Has Novak The Rat Been Arrested ?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I didn’t know there was a boycott of Ann Coulters books.

Tell me, is there an organisation behind it? Do they phone bookstores and threaten to burn down the store if they sell her books? Do they protest outside and keep people from entering the store?[/quote]

If there is an organization behind it, that isn’t problematic, though I would say that fact should be disclosed.

Threats of violence are not protected under free speech doctrine. Neither is trespassing. Neither is blocking public access. This is why a lot of the protestors in NYC were arrested during the Republican National Convention, and this is quite proper. Neutral time, place and manner restrictions on speech are permissible – it’s message-based restrictions that are problematic.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Because, if they did, I wouldn’t support that.[/quote]

Nor would anyone who understands freedom of speech, but none of those contingencies are necessary to a simple call for an economic boycott.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
If I didn’t agree with the political views of a singer, and if he choose to express these views repeatedly, that might eventually lead me to not buying his records.[/quote]

And that would be part of your freedom of speech rights, if you meant it to be expressive. Obviously it impacts other rights as well.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
But I wouldn’t go out of my way to prevent others from buying them.[/quote]

That’s what a boycott is. It’s organizing to convince other people not to buy or otherwise economically support someone or some organization. And that is part of freedom of speech.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I wouldn’t phone radio stations and threaten them if they played his records.
I wouldn’t go into shops and destroy his CD’s.[/quote]

Again, those are not protected activities - the latter might be if you happen to own the shop and the CDs, but not if you’re destroying others’ property.

All those claims of threatened or actual violence, BTW, to me are red herrings, as I haven’t heard any reports of any of those. What I have heard is that a lot of stations were boycotting playing their singles, and that the DJs and people on the internet were encouraging people not to buy the albums – by arguing people shouldn’t, not by threatening violence.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
The Republicans have build a hughe mud-slinging machine and they smear everybody they don’t like with impunity.

O’Reilly may be an idiot, but he’s a usefull idiot. And Bush is using him.[/quote]

Large claims. No examples.

I’m sure the Bush administration organized a crack “smear” team to take on the Dixie Chicks because they were so scared of the rhetorical power of their arguments that the administration decided the Chicks must be stopped, and the best way to do so would be to organize a bunch of disparate radio-station owners and/or DJs to criticize them and urge consumers not to buy their records. And that they called and convinced Bill O’Reilly to do their nefarious bidding too.

How you come to your conclusions is beyond me.

Listen BB,

It is NOT ok to boycott an artist because he exercises his right to free speach. Because that would essentially mean that you shut him up. Now that may be convenient, but that’s not democracy.

You can rationalise all you want. The fact is that the Dixie Chicks were harassed because they exercised their right to free speach. And you claim others have the right to shut them up, because that is their right to free speach. We both know it is not.

We both know that is what happened. You just call it a grass roots phenomenon. It wasn’t. It was an orchestrated effort. And even it was a grass roots phenomenon. At one time in history, a KKK picknick was a grass roots phenomenon. And the occasional black getting lynched was a grass roots phenomenon. But that makes it ok I guess.

The point is: the Republicans rely on a larga mass of stupid, ignorant angry white people. And it is in their interest to keep them stupid, ignorant and angry.

Only the super elite profit from Republican policies. If only they voted for them, they would get something like 0.1% of the vote. Republican policies hurt the middle class and they certainly hurt the lower class. Yet this is where they get most of their votes.

You just keep those red necks poor and ignorant BB. It’s the only way you can win. You just teach them about creationism. And don’t forget how every foreigners hates you for your freedom. And tell them to read to bible, but quickly skip over the “thou shall not kill” part. But that is so inconvenient . So why not Dixie Chick that part?

See, I can toss political correctness too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060722/ap_on_re_us/

bush_protesters;_ylt=AlDTDgX4XiMzZCgzggSH9Wus0NU

E;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

This is how the Bush administration deals with dissent. Much the same way Saddam used to deal with it I’m afraid.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Listen BB,

It is NOT ok to boycott an artist because he exercises his right to free speach. Because that would essentially mean that you shut him up. Now that may be convenient, but that’s not democracy.
…[/quote]

You do not understand the difference between a boycott and censorship.

A boycott is merely an individual or a group of individuals deciding not to buy a product, watch a movie etc.

Censorship is the government not allowing the product to be sold.

The Dixie Chicks are not being censored.

Are you claiming that people must be forced to but Dixie Chick music as you think it is NOT OK to not buy their music?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Listen BB,

It is NOT ok to boycott an artist because he exercises his right to free speach. Because that would essentially mean that you shut him up. Now that may be convenient, but that’s not democracy.

You can rationalise all you want. The fact is that the Dixie Chicks were harassed because they exercised their right to free speach. And you claim others have the right to shut them up, because that is their right to free speach. We both know it is not.[/quote]

No, you don’t seem to understand that it’s not harassment for OTHER people to exercise their right of free speech to criticize your or the Dixie Chicks stated positions.

