| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/29 |
| 2006/10/17-18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44843 Activity:high |
10/16 [silenced!] --purged by brownshirt neocon </self-amusement>
And this is just what goes on in San Francisco! All over the rest
of the country there are hundreds of similar incidents just like this
one happening every day.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/17/EDG6PKDVMM1.DTL
\_ Debra J Saunders has successfully trolled you all, I salute
her.
\_ DJS isn't smart enough to troll her own dog.
\_ I guess being a political columnist is all about being
a successful troll. I disilke her columns but she
does appear to refrain from leaving out convenient
facts that piss off tom so much when writing about
draconian sentencing for 1st time drug convictions.
\_ Why do liberals knee-jerk with the "I disagree with him so he
must be stupid" act?
\_ yeah, you're right, it is bad that an intolerant asshole can
say what he wants on the radio in SF and still keep his job.
spew idiocy on the radio in SF with no repercussions.
\_ Michael Savage is not in this article.
\_ Yeah, you are right, critisizing someone is exactly the same as
bashing them in the face and breaking their nose.
\_ Yeah, your are right. Bashing someone in the nose is exactly the
same as systematically rounding up Jews for extermination.
\_ Your knowledge of history is lacking. The Brown Shirts had
nothing to do with exterminating Jews because they were
dissolved after the "Night Of The Long Knives." Kristallnacht
is a more appropriate analogy.
\_ Did you miss the thread from a couple of days ago?
http://www.csua.org/u/h84
"The FBI reported that the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes rose
from twenty-eight in 2000 to 481 in 2001, a seventeen-fold increase"
\_ Truly shocking. Here's some more numbers from the FBI showing
who the real victims of hate crimes are:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/section1.htm
I'll quote the section on Muslims for you, "Of the 1,480
reported offenses within single-bias incidents that were
motivated by the offenders religious bias, 67.8 percent were
anti-Jewish, 13.0 percent were anti-Islamic, 3.9 percent were
anti-Catholic, 2.9 percent were anti-Protestant, and 0.5 percent
were anti-Atheism or Agnosticism. Bias against other
(unspecified) religions accounted for 9.5 percent of the hate
crime offenses motivated by religious bias, and bias against
groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple
religions, group) accounted for 2.5 percent."
\_ I suspect jews are much more likely to report hate
crimes for a variety of reasons. -A Jew
\_ Very good, now show me the statistics for 2001 and 2002.
\_ If you care go find and post them and quote the same
section and explain why 2001 or 2002 is any different than
2004 while you're at it.
\_ They have been mysteriously deleted from the FBI web
site. If you don't understand why bias crimes against
Muslims might have peaked right after 9/11, then I
probably can't explain it to you.
\_ Duh, of course they spiked. And then they dropped
again. But you fail to notice (or care) that the
vast and overwhelming number of hate crimes are
against Jews and that number hasn't changed much.
If you failed to miss that point even after I
quoted it to you then there is no reason to try to
explain it to you. It isn't worth the effort. And
yeah, the FBI #s mysteriously disappeared. It is
clearly an anti-Muslim conspiracy of the bushco run
FBI. Whatever.
\_ Hate crimes are bad. You are the only one trying
to minimize them or somehow rationalize the
behavior of people committing them. And yes,
*everything* that Bush does is for political
gain. He is much like Clinton in that fashion.
The vast majority of hate crimes are against
Blacks, not Jews, btw. But yes, you are right
that in overall total number, there are more hate
crimes against Jews than Muslims. I suspect this
is not true on a per capita basis though I have
to admit to not seeing anyone do that calculation.
\_ Just another example of how diversity of every kind is celebrated by
the left. Except of course diversity of thought.
\_ Excuse me? Who's the one calling the other side a terrorist
or "America hater" for questioning the president?
\_ Um, neither side AFAICT.
\_ Why do you hate acronyms?
\_ Thomas Sowell's comments about this: http://csua.org/u/h85
\_ do you really want to be on the same side of the argument as
Thomas Sowell and Debra Saunders? -tom
\_ Actually, /I/ do. -emarkp
\_ Some don't automatically dismiss a source based on who the
writer is. If they make sense or have some facts then so
be it. YMMV.
