Campus Scenes
Shut Up, He Instructed
Does freedom of expression exclude the right to offend?
I have only a dim memory of my college speech class, but I recall one speech rather clearly. A male student demonstrated how to tie a Windsor knot using the rabbit-hole technique. While this seemed more like an in-store demonstration than a speech, I can say with all honesty that “how to tie a Windsor knot” was one of the more useful things I learned at college.
Such innocuous speeches were par for the course during my college days. But then, I went to school during the latter Reagan years, at a fairly conservative university, which may be why I remember no topics more controversial than a Windsor knot. Had I attended a decade earlier or later there doubtless would have been speeches about Watergate and its bawdy successor Monicagate.
I suspect most of the speeches delivered in today’s classrooms regard global warming, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how President Barack Obama will save the world. But what I’d like to hear — just once — would be for some courageous student to deliver a speech defending unpopular speech. He or she might take as his text several recent stories where unpopular speech has been suppressed by, in one instance, a professor at Los Angeles City College, and in the second, the British government.
Now colleges and governments are supposed to be defenders of free speech, but as any conservative can tell you they are often its greatest threats. In our first example, the British Government recently denied entry to politician Geert Wilders due largely to the Dutch MP having produced a short film about jihad. Fitna is a pastiche of disturbing Koran passages, graphic images and audio from terrorist attacks, by cameos from hate-spewing old Muslim guys with long beards and turbans. This class of video has been all over YouTube since 9/11, so why go to so much trouble to prevent Wilders’ from premiering his film now?
One word: blackmail.
The once-stalwart British people have been blackmailed by one of their own elected representatives. When British Muslim Peer Lord Ahmed threatened to dispatch 10,000 of his co-religionists into the streets if Wilders were granted entry, the British government rolled over like a trained dog. Quaking British MPs had visions of the Danish Cartoon Riots dancing through their heads in hobnailed boots. Fear is almost always the main motivation for suppressing speech.
FEAR WAS ALSO the motivation behind the silencing of Jonathan Lopez. Lopez, a Speech 101 student at Los Angeles City College, had just delivered a speech on Christianity and same-sex marriage when his instructor, Professor John Matteson, allegedly called Lopez a “fascist bastard.” You really have to know what you are doing to get a professor of speech worked up enough to call a student a “fascist bastard,” and evidently, by mentioning Christianity and morals in the same speech, Mr. Lopez had pressed all the right buttons.
Now, I can imagine a number of ideas and opinions would make certain sensitive individuals uncomfortable. And, indeed, two students from Matteson’s speech class later complained to the LACC dean about Lopez’ “preachy,” “completely inappropriate” and “deeply offensive speech.” The unidentified student said he respected Lopez’s right to free speech, but not that kind of speech and not in his speech class.
This was mild stuff compared to his classmate who seemed out for blood: “I don’t know what kind of actions can be taken in this situation, but I expect that this student should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom.”
One almost forgets we are dealing here with adults — adults who demand that unpopular or religious opinions not be heard in a college speech class — which begs the question, if not there, where? Such incidents serve only to reinforce my belief that many people attending our colleges and universities have no business being there, that they are simply too intellectually immature for courses involving debatable ideas and opinions.
Meanwhile the Dutch foreign minister spoke for many politicians, professors and, Speech 101 students, when he suggested, “Freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend,” a peculiar interpretation of speech rights, to say the least. Had it not been for unpopular, controversial, or offensive language the Founding Fathers might have just skipped the First Amendment and moved on to arguing about guns. Once again, we seem to have forgotten that speech rights were created not to curb the offensive speech of individual citizens, but to prevent Big Brother from telling us what we can and cannot say.
It just so happens I don’t particularly agree with either of these beleaguered gentlemen. Wilders calls for the banning of Islamic books, while whining about his rights being violated. As for Mr. Lopez, well, I am no advocate of same-sex marriage, yet I doubt its legalization will in any way hasten the apocalypse.
For centuries the West lived by the Enlightenment maxim that while we may disapprove of what someone says, we would defend to the death one’s right to say it. It is sad to see that today the precepts of Voltaire et al. have given way to Matteson’s motto: “Shut up, you fascist bastard!”
