The War Against Dissent (Simon Haupt)
XRodriguez
criticism, writes SIMON HOUPT. But are they sacrificing the very freedom
they are defending?
By SIMON HOUPT
Saturday, October 6, 2001 Print Edition, Page R1 (Toronto) Globe and Mail
NEW YORK -- When two airliners smashed into the twin towers of the World
Trade Center last month, writer Susan Sontag was in Berlin, glued to CNN,
the only U.S. newscast she could receive. In the 40 hours that followed, she
watched a parade of military and political experts stroll across the screen,
apparently united in their convictions over the causes of and solutions to
the terrorist attacks.
"It was amazing: To see Richard Holbrooke, Madeleine Albright, Henry
Kissinger -- they all can't stand each other -- to see them all come on and
say exactly the same thing? It made me laugh!" Sontag said in an interview.
"So I said: Why can't there be some debate?"
Stuck in Berlin by the closure of American airports, Sontag was asked by The
New Yorker to contribute to the magazine's first Talk of the Town section
published after the attacks. This is what she wrote: "The unanimity of the
sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and
media commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature
democracy."
Noting that U.S. President George W. Bush had said the terrorists were
cowards, she submitted, "if the word 'cowardly' is to be used, it might be
more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation,
high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill
others . . . whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's
slaughter, they were not cowards."
The magazine hit newsstands in New York on Sept. 17. That night, 4,000
kilometres across the country in a Los Angeles television studio,
Politically Incorrect host Bill Maher began his first show after the attacks
with a tribute to one of those killed the previous week. Conservative pundit
Barbara Olson had been en route from Washington to L.A. to promote her new
book on the show when her plane was flown into the Pentagon. Sitting a few
feet from a seat left empty in memory of Olson, Maher echoed Sontag's words.
"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away,
that's cowardly," he said. "Staying in the airplane when it hits the
building, say what you want about it, that's not cowardly."
Yikes. Maher is a contract provocateur, willing to say just about anything
for ratings, and in the past advertisers have jauntily supported his
schoolyard taunts. Coming so soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, however, his
comments were considered hurtful and unbecoming for a man employed by ABC
Networks, which is owned by Disney.
The day after the broadcast, FedEx pulled its ads in protest, followed by
Sears Roebuck. As Maher tried desperately to spin his words, TV stations
around the country began pulling Politically Incorrect from their airwaves.
Even after Maher offered an outright apology, as many as 17 stations briefly
dropped the show.
It was becoming apparent that the American public was in no mood to hear any
criticism of the country or its leader.
Sontag was back in New York by this time, receiving anonymous threats and
not so anonymous attacks for voicing her opinion. The New Yorker offices
were deluged with letters of complaint and Sontag was pilloried in the pages
of dozens of newspapers and political weeklies by the usual cast of
curmudgeonly columnists. A senior editor at The New Republic grouped Sontag
in with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, characterizing her as someone
who wants America's global power to be dismantled.
On the Fox News Channel, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., a
retired U.S. Army colonel suggested that any criticism of America's
impending war on terrorism might be considered treasonous.
Less than one week after the World Trade Center attack, posters appeared in
bus shelters and telephone booths around the country with the vow: "United
We Stand." Millions of flags now flutter from lawns, rooftops, window ledges
and car aerials. In words and deeds, Americans are declaring: "United We
Speak."
Dissent has all but disappeared.
"It's all preposterous," Sontag said this week. "I'm stunned by the
reaction, because it tells something about the mood of the country. I find
that prevalence of group-think absolutely extraordinary. I find it
extraordinary that the press secretary of the President of the United States
would say people have to watch what they say as well as what they do. That
sends chills up and down my spine. If I take it seriously as a turn in the
spirit of the country, I would be much more alarmed, but I hope that's not
true.
"I just said something elementary and old-fashioned American. It's very
depressing to see how scared people are to say anything except to read from
this script. If I think that it is the beginning of a new age in which
essentially freedom of speech is only something we afford in prosperous and
calm times, then I would say that is the end of the United States of America
being a country that I admire."
Sontag might not be interested in hearing, then, that Americans have always
been quick to sacrifice freedom of speech in anxious times.
"It's part of the landscape," said Thomas McCoy, a law professor at
Vanderbilt University who specializes in the First Amendment. "When there's
a national crisis, particularly a war situation, you find widespread
attempts to suppress unpopular or inconvenient viewpoints."
The strongest condemnation of unpopular viewpoints in the wake of the Sept.
11 attacks came from presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer, who chastised
Maher from the bully pulpit of the White House briefing room.
"All Americans . . . need to watch what they say, watch what they do," said
Fleischer. ". . . This is not a time for remarks like that. It never is."
The chilling effect of his comment wasn't diminished by the fact that he was
also referring to a racist remark by a Louisiana Republican congressman.
While the First Amendment prevents government from clamping down on critical
speech, private companies are free to censure their employees at whim.
Nothing in law precludes ABC from cancelling Politically Incorrect if the
network suddenly decides Maher's politically incorrect speech is more a
liability than an asset.
If they choose, advertisers may back out of sponsoring the publication of
opinions with which they or their audience disagree, as FedEx did.
Maher's comments brought "numerous general complaints," according to FedEx
spokesman Jim McCluskey. "There's an environment there where words should be
guarded carefully and there should be appropriate sensitivity to
circumstances as they exist." McCluskey offered this odd assessment of a
core American value: "I don't think freedom of speech is really at issue.
It's just the nature in which free speech is used."
Unusually, it's not just critics of the Bush administration who are being
censured. Ann Coulter, a bellicose right-wing columnist, declared on Sept.
13 that she had the solution to the terrorist threat from Islamic
extremists.
"We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and
dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and
convert them to Christianity," she wrote in a column carried on the National
Review's Web site.
After writing two incendiary follow-up pieces that editors chose not to run,
Coulter griped -- as it happens, on Politically Incorrect -- that she was
being censored. Turns out she'd spoken too soon: Coulter was dropped by
National Review only after those public complaints upset her editors.
In widely publicized incidents, two other writers were fired last month
after they criticized the actions George W. Bush took in the early hours
after the terrorist attacks.
Dan Guthrie, a columnist and copy editor at The Daily Courier in the small
town of Grants Pass, Ore., said he was fired after writing that Bush
"skedaddled" and hid out "in a Nebraska hole," waiting for the danger to
pass. At the Texas City Sun, city editor Tom Gutting was fired for voicing
similar sentiments. The paper's editor and publisher Les Daughtry Jr.
announced Gutting's dismissal in a front-page apology.
"Tom's column was so offensive to me personally that I had a hard time
getting all the way through it, and in fact, still feel ill from its effects
as I write this," Daughtry wrote. He concluded: "May God bless President
George W. Bush and other leaders. And God bless America!"
Newly wary of the sensibilities of their audiences and the pressing need to
maintain sources as the pipeline for information gets squeezed, many
journalists are holding back from asking tough questions of the
administration. Immediately after the attacks, some news anchors and many
local reporters donned red-white-and-blue flag pins, while a number of
networks replaced their usual logos with American flags or
red-white-and-blue renditions of the logos. A senior vice-president at the
Fox News Channel said the network was proud to fly a waving American flag on
screen.
"I'd sure prefer that to a hammer and sickle, I'll tell you that," Rick
Moody said, as if those were the only two choices. "I think that there's
some patriotism on camera now, and I think inasmuch as TV news often
reflects America's mood at any given moment, that's what it's doing now."
To be sure, the media's goose-stepping disappoints some Americans.
"Our media, it's so pathetic and embarrassing," said the film director and
left-wing rabble-rouser Michael Moore. Normally a frequent guest on
cable-news shows, Moore says he hasn't been called to appear on any American
TV stations since the attacks.
"I've been called by the CBC, BBC, ABC in Australia," he said in an
interview. "I've been on the nightly newscast of every Western country,
practically, and I've not had a single call from the American networks. . .
. Because I'm going to go on there and say the things they don't want to
hear. I'm going to be off message. I'm not going to sing with the chorus.
And the media is part of the chorus now. They're wearing their ribbons and
they're not being objective journalists and they're not presenting all
sides.
"The media has always given in to the government," Moore insisted. "In the
early years of Vietnam, the media was all behind it. They didn't switch
until Walter Cronkite took off his glasses," and made his famous "Stalemate"
broadcast in February, 1968, in which he suggested that the war might be
unwinnable. "It took four years for the first media person to say, 'This is
wrong,' " Moore said.
Recently, Moore was told that his publishers at HarperCollins (which is,
like Fox News Channel, owned by Rupert Murdoch) would hold off on
distributing his newest book. Entitled Stupid White Men and Other Sorry
Excuses for the State of the Nation -- with such chapter titles as Kill
Whitey, A Very American Coup and Idiot Nation -- the book was supposed to
hit stores a few days ago in a sizable print run of 100,000. Last he heard,
Moore said, the company is considering pulping the books.
"My problems pale in comparison to [the victims of the attacks and their
families], so I'm not whining about it. I'm just saying this is a time when
writers and artists need to really act with courage, stand up, say the
things that they need to say, and trust that there's enough of the American
public that will hear what you're saying."
On Sept. 12, Moore posted a diary entry on his Web site, MichaelMoore.com,
suggesting that perhaps the U.S. didn't have the moral authority to decry
the activities of terrorists.
"We abhor terrorism -- unless we're the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid
and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who
killed more than 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me. Thirty
thousand murdered civilians and who the hell even remembers! We fund a lot
of oppressive regimes that have killed a lot of innocent people, and we
never let the human suffering THAT causes interrupt our day one single bit."
The response? Moore says his site is getting more than one million hits per
week.
"People are desperate," he says. "They're looking for alternative sources of
information." Since the attacks, he has received more than 70,000 e-mails.
Most of them are supportive but he acknowledges that many are not. "The tone
of the hate mail that I've received is as vicious and violent as it's ever
been toward me, in terms of threatening to kill me and do other things to
me."
Clearly, the American people are in no mood for speech that might challenge
their certainties. Thursday night on Politically Incorrect, political
cartoonist Dan Rall was roundly booed when he reminded the audience that
George W. Bush's victory in November's presidential election was still
unresolved. "That's so Sept. 10th," scolded a patronizing Bill Maher. "It
really is."
The impulse to clamp down on critical speech isn't new. In 1918, with
American troops dying in Europe, socialist Eugene Debs was charged and
convicted under the war-time Espionage Act for protesting the First World
War. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and disenfranchised, losing his
citizenship for life. (Debs still managed to run for president from prison
on the Socialist ticket and earn about one million votes.)
During the Red Scare of the 1940s and '50s, which Senator Joseph McCarthy
masterfully exploited, public fear of Communists in America was so strong
that the Harvard sociologist Samuel Stouffer found two-thirds of people
polled in 1954 said a Communist shouldn't be permitted to speak. Sixty per
cent said an atheist shouldn't be permitted to speak.
"The Cold War was viewed as a major national crisis," said Prof. McCoy, "so
any dissenters were being dragged before the House Un-American Activities
Committee and fired from their jobs in Hollywood and universities.
"It just seems that when we feel the need to pull together against a common
enemy, our normal American tolerance for dissent is a casualty of that felt
need to pull together."
In a nation that haughtily markets itself to the rest of the world as a
haven for free speech, why is dissent regarded as unpatriotic, as
un-American, during times of crisis?
Moore thinks it's something in the national character of Americans. He is
censoring himself in publishing comments that might prove hurtful to the
twin-tower victims -- one of his friends was on the plane that slammed into
the south tower -- but he is trying to understand how the tragedy occurred.
"I still can't get out of my head how three guys with box cutters keep 90
people at bay. And yet I don't want to blame the victims for not doing
anything. But what is it in us -- they cut one person's throat, we watch one
person die and then we're paralyzed with fear? What is that?"
Moore is trying to tread carefully, but he believes the national character
is revealed in both the media's obsequiousness and the apparently passive
behaviour of the passengers on at least two of the planes. "We're a nation
that is very weak-kneed and very weak-willed, and we talk a big harrumph,
alright?"
Sontag chalks up the need for unanimity to something else. "It's a kind of
magical thinking that's similar, I suppose, to what's keeping people off
airplanes. No one wants to take an airplane now . . . they're all empty,
they've all become jinxed, and in the same way there is a kind of magical
thinking that if we all just put out our flags and say exactly the same
thing, we're safer. I don't understand it."
Prof. McCoy doesn't understand it, either, but he can appreciate the
inherent irony. "In the course of banding together to defend what we believe
in, we have a tendency to sacrifice one of the core beliefs that we're
defending. That is ironic, but it is an observable fact."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2001 Globe Interactive, a division of Bell Globemedia Publishing
Inc.
Christopher Robin
One thing that I found positively amazing (and then after thinking about it
for a while (im a slow thinker) positively scary) is that what you see and
hear in the US is so different to the media in the rest of the world.
I have a few friends (or did have before I aired my views) in the US and we
compared news coverage of specific parts of the 'attack on america' and the
US public just wasn't getting the same coverage of specific things as we do
in Australia.
I know our media isn't perfect as it is run for the sole purpose of making
money but at least we get a broader perspective. I then started to quiz
these 'friends' about what they knew about US foreign policy over the last
couple of decades and they knew absolutely nothing about what I was talking
about.
One accused me of being a liar and an anti-semite (I am as anti-semitic as
I am anti-islamic) and one threatened to kill me when I pointed out that
Iraq was being bombed still on a regular basis.
CR
James A. Donald
On 7 Oct 2001 06:50:44 -0700, j...@etaoin.com (XRodriguez)
wrote:
> As Americans unite behind their flag, they are in no mood
> to tolerate criticism, writes SIMON HOUPT. But are they
> sacrificing the very freedom they are defending?
Accoirding to the commies we "sacrifice freedom" by
disagreeing with them.
None of those who published in major capitalist magazines, or
on capitalist owned television, supporting the bombing of the
trade towers have been jailed or forcefully prevented from
speaking. They have merely discovered that fewer are
interested in listening, which to them is censorship.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
kZcmi1Bwqq+nLYDhsHhmJ9s2R6cEifEV0Dnh6g5E
4UOjTHCHaPgu4ifh0k2FL2XXBuvRXl71ouVBJZ+LB
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Stan Rothwell
Nevertheless, there is no "war against dissent" in terms of
opposing voices being suppressed. What the Left in this
country is experiencing is a massive public opinion shift
against them on military and immigration issues. The fact
that they don't have control of the discourse is making them
go nuts...
"XRodriguez" <j...@etaoin.com> wrote in message
news:8efbd971.01100...@posting.google.com...
Stan Rothwell
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:3bc4968f...@east.usenetserver.com...
> --
> On 7 Oct 2001 06:50:44 -0700, j...@etaoin.com (XRodriguez)
> wrote:
>
> > As Americans unite behind their flag, they are in no mood
> > to tolerate criticism, writes SIMON HOUPT. But are they
> > sacrificing the very freedom they are defending?
>
> Accoirding to the commies we "sacrifice freedom" by
> disagreeing with them.
>
> None of those who published in major capitalist magazines, or
> on capitalist owned television, supporting the bombing of the
> trade towers have been jailed or forcefully prevented from
> speaking. They have merely discovered that fewer are
> interested in listening, which to them is censorship.
I find it funny that the same Lefty Liberals who throw around
various and sundry accusations to silence their critics are now
finding that they are the ones being dismissed as holding
"politically incorrect" views, and they are becoming hysterical.
I has the opportunity to observe a rally in San Francisco last
weekend, and witness them in action. To start with, they are
trying to make this into a race issue when it isn't, and it doesn't
seem to be working very well - most of the protesters being
white "politically active" types, the ones who show up for any
demonstration, regardless of the cause. In addition, they can't
even get their own constituency that excited about this, so
they have to tie it in with their other collective grievances -
such as gay rights, homelessness, and health care. However,
the public at large is finally getting a good look at these fringe
types, and reallizing what they are about - the parading of
grievances (real or imagined) to get attention.
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
wrote:
>Accoirding to the commies we "sacrifice freedom" by
>disagreeing with them.
Still chanting that same line, after all these years. Has it ever
occurred to you that someone can love freedom, can love making money
and being able to say whatever they want and all the other great stuff
that living in America gets them without loving Dubya?
You sacrifice freedom by not speaking up for their right to speak
their mind, even though you don't agree with it. In my opinion, if you
believe in free speech, you believe in free speech specifically for
views you hate.
>None of those who published in major capitalist magazines, or
>on capitalist owned television, supporting the bombing of the
>trade towers have been jailed or forcefully prevented from
>speaking. They have merely discovered that fewer are
>interested in listening, which to them is censorship.
Fair enough. Could you please provide a quote where any one of these
journalists has supported the actions of 9/11? I'm keen to know,
because I'll join the chorus of people who hate them and want to see
them dead. I'll send a little death threat of my own, straight from my
heart.
But it is true, there's been no government action against these
people. But on the other hand, who runs things these days? Seems to me
it ain't the government anymore...
peace.
------------------------------------------------
"It is a tribute to the American people that our
leaders perceived that they had to lie to us. It
is not a tribute to us that we were so easily
misled."
-Daniel Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers
------------------------------------------------
HempFarmer
> Talk of the Town section published after the attacks. This is what
> she wrote: "The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing
> rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in
> recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy."
"Wanted Dead or Alive," is 'reality-concealing'?
Law-Student-Dave
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9pq67n$7ak$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> You're the umpteenth person who has posted this article.
> Nevertheless, there is no "war against dissent" in terms of
> opposing voices being suppressed. What the Left in this
> country is experiencing is a massive public opinion shift
> against them on military and immigration issues. The fact
> that they don't have control of the discourse is making them
> go nuts...
I don't think it is appropriate to try to categorize this into the
Left-wing/Right-wing dichotomy. What is at issue is whether people like
Maher, and the columnist, who are chosen and paid to voice their opinions,
can suddenly be silenced by corporations (i.e., both sponsors and
broadcasters). I think these corp.'s have a duty to ensure minority
opinions get attention, especially broadcasters, if they are going to claim
to be providing the American people with a full account of this story.
Crockett
Law-Student-Dave
"HempFarmer" <hfa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BC0B274...@hotmail.com...
I think the reality which is allegedly being concealed is that of the
importance of American government's foreign policy on the events of 911.
