Advocacy Groups Call Lou Dobbs' Exit a Win

Groups Say CNN Host was Incendiary and Even Racist, Particularly Regarding Illegal Immigration

(AP)  CNN moved swiftly to replace Lou Dobbs in its nightly lineup with John King, who said Thursday that all views would be welcome on his politically oriented talk show when it debuts early next year.

Dobbs' abrupt exit prompted a victory lap by advocacy groups that had sought his ouster for outspokenness, particularly on illegal immigration. But CNN President Jon Klein said their pressure had nothing to do with the decision.

Klein said veteran political reporter King was the perfect choice for the passionate, nonpartisan reporting that CNN wants for its image. King will be leaving the Sunday political talk show he has been presiding over, creating another opening.

King will compete directly with another political hour, Chris Matthews' "Hardball" on MSNBC. The CNN personality said he hoped to establish a show offering more meaty fare than his competitors.

"Anybody who has a major stake in a major topic will be invited to be on the show," said King, whose Washington-based program has no name yet.

Dobbs was a CNN original who was one of the TV business' leading financial journalists before taking on many other topics post-9/11, and increasingly offering his own opinion. Latino groups charged that Dobbs' emphasis on illegal immigration promoted an atmosphere of intolerance.

"We had hundreds of thousands of people who said `enough is enough,"' said Alex Nogales, president and CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition. "That he is gone from CNN is a great blessing and a great victory for our community."

CNN supported Dobbs, particularly as the opinionated fare boosted his ratings. But his show increasingly became inconsistent with CNN's effort to present itself as the down-the-middle alternative to Fox and MSNBC, and Klein pressured Dobbs to do a straight newscast. Complicating things was Dobbs' new role as a radio commentator, and the personas were often confused.

"To his credit, he tried (a straight newscast) and I think eventually he found that his interests lay elsewhere," Klein said.

The men had been discussing an exit strategy for several months. Klein characterized it as "a mutual decision," and released Dobbs from his contract.

Beyond his radio show, Dobbs wouldn't say what else he would be doing. He promised he would be active in advocacy journalism.

On a conference call involving 11 groups that had actively sought Dobbs' ouster through petitions, pressure on advertisers and distribution of attack videos, Eric Burns of the liberal media watchdogs Media Matters claimed Dobbs left because of the campaign.

"I don't think there is any doubt that it was a result - a direct result - of pressure from these groups here today," Burns said.

But Klein said there were as many people expressing support for Dobbs' work than opposition.

"They may be pleased by the outcome," he said, "but they are not responsible for, or played any part in the decision whatsoever."

[Sloughfoot]

Speak out against the influx of criminals enterring this country and the criminal advocate groups call you a racist. Then racist I be!

[BBDenver]

Bye bye Lou, don't let the door hit you out.

[P0STING_AWAY]

I welcome his stance against Illegal mexicans.
They take away from this country far more than they contribute.
Reply to this comment

by dolansprings November 12, 2009 7:08 PM EST
You must live in Arizona. I've never heard so much ranting about the negatives of any race as I hear here in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I live in good old Dallas Tx.

[skyk-2009]

Some people who talk about this issue, regardless of where they live, automatically brand themselves as uneducated Southerners. MOST American's learn in GRADE SCHOOL that this issue has been around for over 200 years and if you were to remove EVERY citizen who is the off spring of an Illegal alien there would be a LOT less faces to meet in the morning. Be it Irish, Polish, German, Italian... on and on the attacks are always the same and always from the same VERY ignorant Right Wing People. Without division and a Wedge Issue they have NOTHING and History clearly shows that to be the fact regardless of Generation.

[chevyhotrod]

skyk,
There is a big difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration.

Most educated people understand the difference, evidently you do not.

[SkirtsLifter]

""...if you were to remove EVERY citizen who is the off spring of an Illegal alien there would be a LOT less faces to meet in the morning.""
by skyk-2009
________________________

This, folks is a red herring, or a canard, if you will. As usual, the libs like Skyk have to resort to blatant use of fallacious arguments. Their stance is so weak they pull out the "Shiny Object" hoping it will distract you from their lunacy.