About the Author
Christopher Orlet writes from St. Louis.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Christopher Orlet
More Articles From Campus Scenes
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/26/shut-up-he-instructed
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- Boys and Girls
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Gary| 2.26.09 @ 7:30AM
The primary reason, I believe , that colleges and universities adapt so readily to free speech suppression is that the academically and morally unfit now lead these institutions. Gone are the men and women who once led students by example, with academic excellence!
ex-pat| 2.26.09 @ 7:46AM
In Wilders native Holland the sale of Hitler's Mien Kampf is banned. So is the display of of the swastika.
Wilders NEVER suggested owning a Koran should be against the law.
He did say that if Hitler's work is banned for sale in Holland as hate speech so should the Koran.
They both preach and teach hate of Jews.
People would still be free to own a Koran and mosques would be free to continue to give them away for a free as they do now.
Must we have a holocaust to have hate labeled as such?
67OLDS| 2.26.09 @ 8:47AM
Gary: you hit the nail on the head. We are living in times where our leadership whether it is the goverment, the churches, academia, and most definitely the MSM---you name it, are morally bankrupt. We live in trouble times because of our lack of a moral compass. Things that were considered evil years ago are now good and are to be celebrated. God have mercy on us!
Ryan| 2.26.09 @ 8:48AM
One more useful quote from Hubert Humphrey that everyone on both sides needs to take to heart:
"The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously." Would that more college profs think along those lines.
Crusader| 2.26.09 @ 9:20AM
Banning or limiting free speech isn't just a game the left plays. Heck, disagree with a conservative about the war or criticize GWB and see what happens.
Brad | 2.26.09 @ 9:47AM
Crusader, please cite examples.
Jeff| 2.26.09 @ 10:26AM
To Crusader,
If you engage in political speech you should expect to be criticized and challenged whether your perspective is Left or Right.
If you cannot withstand the pushback you might recieve for criticizing a figure as hated by the media , academia and the Left as George Bush is maybe you stay off of the internet.
bobmontgomery| 2.26.09 @ 10:31AM
1. If you disagree about war or criticize GWB you are granted a license to broadcast in perpetuity, you are given prestigious awards, you are granted "journalist" status and you are allowed to yell"Fire!" in a crowded theater.
2. "Hate crime" laws are patently unconstitutional.
Alan Brooks| 2.26.09 @ 10:33AM
today if you say anything on campus, you will offend someone. everyone is so sensitive now, with their attorneys on speed dial.
I now see that progress is only material.
Gill O’Teen| 2.26.09 @ 10:54AM
When I was a university student during the 1970s, one of my professors was an avowed and very public communist. He would often stand near the school library passing out marxist literature. While taking his “class”, really an indoctrination in the wit and wisdom of karl marx, a speech given by William Shockley (the father of the transistor) in which he was to speak about his belief that African Americans were inherently less intelligent than Caucasians was shut down by the misbehavior of many in the crowd. In my opinion, it did not matter what Shockley’s subject matter was. He was an academic and a noted scholar albeit not in genetics, his views were entitled to the same respect accorded any idea expressed openly in the public forum. That is, if anyone disagreed with Shockley, prove him wrong by refuting his ideas. Don’t behave like wild monkeys let loose on the banana boat, which is what his “audience” did that day. (Oops! In light of the Travis Cartoon, that simile probably makes me a racist, other than the fact that most of these anarchists were not of African descent). Not only the sanctity of scholarly debate, which the loony liberal academics trot out every time they are forced to defend that jackasses such as bill ayers belong to their College of Cardinals, but a minor detail known as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution suggests that no matter his subject, Dr. Shockley had every right to speak his mind. People in disagreement with his views were free to boycott the event or engage him in scholarly debate after his presentation. But to shut down the speech simply goes against the core of my being. When I attempted to defend my point in class, the “professor” stated that free speech did not apply in this instance because of the subject matter. This is the same tactic employed by the lobumatized (obumah + lobotomized) when they attempt to silence dissenting view points.
This was my first exposure to the pestilence of Communism.
Invest in precious metals such as gold, silver. platinum and lead.
Let's have a Tea Party!
whiterb| 2.26.09 @ 11:26AM
Soon the people who know everything will be reading our faces and body language. A person will be fined for " improper countenance", or " disorderly ambulation or standing ". You won't get locked up, just a ticket, like for a parking violation. The proceeds will fund health care for children. The majority of women in the USA will approve. Barney Franks crazy sister always wore a big button that read " the gender gap will get ya". Now, she's the boss.
