John Kerry, the richest person in congress, believes the media should not give coverage to the Tea Party:

Quote:

---

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Friday that the media has the responsibility to not give equal time or credence to the Tea Party's views:

S

EN. JOHN KERRY: "And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual."

"It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what's real, of who's accountable, of who is not accountable, of who's real, who isn't, who's serious, who isn't?

"

---

If the media needs stop giving equal time to absurd notions, they need to begin with you, Lurch. Who the hell are you to decide what's legitimate?

{Mod Note: Title edited from Liberal ignorance and intolerance, since this appears to be an attack on one person and shouldn't be used as a general attack. <>}

I don't see anything wrong with Kerry's statement. Isn't he entitled to his opinion? Shouldn't the media verify facts before posting inaccuracies? Should absurdities be promoted as reasonable ideas?

I don't see anything in Kerry's statement that is trying to dictate what the media does. Only a call for responsibility in reporting. Explain to me what is wrong with that?

How can each media possibly give equal time to all politics? Impossible. Of course they choose. Of course they aren't always going to be impartial, and of course they are going to ignore what they want to ignore. The media is controlled against monopoly. You pick what you want to read and watch and listen to. NPR or Fox, New York Times or some Murdoch paper. If you started a newspaper, would you give equal coverage and act impartial? I doubt it.

Your first 'quote' isn't a quote from Kerry, and in fact there is nothing in his text that even mentions the Tea Party, so whose words are those? Someone you choose to believe and then pass on their little finagling of what someone said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

John Kerry, the richest person in congress, believes the media should not give coverage to the Tea Party:




If the media needs stop giving equal time to absurd notions, they need to begin with you, Lurch. Who the hell are you to decide what's legitimate?

---

As far as the media is concerned a legitimate view should be a view put forward by a person, person's, organization whereby that person or organization is prepared to take responsibility for said view.

The media should know that it is not all right to say whatever they like, whenever they like. Their modus operandi should not be freedom of speech with no responsibility.

"We report, you decide" type of approach doesn't work when it comes to politics. I think this is obvious.

When it comes to politics many people don't bother to sort the wheat from the chaff.


Tut

Tut How can you expect the media to be unbiased and non sensationalist. It just doesn't make good copy. You know that on the local front we have had biased media for years reporting all sorts of rubbish, both imported and local, with no responsibility taken because they have limited ability to check their source. Here's a good example
Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced: Scientific American
Agendas and bias on the media trail - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tut How can you expect the media to be unbiased and non sensationalist. It just doesn't make good copy. You know that on the local front we have had biased media for years reporting all sorts of rubbish, both imported and local, with no responsibility taken because they have limited ability to check their source. her's a good example
Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced: Scientific American
Agendas and bias on the media trail - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

---

Hi Clete,


Jonathan Holmes who wrote the article you highlighted 'Agendas and Bias on the Media Trail'- is biased himself.

I have absolute no problem with that.

He says the ABC's impartiality should be called into question because it missed broadcasting Tony Abbott' press conference live. Is Holmes prepared to take responsibility for this claim? My guess is that he is because it is probably a matter of fact this happened. Because we are dealing with politics people will put a variety of 'spins' on the reason for this. No problem here.

Holmes also reports that Gavin Morris, head of the ABC's Continuous News says that Morris stated in relation to Abbott, "Let's ignore the Tory bastard". Let's look at this carefully.

Did Holmes make this up because he can say whatever he likes when ever he likes? As Morris is part of the Australian Media I feel confident that Morris actually said this. Why? Because if Holmes made it up then all hell would break loose.

Bias is not the issue here. I am critical of people such as Beck who think they can come out with some outlandish statement- dress it up in the guise of news and then walk away from what they have said. No analysis, no questions. Oh! Well! That was yesterday's sensationalist nonsense.

Besides, isn't, 'The Drum' and ABC programme anyway? They are being critical of themselves?

Tut

Kerry's statements and others in the progressive ranks is part of a coordinated campaign to attack the TP as a prelude to next year's campaign.

Kerry's comments are mild compared to the "TP=terrorist" comments that have come from VPs current and former .

