Suppressing speech
George Will’s column of June 24, “Employing sensitivities to muzzle free speech,” speaks volumes. I have often said that if “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” the guardrails must surely be political correctness.
As for “speech suppression becoming an instrument of cultural combat,” we see it here in Denver every Columbus Day.
Martin Palumbo, Wheat Ridge
I once heard Bill "phone-sex offender" 'O'Reilly say, "dissent responsibly". These are the words of a surrender monkey, communist sider and Vietnam War draft-dodger.
Posted by [jjtenant] "40acresandmymuleandvetbennies" on July 5, 2007 06:19 AMI know that if there are right wing zealots who read this, I will be assaulted with their tired old party line which ignores the facts and, if there are left wing zealots, they will do the same. Never the less, I think there is a very disturbing political doctrin being played around with lately. Do any of you remember when Bush said, I may paraphrase a bit,---" If your not with us, your with the terrorists". We really need to think about that statement.
It is to eerily like what all dictators and despots have said in one way or the other. This type of statement is rife with hidden meanings. If your not with us, your against us; all those who oppose us are our enemies; all who do not believe Allah are heritics; we must deny ourselves to insure the greater good, etc, etc.
This is scarry stuff. It sets up a doctrin that can't be exactly defined and is open to the interpretation of those who establish it. Hitler, Mao, Stalin etal, all used this tactic to undermine freedom. After all, it is easy to manipulate such statements to apply to any or every segment of society at any time. That is exactly how Hitler targeted the Jews, how Stalin targeted opposition to communism, how Mao targeted free thought and how all of these tyrants underminded the freedom , justice and liberty all Americans hold dear.
I'm not saying Bush is of the same ilk as those tyrants. I'm only saying those types of statements have historically been the precursor of that kind of tyranny and that by Bush using such statements to try to unite unity against terrorist, he runs the risk of sending the wrong message thereby splitting society into two factors; those who support his position and those who do not. It is too easy to extrapolate that to; those who support the stated doctrin are acceptable members of our society and those who don't are not. I think Bush did not think through to the possible consequences of his statement. He has been known to say things off the top of his head that were less then clear before. I just hope this was just another example of that but, if it was, he needs to clarify what he really meant.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 5, 2007 10:00 AM[jjtenant] "40acresandmymuleandvetbennies" on July 5, 2007 06:19 AM
Is everybody you disagree with a draft dodger?
Allen,
The original letter written by Martin Palumbo was about suppression of speech. I think you took Bush's statement to the extreme. Nobody’s rights to freedom of speech have been compromised as a result of what Bush said.
Mao, Hitler, and Stalin were all on the left. It is a hallmark of socialist/communist action to stop desent in the name of utilitarianism. America will not have her freedom taken by force of arms. We will give up our freedom, one law at a time. The assault on our Constitution and our freedom is in full swing. People are already being censored...is that big brother at my door?
Posted by Tom on July 5, 2007 10:52 AMAll dictatorships are fundamentally the same at root. One may look upon the various labels much as one looks at the different sides of the same coin. "Left", or "right", it is the same worthless counterfeit. And the argument of: "Dissent is treason", has been used, in one way or another, ever since the beginnings of recorded governments in human history.
We survived Nixon, J Edgar Hoover's political police, and McCarthyism in the last Century. The question today is: Can we survive Bush-Cheneyism and the Patriot Act?
Posted by Old Grouch on July 5, 2007 11:08 AMI think that all you lefties should all just shut up and color.
All you ever do is bash Republicans anyway.
How's that for suppression of free speech?
Posted by Republican Dude on July 5, 2007 12:11 PMChristina, Do you not think an overt statement like Bush made is the point? By sayin what he said he put people in two categories without any option mentioned like, I'm not with your position but I'm not with the terrorist either. Such a statement does not allow any option but the one stated. This is the trick of such statements, much like a lawyer asking you if you quit beating your wife yet, yes or no. If you answer yes it is an admission that you used to beat your wife and if you answer no, you are still beating her.
These types of questions have been carefully contrived to exclude any answer or respose other than the two offered and that ammounts to a surppression of free speech. When taken to the extreme it becomes a road block to dissent and that is the danger I was talking about.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 5, 2007 12:21 PMRepuplican dude, I don't think any sane, reasonable, intelligent person cares one damn about what you think people should do or not do. Read the Bill of Rights sonny. And you might want to see if you have the mental capacity to write anything that entails a applicable thought germane to the issue.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 5, 2007 12:35 PMAllen Campbell,
You're obviously a typical "old fart" hippie. (Get real. What person under 50 would call someone "sonny"?)
You like to gripe about Republicans and how we're "stealing your right to free speech " and then you like to gripe when one of us excericises those same rights.
In other words, you're a socialist, George-Carlin-wannabe, hypocrite.
Have a nice day.
Posted by Republican Dude on July 5, 2007 01:19 PMYou make my point for me,1. a fart is a natural function of the human body and has no being. I am a human being and I fart. 2. a fart cannot grow old, it is there than gone in a short, sometimes discomfortable, time. 3. I have never complained about someone stealing my right to free speech, i have complained about someone stealin my freedom of choice, however. 4. I'm not a democrat, a republican, a socialist, a communist, an elitist or a fan of Gearge Carlin, I'm a Druid. 5. I am not a hypocrite ie. a person who pretends to be what he is not, I have never contradicted myself, quite the opposite as a matter of fact. But how could you ever know?, You have never met me nor do you know anything at all about me or my background.
And once again, try to find out if you have the mental capacity to make a point sans your penchant for attempting, and failing miserable, to insult people.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 5, 2007 02:02 PMAllen,
No, I don’t think Bush’s statement is the point. An analogy to what Bush said could be that you are either in favor of punishing murders or you are in favor of allowing murders to continue murdering. I don’t see a problem with putting that topic in such black and white terms. But for some reason, you must see a problem with it.
Bush’s statment had nothing at all to do with freedom of speech. You must have the suspicion that if you speak in favor of terrorist that you will be silenced by the Bush administration.
Martin Palumbo’s letter was in reference to political correctness and how it suppresses freedom of speech. You want to take off on a tangent about Bush putting a cork in the mouth of anybody who does not go along with him, when there is no evidence of that happening.
If anything, Bush simply does not pay any attention at all to those who oppose him. Have you ever heard him or his cabinet strongly defend any criticism of them? I haven’t. And that is a big part of what much of the conservative base hates about this administration. They are a bunch of pushovers who don’t have the spine to stick up for themselves in a fight; while at the same time simply will not listen to the conservative base on certain issues, such as illegal immigration.
But all of this is irrelevant to Mr. Palumbo’s letter. He is correct; political correctness does suppress speech. It is also one of the many things that will be the downfall of this country of ours. That is, if it continues to be enforced.
Posted by Christina on July 5, 2007 03:19 PMHey Republican Dude, you should shut your pie hole and get down to the Recruiters office. You voted for and support the chump who started this mess so why can't you do the honorable thing and sign up? Don't tell me you are just as big a chickenhawk as your heroes. Not sure how you can look at yourself in the mirror.
Posted by Chimpy McFlightsuit on July 5, 2007 03:20 PMOld Grouch wrote
We survived Nixon, J Edgar Hoover's political police, and McCarthyism in the last Century.
Didn't you forget Clintonian debaucheryism?
Hey Chimpy,
For your information, I am a retired Marine gunnery sergeant who has served three tours in the Middle East.
I was in the Gulf War in 1991 in Kuwait; and I served at Al Udeid, Qatar in 2004 and Balad, Iraq in 2005.
Now don't you feel stupid?
Posted by Republican Dude on July 6, 2007 08:35 AMWell then, dude, GET THE HELL BACK THERE, TOUGH GUY!!!! Unless, of course, you're lying, but would that be any surprise, that being a baldfaced lie from a chickenhawk republican?
Posted by Shameless RepubliCON on July 6, 2007 09:06 AMCatrina, all you say is true. Let me try again. First of all, this was not a diatribe about Bush. It is an attempt to point out the root causes of suppression of speech and, political correctness is one example, I admit. However, the mother of that suppression is the creation of an either/or doctrin that necessarily excludes any other option ergo, making any other response immaterial to the demand of an either/ or doctrin. In other words, by allowing no optional response constitutes in and of it's self a suppression of speech. Therfor, you're either with us or with terrorist is an either/ or trap statement as the one I noted about whether or not you have stopped beating your wife yet , except that is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation where as Bush's statement is a right if you agree and wrong if you don't statement. In any case, speech beyond the minimum response required is not permitted. This is the tactic of control and power used by dictators and all like kind tyrants. My point is put in the question; just exactly what was his intentions in making such a statement?, and if it was a mistake to say what he meant that way, he needs to clarify that he did not mean to say what amounts to a tactic he does not believe in.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 6, 2007 09:32 AMThe liberials have always supressed the freedom of speech.The moderater does it on these post all the time.I saw posts months ago from a guy named Kevin or Kieth that would list documented facts,minutes later they would be removed.That's definitely censuring freedom of speech.
Posted by bart on July 6, 2007 09:37 AMThe liberials have always supressed the freedom of speech.The moderater does it on these post all the time.I saw posts months ago from a guy named Kevin or Kieth that would list documented facts,minutes later they would be removed.That's definitely censuring freedom of speech.
Posted by bart on July 6, 2007 09:37 AMAh! skeptical,
The usual insertion of a non sequitur, based on . . . religion (?) . . . "morals" (?) . . . oh well, whatever.
Politics is far and away beyond the simplistic nonsense of whether or not someone is able to keep his zipper up. But for the true believer in any form of superstition, the realities of life are always secondary to the assertion of some kind of superior "righteousness" in adhering to the superstition.
However, since you are an expert on how other people should live their lives, perhaps you might enlighten us as to how Clinton's office adventures - or extra curricular adventures - in the area of "sex" affected such things as the national debt, the national unemployment rate, world - and national - peace, national security, and the other POLITICAL concerns of the nation as a whole.
Please do try to remember that the United States is not a Theocracy; nor does it have any form of established superstition/religion upon which to base your judgments.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 6, 2007 10:18 AMShameless,
Do you know what retired means?
I could have remained in the military for a few more years, but I wanted to go out and begin a second career before I get too old. (In addition to being a military retiree, I'm also 40 percent disabled.)
When it comes to making sacrifices and fighting for my country -- I have done my fair share. What about YOU?
When it comes to your freedom -- you're welcome.
Well, Allen, all I can say is keep that tin foil hat handy. Anything I say beyond that would only induce you into some more twisted logic about "traps" that Bush has set for you and that "speech beyond the minimum response required is not permitted," even though you have been ranting and raving about him without restraint.
What was that sound? Is that the speech police at your door, Allen?
Posted by Christina on July 6, 2007 01:37 PMHey there, big shooter dude, I am neither Kuwaiti nor Iraqi, so I have no need to thank your narcissistic butt for anything.
And like your Young Republican cohorts, I am staying here to fight the war of ideas. Not enough for you? The same goes for those Young Republicans too. You cannot have it both ways.
And finally, your purported veteran status gives you NO MORE rights or special status than a non-veteran. If you don't believe me, look at the US Constitution. If I am wrong here, point to me the specific article or clause from the US Constitution that confers uber-citizen status to veterans. Good luck!!
Posted by Shameless RepubliCON on July 6, 2007 01:47 PMOld Grouch wrote
Please do try to remember that the United States is not a Theocracy; nor does it have any form of established superstition/religion upon which to base your judgments.
I confess before the RMN family of posters,
I base all of my judgments, Clintonian and otherwise, upon what I perceive to be the truth presented within the Bible.
Now to you Old Grouch, I'm just curious as to what standard you look to make your own judgements.
Posted by skeptical on July 6, 2007 02:52 PMShameless,
... Just as I thought. You have no respect for those who fight to protect your sorry backside - yet you're the first one to suggest that people go sign up to fight the war.
In other words, you're a wimpy liberal loser.
"War of ideas"? Ha! That's a good one.
Here's an idea for you: Go jump in a lake.
Posted by Republican Dude on July 6, 2007 03:16 PMIs that the best you can do, dude? Really? Well, worthless jarhead, meet me at Chatfield Reservior and we'll drown together. Sound good to you?
Posted by Shameless RepubliCON on July 6, 2007 03:23 PMskeptical,
In human affairs, I look to multiple standards, among them education/knowledge, experience in a field, logic, congurence with reality, results of successful scientific experiments, and basic grounding in, and understanding of, history.
The collection of works you call the "Bible" was assembled by the 5th Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church.
The portion known as the Old Testament is a compilation and collection of numerous mythological creation stories, as well as edited versions of historical writings circulating among the Hebrews from approximately the time of the legendary King Soloman. in the period of the Maccabees, the collection of scrolls composing the Torah, together with the scrolls consisting of the stories of the Prophets, the Psalms, and the earlier and later historical writings, were translated into Greek - the trade-language of the Mediterranian litoral, including Rome - and became known as the Septuagint (Voloume of 70).
From the period of approximately 70 - 100 A.D., on through the next 4 Centuries, a number of scrolls circulated throughout the Christian Communities, many of them becoming treasured possessions in the Community as copies of an earlier work - known generally as the Synoptic Gospels, i.e. synopses of an earlier and lengthier original - which scrolls were read in the Leiturgos (Public Worship) of the Community as biographical stories of the life of Christ.
Many others of these scrolls were letters from the Apostles - or purported to be such letters - including those letters usually ascribed to Saul of Tarsus, known among Christians as Paul. And these letters also were read in the Leiturgos, as lessons in conduct for members of the Community, as well as additional historical and biographical stories concerning the life of Christians.
In Council assembled the Bishops of the Church considered each of these works according to its congruence with the Oral Tradition of the Faith and its demonstrable authenticity as originating from a Christian source. Those found to be congruent to Oral Tradition, and demonstrably originating from a Christian source, were assembled into that collection currently known as the New Testament. And this collection, together with the Septuagint rendition of the Hebrew works, was approved for use throughout the Church in it Public Worship, Leiturgos.
At no time in the Christian Church has it ever been considered that any of these books was an absolute text in matters of secular affairs. And at no time in the Christian Church has the collection as a whole - or any particular book separately - been idolized, or worshiped. Neither does the Christian Church hold any one, or group, of the books to be "apocraphyl", although not all the books have stated readings in the Public Worship cycle.
With regard to matters of Christian Faith, the Bible and Tradition are equal pillars and grounds. But, Christians do not attempt to use the Bible as a scientific text, or as a fixed set of civil laws. Nor do Christians regard the Bible as containing the sole, only, or final absolutes of truth, other than in those matters of Faith where the Bible and Tradition present one voice. It is not the sole arbiter of human judgments in other areas.
I am not speaking about Protestantism, nor about Romanism, which is the first of the Protestant cults to sever itself from the Christian Church. And the views of any, or all, these entities concerning the Bible are not of concern to me.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 6, 2007 09:01 PMShamelss RepubliCON
I couldn't help but notice how spoiled and ignorant you sound. How old are you? 15? 12 maybe?
How brave you must be to challenge and disrespect a disabled veteran. Guys like you make liberals look like idiots. But that's probably your goal anyway. I suspect you are a troll.
If you hate vets so much, you ought to head to a local bar and tell everyone there how you think all Marines are "wusses". Oh wait, I forgot you're only 12.
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 6, 2007 10:19 PMOf course I am a troll, Tree Hugger, why else would I choose such a psuedonym? And I never said that marines are "wusses", only that narcissistic ones are "worthless jarheads." And you can think whatever else you want, tough guy (Tree Hugger, hah!!), because the last thing I am looking for is YOUR approval. Like you are important? Hah!! No more than me or anyone else.
Posted by Shameless RepubliCON on July 7, 2007 10:37 AMChristina, I give up except to say that the comments I wrote were NOT about Bush. It seems defending him is your focus, not the subject matter. I knew that sooner or latter you would resort to thinly vailed insults and reveal your true colors. I sorry you can't follow the logic but, just because you can't does not make it twisted. And by the way, twisted logic is a contradiction in terms.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 8, 2007 09:56 AM