Alan Brooks| 2.26.09 @ 11:36AM
i dont see the future as being bad in the material sense.
but how empty life is and becoming more so. rote, except in the negative sense; not pleasingly routine, but unpleasantly disconnected.
Campuses arent marxist, that would be pleasingly rote, as it was in the late 20th century.
no. now campuses are nihilistic not marxist. or perhaps campuses are marxio-nihilist-- a new twist on the same old same old. in fact being an academic or even just intellectual today is a curse not a blessing.
we go out with not a bang or whimper, but a nervous yawn into the whispering empty void..
Son of Sam | 2.26.09 @ 12:09PM
Crusader, you're babbling. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as censorship. Censorship is finding some way to make people stop talking or writing what they feel and think. That is exactly what colleges do when they impose "speech codes". That's what the America haters have in mind by imposing the "Fairness" doctrine. They don't want conservatives or patriots or libertarians to express their opinions. They don't want ANYONE to have free speech rights unless they've drunk the Kool Aid and are goose-stepping along with the rest of the ObamaNazis.
They will fail of course, as have all the other tyrants in history, including Hitler's Germany, including the Evil Empire, including the bomb throwing head chopping fanatics who dream of a virgin-filled paradise and plot our destruction, and proclaim their hatred of us to all the world. We are beating or have beaten them all, and we will certainly defeat pseudo-intellectual halfwits like you.
You want some? Come get some.
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos/
S.O.S.
Doctor Right| 2.26.09 @ 12:16PM
I went to a large, uber-liberal northeastern University in the mid-80's that once boasted of having the nation's "most renowned Marxist economics department"...
If ever there was an oxymoron, it's "Marxist economics". It doesn't get anymore absurd than that...
Until Conservative students enact their own "60's decade" on college campuses, it will never get any better.
Alan Brooks-| 2.26.09 @ 12:16PM
i can talk to conservatives, but my lib family doesnt say anything except platitudes:
multicult (and it is a cult) is
good.
gay good.
conservative bad.
Crusader| 2.26.09 @ 12:54PM
And so it begins...
Brad, I am not going to do your homework for you. Its happened, happened to me a few times. I was critical of the way the war was being handled and the reaction from some on the right was the same you'd get from the left if I'd criticized Obama. Vile name calling, my right to even broach the subject was questioned ("have you served? then you can't say anything") and finally a few just told me to "keep my opinion to myself" or "go somewhere else and post." So, the bottom line is some on the right are not all tolerant and lovey dovey when their own opinions and assumptions get questioned.
Jeff, some of your buddies on the right would be wise to keep your advice in mind,
"If you engage in political speech you should expect to be criticized and challenged whether your perspective is Left or Right."
I have no problem being challenged or criticized. I do have a problem with the way I and some others have been treated on some "right wing" sites for not following the Republican party lines. All I'm saying. I am not loyal to the Republican Party. I am loyal to the Constitution. So when the R party strays from it, expect me to call them out. When I do, be adults and engage, not call names like the left does or tell me I don't have the right to criticize (or maybe suggest I "stay off the internet," eh Jeff?).
Look at the reaction sonofsam gave me. A two sentence post and "I'm babbling." Really? Just for making an observation? Sonofsam, I am with you on just about everything you mention; what I am saying is you can't get all lathered up about the "Fairness Doctrine" but then tell someone that maybe they should "stay off the internet" if they criticize GWB. I mean do you agree with that or not? Free speech cuts both ways.
You guys prove my point and don't even realize it.
Wayne Fulkerson| 2.26.09 @ 1:22PM
Isn't "Shut up, you facist bastard!" also free speech?
sestamibi| 2.26.09 @ 1:29PM
Crusader, don't whine about your treatment when it is exactly what you not only expect, but seek when you troll sites like this. You too have no right not to be offended, especially here!
2 Guns| 2.26.09 @ 1:41PM
Wayne,
No it is not free speech. Bear in mind that the statement was issued by a Professor ( the authority figure) of a government school. It carries much greater weight than if another student in the class had uttered it.
Crusader| 2.26.09 @ 2:05PM
Sestamibi, again, proving my point. Do yall even READ my posts or does getting your panties in a wad effect your eyesight?
Whether or not someone is a "troll" does not impact their freedom of speech, a fact (unfortunately) lost on some of my right-wing brothers. That's the point. Whatever happend to,
"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
???
