http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet_us_a/?cl=1399891686&v=11183
And it's really convenient, because I've been looking for an excuse to post this gem from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal:
SMBC is the Cracked.com of WebComics.
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Save YouTube!
OK, I make no statement or judgement about the accuracy of the claims in this, but I think you should check it out and sign it ANYWAY, even if only as a preemptive strike in defense of our freedom:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet_us_a/?cl=1399891686&v=11183
And it's really convenient, because I've been looking for an excuse to post this gem from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet_us_a/?cl=1399891686&v=11183
And it's really convenient, because I've been looking for an excuse to post this gem from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Already signed, and forwarded the email to everyone on my contact list, Eddie. Of course, you probably know that, since you were one of them. Did you mention it at MMFA?
ReplyDeleteI think the woman in the cartoon should have said, "...free speech or photography."
I've noticed that there's a consistent difference between lefties and righties regarding their first principles, and that is that lefties are more likely to hold on to them when it's inconvenient than righties are. Case in point? It's only when conservatives think that THEY might also be targeted by government snooping that they get upset. If the government is going through my desk, they're fine with that. I actually had one of them, a former intelligence officer if he was telling the truth, laugh at my concerns about habeas corpus etc. in the Patriot Act, because he was going to be ok, as were his friends. This was at Huffpo. Reminds me of a quote I saw from a "screw" in Belfast (I've forgotten the prison, probably The Maze previously known as Long Kesh) talking about his political prisoners, from both sides of the divide. "Say what you like about them, the Shinners (Irish Republicans-lefties) will go to the wall for their beliefs. The other lot's (Loyalists-righties) principles only last until lunch."
I hope the protesters, both campus and OWC, who've been roughed up and pepper sprayed while being non-violent are aware of this. http://lawenforcementlawyers.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/a-side-of-force-hold-the-pepper-spray/
I do wish we could hyperlink here.
The best thing I can say about the fear of government spies coming and capturing you or your 3rd grade teacher is: watch Marathon Man
ReplyDeleteThis ain't Belfast and this ain't China and this ain't Bolivia, if you're so paranoid of being kidnapped by US government officials and held for months/years without rights, then you probably wear aluminum foil. The time (that you're wasting on un-reality) could be better used discussing abortion or women faking stories about presidential candidates. At least there's SOME factual substance in those stories.
Thanks, William, you make my point. I've got a movie for you: A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS:
ReplyDelete"This isn't Spain, Thomas, this is England."
@Conchobhar - Good point. And we see it all over their "small government" and "pro-freedom" rhetoric. "Small Goverment" means that the publoic can't be protected from Corporations who pollute, exploit, consume our resources, etc... But the Gov't can still tell you who you can/can't marry, how many children you'll bear, etc... It's like they don't even know what the words (or principles) actually MEAN. (Well HALF DON'T and the other half just don't CARE.)
ReplyDelete@William - Yes, way to make Conchobhar's point indeed. Tell you what... Why don't you reconcile the killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi with your faith in the system? Terrorist you say? How would YOU know? The same people that decided that were the one's who decided not to giove him a trial and that his killing was justified and necessary. If he's so guilty, how hard would it have been to give him a trial? And rememebr: He was an AMERICAN CITIZEN. KILLED. WITHOUT A TRIAL or CONVICTION of ANY CRIME.
Try to tell me why that's OK without proving Conchobhar's point even farther. And, just so we're clear, the point is NOT that the Gov't is BAD, but rather that you lot (Conservatives) are perfectly fine when Amercian Principles (like the rigth to a trial) are violated in support of YOUR agenda, and it generally only bothers you when it goes against you. And before you bother saying that "[Liberals] do it too," remember what I said in my last replay: I may disagree with everything you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it! Rousseau's principle is far from convenient, but THAT'S the price you REALLY pay for freedom.
I don't support Anwar Al-Aulaqi. I support the US Constitution and the Rights and Freedoms it stands for.
My faith says the guilty will be punished. There, Anwar al aulaqi's demise is now reconciled. Just like I can reconcile all the execution of violent prisoners in the US. Try to tell me why punishments for crimes need to be reduced simply because YOU think so? I'll bet the farm that if aulaqi had killed your parents and brothers/sisters you wouldn't have worried so much about his ultimate death. Liberals are so hypocritical about death. You want SOME crimes to include death (child rape/molestation), but seem perfectly ok with mass murderers getting lesser sentences.
