Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:g9oha3pk9f3u03dchb805bdkd2ab9lq12i@4ax.com:

On 26 Jul 2007 16:32:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99798078232F8freddybear@216.151.153.46> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1n7ga3lp5m11d4msi909tmld1aasi5e2h8@4ax.com:

On 25 Jul 2007 22:55:17 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9978C16FD44Bfreddybear@216.151.153.34> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:fohfa351ltd1f6am0k48ihv9liev3d4hsl@4ax.com:

On 25 Jul 2007 21:26:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9978B2871FE5Afreddybear@216.151.153.48> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:ukdfa35igoqphpisg36bnb5qo3dai23qm2@4ax.com:

On 25 Jul 2007 20:13:08 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9978A644E5067freddybear@216.151.153.45> wrote:

Lucifer <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1185365759.494780.209160@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 25, 3:11 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

Ward Churchill is

fired.http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN

_

15_ 5642650,00.html

George Galloway is suspended from Parliament for taking money
from Saddam
Hussein.http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22125705-

23109,00.htm

l

Galloway is not a liberal icon, those of us on the liberal
left (as opposed to the hypocritical jump into bed with
conservative muslim left like Galloway's thugs) bloody hate
Galloway

Ah, how quickly the rats desert the sinking ship!

I agree that the inability of Republican rats to see that the
ship is sinking is quite notable, but do you have any evidence
that anyone here ever supported any of those icons?

You're joking, Matt. Yes, they have all had prominent support from
liberal sites, not necessarily "here".

But Galloway in particular got *lots* of support here when he was
blustering and shooting off his mouth.

You are going to have to find me some evidence of that. I did a
google search and found a small number of threads where he was
mentioned, but except for Maff (who I consider a kook) I did not
find support for him.

There is something wrong here, Matt. Google should have threads from
2006 and 2005 with me in them about Galloway, and they do not.

I believe you that they exist, but I can't look at them and judge.

How convenient for you, now you can just demand citations that don't
exist.

Right Fred, I made the posts disappear from Google. I have lots of
power like that.

You sure are fond of those strawmen, Matt.

I am sorry, but I don't see that I can just take your
word for it that the exchange occurred the way you claim it did.

Am I supposed to care?

BTW, this search,
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Galloway+fred+stone, turns up
results. I find people attacking Bush, but not much of defending
Galloway. Perhaps you can find an example.

Just like any other anti-American
***** in the world gets support here. Just like Chavez got
support. And Obama has just jumped the shark with his comments
about genocide. I'm sure you noticed.

I think that his comment is wrong. However, so many
Republicans/conservatives supported the invasion of Iraq, which
was not experiencing an on-going genocide and there is no support
for any meaningful action in Sudan, which is experiencing genocide
or in Congo.

Liberals demanded "multilateral" (aka UN) support after the Iraq
invasion, so Bush went to the UN about Sudan and gave them what they
wanted.

Shrub could have pushed the U.N. much harder.

As hard as, say, he pushed on Iraq? And then what, you'd be calling
him a liar.

No, I did not mean make stuff up to defend a point. I meant using
pressure where necessary to get the job done. Instead he declared it
was genocide and walked away from it.

Pressure? Necessary? How exactly does one "pressure" the UN to *DO IT'S
JOB* when it won't do it? They have passed resolution after toothless
resolution and Sudan simply ignores them and goes on about its genocide.
But you know that.

He could also have given
money to the African forces that were willing to go. And he could
have done this before Iraq.

The "genocide" in Iraq was either when he was our ally or
immediately following Gulf War I, when Bush 41 was president.
Saddam was not engaged in genocide in 2003. And it is not at all
clear that there will be such a thing if we leave. People are
grabbing numbers from the air. The question, though, is will thing
change for the better if we stay. If not, then leaving is the
right thing to do.

There is a consensus of opinion that precipitate withdrawal from
Iraq will result in genocide. Anybody who isn't totally delusional,
that is.

