Jump to content

Home

Simple overreacting or Liberal Targetting of Free Speech


GarfieldJL
 Share

Recommended Posts

I find the irony of this thread being created by the same person who cried foul at every news article about a teacher that was vocally in support of Obama during the election to be quite delightful

 

They were doing it in the classroom, I don't care if they support someone outside the classroom, but if they are actively supporting Obama in the classroom, that is unethical because they are in a position of authority, I would say the same thing if they had been actively supporting McCain in the classroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So you're in favor of suspending free speech in the classroom when it is appropriate? For example, when the teacher feels that the safety of herself and others might possibly be at risk?

 

The idea that she felt others were at risk is a load of garbage, unless she thinks anyone whom owns a gun as a sadistic killer.

 

 

A teacher is supposed to teach students how to think for themselves not indoctrinate students to support a particular political party or candidate. That's abusing their position of authority, it's the same reason that if a teacher has inappropriate relations with a student, it should be in my view be considered statutory rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does calling the police over a perceived legitimate safety concern = inhibiting free speech?

 

What would have happen had he actually been a risk to other students safety and she not had done everything possible to prevent it? Personally I believe it is better to error on the side of caution when it comes to people life, but that may just be my bleeding heart coming out again.

 

How do you know for a fact that she did not perceive his statement as a threat? Are you a mind reader or are you the teacher in question? Because those are the only logical reasons (I can think of) you could assert you claim as a fact. Have you ever considered giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

 

How was the student’s right to free speech prohibited? He had to answer some questions to the police for security reasons, but that is a fact of the dangers of the world we live in and not a free speech issue.

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, True_Avery stop distorting the issue, all the kid said was that he believed if students had been allowed to carry concealed firearms the number of fatalities at some of these school shootings would be significantly less. That isn't the same as what you're saying it is, or are you saying people are criminals for owning a firearm or being against gun-control?

I'm not distorting anything.

 

He was an idiot to bring a pro-gun concealment project to school because of the tension that subject brings along. Its common sense that if you advocate guns on a school campus that the staff is going to look twice.

 

He was allowed to present, but the police looked into it to make sure it wasn't an issue.

 

This has nothing to do if he -was- going to do anything, but a precaution. The same precaution that would be taken if he had, say, brought in a pro pedophilia powerpoint into class.

 

Social laws. You have no freedom of speech, so stop trying to advocate it especially when you are in support of keeping teacher's mouth's shut about certain issues.

 

They were doing it in the classroom, I don't care if they support someone outside the classroom, but if they are actively supporting Obama in the classroom, that is unethical because they are in a position of authority, I would say the same thing if they had been actively supporting McCain in the classroom.

So, you are a supporter of limited free speech?

 

This was a college level course, not some random location. He didn't have to seek them out. He wasn't discussing a desire to commit illegal acts, but discussing something that he feels should be legal.

The location, situation, and people are all very relevant to this.

 

He was at a school, presenting a project on pro-gun concealment in schools, on a project about school shootings.

 

It guarantees nothing, but the staff and police felt it was relevant enough to ask him a few question.

 

Why? Because, again, there is some **** you don't say. It should be common sense that advocating guns for students and teachers on a project about school shootings would catch someone's eye.

 

Dos it make it right? Again, I do not know.

 

What I can say is that he is lucky it was a college class, because I'd take a wild guess that a high school or middle school would be much less tolerant of his project.

Edited by True_Avery
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite frankly I would suggest you take your own advice.

Um, I already do. Nothing I said was blatantly pulled out of thin air. Thanks anyway :)

 

As Tommycat pointed out we can infer that the teacher is a liberal.

I already afforded you this point, but thanks.

 

The fact she called the cops also points out she felt threatened by the fact that the student had a viewpoint that differed with hers.

 

It does nothing of the sort. Just because she called the cops does not indicate in the slightest that she felt threatened by his viewpoint. And, unless you are this female teacher, I'd ask that you stop putting words in her mouth since you obviously do not know what she was thinking.