Others don’t have the right to “shut them up” - they have the right to criticize, boycott, and otherwise say that they think the Chicks and their positions are assinine. How the Chicks choose to react to that is up to them – they can vociferously defend themselves and their positions, or they can take a myriad of other options at their discretion. Free speech is an essential right in democracy because it encourages debate and criticism, not in spite of that fact.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
We both know that is what happened. You just call it a grass roots phenomenon. It wasn’t. It was an orchestrated effort. And even it was a grass roots phenomenon. At one time in history, a KKK picknick was a grass roots phenomenon. And the occasional black getting lynched was a grass roots phenomenon. But that makes it ok I guess.[/quote]

Really? And the proof or even circumstantial evidence for this orchestration from high in the Bush Adminstration is where, aside from within your feverish imagination?

BTW, I don’t know what wrong definition you may have of free speech that includes lynching, but you should study more closely.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
The point is: the Republicans rely on a larga mass of stupid, ignorant angry white people. And it is in their interest to keep them stupid, ignorant and angry.[/quote]

Wow, I didn’t know you were such a racist. You wouldn’t dare make a similar claim about Democrats and black people.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Only the super elite profit from Republican policies. If only they voted for them, they would get something like 0.1% of the vote. Republican policies hurt the middle class and they certainly hurt the lower class. Yet this is where they get most of their votes.

You just keep those red necks poor and ignorant BB. It’s the only way you can win. You just teach them about creationism. And don’t forget how every foreigners hates you for your freedom. And tell them to read to bible, but quickly skip over the “thou shall not kill” part. But that is so inconvenient . So why not Dixie Chick that part?

See, I can toss political correctness too.[/quote]

This litany of distortions doesn’t even merit consideration, much less a considered response.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Listen BB,

It is NOT ok to boycott an artist because he exercises his right to free speach. Because that would essentially mean that you shut him up. Now that may be convenient, but that’s not democracy.

You can rationalise all you want. The fact is that the Dixie Chicks were harassed because they exercised their right to free speach. And you claim others have the right to shut them up, because that is their right to free speach. We both know it is not.

No, you don’t seem to understand that it’s not harassment for OTHER people to exercise their right of free speech to criticize your or the Dixie Chicks stated positions.

Others don’t have the right to “shut them up” - they have the right to criticize, boycott, and otherwise say that they think the Chicks and their positions are assinine. How the Chicks choose to react to that is up to them – they can vociferously defend themselves and their positions, or they can take a myriad of other options at their discretion. Free speech is an essential right in democracy because it encourages debate and criticism, not in spite of that fact.

Wreckless wrote:
We both know that is what happened. You just call it a grass roots phenomenon. It wasn’t. It was an orchestrated effort. And even it was a grass roots phenomenon. At one time in history, a KKK picknick was a grass roots phenomenon. And the occasional black getting lynched was a grass roots phenomenon. But that makes it ok I guess.

Really? And the proof or even circumstantial evidence for this orchestration from high in the Bush Adminstration is where, aside from within your feverish imagination?

BTW, I don’t know what wrong definition you may have of free speech that includes lynching, but you should study more closely.

Wreckless wrote:
The point is: the Republicans rely on a larga mass of stupid, ignorant angry white people. And it is in their interest to keep them stupid, ignorant and angry.

Wow, I didn’t know you were such a racist. You wouldn’t dare make a similar claim about Democrats and black people.

Wreckless wrote:
Only the super elite profit from Republican policies. If only they voted for them, they would get something like 0.1% of the vote. Republican policies hurt the middle class and they certainly hurt the lower class. Yet this is where they get most of their votes.

You just keep those red necks poor and ignorant BB. It’s the only way you can win. You just teach them about creationism. And don’t forget how every foreigners hates you for your freedom. And tell them to read to bible, but quickly skip over the “thou shall not kill” part. But that is so inconvenient . So why not Dixie Chick that part?

See, I can toss political correctness too.

This litany of distortions doesn’t even merit consideration, much less a considered response.[/quote]

I declare BostonBarrister the winner.

But you had to cheat BB by CENSORING him!!! hahahahaha

Not so quick there Chucky.

Look what I found here:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_Cheneys_office_knew_Plames_work_0502.html

On Chris Matthews’ Hardball Tuesday evening, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster provided updates on what RAW STORY first reported in February: that outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was working on Iran at the time she was outed (The video of Shuster’s report is now available here).

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

End of quote.

It looks like there IS a God.

Amazingly, this “story” of yours has been ignored by that Bush-loving Mainstream media since February. If it had something besides self-referential links, perhaps it would be taken seriously…

Anyway, read the Newsweek story from the other thread, which previews a book coming out by Michael Isikoff:

Cheney and Cheney’s office weren’t the leakers…