Trust me Skyk, no one is clamoring for the removal of US citizens from the USA...especially these young offspring that are citizens of the USA.

Where on Earth did you get the idea that "uneducated Southerners" want our citizens removed?

Mouth breather - sheesh.

[jxknowles]

Lou is a pretentious bore with nothing relevant to say. I can watch John King. Cheers to CNN for getting it right.

[bajajohn1]

Dobbs would do well in Klan rally. He should ask for the job of Grand Wizard.

[AndyMaxo]

I always liked watching Lou Dobbs' show. I suppose I never watched his show in a fit of anger as some did - I just watched it like normal.
In other words it's almost as if some devil was in the room with them forcing their finger to change to CNN on the remote while they were screaming "No, Please, don't make me watch Lou Dobbs!".

The activist organizations such as the ones who worked hard to get Lou off the air, are getting better and better at doing what they do.
For example, I'm sitting down here in Florida sometimes watching Lou Dobbs just to see what's got him upset today. Sometimes he confused me as to which side of an issue he was on, but at least he put it out there. And then suddenly, he's gone. Who made him leave? Some miniscule activist groups bombarding CNN management with coordinated endless incoming fire until they get what they want. These people seem invisible to me.
Maybe I'll study up on them and then at the right time, try the same tactics on them. If they can perform "censorship" on my far-away TV set, by removing from my TV something that they don't think I should be viewing, then they become my enemy.
The good news is that it works both ways - in their zeal, they haven't even thought about that possibility yet.

[JoeInBama]

That makes two of us...

[JoeInBama]

I believe that Lou would have agreed with this and so do I...

The End of Democracy in America

Author Unknown

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior. "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage."

The U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and "complacency" phase; with some 46 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

This healthcare monster will push the number of people who are the dependancy phase to over 50%. It will do nothing to encourage those who are already in dependency to provide for themselves, and it will create an entirely new class of dependent voters for Democrats to exploit for decades to come.

Those decades may see the end of our "American Experiment" as it was called by Alexander Tyler in 1787. Nothing less is at stake here.

[AndyMaxo]

Joe, Roll Tide!
The End of Democracy doc you posted is interesting. It tells us where we have been and where we are headed in simple outline form. I wonder what other insights Tyler had along these lines. I'm going to check out more of his works. Thanks for the posting.

[chevyhotrod]

great post joe, amen.........

[garyl615]

200 years my ass... Rome...Greece...200 years my ass!

[averjane]

People don't want to hear the truth so get rid of the guy.

[jaydee102]

"Do not try to define my intensions. Enemy of the State, like Al Quida, radical muslim terrosist. You know the ones you liberials like to protect all the time that want to kill us, you and me?"

Ah - but you should be free to define my intentions? You're suggesting I want to "protect" terrorists (whether muslim or Christian, as in Tim McVeigh)? Geez - that's both silly and juvenile. Wanting to enforce true American ldeals and laws about fair trial, fair jurisprudence (again, that danged Liberalism of the FFs!) is NOT the same as "protecting terrorists". It's protecting America and its Constitution. Sorry of that gets in your way.

"I am not apposed to all taxes, that was Thomas Jefferson. I believe in a FairTax, just not taxes on small portion of it's citizens."

Me too, according to the current needs of the country, as defined by its citizens through fair and free elections. SO - if you're not opposed to taxation, why were you trying to use that in your argument?
" Why would you point out that your not gay? Does that concern you that some might think you are?? Silly...."

Because it's a common tactic of conservatives on these boards to try to undermine a person's defense of, for example, legal immigrants (who often are lumped in with illegals and collectively bashed by conservatives) by saying such things as "you must be a *******, Jose!!" My point is that the only "dog in the hunt" I have with that issue is the same one every liberal has - equal treatment of all citizens under the law.

