Conquer Club

Why is it that when liberals protest, it's okay, but when conservatives protest it's fascist?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... tikas.html

Talk about repression of free speech... jeez. God forbid anyone gets into a debate on this issue.

Because republicans are fascists?

Snorri1234 wrote:Because republicans are fascists?

Really? They're not the ones promoting government as the answer to all our problems. They're not the ones saying that we have to continue spending money without limit.


To the OP, this hypocrisy from the left is ridiculous. When Sheehan protested the war, they were patriotic dissenters. When nameless individuals protest these health care proposals, they're labeled as being members of a paid mob. I thought the Democrats fought for free speech and open debate??

They only fight for free speech and open debate when they are left out in the cold. Other than that they oppress the oposition with Fascist like attacks.

Well, technically they're both "okay," as you don't really see conservative protests getting shut down more so than liberal ones, if at all. But in terms of attitudes towards each, you may have a point.

My opinion is the nature of the message being sent; correct me if I'm mistaken, but many liberal protests seem to send a message along the lines of "we don't like this thing and think it's wrong and should be changed for such-and-such benefit" whereas you often see conservative protests as "we don't like this thing and think it is is wrong and if it's not changed then such-and-such all is going to hell."

Take for example NS's Iraq War and Healthcare plan comparison:
Iraq War - This war is wrong and lots of innocent lives should not die for it.
Healthcare plan - The US will go bankrupt and fall apart if we institute this plan.

I'd wager that the apparent negativity that comes from the right is a major factor in how they are perceived, unfair or not.

The problem here is that one can't control people's attitudes towards the parties; you can only inform them. But if protesters melodramatically rant about the impending doom of the US after every single action their opposition makes, then guess what? They'll be treated as such. It's just like the boy who cried wolf.

Everything these days is either going to save America or destroy America; there's no shades of gray, no neutrality, nothing but extremes. That's what is bullshit if you ask me.

thegreekdog wrote:Why is it that when liberals protest, it's okay, but when conservatives protest it's fascist?

Everyone's for free speech, but only THEIR version. <smile>

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Why is it that when liberals protest, it's okay, but when conservatives protest it's fascist?

Everyone's for free speech, but only THEIR version. <smile>

You win the prize. I think maybe next time I'll change the sides around... people keep thinking I'm conservative.

F1fth wrote:Everything these days is either going to save America or destroy America; there's no shades of gray, no neutrality, nothing but extremes. That's what bullshit if you ask me.

This is especially true in the context of protests. Unfortunately, there aren't enough people with the motivation to march in the streets shouting, "BE REASONABLE!"

thegreekdog wrote:Why is it that when liberals protest, it's okay, but when conservatives protest it's fascist?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... tikas.html

Talk about repression of free speech... jeez. God forbid anyone gets into a debate on this issue.

There are protests, and then there's going to meetings with the intentions of not letting the speaker speak. AFAIK, the Tea-Baggers are going to yell and disrupt politicians speaking to constituents.

And yes, I think the same way when my ilk pies Thomas Friedman and Ann Coulter, and such (youtube them) Doesn't mean I can't find it funny, but it definitely doesn't contribute to an atmosphere of mutual enlightenment.

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Why is it that when liberals protest, it's okay, but when conservatives protest it's fascist?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... tikas.html

Talk about repression of free speech... jeez. God forbid anyone gets into a debate on this issue.

There are protests, and then there's going to meetings with the intentions of not letting the speaker speak. AFAIK, the Tea-Baggers are going to yell and disrupt politicians speaking to constituents.

And yes, I think the same way when my ilk pies Thomas Friedman and Ann Coulter, and such (youtube them) Doesn't mean I can't find it funny, but it definitely doesn't contribute to an atmosphere of mutual enlightenment.

Yeah, and left winged protesters never do that.

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Why is it that when liberals protest, it's okay, but when conservatives protest it's fascist?

Everyone's for free speech, but only THEIR version. <smile>

Kinda like how everyone loves a free market until it turns around and bites them in the ass.

jsholty4690 wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Why is it that when liberals protest, it's okay, but when conservatives protest it's fascist?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... tikas.html

Talk about repression of free speech... jeez. God forbid anyone gets into a debate on this issue.

