Replies

I think we should ban people who want to ban people for not supporting their politician of choice.

I sent my money to the Bush Recount Fund, I wrote a thousand emails to everyone under the sun in support of Bush. I stood firm with Bush over the Global Warming report and sure enough he came out against his own administrations report. I am grateful that his Justice Dept. has decided to support the individual right to bear arms before the Supreme Court. I WILL vote for Bush again.

But I am opposed to those advocating that we have our own version of political correctness established here. The only people who need to be protected from opposing views are those whose own views are too weak to stand on their own merits. That is the tactic of our opponents in Berkeley. They need it. We don't.

Similarly, I am a great fan of Justice Scalia. I think he is the greatest Justice of our time. But I am utterly opposed to his views on private property seizure. My opposition to this one aspect of his philosophy does not make me a 'Scalia-basher' and other Scalia fanatics should not shout heresy and seek to have me banned.

All of this "Bush-basher" talk reminds me of "Clinton-hater". You could present all sorts of evidence about Clinton and yet our opponents squelched all that evidence by merely shouting "Clinton-hater!". No rational discussion was possible. We should not emulate this behavior by shrieking "Bush-basher" rather than debating the merits.

I don't mind debating facts. I DO very much mind seeing lies ( like the one you just posted ! ) used as a " fact " !

I also think that calling those who don't immediately keejerk into bashing ( and YES , it is BASHING, instead of discussion ) " BushBots " , is a LIBERAL tactic.