Why's it "cool?"

I enjoy chuckling at hypocrisy as much as the next guy, but I don't entirely follow the logic.

• From wsj.com: "The AP reports the letter "suggested American soldiers in Iraq respond to attacks on them by killing Muslims at nearby mosques." The plaintiffs in the suit are "fearful Tucson Muslims" who said they decided "to keep their children home from religious schools" because they were intimidated by the letter. The judge ruled that, in her words, "reasonable minds could differ in determining whether the publication of the letter rose to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.""
  
  Their conclusion: "But how can anyone who believes in free expression stand for anything other than laughing these plaintiffs out of court? It seems the champions of the Dixie Chicks, et al., are interested in defending offensive speech only when it is anti-American."

Uh, the letter was critizing US forces and alleged that they're retaliating by killing Muslims at nearby mosques. Sounds to me like ACLU et al should've actively supported the newspaper, but their reason for declining (whatever it was) doesn't sound like hypocrisy because the speech wasn't "anti-American."

Or Maybe You Can Use That Bomb of Yours
 

Why do you assume I'm advocating the guy's position? I was with Bilmore - let's roast him slowly over an open fire for even raising the idea of redistribution of wealth. Want a weenie, Club?

Read it again. I think the writer was "suggesting" that American forces SHOULD retaliate against Muslims at nearby Mosques. Thus the letter writers' response.

Heh
 

Palestinians baffled as to why Richard Gere wants them to vote.

"I don't even know who the candidates are other than Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), let alone this Gere," Gaza soap factory worker Manar an-Najar told Reuters Wednesday.

"We don't need the Americans' intervention. We know who to elect. Not like them -- they elected a moron."

Ah. The criticism of US forces were that they were not killing ENOUGH Muslims, instead of killing too MANY. My bad.

It's interesting that Bilmore believes that such a letter is the pinnacle of free speech.... but Bilmore advocates assassinating someone who writes in support of higher taxes.

Hypocrite, heal thyself.

(For the record: The Tuscon plaintiffs/judge are whacked, and the local ACLU should say that pretty damn loud.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your "post with a bunch of stuff about Nelson" had nothing damning in it. Unless you think it's damning that some lefties have cited -- you seem to be ducking that point because it's a little too stupid. Hence my crack about the phone book. You started out by saying that Nelson was inaccurate and biased, but you've shown nothing on either score.

Well, apparently he predicted in May that the Fed was going to increase interest rates. So that's a telling point.

Really? That's interesting to you? How so?

I'll try this one last time.

You quote Nelson, who, using only those mysterious nameless sources, tells us that Bush doesn't even allow anyone to tell him bad news. You vouch for Nelson.

I say, wait, Nelson is not the paragon of unbiased and stunningly accurate information that you seem to imply - he is the darling of the liberal blogs, he pretty much just says things that are very critical of Bush, and he's not known for stunning insight. Josh calls him "our friend." I mention "implode".

You say, wait, none of those things exist on gooooogle. And I can't find any link to "Nelson Report" and "implode".

I say, wait, try "google", instead, 'cuz here's a bunch of those entries. Oh, and here's the post about "implode".

Sidd, insightful as always, says "oh, so he inaccurately forecast a rate hike? Boy, Bilmore, what a dummy you are."

You say I've found nothing damning about Nelson. You've misconstrued my thrust. I was damning your vouching for unattributed garbage.

As I said, hypocrite, heal thyself.

I assume it's not your view that we all should rise up to protect free speech only when it advocates killing more Muslims, of course.

Not me. My Charlie poet having been ignored, and on this, the boringest day in PB history, I thought it appropriate to make a somber announcement. I have given it a lot of thought and have decided to retire from the internet-style Lawtalker lawyer chatting boards. I've learned a lot, I've laughed a lot, but ultimately, I believe it is time to move on. I will miss sharing my musical and grammatical insights and getting updated daily about who is sick and with what disease they have been stricken. And I will always have sweet memories of Friday Flame Wars and Juan the Marine. Thanks to everyone for everything.

Peace out.

Hank Chinaski

Did I say "dummy"? Nope.*

I simply wondered how a quote by someone, the central point of which was to predict something that did in fact happen (and that was pretty obvious to everyone), shows the person not to be credible.




*Of course, is someone is posting at midnight about the merits or lack of merits of a blogger, res ipsa loquitor. But I didn't say it.

FWIW, from personal experience I can tell you that the Arizona CLU can be remarkably slow to respond to pretty offensive situations, for whatever reason. Maybe they're all reptiles and get lethargic in the winter (hi Shapey!).

Wow. You didn't get it at all. That's sort of surpr . . . .

No, it's not. Nevermind.