Thanks for calling out members of the thought police on FF Life. My
sentiments exactly.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You know, it isn't a First Amendment issue per
> se, but it should be noted that some of the
> Obama supporters here are promoting a kind of
> de facto censorship, just as Palin is.
>
> Barry, Vaj, do.rflex, Sal, Ruth, and Bhairitu
> (I'm sure I've forgotten a couple) have all
> promoted the notion that people should block
> raunchydog's and my posts, to keep them from
> seeing criticisms of Obama and his supporters.
>
> This is of particular benefit to Barry, who
> has spearheaded this movement. (He's been at it
> for many years.)
>
> For example, he can claim that I "made up"
> the statistic about the number of rapes
> reported in Wasilla during Palin's mayoralty.
> Readers will have seen that claim, but those
> who have chosen to block my posts will not
> have seen the URL I provided that documents
> my statistic.
>
> As I think most readers here know, Barry's
> stock in trade is vicious attacks on me. Those
> who go along with Barry's urging and don't
> read my posts, however, will not be aware that
> his attacks consist primarily of falsehoods,
> because they won't see the rebuttals.
>
> Ruth the Race-baiter doesn't want people to
> read my or raunchydog's posts because she
> doesn't want them to know how bogus her claim
> is that the Obama illustration on raunchydog's
> profile page is racist. And Barry, of course,
> doesn't want anyone to know that his claim that
> the illustration portrays Obama as Stepin
> Fetchit is even more blatantly false.
>
> Like Barry, do.rflex doesn't want people to
> know that my statistic on rape in Wasilla is
> well documented, or that his own attempt to
> portray sexual assaults in Wasilla as
> equivalent to rapes is bogus.
>
> Sal doesn't want anybody to know how many
> gross factual errors she makes, especially in
> connection with politics, so she espouses not
> reading my posts as well.
>
> Vaj likes to lie about me and raunchydog too,
> so of course he doesn't want folks to read
> our posts.
>
> Bhairitu doesn't like the kind of reasoned
> criticisms of his conspiracy theories that I
> present. He'd prefer that readers blocked those.
>
> These people, in other words, are suggesting
> that you should *cut yourself off from other
> points of view* and read only what *they* have
> to say.
>
> How are these people any different in principle
> from Sarah Palin, who would prefer that the media
> not be permitted to criticize her and McCain? Are
> raunchydog and I somehow infringing on the First
> Amendment rights of the Obama supporters here by
> posting our dissenting views?
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
> <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's breathtakingly stupid enough that Sarah
> > Palin doesn't even know what the hell the Vice
> > President actually does. But, Constitutional scholar
> > that she is not, she has now declared that it
> > may be a threat to her First Amendment rights when
> > newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack
> > Obama:
> > http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/index.html
>