Alan Brooks| 2.26.09 @ 2:05PM
the universities teach trash so they can use the tuition funds-- and hefty fees-- for research.
a university is a research institution that teaches on the side.
Crusader| 2.26.09 @ 2:07PM
Wayne, if you were peacefully protesting and an Army soldier came up to you, pointed his M16 at you and said, "Shut up you fascist bastard" would that be free speech?
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 2:21PM
Liberals don't just hurl vicious insults, they also seek to repress free speech. I don't know of any Conservatives who want to shut down free expression. It's not us pushing the 'Unfairness Doctrine'.
Crusader| 2.26.09 @ 2:33PM
Ruth, I hear you, and I am pretty sure you know I am not a "troll." The point I am making is it concerns me when folks "on the right" turn on the viciousness like those on the left do if you criticize/question a sacred cow. We need to be better than that. If we are supposed to be the "party of ideas" then if my idea is different than yours engage me in debate. Calling me a (what did son of sam call me again, oh yeah) a "pseudo-intellectual halfwit" is well, exactly what Interloper would have done if I criticized Obama.
It doesn't offend me. Saddens maybe, because it just shows where our loyalties lie. That's the problem in America. Loyalties are with the party and not with America or the Constitution. Attack a sacred cow from either side and you get the same reaction. Its unfortunate really.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 2:45PM
Crusader, I know who you are--but some trolls have been writing under our names. I never know what anyone is going to say anymore. Funny but irritating. We have to pull together to fight the moronic left--that's what I care about. The rest is details.
Dai Alanye | 2.26.09 @ 2:45PM
It's obvious that Crusader's problem is semantics. He fails to understand the difference between censorship and criticism.
When a college instructor threatens you he/she/it has the power to punish via grades or dismissal. When a peer criticizes you his only power is to embarrass.
And Crusader *ought* to be embarrassed, if only for failing to understand the importance of this difference.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 2:47PM
For all you know, that son of sam could be a troll to cause discord among us. The losers have a playbook.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 2:52PM
I haven't been hammered for criticizing GWB--I've done it plenty because he deserves it. TAS has criticized W, so I don't know what you mean there. Things are scary now and maybe we're a little restive--who could blame us? We still have to find a way to pull together. We'd better.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 2:56PM
Professors are in a position of authority and should respect the rights of all their students. Good luck in our marxist colleges where the professors are the worst offenders regarding speech.
Crusader| 2.26.09 @ 2:59PM
Dai, now I have a "problem?" Haha! Yeah, the problem is expecting more from people on the right than I do on the left. You failed to see my point. If I go to huffpo and post something about Obama, or gays, or teachers unions, or any other lefty sacred cow I fully EXPECT to get ripped. Called names. Attacked personally. And the premise, whatever it might be, will be completely ignored. Instead of debating the issue I will be told to keep my opinion to myself or go somewhere else.
Now look what happened here. I didn't even CRITICIZE ANYONE. I simply said,
"Heck, disagree with a conservative about the war or criticize GWB and see what happens."
And, LOOK WHAT HAPPENED! Instead of debating the issue rationally, I was called names, told to post elsewhere, told I was "whining." Heck I think tough guy son of sam even indirectly threatened to beat me up over the internet ("you want some? come get some"--jeez!) just like the lefties at huffpo woulda done if I posted "Obama is a socialist" there.
What's embarrassing are the zombies on the right too blinded by ideology to debate issues, just like the zombies on the left.
Crusader| 2.26.09 @ 3:09PM
Ruth, we can not pull together as long as we hold onto sacred cows. The only thing we should hold sacred is the US Constitution. EVERYTHING should be measured against the constituional standard.
Last year at this time GWB was signing a $168B stimulus. Repubs were all behind him on that. So why the heartburn with Obama's $787B? Talk about arguing semantics. Where GWB took us one step towards socialism Obama is taking us 5 steps, but aren't both bad? Aren't both affronts to the Constitution?
With regard to free speech, why the heartburn about the Fairness Doctrine but not McCain-Feingold?
With regard to "helthcare reform," why the fuss about Obamacare but not the prescription drug law signed by GWB?
I mean again, all Obama is doing is really Bush on 'roids. Are repubs OK with a little socialism (as long as a Repub is implementing it) but not full blown socialism if a Dem does it?