ReplyDeleteYou cry about "rights and freedoms" yet don't support a war where the mission IS to give "rights and freedoms" to others. And liberals go out of their way to devise terminology that would allow them to kill unborn human babies, yet they say a single mass murderers death is a crime of the government. I think liberals need to get their hypocritical house in order before they start complaining about MY house.
Forget arguing from your faith, William. That requires dependence on tautologies, which aren't acceptable in rational discussions.
ReplyDeleteIn your eagerness to attack "liberal hypocrisy," you're actually defending conservative hypocrisy or, at least, cognitive dissonance. The liberal, or at least this liberal's, problem with the alauki (sp?) assassination, is the precedent that the President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces can now execute American citizens without even the semblance of a trial.
Try to stay on topic, and not let your hatred of liberals lead you into mendacity. Show me your source for saying that liberals (any liberals) want to give the death sentence to child molesters.
If you think that this country has ever spent it's blood and treasure to "give rights and freedoms to others," you are too naive to be allowed out of the house without adult supervision.
Your faith requires you to believe that abortion is the killing of an unborn human baby, fine. Live by your faith and don't put a woman in the position to have to make that choice. But don't think that your faith trumps a woman's freedom.
"Live by your faith and don't put a woman in the position to have to make that choice."
ReplyDeleteNobody puts that woman in that position other than herself. She makes the decision to risk pregnancy. She makes that "choice", but you are saying she should not be held responsible for her choice?
As for the precedent that our President has set. Who IS the president and what political spectrum is he from? I thought liberals were the supporters of life (except unborn humans) now you say that a liberal is murdering American citizens? Yet, you somehow word it so that only right-wingers are suspected of those murders.
I'm saying that you don't get to hold "her responsible for her choice."
ReplyDeleteWould you please rewrite your last paragraph so that it makes sense? You might start with accurately quoting something that I have written that is "word(ed)...so that only right-wingers are suspected of those murders."
Oh, btw, you ignored my request that you source your accusation that liberals want to "give the death penalty" to child molesters. That shouldn't be too hard; I'm sure some liberals do. We don't march in lock step, you know.
William... William... William...
ReplyDeleteOh. my. God.
How lost are you, man? I've been away a couple of days and I'm happy to see that the conversation continued in my absence, but boy, oh boy, you are one lost soul my friend.
First of all, and really this applies to just about every post you've made. For the love of GOD, please: THROW OUT everything you THINK you "know" about Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, etc... Seriously. You're not even TRYING to address my points or Conchobar's anymore. You're just spouting nonsense that Rush Limbaugh and Fox news told you about us, and the arguing against THAT.
OK, to address your points:
@November 24, 2011 9:20 AM - You're misunderstanding me. The question was not about the fact that Anwar al Aulaqi. Was KILLED. Hey: I'm OK with the death penalty. (Look it up - I've written about it fairly recently!) And that got some pretty fierce rebukes from many of my readers. But, no, seriously I couldn't care less that he received the ultimate punishment. The POINT was that this was handed down WITHOUT A TRIAL. A US CITIZEN was KILLED, on the order of the President, WITHOUT TRIAL. And not like, in secret or something: RIGHT OUT IN THE OPEN AND ON THE NEWS. And THAT should scare the HELL out of you far more than any Terrorist threat. The QUESTION was how you reconcile you feelings that "us liberals" are all paranoid, and that nothing bad will ever be done by our Gov, when they MURDER (yes: murder!) one of its OWN CITIZENS. Anwar al Aulaqi could have been arrested and extradited. He could have been tried. And, yes, he SHOULD have been executed, IMHO. But NOT without DUE PROCESS. Take that away? And anything goes, my man. THAT'S what I want you to reconcile: Do you trust the Gov't not to KILL PEOPLE anytime it's convenient for them to do so? Well? THEY ALREADY HAVE. US CITIZENS.
And that's OBAMA, BTW! (First thing you need to throw out? This absurd fantasy that Liberals all worship him. Simply not true. We're just about as pissed off at him as you lot are - only for ACTUAL REASONS and not absurd RW lies and propaganda.)
Iraq? Now THAT was entirely Bush's blunder. And if you seriously think that was about the Iraqi's freedom, and NOT about OIL? You're not only blind beyond all hope, but apparently not even aware that Bush and Cheney have basically SAID AS MUCH! How many times have we heard how we "can't let these reserves fall into the hands of 'terrorists.'" Blood for oil, my friend. That's ALL it was - From DICK CHENEY'S own mouth.
