Obama defends free speech. Republicans lie about it.

[Willie]

I normally try to resist the temptation to post about politics or religion on Facebook because of the contentious nature of these topics. And since my Facebook friends are all either actual friends, family members, or friends of family members, I'd rather keep the peace and express my political and religious opinions elsewhere, among people I don't have to deal with in real life.

I haven't been entirely successful at that, but until now, my few-and-far-between posts on those topics have all been pretty innocuous stuff. Probably the most pointed ones were the links to Shelley Segal's "Saved" song and Adam Savage's speech at the Reason Rally.

But this election is important. And I've seen way too much bullshit posted by others pass by unchallenged. And I'm just pissed off and tired of holding it in and trying to play nice. So, I posted this. I'm sort of proud of it.

-------------------------
Obama defends free speech. Republicans lie about it.



This video is a portion of Obama's speech at the UN General Assembly in New York. It is in response to the leaders of several muslim countries calling on the U.S. and other western countries to restrict speech that is insulting to their religion.

Now imagine if you were a dishonest partisan who was trying to find a way to spin this excellent defense of our tradition and laws protecting free expression as something negative. How might you accomplish such a thing? Well, here's how some lying right-wing scumbags have proved themselves equal to that task.

Breitbart.com published a version of this speech that cuts off the President's defense of free speech. The clip ends abruptly after the sentence "Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity." The accompanying article, authored by one Ben Shapiro, makes no mention of the President's strong stand for free expression, but instead says "The message that has to be rejected by all who respect our common humanity is disrespect for free speech.", implying that the President was taking a position AGAINST free speech!

Conservative talk radio host Michael Savage used a similar tactic. He played only the part before the President's defense of free speech, called Obama "the most spineless, dangerous President in U.S. history" and proceeded to spin the speech as an example the President begging our enemies for forgiveness. This is essentially the same "apologizing for America" lie that Romney, Ryan, and other prominent Republicans have been propagating for years, including in recent campaign ads.

Despicable liars all. Not an honorable man among them.


To all of you who favor Mitt Romney and/or the Republican party in general, I have to ask: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?. The Republican party has positioned itself as the party of willful ignorance (climate change, evolution), the party of bigotry (opposition to gay rights), the party of greed (policies that favor the rich to the detriment of the country), the party of fantasy (trickle down economics) the party of delusion (birtherism, Obama is secretly a muslim, Obama is out to take your guns away), the party of obstruction (record number of filibusters, some of them on jobs bills and bills to help our veterans) the party of idiocy (legitimate rape) and above all else, the party of lies. Lies upon lies upon lies. And not harmless little white lies. Malicious, hateful, harmful lies. In its present state the Republican party is not merely technically incorrect. It is morally reprehensible.

I suspect that my words might make some of you angry. I may even be risking some de-friendings, and not just on Facebook. But you know who you SHOULD be angry at? How about the dirty lying scumbags who've been systematically deceiving you into believing false things and denigrating good people. The ones who've been manipulating you into supporting politicians and policies that are against the interests of you, your family, your friends, and your country. That's who you should be angry at, not the guy who dares to speak out against a poisonous ideology and the lying, dishonorable scum who are pushing it.

John McCain had a great campaign slogan when he was running for President. It was "Country First". I hope that maybe, just maybe, some rare few Republicans might take that idea to heart as something more than just a slogan. Stop putting party first. Do what's right for your country. Vote for President Barack Obama.

Yes, you read that right. I'm asking Republicans to vote for Barack Obama. Why would I bother to make such an absurd and futile request (especially after having just lambasted the intended audience)? Because I believe that beneath the toxic ideology are people who genuinely care about their country, about doing what's right, and about saying and believing what's true. And I believe that if they are willing to be brutally honest with themselves about the basis, validity, and character of their own beliefs, the natural drive to do what is right might win out over the equally natural drive to defend the home turf just because it's the home turf. The home team isn't always the good guys. And the challengers of your beliefs are not necessarily your enemies.

[Nick]

4 more for 44.

[Nam]

To many Republicans: Democrats aren't American. To many conservative Republicans, the vast majority of Democrats aren't even Christian (though they make up the vast majority of both parties).

Republicans (most of them, I feel) want all the same basic things that Democrats want but they only want it for themselves. So, when laws about taking religion (Christianity) out of schools, that's you (Democrats) taking away their freedom of speech. When you place restrictions on guns, that's you taking away their right to bear arms. When you allow social programs to be a part of the government then that's you taking away democracy and instituting Socialism (which they see as Communism which in turn equates to atheism and you trying to take their god away from them). When you do these things: you're un-American, not Patriotic, and not a true Citizen of the US, and if you don't like their viewpoints, or how they see this country as being: 100% Christian and freedom from the government, then you should leave.