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does calling the police over a perceived legitimate safety concern = inhibiting free speech?
Agreed. There have been some similar "precautionary" phone calls from teachers who overreacted here too in Canada (like about a kid making a drawing of a video game scene with guns) but they were done in good faith and had nothing to do with these teachers trying to impose their viewpoints but rather because they were having safety concerns...some people, whether liberal or conservative, tend to freak out easily (and they were also likely concerned about having the finger - and the lawsuits - pointed at them for not acting if something would have happened). I don't see how this is a liberal vs conservative issue. Seems more like a simple lack of judgment by a few individuals (but then, the article does not really mentions how the subject was presented by the student either).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. There have been some similar "precautionary" phone calls from teachers who overreacted here too in Canada (like about a kid making a drawing of a video game scene with guns) but they were done in good faith and had nothing to do with these teachers trying to impose their viewpoints but rather because they were having safety concerns...some people, whether liberal or conservative, tend to freak out easily (and they were also likely concerned about having the finger - and the lawsuits - pointed at them for not acting if something would have happened).

 

However, in this case it appears even the police aren't even considering there to be a threat and the school has agreed it was overreacting on the teacher's part.

 

I don't see how this is a liberal vs conservative issue. Seems more like a simple lack of judgment by a few individuals (but then, the article does not really mentions how the subject was presented by the student either).

 

It was a persuasive speech or paper arguing that if the students in the Virginia Tech incident had been carrying concealed firearms the Virginia Tech shooter wouldn't have been able to kill as many people because the shooter would have been filled full of lead. The student was arguing that students and teachers whom could pass the requirements for a conceal and carry permit be allowed to carry firearms on campus. That's it, he was not threatening anyone.

 

Um, I already do. Nothing I said was blatantly pulled out of thin air.

 

In a pig's eye!

 

It does nothing of the sort. Just because she called the cops does not indicate in the slightest that she felt threatened by his viewpoint. And, unless you are this female teacher, I'd ask that you stop putting words in her mouth since you obviously do not know what she was thinking.

 

Fact is she fits the classic left-wing ideologue profile where they view anyone that disagrees with them as evil and should be silenced.

 

He was an idiot to bring a pro-gun concealment project to school because of the tension that subject brings along. Its common sense that if you advocate guns on a school campus that the staff is going to look twice.

 

Depends, at the university I go to, quite a few instructors actually own firearms. The teacher has gotten in trouble in this case already and there sounds like there will be a lawsuit, further it sounds highly likely that the student has an ironclad case.

 

He was allowed to present, but the police looked into it to make sure it wasn't an issue.

 

This has nothing to do if he -was- going to do anything, but a precaution.

 

Explains why there is such an uproar and the fact the teacher is in trouble.

 

The same precaution that would be taken if he had, say, brought in a pro pedophilia powerpoint into class.

 

So you're saying that someone that advocates something legitimate that some states allow guns to be carried in other areas, is the same as something that is absolutely immoral. It wouldn't surprise me if you would want to do away with the Keystone amendment and consider everyone that owns a gun to be a criminal based on your comments.

 

Social laws. You have no freedom of speech, so stop trying to advocate it especially when you are in support of keeping teacher's mouth's shut about certain issues.

 

I'm against them using their position to indoctrinate students into a particular political party. That's a difference from teaching them to think for themselves.

 

So, you are a supporter of limited free speech?

 

No, I'm against the Nazi style of indoctrination. Teachers are in a position of authority, and indoctrinating students into a political party using their position in the classroom is abusing their position.

 

The location, situation, and people are all very relevant to this.

 

He was at a school, presenting a project on pro-gun concealment in schools, on a project about school shootings.

 

It guarantees nothing, but the staff and police felt it was relevant enough to ask him a few question.

 

No, the teacher called 911 without any input from school officials and the cops showed up at the student's house, they then discovered the teacher's call had no basis, and the school thought it was out of line and overreacting on her part. Don't try to misrepresent the facts of the case, the teacher misrepresented the situation to the police.

 

This is being considered an assault on free-speech, he never made any threats to anyone according to the article.

 

What I can say is that he is lucky it was a college class, because I'd take a wild guess that a high school or middle school would be much less tolerant of his project.

 

Actually it sounds like the teacher is in trouble because it looks like she's gonna end up in court and potentially the university too for violating the first amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, in this case it appears even the police aren't even considering there to be a threat and the school has agreed it was overreacting on the teacher's part.
Seems like we are saying the same thing here: an individual overreacting. Personal fears aren't objective and vary with each individual. The teacher might have had concerns due to her personal perception of the event but it was later found that it was unjustified and that she misjudged the situation. Doesn't mean that the teacher was attempting to limit the student's freedom of speech or to cause harm to the student. The way this incident has been turned into a liberal targeting free speech issue by some media seems like overreaction as well to me :p There is nothing in the article that really supports that the teacher is an intolerant person...that her personal fears were not justified yes but I wouldn't read much more into it.

