0
Kennedy

UC-Boulder Professor's Thoughts On 9/11

Recommended Posts

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16812
Quote

CU Professor Compares 9/11 Victims to Nazis

A University of Colorado professor who compared the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center to Nazis has ignited protests on a college campus where he's been invited to speak.

Ward Churchill, an expert on indigenous issues and chairman of the ethnic studies program at the CU-Boulder, will take part in a panel discussion Feb. 3 at Hamilton College.

Administrators defended Churchill's appearance but admitted his views are considered "repugnant and disparaging" by many people.

"Hamilton, like any institution committed to the free exchange of ideas, invites to its campus people of diverse opinions, often controversial," the school said in a statement issued by college spokesman Michael DeBraggio.

On Thursday, CU Interim Chancellor Phil Distefano issued a statement that said:

"I wish to make it clear that Professor Ward Churchill's views of the events of 9/11 are his own and do not represent the views of University of Colorado faculty, staff, students, administration or Regents. While I may personally find his views offensive, I also must support his right as an American citizen to hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution."

In a treatise titled, "Some People Push Back," written after the attacks, Churchill asserted the 3,000 people killed at the World Trade Center worked for "the mighty engine of profit" but chose to ignore their role.

"True enough, they were civilians of a sort," he wrote. "But innocent? Gimme a break."

Churchill went on to describe the World Trade Center victims as "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolph Eichmann, who carried out Hitler's plan to exterminate Europe's Jews during World War II.

The invitation to Churchill has split the campus of 1,700 students, as well as the faculty.

Art history professor Steven Goldberg said it was "morally outrageous" to bring Churchill to campus. History professor Robert Paquette called it "an act of utter irresponsibility."

Jessica Miraglia, 19, a sophomore from Reading, Pa., created a poster that read: "You don't have to agree with them in order to learn from them."

Sophomore Matt Coppo, 21, lost his father, Joseph Coppo Jr., in the World Trade Center attacks, and was angered over the invitation to Churchill.

"Knowing that I'm paying for a person to disrespect my father, it doesn't go over too well in my mind," Coppo said.


witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Speaker%20Protest
Quote

Families want college to cancel speaker

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Families of victims of the World Trade Center attacks want an upstate New York college to cancel the speaking appearance of a professor who has compared the victims to Nazis and said they got what they deserved.

"A university is ... a marketplace of ideas founded on legitimacy, not on vile characterizations of victims as a means of engaging in cheap self-promotion," said Elliott Scheinberg, whose wife Angela died in the attacks.

The families are angry that Hamilton College invited Ward Churchill to speak on campus next month as part of a panel discussion.

Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Churchill wrote an essay that hailed the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America. He said the World Trade Center victims deserved to die because they were a willing part of "the mighty engine of profit."

"True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break," Churchill wrote.

Churchill went on to describe the victims as "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Adolf Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.

Hamilton College spokesman Michael DeBraggio said Friday the school has received a "significant" number of e-mails, letters and telephone calls from angry families. But the school has no plans to withdraw its invitation to Churchill, an expert on indigenous issues and chairman of the ethnic studies program at the University of Colorado in Boulder, DeBraggio said.

DeBraggio said administrators "sympathize" with the families and agree that Churchill's views are "repugnant and disparaging" to many people. He repeated, however, that the school is committed to the free exchange of ideas and diverse opinions and believes it is an appropriate part of the liberal arts education process.

In Colorado, where Churchill also has come under renewed criticism, university officials said his views don't represent the opinions of anyone affiliated with the university but that he had a right to express them. On Thursday, two Colorado congressmen called on Churchill to apologize.

Hamilton College is a 1,750-student liberal arts school in Clinton, 40 miles east of Syracuse.


witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-bc-ny--speakerprotest0128jan28,0,3081633.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
Quote

Families want college to cancel speaker


SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Families of victims of the World Trade Center attacks want an upstate New York college to cancel the speaking appearance of a controversial professor who has compared the victims to Nazis and said they got what they deserved.

"This is not free speech. Free speech requires an element of responsibility," Cynthia Brennan said in a protest letter she sent to Hamilton College trustees upon learning the school had invited Indian activist Ward Churchill to speak on campus as part of a Feb. 3 panel discussion titled "The Limits of Dissent."

Brennan's brother-in-law, Joseph Coppo, was killed in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Coppo's son Matthew _ Brennan's nephew _ is one of the 1,750 students who attend the small liberal arts college in Clinton, 40 miles east of Syracuse.

"A university is ... a marketplace of ideas founded on legitimacy, not on vile characterizations of victims as a means of engaging in cheap self-promotion," said Elliott Scheinberg, whose wife Angela died in the attacks. He also protested to the school.