Democrats out number Republicans in almost every single state in the US. The problem isn't Republicans, it's Democrats. Republicans are loyal to their party, and even though there are fewer of them than Democrats they are the ones who vote statistically higher. Democrats aren't loyal to their party. When they don't like something they stay home in protest or vote for the Republican (or a 3rd party). Republicans just replace them with another Republican.

You (Democrats) have only you to blame.[1]

-Nam

1.	by the by I am one of you.

[Willie]

You (Democrats) have only you to blame.[1]

1.	by the by I am one of you.

Yep. Republicans are overrepresented because so many Democrats sit on their sorry asses and don't vote. The disparity seems to be even worse at the local level than at the state or national levels. Turnout for local elections is low in general, so it doesn't take many well-motivated church congregations to put Republicans into city council, school board, county judge, or other local seats in majority Democrat areas.

[Nam]

Then what is all your ranting about toward Republicans if you agree with me? It actually should be toward Democrats.

-Nam

[jetson]

Then what is all your ranting about toward Republicans if you agree with me? It actually should be toward Democrats.

-Nam

One method of getting Democrats to vote is to tell them how lazy they are, and how they just sit around and let the nutters take over government.  Another method is to point out to the Republican sheople, exactly how they are acting against their own interest[1]

The OP was not written to satisfy the angle you are coming from.  I think you did a fine job of making that angle yourself. 

1.	especially women.

[Nam]

Jetson,

It's true. The vast majority of Republicans are loyal to their party, and the vast majority of Democrats, when they don't like what their leaders are doing, they either stay home in protest (as many Democrats here or elsewhere have said countless times) or they actually vote for the Republican who doesn't have their interest, at all (a lot of Blue states with Republican governors prove this).

What did I say that wasn't true?

Democrats outnumber Republicans in almost every single state yet they always seem to get elected in droves[1]. It can't just be Republicans and Independents voting them in,there has to be a significant amount of Democrats voting them in.

His rant is at Republicans. We all know Republicans. Republicans know Republicans. Democrats apparently don't know Democrats.

-Nam

1.

overall

[screwtape]

taking away democracy and instituting Socialism

I get that most repubs think that is a correct comparison, but it's a categorical error.  Democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, we have many socialist endeavors in the US.  Roads, mass transit, parks, police, fire departments, sewage treatment, some hospitals, the military are all socialistic enterprises.  Often times power and water are also socially owned.  In Alaska, one of the most rabidly republican states, the citizens receive a check from oil companies for drilling on state owned (ie, socially owned) land. 

the socialism label is just stupidity.

[jaimehlers]

I don't agree, Nam.  At least, that the Democrats only have themselves to blame.  That they bear some of the blame is without question, but you can't foist all of the blame off on them.

Let me put it this way.  Let's say you have a selfish man and a generous man.  The selfish man keeps demanding things from the generous man, and the generous man keeps giving those things.  Either the selfish man and the generous man share the blame for this situation, or neither is to blame.  If you're going to excuse the selfish man's actions, you also then have to excuse the generous man's actions as well.  Both are acting per their natures, both gain satisfaction from their actions.  I personally think that it's silly to not blame either party, so it stands to reason that both bear some of the blame.

[Nam]

^I didn't blame all "Democrats", please read what I say overall, in context.[1]

I am a Democrat, I mainly vote for Democrats. And, I don't place myself in the category of the Democrats who vote for the other guy because the guy who represents me, or the party isn't doing a good enough job, or the one who stays home in protest.

-Nam

1.	Unless your comment is solely based on "Democrats have only Democrats to blame", and dismissing the rest of what I said.

[jaimehlers]

I didn't dismiss the rest of what you said.  That's just the only part I took exception to.

[Nam]

^you may take exception to it but unless you can show evidence (not an analogy) that it isn't true, I feel it stands.

-Nam

[Azdgari]

Nam, his analogy was a means of explaining why your assessment of the evidence was wrong in terms of distribution of responsibility.  Here we have a perpetrator and someone letting them get away with it.  The perps have as much choice in their actions as the ones letting them do it.  That's Jaime's point.

Analogies are useful to help explain why this is, so he used one.  So will I.  Someone habitually leaves their home door unlocked in a seedy neighbourhood.  Someone comes in, kills their family and takes all their valuables.  According to your standard of assigning responsibility, the perp isn't really a criminal.  The one who left the door unlocked takes full responsibility.  No jail time is in order.

That's idiotic.

