I'm particularly interested in what Joe and Barry have to say about this article, written by a Conservative Christian.
On my way to go look at some furniture if my wife ever gets ready to go. :roll: As for the story I started to read it then it broke into the whole thought police and Orwellian and the defensive shield started to come up as the phrase is so often selectively used these days by the true thought police. But as I skimmed over it jumping to what seemed to be the important parts the ....editorial seemed to disserve a good deal of merit. The ideals of political correctness (they governed laws of the thought police) have truly warped our sense of what freedom of speech means. The whole system has become extremely perverted from what it once was. To that end here in the states I blame most of this on the massively funded ACLU whoa have taken it upon them selves to destroy this country. As for the Palestinian Arabs. Well that subject runs really deep. Should I link to the Jews gone wild thread? Well hell my wife just walked down the hallway still wearing nothing but a t’shirt. :x
All 4 of the above have ridiculous and hateful opinions, but should be allowed to express them without fear of incarceration. The problem is, most of the 'intellegensia' and 'Guardianistas' who claim to support free speech don't. They support "me" speech ie everything is acceptable unless it offends their pathetic PC ideals. Incitement to violence apart, free speech should mean exactly that.
Do we really need to visit the "free speech no matter what" topic again? Everyone with a brain knows that there has to be a limit on what people can do and say without being censored. Think not? Several classic example serves well here - 1. A person shouts "FIRE, FIRE," in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. Your two children are trampled to death in the stampede. Would you find the shouter innocent of manslaughter if he used "free speech" as a defense? 2. Your husband is a police officer. While arresting an armed robbery suspect, a large crowd gathers. Suddenly, a man in the crowd begans to to yell at everyone with a bullhorn, telling them to act and kill the cop. The crowd responds to the pursation, and beats your husband to death. The man with the Bull Horn walks away because he is protected by "free speech", right? 3. A Doctor who spent 10 years in Medical School finally gets his first job. He has a wife, a kid, and $100,000 in student loans to repay. His first day at his new job, a jealous co-worker tells everyone that will listen that he "knows for a fact" the Doctor has raped children and has had sex with animals. He produces photoshopped pictures to prove his point, and then starts a website to have the Doctor fired. He rents a huge billboard and puts the fake pictures on it. The Doctor, who is completely innocent, is ruined. "Free Speech", right? What does all of this have to do with the article? Free speech stops where the safety and well being of others starts. Say, write and do whatever you want, as long as it does not harm innocent people. For an American to stand on a street corner and preach that the Holocaust never happened is not very harmful to anyone. I can't image anyone even paying attention to him. For someone to do that in Germany, the country where the Holocaust did happen, with a Government that admits that it happened, to a people who could let it happen again - well, that is not much different than inciting a riot.
Before I dismiss this question as further evidence of your stupidity, I will give you a chance to explain what you think you mean.
so who are the people you refer to?... the germans?.. who are filled with a collective guilt and are forever reminded of their collective guilt... or the jews?.. who have a heavily armed military and a nuclear arsenal and would willingly wipe out all their enemies.. and are proponents of preemptive strikes
The idea of "hate law" is fairly stupid and in the context which it is used here a racist idea. For example consider the LA Watts riots part deux. (Rodney King version) white people are dragged out of their cars and beaten. A truck driver is dragged out of his truck and has his head bashed in with a brick. Honestly the guy is still alive and to this day has a brick impression in his skull. This is not considered a hateful thing though instead they qualify it as "race rage". And the perpetrators are the "victims" of race rage. While at the same time this initial footage shown for the first hour or so of the video footage shows Rodney King fighting the police. Is chopped up and specific scenes only showing the police hitting Rodney were looped and played back to the public every fifteen minutes or so till the blacks in Watts are whipped into a misinformed frenzy. So that now the police are guilty of a "Hate" crime. If you ask me I would think that robbery, murder, rape, insert several other entries. Are pretty damn hateful things. But if you are a black perpetrator of any of these crimes you are immune to being indicted in a "hate" crime. Does anyone see a problem with this? All of this the riots and damage they caused, the violence death and destruction. The blame should be laid squarely where it belongs and that is on the news media. The media instigated this riot. Rodney King was a jackass with a 13 or 16 page ncis record I was working for the sheriff dept. at the time and pulled it up myself. almost all of which were related to violence, class c dangerous drugs (pcp, lsd, methamphetamines all were Rodney’s preference) he had several attacks on the police on record and as I said the initial video showed the first hour or so of public airing showed Rodney fighting the police and the police fighting back. Rodney refused to be restrained. He had been chased through residential neighborhoods where he endangered the lives of innocent pedestrians driving at speeds of almost a hundred miles per hour. What the idiots in Watts were fed though was pure unadulterated race hate by the media. They were showed a few seconds of edited clips or police beating Rodney. Oh and if Dwaine is out there lurking with the constant question of why the world hates white conservative America. Shit like this is exactly why its called missinformation by your beloved media.
Also another point of note I watched a documentary about the riots a few years back and the current Reginald Denny a mild mannered easy going and now slightly brain damaged man. Still has the impression of a brick on the side of his head. I searched extensively through Google as well as Yahoo image search for a current picture it is very compelling. Maybe that is why you will not be able to locate the picture and if the documentary is ever re-aired it is likely they will edit his part out so as not to show it.