 

It was a persuasive speech or paper arguing that if the students in the Virginia Tech incident had been carrying concealed firearms the Virginia Tech shooter wouldn't have been able to kill as many people because the shooter would have been filled full of lead. The student was arguing that students and teachers whom could pass the requirements for a conceal and carry permit be allowed to carry firearms on campus. That's it, he was not threatening anyone.
Yes, we have the subject but not the manner in which it was presented....perhaps there was something in the way the student made his presentation that made the teacher react in such a way, wrongly or not.

 

classic left-wing ideologue profile where they view anyone that disagrees with them as evil and should be silenced
Huh? Is that the "classic left-wing ideologue profile" as presented by the "classic right-wing ideologue profile"? :xp:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The location, situation, and people are all very relevant to this.

 

He was at a school, presenting a project on pro-gun concealment in schools, on a project about school shootings.

 

It guarantees nothing, but the staff and police felt it was relevant enough to ask him a few question.

 

Why? Because, again, there is some **** you don't say. It should be common sense that advocating guns for students and teachers on a project about school shootings would catch someone's eye.

 

Dos it make it right? Again, I do not know.

 

What I can say is that he is lucky it was a college class, because I'd take a wild guess that a high school or middle school would be much less tolerant of his project.

 

Location: University

Course: Communication 140

Project: RELEVANT ISSUES in the media

 

That makes recent news a prime target. Unless you want him to be like CNN covering octomom and the toddler killin moms, instead he chose to take something with less fluff. Relevant issues would be issues that affect them. That means that he chose a proper subject. In fact he took a position that several of the people who went to VA Tech also advocated in their interviews to the media.

 

Sorry, but even my lil ole high school in Texas was reasonable enough to allow charged issues. My old drummer WENT TO COLUMBINE and did a report on how the incident could have been made less severe if teachers and students were allowed to carry legally. He didn't get the police called on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends, at the university I go to, quite a few instructors actually own firearms. The teacher has gotten in trouble in this case already and there sounds like there will be a lawsuit, further it sounds highly likely that the student has an ironclad case.

I'm not against firearm ownership. I just think that having guns available to both teachers and all students in a university or high school could lead to accidental shootings, spur of the moments shootings, etc. While a single shooting can be pretty bad, my personal belief is that having more on campus, especially hidden, would just cause more trouble.

 

When some kids get into a fist fight during or after school, I think it would be preferable for them to not have a gun in that particularly heated moment. Just a thought.

 

Explains why there is such an uproar and the fact the teacher is in trouble.

I guess so. Being questioned doesn't seem that bad, and if the court determines the teacher was unjustified in her concern and call then that'll settle the matter.

 

I think the teacher made an OK call, but not the best one. I wont disagree that it was an overreaction to immediately go to the police, but I would have also had something to say if nothing had been done.

 

Police tend to take stuff like this seriously, as does the law. If she screwed up, let it be said out of the judge's mouth.

 

So you're saying that someone that advocates something legitimate that some states allow guns to be carried in other areas, is the same as something that is absolutely immoral. It wouldn't surprise me if you would want to do away with the Keystone amendment and consider everyone that owns a gun to be a criminal based on your comments.

Nah, I'm saying that it isn't surprising that a teacher would take something like this seriously, as would an entire school perhaps. In her position, I would have asked him to go to the councelor or something to discuss the project, as advocating weapon handling and possible use in a situation may have some underlining meaning behind it.

 

The only gun control I really advocate is control over concealed weapons, and control over heavy weaponry. I border at assault rifles. While I would like to own an assault rifle, I also feel in some ways I and other's shouldn't have easy access to buying them. Other than that, feel free to own as many gun as you'd like.

 

The reason I bring something like pedophilia into this isn't for the legal immorality, but the Social Law that someone like that supports. You and others have the right to talk, advocate, etc pedophilia but the social implications of doing such are heavy in many parts of the world. It can also be argued that a "I think everyone on campus should have a gun so we can shoot them before they shoot us" attitude could lean on the side of potential danger or immorality.

 

Heavy handed comments that don't so much have a basis in US law, but could potentially get your teacher to call the counselor on you or, in an extreme case, call the police.

 

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be said, but that said there is a time and a place for everything.

 

I'm against them using their position to indoctrinate students into a particular political party. That's a difference from teaching them to think for themselves.

Agreed, but limiting the ability of someone to express their opinion is essentially limiting freedom of speech.

 

The same, effectively, could be said about religion. Do parents push their religious or political agenda on their children at all? If they do, aren't they just like the teacher "indoctrinating" his/her students?

