I will repeat the question...
Can the Klan advocate the murder of blacks and have you support it?
Can the American nazi party advocate the murders of Jews and have those of you on the left support it?
Can gay haters advocate the murder of gays and have the left openly support them?
Those are simple yes or no questions.Thay arent complicated.
A recap--
Miss Beach said she was "very shocked" at the message she received from Mr. Daly. He told her he would ask students and others to boycott the event. He also charged that signs her group had posted about Col. Rutter's appearance "looked like fascist propaganda."
Mr. Daly also charged that
"capitalism has killed many more people" than communism and that the "poor and working-class people" are recruited to "fight and die for Exxon and other corporations."
"I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like yours won't dare show their face on college campuses," Mr. Daly wrote.
Quote:He is the anti-people one---attacking freedom of speech---attacking a young student. She PAID to be there!!
He added: "Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."
Quote:He advocates killing US service personnel--along with those here who protect the call to murder.
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."
MM-- They are too cowardly to answer.
I have no reason to expect that your question is necessarily addressed to me, but i always enjoy responding to your idiocy, MM.
I don't support the murder of blacks. As long as no component of Klan "speech" is an encitement to criminal acitivity, the first amendment protects their rights to say what they like.
I don't support the murder of Jews. So long as no component of American Nazi "speech" is an incitement to criminal activity, the first amendment protects their right to say what they like.
I don't support the murder of homosexuals. So long as no component of gay bashers "speech" is an incitement to criminal activity, the first amendment protects their right to say what they like.
The army of which i was a part in the early 1970's had many instances of officers being targeted by GI's. I don't support mutiny and the murder of officers by enlisted men. So far, none of you have produced anything which is a direct quote of this pathetic SOB which constitutes an incitement to criminal acitivity--and therefore, the first amendment protects his right to have written what he wrote.
No one has said the amendment doesn't protect it.
What he said damn well was an incitement to murder.
"When we turn our guns on the blacks, that's when we'll have real freedom."
So, that's OK with you then, Setanta?
New Jersey Prof Urges Fragging U.S. Officers
Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 9:57 AM
[...]
Beach turned over Prof. Daly's email to the Young Americans for Freedom, and it didn't take long for the professor's comments to show up on the World Wide Web. Consequently, WCCC was inundated with information requests. In an instant, WCCC, Beach, and Daly were catapulted into the national arena. Finally, on the afternoon of November 17, WCCC shut down its web site temporarily, in order to insert a disclaimer in front of everything else. Here is the exact wording of that disclaimer:
Press Release
November 17, 2005
Warren County Community College is a "students first" college where learning without limits is always the main goal. We maintain a mission of building a community of learners through accessible, quality learning opportunities designed to meet personal aspirations for all students.
[...]
I am delighted that the WCCC Board takes this incident so seriously, and am looking forward to the outcome of their emergency meeting. And while I'm heartened to read that WCCC President Dr. William Austin "Â…firmly believe[s] every employee and student has first amendment rights," I'm at a loss to understand how this belief translates into supporting Prof. Daly's "right" to make his comments.
Although I am not a recognized constitutional scholar, I have read and studied the constitution sufficiently often to state unequivocally that it does not directly address this kind of situation. But I also know that several court decisions have firmly established the interpretation that says the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to incite to violence or riot, and this is exactly what Prof. Daly has done.
[...]
There is no difference at all between the Islamic Mullah who openly advocates killing Jews or Americans or President George W. Bush, and Prof. Daly who openly advocates that soldiers kill their superiors. His likening of American patriots fighting in the Revolutionary War with Communist insurgents during the Cold War and the Islamic insurgents in Iraq today (which is the only reasonable interpretation of his closing comments) is a stretch that boggles the mind.
Remember that Prof. Daly is not just another citizen speaking his mind on the "protest corner" on Friday evening, as his kind are wont to do here in North Hollywood. Daly teaches impressionable young people every day. His subjects center around creative writing, so his class discussions can touch on any subject he desires. He has clearly stated that he is "asking [his] students to boycott [the] event." This amounts to open politicizing in the classroom.
I am reasonably certain the WCCC did not hire this intellectual misfit to conduct political indoctrination in his creative writing classes. Prof. Daly's actions thus far in this matter, and his stated intent for the future should seal his fate within the publicly funded academic community whose hospitality he is abusing.
This intellectual lout's free pass at the public trough needs to be terminated immediately, and his teaching credentials jerked. He needs a healthy dose of reality by having to find a real job doing something useful - like garbage collector - instead of being given a guaranteed job-for-life as a tenured teacher in New Jersey's State Community College system.