It is easy to get a "consensus" view when you deliberately exclude
those views you disagree with.

That would be the "consensus" about Global Warming.

ROTFLMAO. I wondered if you realized your error. You trumpet consensus
when it suits you and decry it when it does not. In the case of Global
Warming it is a consensus among those with scientific domain
competence.

Except, of course, for those with scientific domain competence who
disagree with you.

In the case of Iraq it is a consensus among people you
already agree with and excluding those that have a different view.

No, Matt, it is a consensus among people with military domain
competence, particularly in the domain of counterinsurgency and Iraq.

Personally I think that at this point
we and the Iraqis are screwed no matter what.

Certainly they are if we let the Democrats have their way.

And quite a few Republicans and a remarkable number of generals.

A remarkable number of generals who aren't in command.

But
what scenario do you propose that does not have this potential
genocide? Make your case.

Been there, done that.

Churchill is a complex case.
His post-9/11 comments were despicable, but I support the right
of people, particularly academics, to say despicable things.
Since he seems to have plagiarized he should be out, but it is
unfortunate that in appearance, at the very least, they went
after him for his political comments rather than his plagiarism.

Churchill is an excellent example of why bad actions, even in a
(possibly) good cause, are wrong. I don't mean his 9/11
comments, which are too emotionally laden to discuss, but his
plagiarism regarding Smith and Native Americans. Plenty of
terrible things were done to Native Americans, but lying about
some of them taints the rest.

Why *particularly* academics? And what about "hate speech"?

Academics particularly because there is a centuries long history
of academics leading the way in though and a centuries long
history of the government attempting to control them.

The government has a legitimate Constitutional interest in
"controlling" the speech of academics when it comes to what they say
in the classroom.

Only in a very narrow range. Speech that is itself illegal (threats
of violence, etc.), sure. Ideas people don't like, not at all.

Creationism.

What about it? I don't think that a college professor should be fired
for espousing a religious view I object to. If he insists on teaching
bad science and is a science teacher then it is a *college* issue, not
a government one. The fight over creationism is not in the colleges,
it is in the public elementary and high schools. That is a very
different issue than what we were discussing.

Is it really?

Churchill's remarks post 9/11 were absolutely protected speech. It
would be very wrong to fire him for making political comments we
disagree with. But that does not make him a liberal icon any more
than defending the right of Nazis to march makes them a liberal
icon.

No, it was the content of his speech that makes him a liberal icon. He
only said the same things that many liberals were saying.

As opposed to Falwell saying it was punishment for tolerating
homosexuality.

So what? I'm not responsible for Jerry Falwell.

Sorry, Fred, but I am someone you call liberal and I
disagree with Churchill's comments and do not see him as an icon. I
know and talk to lots of liberals and have not seen them defend him.
There are kooks in this world from all sides, that does not make those
views mainstream. Falwell and Robertson are far more standard
Republicans than Churchill is a liberal icon.

Falwell and Robertson are kooks

and are thought of as kooks by
mainstream Republicans just as much as by any Democrats.

As for your "hate speech"
it is quite context dependent. Speech can be an assault, but
teachers have a special protection.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me"
apparantly went the way of the Whooping Crane with the liberal
"feelings are everything" generation.

I guess when you are faced with contradictory evidence you have to
ignore it. And take a look at conservatives's attempts to control
speech before you wave this flag. In fact, consider the flag itself
and how conservatives have tried to change the Constitution itself
because they don't like some speech.

You mean flag burning. But there was just a case in California where
some students defaced a flag and were punished by a liberal
university.

Oh, it was a Palestinian flag. But that makes it different, I guess.

Oh, a case. Well, you have me there. One case in SF is far more
impressive than a decade and more of Republican efforts to control
speech. One case is far more impressive than attempts to change the
Constitution.

Since when is setting something on fire "speech"?
When a liberal says so?