 

Thinking for yourself is a hard thing to place, because don't we all basically think off of what happens around us? Don't events in our everyday life indoctrinate us in some way?

 

Then the question arises: Are you speaking of indoctrination, or are you simply playing down the teacher's ability to say such things because you would prefer them to be influenced to your side, away from the liberal mindset?

 

I'm not calling you on anything, just trying to figure out the line of logic.

 

No, I'm against the Nazi style of indoctrination. Teachers are in a position of authority, and indoctrinating students into a political party using their position in the classroom is abusing their position.

Yes, but the same thing could be said about parents, TV, politicians, ALL media, political parties, debate forums, you, me, etc.

 

There are plenty of people in seats of authority trying to get you to believe what they want you to believe. MSNBC wants you to hate Fox News. Fox News wants you to hate the liberals. Pepsi wants you to buy more Pepsi. Parents want their kids to share their religion.

 

Its something you can't avoid as long as there is someone in some perceived level of authority above you.

 

So, by quelling the voices of said authority, you are still effectively trying to limit their freedom of speech. Their ability to say what they want, when they want, how they want. While perceived authority may have influence, those that use that to their advantage or disadvantage are still American Citizens.

 

No, the teacher called 911 without any input from school officials and the cops showed up at the student's house, they then discovered the teacher's call had no basis, and the school thought it was out of line and overreacting on her part. Don't try to misrepresent the facts of the case, the teacher misrepresented the situation to the police.

 

This is being considered an assault on free-speech, he never made any threats to anyone according to the article.

Personally, I have better things to do that work off of assumptions that some journalists make.

 

The police found it suspicious enough to check it our, but if she did in fact blow it our of proportion then the fault is on her shoulders. I'll reserve judgment till the court decides whether she over reacted or not. I'm simply presenting why I think she and others may have reacted in such a way.

 

Actually it sounds like the teacher is in trouble because it looks like she's gonna end up in court and potentially the university too for violating the first amendment.

And I'll await the courts decision on whether she did or not.

 

That makes recent news a prime target. Unless you want him to be like CNN covering octomom and the toddler killin moms, instead he chose to take something with less fluff. Relevant issues would be issues that affect them. That means that he chose a proper subject. In fact he took a position that several of the people who went to VA Tech also advocated in their interviews to the media.

I'm sure many people agreed with him. Charged issues should not be kept in the dark, and neither should this one.

 

But, again, a time and place.

 

Sorry, but even my lil ole high school in Texas was reasonable enough to allow charged issues. My old drummer WENT TO COLUMBINE and did a report on how the incident could have been made less severe if teachers and students were allowed to carry legally. He didn't get the police called on him.

Not saying he shouldn't have the right to. I doubt he got the best looks when possibly telling columbine teachers that if they and others had carried guns all would have been fine. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.

 

That is about as far as my argument can go. I can't reasonably explain a phenomenon that is unreasonable, but can simply state that it doesn't take a genius to realize that talking about guns on a school campus might call some eyes. He just happened to pick the unlucky card in this situation, and got someone to overreact on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a pig's eye!

 

I'm trying really hard not to flame you, perhaps you should do the same.

 

 

Fact is she fits the classic left-wing ideologue profile where they view anyone that disagrees with them as evil and should be silenced.

 

Just because you call it a fact doesn't make it one. She "fits [a] classic profile"? Bull****.

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I think everyone here agrees that the professor's response was overreacting. I think the real question should be whether this overreaction is a symptom of a larger problem as it is not strictly an isolated case. It seems that certain points of view are deemed acceptable by some in academia to silence. It also seems that some people have an irrational fear of legal firearm owners(which I think is a more likely root cause). Perhaps its hoplophobia. a fear of weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I think everyone here agrees that the professor's response was overreacting.[/Quote] Yes, with the benefit of hindsight I can agree with that. It should be pointed out that the professor involved did not have the benefit of looking at the situation after the fact, before making her decision. What is going to happen next time someone perceives a potentially dangerous situation after this professor has been smeared for trying to protect the students of the university by the bias right-wing media? Perhaps next time it will be a legitimate threat that will be overlooked because someone is worried about being labeled "un-American" by FoxNews.

 

I still have not been shown how this student’s rights were repressed. If someone could answer that, I would be eternally grateful. I’ll give you my follow up question in advance just to make your endeavor easier. How is this different than my name being on the watch list? In the name of security I’m considered guilty until proven innocent. In the name of security this student was asked a few questions by the police.

