Reply #203: Response from the Alien

[Danorama]

First of all, I'm just assuming that I'm the "freeper" in reference earlier. For what it's worth, I think the freepers are nuts, too.

As far as *believing* Drudge, I didn't say that. I'm on Drudge's RSS because most of the things that he posts are actually links to stories done by other people (NY Times, WSJ, etc., etc.) That's exactly how I arrived here. He just linked to the story.

As to the lawyer-wrangling, I sort-of agree. It's ridiculous for everyone to sue each other over such inconsequential stuff. That being said, I think Al Franken probably prayed for a lawsuit. Whether or not he had to change the title of his book, it meant a publicity windfall.

What I don't understand is why one side's lawsuits are any better than the others:

From the right, FOX was trying to protect their tradmark. From the left, Al Franken isn't going to be confused with the FOX network any time soon.

From the right, MoveOn.org / George Soros & company have done their own lawsuit brigade to try to get conservative voices to go away. From the left, they are just trying to tell a different side of the story and what's wrong with that?

How about we all agree to stop weilding laws / lawyers like weapons and let anyone say and believe anything they want to? We just need to change the libel laws to apply to political speech, as well, so that neither side's politicians can lie about the others.

And as an aside to the last comment I read, if the man responsible for pulling the plug on AAR is a Republican stooge, then that must mean the man responsible for putting them on the air in LA and Chicago is also a Republican stooge. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Again, just trying to understand. I haven't been abusive to anyone (nor do I plan on it).