Quote:

---

Biden's office initially declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session, but after POLITICO published the remarks, spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said: “The word was used by several members of Congress. The vice president does not believe it's an appropriate term in political discourse.”

---

Sources: Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists - Jonathan Allen and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com
That didn't stop the VP from saying that Republican leaders “put guns to our heads.”

The major media took the cue and there are plenty examples like the one below by Joe Nocera's op-ed in the NY Slimes that smears the TP as terrorists
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

Quote:

---

You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.

These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people...

For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They'll have them on again soon enough. After all, they've gotten so much encouragement.

---

Thomas Friedman of the Slimes says the TP is the Hezbollah faction of the Republican Party ready to take the GOP on a suicide mission.
He accused them of “raw extortion” and “blackmail” .

CNN host Fareed Zakaria deplored the “hijacking” of the nation" .He called the TP “fundamentally anti-democratic.”..“The Tea Party has an agenda,” ... He said they cannot get their agenda through the democratic process ...he said that the TP's attitude is "we'll blow up the country if you don't listen to us. ” He compared them to "hostage takers" and accused them of treason: “They were not elected dictators of the United States.”
Tina Brown, editor-in-chief of Snoozesweek, told MSNBC that Republicans “are the suicide bombers in all of this.”
Chris Matthews said Republicans were willing to “risk economic Armageddon” in the name of their religion. “The GOP has become the Wahhabis of American government, willing to bring the whole country down.”

Of course they've got it 100% wrong. There was no compromising by the Dems. They stood firmly against responsible debt reduction.
Rep Mike Doyle sums up the Dem's operating philosophy in a nutshell... spend other people's money :
“This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

The most recent one came from the despicable former VP Al (the Goracle) Gore.
He said the US needs an 'American Spring' in an interview with his flunkie Keith Olberman (bobbing his head approvingly).
He said there needs to be a grass roots revolution in the country . That of course is a somewhat definition of the TP even though I call the TP a counter-revolution against the 70+ years of progressive damage the American Fabians have wrought. We just increased our debt to over 16 trillion,topping 100% of GDP , and it's impossible to spend money?
This is all part of that 'civility ' in public discourse the President promised after Tucson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I don't see anything wrong with Kerry's statement. Isn't he entitled to his opinion? Shouldn't the media verify facts before posting inaccuracies? Should absurdities be promoted as reasonable ideas?

I don't see anything in Kerry's statement that is trying to dictate what the media does. Only a call for responsibility in reporting. Explain to me what is wrong with that?

---

Who is he to determine what is an "absurd notion" that doesn't deserve coverage? Who is he to determine what is "legitimate" that does deserve coverage? He's entitled to his opinion, but as an elected official ESPECIALLY he needs to embrace first amendment rights like the one's he's expressing.

He lied in the video in saying "what we had was a group of people who were completely unaware or didn't care about the consequences," before saying those people didn't deserve equal coverage. That's rich coming from a guy who goes on to complain about covering things that aren't "factual." Apparently, only coverage about those "terrorist" "hostage takers" deserved coverage and nothing about those not so radical congressmen.

He's a lying, intolerant, hypocrite that has no business posturing about media responsibility. That's what's wrong with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

How can each media possibly give equal time to all politics? Impossible. Of course they choose. Of course they aren't always going to be impartial, and of course they are going to ignore what they want to ignore. The media is controlled against monopoly. You pick what you want to read and watch and listen to. NPR or Fox, New York Times or some Murdoch paper. If you started a newspaper, would you give equal coverage and act impartial? I doubt it.

---

If I were a senator, I wouldn't try to squelch the first amendment.

Quote:

---

Your first 'quote' isn't a quote from Kerry, and in fact there is nothing in his text that even mentions the Tea Party, so whose words are those? Someone you choose to believe and then pass on their little finagling of what someone said.

---

So tell me who he was talking about.

You took one person's statement and turned into a thread titled: "Liberal ignorance and intolerance"

Yea, I think I know who the ignorant one is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You took one person's statement and turned into a thread titled: "Liberal ignorance and intolerance"

Yea, I think I know who the ignorant one is.