\_ What facts are there in either of those columns? Both
*completely leave out* the comments which got people
angry, because they're not convenient to the points the
shill wants to make. Those writers do that *all the time*.
-tom
\_ Both articles are explicitly opinion articles. The
facts have been reported, these are stated opinions
about the facts. So? -emarkp
\_ So, don't you think the fact that Pete Wilson called
the kid a "travesty" is, you know, kind of important
to the discussion? Don't you think it's kind of
disingenuous to portray the situation as liberals
trying to squash someone *just* for holding a
different opinion? There's a difference between
holding a different opinion, and calling someone
else's kid a travesty; the supervisors are angry
about the latter, not the former, but these
moronic tools dishonestly frame the situation
as being about the former. -tom
\_ No, I don't think anyone should lose their job or
have it threatened for calling someone else's
public relationship or the kid in their (to be
kind) odd relationship a travesty. They're both
public figures and so is Pete Wilson. His
expression of his opinion does not in any way
rise to the level of job loss.
\_ I might agree with you. But if you write
an opinion column and leave out the fact
that he called the kid a travesty, I might
think you're full of shit. -tom
\_ Wouldn't matter to me if he called the kid
the Ultimate Evil Spawn Of Satan And Cause
Of All Badness In The Universe(c) and they
didn't mention that in their op/ed. It
still doesn't rise to the level of job loss.
Public figures do not have the same level of
privacy protection from what I'll call
"unwanted speech" that private citizens do.
Being called names is part of public life.
\_ The kid is not a public figure. -tom
\_ Oh n0es! I'm sure he's been defamed
and is highly upset and Pete Wilson
should lose his job due to the long
emotional trauma Mr. Wilson caused
as well as the future financial
losses due to his defamation! We need
to try and execute Pete right away
because this goes any further! Think
of the children!
\_ What about the Bush twins? They were
just kids and there were all sorts of
horrible things said about them. They
were not public figures, either.
should all those reporters and various
commentators be fired?
\_ I am not advocating for
Pete Wilson to be fired;
I'm just identifying the
real point which the
right-wing shills are not.
Should Pete Wilson be
fired for thinking that
two gays who aren't in a
romantic relationship
shouldn't have a kid? I
don't think so, and I
don't think any liberals
think so, either. The
whole idea is a straw man
created by dittoheads.
The real question is
whether someone should be
fired for hateful speech,
and whether Wilson's
comments constituted
hateful speech.
Personally, I'd say yes to
the first and no to the
second.
By the way, could you point
out an example of a respected
news anchor saying something
that borders on hate speech
about the Bush twins? Another
straw man. -tom
\_ Why does it have to be a
'respected anchor'? There are
numerous reports, cartoons, etc
published in print, online, etc
calling them all sorts of
things. You can't honestly say
they weren't getting picked on.
And unlike an infant, they were
old enough to get hurt. Let's
just execute everyone we don't
like or says anything mean.
\_ Please provide some examples
of people in positions like
Pete Wilson's making
comments about how the
Bush twins are "a travesty"
(or similar language).
This is not the MOTD or
dailykos we're talking about
here; this is someone whose
job it is to report news.
