I tried to comment on The Washington Monthlies Blog, but, like any representative of the "Free Speech" party, censored it. Now, for any Liberal to tell us Conservatives to "calm down," is not only hypocritical, but as one who knows, insane.
I offer a simple trade:
You want we in the Conservative and GOP circles to calm down? Put a leash on these Nazguls: Thom Hartmann for calling every Republican and Conservative a Nazi (I'm a Jew, so I'm offended) Keith Olbermann, the human fascist, (when has he ever debated his positions with anyone from the Right? Answer: Never -- again the "Free speech" party) to show some steel and attack the corruption in the Democratic party, President Bush hasn't been President since January 20; and finally, when the eff are you folks on the Left going to ex-communicate Andrew Sullivan for attacking Governor Palin's family?
Last I checked, there was a shooting in Oakland by an Obama supporter, and also, Mumia Abu-Jamal, a cop killer, continues to work for Pacifica radio. There is not one Republican or Conservative who works for Pacifica, in fact they endorsed Obama. Who supports cops again?
As a Jew, I understand the concept of "Blood Libel," It was used as a way to have Pograms against Jewish neighborhoods. Now, the Democrats use the same tactics. Why?
They want Republicans censored -- they don't care with what we say, only they want to shut us up.Look at how Amanda Terkel is handling her issue. No "meet in the middle" instead, she and her cohorts want to shut off Bill O'Reilly.
Party of "Free Speech" huh?
And what did I write to the washington Monthly? I just linked what I said here. And said to all the Liberals commenting there: We learned from YOU.
Amen Brother... what is this with all the name calling? why is the left so afraid to elaborate their talking point?
ReplyDeleteOne of the true ironies in the world is that the "free speech party" is only tolerant of those with whom they agree. Watching them try to rationalize all of that is amusing, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteHere's a prime example. Last year, dissent was patriotic. Now it's un-American and obstructionist. What changed? Obama got in office...
Yeah I agree, why do they think this is OK?
ReplyDeleteThe left in this country is already bordering on totalitarianism. They have moved from political correctness to something much more sinister than that.
ReplyDeleteThere was a comment that came in...but it was very Kossian.
ReplyDeleteLiberal hate Speech at it's best, and as Yoda says, "Hate leads to Anger, Anger leads to the Dark Side,"
So, mysterious leftist Blogger from the DC Beltway, until the Washington Monthly publishes my comment (which linked to the Hate Speech of the past 8 years), you will get yours.
However, hiding behind an insulting name? Come back with a Blogger link, and try again.
My friend, Chessnovice (of Shades of Grey and Black -- click his Blog) wrote this:
ReplyDeleteHate speech whether it is espoused by liberals or conservatives inherently denigrates the foundations of the Republic. In aspiring to the ideal of freedom that the founders of the Republic both Federalist and Anti Federalist sought to engender we as Americans have a sacred charge to safeguard liberty, freedom, and their offspring the representational democracy that is the Republic of the United States of America. As Judge Learned Hand pointed out in 1944 at the height of the Second World War:
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon
courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow. What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.
The Spirit of Liberty, (21 May 1944) reprinted in The Spirit of Liberty: Papers and Addresses of Learned Hand (Irving Dilliard ed., 3d ed., New York, A.A. Knopf, 1960)
It is seems that it is will of the individual partisans on either side of the aisle to affix to their senses blinders. I would argue that these blinders are by their nature designed to effectively fetter both the spirit in which, partisans approach issues and by extension limits the solutions offered by lobbyists in answer to problem. The blinders utilized by advocates both conservative and liberal elements are akin to the smoky glasses worn by judges in ancient China to hide their emotions from the parties involved in a case. The use of these blinders in effect creates a degree of tunnel vision that necessarily impacts the ability of lobbyists to readily adapt to changing circumstances in the socio-political, and economic realms. The absolutist rigidity exmplified by the radical left and radical right imposes a set of inherently small boundaries on the political spectrum beyond which the radicals on both sides are not willing to venture.
As long as these radical elements within the political spectrum continue to wage a war to annihilate the other by engaging in a destructive pattern of conduct that demonstrates a clear lack of civility the progress of the nation-state as whole will remain stagnant. A lack of constructive dialogue will only further weaken the Republic, and place it at the mercy of its enemies as Judge Hand argued in 1930.
For in such matters everything turns upon the spirit in which he approaches the
questions before him. The words he must construe are empty vessels into which he
can pour nearly anything he will. Men do not gather figs of thistles, nor supply
institutions from judges whose outlook is limited by parish or class. They must
be aware of the changing social tensions every society which make it an organism; which demand a new schemata of adaptation; which will disrupt it, if rigidly confined.
Sources of Tolerance, LXXIX University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1-14 (November 1930) reprinted in The Spirit of Liberty: Papers and Addresses of Learned Hand. (Irving Dilliard ed., 3d ed., NewYork, A.A. Knopf, 1960).