More specifically if you prefer, Bush and other senior politicians said bin
Laden and his followers acted out of hatred for freedom and envy of American
wealth. I think that these statements are "reality-concealing."
Ben Horowitz
> One accused me of being a liar and an anti-semite (I am as anti-semitic as
> I am anti-islamic) and one threatened to kill me when I pointed out that
> Iraq was being bombed still on a regular basis.
I doubt that your anti-Semitism scratches the underbelly of your anti
Americanism. If Osama Bin Laden were to murder your son and your
neighbor should react by observing that your wife was a whore and a bad
mother, I wouldn't blame you if you should give him a swift kick in the
crotch.
Since not everyone subscribes to the belief that America (or your wife)
is the source of all evil, don't be surprised when people react
adversely when you go
off on one of your poorly timed rants.
pez
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
$ You're the umpteenth person who has posted this article.
$ Nevertheless, there is no "war against dissent" in terms of
$ opposing voices being suppressed. What the Left in this
$ country is experiencing is a massive public opinion shift
$ against them on military and immigration issues. The fact
$ that they don't have control of the discourse is making them
$ go nuts...
$
$
plus we are seeing the usa hating nature of the left in clear focus.
This will hurt them
Stan Rothwell
"Law-Student-Dave" <daveycro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Hy2w7.5832$dO3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:9pq67n$7ak$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > You're the umpteenth person who has posted this article.
> > Nevertheless, there is no "war against dissent" in terms of
> > opposing voices being suppressed. What the Left in this
> > country is experiencing is a massive public opinion shift
> > against them on military and immigration issues. The fact
> > that they don't have control of the discourse is making them
> > go nuts...
>
> I don't think it is appropriate to try to categorize this into the
> Left-wing/Right-wing dichotomy. What is at issue is whether people like
> Maher, and the columnist, who are chosen and paid to voice their opinions,
> can suddenly be silenced by corporations (i.e., both sponsors and
> broadcasters).
The right to free speech does not include the obligation of others
to provide a forum for them. There is a difference.
> I think these corp.'s have a duty to ensure minority
> opinions get attention, especially broadcasters, if they are going to
claim
> to be providing the American people with a full account of this story.
So do all other organizations also have a right to provide such
a forum for those who disagree with their policies? I see a
certain hyposcrisy on the Left, as those who have been pushing
Politically Correct speech codes are now upset that public
opinion has turned against them. Once again, nobody is saying
that you can't voice your opinion. However, a lot of people
ARE saying that we have no obligation to listen to what certain
people have to say. Learn to live with it.
pez
<hfa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
$ > Stuck in Berlin by the closure of American airports, [Susan] Sontag
$ > was asked by The New Yorker to contribute to the magazine's first
$ > Talk of the Town section published after the attacks. This is what
$ > she wrote: "The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing
$ > rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in
$ > recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy."
$
$ "Wanted Dead or Alive," is 'reality-concealing'?
We have been crystal clear
Maybe they assume everybody lies like they do
pez
"Law-Student-Dave" <daveycro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
$ "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
$ news:9pq67n$7ak$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
$ > You're the umpteenth person who has posted this article.
$ > Nevertheless, there is no "war against dissent" in terms of
$ > opposing voices being suppressed. What the Left in this
$ > country is experiencing is a massive public opinion shift
$ > against them on military and immigration issues. The fact
$ > that they don't have control of the discourse is making them
$ > go nuts...
$
$ I don't think it is appropriate to try to categorize this into the
$ Left-wing/Right-wing dichotomy. What is at issue is whether people like
$ Maher, and the columnist, who are chosen and paid to voice their opinions,
$ can suddenly be silenced by corporations (i.e., both sponsors and
$ broadcasters).
Gee the left likes doing that remember Dr. Laura?????????????????????
I think these corp.'s have a duty to ensure minority
$ opinions get attention, especially broadcasters, if they are going to claim
$ to be providing the American people with a full account of this story.
No they don't.
$
$ Crockett
Ben Horowitz
> $ You're the umpteenth person who has posted this article.
> $ Nevertheless, there is no "war against dissent" in terms of
> $ opposing voices being suppressed. What the Left in this
> $ country is experiencing is a massive public opinion shift
> $ against them on military and immigration issues. The fact
> $ that they don't have control of the discourse is making them
> $ go nuts...
pez wrote:
> plus we are seeing the usa hating nature of the left in clear focus.
> This will hurt them
Watching the left contort itself into a pretzel while
they try to spin the facts into a narrative that fits the
"America-is-the-source-of-all-evil" mould is more fun than
watching a game of Twister.
Ben Horowitz
> Bush and other senior politicians said bin
> Laden and his followers acted out of hatred for freedom and envy of
> American wealth.
... like the freedom to travel to the Arabian Peninsula and the
freedom to assemble with muslims there?
johnnyCjohnny
news:3BC0C22D...@earthlink.com...
You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free speech rights
trampled in a mad wave of patriotism. Regardless of the sins that the left
has commited in the past, I find it chilling to see people who have the guts
to voice differing opinions from the mainstream ones, being so ostricized.
It's a sad day for those who love freedom and love America.
Stan Rothwell
"johnnyCjohnny" <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote in message
news:9pqfhs$d1l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> "Ben Horowitz" <bhor...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
> news:3BC0C22D...@earthlink.com...
> > Law-Student-Dave wrote:
> > > Bush and other senior politicians said bin
> > > Laden and his followers acted out of hatred for freedom and envy of
> > > American wealth.
> >
> > ... like the freedom to travel to the Arabian Peninsula and the
> > freedom to assemble with muslims there?
>
> You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free speech rights
> trampled in a mad wave of patriotism.
What free speech rights are those? Who has told you that
you can't speak your mind? Once again, the Lefty Liberals
are working themselves into a hysteria on their own
distortions...
Ben Horowitz
> You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free speech rights
> trampled in a mad wave of patriotism.
The article at the start of this thread asserts that "[d]issent has all
but disappeared." The article then affords example after example of
dissent (Sontag, Maher, Moore, Guthrie, Gutting ..).
Dissent has not disappeared. The audience for dissent has dwindled.
People who talk to themselves are still free to talk.
pez
<bhor...@earthlink.com> wrote:
$ "Stan Rothwell" wrote:
$ > $ You're the umpteenth person who has posted this article.
$ > $ Nevertheless, there is no "war against dissent" in terms of
$ > $ opposing voices being suppressed. What the Left in this
$ > $ country is experiencing is a massive public opinion shift
$ > $ against them on military and immigration issues. The fact
$ > $ that they don't have control of the discourse is making them
$ > $ go nuts...
$
$ pez wrote:
$ > plus we are seeing the usa hating nature of the left in clear focus.
$ > This will hurt them
$
$ Watching the left contort itself into a pretzel while
$ they try to spin the facts into a narrative that fits the
$ "America-is-the-source-of-all-evil" mould is more fun than
$ watching a game of Twister.
They will lose all support except for the very hardcore.
pez
<johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
$ "Ben Horowitz" <bhor...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
$ news:3BC0C22D...@earthlink.com...
$ > Law-Student-Dave wrote:
$ > > Bush and other senior politicians said bin
$ > > Laden and his followers acted out of hatred for freedom and envy of
$ > > American wealth.
$ >
$ > ... like the freedom to travel to the Arabian Peninsula and the
$ > freedom to assemble with muslims there?
$
$ You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free speech rights
$ trampled in a mad wave of patriotism. Regardless of the sins that the left
$ has commited in the past, I find it chilling to see people who have the guts
$ to voice differing opinions from the mainstream ones, being so ostricized.
$ It's a sad day for those who love freedom and love America.
They are speaking it is just rejected.
No ones freedom is hurt.
Joost van Steenis
Nonsense, The audience for dissent has not dwindled, the audience is
manipulated and brainwashed by the owners of the media.
I am lucky to live in Europe where the possibility to discuss the
horrific event without repeating what is said by the leaders. In this
way it is possible to come to a solution.
An this solution does not exist in the throwing of bombs mixed with
some bags of flour and it does also not come forward by making
alliances with feudal governments that suppress their own people (when
is the US taking military action against the cruel dictators in
Myanmar?) or with countries that a few weeks ago were considerd
supporters of terrorsim (Sudan, that by the way fights a horrific war
against their own people in the South with many more deaths than in
the WTC.
When the causes are not analysed, the problem will never be solved.
Joost van Steenis
http:///www.geocities.com/powerandelite
new ways to break the pwoer of the elite
johnnyCjohnny
Try speaking your mind in a crowd of flag waving patriotic fanatics. Are
they interesting in a rational gentlemenly discussion? I doubt it. These
days you'd probably get shouted down or worse. Sad day for America. Kill the
people your here to save (i.e. kill freedom in order to save it). :-(
john smith
Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> You're the umpteenth person who has posted this article.
> Nevertheless, there is no "war against dissent" in terms of
> opposing voices being suppressed. What the Left in this
> country is experiencing is a massive public opinion shift
> against them on military and immigration issues. The fact
> that they don't have control of the discourse is making them
> go nuts...
as if they ever had.
you've (the USA) just shifted even further to the right on foreign policy.
incidentally exactly the one and only thing that could get the
republicans reelected in four years: Brand New Incredibly Evil Enemies (TM)
not to mention all the other ingredients you need to manipulate
a poplualtion: fear, war, laws of exceptions, etc etc.
from a recent discussion:
--snip---
> > It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to
> > Roman times; creating the enemies you need.
>
> The rise of the "beast" and one world government
> and yada yada yada yada....NOT
>
A thoughtful, and coherent analysis of factual historic precedents which
indicate that sometimes government needs a unitifying war so much that it
will sacrifice it's own people and monuments to get it, was surely what you
meant?
Notice the way the herd recoil in shock, disgust and denial when told
something significant. They'd sooner trust the comfortable lies rather than
face the horrors of truth.
--
"All warfare is based on deception."
The Art Of War -- Sun Tzu
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=no&selm=cq1u7.11260%24qi.1657491%40news2-win.server.ntlworld.com
===================
Now as to who controls the media agenda...
"...
The journalistic center is not inert.
It moves.
It shifted slightly leftward in the mid-'70s in the wake
of Watergate when reporters were allowed greater latitude
for independent inquiry.
In the '80s the journalistic center veered strongly rightward.
The two main establishment papers -- the New York Times and the Washington Post -- are
the primary propaganda organs of the center, though editorially they've tilted rightward
throughout the '80s. As soon as Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981, for example, both
papers began promoting White House charges that the Soviets were the primary source of
terrorism in the world. Despite some conservative positions, however, the two papers are
best
seen as organs of the (corporate) center.
The centrists in TV news have also been tilting rightward. FAIR's study of Nightline,
perhaps
TV's most influential news show, found a conservative slant toward "experts" from the white,
male establishment. The left was generally excluded. Nightline's four most frequent guests
were all Reagan sympathizers: Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Elliott Abrams and Jerry
Falwell. MacNeil/Lehrer's guest list seems even more conservative and elite than Nightline's
--
which is why the National Conservative Political Action Conference voted MacNeil/Lehrer "the
most balanced network news program." According to The Progressive (7/87), co-anchor Jim
Lehrer dislikes wasting time interviewing critics from peace or public interest groups, whom
he
refers to as "moaners" and "whiners."
But instead of belaboring the point that the centrist media are currently tilting rightward,
I'd like to
address some elements of centrist news propaganda that are somewhat constant.
Centrist Cliches
If, for simplicity's sake, we define the left as seeking substantial social reform toward a
more
equitable distribution of wealth and power, and we define the right as seeking to undo
social
reform and regulation toward a free marketplace that allows wide disparities in wealth and
power, then we can define the political center as seeking to preserve the status quo,
tinkering
with the system only very prudently to work out what are seen as minor glitches, problems or
inequities.
How do these three positions play out journalistically? Unlike left-wing or right-wing
publications
which are often on the attack, centrist propaganda emphasizes system-supporting news,
frequently speaking in euphemisms. If scandals come to light, centrist propaganda often
focuses
less on the scandal than on how well "the system works" in fixing it. (This was the
editorial
drumbeat in the papers of record following both Watergate and Iran-Contra.) When it comes to
foreign policy, centrist propaganda sometimes questions this or that tactic, but it never
doubts
that the goal of policy is anything other than promoting democracy, peace and human rights.
Other countries may subvert, destabilize or support terrorism. The U.S. just wages peace.
If propaganda from the center only emphasized the upbeat, pointing so much to silver linings
that it never acknowledged the existence of clouds, there'd be a credibility problem. The
public
wouldn't believe such bland, euphemistic reporting. So, in selective cases, centrist
propaganda
does talk tough about government tyrants -- especially if they're foreign tyrants or U.S.
officials
already deposed. (J. Edgar Hoover was one such tyrant, whose 50-year reign at the FBI was
rigorously scrutinized by the mainstream media only after he was dead and buried.) And
centrist
propaganda can take a tough look at a social problem -- especially if it's deemed fixed or
on its
way to being fixed.
Euphemisms in the centrist press (putting a good news gloss on bad news) can be quite
comical. Prime examples are found in headlines that miscapsulize the news. A New York
Times article after a Moscow summit (6/2/88) quoted Margaret Thatcher commenting on Ronald
Reagan: "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears." The article's headline: "Thatcher
Salute
to Reagan Years".
Headlines about the Nicaraguan Contras were often unjustifiably upbeat. On Nov. 3, 1986, at
a
time the Reagan White House was stressing the Contras' new-found fighting ability (and after
the New York Times had editorially endorsed Contra aid), the Times ran this headline: "A
Day's Toll Shows Contras' Ability to Strike." The article described nothing more than a
contra
attack on an agricultural co-op which killed the director and nine civilians, several of
them
children. Similarly, a Washington Post news story (2/4/88) described a pre-dawn contra
attack
on a farming co-op, where a contra bullet left a young girl "lying in a ditch screaming for
help."
The headline: "Combat Performance of the Contras Said to Improve."
Blunt Talk...About The Other Guys
Centrist propaganda can sometimes contain blunt social criticism -- especially of someone
else's
system. A news story in the New York Times (7/23/89) on political discontent in Japan
carried
this headline: "Trembling at the Top: Japan's Ruling Elite Faces a Fed-Up People." The
Times,
which has little trouble identifying a "ruling elite" in Japan, has never been able to
discern such
an elite in the U.S. in all its voluminous reporting on our political-economic system.
According to centrist propaganda, not only is the U.S. without a "ruling elite," the U.S. is
also
without an "empire" -- unlike other countries. The big bad Soviet Union has an empire. Lowly
Vietnam has an empire. In the thousands of mainstream news stories we've seen on the
Nicaraguan revolution, never once has it been counterposed to "Washington's empire." In the
New York Times, "U.S. imperialism" is one of those dubious concepts that only appears
between quotation marks.
Is narrowing concentration of media ownership a grave problem in the U.S.? You wouldn't know
it from the New York Times, which covered the Time Warner merger as just another business
story, hardly mentioning threats to pluralism and the First Amendment. One of the few Times
articles questioning the Time Warner merger -- "Time Deal Worrying Competitors"(3/7/89) --
featured the complaints of Robert Wright, president of little ole NBC, owned by GE.
But you shouldn't conclude that the New York Times is unconcerned about media
concentration. The Times is concerned...at least in Italy. "Newspaper Deal in Italy Stirs
Debate
Over Press Freedom" (New York Times, 4/24/89) probed the handful of firms that owns Italy's
press. The candid article cited complaints of Italian reporters that "concentration produces
bland
journalism, especially on economic matters and political issues close to their owners'
hearts or
pocketbooks." The Times quoted one journalist saying his boss doesn't have to interfere in
the
newsroom "because there's total self-censorship." If only the Times paid as much attention
to
owner influences and self-censorship at home.
Is there a wide disparity in living conditions between America's rich and America's poor --
between, for example, those who own or manage America's coal mines and the miners who
work in them? Such contrasts could be graphically shown on TV and would probably attract big
ratings. U.S. television is obsessed with Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, but not with
juxtaposing the wealth of the rich against the poverty of, say, Donald Trump's kitchen
workers or
Lawrence Tisch 's field hands.
This didn't stop ABC's Rick Inderfurth (World News Tonight, 7/21/89), who boldly took a film
crew inside the ramshackle homes of striking coal miners and vividly contrasted that with
the
relative wealth of the mine managers. There's a catch: ABC's flirtation with Marxist
agitprop
dealt not with conditions in Virginia, but in the Soviet Union. (The militant strike against
the
Pittston coal company in Virginia -- occurring at the same time as the Soviet strike -- has
been
sparsely covered; the evening network newscasts devoted 36 minutes to the Soviet miners in
eight days, twice the coverage of the U.S. strike over four months.) One wonders if a TV
reporter presenting the same video class analysis of U.S. coal fields would have been fired
for
leftist bias.
Forever Waging Peace
In foreign coverage, the key signature of centrist propaganda is the portrayal of the U.S.
as
mediator or peacemaker. If rightist propaganda sees the U.S. caving in to Communism and
terrorism around the world, and leftist propaganda sees the U.S. subverting governments and
Third World movements in the interests of a corporate elite and blind anti-Communism, then
centrist propaganda sees the U.S. going around the world doing good, mediating in the cause
of
peace.
No matter what the facts are, on the pages of the New York Times, the U.S. is forever waging
peace. If the Times had chosen a "person of the year" in 1988, it would have been Reagan's
Secretary of State, George Shultz. Describing Shultz in a news headline (New York Times,
2/21/88) as the "Lonely Peacemaker, " the Times portrayed him and the U.S. as crusaders for
peace from Southern Africa to the Middle East to Central America.
In Angola, where the U.S. (along with South Africa) spent years arming the guerrillas of
Jonas
Savimbi, that fact went down a Times memory hole, as the paper portrayed the U.S. not as a
major party to the bloody conflict, but as the main force for peace.
In Central America, the U.S. consistently worked to disrupt the peace process, and the Times
just as consistently portrayed U.S. policy as supporting it. The key element of the
Esquipulas
("Arias") peace accord signed by the five Central American presidents was the cessation of
aid
to the Contras and other guerrilla groups in the region. Despite U.S. subversion of the
accord by
continuing to finance and equip the contras, week after week for two years the Times told
its
readers that the U.S. supported the accord, e.g. (8/5/89): "The Bush administration supports
the
Arias plan but says the Contras should not be disbanded until after the elections."
