« Barney Fwank Announcing There Would Be No Collapse | Main | Make It the Latter »

This brings to mind that famous scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" - watch until the end!

This guy has NAILED IT! It's called the liberal version of "Free Speech". If you're not saying what we want to hear "Shut Up".

Damned skippy, Andrew. I, for one, will NEVER shut up.

In all fairness, as someone pointed out to me today, they also have:

"I CAN"T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

So, GySgt Carter was a Liberal?

Sorry, couldn't pass that one up.

Conservatives would NEVER stoop to that level!

Oh wait...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrNl6-j9x5w

Cliffie nailed it!

NORM!!!!

Excellent, concise statement.

Here's another view of where "shut-uppery" is leading.

Andrew Klavan pwns the lefties.

Saw this on the front page of Yahoo! a second ago...

100 Days: For President Obama, hipness is what it is

That headline pretty much says it all about President Appeaser and his administration.

SHUT UP WILL YOU! SHUT! UP!

If your a conservative then you dont have free speech rights in the shrunken micro-brains of liberal dorks becuase liberals will shout you down and prevent you from speaking and brainless liberal zombies blabber FREE SPEECH FOR LIBERALS ONLY

It's interesting that Andrew makes the statement "and of course, there's the gazillion dollars in spending and taxation that the conservatives feel is a radical way to destroy our free market system".
You can find this at about the 36 second mark. Granted, this administration has spent a large sum of money but for a "radical way to destroy our free market system"? I don't think that's consistent with main stream America, even most who were against the stimulus. Now, I'm not finding those gazillions in "taxation". As a matter of fact, I'm seeing tax DECREASES in the stimulus plan. I'm wondering if he's using the same math calculations that Bush, McConnell, et al., sold us on that less taxes equaled more tax revenue only in this event, less taxes equals more taxation? I've always done reasonably well in math and I apologize for being so slow in updating myself with these new math skills.

If someone or a group wants to step forth with their displeasure or concerns of our government, even if I disagree, more power to them. It's America and it's a right. It's also a right to spew misleading or even false accusations while doing so. But if it doesn't stand up to reasonable scrutiny, it doesn't give much credibility to those presenting it.

Now, as liberal as I am, I'm not suggesting, implying, or even hoping that conservatives "shut up". This is America and I want you to be able to exercise your rights without intimidation from anyone. Additionally, the more you talk, the more rope you seem to give yourselves.

And how is Chairman Zero going to fund his trillions in new government spending without large tax increases on the middle class. Even if he confiscated all the wealth of the top 5%, he doesn't come close paying for all his new spending?

And what is cap and trade other than an energy tax by a different name that will cost families anywhere from $1,200 to $4,000 a year?

Yeah, that 8 bucks a week is some massive tax relief. Woo hoo.

The $8 bucks a week, although much better than the $20 per year that Bush/GOP gave to working families, still doesn't equate to a tax increase at this point. If there's an argument as to how to pay for these expenses, fine. Let the debates begin. Now, to pretend that those taxes have already been implemented kinda puts the ball prematurely in the opponents court doesn't it?
So instead of rational debate, one ends up starting out defending themselves against fabricated charges. Get my point yet?

Cap and Trade is somewhat of a hypothetical and maybe much like Bush's War On Fear. How much has Iraq cost and how will those gazillions of dollars be paid for. What is this war other than an incredible debt that will be a tax on our children and grandchildren? Oh, but I suppose the difference may lie on justification perhaps. You see, I can't justify it at all. I think it was an intentional misleading for profits and in order for Bush to be reelected by fear mongering. That's just my take. The connection? That would depend on your take on the environment. Regardless, the War On Fear in Iraq went through Congress and Signed by the President. I didn't approve. Maybe you did but I don't know. Now, the GOP have been ousted by the voters and the Dems will vote on EPA regulations. Maybe you will or will not approve on their decisions in what's best for the country. But it's kinda like what Bush said awhile back: "people get to vote every 4 years".

