Karl Hungus wrote:

<snip>

> Freedom of speech to the Left means freedom of the right *kind* of speech,
> it would seem.

That, of course, depends on which individual you are discussing.
The Left is no more monolithic than the Right.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Karl Hungus wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Freedom of speech to the Left means freedom of the right *kind* of
>> speech,
>> it would seem.
>
>
> That, of course, depends on which individual you are discussing.
> The Left is no more monolithic than the Right.

You support freedom of expression of
leftist/collectivist ideas, and suppression of speech
that extols individual liberty and the market.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> You support freedom of expression of leftist/collectivist ideas, and
> suppression of speech that extols individual liberty and the market.

Quote, jonnie?

No, I didn't think so.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You support freedom of expression of leftist/collectivist ideas, and
>> suppression of speech that extols individual liberty and the market.
>
>
> Quote, jonnie?

There isn't the one smoking gun quote from you, you
stupid bitch; there doesn't need to be. It's the
consensus about you, based on years of keen observation.

You are a leftist/collectivist totalitarian. It just
isn't reasonable for you to deny it.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

>>> You support freedom of expression of leftist/collectivist ideas, and
>>> suppression of speech that extols individual liberty and the market.

>> Quote, jonnie?

> There isn't the one smoking gun quote from you,

As I said -- you can't provide any support for your obvious
lies, you ( pick vulgar epithet of your choice ). But then,
we knew that.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> You support freedom of expression of leftist/collectivist ideas, and
>>>> suppression of speech that extols individual liberty and the market.
>
>
>>> Quote, jonnie?
>
>
>> There isn't the one smoking gun quote from you, you stupid bitch;
>> there doesn't need to be. It's the consensus about you, based on
>> years of keen observation.
>
>
> As I said

You said only blah, blah, blah, you lying traitor.

You are a leftist/collectivist totalitarian censor.
There is simply no reasonable way for you to deny it.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Karl Hungus wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Freedom of speech to the Left means freedom of the right *kind* of
speech,
> > it would seem.
>
> That, of course, depends on which individual you are discussing.
> The Left is no more monolithic than the Right.
>
> Rat


Yeah? Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Anyway, I'd like to hear Swan's take on this before I offer my rebuttal.

Karl Hungus wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Karl Hungus wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Freedom of speech to the Left means freedom of the right *kind* of
>
> speech,
>
>>>it would seem.
>>
>>That, of course, depends on which individual you are discussing.
>>The Left is no more monolithic than the Right.
>>
>>Rat
>
>
>
> Yeah? Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to hear Swan's take on this before I offer my rebuttal.

Swan here. Rat's partner. The terms "left" and "right" are relative on
a continuum. What is hard line left to one person can be interpreted as
hard line right by another. Even in one given individual, political
stances can be all over the map. Take myself, for instance. I am pro
death penalty, pro-choice and favor language requirements in certain
professions. Rat and I do not agree on certain areas, politically, yet
we are both seen as liberals. While socially liberal, I am flatly
against gun control and would favor restrictions on immigration. I
think society has placed TOO much emphasis on "family values" as opposed
to simple "human values" and I'd like to see an end to subsidised
childbearing in *all* strata of society. Rat and I are *not*
"monolithic" and I can say with confidence that the same is true of
conservatives, liberals, everyone. we are *people* first and foremost,
and only an idiot or a lazy person blindly follows a "party line"
without thinking for him or herself.

as for the idea that liberals only tolerate "certain kinds" of freedom
of speech... Hardly. The "right" wants it both ways. "Liberals are so
mushy on values!" "The left wants you to have a mind so open, your
brains fall out!" etc... but then... "The left only allows certain
kinds of speech!"

Well which IS it? Remember, it was a LIBERAL organisation, the ACLU,
that *defended* the right of the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie
Illinois! Are there leftists who won't tolerate true freedom os speech?
Hell, YES! I got whacked with a thrown (full) Coke can thrown by a
radical anti-Nazi protester at a rally once. OW! And the people who had
come to speak were shouted down and driven from the hall. NOT a shining
example of freedom of speech and assembly, that's for damn sure! But
there are more liberals DEFENDING freedom of speech as there are
attacking it. I defend it!

I DESPISE Fred Phelps and his disgusting webpages godhatesfags.com and
godhatesamerica.com and I think he's a pig. But if I heard that someone
was trying to burn down his church, I'd be on the front steps BESIDE
him, defending the place! he has a RIGHT to spew his bile and I have the
SAME right to tell him he's an ass. I do NOT have the right to shut him
up, nor he, me.

The cold hard fact is this: Freedom is damned hard, but it is worth
EVERY drop of blood spilled defending it! It is difficult to have the
moral STRENGTH *not* to shout down and shut down those you think are
wrong. Freedom takes strength, trust, brains, forbearance, courage and
hard work to safeguard. There is a basic truth that freedom CANNOT be
given... it must be taken by force and it must be earned, and
maintained, by hard work. Once lost, it can only be regained by the same
force with which it was once won. Freedom exists for you, me, Michael
Jackson, Oral Roberts, George Bush, Rat, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tim
LeHay, Fred Phelps, Jane Fonda, PETA, the ACLU, the KKK, AARP, EVERYONE.
But it only exists so long as we have the GUTS to defend it and allow it
for EVERYONE, even the ones we violently disagree with. As a matter of
fact... ESPECIALLY the ones we disagree with.