I am tired of politicians "standing on principle" when the only principle they stand on is their particular party's principle. How about standing on AMERICAN principle?
That's too hard, and it probably wouldn't get them re-elected. Let's face it, that's what its all about anyway. Power.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 3:14PM
Geez, what's with you men? Usually it's women who get our tights in a twist. Why don't you use your superior intellects to go after the clowns on the left? I feel like I'm in the middle of one my brothers' arguments. It's okay to disagree, but it's NOT okay to shut down debate. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 3:16PM
You're wrong! All of us were NOT in favor of Bush's spending BS. Does that mean Obama's even worse garbage should not be criticized? Why are you saying this?
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 3:19PM
Obama is a flat out marxist. Do you think Bush is? What point do you make by repeatedly attacking your own side, and why don't you criticize Obama?
Len| 2.26.09 @ 5:02PM
I would just like to point out that in making by a dinstinction between free speech and the freedom of the press as forms of communication, that does not mean that the "freedom of expression" exists. This amendment only deals with the Federal government and not state and local governments, who by the 10th amendment still have the power to ban offensive expressions such as cross burning, flag burning, peeing on crosses etc.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 5:18PM
Free speech is distinct from freedom of the press. Also, liberals burn flags and pee on crosses all of the time, they just want to repress speech that disagrees with them, as all marxists do.
Len| 2.26.09 @ 5:22PM
Ok, I see my comment was a little disjointed so I'll break it down to two points.
1) The first amendment makes a distinction in the forms of communication in that it refers to speech and to press so to say that it protects "expression" is to read into it something that is not there, otherwise why make the dinstinction?
2) Let us remember that the 1st amendment only deals with the FEDERAL government, Congress specifically, and is not an abrogation of the states having power to make their own laws concerning speech, the press, or any form of "expression"; see the 10th amendment.
A BTW here, nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal government power to determine what is said on the radio, internet or TV, not that some amendment dealing with these modes of communication should not be passed, but that agencies like the FCC or laws like the Fairness Doctrine are actually illegal, and merely another way in which Congress bypasses the Constitution and states to usurp power not delegated to it.
Al Adab| 2.26.09 @ 5:24PM
Most of the leftist college professors of my aquaintence, albeit I don't know Bill Ayers, offend the sensibilities of free market, constitutionalist students. Why doesn't that count?
Crusader| 2.26.09 @ 5:36PM
Ruth, I'm wrong? Republicans didn't overwhelmingly vote in favor of Bush's $168B stimulus? How did it pass then?????
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 5:39PM
They are trying to control speech because they can't prevail in the marketplace of ideas. Who is pushing for the 'Unfairness Doctrine'? Not conservatives.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 5:40PM
Didn't house republicans get blasted by Pelosi for voting that down?
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 5:42PM
There have been so many, I don't know the one you're talking about. Demos had a majority, did they need repubs' votes?
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 5:43PM
Crusader, why do you love Obama?
Crusader| 2.26.09 @ 5:46PM
Et tu Ruth? Eh, inevitable I guess.
So now I am "repeatedly attacking my own side?" Republicans are not my side. If calling McCain out as an enemy of the Constitution for McCain-Feingold is "attacking my side" then I am guilty as charged. If calling House & Senate Republicans hypocrites for voting for a little socialism last year but now all of a sudden "finding God" simply because a Dem is in the White House is "attacking" them, then I am guilty of that too. If calling Bush a hypocrite for starting a war of imperialism instead of protecting our own border is attacking him, then again, I am GUILTY.
Why don't I criticize Obama? Have you ever read my posts? Haha!
Alea jacta est folks. Its over. Guns, gold, and maybe some land in a remote section of a red state, and pray for the best.
Later zombies!
Crusader| 2.26.09 @ 5:49PM
Yeah, I luuuuuuuuuuv Obama. Hopenchange all the way to the new, improved, nationalized 1st Bank of Obama, where you can be the first one of your block to get a newly minted $1,000,000 bill with a picture of the messiah on it.
Then use it to wipe you a$$.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 6:06PM
Crusader, liberal trolls got you, too? Too bad, you were one of the good guys. You used to post conservatively, but I notice lately you've been changing to an Obama lover. Repubs have screwed up and that's all you focus on, not on the present traitorous marxist takeover by Obomber and his braindead army of liberals--sounds like a smelly liberal troll to me. I'll miss the old you, not the obnoxious new you, sniff. Good riddance.