---

Is he a liberal? I'd say it's indisputable that he is. Is is his statement ignorant and intolerant? In my opinion and based on the evidence, yes it is. Now, stop insulting me. Or as you would call it, your "internet courage" is showing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Kerry's statements and others in the progressive ranks is part of a coordinated campaign to attack the TP as a prelude to next year's campaign.

Kerry's comments are mild compared to the "TP=terrorist" comments that have come from VPs current and former .


Sources: Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists - Jonathan Allen and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com
That didn't stop the VP from saying that Republican leaders “put guns to our heads.”

The major media took the cue and there are plenty examples like the one below by Joe Nocera's op-ed in the NY Slimes that smears the TP as terrorists
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/op...rssnyt&emc=rss



Thomas Friedman of the Slimes says the TP is the Hezbollah faction of the Republican Party ready to take the GOP on a suicide mission.
He accused them of “raw extortion” and “blackmail” .

CNN host Fareed Zakaria deplored the “hijacking” of the nation" .He called the TP “fundamentally anti-democratic.”..“The Tea Party has an agenda,” ... He said they cannot get their agenda through the democratic process ...he said that the TP's attitude is "we'll blow up the country if you don't listen to us. ” He compared them to "hostage takers" and accused them of treason: “They were not elected dictators of the United States.”
Tina Brown, editor-in-chief of Snoozesweek, told MSNBC that Republicans “are the suicide bombers in all of this.”
Chris Matthews said Republicans were willing to “risk economic Armageddon” in the name of their religion. “The GOP has become the Wahhabis of American government, willing to bring the whole country down.”

Of course they've got it 100% wrong. There was no compromising by the Dems. They stood firmly against responsible debt reduction.
Rep Mike Doyle sums up the Dem's operating philosophy in a nutshell ....spend other people's money :
“This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

The most recent one came from the dispicable former VP Al (the Goracle) Gore.
He said the US needs an 'American Spring' in an interview with his flunkie Keith Olberman (bobbing his head approvingly).
He said there needs to be a grass roots revolution in the country . That of course is a somewhat definition of the TP even though I call the TP a counter-revolution against the 70+ years of progressive damage the American Fabians have wrought. We just increased our debt to over 16 trillion,topping 100% of GDP , and it's impossible to spend money?
This is all part of that 'civility ' in public discourse the President promised after Tuscon.

---

Hi Tom,

I can sympathize with what you are saying.

The problem is the media itself. It is not a healthy situation when the media has obviously picks sides before the battle. It becomes a situation whereby,"all is fair in war". A very unhealthy approach to news dissemination. The media is looking for this type of garbage to print.

Tut

Quote:

---

Is he a liberal? I'd say it's indisputable that he is. Is is his statement ignorant and intolerant? In my opinion and based on the evidence, yes it is. Now, stop insulting me. Or as you would call it, your "internet courage" is showing.

---

If you're christian then that mean you're a pedophile. This is your thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I don't see anything wrong with Kerry's statement. Isn't he entitled to his opinion? Shouldn't the media verify facts before posting inaccuracies? Should absurdities be promoted as reasonable ideas?

I don't see anything in Kerry's statement that is trying to dictate what the media does. Only a call for responsibility in reporting. Explain to me what is wrong with that?

---

Yes they should verify, but what we are running into today is a one sided media that tries to push the same agenda that Kerry is a part of. It seems that when the truth does come out it is labeled as absurd. But when the lies come out its placed out there as truth. Lets just look at one recent push by an agenda based media.

Ref:

Newsvine - Harry Reid says 8 million jobs lost during George W. Bush's years in office

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...uring-george-/

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

If you're christian then that mean you're a pedophile. This is your thinking.

---

Are you resorting to verballing. There is nothing here that suggests that and your connection between christians and pedophiles is offensive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

As far as the media is concerned a legitimate view should be a view put forward by a person, person's, organization whereby that person or organization is prepared to take responsibility for said view.

The media should know that it is not alright to say whatever they like, whenever they like. Their modus operandi should not be freedom of speech with no responsibility.

"We report, you decide" type of approach doesn't work when it comes to politics. I think this is obvious.

When it comes to politics many people don't bother to sort the wheat from the chaff.