Thomas J. Meehan of Carteret, N.J., who lost his 26-year-old daughter in the attacks, said Churchill uses "dangerous" words that "bring out the evil in mankind."

"By his own words, he exceeds the `Limits of Dissent,"' Meehan wrote in a letter to college officials.

Hamilton College spokesman Michael DeBraggio said Friday the school has received a "significant" number of e-mails, letters and telephone calls from angry families but said no one was counting them.

The school has no plans to withdraw its invitation to Churchill, an expert on indigenous issues and chairman of the ethnic studies program at the University of Colorado in Boulder, DeBraggio said.

DeBraggio said administrators "sympathize" with the families and agree that Churchill's views are "repugnant and disparaging" to many people. He repeated, however, that the school is committed to the free exchange of ideas and diverse opinions and believes it is an appropriate part of the liberal arts education process.

Meanwhile, Hamilton College President Joan Hinde Stewart has appointed a panel of five faculty members to review the Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society and Culture, which is sponsoring the panel. In December, Kirkland Project coordinator Nancy Rabinowitz created more controversy by inviting 1960s Weather Underground radical Susan Rosenberg to campus to teach a short writing course. Rosenberg withdrew following weeks of protests and debate.

Asked if the protest over Churchill's appearance prompted the review, DeBraggio responded: "The program has had the same director for eight years. She is going on sabbatical next year. It was good timing."

The panel will make its recommendations by the end of May, he said.

In Colorado, where Churchill also has come under renewed criticism, Colorado University officials said his views don't represent the opinions of anyone affiliated with the university but that he had a right to express them. On Thursday, two Colorado congressmen called on Churchill to apologize.

Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Churchill wrote an essay, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," that hailed the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America.

He said the World Trade Center victims deserved to die because they were a willing part of "the mighty engine of profit."

"True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break," Churchill wrote.

Churchill went on to describe the World Trade Center victims as "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's plan to exterminate Europe's Jews during World War II.


witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After reading the speech, I would wonder if the speaker has any access to the media.

According to the writer, the US is responsible for the well-being of Iraqi children and doesn't make any reference to all the other participants involved.

There was plenty of money to take care of the Iraqi populace.
The billions that SH paid French engineers to design/build "palaces"?
The billions that SH and the UN representatives, and bankers siphoned off into private accounts.

Maybe it's just me, but a billion dollars goes a long way to helping.

His reference to "the chickens have come home to roost" is something that anyone could apply to anything. It is just a glib phrase.

I truly resent his implication that the victims of the WTC attacks deserved to die because they somehow provoked it.

Unsupported, inflammatory comments usually come from one of two sources. Paid speaking engagements or totally clueless individuals. You can be a college professor and still be an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was also covered on 'The O'Reilly Factor'. Since I don't know the man personally, I certainly will not pass judgement. However, his comments are repugnant. I agree we should not screw with the 1st Ammendment. Freedom of speech is essential, but so is Freedom to shut the fuck up! When you have opinions that could cause inconceivable pain to thousands of families and does no good to society as a whole...that is the time to keep your opinions to yourself.

Freedom of Speech does not mean we have to voice everything that pops into our heads.

"If you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all."

Chris



_________________________________________
Chris






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

. However, his comments are repugnant. I agree we should not screw with the 1st Ammendment. Freedom of speech is essential, but so is Freedom to shut the fuck up!

It's also the Freedom to get your ass kicked if you piss off that many people by being such a total asshat. He's such a worm, hiding in his smug little ivory tower. He likes to attack business and commerce as "evil" when those are the very entities that put food on his table, clothes on his back, etc. etc. etc.

I think he likes the attention and should get his ass kicked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read as much as I could stomach of his essay...

I am left with one question: I thought 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. What does this "professor" know that I don't?

Ciels-
Michele


~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and freedom of speech does not require a college to provide the invitation....

It's the most objectionable opinions that the First Amendment protects. The guy has a right to speak his mind. Nobody's forced to go hear him, though. I wonder what possessed this college to invite him to speak?

Quote



Freedom of Speech does not mean we have to voice everything that pops into our heads.

"If you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all."

Chris


--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a press Release By Ward Churchill:

Press Release - Ward Churchill
January 31, 2005

In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.


* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.


* I am not a “defender”of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people “should” engage in armed attacks on the United States , but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.”


* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.”


* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that “we” had decided it was “worth the cost.” I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.


* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as “Nazis.” What I said was that the “technocrats of empire” working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of “little Eichmanns.” Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.


* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center . Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad , this placement of an element of the American “command and control infrastructure” in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a “legitimate” target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to “collateral damage.” If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these “standards” when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.


