But what bothered me the most was what mespo wrote:

“There is no right for an alien to enter any country, and every nation has the right to restrict immigration or visitation for any reason its citizens acting through the agency of its leaders determines is warranted. Imposing our values on other people is what got Bush et crooks in trouble in the first place.”

You serious? Freedom of speech is a venerated ideal and the linchpin of non-autocratic societies. How the hell does this compare with Bush’s “you’re either with me or against me” approach? We have the right, nay the obligation, to decry such wanton disregard for opposing viewpoints. Should human rights be left to caprice as well?

Now in this corner, the challenger for hypocrisy, the British Home Office, Jacqui Smith, saying that Britin is a “civilized country” which does not want people coming here who espouse extremist, dangerous views. So I guess half the past and present govt. won’t be invited to speak because they ordered/justified and fail to investigate claims of torture? Or is that just what civilized nations do these days?

It was a great report on the BBC. A real expose of hypocrisy and a nice juxtaposition going directly to the heart of why speech must be protected from govt. interference. The govt. is proving it has no basis for making a judgement about who should have to right to speak. When you let in dick and george, you’ve ended any claim to evaluate speech based on morality or anything else.

It is all a matter of perspective. It is like trying to figure out whose the sanest in the mental institution for the criminally insane.

http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5798

yes of course you’re equal opportunity critics. But such hyperbolic criticism is rather ironic if you think of the rather strict and arbitrary American entry regulations, isn’t it?

And I think the implied motivation (i.e. oppressing criticism of Islam) is, at least in this case, a wrong conclusion:
after all the majority of the persons on the Home Office’s no entry list are Islamic fundamentalists.

Ok, then what is it that these hayseeds on AM Talk are doing? 95% of what they and the talking heads on Tv say is meant to scare and cause you to react to the shock of what they are saying, even though what they are saying has no basis in reality.

Am I mistaken in thinking that not only do you have a right to free speech, but shouldn’t you have the responsibility to it as well? If they say “queers want to rape your children they should be dealt with” — isn’t that different than saying “homosexuality is immoral, and should be opposed at every turn..” (These are these Savage has/would say) But one is clearly yelling FIRE! , and is no longer pushing an opinion but pressing it more as a fact. Maybe a bad example. But these guys need to be held to account, even though some will say this is a slippery slope. So what. Certain people in this country have worked diligently on this very thing, to blur the line between fact and opinion, between free speech and incitement.

Do we just keep letting it be eroded until no one can tell fact from fiction, and ALL of our arguments or political discussions are based on made up or imaginary pretense?

“What you and I may choose to ban from our doors is a matter of individual rights. What a nation chooses to ban from its shores is a matter of public discourse being discouraged or shut off altogether.”

**********

There is no right for an alien to enter any country, and every nation has the right to restrict immigration or visitation for any reason its citizens acting through the agency of its leaders determines is warranted. Imposing our values on other people is what got Bush et crooks in trouble in the first place. You have every right to criticize but you might pay heed to Petrarch who famously said, “Vos vestros servate, meos mihi linquite mores.” (You cling to your own ways and leave mine to me).

What you and I may choose to ban from our doors is a matter of individual rights. What a nation chooses to ban from its shores is a matter of public discourse being discouraged or shut off altogether.
In Yemen, the major newspapers were shut down today because of an anti-establishment uprising. The media was closed down to protect the status quo.

While I find some, lots in fact, AM talk radio distasteful and think that its ability to influence the semi-literate and reactionaries I would not think of shutting down or regulating it at all. I like to think that I have the sensibilities required to judge for myself what has value and substance. I don’t need the government’s interference in the freedom of any part of the press or media to decide for me what is in good taste or not and act to protect me from it.

“Is this shocking? Sure. Is Savage a AM Radio creep? I think so. I’ve tried to listen to him as well as others like Boss Limbaugh and O’Really, and Glenn Beck and this other radio guy who hates women as counsels men to use women is the most awful ways and avoid emotional connection at all cost because women are only in the relationship business for the money.”

***********************

Hard to fault the Brits, I keep the sewage out of my house too. I don’t owe it anything either. Its rights stop at my doorway.

The USA denies routinely entry to foreigners without stating reasons, but discernible reasons may include having a scary name, or the books you have on your Amazon wishlist.

Glasshouse. Stones.

But that said England isn’t doing anything that has not already been done here. In the 70′s our government tried to keep John Lennon out of the country because of his anti-VietNam war views.

Of course they are doing it in a much more open and well, icky way. It’s not a sign of the times as much as a reaction to them on the part of the British government and maybe other European countries whose cultural and racial imbalances have forced leaders to become apologists to racist ideas. In trying to ban racism they themselves have become racists.

What I find particularly frustrating is the non-stop tidal wave of alarming and disturbing stuff that merits our attention every day. I can barely keep up and it isn’t like I don’t try. I usually know what I think about just about anything that crosses my radar its just that lately the radar screen is just so overwhelmingly full.

It did not stop us from having Bush put in office, did it? Notice I did not say elected.

I know a number of people who have Satellites for TV, they will use a family or friends address in Canada and receive worldwide transmission of international television stations. Where in the good ole USA we block that ability.

What is interesting and people on border states can pick up the “Foreign” countries broadcast on local TV but it is not offered outside that area. I know this was the situation with Detroit and Windsor. So I take back that as a blanket statement.

I thought it was a fair question. lol

You should have a chair broken over your head for even posing that question!

In this case, the State, or maybe we should just call it the Sturch, is the one sending a message. One cannot underestimate the power of the State and this message–dissent will not be tolerated. In the meantime, the State seems incapable of sending a strong message that torture will not be tolerated. That’s an interesting dicotomy. England is further down the pathway on being an open police state than we are but we’re getting there. We did divert a critic of our CIA policies in Latin American from even flying over our air space. The UK and the US–who will get to the bottom first?

“All we are is a result of what we have thought, it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts…” The Dhammapada