Swan
>
>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Yeah? Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like to hear Swan's take on this before I offer my rebuttal.
>
> Swan here. Rat's partner. The terms "left" and "right" are relative on
> a continuum. What is hard line left to one person can be interpreted as
> hard line right by another. Even in one given individual, political
> stances can be all over the map. Take myself, for instance. I am pro
> death penalty, pro-choice and favor language requirements in certain
> professions. Rat and I do not agree on certain areas, politically, yet
> we are both seen as liberals. While socially liberal, I am flatly
> against gun control and would favor restrictions on immigration. I
> think society has placed TOO much emphasis on "family values" as opposed
> to simple "human values" and I'd like to see an end to subsidised
> childbearing in *all* strata of society.

Then, by contemporary American standards, you could be acurately described
as a liberatian. Something to be proud of.

> Rat and I are *not*
> "monolithic"


> and I can say with confidence that the same is true of
> conservatives, liberals, everyone. we are *people* first and foremost,

I disagree. Too many Americans are all too willing to swallow the party
line hook, line, and sinker. I know--and I'll bet you do, too--many, many
people who not only vote a straight Republican or Democratic ticket, but
allow their party to dictate their values to them. For example, if GWB came
out tomorrow and said that no one should ever again own a vehicle made by
Chrylser, that company's stock would take a nasty tumble, because many of
the Kool-Aid drinking Republican faithful would henceforth eschew Chrysler
products.

> and only an idiot or a lazy person blindly follows a "party line"
> without thinking for him or herself.

Then there a lot of idiots out there.


> as for the idea that liberals only tolerate "certain kinds" of freedom
> of speech... Hardly. The "right" wants it both ways. "Liberals are so
> mushy on values!" "The left wants you to have a mind so open, your
> brains fall out!" etc... but then... "The left only allows certain
> kinds of speech!"

Look to the recent SCOTUS decision on campaign finance law; the liberal bloc
(along with swing voter O'Connor) voted to uphold McCain-Feingold. In a
sweeping repudiation of the 1st Amendment, those guardians of free speech
decided that the 1st Amendment, which was drafted primarily to protect
political speech, no longer applies to political speech.

> Well which IS it? Remember, it was a LIBERAL organisation, the ACLU,
> that *defended* the right of the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie
> Illinois! Are there leftists who won't tolerate true freedom os speech?
> Hell, YES! I got whacked with a thrown (full) Coke can thrown by a
> radical anti-Nazi protester at a rally once. OW!

Why would the anti-Nazis ping you with a Coke can? You weren't marching
with the skinheads, were you? :^)


> And the people who had
> come to speak were shouted down and driven from the hall. NOT a shining
> example of freedom of speech and assembly, that's for damn sure!

Sure it is. Remember, your right to speak your mind does not entail a
concomitant right to be heard. If people don't like your message, expect to
be shouted down. When it comes to expressing a controversial or contentious
point of view . . . well, it's a jungle out there. As long as the force of
law isn't being brought to bear on the situation, anything goes.

> But
> there are more liberals DEFENDING freedom of speech as there are
> attacking it. I defend it!
>
> I DESPISE Fred Phelps and his disgusting webpages godhatesfags.com and
> godhatesamerica.com and I think he's a pig.

Man, I've seen that. That ****er's got some issues. No doubt ****ed in the
ass as a tot by his hermaphrodite mom. Sad, really . . .

> But if I heard that someone
> was trying to burn down his church, I'd be on the front steps BESIDE
> him, defending the place! he has a RIGHT to spew his bile and I have the
> SAME right to tell him he's an ass. I do NOT have the right to shut him
> up, nor he, me.

I'm thinking that arson is juuuuuuust a bit outside the purview of the 1st
Amendment . . .


> The cold hard fact is this: Freedom is damned hard, but it is worth
> EVERY drop of blood spilled defending it! It is difficult to have the
> moral STRENGTH *not* to shout down and shut down those you think are
> wrong. Freedom takes strength, trust, brains, forbearance, courage and
> hard work to safeguard. There is a basic truth that freedom CANNOT be
> given... it must be taken by force and it must be earned, and
> maintained, by hard work. Once lost, it can only be regained by the same
> force with which it was once won. Freedom exists for you, me, Michael
> Jackson, Oral Roberts, George Bush, Rat, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tim
> LeHay, Fred Phelps, Jane Fonda, PETA, the ACLU, the KKK, AARP, EVERYONE.
> But it only exists so long as we have the GUTS to defend it and allow it
> for EVERYONE, even the ones we violently disagree with. As a matter of
> fact... ESPECIALLY the ones we disagree with.

Hear! Hear! Nice soliloquy, Swan! :^)