* It should be emphasized that I applied the “little Eichmanns” characterization only to those described as “technicians.” Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.


* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the “Good Germans” of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.


* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens , which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.


These are the views of Ward Churchill, not the University of Colorado .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just saw an interview of the dear professor and his lawyer on the O'Reilly Factor. Sounds to me, at this point in time, the idiot is doing damage control. He realized that his bread and butter of traveling from university to university is being axed because he is now well-known for his deplorable beliefs. No offense, but this guy is a complete weirdo...I don't understand why anyone would give the wretch the time of day other than to get a good laugh out of his idiocy.:S

I do believe he has the right to say whatever he wishes, and I also have the right to laugh my ass off and be disgusted by his lack of anything in the form of intelligent thought.

~R+R:)...
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, I tried to read the entire essay, but got only halfway through before I reached the point I couldn't take any more of the obnoxious, overly wordy thing.

The sad thing is, he has a point, but it gets lost in the the in-your-face, irritating style. Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria is far better at explaining the other sides point-of-view.

WARNING: Here comes the part that is sure to raise ire.

Why is it that the American sheeple like to crow about their freedoms, (including the freedom of speech), but then as soon as someone says something they don't like, they start demanding that the offender's career should be ruined? A professor expresses his opinion, and now we have the governor of CO demanding his firing.

So if freedom of speech does not apply to professors, then to whom does it apply? Is it only for blue-collar workers? It seems like a couple times a year there is a furor over something a high-profile person says. Sometimes a Hollywood celebrity, a professional athlete, or business executive. Now if a construction worker was interviewed, and said something offensive about some group of people, would people be demanding he lose his job operating heavy machinery?

I can see part of Churchill's argument, but other parts, such as the assertion the WTC was a military target, are BS in my opinion. But I will defend his right to say it.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So if freedom of speech does not apply to professors, then to whom does it apply?



Specifically NOT to college instructors, at least when they are in teaching mode.

Freedom of speech should apply to everyone, but this clown is preaching some fairly extreme and hurtful views to our kids. That's not speech, it's indoctrination.

That's where the issue is: he's teaching a bunch of freak personal ideology to college kids, and therefore should be fired for incompetence. If he were teaching any other extreme view, that we should nuke all the Muslims or whatever, then he would deserve firing just the same.

In fact, college professors should just keep their personal political views to themselves, period.


. . =(_8^(1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Freedom of speech should apply to everyone, but this clown is preaching some fairly extreme and hurtful views to our kids. That's not speech, it's indoctrination.



I always understood that a major reason free speech is so valuable is that it allows individuals to decide for themselves which ideas are extreme or hurtful.

Once restrictions on free speech are allowed, someone else does your thinking for you.
That's far scarier to me than anything I read in his article or his follow up rebuttal.

Quote


That's where the issue is: he's teaching a bunch of freak personal ideology to college kids, and therefore should be fired for incompetence. If he were teaching any other extreme view, that we should nuke all the Muslims or whatever, then he would deserve firing just the same.



1) College students are not kids, they are adults. As such, they are assumed to be generally capable of critical and independent thought.

2) His opinions are clearly unpalatable to many, but nothing I read incites or condones violence, and therefore is not at all comparable to advocating nuking all Muslims.

Quote


In fact, college professors should just keep their personal political views to themselves, period.



That'd make teaching subjects such as oh, I don't know...political science, history, ethnic studies, sociology, geography, and so on, pretty damned difficult.

You're certainly welcome to disagree, (free speech!), but I for one, am glad Einstein wasn't prohibited from commenting on politics.
-Josh
If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Freedom of speech should apply to everyone, but this clown is preaching some fairly extreme and hurtful views to our kids. That's not speech, it's indoctrination.



They're not kids anymore. By the time we're in college we're likely at least 18 and hopefully able to think for ourselves.

Quote

In fact, college professors should just keep their personal political views to themselves, period.



Anyone else you'd like to add to that list?

-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So if freedom of speech does not apply to professors, then to whom does it apply?



Specifically NOT to college instructors, at least when they are in teaching mode.

Freedom of speech should apply to everyone, but this clown is preaching some fairly extreme and hurtful views to our kids. That's not speech, it's indoctrination.



High school teenagers are skeptical as hell of everything adults tell them. It's hard to believe they become blindly receptive as they get older.

Also,we know he wrote that article, but did he even use that as classroom material? I haven't heard that he did.

Quote


In fact, college professors should just keep their personal political views to themselves, period.



And you just made my point. Thank you.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I always understood that a major reason free speech is so valuable is that it allows individuals to decide for themselves which ideas are extreme or hurtful.

