But just because some picketers can't get within earshot of the President of The United States for "security reasons" doesn't mean that someone with anti-Bush (funny how it's never "pro-this" or "pro-that" it's just "anti-Bush") viewpoints isn't getting to express their opinion. I mean, do you see any other views on the nightly news? Those are the people getting "man on the street" interviews left and reight. And they still get to picket the white house, etc.

If a "mob" or large group of people showed up at that Dean speach, I think they'd most likey deserver to have their freedom of speach temporarily removed because they would be disrupting the peace and truely denying Dean his. But one guy? As if any of those people were listening to him anyway.

EDIT: Forgot this bit... The original intent of my post was to point out how the concept of "freedom of speech" is starting to apply only to "freedom of politically correct speech" and how it's losing its meaning in the public (ie, MTV blocking thong shots is "self censorship" of their channel, not "denying freedome of speech" for Snoop Dogg).

And pointing out one "wrong" to justify another isn't a strong arguement. But, again, I feel that the security of the Commander in Cheif out weighs the freedom of some people to comprismise that, especially when they can still get their message out. If it were just one person (as in the Dean case) that wasn't allowed in because of his/her views, yes that would be wrong. But that still wouldnt make Al Franken anything but a celebrity dip-shit.

Speaking of freedoms, have you guys see the anti-Bush Superbowl ad that CBS is refusing to run? It really is great. See it (and others) here

The ad is called "Child's Play" and was the winner of a contest on www.bushin30seconds.com

Yup. This was a project sponsored by MoveOn.org. Nice work.

BTW, while CBS feels the ad is "too controversial", we will get to enjoy pro-Bush political advertising, three ads for erectile dysfunction meds, and the usual raft of alcohol and tobacco advertising.

"Daddy, what's erectile dysfunction?"

--Dan.

BTW, while CBS feels the ad is "too controversial", we will get to enjoy pro-Bush political advertising, three ads for erectile dysfunction meds, and the usual raft of alcohol and tobacco advertising.

"Daddy, what's erectile dysfunction?"

Something caused by alcohol advertising?

Peter

That was the NFL's call, not CBS.

Of course I'm one of the ones who loves to talk about religion/politics

Me too, but like you I never really considered them flames... More like heated debates which really, for me, help my understanding of "the other side". I do tend to get fired up about politics these days, which is odd, up until just recently I was always bored out of my skull when talking politics.

One note related to this particular discussion, Al Franken is kind of freak, doesn't define the democratic party as a whole.

I just mean that historically, when a "group" is out of power, they tend to spend more of they time being upset about it (as conservatives did during Clinton's stay).

Agreed, however not always the case, I'm still agitated at the democrats for not dragging Bush's drug history, DUI's, and all the other dirt that was readily available to them. In fact I've never understood why that stuff was never really even a big deal.

They did raise that stuff on Bush in during the 2000 elections. I remember hearing about it quite a bit. People didn't take interest in it, and it faded. Perhaps they felt 2-sided by caring about that while saying that Clinton "just inhaling" was no biggy. Maybe Senator Kennedy doesn't want to mention anything about drinking and driving, who knows.

But you're bummed out that stuff like that isn't brought up and dragged through the dirt? You like ditry politics? Were you mad, like most of us, that Clinton's private sex life was front page?

Thank God that Al Franken doesn't represent any US political party!

"Daddy, what's erectile dysfunction?"
Something caused by alcohol advertising?

Actually, it's the alcohol, not the alcohol advertising!

But you're bummed out that stuff like that isn't brought up and dragged through the dirt? You like ditry politics? Were you mad, like most of us, that Clinton's private sex life was front page?

Now your just pushing buttons .... No I don't like dirty politics, just seemed a bit one sided, they beat a dead horse into the ground over Clintons (weed use), the went overboard with the sex scandal. Bush was arrested for DUI, arrested in 72 for cocaine possesion, the list goes on and on, it was brought up.... but people/press seemed to avoid it or simply not care. Once again, just seems a little one sided to me.

Could it be that one of them was man enough to admit it while the other spewed lame excuses and lies?

I hope Al Franken is arrested for it. In fact, I hope that guy sues the f*ck out of Al Franken.

Well, IMHO, the sex scandal to me is a non-issue. It's the lying to a federal grand jury about it that makes me distrust him so. Dirty laundry is aired all the time. It's how the public reacts to it that matters. As far as the pot thing, again, I would have more respect for someone that says "yeah, I tried pot when I was 18, 35 years ago" than someone that says "I didn't inhale". Come on. You didn't inhale? Who honestly believes that?