"Show me where Thomas Jefferson supported a Inheritance Tax? He believe in the right and the freedom to keep what you have earned. Just like the quote I posted. I can post it again if you like?"

No, thanks. It's not my job to post quotes for you - for God's sake, the campaign for the Inheritence Tax was one of Jefferson's most important and most sincere. He felt VERY strongly about protecting the country from monopoly ownership by a small wealthy class. Please, do look it up and read about it. Jefferson explains very well his reasons (better than I could, and much too important for one out-of-context quote), and you will see that worrying about "who are the haves and have nots" in the country did NOT make him a "Marxist" or "Socialist". It made him the best American we had.

""A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

Thomas Jefferson

YES - and the METHOD of that regulation of commerce and industry by We The People was set-up by Jefferseon et al ... through the actions of Congress, which was charged in the Constitution with "the regulation of commerce" - another thing the modern conservative revisionists want you to think governement has "no business" doing. Certainly you can't argue that the conservative supporters of Monopoly, opposition to fair labor practices and fair wages, etc are protecting the "mouth of labor". Perhaps if you actually read these things in books, rather than from selected, edited, out-of-context quotes from dishonest propagandists, you may learn that your true heart is more classically American Liberal than you've been led to believe! Understand, Hilary Clinton does not define liberalism - but Thomas Jefferson most certainly does.

You really should stop the name calling, it's not productive.

[chevyhotrod]

Maybe you are upset that the liberal label has been hijacked by left wing radical socialist, that is not my fault.

I find it funny you cannot quote Jefferson's support of high taxes, you would prefer to have someone else do it for you.

I have quoted Thomas Jefferson in plain English, I will no longer attempt for you see what his intensions were, the American people will have to decide for themselves what he meant.

If anyone would care to read the Federalist Papers they are easy enough to find and spells out what the United State Constitution was meant to represent.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

You can rap yourself around our socialist government all you wish, I am done with you and your propaganda. You are right, Hilary Clinton and Obama do not define liberalism, that I can agree with you, and they are much more associated with the new socialism than liberalism.

Government is the new monopoly that you support good luck with that.

I just pointed out quotes from a great leader and you say I take them out of context??

You should practice what Jefferson preached and read them as they were, instead of trying to define them to your ideology.

You call me a dishonest propaganidist by quoating Thomas Jefferson. Funny how you put it. You sound like the King of England.

I do have many classical liberal beliefs, just not the liberials of today, just like I said in my first post. Key word being "classical", obviously that is not you.

If we had any Classical American Liberals, I would be more than happy to vote for them. Just don't turn Jefferson into a socialist, because he is not.

[chevyhotrod]

jadee,
I found this for you, your quote

"the campaign for the Inheritence Tax was one of Jefferson's most important and most sincere."

Reality;

As defined by the IRS, the Death Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property. The Death Tax mocks the idea of fundamental property rights. By its intrinsic operation, the Death Tax confiscates life-earnings and prevents families from passing a legacy of hard-work and delayed gratification down to the next generation.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the ?The laws of civil society?.give the property of the parent to his family on his death, and in most civilized countries permit him even to give it, by testament, to whom he pleases.?[i] Jefferson understood that government must protect ? not inhibit ? the right to acquire and dispose of property as one chooses. One of Jefferson?s acts as President was to repeal America?s first Death Tax.[ii]

As it turns out, the idea behind the Death Tax was first proposed by the Communist theorist Karl Marx. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx recommended that the government ?abolish all rights of inheritance.?[iii]

Marx did not believe in property rights, and he advocated that government should forcibly break apart family property. It should come as no surprise that Marx is the ideological predecessor to the Death Tax.

The modern American Death Tax was born out of the ?progressive? political ideology which held that government should use tax policy to redistribute property. The Death Tax was intended to ?equalize? wealth by confiscating the life-earnings of ?property owners.?[iv]

The Death Tax stands in stark contrast to the promise of America?s founding that government exists to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.?

