Will the anti-war crowd denounce this idiot?

The person who wrote this--

I take it, by the way, that you ARE incapable of comprehending that one can be anti war and not pro murder of commanding officers?

--obviously posts before reading the relevant material. The anti-war professor DID suggest that US troops kill their commanding officers. You either support it, or you don't.

I shouldn't be surprised, though I am, at how many here do support it.

"The Fifth Vice-President of the 14,000-member National Association of Chiefs of Police, Jim Kouri, who resides in New Jersey, also e-mailed Professor Daly asking for an explanation of his mean-spirited, violent, anti-American diatribe. No reply has been received. Apparently, Professor Daly only gets tough with 19-year old girls. In addition, e-mails sent to the college president and dean of students met with silence. One suspects they're hiding under their desks like good little cut-and-run left-wingers."

Shovel the right-wing b.s. somewhere else--we're up to our chins in it here already.

Mills75 wrote:

Shovel the right-wing b.s. somewhere else--we're up to our chins in it here already.

If you hurry, you might just be able to squeeze into that "tolerance" seminar set up for the likes of Daly. (I think you could use it).

And, if you have a problem with the paragraph I posted (and it appears you do), please take it up with Mr. Kouri.

Lash wrote:

The person who wrote this--

I take it, by the way, that you ARE incapable of comprehending that one can be anti war and not pro murder of commanding officers?

--obviously posts before reading the relevant material. The anti-war professor DID suggest that US troops kill their commanding officers. You either support it, or you don't.

I shouldn't be surprised, though I am, at how many here do support it.

Now THERE, at last, is the absurdity of the "premise" of this whole thread taken to a point so utterly ridiculous that it seems to have entered some sort of Bizarro World.

Mills75 wrote:

Shovel the right-wing b.s. somewhere else--we're up to our chins in it here already.

If you hurry, you might just be able to squeeze into that "tolerance" seminar set up for the likes of Daly. (I think you could use it).

Why, do you feel threatened? :wink:

And, if you have a problem with the paragraph I posted (and it appears you do), please take it up with Mr. Kouri.

And it was just as ridiculous in the article as it is copied and pasted here. Considering that Daly and the college administration were probably inundated with thousands of angry e-mails from irate conservatives, only an absolute idiot would expect a response.

Defending his right to suggest murdering military officers is the same as justifying the KKK's suggestion that blacks or Jews should be killed.

Do you support that, as well?

dlowan wrote:

Lash wrote:

The person who wrote this--

I take it, by the way, that you ARE incapable of comprehending that one can be anti war and not pro murder of commanding officers?

--obviously posts before reading the relevant material. The anti-war professor DID suggest that US troops kill their commanding officers. You either support it, or you don't.

I shouldn't be surprised, though I am, at how many here do support it.

Now THERE, at last, is the absurdity of the "premise" of this whole thread taken to a point so utterly ridiculous that it seems to have entered some sort of Bizarro World.

Defending his right to suggest murdering military officers is the same as justifying the KKK's suggestion that blacks or Jews should be killed.

Do you support that, as well?

From time to time Lash has trouble making logical connections, dlowan. I've re-read some of these posts and can find no instance of anyone supporting the suggestion that US troops kill their officers. A number of us have supported a person's right to express one's views, however unpalatable.

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- Voltaire.

From time to time Lash has trouble making logical connections, dlowan. I've re-read some of these posts and can find no instance of anyone supporting the suggestion that US troops kill their officers. A number of us have supported a person's right to express one's views, however unpalatable.

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- Voltaire.

JustWonders, thanks for proving my point just wonderfully. The exercise of my freedom of speech has been absolutely no hindrance to the exercise of your freedom of speech. The purpose of our freedom of speech is to foster vigorous debate; the offering of ideas, and the critique of ideas. If, however, you wish to exercise your freedom of speech, you must accept the risk that your speech will be criticized.

As for tolerance of other's speech--tolerance doesn't mean stating your opinion (even of the speech of others) in passive terms; if I think your speech amounts to little more than horse dung, I will say as much. Tolerance to other's speech means doing nothing to deprive them of their freedom of speech. Criticizing your speech is not depriving you of your freedom of speech. However, if I attempted to get you fired for your speech, then I would be attempting to deprive you of your freedom of speech and, thus, showing intolerance. It wasn't Daly who showed intolerance for right-wing ideology, but Beach and her right-wing organization who showed intolerance for his critique of their ideology.

I will agree that Daly "cut and ran." However, an adjunct professorship isn't worth fighting for. As I mentioned earlier, an adjunct faculty member of a college or university is, by definition, a temporary employee. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't even Daly's main job. He doesn't, however, remind me of Howard Dean, and we sorely need more Howard Deans.

The exercise of my freedom of speech has been absolutely no hindrance to the exercise of your freedom of speech.

The purpose of our freedom of speech is to foster vigorous debate; the offering of ideas, and the critique of ideas. If, however, you wish to exercise your freedom of speech, you must accept the risk that your speech will be criticized.

Tolerance to other's speech means doing nothing to deprive them of their freedom of speech.

Mills, let's have a sane little exchange in the midst of the madness here.

Your sig line, is that from A Connecticutt Yankee . . . ?

Miss Beach said she was appalled by the e-mail.
"His message was very hostile. I don't think his hostility and harassment are protected by the First Amendment."

"I don't think."