Another hallmark of centrist propaganda is to affirm, no matter what the evidence, that U.S.
foreign policy is geared toward promoting democracy. Journalists are not unaware that the
U.S.
helped overthrow democratic governments, for example, in Guatemala in '54, Brazil in '64,
Chile
in '73 -- but these cases are considered ancient history, no longer relevant. (In centrist
ideology,
since the system is constantly fixing and renewing itself, U.S. abuses -- even against
democracy
-- become distant past overnight.)
Mainstream journalists respond to such criticism by explaining that articles for the daily
press
are not history texts and cannot include everything. That's true, but centrist propaganda
finds
space for certain histories and not others. Many if not most of the reports on Hungary's
transition from Communism traced human rights abuses to the Soviet suppression of the
Hungarian uprising in 1956. By contrast, reports on Guatemala's current human rights
situation
rarely traced events to the U.S.-sponsored coup of 1954.
Even the best mainstream reporters don't question the motives of U.S. policy. Take Roy
Gutman
of Newsday, who habitually challenged the lies and contradictions in Nicaragua policy, but
not
its democratic purpose. Reporting on factional in-fighting within the White House, Gutman
described William Casey, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Oliver North as hard-liners who "believed the
use of force was the only way to bring about democracy in Nicaragua." That folks like Casey
and North might have other than democratic goals is beyond question.
Good Guys Caught Between Left and Right
Besides consistently promoting peace and democracy overseas, according to centrist
propaganda, the U.S. also consistently supports the good guys abroad. Not surprisingly, the
good guys are always "centrists" on the political spectrum. At least that's what the media
make
them out to be. And there's another media cliche one hears about our good guys, the
centrists:
They are perpetually hemmed in by the bad guys of left and right.
For years, as El Salvador's armed forces and allied death squads murdered thousands of
civilians, media pundits told us that massive U.S. aid to Salvador's military was needed to
bolster "centrists" such as Jose Napoleon Duarte. In the media mantra of the time, Duarte
was
"hemmed in by death squads on the right and guerrillas on the left." In using that cliche,
centrist
media chose to promote a dubious State Department line, while ignoring groups such as
Americas Watch and Amnesty International that had documented that the security forces of the
Duarte government worked hand in glove with the death squads.
One of the newest "centrists" in media propaganda is Yitzhak Shamir. A New York Times news
story (7/24/87) wrote of "a careful balancing act that Mr. Shamir has mastered in the years
he
has been caught between right-wing political rivals in his own party and left-wing coalition
partners in the Labor Party." It's quite a reach to portray Shamir as a centrist balanced
between
extremes, given his 40-year career on the far right attacking centrists as traitors to
Israel. In the
1940s he was a leading figure in the Stern Gang, a group so extreme it applauded Hitler's
principles and sought to ally with Hitler against the British (The Nation, 8/7/89).
Perhaps the most graphic component of foreign policy coverage in centrist media is the
inordinate number of (often unnamed) government sources: White House, State, Pentagon, U.S.
intelligence, etc. Some reporters act more like stenographers for those in power than
journalists.
When discussing these reporters, the phrase "centrist propaganda" misses the mark. "State
propaganda" is a more apt description.
-- js ==============================================================
"Freedom without opportunity is a devils gift, and the refusal (by
government) to provide such opportunity is criminal" --Noam Chomsky
====================================================================
Stan Rothwell
Kiss my ass. Lefty Liberals like you conveniently ignore
the decade of Political Correctness on college campuses
where anyone who expressed a viewpoint that was to the
right of Jane Fonda was denounced as 'racist, sexist,
homophobic", bands of thugs used violence and intimidation
to break up meetings and shout down those they didn't agree
with, while administrators did nothing but blather about
'diversity', and pass "hate speech" codes instead.
You also overlook the radical leftist campaigns to shut down
alternate sources of news and views, such as the frustrated
totalitarian wannabees trying to get radio programs by people
such as Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura pulled off the air, just
because some people didn't like their views.
You ignored the efforts of the Clinton administration to use the
IRS to audit and intimidate conservative and religious non-profit
organizations, while looking the the other way as hucksters such
as Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton ran their
groups as shakedown rackets and pocketed loose cash.
In addition, don't forget the legal intimidation from your beloved
IMPEACHED former president, who used law enforcement
agencies and classified documents to silence and blackmail those
that came forward with evidence that might have lead to criminal
prosecution.
So now you're telling us that after years of looking the other way,
you're suddenly worried about infringement of our FREE SPEECH
rights? So how come the Lefty Liberals weren't so worried about
it before? Or perhaps the concerns isn't for free speech in general,
but only about whether THEY can get THEIR point of view
projected, at the expense of everyone else?
Screw you and the rest of the left-wing hypocrites! I hope that
you're shitting in your pants when you run into patriotic Americans
and other people with plain common sense, who are tired of
listening the continual anti-American CRAP that you people
spew on a daily basis! You're only getting a taste of the shit that
the rest of us have had to put up with from the liberals for way
too long...
Now fuck off, and have a nice day. :O|
Stan Rothwell
"Joost van Steenis" <power...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3bc0d17a...@news.ams.chello.nl...
>
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 21:22:36 GMT, Ben Horowitz
> <bhor...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
> >johnnyCjohnny wrote:
> >> You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free speech rights
> >> trampled in a mad wave of patriotism.
> >
> >The article at the start of this thread asserts that "[d]issent has all
> >but disappeared." The article then affords example after example of
> >dissent (Sontag, Maher, Moore, Guthrie, Gutting ..).
> >
> >Dissent has not disappeared. The audience for dissent has dwindled.
> >People who talk to themselves are still free to talk.
>
> Nonsense, The audience for dissent has not dwindled, the audience is
> manipulated and brainwashed by the owners of the media.
> I am lucky to live in Europe where the possibility to discuss the
> horrific event without repeating what is said by the leaders. In this
> way it is possible to come to a solution.
Sorry, but your outlets for discussion don't even come close to
the talk radio programs (of all political persuasions and styles)
that we have in the States. I know there are some some talk
shows in the UK, and I have tuned into one or two in the
Netherlands, althought I have trouble following them (het
spijt me, maar mijn nederlands is niet goed). However, it's
nothing like the diverse range of opinions expressed over
here. Sure, you can hear one point of view sponsored by the
so-called "corporate media", but 5 or 10 minutes later, a caller
to that same media is telling the host that the news was in error,
the opinion slanted, that the announcer doesn't know what he
or she is talking about... and it's getting out to the same audience!!!
Despite what the generalities you hear from the crybaby
leftists in the States, free speech is alive and well. The
problem is that those who are used to passing themselves
off as the self-annointed 'experts' are having a rough time
convincing others of their point of view, and they are getting
frustrated. Joost, you need to do a bit of research before
you make such generalities... :O|
Stan Rothwell
"pez" <pez...@ntplx.net> wrote in message
news:pezcleo-0710...@p05-35.hartford.dialin.ntplx.com...
The marketplace of ideas at work. What a concept.
> No ones freedom is hurt.
Just the feelings of the self-appointed who think they
have the right to push their opinions on others... :O|
James Teo
<bhor...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>johnnyCjohnny wrote:
>> You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free speech rights
>> trampled in a mad wave of patriotism.
>
>The article at the start of this thread asserts that "[d]issent has all
>but disappeared." The article then affords example after example of
>dissent (Sontag, Maher, Moore, Guthrie, Gutting ..).
Please note that their dissent was expressed in the Toronto Mail.
>Dissent has not disappeared. The audience for dissent has dwindled.
>People who talk to themselves are still free to talk.
"Audience for dissent"? Gosh, that's a weird concept. Dissent is when
someone disagrees and expresses it; there needs to be no audience for
it. Dissent isn't like a tree falling in a forest you know.
If you mean "appetite for dissent" then you are just saying what the
article said: that Americans don't have an appetite for dissent when
they feel threatened.
pez
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
$ "johnnyCjohnny" <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote in message
$ news:9pqjv5$3l5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
$ > "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
$ > news:9pqgrp$fgg$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
$ > >
$ > > "johnnyCjohnny" <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote in message
$ > > news:9pqfhs$d1l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
$ > > > "Ben Horowitz" <bhor...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
$ > > > news:3BC0C22D...@earthlink.com...
$ > > > > Law-Student-Dave wrote:
$ > > > > > Bush and other senior politicians said bin
$ > > > > > Laden and his followers acted out of hatred for freedom and envy
$ of
$ > > > > > American wealth.
$ > > > >
$ > > > > ... like the freedom to travel to the Arabian Peninsula and the
$ > > > > freedom to assemble with muslims there?
$ > > >
$ > > > You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free speech rights
$ > > > trampled in a mad wave of patriotism.
$ > >
$ > > What free speech rights are those? Who has told you that
$ > > you can't speak your mind? Once again, the Lefty Liberals
$ > > are working themselves into a hysteria on their own
$ > > distortions...
$ >
$ > Try speaking your mind in a crowd of flag waving patriotic fanatics. Are
$ > they interesting in a rational gentlemenly discussion? I doubt it. These
$ > days you'd probably get shouted down or worse. Sad day for America. Kill
$ the
$ > people your here to save (i.e. kill freedom in order to save it). :-(
$
$ Kiss my ass. Lefty Liberals like you conveniently ignore
$ the decade of Political Correctness on college campuses
$ where anyone who expressed a viewpoint that was to the
$ right of Jane Fonda was denounced as 'racist, sexist,
$ homophobic", bands of thugs used violence and intimidation
$ to break up meetings and shout down those they didn't agree
$ with, while administrators did nothing but blather about
$ 'diversity', and pass "hate speech" codes instead.
$
$ You also overlook the radical leftist campaigns to shut down
$ alternate sources of news and views, such as the frustrated
$ totalitarian wannabees trying to get radio programs by people
$ such as Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura pulled off the air, just
$ because some people didn't like their views.
$
$ You ignored the efforts of the Clinton administration to use the
$ IRS to audit and intimidate conservative and religious non-profit
$ organizations, while looking the the other way as hucksters such
$ as Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton ran their
$ groups as shakedown rackets and pocketed loose cash.
$
$ In addition, don't forget the legal intimidation from your beloved
$ IMPEACHED former president, who used law enforcement
$ agencies and classified documents to silence and blackmail those
$ that came forward with evidence that might have lead to criminal
$ prosecution.
$
$ So now you're telling us that after years of looking the other way,
$ you're suddenly worried about infringement of our FREE SPEECH
$ rights? So how come the Lefty Liberals weren't so worried about
$ it before? Or perhaps the concerns isn't for free speech in general,
$ but only about whether THEY can get THEIR point of view
$ projected, at the expense of everyone else?
$
$ Screw you and the rest of the left-wing hypocrites! I hope that
$ you're shitting in your pants when you run into patriotic Americans
$ and other people with plain common sense, who are tired of
$ listening the continual anti-American CRAP that you people
$ spew on a daily basis! You're only getting a taste of the shit that
$ the rest of us have had to put up with from the liberals for way
$ too long...
$
$ Now fuck off, and have a nice day. :O|
Standing ovation
Jafo
>So now you're telling us that after years of looking the other way,
>you're suddenly worried about infringement of our FREE SPEECH
>rights? So how come the Lefty Liberals weren't so worried about
>it before? Or perhaps the concerns isn't for free speech in general,
>but only about whether THEY can get THEIR point of view
>projected, at the expense of everyone else?
Bingo.
--
Jafo® http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
"The intellectual left of the '90s, it turns out, owes more to
Mussolini than to Marx." - David Horowitz
The Pervert
>
> "johnnyCjohnny" <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote in message
> news:9pqjv5$3l5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
Actually, the pacifists have the right to express their views, and others
have the right to shout at them in response.
The right of free speech protects us from the government prohibiting our
right to express any kind of political expression, up to and including,
burning the flag. It does not, however, protect everybody from pissing off
the listeners and earning their sometimes very vocal disapproval.
There is no Constitutionally guaranteed requirement of a "gentlemanly
discussion."
pez
"Law-Student-Dave" <daveycro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
$ "HempFarmer" <hfa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
$ news:3BC0B274...@hotmail.com...
$ > > Stuck in Berlin by the closure of American airports, [Susan] Sontag
$ > > was asked by The New Yorker to contribute to the magazine's first
$ > > Talk of the Town section published after the attacks. This is what
$ > > she wrote: "The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing
$ > > rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in
$ > > recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy."
$ >
$ > "Wanted Dead or Alive," is 'reality-concealing'?
$
$ I think the reality which is allegedly being concealed is that of the
$ importance of American government's foreign policy on the events of 911.
$
$ More specifically if you prefer, Bush and other senior politicians said bin
$ Laden and his followers acted out of hatred for freedom and envy of American
$ wealth. I think that these statements are "reality-concealing."
Those views are that of the left not the terrorists.
pez
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
$ "pez" <pez...@ntplx.net> wrote in message
$ news:pezcleo-0710...@p05-35.hartford.dialin.ntplx.com...
$ > In article <9pqfhs$d1l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "johnnyCjohnny"
$ > <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
$ >
$ > $ "Ben Horowitz" <bhor...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
$ > $ news:3BC0C22D...@earthlink.com...
$ > $ > Law-Student-Dave wrote:
$ > $ > > Bush and other senior politicians said bin
$ > $ > > Laden and his followers acted out of hatred for freedom and envy of
$ > $ > > American wealth.
$ > $ >
$ > $ > ... like the freedom to travel to the Arabian Peninsula and the
$ > $ > freedom to assemble with muslims there?
$ > $
$ > $ You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free speech rights
$ > $ trampled in a mad wave of patriotism. Regardless of the sins that the
$ left
$ > $ has commited in the past, I find it chilling to see people who have the
$ guts
$ > $ to voice differing opinions from the mainstream ones, being so
$ ostricized.
$ > $ It's a sad day for those who love freedom and love America.
$ >
$ > They are speaking it is just rejected.
$
$ The marketplace of ideas at work. What a concept.
They are in the dented can area.
Unwanted
$
$ > No ones freedom is hurt.
$
$ Just the feelings of the self-appointed who think they
$ have the right to push their opinions on others... :O|
johnnyCjohnny
Why is it that so many right wing conservatives like you have no class. I
was making a simple observation, not an attack. And you flipped out on me.
Just goes to show where your classless head is. That is exactly why I'm on
the left and not with classless garbage like you.
johnnyCjohnny
news:fO6w7.17767$SO.50...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
True, but if you really believe in the 1st ammendment, then you'd keep it
gentlemanly and not shout another person down. It always seems like it's the
wild eyed right wingers who are always doing all the shouting. Just goes to
show who really believes in respecting other people's free speech.
James A. Donald
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 16:57:13 -0400, "johnnyCjohnny"
<johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
> You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free
> speech rights trampled in a mad wave of patriotism.
If I saw them being trampled, it would be chilling.
All I see is some people whining that the public are not
listening to them any more.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
RXkFGBjPuzQAuiYBdpmk6IWFcg1Y8wLli4K1+2+9
4RJkxUi73ec6BKYvnJSVU+PT0qIT7tWdvp54hLLVQ
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
James A. Donald
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:12:31 -0400, "johnnyCjohnny"
<johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
> Try speaking your mind in a crowd of flag waving patriotic
> fanatics. Are they interesting in a rational gentlemenly
> discussion?
You call those who think that it is a good idea to kill those
who are trying to kill them fanatics.
Who is it that is uninterested in rational dicussion?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Hd5SdtJ8fj8vaJLh/STNA4qPqsrXmv4TeXktX/HL
4MZDOrYjXjPRwzWP8FYcp/4lFT8o7wOY9JK/SmldW
G*rd*n
| ...
| leftists in the States, free speech is alive and well. The
| problem is that those who are used to passing themselves
| off as the self-annointed 'experts' are having a rough time
| convincing others of their point of view, and they are getting
| frustrated. Joost, you need to do a bit of research before
| you make such generalities... :O|
Well, a number of people seem to have been fired from their
jobs for making politically incorrect statements, or threatened
with firing, anyway -- ironically, I think one of them actually
works or worked for a program called "Politically Incorrect".
But I agree that the Net and talk radio make it impossible
for the media or the government to control the appearance of
public opinion any more or pretend that everyone agrees with
them.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/30/01 <-adv't
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> I don't think it is appropriate to try to categorize this into the
>> Left-wing/Right-wing dichotomy. What is at issue is whether people like
>> Maher, and the columnist, who are chosen and paid to voice their opinions,
>> can suddenly be silenced by corporations (i.e., both sponsors and
>> broadcasters).
>
>The right to free speech does not include the obligation of others
>to provide a forum for them. There is a difference.
While the above is true on a very elementary level, there are other
issues at stake here. The primary one being that the news is not a
forum for the viewpoint of the owner to be expressed. Those who
deliver the news have a responsibility to deliver a balanced view of
the facts - and while there is certainly a critical mass of simple
folk who have joined the rah-rah we love war chorus, there is a
significant portion of the populace who haven't, and for the most
part, the media is not giving those people a voice.
For the owners of the networks, this isn't an issue of freedom - if
you call yourself a newspaper, or a news show, you are obliged to
present ALL the facts, not just the ones that fit into your agenda.
With Maher, they certainly didn't overstep their bounds - he's not
news. But the news programs ceased to fulfill their function ages ago,
and the fact that people like Michael Moore, who have millions of
people who agree with their non-aggressive stance, haven't even been
invited to speak on this issue, and indeed, some have been fired for
speaking their mind, that's just more of the same.
As always, you have a choice here with the things you say - do you
want the news to be a place where you can count on knowing what you
need to know, or do you want the news to be where you can count on
knowing what the owners of the networks want you to know? It all boils
down to what kind of world you want to live in.
>
>> I think these corp.'s have a duty to ensure minority
>> opinions get attention, especially broadcasters, if they are going to
>claim
>> to be providing the American people with a full account of this story.
>
>So do all other organizations also have a right to provide such
>a forum for those who disagree with their policies? I see a
>certain hyposcrisy on the Left, as those who have been pushing
>Politically Correct speech codes are now upset that public
I'm out of the loop - what's a politically correct speech code?
>opinion has turned against them. Once again, nobody is saying
>that you can't voice your opinion. However, a lot of people
>ARE saying that we have no obligation to listen to what certain
>people have to say. Learn to live with it.
