Maybe, but they shouldn't be censored for any of it. Free speech is free speech.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Michael Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, maybe the word thug is incorrect. > > How about: deceivers, fibbers, fabricators, equivocators? Or are they just > cheating, > double-dealing; underhanded, crafty, cunning, devious, treacherous, unfair, > unjust, dirty, > unethical, immoral, dishonorable, untrustworthy, unscrupulous, > unprincipled, amoral, > false, untruthful, deceitful, deceiving, lying, mendacious, crooked, hinky, > shady, tricky, > sharp, shifty or more literary: perfidious? > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Robyn Tippins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I'm also a 'stakeholder' by that regard and I am for McCain. I wouldn't > > call Obama, nor his campaign, a thug, no do I consider McCain, nor his > > campaign to be a thug. We learn by seeing all the viewpoints and I > wouldn't > > want Obama's speech hampered in any way. How can I be proud to win if it > > came at the high cost of someone else's liberty/freedom? > > Politics is divisive, and many of us are never going to agree, but I > support > > Obama's right (and smart) use of new media, as I support McCain's (though > > his use of new media is usually less inspired). > > > > Agree to disagree. > > > > Robyn > > -- > > Robyn Tippins > > 510-579-5558 cell > > Community Manager, Yahoo! Developer Network > > Sleepyblogger.com | Gamingandtech.com | twitter: duzins > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