"A radical way to destroy our free market system"?
I personally think that better fits the Bush Administration. But that's just me. Or wait, from the past 2 elections, it appears to be the mind set of much of the nation. Throw the rest of the world in there while we're at it. But by all means, keep talking.

I won't defend Bush. Bush was a squishy moderate and I despise him. But I note that Chairman Zero's stimulus alone would have paid for the Iraq War twice over. And that doesn't even begin to account for his bailouts and his new health care entitlements.

The War on Terror succeeded in killing many, many bad people and keeping the USA safe from terror attacks for seven years, though in my mind, it didn't go far enough. Cap and Trade first of all attempts to confront a crisis that doesn't exist, (Man BearPig), does so in a way that will hike taxes massively on working people, destroy millions of jobs, and actually have the opposite of its intended effect; carbon emissions will increase as industry deports to countries like India, China, and Mexico that don't have stupid cap and trade schemes.

But you apparently don't care about that. Your stupid attitude is apparently, "Well, Bush got to fight a War on Terror, so Obama gets to have cap and trade. Fair is fair."

That's retarded.

Clearly, the deficits Chairman Zero is projecting are massively greater than Bush's deficits. And if I despised Bush, you can imagine how I feel about yor Marxist Messiah.

V_the_K, you seem to be of the intelligent sort and I appreciate your rebuttal. Personally, I fail to see how degrading me or insulting me strengthens your argument but if it's therapeutic for you, then by all means go for it.

The point I was making was that you and I see 2 totally different things. I really don't want to go into the debate on these issues being right or wrong because ultimately, there will be no winner. You see, I adamantly disagree that the war on Iraq has kept us safe for 7 years. I attribute that to my horseshoe that hangs straight up over my fire place mantle. Not only has it protected me from terrorist attracts, my home has not been flooded, skewed by landslide, devastated by tornadoes, burned by forest fires, nor has it been overran by pygmies. Maybe I should feel unpatriotic for not thanking GWB for his accomplishments of those safe precautions? Now let me add that supporting evidence suggest that the invasion of Iraq basically equates to us taking our eye off the ball on the global war on terror. It allowed Al Queda to rebuild, expand, and grow stronger while we played this mind game about keeping a country that had no army, no navy, and no air force from from attacking us with a mind set of"fight em there so we don't have to fight em here". It was as if they would board some nonexistent transatlantic flight and unitedly attack us. It couldn't happen.

Hey, but all's that's ok, irrelevant, and in the past, right? Of course, with the debt it created.

But you guys found the excuse relevant and a needed action, accordingly, the price was well worth it. I disagree. You disagree with a majority of the Obama agenda. Fair enough. But you want to play this "fascist" game. Hitler? Terrorist? Ok, it's America so go for it. But once again, credibility with be common denominator and so far, your party continues to come up short. Here's a new one for you but it's only my suggestion, the American people are no longer buying the concept of the party of "NO". Come up with something constructive. Attacks, criticism, and insults may appease your conscience but it damn sure ain't getting you any votes.

I'm adult enough to realize that comments on a blog have no impact on the political world, so I don't really give a damn what you think of me. But I don't see how any thinking individual can look at all of the Fascist trappings of the Obama administration... from the schoolchildren singing hymns to the dear leader, to the styrofoam pillars, to the enemies list compiled by the DHS, the dictatorial control of industry by setting salaries and firing executives, the coordinated attacks on enemies from Joe the Plumber to Sarah Palin ... and not conclude that the man is at least a Fascist wannabe.

Nor could any thinking person look at his warm smile and embrace of Hugo Chavez and doubt his Marxist sympathies.

Nor could any thinking person look at his bumbling replies when off-teleprompter and not suspect he's every bit as dumb as Bush was rumored to be.

