English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Then why did the 'Democratic Daily' , a blog for Democrats , kick-off Cindy Sheehan ?
Note : The director said the "Democratic blog has one goal in mind , and that's Democratic victory " . One Goal ? Huh , I'm confused . I thought Democrats were PRO Free Speech . Hmmmmmm . I'm really not trying to make something outta nothing , but this is a glaring example of Free Speech ONLY when we agree with you . And I really don't think any Democrat can logically dispute that . I mean , cmon you guys , this is NOT an example that you want people associating you with. . . . is it ???

2007-07-13 23:40:44 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Mr. Moron - FYI , Cindy is possibly running for congress against Nancy Pelosi .
Where ya been ?

2007-07-13 23:46:07 · update #1

20 answers

If Cindy "Dishonorable" Sheehan had decided to run against a Republican somewhere, the democrats may have supported her. But to go out and run against Pelosi because she feels betrayed by her - and the Democrat Party as a group - because they didn't stop the war, in their minds is crossing the line. She's going to be a distraction. Conservative talk show hosts are going to have a field day with this.

2007-07-14 02:57:11 · answer #1 · answered by Matt 5 · 5 0

Well cybersharque (notice the Frenchy ending - not surprising he's a cut and run coward Democrat) is wrong, since it is not one man and one website, as the Daily Kos has threatened to give her the boot if she dare run against Nazi Pelosi.

So when you have more than one site threatening her, suddenly we have a conspiracy to strip even those the Dumbocraps have used to further their anti-America surrender monkey agenda of their right to free speech.

As long as Cindy bashes Bush she is the darling of the liberal media and it's internet outlets. Once she tries to hold her fellow Dumbocraps up to the same standard that Republicans are held to out come the muzzles and the jack boots.

2007-07-14 07:33:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

One is always free (and encouraged) to say anything that agrees with the official demlib talking point or agenda of the day. But, if you disagree, watch out! The full weight of the socialist propaganda battleship will soon be leveling its big guns on you. Just look at how they treated poor Joe Lieberman when he ran as an independant.

2007-07-14 20:50:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

No, they are only interested in THEIR free speech. Just like they believe in Democracy, unless the vote would be against something they wanted. Like the Democrat's successful campaign to keep the population of MA from voting on gay marriage.

2007-07-14 12:33:15 · answer #4 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 3 0

I read an op-ed in the New York times that said "In the name of tolerance...we must refuse to tolerate the intolerant." Another example of the Democratic party definition of "free speech."

2007-07-14 22:36:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Because she is going to run as an Independent. While her left wing political views are right there with mainstream Democrats, one would still not expect her opinion to be published on a website dedicated to Democratic propaganda.

2007-07-14 06:44:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 9 0

Albeit a dirt bag, Nancy is a pitbull and will eat Cindy alive in any election.

Remember, both of the big two are out for one thing, themselves and getting their candidate in office. Neither really give a hoot about the constitution unless its in their own personal interests.

2007-07-14 06:50:22 · answer #7 · answered by The prophet of DOOM 5 · 11 1

They have the right to decide who does & doesn't post on their blog. That said, we KNOW that they oppose free speech for everyony who does not agree with them.

2007-07-14 15:32:20 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2 0

I was wondering that myself since Kucinich released the tape of Hillary and Edwards conspiring against other Dem candidates:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1865354/posts

2007-07-14 07:25:14 · answer #9 · answered by Cherie 6 · 5 0

You'd think they'd treat this like the "unFairness Doctrine", wouldn't you? Instead of just tossing her, out. I'm not surprised... That's the lib way. Don't agree with them? Squelch them.

2007-07-14 07:04:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

fedest.com, questions and answers