So am I to infer from this that you feel that people with views that
differ from those of the corporate media magnates don't deserve to
have any voice in the mass media whatsoever? Isn't it the purpose of
the news to report how a cross section of the people feel, rather than
to dictate to the people how they feel? If they refuse to give a voice
to those who don't agree with Dubya's direction, that's not news. It's
propaganda.
------------------------------------------------
"It is a tribute to the American people that our
leaders perceived that they had to lie to us. It
is not a tribute to us that we were so easily
misled."
-Daniel Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers
------------------------------------------------
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
<lagerboks-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You're the umpteenth person who has posted this article.
>> Nevertheless, there is no "war against dissent" in terms of
>> opposing voices being suppressed. What the Left in this
>> country is experiencing is a massive public opinion shift
>> against them on military and immigration issues. The fact
>> that they don't have control of the discourse is making them
>> go nuts...
>
>
>as if they ever had.
As they said in The Usual Suspects, The greatest trick the devil ever
pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist. It's a very
Orwellian fact that while the media has pretty much completely ceased
to give voice to any opinion that doesn't fit in with the agenda of
the magnates who own nearly all of it, they've still managed to sell
the public an image of a liberal-controlled, leftist media. War is
peace, etc.
>from a recent discussion:
>
>--snip---
>> > It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to
>> > Roman times; creating the enemies you need.
>>
>> The rise of the "beast" and one world government
>> and yada yada yada yada....NOT
>>
>
>A thoughtful, and coherent analysis of factual historic precedents which
>indicate that sometimes government needs a unitifying war so much that it
>will sacrifice it's own people and monuments to get it, was surely what you
>meant?
>
>Notice the way the herd recoil in shock, disgust and denial when told
>something significant. They'd sooner trust the comfortable lies rather than
>face the horrors of truth.
I've been wondering at that myself lately - why is it so easy to
accept as a simple fact that many governments throughout the world
unjustly and barbarically attack and kill people (their own and
others) on a regular basis, but it's inconceivable that their own
government would do the same. It's like they believe that writing
something in the constitution automagically makes it so, no matter how
much evidence to the contrary is presented.
pez
<johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
$ "The Pervert" <perv...@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
$ news:fO6w7.17767$SO.50...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
$ >
$ > "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
$ > news:9pqp8q$t44$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
$ > >
$ > > "johnnyCjohnny" <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote in message
$ > > news:9pqjv5$3l5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
$ >
$ > > >
$ > > > Try speaking your mind in a crowd of flag waving patriotic fanatics.
$ Are
$ > > > they interesting in a rational gentlemenly discussion? I doubt it.
$ These
$ > > > days you'd probably get shouted down or worse. Sad day for America.
$ Kill
$ > > Now fuck off, and have a nice day. :O|
$ > >
$ >
$ > Actually, the pacifists have the right to express their views, and others
$ > have the right to shout at them in response.
$ >
$ > The right of free speech protects us from the government prohibiting our
$ > right to express any kind of political expression, up to and including,
$ > burning the flag. It does not, however, protect everybody from pissing
$ off
$ > the listeners and earning their sometimes very vocal disapproval.
$ >
$ > There is no Constitutionally guaranteed requirement of a "gentlemanly
$ > discussion."
$ >
$
$ True, but if you really believe in the 1st ammendment, then you'd keep it
$ gentlemanly and not shout another person down. It always seems like it's the
$ wild eyed right wingers who are always doing all the shouting. Just goes to
$ show who really believes in respecting other people's free speech.
So did I imagine lefty purposely not allowing right wing speakers on campus??
They literally shouted down invited speakers down manytimes.
James A. Donald
On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 22:11:00 GMT, power...@chello.nl (Joost van
Steenis) wrote:
> When the causes are not analysed, the problem will never be solved.
First we kill those who are trying to kill us, then we will do some
analysis.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
LlJPBwI6QgwGTC2VhReUGkzQgpqkPPcFP3/QsNVm
4qzNsuELlU7B7NKU1ZoIUbAev9K3XLrBm4XLCZwXl
James A. Donald
First we kill those who are trying to kill us, then we will do some
Luke Kaven
By these lights, you could dismiss liberal discontent over the Red Scare.
You might say that the liberals just "went nuts" because a mere massive
public opinion shift left them not in control of the discourse. I'm sure
the Jews in Nazi Germany were just upset over a big "public opinion shift".
Is that enough of a reductio ad absurdum for you? Surely the *content* of
that public opinion plays an important role in any conflict in opinion. And
surely the content of that public opinion is the subject of a fierce
competition.
Its true that the free speech argument was a non-starter against the
villification of Bill Maher and Susan Sontag. The matter doesn't much
concern a legal argument so much as it does ethics. When you can't
criticize the US government in a rather mild way without receiving death
threats, then we are all in serious trouble.
As for Federal Express and Sears: They may vote with their dollars, and we
will vote with our dollars and our words. I will not do business with them
anymore because their commitment to American ideals has lapsed during a time
of hysteria. Oddly enough, they ensured that the matter would be remembered
long after the present social context has passed.
Luke
Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9pq67n$7ak$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
Stan Rothwell
Have more class than you do, wanker.
I post my own name to my work, and speak my mind.
> I was making a simple observation, not an attack.
And I made an observation as well.
Free speech is a bitch, isn't it?
> And you flipped out on me.
You mean you're not used to having me tell you
like it is? Lemme give you a suggestion newbie.
Save yourself the self-induced vaginal pains, and
keep your posts to that Chomsky group, where
those of us with common sense don't even bother
going... :O(
johnnyCjohnny
news:3bc30096...@east.usenetserver.com...
> --
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:12:31 -0400, "johnnyCjohnny"
> <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
> > Try speaking your mind in a crowd of flag waving patriotic
> > fanatics. Are they interesting in a rational gentlemenly
> > discussion?
>
> You call those who think that it is a good idea to kill those
> who are trying to kill them fanatics.
kill, kill, kill What is it you are trying to say.
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
<johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
>True, but if you really believe in the 1st ammendment, then you'd keep it
>gentlemanly and not shout another person down. It always seems like it's the
>wild eyed right wingers who are always doing all the shouting. Just goes to
>show who really believes in respecting other people's free speech.
Now hold on just a minute. I'm no friend of rabid dittoheads, but
let's ease up on the bullshit. The left wing is just as guilty of this
sort of behavior - that's the real problem. Very few people, left OR
right, actually give a shit about the objective right to free speech -
they care about THEIR right to free speech.
It would be nice if everyone had an extra 1000 years of evolution
under their belt, but the fact of the matter is, most of the time
people are just a mob - look at the all the death threats flying
around at people who publicly express dissent right now. Someone just
posted a message where they stated that they were looking forward to
the day when the next attack came, and angry mobs would round up all
the pacifists and have a good ol' fashioned lynching.
It makes me want to say fuck it, let the whole thing sink into the
ocean if the barbarian is still lurking that close to the surface. I
thought that Americans, despite their country's record of senseless
slaughter in other countries, had at least learned to retain a certain
level of civility towards each other. It was one of the things I
admired about that country. Apparently the fierce individualism they
so pride themselves on disappears once they're put under a little
stress.
I'll probably be accused of being a USA hater for the above, but the
fact of the matter is that even though I'm Canadian, I love the idea
of America, and I still look forward to the day when it comes true.
johnnyCjohnny
news:3bc20d04.13208012@news...
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 23:17:56 GMT, john smith
> <lagerboks-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> You're the umpteenth person who has posted this article.
> >> Nevertheless, there is no "war against dissent" in terms of
> >> opposing voices being suppressed. What the Left in this
> >> country is experiencing is a massive public opinion shift
> >> against them on military and immigration issues. The fact
> >> that they don't have control of the discourse is making them
> >> go nuts...
> >
> >
> >as if they ever had.
>
> As they said in The Usual Suspects, The greatest trick the devil ever
> pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist. It's a very
> Orwellian fact that while the media has pretty much completely ceased
> to give voice to any opinion that doesn't fit in with the agenda of
> the magnates who own nearly all of it, they've still managed to sell
> the public an image of a liberal-controlled, leftist media. War is
> peace, etc.
Right on! It's George Orwell's 1984 all the way. Controlling the mind of the
masses. The information you get from the mainstream media is so narrow and
limited and biased towards the government's point of view these days that
it's a joke. The fact that so many people have brought the notion that the
media is actually a liberal instution (rather than the conservative
institution that upholds the status quo that it really is) just proves how
ignorant most people in this country are. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
Stan Rothwell
Just a minute, asshole. You showed up to the party accusing
patriotic Americans of being fanatical and violent, and we're
supposed to believe you were only interested in "gentlemanly
discussion"? Sorry, but that's a crock of shit, and we're not
buying it. You and your fellow travelers have been bombarding
Usenet with your insults, inaccuracies and anti-American diatribes
for nearly four weeks, and we're supposed to just passively
accept it. However, some of us choose to respond to this tripe,
and suddenly WE are the ones accused of being unfair and
ungentlemantly.
Guess what, Johnny? Too many people have been too nice
and deferential to your ilk, simply because they wanted to
be "civilized" and not make waves. Well guess what? We
are finally waking up and realizing that the self-appointed
"in-tuh-lectuals" in our midst don't have halos over their
heads, don't have special powers or intuition, and have
NOTHING productive to add to the discussion, so we're
getting less and less inclined to put up with this nonsense.
Learn to live with criticism. You'll get used to it, like the
rest of us have... :O|
johnnyCjohnny
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:08:03 -0400, "johnnyCjohnny"
> <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
>
> >True, but if you really believe in the 1st ammendment, then you'd keep it
> >gentlemanly and not shout another person down. It always seems like it's
the
> >wild eyed right wingers who are always doing all the shouting. Just goes
to
> >show who really believes in respecting other people's free speech.
>
> Now hold on just a minute. I'm no friend of rabid dittoheads, but
> let's ease up on the bullshit. The left wing is just as guilty of this
> sort of behavior - that's the real problem. Very few people, left OR
> right, actually give a shit about the objective right to free speech -
> they care about THEIR right to free speech.
True enough. The left is just as guilty as the right in this respect.
johnnyCjohnny
I can live with rational criticism. I enjoy a lively debate that's
above-boad. It's crap from right wing lowlifes like yourself that makes me
wonder if people in this country really respect other people's right to free
speech. Why don't you crawl back under the rock you came from? I'm tired of
conversing with people who have no class.
Christopher Robin
Um my poorly timed rant was about the people in the US that I have spoken
to getting a lop sided view on the news of world affairs and their
governments part in it. I am not anti american as a people you twit but I
sure as hell am anti your government.
I dont even believe that Osama had anyhting to do with the WTC and neither
does the taliban who made it clear that if they got the proof they would
turn him over. Funny that the US government was prepared to share the proof
with any government that was already in agreement with them but the Taleban
no way huh? You actually believe the crap that comes out of your mouth and
that's scary too - I hope you dont own a gun you might shoot at an innocent
person one day,
John Doe
"Rev. J. Thaddius Toad" <jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote in message
If you support the government you are part of the "rah-rah we love war
chorus" and are ignorant or unlearned (One of the dictionary definitions of
"simple"). I guess that means if you are part of the opposite group, the
"hey-ho we hate war" chorus, you are an "intellectual"?
Aviator
That might be your take on it, but not exactly based in fact. Have you never
seen video footage of a KKK rally, or the fairly recent final march of the
now defunct Aryan nations???
Thousands of leftists screaming down a dozen or so racist losers.
There are 'wild eyed' screamers and violent nitwits on both sides, so it is
blatantly false to state "It always seems like it's the wild eyed right
wingers who are always doing all the shouting" Just watch your TV
>
>
>
Stan Rothwell
Ooh, I MUST be a low-life because I don't take kindly
to your assessment that all patriotic Americans are
violent ignoramuses. And of course, being unable to
argue particular points like the ones I brought up before,
you continue your smears. Well, let me lay it out one
more time and see if you can open up your own closed
mind long enought to GET IT: nobody is arguing that
you don't have a right to air your opinion as you see fit.
At the same time, nobody is obligated to PROVIDE you
with a forum or give you 'equal time' if they see no
merit in doing so. To put that in terms you understand,
feel free to rant and rave from your own soapbox, but
don't expect anyone else to feel obligated to provide
you with the soapbox, because they aren't... Once
again, it sounds like you are losing the argument in the
marketplace of ideas, and feel compelled to sacrifice
accuracy for propagating your own agenda. As long
as you continue to do that in this NG, expect others
to give you the ration of shit that you truly deserve... :O(
> Why don't you crawl back under the rock you came from? I'm tired of
> conversing with people who have no class.
Oh, but making snide comments about those with
conservative points of view IS considered "class",
because the political opinion is more important than
the manner in which it is expressed? Put a cork in it.
Law-Student-Dave
I think these corp.'s have a duty to ensure minority opinions get attention,
especially broadcasters, if they are going to claim to be providing the
American people with a full account of this story.
Stan Rothwell responded:
The right to free speech does not include the obligation of others
to provide a forum for them. There is a difference.
Pez responded:
No they don't.
Law-Student-Dave Retorts:
In "Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC" Justice White (in a unanimous
USSC decision) wrote:
Nor can we say that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment goal of
producing an informed public capable of conducting its own affairs to
require a broadcaster to permit answers ... in the course of discussing
controversial issues or to require that the political opponents of those
endorsed by the station be given a chance to communicate with the public.
Otherwise, station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to
make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their
own views on public issues, people and candidates, and to permit on the air
only those with whom they agreed. "There is no sanctuary in the First
Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to
all..."
The emphasis at the end of the paragraph is mine. Crockett.
Law-Student-Dave
"Stan Rothwell" wrote in message:
> Kiss my ass. Lefty Liberals like you
Generalization which cannot possibly be based on fact, unless of course you
know the writer. Oh, but I like the "lefty liberal" part.
> conveniently ignore the decade of Political Correctness on college
> campuses where anyone who expressed a viewpoint that was to the
> right of Jane Fonda was denounced as 'racist, sexist,
> homophobic",
For the sake of argument--you just seem like you are on such a roll--we will
assume that this is true. Racism, sexism and homophobic speech hurts
people, intimidates people, and can lead the simpler among us even to kill
people. When I say "Some Americans are unaware of the important role their
government's foreign policy played in September's attacks" you will note it
lacks these negative characteristics.
By all means, exercise your rights, including that provided by the First
Amendment. However if you do so in a way that infringes on the rights of
others, look out, because law-makers are going to be forced to balance
competing these rights, and they usually prefer to err on the side of
tolerance. If you don't like that, then I suggest exercise your right to
vote someone else into office.
> bands of thugs used violence and intimidation
I am not sure if this is the "lefty liberals" or the "mighty righty's" (I
just made that up) you are talking about here.
> to break up meetings and shout down those they didn't agree
> with, while administrators did nothing but blather about
> 'diversity', and pass "hate speech" codes instead.
Again serious over-generalization. I personally have never broken up a
meeting.
> You also overlook the radical leftist campaigns to shut down
> alternate sources of news and views, such as the frustrated
> totalitarian wannabees trying to get radio programs by people
> such as Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura pulled off the air, just
> because some people didn't like their views.
We went from "lefty liberals" to "radical leftists" and now "totalitarian
wannabees?" I am not sure what to say except ... "I am rubber. You are
glue..."
> You ignored the efforts of the Clinton administration to use the
> IRS to audit and intimidate conservative and religious non-profit
> organizations, while looking the the other way as hucksters such
> as Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton ran their
> groups as shakedown rackets and pocketed loose cash.
Interesting. I don't see how it pertains to censorship, or the issue at
hand, and it is not sourced in anyway. Given what we are supposed to be
talking about I am assuming they tried to get on television.
> In addition, don't forget the legal intimidation from your beloved
> IMPEACHED former president, who used law enforcement
> agencies and classified documents to silence and blackmail those
> that came forward with evidence that might have lead to criminal
> prosecution.
Generalization. In my opinion, you lose credibility with your audience when
you conclude: 1) that I am a lefty liberal; 2) that I supported Bill
Clinton; 3) that if I did support him, that I approved of his conduct during
the impeachment process. Are we discussing censorship of dissidents or the
tyranny of the left, and the black marks of former presidents?
> So now you're telling us that after years of looking the other way,
> you're suddenly worried about infringement of our FREE SPEECH
> rights? So how come the Lefty Liberals weren't so worried about
> it before? Or perhaps the concerns isn't for free speech in general,
> but only about whether THEY can get THEIR point of view
> projected, at the expense of everyone else?
Again, "lefty liberals." If nothing else you are consisent. This paragraph
does spark some interesting debate though. How would you classify civil
rights groups. Because I thought they were considered "lefty's." I cannot
think of a greater proponent of free speech rights, regardless of content.
> Screw you and the rest of the left-wing hypocrites! I hope that
> you're shitting in your pants when you run into patriotic Americans
> and other people with plain common sense, who are tired of
> listening the continual anti-American CRAP that you people
> spew on a daily basis! You're only getting a taste of the shit that
> the rest of us have had to put up with from the liberals for way
> too long..
And then in a staggering crescendo, you digress into what appears (in my
opinion anyways) to be meaningless ramblings. But hey, I am just one
person. I read you got a standing ovation.
Law-Student-Dave
>
> Have more class than you do, wanker.
question how classy anyone can be who retorts with a slight variation of "I
know you are but what am I."
> I post my own name to my work, and speak my mind.
The fact that you would use your real name on some these posts lends support
to the following conclusions. Please note that I am just pointing out
conclusions: to pick one over the others would be inappropriate given that I
don't know you:
1) You are a proud American with strong convictions
2) You are not in a position of authority
2a) None of your peers engages themselves by reading newsgroups
2b) You're job is menial and can be had with one employer or
another, so the risk of reprecussions on your career (by being offending
someone with your postings) is limited
3) You are lying about using your real name.
> > I was making a simple observation, not an attack.
> And I made an observation as well.
> Free speech is a bitch, isn't it?
I think the point being made is that there was an opportunity for real
discussion but you chose to turn it into the insulting match you condemned
"lefty liberals" for engaging in an above posting.
> You mean you're not used to having me tell you
> like it is? Lemme give you a suggestion newbie.
> Save yourself the self-induced vaginal pains, and
> keep your posts to that Chomsky group, where
> those of us with common sense don't even bother
> going... :O(
Case in point, sir. Common sense would preclude someone from making such
insults if they were searching for meaning debate.
