I don't see any difference between chavez shutting down that TV station and George Bush trashing every civil right he can find.
At least the TV station had the guts to stick it out telling the truth until the end... unlike the FOX NOISE CHANNEL that knowingly broadcasts all the White House Propaganda garbage and then calls it "News" knowing that the gullible semi-literate conservatives will believe any nonsense they hear as long as it comes from George Bush
2007-05-29 15:35:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Chavez loving liberals? Oh well, here goes.
There is no defense for the shutting down of free press. The freedom of the press is a major check on the power of the government and helps keep it in line.
I like Chavez because he stands for poorer nations being able to control their own natural resources and against the global marketplace controlling everything. It makes sense for a poor nation to keep public natural resource control in order to build infrastructure. You know, roads, access to drinking water, power.
Shutting down TV stations that don't agree with you is not cool though.
2007-05-30 00:17:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Clawndike 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Okay, I KNOW I'm being pedantic here, but I really hate it when people misuse the term, "Toe the line". I'm going to give you a history of the phrase so you (hopefully) remember in the future. If it was a typo I'm sorry. The "W" and the "E" are right next to each other on the keyboard. I see if often enough that it's become one of my pet peeves. If you want an answer to your actual question you'll have to look elsewhere. I'm a Libertarian, and socialism makes me want to puke my guts out. Oh well. If the people won't fight for it now they'll have to fight for it later, the only difference of course is that they'll be poor, hungry, and oppressed then.
While the phrase has been indisputably re-used several times throughout history, from naval ships, to boxing, to foot races, the most convincing origin of the phrase comes from the House of Commons in British Parliament.
The House of Commons, historically and currently in its modern form, has two sets of lines separating the front row benches. These lines are better than a "sword's length" apart from each other, to keep over excited members from appealing to their swords to settle debate. It was quite common through much of the House's history, dating back to the 14th Century, to have its members armed with swords.
In modern courtrooms you may hear a judge demand "order, order in the courtroom" in times of heated exchange. In the House of Commons, the Speaker would demand that members, "Toe the line, toe the line," if debate was becoming heated, particularly along the front rows. The mortal consequences of heated exchange between armed men demanded strict adherence to the House rules. Thus, the phrase “toe the line” was echoed throughout the House to return order and to quell the growing conflict.
The primary connotation of “toe the line” is: “To adhere to rules or doctrines conscientiously; conform” (American Heritage) and “To conform to a rule or standard” (Oxford). Thus “toeing the line” was conforming to the rules of the House of Commons, just as maintaining “order” is conforming to the rules of a courtroom.
A visit to the House of Commons at The Palace of Westminster will confirm this version of the idiom’s history and they will proudly show you the two lines running through the hall.
The most commonly cited source for the “sports origin” theory is foot-racing, where the competitors must keep their feet behind a "line" or on a "mark" at the start of the race—as in "On your mark, get set, go!" So one who "toes the line" is one who does not allow his foot to stray over the line. Another sports theory is boxing, where two boxers were required to stand toe to toe with one another on a line. A referee would call out, "Toe the line!" requiring both boxers to put their respective toes on a chalk line, face each other and get ready to box.
Sometimes this phrase is written "tow the line", likely by people who have heard but not seen it written. This misspelling changes the meaning of the phrase slightly, rather than implying conformance with a rule, "tow" suggests contribution to a cause, e.g. "the pundit is towing the administration's line" alluding to a metaphorical act of pulling something with a line, cord or rope. However, this variant is grammatically suspect, as the verb tow refers to the object being towed, e.g. a car or a boat, not the mechanism by which it is towed, such as a rope or chain.
2007-05-29 23:49:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bigsky_52 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Isn't it amazing that no matter what is happening in the world, or where it is happening, the Liberals can always find a way to BLAME BUSH!
Is it raining? Bush did it!
An earthquake in Tibet? Bush did that too!
Does your *** itch? Turn around, Bush is back there with a pin!
What a bunch of non-thinking, kneejerk negativists. If only we could stop them from breeding. I've got it!
Hey Liberals! Bush wants you to keep having sex!
2007-05-29 22:46:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by morgan j 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just think, if we were not in Iraq, we could deal with Chavez, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! our conservative government has decided that it is more important to 'stay the course' in Iraq, and waste time on a country and people that really do not want peace.
2007-05-29 22:37:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by ProLife Liberal 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah, I could not believe this. 50+ years of television and now he just shuts it down. I really hope something can save this beautiful country from this mad man.
2007-05-29 22:38:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Brian D 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
lets say that the conservatives are foxs favorites. that still leaves on the liberal side, clinton news network, clinton broadcasting system, and every other network in the country. you don't like fox because they don't blame america for all of the world's problems, like you obviously do.
2007-05-29 22:50:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by out for justice. 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
So if this upsets you, then why don't you criticize the president for never taking interviews with people that don't share is view. Why is that? Is it because you're a total hypocrite. Bingo!
2007-05-29 23:00:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Once more the liberal silence is deafening.
2007-05-29 22:34:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
he is a moron and the sooner his people realize that and overthrow him the better.
2007-05-29 22:34:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by martin d 4
·
1⤊
0⤋