I don't quarrel with Prof. Daly's right to spout off while collecting garbage, reading gas meters, or even writing books (if he can actually find a publisher), but I strongly protest his having even a casual conversation with impressionable under-age students while being paid public monies - especially when they are his captive audience in a class where he ultimately assigns a grade based, I suspect, on their political orientation rather than their performance as writers.
_______________________
One more instance of liberals, forcing their views on students.
Lash wrote:He added: "Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."
Quote:He advocates killing US service personnel--along with those here who protect the call to murder.
Lash, Perhaps you should discuss the ENTIRE sentence from Daly, not the abbreviated version that you claim gives it meaning that isn't really there.
Quote:Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs -- such freedom fighters can be counted throughout American history and they certainly will be counted again.
Based on the previous paragraph it isn't even clear that the "superiors" are officers in the military. "Superiors" could well be referring to EXXON and other corporations that profit from the poor that are "recruited to fight and die."
Well I guess when the right is going down in flames, they have to do something to distract attention away from reality.
"Turn their guns on superiors" is plain language--no matter how you try to couch it.
Lash wrote:No one has said the amendment doesn't protect it.
What he said damn well was an incitement to murder.
"When we turn our guns on the blacks, that's when we'll have real freedom."
So, that's OK with you then, Setanta?
Why Lash, what utter horsie poop you spread around here. The goofball did not say "we," he at no time suggested that he was going to be involved. And he did not exhort soldiers to commit murder, he merely commented on what he considered to be the best thing for soldiers to do to secure the freedom of us all. I frankly think he's more than a few bricks short of a load--but absolutely nothing which has been quoted in this thread consitutes incitement to criminal behavior.
You know, darlin', when you intentionally pervert what has been written in such a feeble manner to attempt to make a point, that's called erecting a strawman. As propaganada, it may well be gratifying. As argumentation, it's so much bubble gum . . .
The "we" is inconsequential.
Suggesting murder is wrong--of Jews, blacks, and military officers.
by the KKK, the skinheads, or liberal professors.
Re: Will the anti-war crowd denounce this idiot?
Mysteryman, It's not Anti-war, it's pro-peace. however, to use the term "anti-war" when referring to a person is a compliment to the person that the term was intended for because it says that the person the capability of thinking in such a way that doesn't default to killing those whom he disagrees with.
Lash wrote:The "we" is inconsequential.
Suggesting murder is wrong--of Jews, blacks, and military officers.
by the KKK, the skinheads, or liberal professors.
The goofy clown did not suggest murder--he spoke of an impossible hypothetical. He did not at any time, based upon the quotes offered in this thread, suggest to anyone that they commit murder.
Even were there a host of idiotic conservative professors out there advocating the murder of tens of thousands of Muslims about whom they know squat--that still would not constitute incitement to crime had they not specidically urged the act on anyone, and it would still be their first amendment privilege to do so.
Thousands of witless, conservatives Bapdist housewives screaming for the blood of librul professors in the streets have the constitutional right to do so, unless and until they specifically urge someone to a criminal act.
Until you can offer proof that this goofball has specifically urged anyone to commit murder, you're erecting strawmen. But then, that's about the only rhetorical device i've ever seen you use.
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials
Since the phrase "turn their guns on" means "to murder" someone it would be helpful Lash if you could point us to the obituaries for the following...
Quote:Republican 527-money turned their guns on Senator Kerry
Quote:The establishment tried to block his way and then turned their guns on him. (Ralph Nader)
Quote:the soldiers then turned their guns on the BBC.
Quote:relentlessly pursuing jihadists associated with al-Qaeda since they turned their guns on the (Saudi) monarchy over its ties to the US in 2003.
Quote:the Americans turned their guns on a country (Iraq) not connected to the terrorist attacks,
Quote:they have without hesitation turned their guns on the
New Deal
Quote:In addition, though Protestants had begun by making powerful critiques of Catholicism, they quickly turned their guns on each other, producing a bewildering array of churches each claiming the exclusive path to salvation.
Prof. John Daly wrote:Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs -- such freedom fighters can be counted throughout American history and they certainly will be counted again.
Silly man. When will people learn that killing the superior officers won't do any good -- they don't create policy and they'll simply be replaced by other superior officers. If a soldier really wants to effect some positive, substantial change, he should turn his gun on the political leaders who are responsible for sending him to Iraq in the first place.
A point well-taken . . . the 1917 mutiny of French troops in the trenches meant less than nothing so long as Clemenceau remained in power . . .
Wouldn't it better for them to just turn their guns in? Why this cry for blood?
Why are you asking that question of anyone in this thread? None of the participants here are responsible for what that goofball wrote. You should address your question to Mr. Daly.
McGentrix wrote:Wouldn't it better for them to just turn their guns in? Why this cry for blood?
I'm having a hard time believing you actually said this.
