I've always been a firm believer in Freedom of Speech but every week it seems that right is slowly being taken away from Conservatives. Anytime one opens their mouth the left takes it out of context and tries to get them out of a job. I've never listened to Don Imus's show and I disagreed with what he said back the year ago or however long it was I can't remember. But just because I didn't like what he said I didn't think he should lose his job, I mean he has a right to say what he wants to, nobody forced me to listen to him so I didn't.

Anyways thats not what I'm getting at. I was listening to talk radio the other day and the local guy was talking about this rap group called The East Coast Avengers and their new song about killing Bill O'Reilly. Seriously. Now I don't like Bill O'Reilly he is annoying to me and I disagree with him on most things so I don't listen to his show or watch it. Now I don't want to kill him because of this or anybody else. I really hate Obama because his politics is far off from what I believe but I don't want him dead. Where did this deep hate come from that these rappers would want to kill Bill O'Reilly.

edited - please remember this is a family site

If a conservative had a song or even said anything similar to this the left would be up in arms going crazy. I'd consider what these punks have said as a threat and it should be taken care of as such. Its pretty specific.

Just remember, the lefties are all about tolerance and acceptance of others' differences- unless you are conservative. It's like conservatism is the "unforgiveable sin" to the liberals.

I used to work with a very liberal woman. Her method choosing who to vote for- honest to Pete- was vote for a black woman. If no black woman, vote for the black man, then hispanic woman/man, then asian woman/man, then any woman, then democrat man. She went to our boss and complained that my display of an NRA bumper sticker made her nervous. He called me in and asked if I would remove it, so we went out into the parking lot and compared my bumper sticker to her bumper stickers. I pointed out that my sticker implied membership in an organization, and her "COEXIST" sticker stated her acceptance of my affiliation with the NRA. I also told him- in her presence- that removal of the NRA sticker wouldn't mean my right to own firearms would cease. She said "give us time".

The situation went to the board of directors, who eventually added a paragraph to the employee manual regarding the display of profane, vulgar or threatening wording (ie: bumper stickers, decals, paint, etc.) on any vehicle parked on company property. Which meant she had to remove a sticker containing a pun about her girlfriend's private parts and our President. And I got to add a few stickers that support our Constititution and the Second Amendment.

The problem I see with the US is that everyone has their own side and is not willing to accept the others position, or any points they make, valid or otherwise. This is both Liberals and Conservatives. Everyone puts their own spin on things. In that first link that was provided (the blog on), there is video on Youtube of an interview Dem. Rob Wexler did with Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report.
oGqPxn7njqM
(For the record, I tried to embed this vid, no go. I didn't see any profanity in the page, so I hope its kosher to post)

That definitely shows a bias right there. I'm sure the liberals are guilty of doing the same thing, but I don't have any examples.


The point? Everyone is trying to play the role of the victim. Conservatives push to say that their religious beliefs are infringed because of opposition to them, that their morals are being repressed because of what the other side is doing. Liberals say their human rights are being infringed due to marriage laws, drug laws, and so on. No one is willing to compromise with the others to come to a common solution. This is gonna be the downfall to any democracy, because everyone is so engrained with their beliefs that anyone elses that differs is wrong, and is a threat to their way of life. And I will say again, this goes on from both sides.

So what does this have to do with this song? Since there is no willingness to compromise, there is no tolerance for others beliefs. I have never read the Constitution or Bill of Rights, so I could be wrong, but I don't think there is anything in there about the 'right to never be offended'. If there is, I apologize. If there is such a right, it comes at the cost of free speech. And if that is indeed the case, it will come at the price of more freedoms. Christians feel attacked already due to opposition to their beliefs being public, this would make it worse. Conversely, liberals are gonna be held back because a religious zealot does not want to hear a single word about abortion. It works both ways. Now granted, this song is quite specifc about who and what they want to do, but so is a lot of other songs. How about poems? Does anyone care about poems regarding the same subject? Would anyone be outraged if they didn't see these articles? Would they even know this song existed? Would the same conservatives be as quick to condemn such as song if it was the same words, but with a different name? Maybe an anchor from MSNBC? If the answer is no, then it is hypocritical to criticize this songs, as its outrage from opposition to their beliefs, not outrage due to the content being about murdering someone. JMO

good post Tate. in politics and politcal commentary, there are very few who will consider the other side. funny, but the person who the song was written about (Bill O'reilly) is a prime example of someone who thinks the world is made up of two points of view, and only his has any merit.

The problem I see with the US is that everyone has their own side and is not willing to accept the others position, or any points they make, valid or otherwise. This is both Liberals and Conservatives. This is gonna be the downfall to any democracy, because everyone is so engrained with their beliefs that anyone elses that differs is wrong, and is a threat to their way of life. And I will say again, this goes on from both sides.