There are protests, and then there's going to meetings with the intentions of not letting the speaker speak. AFAIK, the Tea-Baggers are going to yell and disrupt politicians speaking to constituents.

And yes, I think the same way when my ilk pies Thomas Friedman and Ann Coulter, and such (youtube them) Doesn't mean I can't find it funny, but it definitely doesn't contribute to an atmosphere of mutual enlightenment.

Yeah, and left winged protesters never do that.

I didn't think that highly of you previously, but I thought you could read. Noted.

... And now ACORN gets a message from the White House, from the President himself, asking members to attend these town halls to show their support for the bill, and to "Punch back twice as hard".

... From the freakin' White House". President issuing marching orders to his organized thugs... He has also summoned the union bosses to get involved in beating down these protests ... Talk about fascist and brown-shirt. ... freakin' lovely, shades of Europe, 1930's.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/0 ... 52720.html

... The link to the story on the brawl in Tampa over this issue is so busy it won't download (Drudge headline). I wonder if there was a clash there bewteen the two groups?

...

having read the links but not watched the video, i dont see anything all that amiss to be honest. I am sure pelosi probably says somethings that overstate the issue, but that doesnt encapsulate the whole issue. Everyone should be given the opportunity to voice the protest in a free fashion. Having said that, I have never been to a protest where there werent people from the other side heckling you, flipping you off, slighting your intelligence and attacking your character for protesting. Politics, even when following the rules is a bit of a contact sport.

As long as they are not doing anything which falls under illegal intimidation or breaking any laws, they can counter the protesting as much as they like. There is no rule that you have to protest 1 at a time as it were. Am i optimistic that everyone will follow the rules? No, but hopefully there will at least be little to no physical violence.

As to the presidents memo...i would be stunned if this was the first time in this adminstration or really in any administration for that matter, that a president or someone acting on the presidents order, did tell a group of politically aligned individuals to go and do someting for the good of the party. Does it follow the spirit of this great unifer image Obama campaigned on? No it does not, but when you have a hot button issue where you are going to be on the defense by virtue of policy, it would make little politcal sense not to use every avenue available.

got tonkaed wrote:Having said that, I have never been to a protest where there werent people from the other side heckling you, flipping you off, slighting your intelligence and attacking your character for protesting. Politics, even when following the rules is a bit of a contact sport.

Yes, but have you been to a protest, where, afterwards, it's widely reported that the protestors are morons by not only certain media outlets, but also be politicians. I find it very fascinating that Congresspeople who have not actually read the healthcare bill will fire off on demonstrators as being uninformed or misinformed. Again, not picking sides, just saying...

Actually being labelled a protestor or dissenter has negative connotations regardless of which side you are on. That's pretty much just the way it is presented in nearly all media.

Night Strike wrote:When Sheehan protested the war, they were patriotic dissenters.

Cindy Sheehan was called "unpatriotic" when she publicly expressed her disapproval of Bush and his choice to go to war. A war that had more protestors voice their opinion against it by marching in the streets than any event ever before... and it happened anyways.

Breitbart.com wrote:Energized conservative activists said they'll keep up their fight against Obama's effort. The president wants to use the government's clout to subsidize coverage for millions now uninsured, regulate insurance companies more closely and attempt to slow the rise of medical costs. The protesters' shouts and chants, captured on amateur video, went viral on the Internet.

Is this because subsidizing the uninsured, regulating insurance companies and attempting to hold down medical expenses is a bad thing? But bailing out big business to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars wasn't worth raising a stink about, since both parties had a hand in it I suppose. I expect any revamped health plan to take a bipartisan effort to get off the ground and compromises will have to made with all doubters anyways.

Night Strike wrote:They're not the ones promoting government as the answer to all our problems.

Where were you during Bush's eight years in office? Every political party thinks government is the solution even as they say "we need less government." The ongoing experiment that is The Department of Homeland Security has attempted to reinvent the wheel while rendering FEMA and other entities placed under it's jurisdiction ineffective. The actions of government say more is better, not less.

On the subject of PROTESTATION... dissenters will always catch shit
regardless of their position or political bias.

oVo wrote:Actually being labelled a protestor or dissenter has negative connotations regardless of which side you are on. That's pretty much just the way it is presented in nearly all media.