[Nam]

If a person lives in a bad neighborhood and leaves their door unlocked they are to blame. Even if they live in a good neighborhood, they are still to blame. This not a world where everyone loves everyone. It's a world with good people and bad people. And, if you let bad people walk over you for your stupidity of thinking you're safe even in the comfort of your own home: you deserve what you get.

(EDIT)

Oh, and I am not excusing the "criminal" or the Republicans, y'all are inferring that from what I am saying.
-Nam

[jetson]

Jetson,

It's true. The vast majority of Republicans are loyal to their party, and the vast majority of Democrats, when they don't like what their leaders are doing, they either stay home in protest (as many Democrats here or elsewhere have said countless times) or they actually vote for the Republican who doesn't have their interest, at all (a lot of Blue states with Republican governors prove this).

What did I say that wasn't true?

Democrats outnumber Republicans in almost every single state yet they always seem to get elected in droves[1]. It can't just be Republicans and Independents voting them in,there has to be a significant amount of Democrats voting them in.

His rant is at Republicans. We all know Republicans. Republicans know Republicans. Democrats apparently don't know Democrats.

-Nam

1.

overall

I am not saying that anything you stated was not true.  I'm saying that the OP was not ranting based on the angle you replied with.  I'm saying his rant is completely valid, regardless of how right you may be.  The OP agreed with your reply, to some extent, but has no reason, in my opinion, to take his OP down, and start ranting against the dems instead as you were asking.

[Nam]

Jetson,

I never suggested he take down his rant. I just asked, since he agreed with me (to an extent, as you state) that he point his "finger" at Democrats. They are more to blame than the Republicans. As a whole, they are a minority party (by membership compared to Democrats) yet their voice is heard loudly over Democrats because Democrats (for the most part) allow it. Perhaps they don't do it intentionally but then again perhaps they do. Perhaps they think if they allow Republicans to get keep lying, the "sane" Republicans will put their foot down (but they too are the minority in their own party where once they were the majority) but they have little power. Look at Mitt Romney: I think at one point he was "sane" but he keeps capitulating to the conservatives (Ryan is a good example of this) and he keeps flip-flopping and lying, even about his own record; especially when he was governor.

People say the Republican party is going by way of the dinosaurs. If so, would they still have so much power as they do?

-Nam

[nogodsforme]

Repubs don't have the numbers, but they have political power because they have the money. Most rich people prefer the repubs because of tax breaks and lobbies that protect their money.

The poor people who support the repubs are tricked into thinking those tax breaks and lobbies have something to do with freedom, guns, god, gays or abortion. Those are basically the only issues that the repubs have to offer the poor. Oh yeah, and race. The repubs never fix any of the problems related to freedom, guns, god, gays, abortion or race because then they would have nothing to dangle at the ignorant poor.

Like they could reduce the number of abortions dramatically by fully funding health care and welfare programs and making contraceptives readily available. If abortion is so evil, why don't they do what it takes to reduce abortion? Because freedom. And god.

It is amazing how much money the repubs will spend to keep ignorant poor people voting to make the rich even richer. They turn more and more taxpayer money over to private businesses to play with. And then the tell the poor that there is no public money to fix their problems. But somehow there is always enough money for warfare (gotta take care of those defense contractors) and for rich folks to get tax breaks.

[Nam]

Republicans have millionaires and billionaires. Democrats have millionaires and billionaires. Republicans have corporations. Democrats have corporations. Republicans have outside money. Democrats have outside money.

Republicans may have more of all of the above but what Democrats have that actually trumps all that: are vast amounts of people.

Ross Perot is a billionaire. He ran so many times, and lost every time. This doesn't mean that a billionaire can't win but look at 2008: Obama: barely a millionaire. McCain almost a billionaire (mainly due to his wife), who won? It wasn't about the money and, if Obama (which is still projected to win in 3 weeks) wins against Romney who is worth over 200 million, it still will not be about the money. (Of course Kerry had more money than Bush in 2004, also his wife's money but Kerry lost because of propaganda spewed not just by Republicans but some Democrats too and look how well that turned out)

Going with the rest of what you say: the biggest lie Republicans spin is being about "small government"; perhaps on a local level but definitely not on a national level. If you check: almost all Republican presidencies grew the government bigger while more Democratic ones made it smaller.

The irony of it all.

-Nam

[Mr. Blackwell]

I thought Kerry lost because he basically said "I will do the same thing Bush is proposing, but I'll do it better."

That and he had an annoying face.

[Nam]

He does have an annoying face. Actually, I believe, if he won Ohio, he would've won the election but he lost.

-Nam