Very good post tate, I think that this country has become so divided, (liberal this, conservative that) that no one is willing to look at the others side and never is a middle ground reached. Im not sure about the end of democracy, but feel sure that it will end government as we currently see it.

Everyone claims to be a uniter but they are propped up by the extremes of their party. They are just partisans.

Something isn't true just because a certain party says it, and it isn't necessarily wrong just because someone else said it.

It's my opinion that conservatives always get the short end of the stick, by the nature of the process. Conservatives generally want to keep things the same, and liberals want change. So, the great compromise is that change is made, but it's less than the liberals originally wanted.

Now, imagine this applied to buying a house. You list your house at 200K. You get an offer for 80K. Are you supposed to make nice by "meeting them halfway" at 140K? I'm sure the offering party would talk about how incredibly fair and willing to negotiate he is, but you just need to be reasonable-- isn't meeting halfway reasonable? If you hold fast to 200K, you are just being an extremist unwilling to "more forward" and "make progress."

On many areas, there should be no partisanship, just problem solving. No contention, just a marketplace of ideas.

But in other areas, I don't want to see ANY compromise.

As Thomas Jefferson said "In matters of taste, swim with the current, but in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

I will haggle on tax policy, school choice, war in Iraq, and a number of different areas.

But I won't give special treatments to ANYONE regardless of which gender they sleep with or what color their skin is or how old they are, whether that's special parking or college admissions or spousal benefits for the family pet.

I reject that idea of infairness in the name of fairness. I reject the idea of inequality of taxation in the name of equality. I reject the idea of intolerance in the name of tolerance.

I think most of you would agree with that last statement.

jmo

But I won't give special treatments to ANYONE regardless of which gender they sleep with or what color their skin is or how old they are, whether that's special parking or college admissions or spousal benefits for the family pet.

I reject that idea of infairness in the name of fairness. I reject the idea of inequality of taxation in the name of equality. I reject the idea of intolerance in the name of tolerance.

I think most of you would agree with that last statement.

jmo

but if you take your examples one step back, you will see that many were caused by intolerance and a failure to consider the other side by the popular side at the time.
your comments about special treatment sound like you might be referring to affirmative action. while nothing seems less fair than affirmative action, it would never have come about had those who fought to keep things exactly the same, never been able to keep certain races, religions, sexes, etc. from employment, schools, and other places that white, Protestant, males are welcome.
we complain about the intolerance of the liberal left not allowing the discussion of creation in public schools, but this would not even be an issue had those who fought to keep things exactly the same, allowed discussion of the theory of evolution (or any other theory) in public schools. instead they passed a law that made it illegal to even discuss any theory that contradicted divine creation and specifically disallowed any discussion that man had descended from a lower order of animals, which resulted in the Scopes trial and decades of fighting for exclusive rights to see which side gets taught in our childrens' classrooms.

Prime example, my teen age neice moved into our family a couple of months ago he mother gave us a letter stating wife and self are gaurdian. Today I call corprate to get health insurance for neice. They tell me I have to go though the courts which would cost thousands $. I ask what if I were a homosexual and this girl was my partners daughter. Woman replies my, partner and myself would sign paper saying we love each other and both would be covered under my policy.
In conclusion If I were a homosexual, my word would be good enough, but being that I'm married to a woman ,which is how it is should be, and care enough to give a good home to family, and try to be an upstanding person my word is not as good as a homosexuals.

Jed

Everyone claims to be a uniter but they are propped up by the extremes of their party. They are just partisans.

Something isn't true just because a certain party says it, and it isn't necessarily wrong just because someone else said it.

It's my opinion that conservatives always get the short end of the stick, by the nature of the process. Conservatives generally want to keep things the same, and liberals want change. So, the great compromise is that change is made, but it's less than the liberals originally wanted.

Now, imagine this applied to buying a house. You list your house at 200K. You get an offer for 80K. Are you supposed to make nice by "meeting them halfway" at 140K? I'm sure the offering party would talk about how incredibly fair and willing to negotiate he is, but you just need to be reasonable-- isn't meeting halfway reasonable? If you hold fast to 200K, you are just being an extremist unwilling to "more forward" and "make progress."

On many areas, there should be no partisanship, just problem solving. No contention, just a marketplace of ideas.

But in other areas, I don't want to see ANY compromise.

As Thomas Jefferson said "In matters of taste, swim with the current, but in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

I will haggle on tax policy, school choice, war in Iraq, and a number of different areas.

But I won't give special treatments to ANYONE regardless of which gender they sleep with or what color their skin is or how old they are, whether that's special parking or college admissions or spousal benefits for the family pet.

I reject that idea of infairness in the name of fairness. I reject the idea of inequality of taxation in the name of equality. I reject the idea of intolerance in the name of tolerance.

I think most of you would agree with that last statement.

jmo

I must say, "That is a spot on excellent post!!
There may have been a time when special treatment to some was a necessity due to inequality but today it's nothing less than discrimination!!!