Once restrictions on free speech are allowed, someone else does your thinking for you.
That's far scarier to me than anything I read in his article or his follow up rebuttal.



Again, I don't see this as a free speech issue. It is an issue of incompetent teachers being allowed to function in a public school.


Quote

1) College students are not kids, they are adults. As such, they are assumed to be generally capable of critical and independent thought.



I think of most of them as kids, but that's not overly relevant. I don't want public school teachers purveying hateful politics to anyone.


Quote

2) His opinions are clearly unpalatable to many, but nothing I read incites or condones violence, and therefore is not at all comparable to advocating nuking all Muslims.



Churchill legitimizes the attack on the WTC in a most hurtful way, and that brought a lot of pain to a lot of people. He wasn't even sensitive about it, well at least not 'till his job got put on the line. Not that he shouldn't be allowed to have his opinions mind you -- I just don't like seeing him teach on a public college campus. I hope they fire him; he's an embarrassment to the school and higher education in general.


Quote

Quote

In fact, college professors should just keep their personal political views to themselves, period.



That'd make teaching subjects such as oh, I don't know...political science, history, ethnic studies, sociology, geography, and so on, pretty damned difficult.



Hogwash. I am taking an advanced class in the history of western religion right now. It is extremely well taught, and I've learned a lot so far. But to the advantage of myself and the class, the Professor keeps his personal views out of it.


. . =(_8^(1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In fact, college professors should just keep their personal political views to themselves, period.



And you just made my point. Thank you.



I meant my statement in the context of publically funded teachers when they are teaching. If that still makes your point, then good for you.


. . =(_8^(1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Why is it that the American sheeple like to crow about their freedoms, (including the freedom of speech), but then as soon as someone says something they don't like, they start demanding that the offender's career should be ruined? A professor expresses his opinion, and now we have the governor of CO demanding his firing.



First off, I don't appreciate being called "sheeple."

Second, I never said he should be censored by the government. I was simply using my first amendment rights to point out what an asshat this guy is. Also, I support any college which wants to distance itself from such offensive rantings and ravings.

Why do some people seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences of that speech?

You can say anything you want, but don't expect to walk away smelling like roses after flinging shit like that.

Quote

I will defend his right to say it.



I do as well, but that doesn't mean I have to support him for doing it.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=7&u=/ap/20050206/ap_on_re_us/speaker_protest
Quote

Professor Refuses Apology for 9/11 Essay

DENVER - A professor who likened World Trade Center victims to a notorious Nazi refused to apologize but said his treatise was a "gut response" to the terrorist attacks.

"I don't believe I owe an apology," Ward Churchill said Friday on CNN's "Paula Zahn Now" program — his first public comments since the University of Colorado began a review that could lead to his dismissal.

Meanwhile, Wheaton College in Norton, Mass., and Eastern Washington University canceled plans for Churchill to speak on campus, citing public safety concerns. Stephen Jordan, president of Eastern Washington University, declined Friday to say whether specific threats had been made.

Churchill defended the essay in which he compared those killed in the Sept. 11 attack to "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi plans to exterminate European Jews. He said the victims were akin to U.S. military operations' collateral damage — or innocent civilians mistakenly killed by soldiers.

"I don't know if the people of 9-11 specifically wanted to kill everybody that was killed," he told Zahn. "It was just worth it to them in order to do whatever it was they decided it was necessary to do that bystanders be killed. And that essentially is the same mentality, the same rubric."

In an interview published Saturday in the Rocky Mountain News, Churchill added, "This was a gut response opinion speech written in about four hours. It's not completely reasoned and thought through."

Churchill said his speech had been misinterpreted. "I never called for the deaths of millions of Americans," he said.

Early editions of the Sunday Denver Post reported Churchill gave another magazine interview in which he was asked about the effectiveness of protests of U.S. policies and the Iraq (news - web sites) war, and responded: "One of the things I've suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary."

The interview prompted Gov. Bill Owens to renew his call for Churchill's firing.

"It's amazing that the more we look at Ward Churchill, the more outrageous, treasonous statements we hear from Churchill," Owens said.

The furor over Churchill's essay erupted last month after he was invited to speak at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. The speech was later canceled.

Churchill, who recently resigned as chairman of the ethnic studies department but remains a tenured professor, said he would sue if he were dismissed.


witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


First off, I don't appreciate being called "sheeple."

Second, I never said he should be censored by the government. I was simply using my first amendment rights to point out what an asshat this guy is.



I wasn't making any comment directed at you, or anything you said. In fact, the postings you had made at the time I responded were verbatim quotes from news stories and essays, and you hadn't added any of your own comments.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0