-tom |
| 5/29 |
|
| sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/17/EDG6PKDVMM1.DTL view archive SAN FRANCISCANS may think of their town as a haven for tolerance, but once again, SF supervisors are showing the rest of America how intolerant The Special City can be. If you come to San Francisco, be sure to wear a muzzle on your brain. Criticize a supervisor, and some supes will do their utmost to get you fired. Last week, KGO radio talk-show host Pete Wilson made some comments about a child born to Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who is gay, and Rebecca Goldfader, who is a lesbian. It is not an opportunity to see how far you can carry your views on parenting, alternative lifestyles or diversity in family structures." You think the high divorce rate in this country has been, generally speaking, good for kids? Last week, SF Supervisors Tom Ammiano, Chris Daly, Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin held a press conference at which they called Wilson "homophobic" and demanded that he resign his job. Yes, San Francisco is very tolerant -- unless you hold the wrong opinion. Dufty, to his credit, wrote in an e-mail to Wilson that read I do not want you to "resign or lose your position over this incident." Wilson marveled Monday that Dufty "showed more class than anyone else in this." Be it noted, Wilson has apologized -- not for his misgivings about parenting and children -- but for using "inappropriate" and overly personal language. Still, the uproar may not be over, as Wilson also anchors ABC7 TV news. Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-SF, did not call on Wilson to resign and now says, because Wilson has apologized, it is time to move on. Still, Leno also raised the question Monday of whether "it is inappropriate for Wilson to be wearing those two hats" -- that Wilson can't be a "loose cannon" on the radio and "an impartial anchorman." Be it noted that some journalists see a real conflict of interest in Wilson working as an anchorman and talk-show host. Then again, no one complained about the two hats before. Wilson has opposed the war in Iraq, and they weren't wringing their hands about his credibility then. Judith Appel, executive director of the alternative-family Our Family Coalition, would not tell me if she thought Wilson should lose his job, or not. She attended the anti-Wilson event as it provided an "opportunity" to highlight alternative families with "adults who love their children." Ammiano is the last man in the world I'd want for that mission. Deliberately ignoring Wilson's point, Ammiano accused the talk-show host of trying to "dehumanize a week-old baby." Noting that he would never criticize Wilson's offspring, Ammiano added, "I would never ask how much grunting and sweating there was -- and God knows it probably it didn't last very long -- at that kid's conception." That's the sort of puerile patter one routinely hears from Ammiano. What I don't understand is why Ross Mirkarimi -- the rare adult city pol, and a man who knows better -- was standing in that crowd. Leno, who like Ammiano is gay, told me, "I'm not going to criticize those supervisors." Ammiano accused Wilson of "abuse of privilege," Peskin cited "abuses" of power. Except in this case, gays and SF supes are in power -- and they're trying to get a man fired for expressing views they don't like. They clearly don't appreciate the beauty of free speech: When you don't like what someone says, you talk back. You don't silence dissenters, unless you are afraid of what they say. If you want the world to understand who you are, you show understanding for others. If Ammiano wanted to send a message -- that when the gay lobby has power, straight Americans will enjoy less freedom -- he could not have done a better job. |
| www.csua.org/u/h84 -> www.hrw.org/reports/2002/usahate/usa1102-04.htm#P303_46974 The September 11 hate crime backlash confirmed the fears of Arabs and Muslims in the United States: a major terrorist attack gave rise to a nationwide wave of hate crimes against persons and institutions perceived to be Arab or Muslim. Unlike previous hate crime waves, however, the September 11 backlash distinguished itself by its ferocity and extent. The violence included murder, physical assaults, arson, vandalism of places of worship and other property damage, death threats, and public harassment. Most incidents occurred in the first months after September 11, with the violence tapering off by December. Both official and community-based organization tabulations-derived from self-reported incidents and newspaper accounts-clearly demonstrate the severity of the September 11 backlash. Similarly, bias-motivated property attacks were often directed at property that could easily be identified with Muslims or Arabs, such as mosques. Many Arabs and South Asians who have come to the United States seem to have clustered in certain jobs, including driving taxis, or have become small business owners, running gas stations, convenience stores, and motels. This may account for the prevalence of backlash victims among persons with these occupations. As of May 2002, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency charged with enforcing federal employment discrimination laws, had received 488 complaints of September 11-related employment discrimination. As discussed in section V, there are two reasons for what amounts to a systemic gap in public knowledge about the extent of hate crimes in the United States. First, the federal hate crimes reporting system contains significant limitations, including the voluntary nature of the reporting system and the failure of some local law enforcement agencies that ostensibly participate in the federal reporting system to furnish information on hate crimes to federal authorities. There is reason to suspect four other people may also have been murdered because of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred. Balbir Singh Sodhi Balbir Singh Sodhi, a forty-nine-year-old turbaned Sikh and father of three, was shot and killed while planting flowers at his gas station on September 15, 2002. Seever acknowledged to police investigators that he killed Almansoop in part because of anger related to September 11. Prosecutors chose to prosecute the matter as a murder, rather than a bias-motivated murder, because they believe Mr Seever's motivation for murdering Almansoop was motivated in part by jealousy over Almansoop's relationship with is ex-girlfriend. According to press reports, his wife, Randa Karas, believes he was murdered because he was mistaken for a Muslim. She points out that no money was taken from the cash register and that her husband had a thick wad of bills in his pocket. Local police told Human Rights Watch that they do not believe his murder was bias-motivated because there is no evidence to indicate anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bias. The murder remained unsolved at the time of this writing. When Qandeel asked Cunningham what he was doing behind the jeep, Cunningham walked away. When Qandeel tried to stop him, Cunningham shot at Qandeel three times, although his gun did not discharge any bullets. Cunningham then started running away and Qandeel chased him. Cunningham shot at Qandeel again and this time a bullet did discharge, although it missed Qandeel. Cunningham was apprehended when he crashed his car trying to get away. Police later discovered that Cunningham planned to burn cars in the mosque driveway because of anger at the September 11 attacks. Federal authorities prosecuted Cunningham for attacking Qandeel and attempting to deface a house of worship. He pled guilty on May 9, 2002 and was scheduled to be sentenced on October 18, 2002. allegedly assaulted Kulwinder Singh, a turbaned Sikh taxi worker, in SeaTac, Washington. After getting into the back seat of Singh's taxi, Isais told Singh, "You have no right to attack our country!" After both men then got out of the taxi, Isais started punching Singh, pulled out tufts of his beard and knocked off his turban. The men shouted at her, "This is what you get for what you've done to us!" and "I'm going to slash your throat," before attacking her. As another car approached the traffic light, the men sped off. Bhullar felt that she would have been killed by the men if the other car had not appeared. She was treated at a local hospital for two cuts in her scalp and released later that same day. According to press reports, Adam Lang, a seventy-six-year-old man sitting in his car outside the mall, allegedly put his car in drive and started driving towards her. Ejaz was able to avoid the car by jumping out of the way and running into the mall. Lang then jumped out of his car and screamed that he was "doing this for my country" and was "going to kill her." FK On June 18, 2002, FK, an American Muslim woman who wears a hijab, was allegedly assaulted by a woman in a drug store near Houston, Texas. Before assaulting FK, the woman told her that she had learned about "you people" over the last ten months and doesn't trust "a single damn one of you." Before FK could get away from the woman, she slammed FK to the floor and began pulling at her headscarf, which had the effect of choking her. Though FK told the woman she could not breathe, she kept pulling at the headscarf. FK then pulled off her headscarf, in violation of her religious obligations in a desperate effort to alleviate the choking. The woman then dragged FK by her hair to the front of the store. When police arrived, the woman was holding FK by her ponytail on the front sidewalk of the store. The police told her to let FK go, at which point FK was able to put her headscarf back on. In mid-October, 2001, John Bethel, a local vagrant who sometimes came into Singh's motel for coffee and food, told Singh, "You better go back to your country. A few days later, on October 19, Bethel entered Singh's motel and shouted, "You still here? before hitting Singh with a metal cane while he stood behind the counter in the motel lobby. Singh, who bled profusely from the blow, spent half a day in the hospital and required ten stitches on his head. A pickup truck pulled up close behind Singh and the driver started making profane gestures towards him. The pickup truck then moved alongside Singh's car on his left and the driver took out a rifle. Singh increased his speed to get away from the pickup truck. The pickup truck then turned around and started traveling in the opposite direction. The mosque is located in a neighborhood of mostly Arab and Muslim American families. Stopped two blocks from the mosque, the protestors then demonstrated for approximately three hours shouting anti-Arab and anti-Muslim insults such as "Arabs go home" and harassing passersby who looked Muslim or Arab. Similar protests, though smaller in size, were held over the next two days. Police from various jurisdictions cordoned off the area around the mosque, only allowing persons into the neighborhood who could prove they lived there. Many of the Muslim and Arab families remained in their homes for the next few days because they feared hostility once outside the police cordon. The shots were fired after the evening prayer had ended and the building was empty. For the first two or three days after the attack, local police provided security for the mosque. Immediately after the attack, the imam reported a noticeable decline in prayer attendance. He estimated that daily prayer attendance dropped from 150 to thirty or forty persons. Friday prayers dropped from one thousand to five hundred persons. John's Assyrian American Church On September 23, 2001, the St. John's Assyrian American Church was set on fire in Chicago, Illinois in the early morning, causing approximately $150,000 worth of damage. The fire was caused by someone who put a piece of paper through the church mail slot and then dropped a lit match onto it. Water from fire department fire extinguishers ruined holy pictures, carpeting, and floor tiles. According to the church's pastor, Reveren... |
| www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/section1.htm Appendix B Section I The hate crime data in this book comprise a subset of information that law enforcement agencies submit to the UCR Program. The types of hate crimes reported to the Program involve biases based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity or national origin, and disability. Each type of bias is further broken down into more specific categories. For example, when a law enforcement agency determines that a hate crime was committed because of bias against an individual's race, the agency may then classify the bias as anti-white, anti-black, anti-American Indian or Alaskan Native, anti-Asian or Pacific Islander, or anti-multiple races, group. The UCR Program collects data about both single-bias and multiple-bias hate crimes. For each offense type, law enforcement must indicate one bias motivation. A single-bias incident occurs when one or more offense types within the incident are motivated by the same bias. A multiple-bias incident occurs when more than one offense type occurs in the incident and at least two offense types are motivated by a different bias. For each single- or multiple-bias incident, the Program captures the following data: offense type, location, bias motivation, victim type, number of victims, number of offenders, and the race of the known offender. The UCR data on hate crime can reflect not only multiple offense types within a single hate crime incident, but also multiple victims and offenders. During 2004, over 17,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide participated in the UCR Program. There were 7,642 single-bias incidents and 7 multiple-bias incidents. Disability bias motivated 07 percent of single-bias incidents. The 7,642 single-bias incidents reported to the UCR Program in 2004 involved 9,021 offenses; Law enforcement agencies reported 4,863 offenses within single-bias incidents that were motivated by the offender's racial bias. Bias against other (unspecified) religions accounted for 95 percent of the hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias, and bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group) accounted for 25 percent. In 2004, bias against a particular sexual orientation accounted for 1,406 offenses within single-bias hate crime incidents. Law enforcement agencies classify hate crimes that are motivated by a bias against an ethnicity or national origin into one of two categories: anti-Hispanic or anti-other ethnicity/national origin. In 2004, agencies reported 1,201 offenses within single-bias incidents motivated by the offender's bias against an ethnicity or national origin. In 2004, of the 71 offenses within single-bias incidents that were motivated by the offender's bias against a disability, 23 were due to an anti-physical disability bias; Another 60 percent of the total number of offenses reported included murder, forcible rape, robbery, arson, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and other offenses. Crimes against society accounted for 07 percent of hate crime offenses. Three of those murders resulted from racial bias: two anti-white and one anti-black. One of the five murders resulted from a bias against atheism or agnosticism, and one murder stemmed from a bias against homosexual individuals. All of the four bias-motivated forcible rapes reported in 2004 stemmed from racial bias. Three were committed because of the offenders' bias against white individuals; In 2004, law enforcement agencies reported 112 bias-motivated robberies. However, crimes against property may have various types of victims. Law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported that there were 9,528 hate crime victims of 9,035 offenses within 7,649 incidents during 2004. Of the 9,528 