Tate - you hit the nail on the head. The way I see it, is the one with the most financial backing wins.

Chipmonk - Whoa another topic here, but my response is evolution (scientific knowledge) vs. creation (hear-say and fairy tales). You do not have to read the good book to be in the right or be good. Keep religion out of my public school. My wife was educated for the first eight years in Catholic school and I was educated in public school system +4. My wife will admit this - but her education was something less than desireable. That is not without saying our son goes about 1/2 hour every two days to religion classes before school starts. There is a higher being and JC somewhere and he should know just that period. For example - I learned in religion class and read somewhere that the earth was created in 7 days, Jonah's whale, Noah's Ark, and so on and so forth. Being a geologist - learned the scientific version. End of my story. If you believe otherwise - that is fine, no hard feelings, and that is your perspective and I RESPECT that.

As far as being homosexual - that is their business and I do not care. As far as being not able to provide health insurance to your new dependents - that is BS. Talk to a lawyer or your employer about this situation.

Prime example, my teen age neice moved into our family a couple of months ago he mother gave us a letter stating wife and self are gaurdian. Today I call corprate to get health insurance for neice. They tell me I have to go though the courts which would cost thousands $. I ask what if I were a homosexual and this girl was my partners daughter. Woman replies my, partner and myself would sign paper saying we love each other and both would be covered under my policy.
In conclusion If I were a homosexual, my word would be good enough, but being that I'm married to a woman ,which is how it is should be, and care enough to give a good home to family, and try to be an upstanding person my word is not as good as a homosexuals.

Jed

That sucks! Sad but true.................

alramr, i certainly didn't want to spark a 'creation vs. evolution' debate, but wanted to point out that had the hardcore right of the time not responded to an attempt to open up classroom discussion to alternatives to creation with laws that made it illegal, we wouldn't be in the place today where the hardcore left have prohibited the discussion of anything but evolution.

Chipmonk - No problem here and "I respect your point of view." Regarding all controversies, it is unfortunate that there is no middle ground. I agree with you regarding what you say hardcore left or right (I refer to as extremist) which at one point in time (history) has the most persuasive argument always wins. Public opinion, which is difficult to gauge, may not often agree with the winning argument. If I had to point fingers - the media distorts public opinion and intent.

Replying to Mattster:
Rappers have been going after Bill O'Reilly since he came out with his own show. Listen to Snoop or Ludacris's old stuff.
Bill O'Reilly has been going after rappers since forever.
It is no different than it was 15 years ago or so that presidential elections, George H. Bush, Dan Qualye, and so on where targeting N.W.A, Tupac Shakur, Biggie Smalls, etc., etc., for their vulgar lyrics and demoralizing women in their songs.
Music is an expressions of what people know, and they sing a catchy jingle or dress/act a certain way, and people copy it, scare the heck out of their parents and or elected officials, and all the sudden, it's a national epidemic, about how these musicians are role models and shouldn't be acting this way.I've never heard of the rappers you are talking about, but, it seems like I'll have to check them out just because people are making a big stink about what they said in a song.
Probably why they wrote the song in the first place.

Everyone claims to be a uniter but they are propped up by the extremes of their party. They are just partisans.

Something isn't true just because a certain party says it, and it isn't necessarily wrong just because someone else said it.

It's my opinion that conservatives always get the short end of the stick, by the nature of the process. Conservatives generally want to keep things the same, and liberals want change. So, the great compromise is that change is made, but it's less than the liberals originally wanted.

Now, imagine this applied to buying a house. You list your house at 200K. You get an offer for 80K. Are you supposed to make nice by "meeting them halfway" at 140K? I'm sure the offering party would talk about how incredibly fair and willing to negotiate he is, but you just need to be reasonable-- isn't meeting halfway reasonable? If you hold fast to 200K, you are just being an extremist unwilling to "more forward" and "make progress."

On many areas, there should be no partisanship, just problem solving. No contention, just a marketplace of ideas.

But in other areas, I don't want to see ANY compromise.

As Thomas Jefferson said "In matters of taste, swim with the current, but in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

I will haggle on tax policy, school choice, war in Iraq, and a number of different areas.

But I won't give special treatments to ANYONE regardless of which gender they sleep with or what color their skin is or how old they are, whether that's special parking or college admissions or spousal benefits for the family pet.

I reject that idea of infairness in the name of fairness. I reject the idea of inequality of taxation in the name of equality. I reject the idea of intolerance in the name of tolerance.

I think most of you would agree with that last statement.

jmo

The problem with your house analogy is that one person owns that house, and another is trying to purchase it. Conservatives don't own the US, and liberals aren't trying to purchase it. I would look at it more like a public company, where everyone is a shareholder. And, just like with a public company, the more you own, the more your opinion matters. Everyone is looking to better the company, but each has a different idea on how to do it. Sadly, those with the loudest voice is always heard, not neccisarily the one with thought behind their words.

