Yes, you did "imagine" Nazi to be part of the picture, because you "imagined," and purely that, my associating conservative views with Nazi views.
Get your imagination under control, why don't you?
The only relevance of Nazis to the subject under discussion was not the one of your imagination's agenda, but as an example of a liberal organization doing quite the opposite of "shouting down opposing views."
Now you are sharing with me your knowledge that the ACLU doesn't shout its views, oh, say, out their office window, but expresses them in a court of law, I see. What would one do without such informative commentary?!
What does the following remark have to do with anything?:
Small town paper editors (of all stripes) are a notoriously prickly breed and what any one or several of them may do is not usually representative of anything else.
You sure like to change the subject, Michael.
If criticism of Bush is punished by firings, that is circumstantial evidence that the claim that suppressing opposing views is 'unique' to liberals is false. (Unless you think Bush is a favorite of liberals rather than conservatives?) (Or unless you want to explain to me that firing someone is different from shouting them down because the first doesn't utilize a larynx?) That is all I presented it as. "Representative"-ness is a notion you have unaccountably introduced. That comment of yours in italics above is as irrelevant to the discussion as your claim I had associated Nazis with conservatives is imaginary and as your instruction about the way the ACLU expresses its views is unneeded.
Again: This remark is all I have disputed, and I did that because it is false:
<<Liberals are unique in shouting down opposing views.>>
You have raised many other subjects. Perhaps someone would care to discuss them with you. |
