And you seriously couldn’t do better than that spin at the end? This backward babble: “I never raised First Amendment objections about telling the Dixie Chicks to shut up. I said it indicates an unwillingness to support the concept of free speech.” Right, kid. And you never had sex with that woman, and it all depends on what the meaning of is, is. Right?

I notice you didn’t even mention the fact that you were factually in error about the word “ban.”

So let me get this straight: if a Republican legislator, acting as a legislator, puts a statement on the offical party website … it isn’t a statement as a legislator?

Mmm-kay. Remember “intellectual dishonesty?” Thanks for providing another example, kid.

But my absolute favorite is this line: “Obviously the First Amendment only applies to Congress.” Son, there is so much wrong with that statement I don’t even know where to start. One of us has a law degree. It ain’t you. But the average 8th grader knows that statement is just stupid.

Stop. You’re embarrasing yourself beyond measure, and I now feel like I picked a fight with the retarded kid.

They put the statement on the Dem website. Horrors! Politicians taking a stand on something! Imagine that! And it’s a stand others might disagree with (incuding me). Wow!

Once again you lie about what I said. I never raised First Amendment objections about telling the Dixie Chicks to shut up. I said it indicates an unwillingness to support the concept of free speech. Obviously the First Amendment only applies to Congress. But everyone can support the concept of free speech through their conduct. Telling someone to “just shut up” doesn’t do that, IMO.

Clearly they are speaking as individuals and not representatives of the state.

I know I should stop mocking poor Vanya, but this had me laughing so hard I just have to ask: so if they are “clearly speaking as individuals,” why do you think they ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE from the Assembly Democrats and posted it on their official Democrat websites?

You are wonderful, kid. Seriously.

But since we’re apparently not, are you ready to be embarrassed even further? If that’s even possible at this point? ;)

Guess what, brainchild – the word “ban” was indeed absolutely used in the original press release.

First, from another blog (”Sweetness and Light”):

“For the record, New Jersey Democratic Assemblywomen Linda Stender & Joan Quigley’s Jun 8, 2006 press release on Ann Coulter’s book Godless: The Church Of Liberalism was edited on or about Jun 13th. The word ‘ban’ was replaced with the word ‘boycott’ in both the title of the press release and the body of the text of the press release.

The press release was edited on both the New Jersey Assembly Democratic Majority (www.assemblydems.com) website and the PoliticsNJ.com (politics.nexcess.net) website.”

The original press release as issued on June 8th can be seen here; note the word “ban” in the headline:

http://www.njreporter.com/onlygameintown/messages0106/4987.shtml

Now that we’ve gotten that part of your silliness out of the way, let’s remember that “ban” itself is absolutely irrelevent anyway; you are now arguing apparently that government officials can pressure retailers not to sell books because of ideas contained therein – as long as they use the word “boycott” instead of “ban?”

Are you serious?

You do NOT support the First Amendment. Not even close. You couldn’t even if you wanted to, since you so clearly misunderstand it.

And the fact that you’re okay with the government openly supporting a “boycott” of a book – while you simultaneously decry a couple posters telling the Dixie Chicks to shut up – is utterly laughable and intellectually indefensible. And strangle very non-liberal.

In fact – here’s a real laugh – even if the word is “boycott,” you specifically noted above that boycotting because of an idea runs contrary to free speech. Your exact quote: “Neither is boycotting their music because you don’t like something they said.”

So which is it? Which is your position? Do you know?

I think the fact that you don’t understand the phrase “intellectual dishonesty” summarizes your position better than I ever could. Bravo! Now go look up “cognitive dissonance,” too. You should be familiar with it.

Want a quick explanation of intellectual dishonesty, since you provide such a perfect illustration? Here you go:

When a few posters suggested that the Dixie Chicks “shut up,” you raised First Amendment objections (apparently having a complete lack of understand of constitutional law);

Yet when it was noted that government officials, actually acting apparently in an official capacity, publically called for a “boycott” (after it was a “ban”) on a book because they didn’t like the political ideas it contained … you suddenly had no First Amendment objection.

Perfect intellectual dishonesty. A textbook example.

Game. Set. Match.

Next troll, please.

“Ann Coulter’s criticism of 9-11 widows, whose only desire since the attacks have been to repair their shattered lives and protect other families from the horrors they have experienced, is motivated purely by petty greed and hate.

“Her assertion that these women enjoyed watching their husbands die on national television is hateful, hurtful, and runs counter to every sentiment expressed since the September 11th tragedy.

“Coulter’s vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books. By making these claims, she proves herself worse than those she is attempting to vilify – she is a leech trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others.

“No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter’s book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves.”

Nowhere is the word “ban” used. Clearly they are speaking as individuals and not representatives of the state. They are ticked off because Coulter’s targets live in NJ. They are expressing their outrage in the clearest possible terms, as many politicians did. I don’t agree with their opinion, but they have the right to express it. I don’t agree with Coulter either, but she has the right to say whatever she wants.