I don't shill for parties or leaders. I'm about ideas. Which gives me much more leeway and intellectual honesty than you pathetic partisan kool-aid drinkers... of both parties.

VK, as mentioned earlier, the more you speak, the more rope you proverbially give yourselves. You see, Joe The Plumber and Sarah Palin had no place as a realistic political representative of your party. As a matter of fact, they were both frauds. It's interesting that shortly after Palin was introduced at the RNC, 90% of republicans approved of her for vice president. At the same time, 75% of those 90 said that she wasn't ready to lead the country. What's up with that? From your own admission, you really don't give a damn about what I think but apparently, your party doesn't give a damn about what anyone thinks as long as it's advantageous for your party? It's audacious of you to now accuse dems of being somewhat blind of their leader? Consider that this is after we've gone through 8 years of leadership from a man you've said you despise. The reason McCain lost was because he couldn't distance himself from those failed 8 years.

Joe The Plumber? You serious? The guy's even more of a fraud and much less accomplished than your failed Sarah Palin. He isn't even a plumber. He isn't a spokesman by any stretch. He certainly isn't a voice for the workingman that he supposedly represents. He's part of a dog and pony show. This same dog and pony show has become a trademark of your party. It isn't about leadership. It isn't about governance. It isn't about credibility. It isn't about the best interest of the country. It's about how much of a smokescreen you can create to make voters somehow think that a Caribou Barbie and a Joe The Plumber are going to somehow solve the crises that the Bush years has brought upon us. Am I happy with our present government? No. But I'm far more content in giving them a chance than I am with giving someone power that thinks that because they could see Russia from their house, gives them the ability of handling international affairs. After 8 years, the American people are simply tired of dealing with stupid.

This country was meant to be governed by Joe the Plumbers and Sarah Palins... regular, working-class people who had hands-on experience in the realities of life. Not an effete, incestuous, hereditary, ruling class of Bushes, Kennedies, Gores, and Rockefellers.

It was Ivy League educated bankers that led us into the financial crisis and elite politicians who let it happen.

Newsweek's "We're All Socialists Now" and Chairman Zero's policies have validated the charges of socialism that Joe the Plumber leveled against him. And when Sarah Palin warned of Obama palling around with terrorist, even the decrepit derelict John McCain distanced himself. And yet as he kisses up to Ahmadninejihad and smiles and hugs Hugo Chavez... it turns out the right-wing whackjobs called it right, and the lefty apologists called it wrong.

"This country was meant to be governed by Joe the Plumbers and Sarah Palins... regular, working-class people who had hands-on experience in the realities of life"

I adamantly disagree.

The country should ultimately be lead with someone with say, proven leadership abilities. We just went through 8 years of a C average college caliber president. It didn't work well. Your assessment is akin to saying that GM's CEO should be someone that has the qualities of really appreciating a long drive in the country. Maybe someone to be CEO of J.P.Morgan because they grew up being able to see a bank from their house? I just don't buy into qualifying the incompetent because they fit the suit. You may not agree but I'm glad main stream America does.

We had eight years of a Harvard MBA and now we have a person who has never run a business, and who has never released his college transcripts. Whoopee.

I am not impressed with how well the elites have been running the country.

And Joe "Jobs is a three letter word" Biden has been in Washington almost as long as I have been alive... and he's a complete idiot.

And then there's Timmy Geithner, (and all the other Democrats) who cheated on their taxes for years, and have the gall to lecture others on business ethics.

I'm not impressed with our political elites.

And all of Chairman Zero's vaunted intellectual superiority didn't stop him from giving cheap tacky and inappropriate gifts to visiting heads of state, nor did Hillary bother to find someone in the State Department who actually could read Russian before presenting her stupid Overcharge button to the Russian envoy.

This is what we get from experienced, elite leadership? Spare me.

VK, I invite you to revisit the Youtube of Mr Klavan and then to read my response to it.

I personally found his video to be hypocritical and as an attempt to spin the truth by implying that liberals are guilty of the exact same things that conservatives have done. That's my take.

