06 March 2007

Liberals: facing a Constitutional conundrum

I think I might post this definition of the term "liberal" somewhere on this page:
liberal (LIB-er-al)--n. A person who throws their "freedom of speech" in your face, while boldly trampling on yours.
For a good example of this liberal double-standard, I refer you to Exhibit A: Ann Coulter. I don't necessarily agree with everything she says, but I do admire her for having the courage to say it. This past weekend, at the CPAC convention, she proved the liberal double-standard once again. I'm sure you know what she said, and who she said it about. If you want more, go over to Hot Air.

But here is my point: Why is it that Dick (Turban) Durbin can say that the soldiers at Gitmo are like Nazis and get away with it? Why does John Heinz Kerry get a pass for calling the troops dumb, and uneducated? Why does Charles Rangel get away with saying that the only reason people join the armed forces is because they couldn't find a job cooking fries? Why does Bill Maher get laughs for wishing Dick Cheney would die? Why does every liberal get a pass from the LameStream Media when they say something offensive about Christians, but we can't dare say a bad word about the "protected class" of liberals?

Should Ann have said what she said? Maybe not. But should she be censored for it? Not if liberals are genuine about how they feel concerning the First Amendment. If they think that "Free Speech" is REALLY "Free Speech", then they should be DEFENDING Ann Coulter's right to say what she did. PERIOD.

No comments: