[Quickkickonthird]

I didnt read all of the posts so this may have already been discussed. Someone recently said that it seems like the same people that are yelling the loudest about Phil's free speech right being protected are the same people that were complaining a few years ago about the Dixie Chicks speaking their minds about President Bush. They didnt seem to care about the 1rst amendment then. While I agree that Phil shouldnt be removed for what he said in answering a direct question and I also didnt like what the Dixie Chicks said about the President, especially saying it in another country but I thought the comparison was interesting. Which of the founding fathers said "I may disagree with what you are saying but I'll defend with my life your right to say it." Constitutional rights dont apply simply when we agree with them. Anyway, Im glad Phil is back. I dont think he intended to offend anyone.