Gill O'Teen| 2.26.09 @ 8:38PM
Crusader, not to make too fine a point of this, but obumah-droids conveniently forget that when bush's $168B stimulus was passed, dumbocrats controlled both the House and the Senate. No spending bill could get past Peloser unless she so desired. Oh, I almost forgot. Didn't the messiah vote to pass that bill?
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 9:27PM
Crusader used to be legit then a foul smelling liberal possessed him. He's just a trouble maker posing as a conservative now.
Nick| 2.26.09 @ 9:51PM
Gill O'Teen,
Your comparison of the College of Cardinals to liberal academics offends and hurts me deeply as a Roman Catholic. I demand you apologize to the Cardinals, the Holy Father, me, and all Catholics everywhere.
I also demand you stop blogging here, or any other conservative site. No, I demand that you not blogg anywhere. In fact, turn in your computer to the nearest authority. And then beg us all for forgiveness. I also want reparations.
Because I have the right not to be offended by anyone, didn't you know that? I think I heard a liberal say it once.
Len| 2.26.09 @ 9:59PM
Actually Crusader is making a point and others are proving it for him. I have seen it myself where people put Bush or the Republican party ahead of the Constitution in their comments, and have been reactionary rather than thoughtful. Think about it, if a leftist/marxist/fascist is posting here how much good does one do with name calling, rather than well reasoned persuasive arguments? And if one can't make a Constitutionally founded point then really from what is that individual basing their position?
Nick| 2.26.09 @ 10:05PM
If I could play Dr. Phil to Ruth and Crusader for a moment.
I think alot of us are just frustrated with the last 4-8 years (and some of us are suffering from cabin fever, maybe). And I know I tend to lash out when I'm like this.
I also think people should try to be more civil. That's why the level of debate is where it is today. My parents taught me to treat people with the same respect that I receive. I try not to attack unless attacked.
Can't we all just get along? Except for the stinking liberals, of course.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 10:35PM
For some such strange reason, Nick, I seem to have a problem being called a nazi. Couldn't possibly know why, guess I'm just a little 'sensitive'. I'm a sucker for any baby within a block of me. I'm the fool with a carload of kids who pulls over to pick up a stray dog or an injured cat. I'm so pro-life it's scary. Being put in Hitler's camp is a new experience for me, brings out the avenging angel in me, just can't help it. Besides, if I can mouth-off I won't sock anybody.
Crusader| 2.26.09 @ 10:55PM
Len, they base their position from the talking points of their respective party. That's the problem I have with Ds & Rs. We just assume since someone has a "R" next to their name they are a good guy. How'd that Alren Spector work out for you? PA actually a real-live conservative in Pat Toomey run against him in the last primary, but Bush & Co rode to Spector's rescue in PA. Again, how's that working out for you, Republican Party? On a national level the Rs had a freaking strict constitutionalist in Ron Paul run, but the R party did everything they could to discredit and destroy him. Then we get pi$$ed when the libs do it to Sarah? Haha! They learned from you! Rs did it to Paul, Ds did it to Sarah, what's the difference?
This political dance the Ds & Rs do every 2, 4, 6 years is like bread & circuses for the ignorant electorate. Meanwhile Rome is burning but dammit, did you see the gladiator fight today? It was GREAT!
Thank you Nick aka Dr Phil. But like I said, alea jacta est. Its over bro. It will take more than the second coming of Reagan to fix the damage that's going to be inflicted on this great country of ours in the next 4 years.
Gill, the point about Bush's stimulus wasn't who controlled Congress, its that the Repubs DID NOT unite against the $168B stimulus, but want a gold star all of a sudden in uniting against the $787B. Why? What's the difference, a little socialism as opposed to a lot? Was Hannity out there every day beating the drum against Bush's stimulus like he is about Obama's? Consistency. It's hard for me to take someone as credible if they are not consistent.
To me its like, well last year they didn't care if they cut off our arm, but they absolutely draw the line this year about cutting off both legs. How mighty conservative of them. Thanks?
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 11:15PM
Crusader, it's your call if you want to give up--I can't, I have children. It would be cowardly of me to slink away. I will fight because this is the only country I've got, it's the least I can do. You're preaching to the choir, I didn't want a RINO--I can't stand them, but it doesn't help to focus on the past, what do you propose for the future? Give us something we can believe in--we already know what we don't want. So, you haven't been taken over by a troll?