Any effort to handle you like a gentleman is testament to the importance of
free speech. Crockett
Law-Student-Dave
"pez" <pez...@ntplx.net> wrote in message
news:pezcleo-0710...@p05-35.hartford.dialin.ntplx.com...
> In article <9pqfhs$d1l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "johnnyCjohnny"
> <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
>
> $ "Ben Horowitz" <bhor...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
> $ news:3BC0C22D...@earthlink.com...
> $ > Law-Student-Dave wrote:
> $ > > Bush and other senior politicians said bin
> $ > > Laden and his followers acted out of hatred for freedom and envy of
> $ > > American wealth.
> $ >
> $ > ... like the freedom to travel to the Arabian Peninsula and the
> $ > freedom to assemble with muslims there?
> $
> $ You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free speech rights
> $ trampled in a mad wave of patriotism. Regardless of the sins that the
left
> $ has commited in the past, I find it chilling to see people who have the
guts
> $ to voice differing opinions from the mainstream ones, being so
ostricized.
> $ It's a sad day for those who love freedom and love America.
>
> They are speaking it is just rejected.
> No ones freedom is hurt.
An opinion cannot be rejected if it is silenced. Silencing an opinion and
rejecting are not the same, and this is especially true in a country which
purports to respect free speech.
Law-Student-Dave
> $ I think the reality which is allegedly being concealed is that of the
> $ importance of American government's foreign policy on the events of 911.
> $
> $ More specifically if you prefer, Bush and other senior politicians said
bin
> $ Laden and his followers acted out of hatred for freedom and envy of
> $ wealth. I think that these statements are "reality-concealing."
pez responded:
> Those views are that of the left not the terrorists.
Law-Student-Dave retorts:
I am sorry, I am unclear as to which views you are generalizing to be held
by the left? That aside, I must again reiterate that this has nothing to do
with right or left. But I address the point regardless
View #1: The important role of foreign policy.
Osama bin Laden himself (in the video they are showing 4 second sound bytes
from on CNN) has made a statement to this effect. First, taking issue with
US decision to side with Israel in Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. Second,
the death of 100,000+ Iraqi children as a direct result of US economic
sanctions. So this must not be your point, unless you think Osama has been
bribed by what the imaginary group you call the "left." Or maybe you mean
bin Laden bribed the "left" into adopting its current positions? Neither
makes much sense to me, so you must mean the second view.
View #2: Bush et al claiming the acts were based in envy and hatred for
freedom.
Well that is what Bush has specifically said in his announcements. See View
#1 for adaptable conspiracy theories involving bribery.
So, if not #1 or #2, which "views are that of the left not the terrorists?"
Stan Rothwell
"Law-Student-Dave" <daveycro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Subw7.1876$FG6.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > Why is it that so many right wing conservatives like you have no
class.
> >
> > Have more class than you do, wanker.
> "I have more class than you?" You don't even know him Mr. Rothwell. But
I
> question how classy anyone can be who retorts with a slight variation of
"I
> know you are but what am I."
Piss up a rope. I come from a family of lawyers, and
for the most part, they are arrogant parasites, as far
as I'm concerned. Everything you have shown me so
far indicates you're no different.
> > I post my own name to my work, and speak my mind.
> The fact that you would use your real name on some these posts lends
support
> to the following conclusions. Please note that I am just pointing out
> conclusions: to pick one over the others would be inappropriate given that
I
> don't know you:
> 1) You are a proud American with strong convictions
No shit, sherlock.
> 2) You are not in a position of authority
No, I don't desire to lord over others. I am in a position
of responsibility, which is not always (unfortunately)
one of authority.
> 2a) None of your peers engages themselves by reading newsgroups
Many of them do, and a few of them post under their
own names as well.
> 2b) You're job is menial and can be had with one employer or
> another, so the risk of reprecussions on your career (by being offending
> someone with your postings) is limited
Kiss my ass. I run my own engineering consulting company,
and MOST people I work with don't give a rat's ass about what
opinions I post in my own time. Actually, I'm pretty famous/
notorious in my line of work, and there are a few weenies
who are scared to death to give me contracts because I'm
not afraid to call it as I see it. Fine with me, as I have enough
work without them.
> 3) You are lying about using your real name.
Hardly.
> > > I was making a simple observation, not an attack.
You're a pretty lame lawyer.
>
> > And I made an observation as well.
> > Free speech is a bitch, isn't it?
> I think the point being made is that there was an opportunity for real
> discussion but you chose to turn it into the insulting match you condemned
> "lefty liberals" for engaging in an above posting.
You insult me, I insult you even more. You kick
me, I punch you. You punch me, I break your
bones. It's called the "Russian School" of
response. Not very PC, but when you grow
up as the only white boy on the block, you
learn self-preservation that way... :O|
> > You mean you're not used to having me tell you
> > like it is? Lemme give you a suggestion newbie.
> > Save yourself the self-induced vaginal pains, and
> > keep your posts to that Chomsky group, where
> > those of us with common sense don't even bother
> > going... :O(
>
> Case in point, sir. Common sense would preclude someone from making such
> insults if they were searching for meaning debate.
Oh, as if those who make blanket accusations
about patriotic Americans were interested in
"meaningful debate" to begin with? Give me a
break, J.D. Boy. You're a lousy excuse for one
who will someday depend on argumentation
skills to ply your trade...
> Any effort to handle you like a gentleman is testament to the importance
of
> free speech.
Back to your studies, Perry Mason..
James A. Donald
Stan Rothwell
> > The right to free speech does not include the obligation
> > of others to provide a forum for them. There is a
> > difference.
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad:
> While the above is true on a very elementary level, there
> are other issues at stake here. The primary one being that
> the news is not a forum for the viewpoint of the owner to
> be expressed. Those who deliver the news have a
> responsibility to deliver a balanced view of the facts -
They are.
Your complaint is that those who deliver one extreme and
unbalanced view do not attract an audience these days.
The facts are pretty clear. America, and americans were
murderously attacked.
The two extremes of interpretation of this evernt are the
Chomsky/Bin Laden extreme -- Americans had it coming to them
for their evil acts, and the other extreme being those who
call for holy war on muslims. Bin Laden and Chomsky got
their moment on stage -- and were promptly booed off stage.
The ones calling for holy war on muslims and the muslim
religion are treated not much better.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
B3MmTbOEz/IoGuIGBKy0r3zvrWrhaFUwvRgWIIof
4+xzgebBXicsB+9OHlDjspsZElGCB8THsQyqgzOZu
The Pervert
"johnnyCjohnny" <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote in message
news:9pqu8h$oks$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> "The Pervert" <perv...@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fO6w7.17767$SO.50...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> >
> > "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:9pqp8q$t44$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > "johnnyCjohnny" <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9pqjv5$3l5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Try speaking your mind in a crowd of flag waving patriotic fanatics.
> Are
> > > > they interesting in a rational gentlemenly discussion? I doubt it.
> These
> > > > days you'd probably get shouted down or worse. Sad day for America.
> Kill
> > > the
> > > > people your here to save (i.e. kill freedom in order to save it).
:-(
> > >
> > > the decade of Political Correctness on college campuses
> > > where anyone who expressed a viewpoint that was to the
> > > right of Jane Fonda was denounced as 'racist, sexist,
> > > to break up meetings and shout down those they didn't agree
> > > with, while administrators did nothing but blather about
> > > 'diversity', and pass "hate speech" codes instead.
> > >
> > > alternate sources of news and views, such as the frustrated
> > > totalitarian wannabees trying to get radio programs by people
> > > such as Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura pulled off the air, just
> > > because some people didn't like their views.
> > >
> > > IRS to audit and intimidate conservative and religious non-profit
> > > organizations, while looking the the other way as hucksters such
> > > as Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton ran their
> > > groups as shakedown rackets and pocketed loose cash.
> > >
> > > IMPEACHED former president, who used law enforcement
> > > agencies and classified documents to silence and blackmail those
> > > that came forward with evidence that might have lead to criminal
> > > prosecution.
> > >
> > > you're suddenly worried about infringement of our FREE SPEECH
> > > rights? So how come the Lefty Liberals weren't so worried about
> > > it before? Or perhaps the concerns isn't for free speech in general,
> > > but only about whether THEY can get THEIR point of view
> > > projected, at the expense of everyone else?
> > >
> > > you're shitting in your pants when you run into patriotic Americans
> > > and other people with plain common sense, who are tired of
> > > listening the continual anti-American CRAP that you people
> > > spew on a daily basis! You're only getting a taste of the shit that
> > > the rest of us have had to put up with from the liberals for way
> > >
> > > Now fuck off, and have a nice day. :O|
> > >
> >
> > Actually, the pacifists have the right to express their views, and
others
> > have the right to shout at them in response.
> >
> > The right of free speech protects us from the government prohibiting our
> > right to express any kind of political expression, up to and including,
> > burning the flag. It does not, however, protect everybody from pissing
> off
> > the listeners and earning their sometimes very vocal disapproval.
> >
> > There is no Constitutionally guaranteed requirement of a "gentlemanly
> > discussion."
> >
>
> True, but if you really believe in the 1st ammendment, then you'd keep it
> gentlemanly and not shout another person down.
Item one. Don't ever presume to tell me what I *really* believe in...
unless you have a compulsion to be made to look like a complete fool.
Item two. If you will take a look at both the Bill of Rights (wherein is
contained the First Amendment) or any other Section or Article of the
Constitution, nowhere is it either required, or even mentioned, that one
must be "gentlemanly," neither is there any specific (or even vaguely
implied) requirement not to shout. Ergo, if you really knew anything about
our Freedom of Speech, you wouldn't inject tangential ideas which have
absolutely nothing to do with it!
>It always seems like it's the
> wild eyed right wingers who are always doing all the shouting. Just goes
to
> show who really believes in respecting other people's free speech.
You weren't around during the seventies, were you. Didn't think so. One
might also inquire if you were around during the eighties and nineties, too,
given the rampant ignorance (not to mention blatant inaccuracy) of the
statement.
But you were free to make it, weren't you? And I was free to offer a
response. And neither of us were arrested. The Constitution still works
regardless of our particular political inclination.
Rejoice.
The Pervert
"Rev. J. Thaddius Toad" <jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote in message
Not by me! Very eloquent post there... if you don't mind support from a
semi-conservative Republican. You seem to have more regard for, and
knowledge of, the United States than many who were born here.
We have made many mistakes in our relatively brief history, some of which
were pretty lousy. But generally we own up to them and try to make things
as right as possible (even when that doesn't come up to the expectations of
some).
And I disagree with you about our basic regard for each other's right to
free speech. Sure, we bicker among ourselves, but I'd like to think we
generally TRY to do what's right and decent, and I'd like to think we
succeed in that more often than the times we don't quite measure up. It's
just that, with our free and open society, we tend to splash our errors all
over the evening news.
The Pervert
> "Rev. J. Thaddius Toad" <jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3bc4137f.14867047@news...
> > On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:08:03 -0400, "johnnyCjohnny"
> > <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
> >
> > >True, but if you really believe in the 1st ammendment, then you'd keep
it
> > >gentlemanly and not shout another person down. It always seems like
it's
> the
> > >wild eyed right wingers who are always doing all the shouting. Just
goes
> to
> > >show who really believes in respecting other people's free speech.
> >
> > Now hold on just a minute. I'm no friend of rabid dittoheads, but
> > let's ease up on the bullshit. The left wing is just as guilty of this
> > sort of behavior - that's the real problem. Very few people, left OR
> > right, actually give a shit about the objective right to free speech -
> > they care about THEIR right to free speech.
>
> True enough. The left is just as guilty as the right in this respect.
Well, hey, John! Good for you! Two points for honesty! A sincere bravo...
so I take back some of the snide things I said to you in my other response.
The Pervert
(In other words, well done, Dave.)
"Law-Student-Dave" <daveycro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Vabw7.1855$FG6.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Joost van Steenis
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 16:56:02 -0700, "Stan Rothwell"
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>"Joost van Steenis" <power...@chello.nl> wrote in message
>news:3bc0d17a...@news.ams.chello.nl...
>>
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 21:22:36 GMT, Ben Horowitz
>> <bhor...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>>
>> >johnnyCjohnny wrote:
>> >> You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free speech rights
>> >> trampled in a mad wave of patriotism.
>> >
>> >The article at the start of this thread asserts that "[d]issent has all
>> >but disappeared." The article then affords example after example of
>> >dissent (Sontag, Maher, Moore, Guthrie, Gutting ..).
>> >
>> >Dissent has not disappeared. The audience for dissent has dwindled.
>> >People who talk to themselves are still free to talk.
>>
>> Nonsense, The audience for dissent has not dwindled, the audience is
>> manipulated and brainwashed by the owners of the media.
>> I am lucky to live in Europe where the possibility to discuss the
>> horrific event without repeating what is said by the leaders. In this
>> way it is possible to come to a solution.
>
>Sorry, but your outlets for discussion don't even come close to
>the talk radio programs (of all political persuasions and styles)
>that we have in the States. I know there are some some talk
>shows in the UK, and I have tuned into one or two in the
>Netherlands, althought I have trouble following them (het
>spijt me, maar mijn nederlands is niet goed). However, it's
>nothing like the diverse range of opinions expressed over
>here. Sure, you can hear one point of view sponsored by the
>so-called "corporate media", but 5 or 10 minutes later, a caller
>to that same media is telling the host that the news was in error,
>the opinion slanted, that the announcer doesn't know what he
>or she is talking about... and it's getting out to the same audience!!!
>
>Despite what the generalities you hear from the crybaby
>leftists in the States, free speech is alive and well. The
>problem is that those who are used to passing themselves
>off as the self-annointed 'experts' are having a rough time
>convincing others of their point of view, and they are getting
>frustrated. Joost, you need to do a bit of research before
>you make such generalities... :O|
I admit I did not do much research but the initiator of this thread
suggests very clearly that it is not so well with the possibility that
other opinions come forward in the USA.
I follow both CNN and the New York Times, two very big media, and what
I see and hear is a very one-sided propaganda.
That is logic when the government is asking the people to chose
between two extremes, one who has bombed the whole world (Bush) and
the other who bombed several US-assets (Bin Laden). Indeed two of a
kind and neither CNN nor the New York Times bring forward that this
kind of reasoning is not sound.
And where is the criticism on the bombings of Afghanistan that is
undertaken out of the (wrong) assumption that it is a war between Bush
and Bin Laden and when Bin Laden is dead, all will be good again.
But I agree with you that there are still many people in the USA who
think and who are willing to discuss things to solve this horrendous
situation and who try to come forward on some (probably small) media
programs. The conflict is a long-term political question that can only
be solved by beginning with two very big problems, Iraq and
Israel/Palestine.
The present arrogant policy of the USA-government is making the world
pregnant of many more Bin Ladens.
Joost van Steenis
http://www.geocities.com/powerandelite
New ways to break the power of the elite
Aviator
>
> "Law-Student-Dave" <daveycro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Subw7.1876$FG6.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > Why is it that so many right wing conservatives like you have no
> class.
> > >
> > > Have more class than you do, wanker.
> > "I have more class than you?" You don't even know him Mr. Rothwell.
But
> I
> > question how classy anyone can be who retorts with a slight variation of
> "I
> > know you are but what am I."
>
> Piss up a rope. I come from a family of lawyers, and
> for the most part, they are arrogant parasites, as far
> as I'm concerned. Everything you have shown me so
> far indicates you're no different.
read: I was the only one in my family who failed to become a lawyer due to a
serious lack of brainpower
>
> > > I post my own name to my work, and speak my mind.
> > The fact that you would use your real name on some these posts lends
> support
> > to the following conclusions. Please note that I am just pointing out
> > conclusions: to pick one over the others would be inappropriate given
that
> I
> > don't know you:
> > 1) You are a proud American with strong convictions
>
> No shit, sherlock.
>
> > 2) You are not in a position of authority
>
> No, I don't desire to lord over others. I am in a position
> of responsibility, which is not always (unfortunately)
> one of authority.
You don't desire to "lord' over others, but it is unfortunate that your
position is NOT one of authority?? In one sentence, you brand yourself a
liar.
>
> > 2a) None of your peers engages themselves by reading newsgroups
>
> Many of them do, and a few of them post under their
> own names as well.
>
> > 2b) You're job is menial and can be had with one employer or
> > another, so the risk of reprecussions on your career (by being offending
> > someone with your postings) is limited
>
> Kiss my ass. I run my own engineering consulting company,
Again you brand yourself as a liar, Stanley. If you OWNED this business,
then you ARE in authority.
That is twice in one post
> and MOST people I work with don't give a rat's ass about what
> opinions I post in my own time. Actually, I'm pretty famous/
> notorious in my line of work, and there are a few weenies
> who are scared to death to give me contracts because I'm
> not afraid to call it as I see it. Fine with me, as I have enough
> work without them.
Why do I smell the dung of bulls when I read this??
>
> > 3) You are lying about using your real name.
>
> Hardly.
>
> > > > I was making a simple observation, not an attack.
>
> You're a pretty lame lawyer.
You aren't even a lawyer
>
> >
> > > And I made an observation as well.
> > > Free speech is a bitch, isn't it?
> > I think the point being made is that there was an opportunity for real
> > discussion but you chose to turn it into the insulting match you
condemned
> > "lefty liberals" for engaging in an above posting.
>
> You insult me, I insult you even more. You kick
> me, I punch you. You punch me, I break your
> bones. It's called the "Russian School" of
> response. Not very PC, but when you grow
> up as the only white boy on the block, you
> learn self-preservation that way... :O|
Seems you do all your punching and kicking on usenet. Get a lot of bruises,
Stanley??
>
> > > You mean you're not used to having me tell you
> > > like it is? Lemme give you a suggestion newbie.
> > > Save yourself the self-induced vaginal pains, and
> > > keep your posts to that Chomsky group, where
> > > those of us with common sense don't even bother
> > > going... :O(
> >
> > Case in point, sir. Common sense would preclude someone from making
such
> > insults if they were searching for meaning debate.
>
> Oh, as if those who make blanket accusations
> about patriotic Americans were interested in
> "meaningful debate" to begin with? Give me a
> break, J.D. Boy. You're a lousy excuse for one
> who will someday depend on argumentation
> skills to ply your trade...
>
> > Any effort to handle you like a gentleman is testament to the importance
> of
> > free speech.
>
> Back to your studies, Perry Mason..