And YES, I loathed Saddam, and YES, I want freedom for ALL people. But if you were any student of history, you would understand the implications of one country (esp one as powerful as the U.S.) ignoring the sovereignty of another. That's NOT how we DO THINGS, my friend. And if you're so concerned about the "freedom" of the Iraqi's, how about North Korea? Or Somalia? Or Iran? Or CHINA?! Where does it end? When we RULE THE WHOLE WORLD?! And Dude: We imprison a greater percentage of our population that CHINA does. I'm not saying that our human rights record is WORSE than theirs, only that it's NOT the shining gem you would believe it to be. You've been misinformed, brainwashed, and propagandized to the point that you no longer know what freedom means, or what principles really ARE.
(con't)
(con't)
ReplyDeleteI think the skepticism you towards Liberal Ideology (whatever you believe it to be) is admirable. I really do. I've said it before: I don't let ideology do my thinking for me. I don't care if I'm Liberal, Progressive, Conservative or WHATEVER: as long as I'm RIGHT. And NO ONE, and NO PARTY, and NO IDEOLOGY has a monopoly on that. So I mean it when I say that your skepticism is admirable. The thing is? You REALLY need to treat the Right, and the Conservatives and their Propaganda Artists with that same skepticism.
@November 27, 2011 12:40 PM
Holy crap, dude. First of all... Those first two lines? Is some of the most misogynistic crap I've ever read. And I'm NOT going to put up with that level of ignorant bullshit here. There's a MAN there, jackass, EVERY FUCKING TIME. So don't go acting like unplanned pregnancies are ONLY about the woman. As if it's all her doing. FUCK. YOU. Regardless how you feel about abortion, those first two lines... Seriously dude. That's some unbalanced shit. Beyond that... fucking psychopathy... I'm not going to take you on with abortion HERE. That's off topic. Go to the most recent ABORTION thread and have at me all you want. Just try not to look like an ignorant misogynistic jackass when you do it.
Second of all... While Conch is right (as usual) that you're second paragraph makes no sense, I'll endeavor to address it. YES. Obama has killed an American Citizen. Without Trial. Using a policy that BUSH started, that "we liberals" wanted stopped. None of that is up for debate. That's all a matter of public record now. HOWVEVER... What IS up for debate? Well... Obama's Liberalism.
I've already told you: FORGET WHAT FOX NEWS AND AM TALK RADIO HVE TOLD YOU. They LIE. ALL THE TIME. They are PIAD PROPAGANDISTS. (And that is also NOT a matter of debate, but rather on of blind and obvious REALITY.) Before you try to blame ANYTHING on "Liberals" and "Obama" why don't you try to do TWO THINGS: First of all: Try showing me, using REAL LIFE EXAMPLES that ACTUALLY HAPPENED why you think Obama is so Liberal? He isn't. By any objective measure, based on his RECORD, he's not even Left of Center. And if you think I'm crazy for saying that? Prove me wrong - with ACTUAL EXAMPLES. Second: Ask yourself... is what we're complaining about him doing actually LIBERAL? What's LIBERAL about killing U.S. Citizens without a trial? And that's NOT an abortion question. YOU and I can't be aborted. But there nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G that's stops us from being killed under this policy. If the Prez says you're a "terrorist?" That's it. No trial, no evidence needed. Bang: Dead. Does that sound "liberal" even to you?
We don't like Obama, because he hasn't ACTED or LEGISLATED like a Liberal. And Anwar al Aulaqi's killing is just further evidence of that.
Now... I DO want you to continue posting here. I really do. But I don't think it's asking too much that you stay at least remotely close (like in the same Zip Code) to the topic at hand, and that you at least TRY to address the points WE'RE MAKING HERE rather than the Phantoms placed into your head last night by Fox News.
Grab your tinfoil hat, William.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/secret-bill-to-be-voted-on-today-would-allow-the-military-to-sweep-up-us-citizens-at-home-or-abroad-2011-11#ixzz1f2m5Oymv
Eddie, I fully understand you're not able to carry on a conversation without bringing your bar-room language and hatred into it. So be it. However, when you stoop to that level it makes you seem like a mediamatters regular. They can't carry simple conversations without cussing like drunken sailors either. You seem to think that if you call me enough names, loud enough, then all your friends will think you are the smarter one. That seems to be what they teach at the 'mediamatters school for conversation'. Because, at that site, that is the only way they speak too. They bring loud cussing to every conversation when they can't or aren't able to discuss like an adult. Usually it means they are wrong, but want to impress their peers. It's a pity you have to do that on your own site. YOUR SITE! One I thought was open to opinion. I guess, like mediamatters, you're only open to your opinion and those who agree with you. And if someone should bring an opinion that differs from your own you feel a need to cuss and yell in an effort to gain favorable responses from others from your fold.