[she4bikes]

At times Dobbs made me feel uncomfortable. His political right wing
advocacy should have been left behind in order to not confuse his important points. Remaining politically neutral, I have learned, is always a good policy for advocates.
Dobbs opened my eyes on key issues such as US outsourcing and the need for immigration reform.
I feel he is definitely a 'keeper' and hope he finds a welcoming forum that will allow him to continue pressing his important messages.
I agree that he is truly a hero and hopefully will evolve as an nonpartisan key figure in our country.

[amerilatino]

Lou Dobbs is right on some issues, you can't take that away from him, but I think he has recurrent nightmares in which Joe McCarthy saves him from getting shot by Pancho Villa...

[sleepyric]

It amazes me that people who post here throw around labels like "liberal" and "right wing"...these are modern day flag words just like the N word was (and probably still is in skin head circles) used in the 30s/40s/50s and 60s. Quit labeling everyone and putting them into distinct camps. We are ALL different. Each and every one of us. In so far as the past presidental election. What were our choices really???

[jaydee102]

"But it is understandable as in the footsteps of CBS and NBC(MSNBC), that CNN has unfortunately gone the direction of the leftist liberal agenda"

Joel, Joel. Geez - do ANY of you guys ever read about ANY of the terms you throw around? GW Bush = "amnesty" for illegal aliens, no protection of wage structures, no enforcement against hiring illegals, free reign to corporations to undermine every law the US has to prevent the invasion of under-the-radar workers who can out-compete American workers (to the delight of the Corporate heads, who don't really want to have to pay _anyone_ to work for them). So the GOP, the Bush Administration, and the National Chambers of Commerce have all been busily promoting the "leftist liberal agenda"?!?? Dear God - no wonder conservatives today can't think their way out of a paper bag!! More reading, gentlemen, less TV and talk radio. To the (public) library with ye!!!

[JoeInBama]

Go figure... blame Bush... typical! Yep, he is an evil evil man... The truth lies closer to the fact both sides are to blame for the illegal worker/immigration problem as they all have their hands in the corporate cookie jar. If we actually closed our wide open borders that would be a start to dealing with this issue. Many support this idea on both sides of the aisle but there are also a lot of people in Congress who jsut really don't seem to care because their states don't border any other country. But also the issue of illegals goes to more than just a work problem, it also goes to this atrocity of health care reform "Govt Takeover" and the lefts continuing denial that these changes would cover illegals when the precedent was set by the Supreme Court that will guarantee their coverage both in its ruling in 1970 in Plyer vs. Doe in Texas and also when it struck down California's Prop 187. In both cases it cited that the Court held that: (a) the Constitution protects "persons;" and (b) persons are citizens as well as strangers, people born here and people who end up here, people here lawfully and people here unlawfully; and (c) in the area of social services, whatever benefits the government makes available to the general public cannot be kept away from a class of persons based on their immigration status or that of their parents. In the end illegals will be covered because if this health care plan is passed and enacted the government will have no choice in the matter and they know it. This is due to the fact that under the present law, Congress simply cannot pick and choose which "persons" to whom it will afford social benefits and to which "persons" it will not. The Constitution imposes on the government numerous burdens that we as individuals do not have even if they put in writing in the legislation it will eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court once the validity of the exclusion of illegals is contested. That fact alone makes it a ludacris claim by the left that they are not also contributing to illegals welfare.

And jaydee102 just so you, I am a very well educated person and I am always willing to listen to both sides of a discussion, but I am also capable of forming and defending my own opinions and decisions. GW Bush was not a great President but he was a good President and a good man. He did not always make the right decisions but then what man does... I don't believe that Obama is the devil or anything like that but I also don't believe that the direction that he and the leaders of this country as a whole are going is the right one. There have been good and great leaders both Democrat and Republican but there have been and are some bad ones as well. Proposing and enacting legislation just because you have the votes to get it done is not always the right thing to do and does not always achieve the result that is intended... or maybe it does... if you are a cynical sort of person. Lastly, arguing never gets anyone anywhere. There are way to many on both sides of the fence who believe that the louder they shout the more they will be heard. This couldn't be further from the truth which in my opinion is to be found somewhere in the middle.