And what do you study to qualify as a liar, Stanley?? You aren't even good
at that
>
>
>
James A. Donald
> > > Stuck in Berlin by the closure of American airports,
> > > [Susan] Sontag was asked by The New Yorker to
> > > contribute to the magazine's first Talk of the Town
> > > section published after the attacks. This is what she
> > > wrote: "The unanimity of the sanctimonious,
> > > reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American
> > > officials and media commentators in recent days seems,
> > > well, unworthy of a mature democracy."
HempFarmer
> > "Wanted Dead or Alive," is 'reality-concealing'?
Law-Student-Dave
> I think the reality which is allegedly being concealed is
> that of the importance of American government's foreign
> policy on the events of 911.
A recent poll said that some large proportion, I think about
seventy percent, believed that the attack was in large part
motivated by US foreign policy. If the government is trying
to conceal reality, they are not trying very hard.
People are aware of this, they just do not care. Killing the
terrorists and those who sponsor them seems far more likely
to be effectual than changing the US foreign policy.
The major aspect of foreign policy that the terrorists object
to is the fact that they US government is propping up the
Saudi regime. The terrorists want to take over Saudi Arabia.
Were they to succeed, the likely result would be more
terrorism, not less. The terrorism justifies the foreign
policy that the terrorists object to.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
92FKadYN1OcvQW5uyzFuRB7ONbRrS5bXV0E7VRvV
4yHN2NJbmpYiPg9jggWFal+wNWIWhSX3NH07Q9io0
pez
"Law-Student-Dave" <daveycro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
$ "Law-Student-Dave" wrote:
$ I think these corp.'s have a duty to ensure minority opinions get attention,
$ especially broadcasters, if they are going to claim to be providing the
$ American people with a full account of this story.
$
$ Stan Rothwell responded:
$ The right to free speech does not include the obligation of others
$ to provide a forum for them. There is a difference.
$
$ Pez responded:
$ No they don't.
$
$ Law-Student-Dave Retorts:
$ In "Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC" Justice White (in a unanimous
$ USSC decision) wrote:
$ Nor can we say that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment goal of
$ producing an informed public capable of conducting its own affairs to
$ require a broadcaster to permit answers ... in the course of discussing
$ controversial issues or to require that the political opponents of those
$ endorsed by the station be given a chance to communicate with the public.
$ Otherwise, station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to
$ make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their
$ own views on public issues, people and candidates, and to permit on the air
$ only those with whom they agreed. "There is no sanctuary in the First
$ Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to
$ all..."
$
$ The emphasis at the end of the paragraph is mine. Crockett.
That is old and the faieness doctrine has expired.
pez
"Law-Student-Dave" <daveycro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
$ "Law-Student-Dave" wrote: $
$ > $ I think the reality which is allegedly being concealed is that of the
$ > $ importance of American government's foreign policy on the events of 911.
$ > $
$ > $ More specifically if you prefer, Bush and other senior politicians said
$ bin
$ > $ Laden and his followers acted out of hatred for freedom and envy of
$ American
$ > $ wealth. I think that these statements are "reality-concealing."
$
$ pez responded:
$ > Those views are that of the left not the terrorists.
$
$ Law-Student-Dave retorts:
$ I am sorry, I am unclear as to which views you are generalizing to be held
$ by the left? That aside, I must again reiterate that this has nothing to do
$ with right or left. But I address the point regardless
$
$ View #1: The important role of foreign policy.
$ Osama bin Laden himself (in the video they are showing 4 second sound bytes
$ from on CNN) has made a statement to this effect. First, taking issue with
$ US decision to side with Israel in Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. Second,
$ the death of 100,000+ Iraqi children as a direct result of US economic
$ sanctions. So this must not be your point, unless you think Osama has been
$ bribed by what the imaginary group you call the "left." Or maybe you mean
$ bin Laden bribed the "left" into adopting its current positions? Neither
$ makes much sense to me, so you must mean the second view.
$
$ View #2: Bush et al claiming the acts were based in envy and hatred for
$ freedom.
$ Well that is what Bush has specifically said in his announcements. See View
$ #1 for adaptable conspiracy theories involving bribery.
$
$ So, if not #1 or #2, which "views are that of the left not the terrorists?"
This gas more to do OBL bruised ego, his homeland rejected his offer to
defend them from Iraq. They excepted the US army.
That is it, the rest is propaganda.
pez
"Law-Student-Dave" <daveycro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
$ "pez" <pez...@ntplx.net> wrote in message
$ news:pezcleo-0710...@p05-35.hartford.dialin.ntplx.com...
$ > In article <9pqfhs$d1l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "johnnyCjohnny"
$ > <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
$ >
$ > $ "Ben Horowitz" <bhor...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
$ > $ news:3BC0C22D...@earthlink.com...
$ > $ > Law-Student-Dave wrote:
$ > $ > > Bush and other senior politicians said bin
$ > $ > > Laden and his followers acted out of hatred for freedom and envy of
$ > $ > > American wealth.
$ > $ >
$ > $ > ... like the freedom to travel to the Arabian Peninsula and the
$ > $ > freedom to assemble with muslims there?
$ > $
$ > $ You do have to admit that it is chilling to see our free speech rights
$ > $ trampled in a mad wave of patriotism. Regardless of the sins that the
$ left
$ > $ has commited in the past, I find it chilling to see people who have the
$ guts
$ > $ to voice differing opinions from the mainstream ones, being so
$ ostricized.
$ > $ It's a sad day for those who love freedom and love America.
$ >
$ > They are speaking it is just rejected.
$ > No ones freedom is hurt.
$
$ An opinion cannot be rejected if it is silenced. Silencing an opinion and
$ rejecting are not the same, and this is especially true in a country which
$ purports to respect free speech.
No one has to listen, that is not the same as being silenced.
The government is the only one who could silence speech.
That would be unconstitutional.
pez
"Law-Student-Dave" <daveycro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
$ "Law-Student-Dave" wrote:
$ I think these corp.'s have a duty to ensure minority opinions get attention,
$ especially broadcasters, if they are going to claim to be providing the
$ American people with a full account of this story.
$
$ Stan Rothwell responded:
$ The right to free speech does not include the obligation of others
$ to provide a forum for them. There is a difference.
$
$ Pez responded:
$ No they don't.
$
$ Law-Student-Dave Retorts:
$ In "Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC" Justice White (in a unanimous
$ USSC decision) wrote:
$ Nor can we say that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment goal of
$ producing an informed public capable of conducting its own affairs to
$ require a broadcaster to permit answers ... in the course of discussing
$ controversial issues or to require that the political opponents of those
$ endorsed by the station be given a chance to communicate with the public.
$ Otherwise, station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to
$ make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their
$ own views on public issues, people and candidates, and to permit on the air
$ only those with whom they agreed. "There is no sanctuary in the First
$ Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to
$ all..."
$
$ The emphasis at the end of the paragraph is mine. Crockett.
You also realize this passage applies to political office seekers and only
reflects they must make avaiable commercials at the same price.
G*rd*n
| > >True, but if you really believe in the 1st ammendment, then you'd keep it
| > >gentlemanly and not shout another person down. It always seems like it's
| the
| > >wild eyed right wingers who are always doing all the shouting. Just goes
| to
| > >show who really believes in respecting other people's free speech.
"Rev. J. Thaddius Toad" <jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote in message
| > Now hold on just a minute. I'm no friend of rabid dittoheads, but
| > let's ease up on the bullshit. The left wing is just as guilty of this
| > sort of behavior - that's the real problem. Very few people, left OR
| > right, actually give a shit about the objective right to free speech -
| > they care about THEIR right to free speech.
| >
| > It would be nice if everyone had an extra 1000 years of evolution
| > under their belt, but the fact of the matter is, most of the time
| > people are just a mob - look at the all the death threats flying
| > around at people who publicly express dissent right now. Someone just
| > posted a message where they stated that they were looking forward to
| > the day when the next attack came, and angry mobs would round up all
| > the pacifists and have a good ol' fashioned lynching.
| >
| > It makes me want to say fuck it, let the whole thing sink into the
| > ocean if the barbarian is still lurking that close to the surface. I
| > thought that Americans, despite their country's record of senseless
| > slaughter in other countries, had at least learned to retain a certain
| > level of civility towards each other. It was one of the things I
| > admired about that country. Apparently the fierce individualism they
| > so pride themselves on disappears once they're put under a little
| > stress.
| >
| > I'll probably be accused of being a USA hater for the above, but the
| > fact of the matter is that even though I'm Canadian, I love the idea
| > of America, and I still look forward to the day when it comes true.
"The Pervert" <perv...@spambad.yahoo.com>:
| Not by me! Very eloquent post there... if you don't mind support from a
| semi-conservative Republican. You seem to have more regard for, and
| knowledge of, the United States than many who were born here.
|
| We have made many mistakes in our relatively brief history, some of which
| were pretty lousy. But generally we own up to them and try to make things
| as right as possible (even when that doesn't come up to the expectations of
| some).
|
| And I disagree with you about our basic regard for each other's right to
| free speech. Sure, we bicker among ourselves, but I'd like to think we
| generally TRY to do what's right and decent, and I'd like to think we
| succeed in that more often than the times we don't quite measure up. It's
| just that, with our free and open society, we tend to splash our errors all
| over the evening news.
It seems to take the U.S. a long time to get around to owning
up to mistakes and longer still to making them right, racial
politics, including slavery, being one oustanding example.
As for the right of free speech, we'll have to see how much
repression comes down. So far, only a handful of people
have actually be punished for political incorrectness, but a
lot of other people are asking for more repression.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/30/01 <-adv't
Jafo
"johnnyCjohnny:
>You weren't around during the seventies, were you. Didn't think so.
>One might also inquire if you were around during the eighties and
>nineties, too, given the rampant ignorance (not to mention blatant
>inaccuracy) of the statement.
For that matter, "one might also inquire" if he's really all there
right now.
--
Jafo® http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
"How can you be in two places at once when you aren't anywhere at
all?" - Firesign Theatre
Jafo
>> > Why is it that so many right wing conservatives like you have no
>> > class.
>> Have more class than you do, wanker.
>"I have more class than you?" You don't even know him Mr. Rothwell.
He knows him through his written word, just as we've come to know you
far better than we would have wanted to through yours.
<remainder of peurile first-year-law-student bullshit mercifully
deleted>
>Crockett
Say, whatever happened to Tubbs?
--
Jafo® http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
johnnyCjohnny
No, you're a lowlife because you've taken the low road in this debate and
pounced all over me when all I did was make an observation. You're just one
of many classless right wing reactionaries that unfortunately populate this
great land of ours. I don't converse with people like you on the streets,
why should I on the USENET?
Stan Rothwell
"Aviator" <S...@tter.com> wrote in message
news:T7ew7.10502$3i3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:9prkbm$srs$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "Law-Student-Dave" <daveycro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Subw7.1876$FG6.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > Why is it that so many right wing conservatives like you have no
> > class.
> > > >
> > > > Have more class than you do, wanker.
> > > "I have more class than you?" You don't even know him Mr. Rothwell.
> But
> > I
> > > question how classy anyone can be who retorts with a slight variation
of
> > "I
> > > know you are but what am I."
> >
> > Piss up a rope. I come from a family of lawyers, and
> > for the most part, they are arrogant parasites, as far
> > as I'm concerned. Everything you have shown me so
> > far indicates you're no different.
>
> read: I was the only one in my family who failed to become a lawyer due to
a
> serious lack of brainpower
Yeah, it doesn't take much brains to get a Chem E
degree from Cal Berkeley, does it? Tell us about
your educational background, Avi, so we can have
a good laugh...
> > > > I post my own name to my work, and speak my mind.
> > > The fact that you would use your real name on some these posts lends
> > support
> > > to the following conclusions. Please note that I am just pointing out
> > > conclusions: to pick one over the others would be inappropriate given
> that
> > I
> > > don't know you:
> > > 1) You are a proud American with strong convictions
> >
> > No shit, sherlock.
> >
> > > 2) You are not in a position of authority
> >
> > No, I don't desire to lord over others. I am in a position
> > of responsibility, which is not always (unfortunately)
> > one of authority.
>
> You don't desire to "lord' over others, but it is unfortunate that your
> position is NOT one of authority?? In one sentence, you brand yourself a
> liar.
No, I'm merely mentioning that the divorcing of
responsibility and authority is lamentable, and can
be traced to the Lefty Liberal philosophy of
"victimization", where some are not held
accountable for their actions.
> >
> > > 2a) None of your peers engages themselves by reading
newsgroups
> >
> > Many of them do, and a few of them post under their
> > own names as well.
> >
> > > 2b) You're job is menial and can be had with one employer or
> > > another, so the risk of reprecussions on your career (by being
offending
> > > someone with your postings) is limited
> >
> > Kiss my ass. I run my own engineering consulting company,
>
> Again you brand yourself as a liar, Stanley. If you OWNED this business,
> then you ARE in authority.
As I said, I have responsibility. I don't have authority in that
I can boss my clients around. If you knew anything about
business, you would know the customer is boss... :O)
> That is twice in one post
Slow morning, huh? You gotta find some reason
to respond to my posts, huh?
> > and MOST people I work with don't give a rat's ass about what
> > opinions I post in my own time. Actually, I'm pretty famous/
> > notorious in my line of work, and there are a few weenies
> > who are scared to death to give me contracts because I'm
> > not afraid to call it as I see it. Fine with me, as I have enough
> > work without them.
>
> Why do I smell the dung of bulls when I read this??
I dunno. You haven't bathed lately?
> > > 3) You are lying about using your real name.
> >
> > Hardly.
> >
> > > > > I was making a simple observation, not an attack.
> >
> > You're a pretty lame lawyer.
>
> You aren't even a lawyer
Which I am proud of. :O)
> > > > And I made an observation as well.
> > > > Free speech is a bitch, isn't it?
> > > I think the point being made is that there was an opportunity for real
> > > discussion but you chose to turn it into the insulting match you
> condemned
> > > "lefty liberals" for engaging in an above posting.
> >
> > You insult me, I insult you even more. You kick
> > me, I punch you. You punch me, I break your
> > bones. It's called the "Russian School" of
> > response. Not very PC, but when you grow
> > up as the only white boy on the block, you
> > learn self-preservation that way... :O|
>
> Seems you do all your punching and kicking on usenet. Get a lot of
bruises,
> Stanley??
Not at all.
> > > > You mean you're not used to having me tell you
> > > > like it is? Lemme give you a suggestion newbie.
> > > > Save yourself the self-induced vaginal pains, and
> > > > keep your posts to that Chomsky group, where
> > > > those of us with common sense don't even bother
> > > > going... :O(
> > >
> > > Case in point, sir. Common sense would preclude someone from making
> such
> > > insults if they were searching for meaning debate.
> >
> > Oh, as if those who make blanket accusations
> > about patriotic Americans were interested in
> > "meaningful debate" to begin with? Give me a
> > break, J.D. Boy. You're a lousy excuse for one
> > who will someday depend on argumentation
> > skills to ply your trade...
> >
> > > Any effort to handle you like a gentleman is testament to the
importance
> > of
> > > free speech.
> >
> > Back to your studies, Perry Mason..
>
> And what do you study to qualify as a liar, Stanley?? You aren't even
good
> at that
So what am I lying about? Or is this another round of
blanket accusations by another Lefty Liberal?
Hey, Avi, when are you going to post using your
own name, coward?
Stan Rothwell
We have plenty of other sources besides CNN and the NYT.
May I suggest that your own particular political prejudices
prevent your from seeking out other sources? :Oo
> And where is the criticism on the bombings of Afghanistan that is
> undertaken out of the (wrong) assumption that it is a war between Bush
> and Bin Laden and when Bin Laden is dead, all will be good again.
Who has made those assumptions? Certainly not Bush, if you
have bothered to listed to him. Now Joost, I know that most
educated people in the Netherlands speak English, so I'm
sure that you don't have any comprehension problem in
listening to his speeches and making up your own mind, do you?
> But I agree with you that there are still many people in the USA who
> think and who are willing to discuss things to solve this horrendous
> situation and who try to come forward on some (probably small) media
> programs.
No, on some very large programs. Have you never listened
to American talk radio? Or again, do your personal prejudices
limit you to the officially sanctioned sources of your peer group?
> The conflict is a long-term political question that can only
> be solved by beginning with two very big problems, Iraq and
> Israel/Palestine.
That is a misnomer. There is a fundamental envy and resentment
amongst those in the Third World who want the benefit of what
we enjoy in the US, without endorsing the institutions (free
market economics, political and religious tolerance, constitutionally
protected rights, democratically elected government) that make it
possible. Both the self-imposed misery of Iraq (made possible by
a nutcase more intent on making NBC weapons and building up
a huge army) and the Palestinian issue are merely sideshows.
> The present arrogant policy of the USA-government is making
> the world pregnant of many more Bin Ladens.
We are hated because we are a success, and they are failures.
Stan Rothwell
Nobody protesting US policy is being silenced. There are
plenty of forums (including this one) where anyone can
express their views. You're just upset because you
can't commandeer the forum of your chioce. Well guess
what? Neither can most of us. We do our best to express
out thoughts in an articulate manner, and see if that
message resonates with others. Based on the responses
in this thread alone, it would seem that my message
is making more impact than yours, and you're not happy
about it.
> Silencing an opinion and rejecting are not the same,
And we never said it was. Once again, you are operating
from this assumption that right of free speech inherently
carries some obligation on others to provide a forum for
that speech. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, despite
some of the 'creative' interpretations of the Constitution
that you have probably heard by 'activist' types in law
school.
Stan Rothwell
An inflammatory, ERRONEOUS observation. Your free
speech rights aren't being trampled by anyone, much less
patriotic Americans. You are free to post your diatribe
here, just as others voice their opinions in the news.
Once again, you lie and distort to push your agenda.
> You're just one of many classless right wing reactionaries
> that unfortunately populate this great land of ours.
Get a clue, loser. You came here looking to flame individuals
of a particular political persuasion, and you are getting what
you deserved. Now, contrast that with the debate I have
had with Joost elsewhere in this thread. We disagree, but
since he has assumed some semblance of respect that you
haven't, we are able to conduct a civilized exchange.
Think about that next time before you show up making
blanket statements about things you know little about... :O(
Stan Rothwell
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9ps3j9$93h$1...@panix1.panix.com...
I beg your pardon, but slavery was eliminated over 130 years
ago in a bloody civil war that nearly tore our country apart.
