Ron,

When you learn to read, it would be nice if you read what I posted, instead of putting your words in my post.




"You have to admit, he's set a high standard for the rest of us.

Now would you like to defend his body of work--as some others who defended his right to spew his poison?"

If you do not understand the difference between defending a person's right to speak and defending what a person says, you have a real problem. I suggest you go back to school and try to learn something.




"By the way, to return to Mr. Imus, it was pressure from people on advertisers, more than anything else, which caused his firing. If pressure from advertisers causes my firing from Mudcat, I can live with it. But somehow, I don't think it's that likely.

Also, as I recall, you did not object when there was a campaign to boycott Citgo, because of alleged ties to Chavez. That is directly comparable to the Imus situation--and it's part of capitalism. Supply and demand. We will not buy your product unless you stop sponsoring racist fools. Just as "we will not buy Citgo gas because of ties to Chavez".

Simple as that.

Exactly what part of capitalism do you find objectionable? "

AS I HAVE STATED, the company he works for has every right to fire him, and people have the right to boycott them and their advertisers if they wish. *** I *** was commenting on the calls that "there should be a law" (mg) or that he should have been regulated ( kendall).

What part of GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN FREE SPEECH do YOU find so desirable?