[amerilatino]

jaydee, your not gonna convince these folks, they're used to having crooked politicians and clergy tell them that the reason for all their shortcomings and failures lies with the presence of people somehow different from them. Red, Kike and **** are just easy, simple to read, write and pronounce labels that they have been given (among others) to use so they can home in on the targets set up for them to steer them away from the questions that they really should be asking, like "who are you taking money from, Mr. Senator/Governor/Mayor??"

[jaydee102]

"Free Speech Zones" were devised and instituted by the Bush Administration during their second campaign. They were defined when the campaign visited Charleston, SC, by the erection of fenced in areas called BY THE CAMPAIGN "free speech zones" within which, the public was told, we were free to speak our minds on Bush and co. A protester, Brent Bursey, lost a case opposing them (that being, of course, Charleston, a bastion of modern "conservatism"). The fact you are not aware of this is not surprising - being that you don't want to learn about the facts that contradict your doctrine. Look it up. National news sources.

"Obviously you think the government should decide who the have and the have not?s should be. That is not good government, freedom or liberty."

That's not obvious to any intelligent, reasonable person reading my posts. I never said that. You can make up strawmen to "insert" into my statements - that's a classic tool of rhetoric - but they are just that, made-up, and reveal your unwillingness (or unpreparedness) to debate honestly with me.

"To me liberalism of today means Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Marxism end of story."

Ah! Thank you for that - because it shows that you actually have no understanding of what ANY of those terms actually means. BTW, a clue: liberalism is the literal, direct opposite of Communism. Nazism is an extreme RIGHT WING philosophy. You are just another clueless victim of modern propaganda, bad-mouthing the founding principles of your own conutry - that's right, Liberalism - when you don't even know what they really are. That's the REAL "end of story".

[chevyhotrod]

The "Free Speech Zones" were created to allow for free speech not to be interrupted by wacko Code Pink freaks storming the stage and throwing ketchup in people?s faces. Obviously you have taken it in a different direction.

If you allow the government to take from one individual and give it to another without compensation, what would you call it? That is was is going on, and if you cannot see that, then you my friend are intellectually void and are not having an honest debate.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom; worthy of a free man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous"[1]) is the belief in the importance of individual freedom.

I have a complete understanding of what these terms mean. Government control over the wealth and ideas of its citizen to live free from government suppression and oppression. Within the next couple of years our tax rate for Fed, State, local, property and all the misc taxes that are going to be imposed on it's citizen is going to 60-70%. This is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was fighting against. Taxation without representation, where the majority will confiscated the wealth of the few that have earned though hard work and labor.

I have spent that last 30 years trying to make a good living and working 40-70 hours a week to support my family and my communities, now our government is poised it take all of that away, because of people like you.

[JoeInBama]

It is a sad state of affairs for CNN as one of the last voices of reason has found himself unable to continue with the network he helped launch. But it is understandable as in the footsteps of CBS and NBC(MSNBC), that CNN has unfortunately gone the direction of the leftist liberal agenda. He was really the last reason I had for watching CNN as he was not afraid to ask pointed, intelligent questions and was unwilling to just accept or promote an agenda by any particular party without closely scrutinizing it. I am sure that the guy who is now his successor will be more amicable in bending to his companies liberal leanings much to the delight of the Democrazies in this country who like nothing better than to see an upright, honest conservative out of their hair at least for a while... I am sure that FOX will be elated to have him just as they welcomed Glenn Beck when CNN ran him off! Thanks for a lot of great years Lou! Good Luck wherever you wind up and in whatever you do!

[jaydee102]

"It's about the right to a fair trial, the right to a jury of your peers, the right to fair counsel, the right to own private property"This was meant to apply to its citizen's, not enemies of the state.'

