To those who claim to just be honoring the full name of Barack Obama

I want to thank you for giving the man the courtesy and respect he deserves, and give you the same by addressing you by your full name.

So thank you, Bull “Fucking” Shitters. Thank you.

I believe in some things

Including the right to not tell you what they are, and not have to ponder them. My beliefs are so strong (sometimes), that I'd push you under a bus to protect them. You'll not die in vain, but because of dispassionate enthusiasm.

"That'll kill millions"!

At least I got mine, and that's priceless.

Ralph Nader’s Running: Accept it.

I neither hate or love him; I am indifferent toward him. But I do believe in his right to run for the Office Of President. Yet I know, because ultimate responsibility means nothing to the unwaveringly arrogant, some Democrats and independents will blame him if he splits their votes and costs the Democrats the White House, and many Republicans will thank him for having that potential affect. Well, here’s a lesson in civics, and it’s simple as hell: He has the right to run, and neither the affects on the Democrats, for the defeat his presence may bring them, or the Republicans, for the victory his presence may provide them, have any relevance to his right as an American Citizen, which supercedes the baseless right assumed by the two major parties and independents to win the Presidency.

Nader is doing nothing wrong. If the Democrats lose, it’s the fault of the Party for not persuading their members to remain loyal, independents to side with them, and Republicans to change sides.
Lesson over.

Altruism and intellectual honesty

Is it just me, or do people often make pious proclamations, but give little, if any, acknowledgement, of the possibility that their beliefs could result, either directly or by making the conditions more amenable, in suffering? I'm not saying hypothetical negative consequences should force you to change your mind, but that it doesn't invalidate your beliefs to admit bad things could come from them.

Alan Colmes and John McCain

Alan Colmes, often assailed by some liberals, could revel in the discord among conservatives and Republicans over John McCain’s apparently inevitable nomination as the Republican Presidential Nominee, but he’s chosen to not act as his detractors on the left and has, instead, defended the veracity of John McCain’s record of conservatism. While it’s impossible to read Colmes’ mind and reason for doing so, it should be acknowledged that, like some conservatives on McCain, some of those of his own ideology have taken to appointing themselves final judge of all things liberal. Alan and McCain share in being victims to ideological cannibalism, and Colmes, at least, has not joined in the feasting of McCain.

Free Speech! You shouldn't say that.

Insults, even recommendations to be quiet, are generally not violations of your free speech, as opinions you should be silent are examples of free speech expression; although they are immature, so, too, are insults.
But if those recommendations become demands, and if you are treated with frequent abuse by those making them, during conversations, debates, etc., than they are, in principle, violations of your free speech rights, as such behavior prevents you from expressing yourself as readily as you should be able to.

There are differences in meaning between 'should' and 'cannot' or, conversely, 'have to.'

Limitations on government aside, the arguable exception to this forgiving generality is when the persons expressing these opinions of you have legal or well-recognized authority over you which you and others might reasonably see as adverse to your welfare and self interest to stand against, i. e., the person is abusing his authority over you, therefor he is preventing your free speech rights through intimidation. I say arguable because it must be asked if the person of authority should have his free speech limited by a concern about the recourse he might take against you, assumed by his status and capacity, as opposed to his character. But the generality inherently holds true in most cases. Afterall, you are not subordinate to everyone, are you?

As for which is worse: being told to shut up, for it proposes no speech at all, not even crass speech.

Occasional insults, etc., are not automatic violations of your free speech rights.