Yeah, because racists have reached their conclusions through logic, so of course pure logic is the best way to break down those conclusions.

And, yes, I don’t care what anybody thinks — it is absolutely reasonable to ostracize somebody socially or financially for their beliefs. If this results in people still believing stuff, but not openly espousing it, that is a better situation.

It’s no different than going to the store that doesn’t have the sticky floor. And yet more important: He supported violating the social contract. He still does, saying it’s morally good to kill elected officials.

Last time I checked, killing people was against the law. So is planning, supporting, or aiding someone in doing so.

It’d be impossible to know what people “secretly” believe… And thank goodness!

As to the burning building remark… That’s just apples and oranges. You simply do your job.

Ted Rall did not sue Ann Coulter.
He threatened to sue Ann Coulter.
That rhetoric sounds too heated.
Proposed the idea?
That sounds too romantic.
Formed an exploratory committee?
Too businesslike.

Whatever.

But what I also found out and find interesting- and it relates somewhat to the topic of this thread – is that you sued Ann Coulter for libel and slander as well.

For a guy who believes that we should be able to “say whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want–without fear of retaliation–”, it’s surprising that you’ve used or threatened to use the legal system against other opinionated individuals.

Your assertion, then, that this comic book retailer is entitled to express whatever his beliefs are without facing possible boycotts is a little weak if you yourself threaten to damage others financially for doing the exact thing you do – express an opinion.

I’m probably just naive and confusing lawsuits with brilliant marketing savvy.

If a female fireperson is hauling your whimpering ass out of a burning building and, while dangling over her shoulder, you spot a Glenn Beck tramp stamp over her butt, would you:

a) demand that she immediately drop you to the floor because you’d “rather be hickory-smoked live than be saved by the likes of her”

or

b) wait until you’re safely in the back of an ambulance before calling her a “right-wing racist”?

Just wondering how far your disgust for another person’s politics affects your judgment.

This has been a highly entertaining thread so it would be disappointing if AG takes out the comments function.

Since I may get banhammered to the Daily Cartoonist banzone, may I first propose a new Godwin-style Law?

“If an online discussion includes Ted Rall as a participant, the certainty that the Iraq War will be mentioned is 100%.”

I’ll call it the Rallcats Law.