Not all "liberals" are far leftwingers

update - they gave a very reserved, short-lived round of applause, quite unenthusiastically at the end and Fox cut off the coverage right then before anyone in the audience was given a chance to ask questions. How Fox-like of them. How unfair and imbalanced.

That's one thing that keeps me, a very conservative person on crime and punishment and on fiscal issues, from ever voting for any of the republicans. Some of us actually show we care about the environment, we don't just say "we NEED to do this and we NEED to do that" we DO it. Some of us don't equate the war in Iraq with 911 but I just heard Bush actually STILL saying that was the case. He's in a state of denial, completely oblivious to reality. The republican hand picked audience even knew it and showed it with their blank stares. They looked at him as if they were looking at a madman desperately (as he was, whining MUCH) that the sky is not falling while they're drowning in debris.

I like to feel that I'm a thinking anything, too, but I gotta say I really don't agree with much of what you're saying, exept the third paragraph, all of it is right along my own opinions. And the aclu is a good concept that is almost always poorly performed. So maybe I agree with almost everything, now that I re-read your post. I can't get with the death penalty or torture, to me they are a beastial response to a human problem. but it's my opinion and I certainly respect yours and your right to it.

And I know I shouldn't, but to TGIX, most political types pick their audience. I can't comment on their reactions.

Can I be an election judge? That seems neat.

mry_m: The Constitution ensures the right to free speech to EVERY citizen....even those who choose NOT to vote. I have a very SPECIFIC RIGHT to complain, whether or not I vote, and so does every other citizen. You sound like a fanatic insomuch as you are stepping on the very Right that you claim to defend (by voting). You sound like this: "We must SILENCE those opposed to free speech!" Just my take on it.

you are right that came off like i wanted to silence the opposition. so let me rephrase that. i believe that it is every citizen has the duty to vote and if they chose not to vote then i do not want them to complain TO ME about how the government is being run. i personally feel that if you will not get involved then you have no right to complain. maybe if we had more voters (last election was was very low) then maybe we could get rid of some of the jerks. maybe if we had more involvement from the people then the politicians would pay more attention to what the people want. i don't know but it would be nice to see a 100% turn out in the next election.

you want to talk about free speech. what about child porn? those sick people are trying to say that they have the right to view or share it but the courts say no and i agree with them. i do not feel that it should be covered under free speech. are their right being trampled?

here is something else to think about. do we really have freedom of speech? there are things that you can't say. you can't yell fire in a crowd because it could cause a panic and someone could get hurt. you can't sent a threatening letter to the president because you will be arrested (remember that TGIX). so are we really free to say what we think? no. we all know our limits or we should. i might add that if the men who wrote the Constitution were around today they might have worded it differently.

#
lizdini said,

on July 10th, 2007 at 11:53 am

"Can I be an election judge? That seems neat."

I like it. You can check with you local Board of Elections. They are often looking for people to work the polls. Not everyone can or wants to sit all day (and they are some long days, 6am to set up, you aren't allowed to leave all day, and we usually don't finish until around 10pm since, after closing the polls, we have to secure everything with special tags, break down the equipment and pack it all up).

It's fun to see the neighbors since I work the polls in my own precinct. I get to see who's with which party or unafilliated and I can almost always guess right every time just from knowing them a little, some much more than others, or not really knowing them other than by name and guessing from how they dress and what they drive or where they're from (we have a good number of naturalized US citizens in this area).

Pay's not great but that's not the main reason for doing it. It's more of a civic duty as I see it. I make sure no shenanigans go on and a couple of times there were some questionable things that I had to step in and set straight. Campaigners are fun to deal with. We set up lines they can't cross, not allowed to get too close to the polls, but they will try to move them and inch closer and will cross them or come into the polling area itself with large print on their shirts and big buttons and hats promoting their candidate. Only one party ever does any of that pushy stuff. I'll leave you to guess who it is. LOL!

The new electronic poll books for checking in are nice here in MD but the actual Diebold voting terminals are a crime. Ever seen how they've been hacked easily? They're subject to a virus too. And I came into the polls one morning when NO ONE else was there but the machines were all set up and accessible (we set those up the previous night) and the doors to the school's gym where this all is were wide open! I'm not saying unlocked, I'm saying wide open, doors propped open. I was not pleased. ANYone could have easy simple access to those machines. Only a little piece of tape tag over keyhole locks keeps each machine "secure". So I checked the signatures on every tag to verify that they hadn't been broken into. Anyone could have easily used the same color tape though and forged the signatures. I brought the situation to the attention of the higher officials who signed the tape and they said those were all theres but we had to check all of nearly 30 machines very carefully.

"you want to talk about free speech. what about child porn?" Add ACLU to the list of sickos trying that free speech line of crap. I think the founding fathers would hang themselves if they were to see how badly the ACLU has twisted the intent of the Constitution / Bill of Rights etc. I don't think anybody could reasonably argue against the fact the founding fathers' intent of free speech was to give somebody the ability to vocalize their distrust or disagreement of their government. In my opinion free speech does not give a person the right to harm children for their sick pleasures. I think most clear headed people agree. Anybody who doesn't obviously needs to be removed from society and the gene pool if you ask me.

Yelling fire when there's no fire is, and should be, a crime. It's not a free speech issue, it's a public safety issue. People would most likely be hurt in the madness that followed. Also, if you send a message, however conveyed, to ANY person threatening harm to them or their property, it's a crime. Not just to the Prez. We must be aware of the consequences of our free speech. You can send emails to the Prez announcing your displeasure for him as a person or a politician, just don't cross that line into threatening. I don't think anybody would be arrested for emailing the Prez and saying you think he sucks or whatever else you had to say to him. There's just soooo many interpretations as to what free speech is, or should be.