No other country came by and forced us to give it up; we
did it to ourselves, because more and more Americans saw
that it was evil. Now, contrast that with the nations of the
world that STILL practice slavery to this day (BIG HINT:
2 of those nations hold seats on the UN Human Rights
Commission, the ones that had that dog-and-pony show
down in Durban).
> As for the right of free speech, we'll have to see how much
> repression comes down.
Oh, so after all this screaming about repression, you don't
have any examples? Figures... :O(
john smith
johnnyCjohnny wrote:
>
> "Rev. J. Thaddius Toad" <jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3bc20d04.13208012@news...
> > On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 23:17:56 GMT, john smith
> > <lagerboks-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> You're the umpteenth person who has posted this article.
> > >> Nevertheless, there is no "war against dissent" in terms of
> > >> opposing voices being suppressed. What the Left in this
> > >> country is experiencing is a massive public opinion shift
> > >> against them on military and immigration issues. The fact
> > >> that they don't have control of the discourse is making them
> > >> go nuts...
> > >
> > >
> > >as if they ever had.
> >
> > As they said in The Usual Suspects, The greatest trick the devil ever
> > pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist. It's a very
> > Orwellian fact that while the media has pretty much completely ceased
> > to give voice to any opinion that doesn't fit in with the agenda of
> > the magnates who own nearly all of it, they've still managed to sell
> > the public an image of a liberal-controlled, leftist media. War is
> > peace, etc.
>
> Right on! It's George Orwell's 1984 all the way. Controlling the mind of the
> masses. The information you get from the mainstream media is so narrow and
> limited and biased towards the government's point of view these days that
> it's a joke.
My sentiments precisely.
> The fact that so many people have brought the notion that the
> media is actually a liberal instution (rather than the conservative
> institution that upholds the status quo that it really is) just proves how
> ignorant most people in this country are. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
the best example was the X-files.
fear politics.
fear government.
fear the judicial system.
stay quiet and meek.
dont bother the politicians.
that didnt work so jeb and dubya had to rig the elections
and just wait for a war.
hey, they might even have laxed the security systems just
enough to let these terrorist bastards in.
boom.
we have a new issue to keep our minds off of domestic issues.
boom.
suddenly dubya can say "I am not a crook".
I am your great war hero.
> >
> > >from a recent discussion:
> > >
> > >--snip---
> > >> > It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to
> > >> > Roman times; creating the enemies you need.
> > >>
> > >> The rise of the "beast" and one world government
> > >> and yada yada yada yada....NOT
> > >>
> > >
> > >A thoughtful, and coherent analysis of factual historic precedents which
> > >indicate that sometimes government needs a unitifying war so much that it
> > >will sacrifice it's own people and monuments to get it, was surely what
> you
> > >meant?
> > >
> > >Notice the way the herd recoil in shock, disgust and denial when told
> > >something significant. They'd sooner trust the comfortable lies rather
> than
> > >face the horrors of truth.
> >
> > I've been wondering at that myself lately - why is it so easy to
> > accept as a simple fact that many governments throughout the world
> > unjustly and barbarically attack and kill people (their own and
> > others) on a regular basis, but it's inconceivable that their own
> > government would do the same. It's like they believe that writing
> > something in the constitution automagically makes it so, no matter how
> > much evidence to the contrary is presented.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > "It is a tribute to the American people that our
> > leaders perceived that they had to lie to us. It
> > is not a tribute to us that we were so easily
> > misled."
> > -Daniel Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers
> > ------------------------------------------------
-- js ==============================================================
"Freedom without opportunity is a devils gift, and the refusal (by
government) to provide such opportunity is criminal" --Noam Chomsky
====================================================================
Law-Student-Dave
MY NEW FAVOURITE QUOTE:
In Post 10/7/2001, 7:56 PM "Stan Rothwell" wrote:
Joost, you need to do a bit of research before you make such
generalities... :O|
> > >Sorry, but your outlets for discussion don't even come close to
> > >the talk radio programs (of all political persuasions and styles)
> > >that we have in the States. I know there are some some talk
> > >shows in the UK, and I have tuned into one or two in the
> > >Netherlands, althought I have trouble following them (het
> > >spijt me, maar mijn nederlands is niet goed). However, it's
> > >nothing like the diverse range of opinions expressed over
> > >here.
See Quote: [Stan Rothwell], you need to do a bit of research before you make
such generalities... :O|
> > > Sure, you can hear one point of view sponsored by the
> > >so-called "corporate media", but 5 or 10 minutes later, a caller
> > >to that same media is telling the host that the news was in error,
> > >the opinion slanted, that the announcer doesn't know what he
> > >or she is talking about... and it's getting out to the same audience!!!
> > >Despite what the generalities you hear from the crybaby
> > >leftists in the States,
I borrow from Mr. Rothwell again: [Stan Rothwell], you need to do a bit of
research before you make such generalities... :O|
Rothwell responds:
> > >free speech is alive and well. The
> > >problem is that those who are used to passing themselves
> > >off as the self-annointed 'experts' are having a rough time
> > >convincing others of their point of view, and they are getting
> > >frustrated.
One more time: [Stan Rothwell], you need to do a bit of research before you
make such generalities... :O|
Rothwell Responds:
> We have plenty of other sources besides CNN and the NYT.
> May I suggest that your own particular political prejudices
> prevent your from seeking out other sources? :Oo
In my most humble opinion, given your previous posts, I must conclude that
this is a quintessential case of the proverbial pot, screaming accusations
that the kettle is black. But hats off, good use of text drawings: A wide
array of emotions displayed, Rothwell. :Oo
> > But I agree with you that there are still many people in the USA who
> > think and who are willing to discuss things to solve this horrendous
> > situation and who try to come forward on some (probably small) media
> > programs.
Rothwell responds:
> No, on some very large programs. Have you never listened
> to American talk radio? Or again, do your personal prejudices
> limit you to the officially sanctioned sources of your peer group?
Translation: That's not true. I am right. And if you can't see that
it is because you are wilfully blind and thus unwilling to see it.
Rothwell concludes:
> There is a fundamental envy and resentment
> amongst those in the Third World who want the benefit of what
> we enjoy in the US, without endorsing the institutions (free
> market economics, political and religious tolerance, constitutionally
> protected rights, democratically elected government) that make it
> possible.
law-student-Dave retorts:
First off, we must once again paste in Mr. Rothwell's own words, because
I find it so enlightening and amusing. And Mr. Rothwell, I promise to use
this quote with each and every generality you make hereafter: [Stan
Rothwell], you need to do a bit of research before you make such
generalities ...:O|
Now then, on the issue of resentment and envy, there are a few points
things you will have to explain. First, envy: do you think it is possible
that someone could hijack a plane, kill the flight crew, take the controls,
drive it into a skyscraper, and kill a whole lot of people, out of envy?!
Can you imagine ever being that envious? Can you imagine anyone being that
envious? I don't think it makes much sense.
Second, resentment: Turning first to the suicide hijackers themselves,
many already had access to the "American dream." They were living here.
They got to act like consumers, and enjoy working, and the freedom, and
everything else. So what resentment could they have had? If they wanted
it, they had it. I believe their actions lend support to two conclusions:
A) The American way of life is not as exciting as we like to think. Its
lure is not so great as to prevent these men from doing what to be done.
B) It is not American values that they resent, so it must be something
else.
With regards to Osama's possible envy and resentment, I think it is safe
to say he has more money than most American's will make in a lifetime. He
has no reason to envy any of us, and any resentment would not be
Rothwell continues:
> Both the self-imposed misery of Iraq (made possible by
> a nutcase more intent on making NBC weapons and building up
> a huge army)
law-student-Dave retorts:
Self-imposed misery? You have conceded that Suddam was a nutcase more
intent on making weapons. If that is the case then what is the citizenry to
do? This isn't a government that encourages protests. So the American
government imposes sanctions denying food and medicine into the country and
so children die. Suddam, with his team of physicians, was the LEAST
affected by the sanctions. I believe wholeheartedly, that the misery
experienced by the Iraqi people is as much self-imposed as that experienced
by Americans on 911.
I do not think an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life.
Further, any claim that American lives are worth more would fall within even
the narrowest definition of racism. And as you have alluded to in the past,
once a person is branded a racist, they have trouble conveying their points.
> and the Palestinian issue are merely sideshows.
On this, bin Laden has stated quite specifically that the position of the US
government in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had a lot to do with the
attacks. Incidentally, he also brought up the 100,000+ starving Iraqi
children. So unless you think you know the motives of the terrorists better
than they know them themselves? Or are you claiming that you know they are
lying about their motives?
> We are hated because we are a success, and they are failures.
Last time, in this post anyway: [Stan Rothwell], you need to do a bit of
research before you make such generalities... :O|
Having read a few of your posts, it seems to me that you think everyone who
disagrees with you, either as an American on the global stage, or as a
contributer to this newsgroup, is failure, and only disagrees with your
position for invalid, wrong, or downright stupid reasons. Why not address
the reasons instead of trying to convince us that they should be dismissed.
How do you define success? As I understand it, the people of Saudi Arabia
(where Osama is from) are among the richest in the world. Crime rate is
low. Sure, they don't have the opportunity to live lives solely for the
purpose of working and consuming, but I certainly wouldn't equate that
deficiency with failure.
I am pleased this didn't turn into a competition of who could post the most
offensive or insulting accusations. Now if we can get you to abandon that
annoying habit of labelling each opponent you meet as a "Lefty." Not a
single argument I have made will be bettered or worsened by you labelling
it, or me, a "radical leftist liberal, totalitarian wannabee." Crockett
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
wrote:
>> While the above is true on a very elementary level, there are other
>> issues at stake here. The primary one being that the news is not a
>> forum for the viewpoint of the owner to be expressed. Those who
>> deliver the news have a responsibility to deliver a balanced view of
>> the facts - and while there is certainly a critical mass of simple
>> folk who have joined the rah-rah we love war chorus, there is a
>> significant portion of the populace who haven't, and for the most
>> part, the media is not giving those people a voice.
>
>If you support the government you are part of the "rah-rah we love war
>chorus" and are ignorant or unlearned (One of the dictionary definitions of
>"simple"). I guess that means if you are part of the opposite group, the
>"hey-ho we hate war" chorus, you are an "intellectual"?
Attack one sentence and let my actual point just fall right through
your simple little head. Very typical of what I meant in that
sentence.
Well, I guess that was uncalled for. I'm sorry. Really.
In answer to your question, no, I'm not an intellectual - not even
close. I'm a high school dropout, actually. I went to technical
college and got my high school equivalency as part of the deal, so now
I'm bonafide, and I just left a pretty good job to go to university,
so someday, I might be an intellectual. But in the meantime, I'm just
a free thinker (which is what you Americans are all supposed to be)
who doesn't let the media decide for him what he thinks (which is what
you Americans seem to be doing, in most cases).
G*rd*n
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
| > It seems to take the U.S. a long time to get around to owning
| > up to mistakes and longer still to making them right, racial
| > politics, including slavery, being one oustanding example.
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com>:
| I beg your pardon, but slavery was eliminated over 130 years
| ago in a bloody civil war that nearly tore our country apart.
| No other country came by and forced us to give it up; we
| did it to ourselves, because more and more Americans saw
| that it was evil. Now, contrast that with the nations of the
| world that STILL practice slavery to this day (BIG HINT:
| 2 of those nations hold seats on the UN Human Rights
| Commission, the ones that had that dog-and-pony show
| down in Durban).
Europeans in North America got around to dealing with slavery
after practicing it for about 250 years. That's what I'd call
a long time. Only they didn't really deal with it very well:
as you note, they had to have a war over it and devastate part
of the country, and then the ex-slaves were turned loose with
nothing, and had to endure another century of overt, government-
supported Jim Crow plus a world dominated by private racism.
Only after their descendants made serious trouble political
trouble in the 1960s did any of that begin to change, something
which many conservatives still apparently resent, given all
the talk about the evils of the '60s. And there's still plenty
of racist practice around. All in all, it's a pretty poor
record, not that plenty of other countries don't have worse
ones. I think Americans prefer forgetting mistakes, rather
than owning up to them and making them right. But maybe it's
for the best -- God knows what "making them right" might mean.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
| > As for the right of free speech, we'll have to see how much
| > repression comes down.
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com>:
| Oh, so after all this screaming about repression, you don't
| have any examples? Figures... :O(
I haven't been screaming about repression -- I'm simply noting
that a lot of government and media types have been recommending
it.
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
wrote:
>> While the above is true on a very elementary level, there
>> are other issues at stake here. The primary one being that
>> the news is not a forum for the viewpoint of the owner to
>> be expressed. Those who deliver the news have a
>> responsibility to deliver a balanced view of the facts -
>
>They are.
>
>Your complaint is that those who deliver one extreme and
>unbalanced view do not attract an audience these days.
Being against Dubya dragging your country into another unwinnable
war-on-drugs scenario doesn't seem that extreme or unbalanced to me.
And I don't see anyone saying a word when people come in here and say
they can't wait for the angry mobs to start lynching the pacifists.
The best part of Dubya's scenario is that it's self-perpetuating: he
can go all over the world now, pressure third-world governments into
doing what he tells them under the auspices of the war on terrorism,
and it's just that sort of tyranny which breeds terrorism - so he'll
have a never-ending supply of justifications, and all he needs for it
to work is for the American people to ignore the history of their own
country's foreign policy - and he's certainly got that in friggin
spades.
And before you think of me as anti-American or anything else,
understand something: As a Canadian, my own country's safety is
utterly tied in with your country's safety. I WANT a strong USA as my
neighbour - and the way I see it, what's happening here is a redneck
alcoholic cowboy is dragging you down the road to destruction with his
dreams of military conquest.
And one other thing: I'm in favour of this particular round of attacks
- the Taliban represent everything I hate about religion, and the way
it can be twisted into the most heinous atrocities, and somehow seem
justified to those who were unfortunate enough to find themselves
following it. But in their thirst for justice (or in many cases,
revenge), Americans seem to have both missed the wider scope of what
took place in congress in the days following 9/11, and forgotten the
importance of their civil liberties, which are the only thing that
DOES raise America above the rest of the countries of the world. If
you let those go in the name of security, I promise you, you and your
descendants will regret it, because I doubt you'll ever get them back.
>The facts are pretty clear. America, and americans were
>murderously attacked.
>
>The two extremes of interpretation of this evernt are the
>Chomsky/Bin Laden extreme -- Americans had it coming to them
>for their evil acts, and the other extreme being those who
>call for holy war on muslims. Bin Laden and Chomsky got
>their moment on stage -- and were promptly booed off stage.
>The ones calling for holy war on muslims and the muslim
>religion are treated not much better.
But again I ask, what about those who don't feel that it's "Us or the
terrorists"? What about those who support a response to this attack,
as sketchy as the evidence against Bin Laden in this particular attack
is, but don't support the road that Dubya is leading us down?
Everywhere I go, it's support the new war or you are a traitor.
The reality is that the protests aren't about not bombing Afghanistan,
or the ground war that will have to follow. They're about working in
good faith towards a real peace - the first step of which, whatever it
may be, is definitely not what Dubya has in mind. Indeed, it's just
the opposite - less meddling in world affairs, not more. Less
newspeak, more facts about American foreign policy and its real effect
on the world. And that viewpoint is buried in a wave of cult-like
patriotism in the media.
It's not about "attracting an audience." that's the job of
entertainers. The media has to report both the popular and the
unpopular news, or it's a farce - which is what it's been for many
years now. The fact that your view happens to be the one that
"attracts an audience" right now doesn't mean that it's the only one
that deserves airtime.
Law-Student-Dave
It seems you have construed "if you really believe" to mean "I presume you
believe." This is a pretty big stretch to make the point that your opponent
is a "complete fool," don't you think?
> Item two. If you will take a look at both the Bill of Rights (wherein is
> contained the First Amendment) or any other Section or Article of the
> Constitution, nowhere is it either required, or even mentioned, that one
> must be "gentlemanly," neither is there any specific (or even vaguely
> implied) requirement not to shout.
Again, "if you believe" does not translate well to "if you adhered to the
literal reading."
For the sake of argument, let us assume that looking at the text of the
First Amendment tells us all we need to know. I guess burning flags is not
protected by the First Amendment, because it doesn't say anything about
burning flags. It only protects freedom of speech and press. No speech
involved in burning a flag, right? Or picketing a store with signs?
Written words aren't speech, and neither the First Amendment, nor any other
passage in the U.S. Constitution makes mention of "Signs." How do you
explain this? It must be that a literal interpretation is the correct one.
Clearly, the answer is that we must look at the spirit of the Amendment
rather than applying a literal interpretation, right?
> Ergo, if you really knew anything about
> our Freedom of Speech, you wouldn't inject tangential ideas which have
> absolutely nothing to do with it!
I would argue that someone who knew something about Freedom of Speech would
have a mind as to why it is so valued in a free society. I would argue that
it is so important because it allows for the free and peaceful exchange of
ideas, even those held by a minority. Being gentlemanly in a debate also
contributes to this free exchange. Substituting sound criticism of your
opponent's position for criticism and attack against your opponent does not
contribute to the free exchange of ideas. In fact, among some people it
just facilitates counter character attacks. "Ergo," by not acting
gentlemanly, there is a risk that the exchange of ideas might be lost
entirely. However, by conducting oneself as a gentleman, one ignores the
character attacks made against him; and does not resort to character attacks
himself. In this way, the conversation is refocussed on the exchange of
ideas, and the First Amendment is better served.
It is important to distinguish between "winning" an argument and being
right. You might think that insulting or discrediting your opponents is a
good substitute for drawing attention to the weaknesses of his argument, and
you might have friends who agree with you. But you haven't hurt his
position, and in the end you are only drawing attention away from the merits
of your own position.
Stan Rothwell
Can you actually point to anything I said that was
factually incorrect? Didn't think so.
> Rothwell responds:
> > > >free speech is alive and well. The
> > > >problem is that those who are used to passing themselves
> > > >off as the self-annointed 'experts' are having a rough time
> > > >convincing others of their point of view, and they are getting
> > > >frustrated.
>
> Rothwell Responds:
> > We have plenty of other sources besides CNN and the NYT.
