Replies

Limbaugh didn’t attack the troops.

There were several on this board suggesting we make an attempt to get Garofalo fired from 24 for the crime of being liberal. That’s no less ridiculous than trying to get a conservative fired for being conservative.

This is a surrender of our principles. Free speech is worthwhile.

SnakeDoc

"This is a surrender of our principles. Free speech is worthwhile."

Tell that to Don Imus.

I agree with your premise, but the only group that actually enjoys free speech is liberals. What they say is free, what we say is hate.

And while it's important not to surrender our principles, it's equally important not to surrender the battlefield. And, by ceding to the liberals, and their partners in crime in the ubiquitous media, the ability to say whatever they want, while editing every word that comes out of our mouth, is equally self-defeating.

Letterman said what he said. He "assumed" to much. He is paying that price. Liberals are gaining ground and everytime they try to marginalize a conservative they provoke a response. They shall get that response.

Limbaugh didn’t attack the troops.

Tell that to Sen. Harkin of Iowa who discussed this as written record on the floor.

“There were several on this board suggesting we make an attempt to get Garofalo fired from 24 for the crime of being liberal. That’s no less ridiculous than trying to get a conservative fired for being conservative.”

You don’t understand the purpose of letting off steam. It is not only to be expected as part of human nature, but also a healthy thing. You do it yourself. Everyone does it.

The right to free speech does not include the right to be immune from its effects. The government is enjoined from administering “punishment” for speaking out, but the people are not.

I see it this way: If we are not allowed to react strongly (or weakly, for that matter) to Letterman’s offensiveness, then we have no right to free speech ourselves. If “free speech” means we cannot be discerning in our tastes - including the right to protest loudly and try to get an offensive boor fired - then the first amendment is truly dead.

“Fighting fire with fire” requires that we buy into the liberal premise that people deserve to lose their livelihood for expressing disagreement with the conventional wisdom of the crybaby asking for the firing (whether that “wisdom” be liberal or conservative).

There were several on this board suggesting we make an attempt to get Garofalo fired from 24 for the crime of being liberal. That’s no less ridiculous than trying to get a conservative fired for being conservative.

This is a surrender of our principles. Free speech is worthwhile.

SnakeDoc

Your position requires a belief that all ideas or positions on issues or actions are in and of themselves equal in terms of right and wrong.

This is what the Left wants us to buy into and believe.

This is not the case, however. The right, generally speaking, bases their positions on the issues on ethics and even morality. The left does not. The left is all about selfishness.

Viewed without the prism of relevancy that the Left would like to get the Right to agree to, it is immediately apparent that getting Garofalo or Letterman fired for doing things that lack ethics and morality is the most appropriate course of action.

Sorry for the delay.....

we buy into the liberal premise that people deserve to lose their livelihood for expressing disagreement with the conventional wisdom of the crybaby

Pedophilia and NAMBLA should be shouted from the rooftops!

I'm done.