🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>I wonder whose definition of free speech the "American Way" folks are
>>>advocating, and more importantly - why?

>>"Who" is a tough question. Characteristics of whom may be given daily
>>with ease and we all know what those words are when we hear them.
>>"Why" is an infinitely regressive question: suffice to say there is an
>>answer and it can start with Karl Marx's vision of a New World Order,
>>as interpreted by Noam Choamsky, Alinsky, and a few others. Jane Fonda
>>will act it out, as will Mike Ferrell, and Lou Grant.
>
>Do you also have a problem with the meaning of `is'?  ` Who' is a very
>simple question, answered many times a day. 

I see President Reagan and  I am not the only one that is struggling
with a failing memory. I answered the "who" question in part in the
same paragraph, already. Maybe you forget the question towards the end
of the paragraph?

> `Why' is only seen as
>infinitely regressive, by those trying to evade answering the
>question. Infinitely regressive is a term usually reserved for
>mathematical expressions. 

Reserved for mathematics, yes, the "why" of issues maybe be limited to
that, however a three year old asking "why" is not practicing same.
Nor is the question designed to be answered in any type that would
satisfy a minor, or be placed in the bumper sticker mentality so often
found in Usenet.
So is the question: why are the People of the American Way limiting
the free speech of those that have an agenda different than theirs? Or
have a "Right Wing Watch" and castigate those they (POAW) define as
"right wing" and then proceed to "limit" the free speech of others by
promulgating information on becoming "an activist". Is there reasoning
with activists? No, their mission is to get people active in the
direction and with the agenda that this freedom of speech allows. And
in that process there will come to a head that will limit the free
speech of their "opponents". It is put out there by Choamsky and
Allensky to do so. With such a beast there is no "reasoning", just
"action" towards their goal, which, again, is to stop the action and
speech of those they've defined and identified as "the enemy".

>I don't recall Karl Marx ever got so far as a `New World Order'.
>Choamsky is a teacher of linguistics and in a little over his head in
>politics where words have little meaning to guys like Lenin, Stalin,
>Mao, Castro, Sadaam, et al.

Wow. You are RIGHT. I guess I was wrong. Chomsky DIDN't teach Lenin,
Stalin, Mao, Castro, or have any of those guys as his students!
Dang.
However http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky even Wikipedia
recognizes his role in the socialist movement of America and the
influence he has had towards students that have been placed in key
spots in the American fabric.  And whatever you do, please do not run
CHOMSKY in Google, as it can take an hour all the hits on him. What a
cute simple little professor of words. That's all, just words.
Oh, and the linking of Marx to the NWO is a move on my part that I
gather was to swift. I will type slower if you wish and make the steps
very small.

>Jane Fonda and Mike Ferrell both act for a living and often do so
>seeking career advancement in a field where a left wing opinion may
>help.  `Lou Grant' was a fictional character portrayed by Ed Asner,
>also an actor and not above a little career boosting of his own.
>Best not to get involved too deeply to the point that one confuses the
>role and the actor.

I never did see Lou Grant, and I stopped the Jane Fonda movie thingy
about 36 years ago.  My son does watch one of the two TV stations we
get and old Mike is being his sweet old self on the screen as some
veterinarian dad to a beautiful woman doctor. Mellifluous beyond the
extreme. But I recall seeing and then reading about his ways. You are
right, he is an actor, and he acts in behalf of all the PETA eating,
whale loving, tree hugging groups that castigate America to no end. As
if they have a better plan. I mean that fish Frenchman Jack Cousteau
wanted to kill about 300,000 a day for years just to balance the
"ecosystem" of the planet. His lie was that we, Gia, is too populated
and we need to "curb" this population no matter what. I am glad we
have free speech, as I can know where he is coming from.  He admired
the population control of Uncle Joe, Vladamir, and I trust others of
that ilk.