Osamas Pajamas | 2.26.09 @ 11:19PM
Here's another guy whom the Demofascists want to "Shut up!"
================================
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams, July, 1776
Ignant_dude| 2.26.09 @ 11:38PM
First off, Crusader, I remember getting a check in the mail after Bush's $168B stimulus. It was nice, I bought stuff and I life to think the money went to some company that then paid their employees who then bought more stuff and continued the beautiful cycle of free market capitalism which, according to some russian associates of mine back in the nineties "works". So I say that example was poor.
Otherwise I agree that Bush's domestic policies frequently seemed more like socialist crowd pleasers (with exceptions), but nothing on the scale we've seen in the last month.
You raise good points, though, as do others. It's been a while since I've been involved with a university, but I do get the impression the "courageous" simply repeat the party lines they're sold while the "hate-speechers" challenge that. And I do see quite clearly that debate is being replaced whole heartedly with name calling. Free speech is freedom to offend, but let's try to make the purpose debate, not just being offensive.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 11:45PM
Ignant, you're not so ignant. You stated well what I was trying to explain to Crusader. I just don't know how we can recover if we keep beating ourselves up. Thank you.
Nick| 2.26.09 @ 11:48PM
Ruth,
I understand where you're coming from. Like I said, when attacked, I attack back. I was just trying to calm things down with a little levity, not accuse. Still love ya! Don't back down an inch.
Crusader,
I'm with you on the Constitution and GOP betrayal. I would debate you on the war, though. But I would never tell you to shut up. Had to look up the Latin, and I disagree, God is the author of this epic. So there is always true HOPE.
I see we thoughtful conservatives as a wife who has been lied and cheated on. We have finally thrown the bum out of the house, and now he must come and beg forgiveness and not stray again before we let him back in. Well, enough preaching.
ruth| 2.27.09 @ 12:08AM
I don't know about the jilted wife deal, though, being the poor 'little lady' doesn't feel very comfortable. I agree with Crusader, just not his methods. I don't want to fight with him, but I also don't want to be accused of being a RINO.
tonypal| 2.27.09 @ 12:36AM
Brad, from earlier in the day:
The left does not just come out and say they want to ban speech. They suppress speech in much subtler ways. One method, which is familiar to all conservatives, is to attack the motives of the speaker. In particular, to disagree with a liberal on a matter of race is to invite catcalls of "racism." Once tagged with that label, the speaker is effectively neutered.
Another method is to attack conservative speakers when they speak on a college campus. Happens all the time. Then of course there are speech codes, designed to protect the sensibilities of supposedly offended university liberals. Then you have college Stalinists who pressure school administrators to cancel speeches by conservatives because of their supposedly controversial stand on certain topics.
Right now, we have congressional liberals who seek to silence conservative talk radio. Of course, they will not do it through the "fairness doctrine." Instead, they will create local community boards that will be staffed with liberal activists, the purpose of which will be to monitor local radio content and force local stations to abide by their self-determined and arbitrary standards of fairness.
Now, I could go on all night with examples, but I hope you get the point. If you're a liberal, then you will probably respond by telling me how GWB suppressed free speech over the past 8 years. In anticipation, I will ask for concrete examples. Surely you or some other liberal should be able to cite for me an ACLU-driven suit alleging an unconstitutional infringement of someone's first amendment rights by the Bush administration. Just for fun, while you're at it, why don't you also cite for us a single ACLU lawsuit alleging civil rights violations pertaining to the Patriot Act. Should be a piece of cake.
Ignant_dude| 2.27.09 @ 5:50AM
tonypal, "Durbin Amdt. No. 591; To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest."
Just like any other government run program, who do we think will be the arbitrators who "ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest"?
Democrats passed the Durbin Amendment to restrict free speech- 57-41.
-via Gateway Pundit
Pat| 2.27.09 @ 9:36AM
I am disgusted with all libs and their moral relativism!! You want to compare Bush’s $168B stimulus with BOs $2.5 Trillion destruction? Are you insane?? The doublespeak has become so blatantly obvious from the left it maddening. You called Bush a Nazi and a fascist! Now you are throwing out Socialist?? Right out of Saul Alinsiki’s playbook!!
