Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Olevia37HD, Aug 31, 2006.
Lets not guess at anything. I'm just looking at the facts we have or lack of them.
So... if I took a professorship, I could say WHATEVER I wanted? Is that what you're saying here. Be careful of making that kind of statement. Remember it's the left that is gaga over things like "speech codes" on college campuses. You can't even complement a women on some campuses without being accused of hate speech. All of a sudden, everything is out the window, and whatever a professor says is fine? Hmmm... someone call David Horowitz... let him know his academic bill of rights isn't needed anymore - the liberals have gotten rid of speech codes!
And I'm sure if a conservative group wanted to invite in, oh, say, Ann Coulter to speek at UNH, I'm sure the university would be just fine with that, right? The way I see it, liberals engage in a major double-standard on this. We believe in free speech... as long as it's the RIGHT kind of speech. Got it.
Ok, let's say the idiot and others who think like him are correct. It was in fact a big government conspiracy. The government planted bombs in both towers, the Pentagon and a plane flying over Pennsylvania. Tell me then, when is Barbara Olsen's next book coming out. I WANT to read it very badly. It should be an instant best seller.
Freedom of speech. What don't you understand about that?
We can jump all around and get no where.
Like I said.
Obviously more than you do. What does freedom of speech guarantee? If you get the liberal take on it, it means that they should be allowed to spew from any forum that they want. And NOT allowing it is an abridgement. Do you know how many times I listen to Rush take a phone call, and Rush is told by an adamant liberal "you're not letting me finish - you're violating my freedom of speech!" That's NOT what freedom of speech is about. The first amendment protects you from having your expression abridged BY THE GOVERNMENT. It says that Congress can't pass any laws that inhibit your right to express yourself. It says nothing about private individuals. If I don't let you finish saying what you want, I may be a jerk, but I'm not violating your first amendment rights - they don't apply to me.
And even that's not absolute. I'm not allowed to make any type of speech I want. I can't issue death threats, for example. I can't engage in slander or defamation of character... How exactly is a university, even a state-owned one, that limits what a professor can say an abridgement of his right of free speech? What you're basically saying is that the professor can say whatever the hell he wants. That's just utter nonsense. He most definitely cannot, and it's perfectly reasonable, and yes constitutional for the university to require that he keep his lectures to the subject matter for which he was hired.
You can also look at it another way. He was hired by a state-run university to teach, what, psychology, or whatever the subject matter was. If he gets up in front of the class and talks about anything BUT psychology, guess what? He's really in violation of his contract. He does NOT have carte blanche to spew whatever he wants in the classroom.
So, we're supposed to entertain every crack-pot theory that comes down the pike? The pentagon is supposed to drop everything to address every conspiracy theory that crops up? And if they tried to address every one out there, they would be dropping everything else... because I've heard a lot of them.
No one can say whatever one wants anytime and anywhere one wants. (Well he can, but he's not immune to the consquences.) If you don't believe me, shout "fire" in a crouded theatre. See how quickly they slap handcuffs on you, or how sympathetic the judge and jury is to you. Freedom has some bounds. You have every right to speak your mind, but not necessarily at someone else's expense (ie. use their property, their money, ... etc without their consent). If you are paid to do a job and your speech disrupts the job or the employer, just see where it lands you. Probably not jail, but the unemployment line??? maybe.
Well another Republican thought he had the right to limit the First Amendment, because of public money being involed.
Guess what he was wrong too!!!!
About the Brooklyn Musuem
Any reason why you guys can't show the 757 plane parts?
No, we were in the right about the Brooklyn museum... just because they decided to use tax dollars to produce that filth doesn't make any of what you're saying justified. And as for the 757 plane parts, is it just possible, maybe, that they were, oh, I don't know, incinerated on impact. A plane flew out of Dulles into the pentagon - you know how close Dulles is to the pentagon? It's REAL close. Which means that sucker was FULL of fuel. It came in at several hundred miles per hour and incinerated pretty much on impact.