> > May I suggest that your own particular political prejudices
> > prevent your from seeking out other sources? :Oo
>
> In my most humble opinion, given your previous posts, I must conclude that
> this is a quintessential case of the proverbial pot, screaming accusations
> that the kettle is black. But hats off, good use of text drawings: A wide
> array of emotions displayed, Rothwell. :Oo
Once again, you can't deal with facts.
You call yourself a law student? What a fucking joke.
> > > But I agree with you that there are still many people in the USA who
> > > think and who are willing to discuss things to solve this horrendous
> > > situation and who try to come forward on some (probably small) media
> > > programs.
>
> Rothwell responds:
> > No, on some very large programs. Have you never listened
> > to American talk radio? Or again, do your personal prejudices
> > limit you to the officially sanctioned sources of your peer group?
> Translation: That's not true. I am right. And if you can't see that
> it is because you are wilfully blind and thus unwilling to see it.
Once again, you can't substantiate your ERRONEOUS
proposition that opposing viewpoints are being silenced,
nor can you present any argument supporting your initial
assertion that Constitutional free speech rights place
obligations on others to provide one with a forum.
The farcical thing about this is that we have people
whining that speech is being suppressed while at the
same time they are cutting and pasting numerous op-ed
pieces wildly in disagreement from the positions held
by the Bush administration! This leads me to the obvious
conclusion that you have never experienced a society
where dissent is actively suppressed, and know not what
you are talking about...
> Rothwell concludes:
> > There is a fundamental envy and resentment
> > amongst those in the Third World who want the benefit of what
> > we enjoy in the US, without endorsing the institutions (free
> > market economics, political and religious tolerance, constitutionally
> > protected rights, democratically elected government) that make it
> > possible.
>
> law-student-Dave retorts:
> First off, we must once again paste in Mr. Rothwell's own words,
because
> I find it so enlightening and amusing.
But of course, you can't actually say that they are incorrect.
So instead, you post your snide dribble... but do continue:
> And Mr. Rothwell, I promise to use
> this quote with each and every generality you make hereafter: [Stan
> Rothwell], you need to do a bit of research before you make such
> generalities ...:O|
>
> Now then, on the issue of resentment and envy, there are a few points
> things you will have to explain. First, envy: do you think it is possible
> that someone could hijack a plane, kill the flight crew, take the
controls,
> drive it into a skyscraper, and kill a whole lot of people, out of envy?!
Yes. Ever heard of the nutcases who slash paintings and break
statues because their artistic talents will never match up to the
masters? Same effect here.
> Can you imagine ever being that envious? Can you imagine anyone being
that
> envious? I don't think it makes much sense.
You haven't spent muct time in the real world, and it is becoming
much more obvious with every post. Envy, jealousy, and resentment
are unfortunately stronger motivators than you would admit.
> Second, resentment: Turning first to the suicide hijackers themselves,
> many already had access to the "American dream." They were living here.
> They got to act like consumers, and enjoy working, and the freedom, and
> everything else. So what resentment could they have had? If they wanted
> it, they had it. I believe their actions lend support to two conclusions:
> A) The American way of life is not as exciting as we like to think.
Its
> lure is not so great as to prevent these men from doing what to be done.
> B) It is not American values that they resent, so it must be something
> else.
It's American values. Their leader has even stated it.
> With regards to Osama's possible envy and resentment, I think it is
safe
> to say he has more money than most American's will make in a lifetime. He
> has no reason to envy any of us, and any resentment would not be
Resentment is not just an issue of money or financial success.
> Rothwell continues:
> > Both the self-imposed misery of Iraq (made possible by
> > a nutcase more intent on making NBC weapons and building up
> > a huge army)
>
> law-student-Dave retorts:
> Self-imposed misery? You have conceded that Suddam was a nutcase more
> intent on making weapons. If that is the case then what is the citizenry
to
> do? This isn't a government that encourages protests.
No shit, Sherlock,
> So the American
> government imposes sanctions denying food and medicine into the country
and
> so children die.
No, access to food and medicine is NOT denied into the country.
Hard cash is. Fact of the matter is that food and medicines are
used to maintain a standing army, with no regard for the civilians.
> I do not think an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life.
Saddam doesn't believe an Iraqi life is important. Why should I
hold a people in any higher regard than their own leader does?
> (rest of nonsense snipped for brevity)
johnnyCjohnny
Don't sell yourself short Reverend. You're more intellectually astute than
90% of the numb nuts who post on the USENET. I've enjoyed your evenhanded
and well thought out posts on this thread. Thanks!
john smith
agreed.
a big Thanks from this corner as well.
--js
John Doe
"Rev. J. Thaddius Toad" <jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bc1f98d.73761363@news...
My point was that it seems to be a prevailing opinion that anyone that
disagrees with them is brainwashed or simple or incapable of thinking for
themselves.
Law-Student-Dave
> > > > > Sure, you can hear one point of view sponsored by the
> > > > >so-called "corporate media", but 5 or 10 minutes later, a caller
> > > > >to that same media is telling the host that the news was in error,
> > > > >the opinion slanted, that the announcer doesn't know what he
> > > > >or she is talking about... and it's getting out to the same
audience!!!
> > > > >Despite what the generalities you hear from the crybaby
> > > > >leftists in the States,
> Can you actually point to anything I said that was
> factually incorrect? Didn't think so.
law-student-Dave responds:
Generalization: "Sorry, but your outlets for discussion don't even come
close to the talk radio programs (of all political persuasions and styles)
that we have in the States."
That you didn't "say anything factually incorrect" does not mean you are
justified in making such generalizations. You see, Rothwell, if I wrote:
People who support this new attack on Afghanistan can't see the error in
their ways because they are too stupid and war hungry." I too could claim
what I said was not factually incorrect. But it would be a generalization
nonetheless, would it not? If I was that sort of person, I might even point
to someone like Craig Chilton as case in point (see his comments in "Protest
at White House - 5pm today") to support my generalization, but that makes it
no less a generalization. Facts, (not just the absence of factual
inaccuracies) are needed to support your claims.
Coming back to your statement: Which shows? Who's talking? Who's listening?
In a time when Americans are outraged that the effects of their government's
policies could ever come home, the press is bowing to pressures to present
the "We are Americans and we did nothing to deserve this" perspective.
There are some who know that there is another side to this story. Now pay
attention please.
But where the media broadcasts on a national level (i.e., Networks, CNN,
Times) opposition has been silenced, (e.g., Maher and the columnist). That
is the issue. The fact that you generalize a few American radio shows to be
more open than those of the Netherlands, or whether you generalize that
people who disagree with you are acting (as you claim Joost was) out
"personal" or "political" prejudices really has no bearing on the issue.
Incidentally, do you think it is "personal" or "political" prejudice. I
don't think you even thought about which it was when you wrote them. Either
one provides an opportunity to dismiss your opposition: the truth of what
you say takes a back seat to its effectiveness.
Rothwell originally wrote:
> > > We have plenty of other sources besides CNN and the NYT.
> > > May I suggest that your own particular political prejudices
> > > prevent your from seeking out other sources? :Oo
law-student-Dave originally responded:
> > In my most humble opinion, given your previous posts, I must conclude
that
> > this is a quintessential case of the proverbial pot, screaming
accusations
> > that the kettle is black. But hats off, good use of text drawings: A
wide
> > array of emotions displayed, Rothwell. :Oo
Rothwell replied:
> Once again, you can't deal with facts.
law-student-Dave now answers:
I think I have dealt with the matter to which you are referring.
> You call yourself a law student? What a fucking joke.
Translation: "In the alternative, if my argument does not impress you,
then you suck."
Rothwell wrote:
> > > No, on some very large programs. Have you never listened
> > > to American talk radio? Or again, do your personal prejudices
> > > limit you to the officially sanctioned sources of your peer group?
> > Translation: That's not true. I am right. And if you can't see that
> > it is because you are wilfully blind and thus unwilling to see it.
> Once again, you can't substantiate your ERRONEOUS
> proposition that opposing viewpoints are being silenced,
> nor can you present any argument supporting your initial
> assertion that Constitutional free speech rights place
> obligations on others to provide one with a forum.
> The farcical thing about this is that we have people
> whining that speech is being suppressed while at the
> same time they are cutting and pasting numerous op-ed
> pieces wildly in disagreement from the positions held
> by the Bush administration! This leads me to the obvious
> conclusion that you have never experienced a society
> where dissent is actively suppressed, and know not what
> you are talking about...
Again, this is addressed above.
> > Rothwell concludes:
> > > There is a fundamental envy and resentment
> > > amongst those in the Third World who want the benefit of what
> > > we enjoy in the US, without endorsing the institutions (free
> > > market economics, political and religious tolerance, constitutionally
> > > protected rights, democratically elected government) that make it
> > > possible.
> >
> > law-student-Dave retorts:
> > First off, we must once again paste in Mr. Rothwell's own words, because
> > I find it so enlightening and amusing. And Mr. Rothwell, I promise to
use
> > this quote with each and every generality you make hereafter: [Stan
> > Rothwell], you need to do a bit of research before you make such
> > generalities ...:O|
> >
> > Now then, on the issue of resentment and envy, there are a few
points
> > things you will have to explain. First, envy: do you think it is
possible
> > that someone could hijack a plane, kill the flight crew, take the
controls,
> > drive it into a skyscraper, and kill a whole lot of people, out of
envy?!
>
> Yes. Ever heard of the nutcases who slash paintings and break
> statues because their artistic talents will never match up to the
> masters? Same effect here.
It is straining credulity to make the extension from vandalism based in
envy, and suicide, and mass murder based in envy.
> > Can you imagine ever being that envious? Can you imagine anyone being
that
> > envious? I don't think it makes much sense.
> You haven't spent muc[h] time in the real world, and it is becoming
> much more obvious with every post.
Translation: I am right you are wrong. Or, in the alternative, I "know"
you "don't know" what you are talking about. I was surprised you didn't
call me a "lefty liberal" here.
> Envy, jealousy, and resentment are unfortunately stronger motivators than
you would admit.
Again, strong enough to be the basis for killing yourself and six
thousand other people who never did anything to you?
> > Second, resentment: Turning first to the suicide hijackers
themselves,
> > many already had access to the "American dream." They were living here.
> > They got to act like consumers, and enjoy working, and the freedom, and
> > everything else. So what resentment could they have had? If they
wanted
> > it, they had it. I believe their actions lend support to two
conclusions:
> > A) The American way of life is not as exciting as we like to think.
Its
> > lure is not so great as to prevent these men from doing what to be done.
> > B) It is not American values that they resent, so it must be
something
> > else.
>
> It's American values. Their leader has even stated it.
When? Did he say something that amounted to "We hate the freedom, and
prosperity of Americans?" If he did, I will concede this point. But I
don't think he did.
> > With regards to Osama's possible envy and resentment, I think it is safe
> > to say he has more money than most American's will make in a lifetime.
He
> > has no reason to envy any of us, and any resentment would not be.
> Resentment is not just an issue of money or financial success.
You wrote earlier <but have now snipped> "We are hated because we are a
success, and they are failures" Pray-tell: What did you mean by success and
failure in that context if not financial success?
> > Rothwell continues:
> > > Both the self-imposed misery of Iraq (made possible by
> > > a nutcase more intent on making NBC weapons and building up
> > > a huge army)
> > law-student-Dave retorts:
> > Self-imposed misery? You have conceded that Suddam was a nutcase
more
> > intent on making weapons. If that is the case then what is the
citizenry to
> > do? This isn't a government that encourages protests.
> No shit, Sherlock,
Translation: Though I agree with you, you disagree with me generally, so
you must be insulted.
> > So the American government imposes sanctions denying food and medicine
into
> > the country and so children die.
> No, access to food and medicine is NOT denied into the country.
> Hard cash is. Fact of the matter is that food and medicines are
> used to maintain a standing army, with no regard for the civilians.
You want facts. This is a quote from:
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer200/normand.htm
"On August 6, 1990, the Security Council responded to Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait by adopting Resolution 661, which placed a blanket ban on all imports
and exports except for "supplies intended strictly for medical purposes,
and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs." The value of this
exception, however, was rendered almost meaningless by the fact that over 90
percent of Iraq's hard currency income, necessary to purchase food and
medical supplies from abroad, was cut because of the ban on oil sales and
the freezing of its foreign assets."
And later:
"Iraq's health system, formerly the most advanced and efficient in the
region, has been crippled. Prior to sanctions, Iraq imported about $360
million worth of drugs annually, but in 1996, the figure is expected to be
$33 million, mostly donated by international agencies."
law-student-Dave wrote:
> > I do not think an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life.
> Saddam doesn't believe an Iraqi life is important. Why should I
> hold a people in any higher regard than their own leader does?
I think this is the weakest argument yet.
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
Thaddius Toad) wrote:
>I went to technical
>college and got my high school equivalency as part of the deal, so now
>I'm bonafide, and I just left a pretty good job to go to university,
>so someday, I might be an intellectual.
But not if I keep writing horrid run-on sentences like that one. :>
James Teo
(totally straight face)
Me too!
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
<johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
>Don't sell yourself short Reverend. You're more intellectually astute than
>90% of the numb nuts who post on the USENET. I've enjoyed your evenhanded
>and well thought out posts on this thread. Thanks!
Thanks for the compliment, which may or may not be true, but it's
really not a contest for who's smarter than who, is it? I personally
don't believe in stupidity - only ignorance, and the belief that one
is stupid (which generally comes from the parents), either of which
can create the illusion of stupidity.
I don't even feel any real anger towards the people making death
threats - average Americans (those who do all the work in that
country) are in an uncomfortable position right now - while there are
certainly some very rich people here, when you put it in a global
perspective, all Americans are very priveleged people.
And while it's a comfortable illusion that this is the case simply
because of what's written in the constitution and the bill of rights,
the fact of the matter is that their freedom and prosperity, or to be
more precise, the prosperity of their upper class (average folk see
less and less of that action as the years go by), has come at a cost
to the rest of the world. And when you live your whole life being told
that you live in a country that is morally superior to the rest of the
world and then suddenly have evidence to the contrary thrown in your
face, it's natural for some to react that way.
I'm not a pessimist, either - when you look at the development of
human society from its earliest stages, there is a constant trend
towards better and better standards of living for humanity as a whole.
It's hard to see that at times like this, but I promise you it's true.
But it has nothing to do with capitalism or communism or democracy or
any of these high ideals (and they're all high ideals, no matter what
anyone tells you) - it's just the natural progression of things. As a
species, we suffer setbacks, we come back better than before.
The only thing that worries me is that some setbacks are worse than
others. The dark ages, for instance, weren't as bad as the ice age
was. And we have enough big bam boom in America alone to bring on
another one of those if we're not careful. So the stakes, in this age,
are higher than they've ever been before. In other words, just because
we have an overall habit of improving ourselves and our lives, it
doesn't make us immortal - we're still capable of reducing ourselves
to rats scurrying on a pile of rubble again - and I don't want that. I
want the whole life my grandfather had. And Dubya's got no business
playing with my life by courting a disaster of that level with his
new, unwinnable & self-perpetuating war.
Aviator
> > "Rev. J. Thaddius Toad" <jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:08:03 -0400, "johnnyCjohnny"
> > > <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >True, but if you really believe in the 1st ammendment, then you'd
keep
> it
> > > >gentlemanly and not shout another person down. It always seems like
> it's
> > the
> > > >wild eyed right wingers who are always doing all the shouting. Just
> goes
> > to
> > > >show who really believes in respecting other people's free speech.
> > >
> > > let's ease up on the bullshit. The left wing is just as guilty of this
> > > sort of behavior - that's the real problem. Very few people, left OR
> > > right, actually give a shit about the objective right to free speech -
> > > they care about THEIR right to free speech.
> >
>
> Well, hey, John! Good for you! Two points for honesty! A sincere
bravo...
> so I take back some of the snide things I said to you in my other
response.
Yeah, and wipe that egg off your cheek..........
8)
>
>
>
roninart
> >
> > "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:9pqp8q$t44$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> >
ZIP ZAP**
Stan, you need professional help. The situation is such, that nobody knows
what the hell is going to be the outcome of it all. So, why don't you shut
off your sick mind and wait. Eh?
Aviator
Nice try, Stanley, but I don't think anyone buys that one. If you are the
business owner, you are in authority ALWAYS. Or maybe in your business, the
janitor is the boss?? Trust you to try an blame liberals for your pathetic
lies
>
> > >
> > > > 2a) None of your peers engages themselves by reading
> newsgroups
> > >
> > > Many of them do, and a few of them post under their
> > > own names as well.
> > >
> > > > 2b) You're job is menial and can be had with one employer or
> > > > another, so the risk of reprecussions on your career (by being
> offending
> > > > someone with your postings) is limited
> > >
> > > Kiss my ass. I run my own engineering consulting company,
> >
> > Again you brand yourself as a liar, Stanley. If you OWNED this business,
> > then you ARE in authority.
>
> As I said, I have responsibility. I don't have authority in that
> I can boss my clients around. If you knew anything about
> business, you would know the customer is boss... :O)
Bullshit once again. The previous poster said that you werent in a position
of authority. Your response was that you ran your own business, but claimed
not to be in a position of authority.
Either a) you lied about owning and running the business, or...
b) you lied about not being in a position of authority
>
> > That is twice in one post
>
> Slow morning, huh? You gotta find some reason
> to respond to my posts, huh?
Hardly. When I see a liar, I call him on it
Coward?? Hardly. Come down to the rose bowl on saturday, and wear a
sunflower in your lapel, and meet me face to face.
>
>
>
Aviator
"Jafo" <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote in message
news:nn93sts0ee1kflkmo...@4ax.com...
> As viewed from alt.california, Law-Student-Dave wrote:
>
> >> > Why is it that so many right wing conservatives like you have no
> >> > class.
>
> >> Have more class than you do, wanker.
>
> >"I have more class than you?" You don't even know him Mr. Rothwell.
>
> He knows him through his written word, just as we've come to know you
> far better than we would have wanted to through yours.
Actually, think Perv says it best further down this thread
"Hey! No fair offering reasonable, well-considered ideas here!
(In other words, well done, Dave.)"
[ Direct quote from my nemesis, The Pervert ]
Frankly, Jafo, you wouldn't know class if it jumped up and bit you on the
ass!
>
> <remainder of peurile first-year-law-student bullshit mercifully
> deleted>
>
> >Crockett
>
> Say, whatever happened to Tubbs?
See what I mean??
>
> --
> Jafo® http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
>