Chavez Backs Freedom Of Speech

Status
Not open for further replies.
Missileer

Missileer

Active member
He backs it alright, backs it into a corner at the point of a gun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm

Chavez to shut down opposition TV

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said he will not renew the licence for the country's second largest TV channel which he says expires in March 2007.

start_quote_rb.gif
There will be no new operating licence for this coupist TV channel - the measure has been drafted so go turn off the equipment
end_quote_rb.gif



Hugo Chavez
 
Last edited:
phoenix80 said:
sounds like what Liberals would do in US if they were in full charge
Click to expand...


And yet every time there is an article not flattering to good old GWB the right wing are the first to attack the media don't you find it ironic that the right wing publicly calls for what you claim the left would do?
 
Liberals and conservatives, the extremists on both sides would gladly censor the media if they could get away with it. I don't trust _any_ political entity.
 
phoenix80 said:
sounds like what Liberals would do in US if they were in full charge
Click to expand...


Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, hell, Freedom in general are Liberal ideas.

The United States of America was founded by a bunch of Liberals, Liberals who were called names and such, dirty names, like Traitor and the like.
 
MontyB said:
And yet every time there is an article not flattering to good old GWB the right wing are the first to attack the media don't you find it ironic that the right wing publicly calls for what you claim the left would do?
Click to expand...

i havent seen one single right winger advocating media censorship but there are many crazy liberals who would do that if they could

Gator said:
Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, hell, Freedom in general are Liberal ideas.

The United States of America was founded by a bunch of Liberals, Liberals who were called names and such, dirty names, like Traitor and the like.
Click to expand...

they ain't liberals by today's standards. they would be conservatives if they were around these days!
 
They were flaming Liberals back in the day.

Definitions of liberal on the Web:
  • [SIZE=-1]
  • broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
  • having political or social views favoring reform and progress
  • tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
  • a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties[/SIZE]
 
Gator said:
They were flaming Liberals back in the day.

Definitions of liberal on the Web:
  • [SIZE=-1]
  • broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
  • having political or social views favoring reform and progress
  • tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
  • a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Like I said, today's liberals are ex-commies and Democrats. They are not real liberals. Those who founded US 230 yrs ago were true liberals by scientific definition, and nowadays conservatives are holding that position because liberalism today means socialism/communism/jihadism.... stuff like that.

Example:

Pelosi Targets Grassroots Freedom of Speech

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18510
Click to expand...

And

spacer.gif
Pelosi's Liberal Ally Defends Ethics Bill Targeting Grassroots Communication

This just proves how leftists want to be in charge and censor media and freedom of speech because it is against their interests. They, like mullahs of Iran or Cuban castro, want the people to be dead silent. Thats why I said Libs and Chavez or Mullahs have no difference at all.
 
Last edited:
Conservatives fought against the Patriots and wanted to remain part of England, as is the nature of a Conservative.
Given the choice of if one is either a Conservative or a Liberal, in todays United States of America, Liberals still favor Freedom, while many Conservatives these days seem to not look at Freedom as such a good thing.

I fail to see the difference between todays Liberals and the Founding Fathers, both think/thought outside the box, both question/questioned the ruling Government of the time, both have/got the ruling powers very upset.

You know, back when the Republicans were Liberals, they fought against the more Conservative Democratic Party of the South during the United States Civil War, also looked at as a good thing today, depending on where one lives of course.

As for myself, I'm more of an Ultra-Conservative, not a Neo-Conservative mind you, but just the rank and file Ultra-Conservative, as I only care about protecting the United States Constitution, not people, not property, just an idea, just words on paper, the very thing President Bush called "just a God Damn Piece of Paper", the thing I'm sworn to defend, the thing I'm sworn to follow.
But, I also know that Liberals are needed if the Nation is to move forward, to become a better place, and not just fester and stagnate. I know without Liberals the United States of America would wither on the vine.

So, I like having Liberals around, without them I would not be an looked at as a mere Ultra-Conservative, I'd be termed something more like a Nazi, and I would no doubt be shooting people en masse for the slightest offence.
 
Liberals still favor Freedom, while many Conservatives these days seem to not look at Freedom as such a good thing.
Click to expand...

Liberals favor freedom when its convienent, i dont see too many liberals screaming for more freedom of gun ownership.


I still find the relation between the founding fathers and modern day democrats very very hard to come about.
 
The World seems to favor restriction of Gun Ownership.
There are many Liberals I know who believe 100% in the right to keep and bear arms and I had not heard of a Platform of changing the United States Constitution to take away the right to keep and bear arms coming out of the Liberal/Democratic camp.

As for your not being able to find the similarities of todays Liberals with the Founding Fathers, I cannot not see the similarities.

They were flaming Liberals, who, once they had things set up the way they wanted, many times became more Conservative, merely to keep the next group of flaming Liberals from changing what they had worked so hard for.
 
Gator said:
an idea, just words on paper, the very thing President Bush called "just a God Damn Piece of Paper", the thing I'm sworn to defend, the thing I'm sworn to follow.
Click to expand...

Mod edit:
Do you have a source for this? If so, post it, I find it hard to believe and will be very disappointed if any President said that.
 
Rabs said:
Liberals favor freedom when its convienent, i dont see too many liberals screaming for more freedom of gun ownership.


I still find the relation between the founding fathers and modern day democrats very very hard to come about.
Click to expand...

Ditto that
 
Sure.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Bush on the Constitution: "Just a goddamned piece of paper"
By DOUG THOMPSON
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dec 9, 2005, 06:39[/FONT]
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

The record shows the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democratic, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine - in the end - if something is legal or right.

Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a "living document."

""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a 'living document,'" Scalia says. "We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."

As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that it's perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years - a record for any modern President, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a "union between a man and woman." Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

"We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."

And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper."

(Updated September 3, 2006)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue[/FONT]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top