victims, 9,514 were involved in single-bias incidents, and 14 victims were involved in 7 multiple-bias incidents. Racial bias motivated crimes against 5,119 hate crime victims of single-bias incidents. Victims of anti-multiple races bias, ie, groups in which more than one race was represented, comprised 49 percent of hate crime victims. In 2004, law enforcement agencies reported that there were 1,586 victims of crimes motivated by a religious bias (single-bias incidents only). Victims of an anti-Protestant bias made up 30 percent of victims of hate crimes resulting from a religious bias; The remaining 04 percent of hate crime victims were targeted because of the offender's anti-Atheism or anti-Agnosticism bias. Law enforcement agencies reported that 1,254 victims of single-bias incidents were targeted because of ethnicity or national origin. Of these, 49 were victimized because of an anti-mental disability bias, and 24 were targeted because of an anti-physical disability bias. By Offense Type During 2004, there were 5,642 victims of crimes against persons. Murder victims and forcible rape victims each accounted for 01 percent of crimes against persons. The remaining 03 percent were victims of other types of crimes against persons. One percent of victims were the object of other types of property crime. Rather, the term indicates that some aspect of the suspect was identified, thus distinguishing him or her from an unknown offender. Reporting agencies specify the number of offenders and, when possible, the apparent race of the offender or offenders as a group. Law enforcement agencies identified 7,145 known offenders in 7,649 bias-motivated incidents. Groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group) accounted for 51 percent of known offenders. Persons whom law enforcement identified as Asian or Pacific Islanders made up 10 percent, and American Indian or Alaskan Natives comprised 07 percent of known offenders. Regarding crimes against society, 75 known offenders committed 60 offenses. Thirty-four percent of the 1,197 single-bias incidents that were motivated by a sexual-orientation bias occurred at residences or homes. With regard to the 7 hate crime incidents resulting from multiple biases, 2 occurred in parking lots or garages; |
| csua.org/u/h85 -> www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=can_we_talk&ns=ThomasSowell&dt=10/17/2006&page=full&comments=true Post Your Comments There are very few saints among people of any race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. Increasingly, however, there are tighter and tighter restrictions on what you can say about more and more groups. San Francisco radio talk show host Pete Wilson discovered this recently when he criticized a city Supervisor and his female friend -- but not lover -- who had a baby together. The man is gay and the woman is a lesbian, so they are not lovers in a committed relationship. Raising a child is no piece of cake, even when the parents are married and committed to staying together. Raising a child where there is no stable, committed relationship may be cutting edge stuff but Pete Wilson's point was that a child is not an experiment. The same could be said of heterosexuals like the woman who recently had a baby in her sixties. That's great for making a splash in the media but what is going to happen when the baby becomes a teenager and the mother's energy level has declined with age, if she is still around at all? The real issue, however, is neither heterosexual or homosexual, and it extends even beyond the important question of the best interests of the child. The larger question for American society is, as Joan Rivers has often said: "Can we talk?" In San Francisco, no one is supposed to criticize anything done by homosexuals. Moreover, this attitude is not confined to San Francisco or to gays. On the other side of the country, Columbia University students stormed the stage when one of the Minuteman critics of our lax immigration laws was trying to speak. At many other colleges and universities, he would not even have been allowed on campus in the first place. Many campuses have speech codes where it is called creating a "hostile environment" if you say things that make various racial, sexual, or other protected groups unhappy. Young people educated at our most prestigious colleges and universities are learning the lesson that storm trooper tactics can silence those who are not in vogue on campus, and honest expressions of opinion about issues involving anything from affirmative action to women in the military can get you suspended if you refuse the humiliation and hypocrisy of being "re-educated." Meanwhile, liberals in Congress have long been advocating a return to the so-called "fairness" doctrine requiring "balance" in broadcasting. Talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative simply because liberal talk radio has failed repeatedly to attract comparable-sized audiences. The listeners have spoken but the politicians want to overrule them. "Fairness" here, as in so many other contexts, means nothing more and nothing less than the exercise of arbitrary power by third parties, since everyone has a different definition of what "fairness" means. Free speech is not a luxury but a necessity if we