Tut

---

It seems that the party that Kerry is associated with doesn't want to take responsibility for anything. They want glory until it comes crashing down. According to their train of thought it is still Bush's economy. They push for fighting between the peoples in the form of class warfare. They mandate programs that can't possibly be paid for and the list keeps going. If the TP or anyone else says something they try to get it dismissed even before it can be proven. Kerry and others are living in some kind of dream world and they can't believe that they lost in the last set of elections so they show their extreme bitterness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Are you resorting to verballing. There is nothing here that suggests that and your connection between christians and pedophiles is offensive

---

Speech contents that one man's actions speaks for all liberals. Then we can assume that one man's actions speaks for all of his group. Many priests have been caught sexually molesting young boys, just recently:
Church child protection chief caught with 4,000 child porn pictures - mirror.co.uk
So by speech's reasoning we can safely assume that this is something all christians do.

You only find it offensive now because you now now involved in the "painting with the wide brush".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

If you're christian then that mean you're a pedophile. This is your thinking.

---

Not that I should even respond to your pathetic nonsense, but mt title doesn't indict all liberals, it's descriptive of one - but I made that clear in my last post to you. You are the only here making wild leaps and avoiding the topic to attack me again. Enough of your obsession with stalking and insulting me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

but mt title doesn't indict all liberals, it's descriptive of one

---

Nope. Your title is Liberal ignorance and intolerance, that's not one guy and you know it, you've done this before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Speech contents that one man's actions speaks for all liberals. Then we can assume that one man's actions speaks for all of his group. so by speech's reasoning we can safely assume that this is something all christians do.

You only find it offensive now because you now now involved in the "painting with the wide brush".

---

Again already? The key word in your post is assume. I described one man, you're painting the broad brush and insulting me in the process. ENOUGH already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

It seems that the party that Kerry is associated with doesnt want to take responsibility for anything. They want glory until it comes crashing down. According to thier train of thought it is still Bush's economy. They push for fighting between the peoples in the form of class warfare. They mandate programs that can't possibly be paid for and the list keeps going. If the TP or anyone else says something they try to get it dismissed even before it can be proven. Kerry and others are living in some kind of dream world and they can't believe that they lost in the last set of elections so they show thier extreme bitterness.

---

Hi dad,

I am not involved in American politics so I am happy to take your word on the above.

My criticism was direct at your media and the way they lap up and disseminate the drivel from politicians.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Nope. Your title is Liberal ignorance and intolerance, that's not one guy and you know it.

---

I've explained myself enough and I really don't give a crap what you say. Just stop stalking me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I've explained myself enough and I really don't give a crap what you say. Just stop stalking me.

---

You should stick with your friends at FreeRepublic at least they are all of the same mind and do not like opinions that differ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi dad,

I am not involved in American politics so I am happy to take your word on the above.

My criticism was direct at your media and the way they lap up and disseminate the drivel from politicians.

Tut

---

That is where we agree wholeheartedly. The media is out of control at this point. Im not sure how we can reign it in nor how long it will take but in today's world of fast news and breaking stories minute by minute we may never reach an equal and balanced approach to reporting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

That is where we agree wholeheartedly. The media is out of control at this point. Im not sure how we can reign it in nor how long it will take but in todays world of fast news and breaking stories minute by minute we may never reach an equal and balanced approach to reporting.

---

Yes I agree, and the politicians know that the more outlandish their statements the more likely the media is to run with it.

In my opinion Kerry is talking a load of nonsense for the most part. But he is right about one thing. The media needs to take more responsibility. I don't think this will ever happen because there is no way around the First Amendment as it applies to the Media.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Yes I agree, and the politicians know that the more outlandish their statements the more likely the media is to run with it.

In my opinion Kerry is talking a load of nonsense for the most part. But he is right about one thing. The media needs to take more responsibility. I don't think this will ever happen because there is no way around the First Amendment as it applies to the Media.

Tut

---

Yes, but what Kerry means by taking responsibility is 'favorable to Democrats'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yes, but what Kerry means by taking responsibility is 'favorable to Democrats'.