We are on to you all!!
Crusader| 2.27.09 @ 9:43AM
Ignant, the McCain-Feingold Amendment to restrict free speech passed 60-40, with 11 Rs voting "yea." Again, consistency. Free speech didn't mean much then, but now it does?
The point about the support for Bush's stimulus last year wasn't "well but we got checks." People will get checks with Obama's stimulus, just not us. The point is it was unconstitutional, but Rs lined up behind it because it was an R president. If you're principled, you're principled regardless of who's calling the shots. A bad decision is a bad decision regardless if an R or a D makes it. If you condone bad legislation done by your own party it it hypocritical to cry about it when the other party does it, only on a grander scale. partys forget that they won't always be the party in power and the bad legislation they pass will one day be used not only against them but as justification for extending the scope of that bad legislation (by the "opposition" party).
Do you all understand that if Bush was D, Dems would be hailing him as a success, and if Obama was an R, the Repubs would all be lining up behind his stimulus? That's THE POINT. Politicians don't do what's best for America, they do what's best to promote the party. For average Americans it is a lose/lose regardless of which party--which party, why am I even saying that? Haha! Really, there is only one party, unless someone cares to argue that the only difference between McCain & Obama was scope.
You want stimulus? How about a 6-month tax amnesty? How about 12 months? That's a tax amnesty for EVERY American--rich, poor, white, black, Dem, Repub, Nazi, Satanist, Christian, whatever. Talk about bi-partisan. It's easy, it could be done quickly, and lastly it would WORK! Well, it would work at fixing the economy but it would not work at cementing government control over the economy. How come the Rs aren't out there beating the drum for that?
They want power too, they're just not as blatant about grabbing it as the Dems.
Crusader| 2.27.09 @ 9:52AM
Pat, Pat, Pat. You all are proving my point with every post yall make.
Who called Bush a Nazi, a fascist, and a socialist? I think the closest anyone came was ignant (I think) saying some of his domestic policies could be considered "socialistic." See, this is what I meant--criticize a sacred cow and that side of the aisle goes bonkers.
Let me put how I see Bush's stimulus and Obama's stimulus in a way (hopefully) you can all understand.
There are two married guys, George and Barry. George goes out one night and meets a girl and she gives him a "Lewinsky." George's friends are not judgemental of George and even excuse or condone his unfaithful behavior. The next weekend Barry goes to Vegas and spends all weekend with a hooker. George's friends are now up in arms about Barry's behavior.
Seem a little hypocritical to you? It does to me.
Bush started the car and began driving towards socialism, Obama just floored it and is driving us off the cliff. That's all. I don't excuse either.
Lana| 2.27.09 @ 4:26PM
You've explained the problem, Crusader, can you offer any solutions, besides giving Obama's marxism a pass? How do we fix our side?
tonypal| 2.27.09 @ 7:51PM
Ignant_dude:
You and I know what Durbin is up to, but most people don't take the time to read these bills or understand what they're about. Let's face it, just say you're looking to promote diversity and a certain percentage of the population will fall right in line.
So even though to you it seems blatant, it is nonetheless a backdoor and sneaky way to restrict free speech.
ruth| 2.27.09 @ 9:38PM
The demos are all leftists now--there's no diversity there. They all march in lock-step with Marx and they're not even trying to hide it anymore. We are in trouble mucho.
ruth| 2.27.09 @ 9:40PM
Where will Rush go when the demos knock him off the air?
Pingback| 2.28.09 @ 1:22PM
Shut Up, He Instructed « Depravity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jane| 3.1.09 @ 7:52PM
No, it does not beg the question. It may raise the question, it may ask the question, it may beg you to raise or ask the question, but beg the question it does not. I know this misuse of beg the question is trendy, but you undermine your credibility when you misuse terms that have precise meanings.
Gary Ogletree| 3.2.09 @ 2:40PM
As the Obama disaster takes us deeper into an economic collapse, I expect his totalitarian tendencies will come out and give new value to the Bill of Rights, even to academics.
Pingback| 3.9.09 @ 12:32AM
This week’s Wilders Round-up « Defend Geert Wilders links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.14.09 @ 6:30AM
Manchester terrier | Puppy Dog Breeds Information Directory links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
gfhfg| 11.25.09 @ 8:42PM
MOV Converter Mac,
MOV Converter Mac