Telling someone to shut up may not violate the First Amendment (I didn’t say it did; more misrepresentation on your part), but it’s a far cry from “I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

FYI I support the whole Bill of Rights, yes, even the Second Amendment.

Dan Rather has left CBS. It’s been in the news for a little while, but I haven’t felt the inspiration to comment until I read Wallace’s latest attitude ……

Michelle Malkin pulls out the stops and puts in the earplugs as she uses Connie Chung’s singing to skewer Dan Rather. And while this is a vintage Vent, it is also worth hanging about after it to look at the……

The grunt as she jumped off the piano was the “BIG” clue. (She did stuff like that in LA and early in her career in outakes of her interviews)…. I hope Connie does get a job
at Fox….she would be a great addition. By the way
she still looks beautiful…and she is obviously in great shape to fit into that sleek evening gown…..

Thanks Michelle for the video…..And I would love to see you and Connie do an interview together….that would be cool…..

Michelle you still Rock !! Keep knocking out the left….

They were merely exercising their right to free speech, which, last time I checked, they did not give up when they got elected.

Darn, I hate when this happens… I have to agree w/Vanya… they weren’t trying to stifle Ann’s free speech, they were exercising THEIR free speech rights. Now if they had tried to pass a law….

As for not blaming Bush, is he not the Commander-In-Chief? When did “The buck stops here” become “the buck stops with Lynndie England”?

(Phew, I’m back on comfortable ground). Sorry Vanya, I don’t agree. Are you saying that the President should be responsible for the actions of everybody under his authority? Remember, this would include everybody in the executive branch, in addition to every serviceman under his command.

That thought is NOT what President Truman had in mind with his statement. He meant that the President, whoever he is, ultimately has to make the decision, he cannot pass the buck to anybody else. (and if you want to look it up yourself, the cite is here.

Given your interpretation of the phrase, the President (whomever he/she may be) would be responsible for every indiscretion/crime/violation of the UCMJ committed by anybody in the military.

Is that REALLY how you feel Vanya?

In a word – wrong. Two legislators (they work for the government if you’re keeping score) actually used the word “ban.” If this doesn’t cross the line into First Amendment violation, it certainly comes close. And I’ll even provide a source:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/10/235539.shtml

Did they introduce legislation to ban the book? No – and that is their only defense. But two legislators attempting to stop sale of a book for the idea it expresses makes me a little uncomfortable. Why doesn’t it have the same effect on you? Ah – nevermind. You’re a liberal. You don’t support the Constitution of the United States.

The MASSIVE (and funniest) irony in this thread is that you refuse to acknowledge what I just wrote — while simultaneously suggesting that an anonymous Internet post telling the Dixie Chicks to “shut up and sing” actually IS a First Amendment violation.

Your hypocrisy is just stunning, Vanya. Seriously. Just stunning. “Shut up and sing” violates the First Amendment. Legislators publicly pressuring retailers not to sell a book is just fine by you though.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Since you clearly have not a shred of intellectual honesty and probably did not even understand what I just wrote, I’m done helping you high-jack. If you’d like to move our discussion of your woeful lack of education in all things legal and constitutional, please take it to a thread that’s at least somewhat on-topic.

Before we resume this pointless conversation, I’ll leave you with a question: you do realize, don’t you, that by your logic, if President Bush came out tomorrow and publicly asked booksellers across the nation to stop selling the Koran … you’d have to support it. You’d argue that he was exercising his free speech rights. Right?

;)

Is that really what you think? Stop. Think. Think for yourself. Have an adult help. Then get back to me.

And Michelle, using earplugs is cheating! No fair.

Yes, bad things happen in war, which is why we shouldn’t be there in the first place.

as said by Vanya.

Wow. What a stunning bit of analysis. Better that we let the terrorists and the despots run wild, eh Vanya? Are you of the Michael Moore mentality that 9/11 would have been ok as long as they only killed Republicans? I mean, bad things happen during peacetime too, Vanya. Did you know that during the Golden Clinton years, bad things happened? They did. NO, I’m not kidding. No, I’m not just talking about the Reno BBQ down at Waco or Ruby Ridge; not bad things that Clinton did to Americans; I’m talking about terrorist attacks that actually occurred during Pax Clintonia (far as I know, I’m the first to use this so steal with some respect, ok?)The first World Trade Center Bombing; Khobar Towers, The Embassy bombings…all that occured during the golden age of the pantless wonder, Bill Clinton. And I think, we can all agree that he didn’t do one D*MN thing about it. So Vanya, please tell me. If we shouldn’t go to war, because bad things happen, what should we do when bad things happen without a war? Cry? Apologize for being an offensive culture and commit mass suicide? Dazzle me.
As to your Dixie Chicks comment, I know I should follow the old adage about not getting into an arguement with an idiot, but you do realize, nobody seriously is saying the Dixie Chicks shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Let them. Let them continue to insult their fans and watch their concert tour become progressively smaller. I believe the meaning of the comment is that someone as intellectually challenged as Natalie Mainz would be better served entertaining rather than spouting off nonsense and insulting her audience. She’d make more money that way. Now, if Michelle had said ‘The Dixie chicks should be beaten with a pogo stick and run over with a cement truck unless they shut up and sing’ I might worry about some minor impingement of their right to speak. Keeping sifting that pepper, Vanya. There’s got to be some fly sh*t in there somewhere.