---

Hi Speech,


I am sure that is what he means.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Who is he to determine what is an "absurd notion" that doesn't deserve coverage? Who is he to determine what is "legitimate" that does deserve coverage? He's entitled to his opinion, but as an elected official ESPECIALLY he needs to embrace first amendment rights like the one's he's expressing.

...

He's a lying, intolerant, hypocrite that has no business posturing about media responsibility. That's what's wrong with it.

---

If there is one thing I detest its hypocrisy. Which is why I responded to your thread when I normally don't get involved in such discussions.

He is an american citizen and, as such, can exercise his right to express his opinion. What you don't seem to understand is the first amendment is a double edged sword. You can't say that he is not embracing the first amendment by expressing his opinion! THAT IS HYPOCRISY!!

He was not being hypocritical, but you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

If there is one thing I detest its hypocrisy. Which is why I responded to your thread when I normally don't get involved in such discussions.

He is an american citizen and, as such, can exercise his right to express his opinion. What you don't seem to understand is the first amendment is a double edged sword. You can't say that he is not embracing the first amendment by expressing his opinion!! THAT IS HYPOCRISY!!!

He was not being hypocritical, but you are.

---

Really, Scott? I just got through saying to you "He's entitled to his opinion." You made a huge assumption in the first place that I didn't think he had a right to his opinion, and then ignored me agreeing that he does.

On top of that, I'm guessing it was you who edited my title based on another erroneous assumption by another user. Add to that the recent removal of one or more of my legitimate posts and I'm beginning to think it's AMHD that's the hypocrite.

Just close the thread, Scott. Apparently the idea here is to attack me for expressing my opinion on a current event, even by the mods. Oh, and I'm keeping a screen shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Really, Scott? I just got through saying to you "He's entitled to his opinion." You made a huge assumption in the first place that I didn't think he had a right to his opinion, and then ignored me agreeing that he does.

On top of that, I'm guessing it was you who edited my title based on another erroneous assumption by another user. Add to that the recent removal of one or more of my legitimate posts and I'm beginning to think it's AMHD that's the hypocrite.

Just close the thread, Scott. Apparently the idea here is to attack me for expressing my opinion on a current event, even by the mods. Oh, and I'm keeping a screen shot.

---

You can type the words "he's entitled to his opinion", but the whole thread and several of your posts show you neither believe or agree with that.

You don't have to guess it was me who edited the title. I used my symbols (<>) to sign the Mod note. If you feel I have overstepped, report it.

Nor is anyone attacking you for expressing your opinion. We have, however, disagreed with that opinion and shown why. Also your oiriginal title was to bash a group of people over what one person said. That's why I changed the title. You started this thread and throughout the thread, attacked kerry for voicing his opinion. If you want to disagree with that opinion fine, but you ned to respect his right to express it. You have not don that in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Yes they should verify, but what we are running into today is a one sided media that tries to push the same agenda that Kerry is a part of.

---

Hello dad:

I STRONGLY disagree... Oh, not that the print media is liberal, but that print media encompasses the ENTIRE media.

From MY standpoint, it's about EVEN... Clearly, the right wing DOMINATES talk radio from coast to coast, where not a liberal voice can be heard. And, let's not forget about FOX news who reminds us constantly, that they kick the liberal network, MSNBC's butt all the time. The blogosphere is about evenly divided, in my view.

The GOOD news for right wingers, is that PRINT media, if it IS liberal, is dying in any case.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello dad:

I STRONGLY disagree... Oh, not that the print media is liberal, but that print media encompasses the ENTIRE media.

From MY standpoint, it's about EVEN... Clearly, the right wing DOMINATES talk radio from coast to coast, where not a liberal voice can be heard. And, let's not forget about FOX news who reminds us constantly, that they kick the liberal network, MSNBC's butt all the time. The blogosphere is about evenly divided, in my view.

The GOOD news for right wingers, is that PRINT media, if it IS liberal, is dying in any case.

excon

---

Sure there is left wing radio but they can't seem to make enough money to stay on the air.

Sirus has them.

