The liberals’ war against liberalism: What is so scary about free thought?
Frank Miele
Whatever happened to liberals?
One thing I have learned by writing columns on global warming the past two weeks is that liberals are less interested in free expression of ideas than in total compliance with their ideas, less interested in critical thinking than in being critical, and less interested in the truth than in their truth.
It wasn’t always so.
cont'd
12 comments:
True....True....
He makes some good points. So do some of his critics. Many on the right--including here one the Aurora--do cherry-pick factoids in support of their positions.
Certainly the GW skeptics should --and have--had their say, in fact, they have had their say out of proportion to their numbers.
Also, in my opinion, the only thing worse than the sorry state of modern liberalism is the state of what passes for Conservatism today.
speaking of cherry-picking ... no comment on gonzalez (or rove, for that matter)?
Speaking of the worst administration in history, I read a good book over the week-end. "Invasion of the Party Snatchers" by Victor Gold. The author is a Goldwater Conservative and friend of Bush Sr. He doesn't like Bush Jr, the neo-cons and the theo-cons at all.
What is there to comment on Anita, the "company" they work for is going out of business in a year... wouldnt you do the same?
...but I will add that
Rove's exit was yet another mastersroke on his part and one last(?) dig at his adversaries.
The Gonzalez resignation is long overdue. His incompetency allowed the dems to turn a non-scandal into a shakespearian much ado about nothing.
Why is it cherry picking? Rove- non story
Gonzalez-- non story and about time. I'm sure he's a very nice guy but didn't have the balls for that job. Could have handled the US attorney firings by saying "go fuck yourself they're political appointments" and that would be that.
The truth is that you guys know this guy is dead on and you're trying to deflect it by pointing out percieved badness on the other side.
Nice try, but lets stick to the post. This guy is calling your peeps a bunch of commies..... Where have i heard that before?????
"the debate in the scientific community is over." -- Al Gore
If by "dead on" you mean wrong then sure. He makes one good point: that when there is a consensus in science, the other side is likely to be suppressed to some degree. The minority deserves to be heard, that doesn't mean they are right. In fact, in my opinion, they are wrong. But I could be wrong.(Words you have never uttered.)
Not that I expect you comprehend what I am about say or abandon your talking points for actual discussion but I should point out for clarity that...
This debate was not so much about who is right and who is wrong, although I can assure you that you fall in the later catergory, but rather how the left in most cases, whether it be the fairness doctrine or global warming try to stifle the disenting voice.
If it wasnt for the 'net, youd hardly know that skeptics of AGW even existed.
Speaking of which, I noticed that during the LiveEarth fiasco, broadcast over public airwaves, equal time was not afforded to the skeptic as the left insist be made available them to counter the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity's success. However to prove my point that no such media control is needed, the market worked the consensus is in and nobody watched the hours long leftist human hating Al Gore's vanity project propoganda.
... and for that matter in all our discussions of global warming and the plethora of evidence we have presented offering alternative causes besides mans carbon footprint you like most of your ilk never argued the science but rather made ad hominem attacks questioned the motives behind the data and hid behind the safety of the herd all the while holding science up as the sacred cow at the same time choosing to ignore it and that my friend is called intellectual cowardice and that is why in the end you will as always lose.... because once again to reiterat, you are wrong!
What do you want from me? I acknowledged that when there is a scientific consensus, as there is regarding GW, that the minority view may be suppressed. This does happen in science. I have acknowleged that the majority could conceivably be wrong, although I don't think so in this case.
As to the fairness doctrine, this is a big thing on rightist blogs but I know of no leftists advocating it. There may be but not very many.
It is the Right in this country that is gradually dismantling the Constitution and the rule of law.
We are about one terrorist incident away, real or staged, from a police state in this country. Which side will you be on then?
So if you acknowledge that the majority could be wrong, and if you believe ALL of the scientists that say Kyoto wouldn't do squat anyway, why would you still advocate taking drastic measures?
The fairness doctrine is certainly not being pushed by the right! In fact it was Reagan who abolished it in the first place.
You say the right is dismantling the constitution but no examples. Rhetoric
Finally, police state? Staged attack? = paranoid hysteria.
Get a grip
The libs want like hell for global warming to be true, just like they want us to lose in Iraq, no matter how bad it gets for the Iraqis and the middle east and the whole world. Liberals are plumb nuts is all!
Post a Comment