ReplyDeleteDo me a favor and explain where you think "I" took this off-topic. You say you're allowed to respond to posters, well, reading what I wrote, that is what I did. Just because you didn't like the hypocrisy of your belief about death that I pointed out (against executing criminals/for murdering innocent) you complain about ME taking this off-topic?
I'm sure you're a good fella, eddie, but I don't appreciate your regurgitating what your told to say by mediamatters (I'm also sure you will claim you don't do that, even though you make the wild claims that I only listen to Rush or Savage ... hypocrisy runs deep in the liberal bloodstream). Everything you say and believe in virtually mirrors what the 'thumbed-up' posters post every day. In fact, I'm quite surprised you don't have a 'thumbs-up' system where you can weed out the undesirables, like mediamatters does, here.
Good luck to you, I doubt I'll post much more. I really like to discuss with adults.
Congratulations, William. Now you've finally responded to something one of us actually wrote. Of course, it was to decry coarse language, not to argue a concept, but it was a start. Then, unfortunately, you dropped into your one-size-fits-all-media-matters nonsense, so it was one half-step forward, two full steps back.
ReplyDeleteI guess dealing with the article I pointed out, like answering any of my specific points, isn't adult enough for you. Happy Landings.
"Of course, it was to decry coarse language"
ReplyDeleteWell, perhaps you should think about talking like an adult instead of like a drunk teenager.
"specific points"
Like what? It sounded like and read like you're just mirroring what you're instructed to say by mediamatters. Happy landings right back at ya.
Uh, Willie boy? Show me where I wrote like a drunken teenager. Show me where I indulged in "coarse language." You can't. And when you can't come up with specific points, you call "media matters," like a good little CEO's lap dog. Is your middle name Pavlov?
ReplyDeleteWasn't that fun? THAT is what immaturity in argument looks like when it's aimed at you, and THAT kind of garbage is what at least 10% of your posts consist of.
William,
ReplyDeleteDude - WTF? I wrote like three pages of responses to you various posts and you decide to focus on a SINGLE paragraph where I call you a Misogynistic Jackass? I HAD REASON TO DO SO. What you said RE The Woman being solely responsible for getting pregnant, was beyond indefensible: It would have been hilarious, if you were a Liberal and had meant it IRONICALLY.
As for how YOU took this off topic? WHO started bird walking this topic over to Abortion? This started out as a pro-free speech post, with regards the regulation of internet content. This doesn't evolve into an abortion brawl without your "contribution."
You have failed to make a point we (primarily me, Conchobhar and Steeve) haven't addressed - directly - and you have chosen not to actually address ANY of the things we have said. (You generally changed the subject, bringing up unrelated nonsense.) And really? While part of me is disappointed to find that yet one more Conservative lacks either the Courage or the Chops to come here and debate me (you've shown the former, but lack the latter) I'm keen to look forward to any more unintentionally amusing posts you'd like to put up. Just don't expect that I (or anyone else here) take you seriously anymore. Not until you have something serious to say, anyway.
And yes, I use some colorful language here. What can I say? Well... "Don't be such a pussy" comes to mind, but I really couldn't care less. And you can stop your bed wetting about being attacked, because I haven't made a habit of "attacking" you. I took you seriously (more than was warranted, apparently) and have responded to every single point you've made, as well as tried to challenge you to open your mind a little bit, Liberal a practice as that may be. If you want to dismiss 99% of what I said because I called you a Misogynistic Jackass over a statement that you DESERVED to get hit in the head with a brick over, then so be it.
...But so much for not being a pussy.
(But hey: By all means, please keep coming back. My ad revenue goes up whether you post anything useful or not. Plus you make it a lot less work for me to make Conservatives look bad.)
Yeah, watch your mouth, Eddie. William got so out of sorts after you did him the Cheney that he blamed me for naughty language, and you know how sensitive I am. Sleep tonight is just a dream.
ReplyDeleteSorry Eddie, I don't have all day to research and respond to your 3-page statements. I have limited time at the computer and a lot of it goes toward fantasy football and e-mail checking.
ReplyDeleteWilliam - Hey man, thas cool. I didn't figure you spent all that much time researching your own comments either. ;)
ReplyDelete(Yes, I'm fucking with you.) ;)