Progressive Talk - Political Talk - News/Talk - SiriusXM Left - SiriusXM Satellite Radio - SiriusXM Radio

Randi Rhodes&#039; Suspension and the State of Left-Wing Radio - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

Executive Summary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Sure there is left wing radio but they can't seem to make enough money to stay on the air.

---

Hello again, dad:

I think you made my point.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

You can type the words "he's entitled to his opinion", but the whole thread and several of your posts show you neither believe or agree with that.

---

So your assumptions carry more weight than my direct statement? Specifically, show me where I have ever let on that certain people don't have the right to speak their opinion. Assumptions don't count, Scott. I in fact have many, many times defended Fox News' first amendment rights against those who would have it silenced. I have many times defended the right of those I disagree with to express their opinion.

I LOVE free speech as indicated here, here, here, here, here and here.

Should I go on showing how completely and utterly wrong you are? I shouldn't have to, while you were making assumptions that I didn't believe Kerry had a right to his opinion, I was saying as a representative of the people of this country, he should RESPECT the first amendment' and I quote, "He's entitled to his opinion, but as an elected official ESPECIALLY he needs to embrace first amendment rights like the one's he's expressing."

Quote:

---

Nor is anyone attacking you for expressing your opinion.

---

I'm sorry, but NK implying I'm ignorant is an attack. YOU called me a hypocrite based on an asinine assumption, that's an attack.

Quote:

---

We have, however, disagreed with that opinion and shown why. Also your oiriginal title was to bash a group of people over what one person said.

---

That's nonsense Scottt, the thread was an example of "Liberal ignorance and intolerance," not "liberals are ignorant and intolerant." Go change the titles on "Tea party Morons," "Tea party hypocrites," "Who is the most biggoted Republican presidential candidate?," "Why does the right wing HATE Elizabeth Warren?," or "Stupid Democrats." For some reason you decided to single me out today and that's pathetic for a moderator.

Quote:

---

That's why I changed the title. You started this thread and throughout the thread, attacked kerry for voicing his opinion. If you want to disagree with that opinion fine, but you ned to respect his right to express it. You have not don that in this thread.

---

Really? Again? Twice now I've made it clear that "he's entitled to his opinion," and twice now you've told I don't respect his right to his opinion. Which of us is correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

NK implying I'm ignorant is an attack

---

But your thread title was "Liberal ignorance" - you just attacked 250 million people! Half of your fellow Americans! It seems to be OK in your world to use that wording on people who will never see your thread but when the same wording is used on you you cry bloody murder - that my friend is hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

But your thread title was "Liberal ignorance" - you just attacked 250 million people! Half of your fellow Americans! It seems to be ok in your world to use that wording on people who will never see your thread but when the exact same wording is used on you you cry bloody murder - that my friend is hypocrisy.

---

Whatever.

How about this? My apologies to my liberal friends who I adore, and reasonable liberals everywhere. In no way was the original title of my thread meant to disparage all liberals.

On the other hand, Jonah Goldberg would like to exercise his first amendment rights.

I will say this one more time. I don't want to get into an arguments with you. I stand by what I said. I believe people reviewing the thread will see that you are railing against Kerry for expressing his opinion, an opinion you claim to believe he is entitled to. My assumptions do not carry more weight, but your actual words do. You started this not disagreeing with what he said but disagreeing that he should have said it. If you are comfortable that my interpretation is erroneous, then people will judge me accordingly. I'm comfortable with that.

I did not single YOU out I singled this thread out because it attracted my attention. You have a point that it may have been unfair of me to single this thread out. So I will say that if you feel there are other threads where the title merits editing, please feel free to report them. As a moderator I cannot review EVERY post. To call my actions "pathetic" because I can't be everywhere is unfair.

So the other titles Speech mentioned were conveniently overlooked . What is amazing is how often discussions are edited or removed . I thought the discussion forums were set up for a more free and open exchange .

As for Kerry ;he is openly promoting censorship of his political opponents in his rant. The very idea that the media did not uniformly attack his comments proves they already take his advice to heart. One has to wonder why he fears the Tea Party message ? Or is it that he fears that Americans inherently embrace their constitutional message ?

In the video he never once refers to the Tea Party. His opinion is generic. Not sure how the tea party got involved in this.