I think the real question should be whether this overreaction is a symptom of a larger problem as it is not strictly an isolated case.[/Quote] We are told to be vigilant, but we are only human and people make mistakes. What if she had not reported it to the proper authorities and the student showed up a few days later and shot up the school, would that still be considered violating the student’s right?

 

She called the police because she perceived there to be a potential problem. Given the recent history of school shootings I believe she error on side of caution. She made a mistake, but I rather she make the mistake she did than for her not to report it and then the school be shot up a few days later by the same student and then listen to her talk about the warning signs that were there with the media. So the kid had to answer a few question, big deal!

It seems that certain points of view are deemed acceptable by some in academia to silence. It also seems that some people have an irrational fear of legal firearm owners(which I think is a more likely root cause). Perhaps its hoplophobia. a fear of weapons.
Irrational fear?

 

The University of Texas - 1966 17 Dead

California State University -1976 7 Dead

Cleveland Elementary School (San Diego, CA) -1979 2 Dead

Parkway South Junior High School – 1983 2 Dead

Cleveland Elementary School (Stockton, CA) -1989 6 Dead

University of Iowa - 1991 6 Dead

Lindhurst High School -1992 4 Dead

Simon’s Rock College of Bard – 1991 2 Dead

Richland High School – 1995 2 Dead

Frontier Junior High – 1996 3 Dead

Pennsylvania State University – 1996 1 Dead

Bethel High School – 1997 2 Dead

Pearl High School – 1997 3 Dead

Heath High School – 1997 3 Dead

Westside Middle School – 1998 5 Dead

Parker Middle School – 1998 1 Dead

Thurston High School – 1998 4 Dead

Columbine High School – 1999 15 Dead

Buell Elementary School – 2000 1 Dead

Santana High School – 2001 2 Dead

Appalachian School of Law – 2002 3 Dead

Red Lion Area Junior High -2004 2 Dead

Case Western Reserve University – 2003 1 Dead

Rocori High School -2003 2 Dead

Fairleign Dickinson University -2004 2 Dead

Red Lake High School – 2005 7 Dead

Campbell County High School – 2005 1 Dead

Essex Elementary School – 2006 2 Dead

Platte Canyon High School – 2006 2 Dead

Weston High School – 2006 1 Dead

Amish School – 2006 6 Dead

Virginia Tech – 2007 33 Dead

Delaware State University – 2007 1 Dead

Success Tech Academy – 2007 1 Dead

Louisiana Technical College – 2008 3 Dead

E.O Green School – 2008 1 Dead

Northern Illinois University – 2008 6 Dead

Central High School – 2008 1 Dead

University of Central Arkansas – 2008 – 2 Dead

 

Yea, completely irrational. :rolleyes:

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying really hard not to flame you, perhaps you should do the same.

 

Hasn't stopped you or others from flaming me before...

 

 

 

Just because you call it a fact doesn't make it one. She "fits [a] classic profile"? Bull****.

 

Do you know the last President whom apparently used the IRS to try to dig up stuff about potential political rivals or people that if something public got out would be a real embarassment and had the IRS out to discredit them.

 

I've got a hint, it wasn't President Bush.

 

@ mimartin

 

In this case the reason she felt threatened argument doesn't fly because of the class this was presented in, as Tommycat pointed out. The class had to do with issues in the media.

 

And that list isn't even close to comprehensive - one of the high schools in my area had a school shooting sometime around 1998.

 

And how many have had stabbings, beatings, etc. you generally don't hear about those though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ mimartin

 

In this case the reason she felt threatened argument doesn't fly because of the class this was presented in, as Tommycat pointed out. The class had to do with issues in the media.

Just because someone pointed it out does not mean that logic is not flawed.

 

Just because the classes is about that subject does not mean the student is incapable of murder.

 

Personally I would not believe a former United States Marine would be capable of shooting a pregnant woman through the abdomen. Even so, Charles Joseph Whitman did just that on August 1, 1966 when he murdered Claire Wilson’s unborn child at the University of Texas.

 

The logic is flawed, nobody can know if she felt it was a ligament threat or not. EXCEPT FOR HER. FoxNews or anyone else saying they know what she was thinking or her motivation simply is not true unless she told them.

 

And how many have had stabbings, beatings, etc. you generally don't hear about those though.
I’m sure there are, but that has nothing to do with my reply to Tommycat’s post about this being an irrational fear of legal firearm owners.