Your responses thus far have seemed to be evasive while ignoring my points and injecting your own. It's as if you're trying to shut me up.

But liberals do want to shut down debate and shut up the opposition.

Al Gore won't debate global warming, and the rest of the ManBearPig cult calls those who disagree with them deniers.

Conservative speakers on campus are routinely shouted down and disrupted... most recently Tom Tancredo and Virgil Goode at UNC Chapel Hill.

A large number of Democrats support the regulation of speech on talk radio, and FoxNews was actively boycotted by Democrats in the primaries of 2008.

The ACLU supports the "right" of NAMBLA to distribute instructions on how to rape and murder children, but opposes the right to protest in front of an abortion mill.

Leftists label any position that is different than theirs "Hate Speech," so they don't have to argue with it. Accusing your opponents of being racists is just saying "shut up," in a different way.

Joe the Plumber was attacked in the media, and had his government records illegally searched... plainly to intimidate anyone else who would dare question Dear Leader.

Janet Napolitano's DHS publishes a report that states that people who are pro-life and pro-gun may be enemies of the state. More intimidation from the left. Worse, from a leftist government with the power to enact its will.

The pattern is undeniable. "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!" Anywhere there is opposition to the left's agenda, someone is trying to shut it up.

"The country should ultimately be lead with someone with say, proven leadership abilities."

So you're against Hopey McChange then, ANDY?

If you think Hopey is qualified to be president of the US, please list his accomplishments and experience.

YAWN

It's just a pile of excuses for "the Right" to explain their inept defense of and outright treason towards the ideals of limited government, fiscal sanity and individual rights. My evidence? The Reagan and Bush Administrations.

It's not libertarians' fault when you get up with fleas after laying down with the neo-con and theocrat hyena packs.

Kharn, I had other preferences over Obama in the primaries. I can't say I'm delighted with his every decision. When it came down to him and the McCain/Palin ticket, I voted against the promise of 4 more years of the same---along with a vote against taxing benefit packages offered by employers.

VK, you're sounding somewhat paranoid and a bit on the grasping side. Tancredo and Goode were likely shut down by more conservatives (although I suppose there wasn't an actual count). The ACLU has always been the ACLU. Julie McConnell was charged in digging up files on JTP so that sounds more like an individual decision verses some mass left conspiracy. Really, the majority of you post reflects a few liberals that the same could be few of a few conservatives. I'll give you the one on Napolitano. I thought she was pretty much over the top. Obama should stay away from those Michele Bachmann types.

Tancredo and Goode were likely shut down by more conservatives (although I suppose there wasn't an actual count).

C'mon Andy. Seriously.

It's just a pile of excuses for "the Right" to explain their inept defense of and outright treason towards the ideals of limited government, fiscal sanity and individual rights. My evidence? The Reagan and Bush Administrations.

So, let's get this straight. Your "evidence" is...BUSH...and also...REAGAN.

Forgive me if I don't find that to be a compelling argument worthy of rebuttal.

I will suggest, however, that you peruse a dictionary for the definition of treason. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

If "shut up" is all we have, it doesn't seem like there would be much to say to us. Its fairly oversimplified, and hardly worth so much discussion.

I'm here listening to your drivel and haven't asked y'all to be quiet even once. Cowlove can say whatever ridiculous things he'd like, and vote for whoever he wants.

Y'all love to throw around "treason" it was treason when I spoke out against Bush policies. Now its treason that I agree with Obama.

Talk about a "shut up" argument ... that sounds like it to me.

Posted by: Moon Bat at April 27, 2009 8:15 AM

You do realize that I was responding to someone's accusation of treason, right? I mean, it's so completely obvious if you just read the exchange. Take a deep breath, read, and comprehend.

"andy42302 at April 26, 2009 7:43 PM"

A bit late for me, but thanks for answering ANDY.