To police human nature?

Idiocy. I can write three sentences and demonstrate either idiocy or–failing that, outright–if she wasn’t as vehement about the actual STATE trying to police human behavior, based on moral outrage.

Censorship. You’re doin it wrong.

Apparently, free speech is so over when the masses rule the media: “It’s only OK if I think it’s funny. It’s only OK if it fits my politics. It’s only OK if I say it is.” I wish Playboy hadn’t pulled it. Censoring the piece doesn’t make it any less real, any less politically incorrect, any less true. Attempting to police human nature is the real joke here.

What a dumb f**k.

I hate dumb f**ks.

/Oy.

Just because you say something doesn’t mean everyone else has to agree with you …

This was a great post Ed.

Mcguyver on June 3, 2009 at 9:07 AM

Check out:

Rules for Conservatives – a Conservative response to Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Tools’

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2256403/posts

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
Given that Statists seemingly have no moral code, this would appear to be a good tactic for them. But in reality, they do have ‘rules’ – rules they want everyone else to live by, but not themselves – Statist’s are nothing if not hypocrites.
Therefore, we Conservatives should insist that the Statists ‘lead by example’ – live by their own set of stupid rules and admonitions.
If they favor disarming the law-abiding [gun control], they should first give up their guns and security personnel and proudly announce that they are ‘disarmed’.
They want to screw the achievers with high taxes, they should eagerly pay extra.
They want the rest of us to “go green”, fine let them give up their mansions and live in an Environmentally friendly cardboard shack somewhere first
If they want to suppress what they term “hate speech” they should be first to shut their collective pie holes.
Speaking of ‘Hate Speech’, take a look at their 5th tactic:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”.
Aren’t Statists supposed to be fair minded and only have good intentions, always whining about Social justice and other types of PC crapola? This one readily illustrates that they are just duplicitous liars.
Given what we all know about them, maybe it’s not such a work of genius to propose this as a tactic, seeing that Conservatives can easily turn this against the Statist – and have lots of fun doing it.
Lies, Double standards and deceptions are not only easy to ridicule but enjoyable to demolish. Conservatives are confident in their beliefs and in the truth. Unfortunately, we have to keep on doing this because the Statists constantly repackage their lies and ideas with different terminology – same excrement in a different bag.

Whenever people feel the need to retract a poorly-written or poorly-conceived article, someone wails about “mob mentality” and how it spells the end to free speech. 
You can set your watch to this predictable reaction.

Good one, Ed!

That a hypocrite will act exactly like a hypocrite, you can predict with laser beam accuracy…..

Hypocrisy..is the lazy person’s sin, precisely because it is so easy to do, since all you have to do is claim to stand for something, but never really stand for anything.
Case in point, is, the so called liberal lefty that claims to
a) support free speech, but when it goes against them, they don’t support free speech,
b) support constitutional amendments, but when Prop 8 wins they are against it!!

BEING NICE, IS NOT A VIRTUE IN WAR, so get over it already!!

“Apparently, free speech is so over when the masses rule the media: “It’s only OK if I think it’s funny. It’s only OK if it fits my politics. It’s only OK if I say it is.” I wish Playboy hadn’t pulled it. Censoring the piece doesn’t make it any less real, any less politically incorrect, any less true. Attempting to police human nature is the real joke here.”

Apparently, this liberal idiot doesn’t know the difference between censoring and business judgment. The government didn’t require Playboy to pull the piece. They made the decision themselves when it probably dawned upon them that conservatives buy their magazines.

If liberals want to protect free speech, maybe they can begin by speaking out against the fairness doctrine or McCain-Feingold. That would be a good start provided they had a clue what free speech was all about.

Print a story about hate **cking liberal women then watch the fur fly.

CWforFreedom on June 2, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Isn’t that what they do to each other all the time anyway?

When the government tells people they can’t speak or write on a topic, that’s the end of free speech. When people criticize what others write, that’s actual free speech. And when publishers remove a vile piece of effluvium in response to overwhelming criticism, that’s the free market at work. It would be helpful if people who make their living on free speech actually understood those distinctions.

Well said Ed. It’s typcial that leftists, who always claim to be standing up for civil rights and free speech, don’t even know what it means.

But whatever. Attack Americans.

If overwhelmingness has something to do with crowds, as the reference to a free market seems to imply, then what do the howls of the many add to the good or bad reasoning of one man?

Overwhelming criticism has less to do with people criticizing as with the overwhelming merit to the complaint. it is inarguably repulsive, and (to quote the supreme court) “without redeeming social importance.”

Playboy could have left it up and taken their lumps. They didn’t; they flushed it down the memory hole. Given the stands Playboy has taken in the past, their rapid action here speaks volumes.

And when publishers remove a vile piece of effluvium in response to overwhelming criticism, that’s the free market at work.

When a publisher withdraws a well-written article, laden with gold nuggets of truth, in response to overwhelming criticism, it seems that must also be the operation of what you’re here calling “the free market.” But what is “overwhelming criticism,” and what does overwhelmingness add to criticism? If overwhelmingness has something to do with crowds, as the reference to a free market seems to imply, then what do the howls of the many add to the good or bad reasoning of one man?

Coolest smackdown evah! Susannah Breslin failed to research ‘Free Speech’ before spouting off. Her anger should be directed at PlayBoy, not ‘the masses’. Wow. Epic Stupidity.

The only thing they “understand” is that THEY are “right” and everyone else is wrong.

It’s narcissism as a political philosophy.

That’s why Breslin can be so upset about criticism of ideas she supports and so vociferous in criticizing that criticism without even noticing what a crass hypocrite she is. Even if you point it out to her, there’s only the barest chance she will understand the words, and zero chance that the idea will follow her to the next day.

Leftists are peculiarly stupid that way. Too bad the little whackos have so much energy – probably comes from spending less oxygen and nutrition on your brain.

Holy crap. You mean like even if somebody criticizes somebody else’s support of Prop 8?

radiofreevillage on June 2, 2009 at 9:01 PM

You still don’t get it you ignorant turd.

Print a story about hate **cking liberal women then watch the fur fly.

CWforFreedom on June 2, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Conservatives don’t deal in hate and wouldn’t touch a liberal minger (see definition #3) in the first place.