Agreed-- my house analogy is pretty flawed-- I'll have to do better.

Back OT- imagine the uproar if Toby Keith or other conservative white musician wrote similar lyrics about Jesse "that's not my baby" Jackson or Al "Tawana Brawley was a VICTIM" Sharpton. There is a double standard.

When a city councilman in Texas can be crucified for making racist remarks in describing thousands of parking tickets disappearing "as if they fell down a black hole", we've seriously got to stop and backhand the whiners that have bestowed automatic victimhood on entire classes of people based on their race, skin color, sexual preference, etc.

Double standard. This dumb punk's vile and threatening rant is protected as free speech, but a similar rant against Obama, Jackson, or Sharpton would net you a "hatespeech" indictment.

Back OT- imagine the uproar if Toby Keith or other conservative white musician wrote similar lyrics about Jesse "that's not my baby" Jackson or Al "Tawana Brawley was a VICTIM" Sharpton. There is a double standard.

When a city councilman in Texas can be crucified for making racist remarks in describing thousands of parking tickets disappearing "as if they fell down a black hole", we've seriously got to stop and backhand the whiners that have bestowed automatic victimhood on entire classes of people based on their race, skin color, sexual preference, etc.

Double standard. This dumb punk's vile and threatening rant is protected as free speech, but a similar rant against Obama, Jackson, or Sharpton would net you a "hatespeech" indictment.

I'll absolutely agree with you, there is a double standard. I also think the specific genre of music is important too, though. Country is generally not that political. Rap is much more politically charged than country, thats why I'd expect this song to be 'more acceptable' than a country version of it. A political country song (especially by a big name like Toby Keith) is gonna stand out from your typical 'My dog ran away and I spilt my beer' type country.;)

A political country song (especially by a big name like Toby Keith) is gonna stand out from your typical 'My dog ran away and I spilt my beer' type country.;)

you mean like if he had a song called 'Weed With Willie', a pro-marijuana song about him getting high with Willie Nelson?
Bill O'reilly loves to bash guys like Snoop Dog for (among other things) his song lyrics advocating pot smoking, but refers to Toby Keith as a patriot, and conveniently skips over the whole 'Weed With Willie' thing. O'reilly also gushes about Toby Keith's support of the troops, while conveniently leaving out the many concerts Snoop Dog has done for the troops all over the world (including Iraq and Afghanistan).
i'm not a fan of Snoop Dog's music (couldn't name a single song), but it shows how 'journalists' [laugh] like O'reilly pick and choose the facts they give their viewers, based on the reaction that they want to get from them.
and for all you Toby Keith fans, read this:



Toby Keith Throws Support Behind Obama
Country Star Says Democratic Candidate 'Best' Since Clinton

POSTED: 7:53 am CDT August 20, 2008


LOS ANGELES -- Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama is getting a little bit of support from one of the big names in country music.

Toby Keith said that he's backing the Illinois senator and fellow Democrat.

Keith is best known among non-country music folks for his post-Sept. 11 song, "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue."

The song features lines aimed at the Taliban in Afghanistan like, "We lit up your world like the Fourth of July."

But Keith has said the song was more of a patriotic tune than a pro-war song.

The county music star said that he was impressed that Obama visited Afghanistan to learn about the region.

Keith, a self-described Democrat, said Obama is "the best Democratic candidate we've had since Bill Clinton."

I wasn't lifting TK up for praise, merely using him as an example of a big, white musical star and asking a "what if".

Has anyone else noticed that when people get tremendous amounts of money they start voting strangely? Like Barbara Striesand making $55million a year and saying " if we all would just contribute 10% more, there would be no want in this country". Nice sentiment, but 10% more out of her paycheck would just mean she'd have to make do with only about $30million. 10% more out of my paycheck would put me in the soup line. I would have more respect for these activist celebs if they lived what they preach. If Babs ran her household on $100,000.00 a year and donated the rest, maybe I'd listen. In my mind, I see her walking around and flipping off the lights in unused rooms and yelling at James Brolin "Why are these lights on?! Do you think I'm made of MONEY?!"

And now we find out Toby has been rendered insane by too much road food and bus fumes.

At least the insufferable Ed Bagley Jr. drives an electric car and seems to be living quite modestly. He may be deluded in thinking his ride is "zero emissions", but at least he's walking the walk.

Has anyone else noticed that when people get tremendous amounts of money they start voting strangely?............. In my mind, I see her walking around and flipping off the lights in unused rooms and yelling at James Brolin "Why are these lights on?! Do you think I'm made of MONEY?!"............
And now we find out Toby has been rendered insane by too much road food and bus fumes.


LOL!!!!!!!!! [laugh]