 

And that list isn't even close to comprehensive - one of the high schools in my area had a school shooting sometime around 1998.
I’m sure it isn’t, I only included shootings that involved death and did not expect to find as many as I did. If I left out any, I apologized if it seems I did not give everyone murdered their proper respect. I also only tried to include shooting that involved the student/former student being the shooter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sure it isn’t, I only included shootings that involved death and did not expect to find as many as I did. If I left out any, I apologized if it seems I did not give everyone murdered their proper respect. I also only tried to include shooting that involved the student/former student being the shooter.

 

Oh, that's fine... I know the kid died but I don't think it was ever on the national news or anything, so I didn't expect to see it.

 

I was just pointing out that there was even more evidence backing your point.

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn't back your point at all, because unlike those cases this kid didn't make any threats, and as far as your accusation of stereotyping the teacher and making up the leftwing's habit of blatent intolerance, we see regular examples of blatent intolerance all the time, not from Conservatives, but from Liberals. And I can name quite a few instances that I've seen just in the last few weeks.

 

[Off-topic, red-herring deleted. Please stay on the topic]

Edited by SkinWalker
Off-topic content
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for completely ignoring the point and bringing up an entirely unrelated topic.

 

I'd like you to give me proof showing why the teacher's actions are "liberal", and why your stereotyping is factually correct and not out of personal bias.

 

Otherwise, you are the intolerant one here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for completely ignoring the point and bringing up an entirely unrelated topic.

 

Actually it wasn't unrelated, did you want examples from this web board on in the world at large.

 

I'd like you to give me proof showing why the teacher's actions are "liberal", and why your stereotyping is factually correct and not out of personal bias.

 

Conservatives are generally not anti-gun nor are they usually anti-free speech (barring incidents like blatently advertising troop movements), those are both left-wing positions.

 

If Bush was so anti-free speech like you claimed and out to be a dictator, why did he voluntarily give up power.

 

Otherwise, you are the intolerant one here.

 

No, I've just finally had enough and am calling people out on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it wasn't unrelated, did you want examples from this web board on in the world at large.
Don't mind.

Conservatives are generally not anti-gun
This doesn't gun rights, it involves the security of a child.
nor are they usually anti-free speech (barring incidents like blatently advertising troop movements), those are both left-wing positions.
:rolleyes:

 

I suppose you've never heard of McCarthy. Oh, and your bias is showing.

If Bush was so anti-free speech like you claimed and out to be a dictator, why did he voluntarily give up power.
Nah, that was Nixon, and even he knew that the people wouldn't like him to stay around.
No, I've just finally had enough and am calling people out on it.
So it's okay to completely intolerant and ignorant to "justify" what you perceive as the truth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservatives are generally not anti-gun[/Quote]Neither are a lot of liberals. I own guns and I have a counseled handgun licenses. I was a member of the NRA until they decided personal responsibility had nothing to do with gun ownership.

 

nor are they usually anti-free speech (barring incidents like blatently advertising troop movements), those are both left-wing positions.[/Quote] two words - DIXIE CHICKS.

 

No, I've just finally had enough and am calling people out on it.

In the words of the Dixie Chicks "Your Not Ready to Make Nice?"

 

I’ll spell out my point with the shooting incidents in school since you clearly did not understand it because it is a valued point.

 

It seems that certain points of view are deemed acceptable by some in academia to silence. It also seems that some people have an irrational fear of legal firearm owners(which I think is a more likely root cause). Perhaps its hoplophobia. a fear of weapons.
Tommycat stated this could have to do with an irrational fear of legal firearm owners. I replied in an attempt to show that it was not irrational to have a fear of firearms on campus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't mind.

 

Well the typical flaming or flamebaiting directed towards myself or other conservatives here, claiming that we don't know what we're talking about or other laughable excuses.

 

This doesn't gun rights, it involves the security of a child.:rolleyes:

 

Your statement would only be true if the student had made any threats towards the teacher or other students, which the student did not. The topic was relevent to the course, the only thing the student did was take a viewpoint that the teacher didn't like.

 

I suppose you've never heard of McCarthy.

 

I have heard of him, and I think he went off the deep end on paranoia. Some of the stuff he was talking about was legitimate but he went way overboard in the extreme.

 

Oh, and your bias is showing.

 

No, I just think of McCarthy as a someone with a bad case of paranoia.

 

Nah, that was Nixon, and even he knew that the people wouldn't like him to stay around.

 

Why are you bringing up Nixon?

 

So it's okay to completely intolerant and ignorant to "justify" what you perceive as the truth?

 

Quit trying to pin stuff back on me, generally the flaming and flamebaiting comes from your side, not from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...