But how’s this: legislators in New Jersey actually reportedly tried to BAN Ann Coulter’s book. Ban it. By the government.

No, two legislators called on New Jerseyans to not buy it, and retailers not to sell it. They did not try to ban it, nor did the government. They were merely exercising their right to free speech, which, last time I checked, they did not give up when they got elected.

But you can continue to exercise your right to free speech by misrepresenting other’s positions. Oh no, wait, that’s called libel, which is not protected by free speech. Oh well!

As for not blaming Bush, is he not the Commander-In-Chief? When did “The buck stops here” become “the buck stops with Lynndie England”?

What I hate most about these incidents is the level of scapegoating. As in Abu Ghraib the commanders at the top should be held responsible. That includes Bush and Rumsfeld.

Vanya, as many others have said; if the soldiers involved in the Haditha incident are guilty, they should (and will) be held accountable for their crimes. But by what twisted logic can you hold President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld accountable for what happened in Haditha? Assuming the charges are proven true: unless they gave directives for civilians to be killed, or gave a wink and a nod for it to happen, or told those in the chain of command to try to cover up, they are NOT responsible.

I, for one, am tired of hearing people (on all sides of any given issue) trying to dump responsibility on their favorite personal target.

Please Vanya, tell us by what logic you think they should be held accountable.

And my apologies to all for helping Vanya high-jack this thread (and avoid answering the questions posed to him/her).

Similarly, choosing who I give my money to – or helping to organize a boycott for a greater effect – is a perfect example of free speech in action.

The government allows them to speak; the government allows me to boycott if I choose to as a means of expressing myself in reaction to their speech.

Seriously – how can you not get this? Without government action of some degree, the First Amendment is not triggered. For example, any time the owners of this blog get tired of you (or me), they are free to silence either of us. Ironically enough, THAT right is actually a constitutionally guaranteed privacy right.

But “free speech” does NOT mean everyone gets to speak at any time without ever facing disagreement or consequences.

And let’s be clear, Vanya: the only ones ACTUALLY attempting to violate free speech rights are liberals, and you don’t offer a peep of protest. When liberals attempt to actually silence conservative speakers, THEY are approaching First Amendment infringement (although once again, without government action it isn’t a free speech violation).

But how’s this: legislators in New Jersey actually reportedly tried to BAN Ann Coulter’s book. Ban it. By the government.

THAT is what the First Amendment prohibits. One last time – how do you not get this?

Wait, one more question: can you point to a liberal blog that allows constant conservative trolling to go on? Do they exist? I know for a fact that if I tried what you do here at DU or Kos, I’d be banned after my first post.

Care to comment on THAT, my hypocritical friend?

Do you really not see that every … single … time … you post here, you are proving your own free speech argument to be completely empty?

As for Haditha, I have no idea what happened there. One soldier said they were following procedure and that’s good enough for me. I don’t think they should be held in shackles either. They should be free on bail. What I hate most about these incidents is the level of scapegoating. As in Abu Ghraib the commanders at the top should be held responsible. That includes Bush and Rumsfeld.

Of course all suspects are innocent till proven guilty. Never said they weren’t. You guys ascribe to me all sorts of things I never said just because I disagree with Michelle. Paranoia strikes deep. As for moderating this board I have no idea what the standards are.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Simply put, it states that Congress shall make no law. This means that a moderator of an internet blog can delete, filter, block etc any comments that they want, without infringing on your rights. Unless that blog/board/bbs/newspaper etc is controlled by the government then the owner/administrator has ever right to restrict what is said within their domain.
I hang out at a nice little pub. The owner has a cardinal rule
“No talking Politics”
He is not infringing on my write to speak freely. That is a condition of the establishment. I am free to take my business elsewhere if I do not like that rule.

With all that being said. I have not seen any evidence of the moderators at Hot Air of denying anyone to say what they want, nor have I seen messages disapear or mysteriously become edited. It is well within their rights to do so, but they have not.
Someone owes Hot Air an apology.

http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/21/haditha-new-details-of-bargewell-report-leaked/

Congrats, Vanya. If that was an attempt to get out of the discussion you can’t currently handle, it was pretty clumsy. Try again.

And thank you for once again pointing out that liberals either don’t understand the First Amendment or don’t support it. Newsflash, toots: if the (unnamed band) can spew anti-American comments in wartime on foriegn soil without goverment interference, I can tell them to “shut up” without government interference.

Did that last sentence give you a hint about what free speech actually means, by the way?