I have no idea what you mean by that. If your intention is to define as "enemies of the state" those who are termed so by Fox News - well, redundantly goofy. Seems telling, though, that your goal is to protect "The State". I thought you just said you're opposed to the power of "The State". Which is it?

"Thomas Jefferson was against all taxes, banks and debt and government control. That is why he was one of the founders of this great country."

Ah - your true colors, at last. Opposed to "all taxes"?!? So - our capital building, our highways and roads system, our military, our BORDER PATROL (to get back to the original topic of this thread), and other essential supports to citizenship would all be funded by ..... bake sales? Nonsense. That's why Franklin famously said the only two gurantees in life are death and taxes. Because you HAVE TO have some tax base to have a country - without it, you have simple anarchy. Your true devotion? Liberals are willing to discuss and debate the appropriate levels and uses of taxes (as little as possible in amount, thank you). But the rabid idea of "no taxes" is juvenile at best, sociopathic at worst.

By the way, I do support equal rights for all American citizens (notice I used the words American citizen). I don't support preferential treatment for anyone; we are all equal and should be treated as such.

So you are in support of allowing gay marriage? NOT "preferential treatment" - just the same right every other American has (no, I'm not gay, I just believe in fairness under the law. Radically "liberal", I know)

"Inheritance Tax? Who supports that? Liberals??? "

Yes - and Thomas Jefferson. For the very good reason that Jefferson stated - to prevent a handful of wealthy elite from owning the entire country. As already stated. There's your problem in a nutshell: not enough reading. Too much TV (I guess).

[chevyhotrod]

Do not try to define my intensions. Enemy of the State, like Al Quida, radical muslim terrosist. You know the ones you liberials like to protect all the time that want to kill us, you and me?

You really should avoid attacking a News organization, it's not pretty.

I am not apposed to all taxes, that was Thomas Jefferson. I believe in a FairTax, just not taxes on small portion of it's citizens. I am proud to pay my taxes and I think it is neccessary, just not at +60%, because that is what is coming.

I support gay marriage, if the people vote in favor of it. I just don't like labels "marriage" for example. It's kind of like Coke vs Pepsi, some people want to be called Coke, but they are Pepsi. It's just a label. I support civil unions, and if the people want to change the label to Marraige, so be it, I really don't care. I want the government out of the bedroom period, they do not belong there. Why would you point out that your not gay? Does that concern you that some might think you are?? Silly....

Show me where Thomas Jefferson supported a Inheritance Tax? He believe in the right and the freedom to keep what you have earned. Just like the quote I posted. I can post it again if you like?

""A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

Thomas Jefferson

You really should stop the name calling, it's not productive.

[weewillywonka]

When listening to, or reading the news - one should not be able to tell what the political personal preference of the newscaster/journalist is. Just report the damn news and get on with your miserable life. Don't interpret for me. To this day, I don't know if Walter Cronkite was a Democrat or a Republican - because he just reported the news. This is sorely lacking in the media today.

[chevyhotrod]

"I don't know if Walter Cronkite was a Democrat or a Republican"

You have got to be kidding, get a brain, everyone else knows where Walter was coming from, you can't you?

[mjlewis6]

To see the good in people, you do not need to invoke evil for their response. Likewise, if you do good with them, and see good in them, whatever evil there is in the world is much diminished.

[mjlewis6]

To see the good in people, you do not need to invoke evil for their response. Likewise, if you do good with them, and see good in them, whatever evil there is in the world is much diminished.

[jaydee102]

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth"
Modern Liberalism is not opposed to the right to bear arms. That's more Faux News brainwashing for the foolish. Many of my ardently liberal friends are armed to the teeth. I, too, support the 2nd ammendment. This whole fake argument is based, once again, on Conservatism's desire to inflict historical amnesia on Americans. The current state of affairs, which includes a regular battle to _control_ the numbers and sizes of armaments in the US, resulted from the 1920's era, when no such laws existed, and police and even the army were REGULARLY out-gunned by mobsters and criminals.Is that the status quo the conservative movement wants to return to? IF so, shouldn't it honestly be labeled the "anarchist" movement?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company."

(Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, Frank Marshall Davis, Van Jones & Anitta Dunn all come to mind)

Citing and quoting a small handful of exceptions is not good journalism, nor honest debate. Your score for that one: F

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

And yet, all of the Founding Fathers supported the idea of a stable government. Apparently you don't. Again - are you a conservative, or at heart an anarchist?

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

(Can you say "Fairness Doctrine"?)

The Founding Fathers were in agreement in their support of copyright and patent laws (Frankin even held lots of patents). If you are not - again, maybe you're really an anarchist. BTW - "freedom of speech"? You're kindding, right? (see earlier comment on conservative "Free Speech Zones".

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

A statement supporting INDIVIDUAL freedom of speech -within the context of Jefferson's statement that "it is our intention to create A WALL of seperation between church and state". Supporting individual freedom of religion does not = supporting the use of public funds to force one majority religion on all citizens.

As to the comments from "tolstoy" - your "freedom of religion" does NOT include, and never has included, the right to use public funds - tax money collected from American citizens of Jewish, muslim, Christian, Buddhist, atheist, and lots of other philosophies - to promote YOUR religion on public property. It protects your right to practice on your own and other private property. If you don't like that - perhaps you like the idea of opening sessions of Congress with muslim prayers to Allah from now on? As for "the unborn" - though I am personally opposed to abortion on demand, the concept of "the rights of the unborn" is as the "rights of spermatazoa, the rights of T-cells, and the rights of genes" still caught up in the early stages of scientific debate. Live with it.

[chevyhotrod]

You pass judgment and call me names? "anarchist", once you revert to name calling you lose, typical liberal.

I believe in good government, which by that I mean a small and fugal government.

I am not a Christian, I believe in separation of church and state.

Most of my friends label me a libertarian, not a conservative as you have done. I not much for labels like you liberals are.

Your "Free Speech Zone" is liberal made up piece of garbage to try and win an argument. Just because some liberal quotes something I am supposed to believe it? I have never seen a "Free Speech Zone", please show me one, but I very dought you can, because they do not exist, or maybe you can, in some liberial college somewhere they don't like conservatives.

I am quite aware of copyright and patent laws, just filed a patent yesterday, and I have 25 more in the patent office already. It's a great thing, you should try it someday.

My father is a Free Mason, Arm Ranger and Civil Engineer and a great man and he always taught me that I make my own path and whatever I have, I have to earn it. Obviously you think the government should decide who the have and the have not?s should be. That is not good government, freedom or liberty.

To me liberalism of today means Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Marxism end of story.

[chevyhotrod]

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company."

George Washington

(Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, Frank Marshall Davis, Van Jones & Anitta Dunn all come to mind)

"Citing and quoting a small handful of exceptions is not good journalism, nor honest debate. Your score for that one: F"

I do not consider spending 20 years in a church that preaches hate to be a small exception. Rev. Wright was his friend, his pasture, his mentor, married him and baptized his children. All the others have been associates with him for almost 2 decades. I can name allot more if you wish, the list goes on and on.

Who ever gave you the right to judge/grade me? Typical Liberal...

I guess you get to decide what is honest debate and what isn't? Typical liberal...


If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

George Washington

(Can you say "Fairness Doctrine"?)

The Founding Fathers were in agreement in their support of copyright and patent laws (Frankin even held lots of patents). If you are not - again, maybe you're really an anarchist. BTW - "freedom of speech"? You're kindding, right? (see earlier comment on conservative "Free Speech Zones".

What does copyright and patent law have to do with the "Fairness Doctrine". Makes not sense.

"Modern Liberalism is not opposed to the right to bear arms"

Better tell that to all your liberal friends in congress, because they don't get it like you do.