• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Banning Anti-War Protests

Read the intro and vote accordingly

  • Total voters
    9
TheNextEra said:
Your link does not mention that the MAJORITY of liberals are gearing up for anything dealing with the FD.
Click to expand...

Right, only the ones that have all the power. As Obama has thoroughly demonstrated, it does not matter one iota what the majority of Americans, or even Democrats want.

TheNextEra said:
In fact your link shows that Obama DOES NOT SUPPORT it.
Click to expand...

And Obama also didn't support lobbyists, partisanship, or corruption...until he surrounded himself with partisan attack dogs, tax cheats, and lobbyists while corrupting the Census Bureau for partisan gain and railroading sleazy socialist pork scams through Congress before anyone could read it.

He's also contradicted everything he has claimed to stand for on the issues: gun rights, NAFTA, the Cuban embargo, a divided Jerusalem, race, Iran, telecomm immunity, Iraq, exploring for American energy supplies...virtually everything.

So please spare me this "he said he opposes it, therefore he opposes it" smokescreen. This guy is a pathological liar of Orwellian proportions.

TheNextEra said:
Anymore "the sky is falling because of liberals" partisan tantrums you would like to throw?
Click to expand...

As soon as I introduce one, this question will make sense.
 
niftydrifty said:
there's no debate to be joined. aquapub, you tend to state your overly generalized (or just plain wrong) conclusions, which border on the ridiculous...
Click to expand...

:rofl

Fact: Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Durbin, Kerry, Harkin...virtually the entire party leadership is clamoring for the "Fairness" Doctrine.

Fact: Obama is bizarrely obssessed with those who dissent against him on talk radio and has a very long and frightening record of corrupt power grabs and silencing dissent.

...But because Obama, who is demonstrably a pathological liar about what he stands for on the issues, claimed not to support it only once Americans furiously protested enough, that makes any concern for the future of dissent in this country "ridiculous."

Sorry I don't share your blind trust in corrupt partisan extremists who constantly lie and abuse their power.

:notlook:

Your hilariously backwards pot-kettle (Obama-style) misrepresentation of me (the only person here actually operating on facts and evidence) as the one just making things up for some bitter partisan crusade will not pass for a legitimate counterpoint here.

Try again. :2wave:
 
aquapub said:
:rofl

Fact: Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Durbin, Kerry, Harkin...virtually the entire party leadership is clamoring for the "Fairness" Doctrine.

Fact: Obama is bizarrely obssessed with those who dissent against him on talk radio and has a very long and frightening record of corrupt power grabs and silencing dissent.

...But because Obama, who is demonstrably a pathological liar about what he stands for on the issues, claimed not to support it only once Americans furiously protested enough, that makes any concern for the future of dissent in this country "ridiculous."

Sorry I don't share your blind trust in corrupt partisan extremists who constantly lie and abuse their power.

:notlook:

Your hilariously backwards pot-kettle (Obama-style) misrepresentation of me (the only person here actually operating on facts and evidence) as the one just making things up for some bitter partisan crusade will not pass for a legitimate counterpoint here.

Try again. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Nancy Pelosi looks like an evil chihuahua. :twocents: :lol:
 
aquapub said:
If Bush would have tried to pass a law forcing private citizens protesting the war to hold up an equal number of pro-war signs as anti-war signs, thus negating their impact, on the logic that they are protesting on public property and are one-sided, would this make Bush a speech-trampling tyrant?

Liberals are gearing up to do exactly that to conservative talk radio pundits, and only conservative talk radio pundits, while the actual news media, which is demonstrably overwhelmingly biased for Democrats, is left completely alone. It's called the "Fairness" Doctrine.

This scam, perpetrated by the same people who misapply the 1st Amendment to defend flag-burning, porn, and NAMBLA's Rape and Escape manual, will be an even greater assault on the Constitution than the pork-payoffs and socialist power grabs railroaded through Congress by Obama under the incredibly sleazy guise of "stimulus."

So, as stated above, the question is, would it have been an illegal assault on the Constitution for Bush to have imposed a "Fairness" Doctrine on private citizens protesting the war?
Click to expand...

I think forcing anyone to present a view they do not agree with is unconstitutional. Its called free speech not forced speech after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom