Political Punch

Also do not change the story like you libs love to do - see it is about whether the libs running for President should be associated with this hate filled website 'daily kos' not whether the site has the right to exist.

O'Reilly is not Conservative.

Now here is the info - Because someone does not agree with a Lib does not make it hate speech. next item, when someone speaks the truth does not make it hate.

I find it funny that you call O'Reilly a right winger, because he states facts, so are you saying that only right wing people give the facts?

Am I the only one amused by the idea that Bill O, or anyone other right wing propagnadist complaining about hate speach?

Other Ed - What so called right winged sites do you look at, see left wing websites love Stalin and love hate. Left wing hate site out number right wing site in whole by 9 to 1

First - It is fine for free speech, but the creator of this website is a hatred spewing individual.

The question not of the free speech, but should these candidates support it, and the answer there is no. See knowing that this site is a hate spewing the candidates should not meet with them period. But then again the libs are hate spewing individuals.

As long as a website's policy of not reviewing, editing, or removing user posts is clear and applied consistently, no one should hold the website accountable for the views voiced in those posts. Of course, the risk that the website runs is that people won't want to visit because of the possibility that offensive material will be posted.

I'm not certain there's a winner of this argument, because anyone can be offended, or at least claim to be offended, at almost anything nowadays. In my view, I think both sides are partly correct: Mr. O'Reilly for insisting that personal attacks (like "I wish you would die.") are utterly inappropriate; Mr. Wolfson for pointing out that "cherry-picking" comments from a site doesn't give a fair view of that website.

But Mr. O'Reilly goes on to undermine his own argument against personal attacks by engaging in them himself. Mr. Wolfson's argument is weakened by the overly complex policy of DailyKos which allows tasteless comments to remain posted.

Civil discourse should ALWAYS be civil. To borrow from Voltaire, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" provided you do so in a civil, respectful manner. No namecalling, false generalizations, personal attacks, distortions of another's views or opinions allowed!

What is with Clinton advisors meeting with O'Reilly --- doesn't that sound a little like Joe Lieberman in a skirt??? and look what he did to the voters in Connecticut.

Oh O!! Hillary is really running the General Election, and not the primaries at all -- she assumes it is all sewn up!!

The O’Reilly controversy is about extremist and threatening hate postings, not the “f-word” and I concede that left leaning blogs may not be as concerned with Carlin’s 7 words as the right. But if you look for threats to injure, harm, kill, exterminate, execute, imprison, expel from the country and other types of extreme political intimidation against people expressing an opposing point of view, RightWing sites easily blow away LeftWing sites.

I’m sorry if our foul language offends you, but I do support your right to live, speak, express a political view and not be imprisoned for disagreeing with me. I wish the Right would extend me the same rights.