Posted on 10/14/2001 11:23:12 PM PDT by gcruse
Hee hee hee...little does he know eh???
LOL. A couple of months ago I came to basically the same conclusion - mine goes something like," There is no common ground on FR except that Bill Clinton is swine, and gun control is for people who are afraid of loud noises and a little muzzleflash."
Recent events have merely underscored this. In the attacks of Sept. 11, the world has tragic proof of what can happen when extremist views are reinforced without any checks, Prof. Sunstein says. Osama bin Laden, he says, seems to have been careful to recruit a core group of people who shun any ideas that don't conform to their extremist interpretations of Islam.
I knew they'd find a way to blame FreeRepublic.com for September 11.
Now they have to work Newt Gingrich in, and the paridigm will be complete.
Bump. And MEthinks they are a little scared--advertising revenues are probably dropping. There is a lot of crap on here, but there are also at least 50 people on FR that are more intelligent, more inciteful, and better writers than, say, Dan Rather, Clarence Page, Maureen Dowd, any of the Muslim apologists we have been exposed to, etc. (I could go on, but there has to be SOME bandwidth limit).
And that IS a REAL problem: it's not us who are insulated, it's these idiot opinion makers. THEY should be on FR for some fresh thought.
"They" are busy as we post this trying to stuff the genie of freedom back into the bottle.
What do you think hate speech laws are about?
Actually, since I read the Christian Science Monitor, I am aware of lots of the cultural problems in these areas, and since I read medical magazines, I am aware of bioterrorism. And since once in awhile I read survivalist and military oriented newsletters, I am aware of terrorism. Since I read FR, I am aware how the Clinton adminstration degraded our defense capabilities.
If I only read one source, then of course I would know only one thing. But since most people can't do anything about any of these things, what's the difference?
Well, at least someone is arguing for the abolishment of CNN. :-)
But seriously, if you think about this for half a second, as the author has apparently not, what he is really arguing is that people can become ignorant/violent if they tune out opposing ideas completely. Guess what? He's right about this, and it applies to the idiots on the left as well as the right. Yet, this guy is probably for censoring certain viewpoints that he feels are "improper". Why doesn't the left understand that political correctness is an extremist viewpoint? That it could, under some conditions lead to violence? How does the Taleban's strict code of behavior differ from PC? Only in degress, since instead of shunning you or getting you fired, they kill you instead.
What's kind of ironic is that this professor has made a point that he won't even agree with--that free speech is necessary for a free society. While the left often gives lip service to free speech, they miss the greater point that free speech is really the right to oppose your government without getting killed. Other consequences of speaking out are not protected--your job, your reputation, your status in the community. This whole idea they have been spouting for a while now that some are coerced into certain points of view with threats and intimidation just go to show they don't understand that others have free speech too.
I suppose from a guys point of view it is. Now, compare that silly pose with the way Michelle Malkin conducts herself...its easy to see who's taken seriously and who isn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.