posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 08:47 AM
"What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold - but that
the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious
alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike," he said.
"One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility.
And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have."
A separate but same themed article that doesn't include Clinton:
I see this as a all too obvious sign of things to come.
If you listen to Clinton's interviews he already knows what peoples responses will be. He tries to negate them by in one sentence saying we should
have dissent and in the next saying we shouldn't. They always follow this same pattern. I think blah blah blah blah " BUT "
blah blah blah
blah. Usually the second statement after the " BUT "
is the exact opposite of what they said before the " BUT "
. Rest assured, they
will always quantify their statement with a " BUT "
. That way they can have it both ways when they are called on it and they have wiggle
There is no evidence of Bill Clinton ever saying this about organizations or mouthpieces of organizations such as Code Pink, MoveOn.org, recreate68 or
any of the other very numerous organizations that would attack Bush's agenda on a regular basis. Where was he then? If he feels so compelled to speak
about this where is his consistency?
The reason is their message is not dissent. That is, it does not differ from his or Obama's own message and therefore does not not need controlling.
Dissenting language from organizations like the tea party and the people backing them up apparently are being labeled "irresponsible" because it
runs counter to their message and endangers their socialist agenda.
Is this the beginning of a campaign by the Obama administration to implement regulations on talk radio and blogs ( using Clinton as a tool ) in an
attempt to squash dissenting language? What will that mean for posters on sites like ATS? Will there be thought police sent after people that are
posting dissenting information and messages and charge them with not living up to the responsibility of supporting their beloved leaders agenda?
[edit on 19-4-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]