True, except see below.

oVo wrote:Cindy Sheehan was called "unpatriotic" when she publicly expressed her disapproval of Bush and his choice to go to war. A war that had more protestors voice their opinion against it by marching in the streets than any event ever before... and it happened anyways.

I don't remember her being called "unpatriotic." I do remember her being sanctified in most of the media outlets in this country, as well as by politicians that agreed with her. I also recall that President Bush did not put out a memo asking his supporters to fight back.

oVo wrote:Is this because subsidizing the uninsured, regulating insurance companies and attempting to hold down medical expenses is a bad thing? But bailing out big business to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars wasn't worth raising a stink about, since both parties had a hand in it I suppose. I expect any revamped health plan to take a bipartisan effort to get off the ground and compromises will have to made with all doubters anyways.

Both are bad. The same people that railed against bailing out the big businesses are the same people that are railing against government healthcare.

oVo wrote:Where were you during Bush's eight years in office? Every political party thinks government is the solution even as they say "we need less government." The ongoing experiment that is The Department of Homeland Security has attempted to reinvent the wheel while rendering FEMA and other entities placed under it's jurisdiction ineffective. The actions of government say more is better, not less.

Also true.

thegreekdog wrote:I also recall that President Bush did not put out a memo asking his supporters to fight back.

Dealing with Sheehan and other "disagree-ers" falls under Carl Rove's job description.
Bush's words were, "If you aren't with us? You're against us."

... The President and Congress want to shut these people up, that is why ACORN and the unions were summoned. It's too much bad press for the unpopular bill.

... Funny that, I was under the impression the President and Congress might be interested in public opinion on the issue (every poll done on this puts opposition to the bill in the lead). ... So why the Chavez-like strong-arm tactics from Obama?

... It is not the President's job to call out people for the specific purpose of shutting people up. Don't misunderstand, I am not implying physical violence (yet), but sending a bunch of hired guns (remember, ACORN got paid by the Stimulus) to shout down groups of citizens concerned with potential legislation is absolutely Fascist. Show me where I am wrong.

...

Nobunaga wrote:... And now ACORN gets a message from the White House, from the President himself, asking members to attend these town halls to show their support for the bill, and to "Punch back twice as hard".

... From the freakin' White House". President issuing marching orders to his organized thugs... He has also summoned the union bosses to get involved in beating down these protests ... Talk about fascist and brown-shirt. ... freakin' lovely, shades of Europe, 1930's.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/0 ... 52720.html

... The link to the story on the brawl in Tampa over this issue is so busy it won't download (Drudge headline). I wonder if there was a clash there bewteen the two groups?

...

Please do not quote history, especially ones with such strong soundbites, when you clearly do not understand what actually happened.

Timminz wrote:

F1fth wrote:Everything these days is either going to save America or destroy America; there's no shades of gray, no neutrality, nothing but extremes. That's what bullshit if you ask me.

This is especially true in the context of protests. Unfortunately, there aren't enough people with the motivation to march in the streets shouting, "BE REASONABLE!"

I'd march along with that protest.

Seconded.

... Well, I was wrong, they are using violence to shut people up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kxaGfClPws

… That’s assault in any court in the U.S.



... And here we have somebody allowing entry into the St. Louis Town Hall - but only Union members, denying entry to all the regular folks who wish to attend.

http://www.breitbart.tv/st-louis-town-h ... s-entered/


...

Nobunaga wrote:... And here we have somebody allowing entry into the St. Louis Town Hall - but only Union members, denying entry to all the regular folks who wish to attend.

http://www.breitbart.tv/st-louis-town-h ... s-entered/

I believe that's the video where the union workers were actually let in a side, handicapped door rather than waiting in line with everybody else at the main doors. So now we have to stack the meetings with supporters even though 50% of the public disapproves of the current plans and those dissenters show up first in line? I'm glad all these protesters are going to these meetings to make sure their voices are heard. They aren't being represented by ACORN and SEIU........they're representing their own voices.

... Do you (anybody) think you'll see this on NBC tonight, the assault or the Union thugs slipping in the side door?

...