Plus I don't understand this reasoning. If I CAN'T produce something that doesn't exist, it proves your theory? Please explain that one.
No, it's not. And since leftists nearly always shun any link to a site that they disagree with, I'm going to link you to one of the most conspiracy-loving, Bush-hating moonbat sites around, whatreallyhappened.com. Even they are forced by overwhelming evidence to admit that the "no plane hit the Pentagon" theorists are kooks! Of course, their own theory is equally ridiculous. They believe that the conspiracy theories are actually being made by government shills so that later a whole bunch of evidence will be released thereby further discrediting the left. At any rate, the pictures of clearly identifiable airplane wreckage is enough to make the page at least somewhat valuable.
Also, here is a video showing a reconstruction of flight 77's final moments, which matched perfectly with eyewitness descriptions and explains all the widely spaced light-poles that were ripped out of the ground (something no missile would have done). The video also contains plenty of stills showing aircraft wreckage.
Oh yeah, did I mention witnesses? Statements from dozens, with proper source citing, from all walks of life and many from miles away. They all saw a plane go down.
Finally, a page to wrap it all up.
Any more babble out there?
Freedom of Speech comes with responsibility for what you say. I can say anything I want. My boss can fire me for saying certain things. I exercise my rights with the knowledge that there can be repercussions to what I say. What part of that don't you understand?
Liberals always want their freedoms without those pesky responsibilities that go with them.
The federal court didn't see that way.
"That action resulted in a lawsuit by the Museum citing First Amendment. The Museum won in federal court."
How about you put a call out to FBI spokesman Chris Murray and we can put and end to this once and for all.
FBI spokesman Chris Murray told the French paper Liberation that "The pieces of the plane are stocked in a warehouse and they are marked with the serial numbers of flight 77." If that is the case, then when will this warehouse be opened for international and domestic verification by independent observers? And will there be a bona-fide evidential chain of custody?
Why does it need to be? There are only a handful of people out there that don't believe the plane hit, and they're all insignificant. No offense.
I said we were IN the right in that argument. What the judges found, well that goes to the evidence that many judges appear to be smoking crack. That's a joke, people... just to be clear.
As to your second point - that's the problem. There is NEVER enough evidence to counter claims made by conspiracy theorists. If the government were to do exactly that and show that there is no validity to the claims, then what? You get an escalation. I hear it all the time. Medved devotes shows to conspiracy theory advocates (when the moon is full), and no matter how many pieces of evidence Medved throws out there, actual documented evidence, you NEVER hear a concession on the part of the conspiracy theorist. They either provide some whacked out piece of literature, from some crack-pot, as backing up their claim, or they'll change the subject, or (my personal favorite) they accuse Medved as being part of the cover-up. Sometimes they throw in the fact that he's Jewish in the mix...
Amazing, someone asks for pictures of the wreckage, they are provided several links(I only went to the last one, which was more than enough for me), the last one I know had pictures and now we need to showcase all the wreckage to International and Domestic independents for verification. WOW!! Somehoew I think even if that happened you would accuse the Gov't of paying off those observers to say they were the pieces of plane and still not believe!
Sorry jpl, I did'nt read your last post that basically says the same as mine.
I can be rich by writting a book about how 3 presdients who plotted to take over the USA by making 9/11 happen(a sucker born everyday)
I did not vote for the incumbent president but the notion that he, his father, and the opposition party president in between conspired to kill all those people so that they could pursue some sort of agenda strikes me as ludicrous charge. The burden of proof is on them to prove something this bizarre and most of the "proof" presented is pure poppycock. I have even read conspiracy theorists that tell me that a plane could not hit the pentagon that AF jets would scramble before one got close----do they have any idea where the Pentagon is?
Ther were plenty of eyewitnesses. Local residents, prople on the jogging path etc. Or are they in on the conspiracy too? It seems far more likely that the conspiracy theories are just plain wrong.
Ther WAS debris on the pentagon lawn no matter what the conspiracy buffs say and the debris in PA was s cattered overa fairly big area. Some people are gullible enough to swallow these theotries whole.