are to hear the various sides of issues before we decide what to do. It is not a question of Pete Wilson's rights or even of the rights of all the people who speak or write on public issues. Such people are not even ten percent of the population and probably not even one percent. But among the pressing problems of our time, their interests alone rank far down the list. Free speech rights exist for the whole society, not for writers and speakers. When you say that we can hear only what a growing number of censors want us to hear, you are condemning us to grope in the dark when making all sorts of decisions -- about ourselves, our families and the future of our society. Whether Pete Wilson's opinion was right or wrong is a very small issue compared to blinding us all for the sake of political correctness. Flag as Offensive skier writes: Tuesday, October, 17, 2006 12:47 AM Liberals don't want to allow discussion of the issues because they know they will be on the losing ending of the debate. What better way to get what you want than by screaming and kicking loud enough to drown out the other side. Free speech is being lost in this country because of the PC crowd. Whatever happened to, I disagree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it? Flag as Offensive Goshawk writes: Tuesday, October, 17, 2006 1:31 AM Interesting title Dr. I mean truly listening, and trying to understand what is being said. They have no interest in listening or trying to understand an opposing viewpoint. Flag as Offensive Frey writes: Tuesday, October, 17, 2006 1:57 AM Good article These actions by my fellow left-wingers are an embarrassment, not to mention a crying shame, to moderates like me. But, apparently, a lot of people (on both sides) today prefer shouting, and shouting is louder. Speaking just for myself, I intend to keep talking, and to keep listening. Flag as Offensive Stephen Dow writes: Tuesday, October, 17, 2006 2:03 AM Little room to talk Certainly the fairness doctrine was an abomination, as are campus speech codes, etc. Bush answer: "No, not here, but when you arrive at Gitmo, you'll find it in your best interest to do so." Flag as Offensive Boris writes: Tuesday, October, 17, 2006 3:10 AM Sowell How sanctimonious can you get. Remembering how Sowell supported sodomy statutes ie putting gays is jail for being gay, his "concern" for free speech and expreassion is bit overrated. Flag as Offensive shawn writes: Tuesday, October, 17, 2006 3:12 AM Bush and freedom of the press The fact that Helen Thomas is still allowed into the White House Press Corps meetings pretty much destroys your thesis. If you are NOT articulate, it is in your best interest to suppress those who are. That explains the rationale for the separation of Church and State crowd. Silence religion, and then put your own atheism/secularism in charge. Why do secularists charge the faithful with 'unrighteous dominion'? Why do the Democrats charge the Republicans with unethical behavior? Why does Clinton charge America's prosperous with greed? Flag as Offensive Kathy writes: Tuesday, October, 17, 2006 5:28 AM Homosexual, Heterosexual I think it is important, the fight between homosex and herosex, is simply this, Good parents, simply must instill proper and decent values for children, it is not proper to teach children that it is good for one to consider same sex relationships, as this moves the indiviual away from proper morals. We must strive to teach children sexual responsiblity, this is just as important a self-disicipline and moral value, wise choice as the decent person can strive to be a successful role model for the human Mother and Father. Children need to feel the parents thoughtful care, to know that their parent love each other and their children, this is the basis for the family. Just as we would instill good morals and values, and discipline in our childrens character. This is a truth that seems to be overlooked and discounted. Every child holds a dream that their parents love each other and their children. Honesty taught to children is a value that brings many rewards in life, is life and one to embrace. With Honesty starting with one's self, the truth will unfold into a spring of wealth. Over His "Funny Off The Cuff Wallet Joke With Fellow Commentator "Lou Pinella". You Deserve the likes of "Billary" and "The Rainbow Co-Extortion Inc", of Jackson/Sharpton. Flag as Offensive mike_hihn writes: Tuesday, October, 17, 2006 6:30 AM ianfleming ianfleming writes: Tuesday, October, 17, 2006 5:12 AM >>>"That explains the rationale for the separation of Church and State crowd." Flag as Offensive Mr Right writes: Tuesday, October, 17, 2006 6:49 AM It is mind control Language is what controls our thought processes. Languages have different words that cause the users of that language to think differently than users of a different langauage. When someone tries to control our language, they are trying to control our thoughts. We know where the left falls in this debate by watching their reations to speech. When a conservative fights discrmination by opposing quotas, it is hate speech; when a liberal promotes discrmination through quotas, by dividing the races on campus and in caucuses it is the epitome equality. Because they trumpet it that way like braying jac... |