The Looniest of the Loony Left

[Calanen]

AURORA, Colo. -- University of Colorado administrators Thursday took the first steps toward a possible dismissal of a professor who likened World Trade Center victims to a notorious Nazi.

Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano ordered a 30-day review of Ward Churchill's speeches and writings to determine if the professor overstepped his boundaries of academic freedom and whether that should be grounds for dismissal.

A raucous university board of regents meeting drew dozens of protesters who back Churchill; at least two were arrested for disrupting the meeting and another was led away in handcuffs.

The regents refused to take public comment at their meeting, prompting an outcry. ''I wish the regents had agreed to take some public comments,'' said law professor Barbara Bintliff.

The furor erupted last month after Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton College in upstate New York. Campus officials discovered an essay by Churchill about Sept. 11.

Among other things, he said those killed in the trade center were ''little Eichmanns,'' a reference to Adolf Eichmann.

]

 

[Steve]

I wouldn't call this guy a loony leftie. I'd just call him ****in' nuts.

 

[gh0st]

at least two were arrested for disrupting the meeting and another was led away in handcuffs.
]

Why do these hypocrites always resort to violence and disruption to get their way?

 

[Edcrab]

Because they're opposing violent disruption! The only way to get their point heard is to force their way into the public eye and agressively flaunt laws designed to protect opinion by coming to physical blows and ranting about indefensible drivel!

If only we lived in horribly opressive dictatorships like some claim... people like him would be executed rather than appeased and given the chance for their power base to flourish. Yes, that's right, I'm likening a Nazi-likener to a Nazi.

 

[kmack]

This guy is just trying to get attention, in a hurtful and inappropriate way. We should just ignore him and maybe he will go away .

 

[Calanen]

My view btw - is that he should not be fired. I know that sounds weird. But I truly do believe that I will defend to the death your right to say something, even if I do not agree with what you say. Yes I think he's a loony left nutjob. And he's not the only one by any stretch - he just went 'too far' - most of the Loony Left are far more clever in their attacks, even if what they say is just as false.

But - I would draw the line at using taxpayer dollars for him to peddle any of this crap. Im not gonna have Federal funds pay for a course on America is Evil and Deserved 911.

 

[The Mullinator]

My view btw - is that he should not be fired. I know that sounds weird. But I truly do believe that I will defend to the death your right to say something, even if I do not agree with what you say. Yes I think he's a loony left nutjob. And he's not the only one by any stretch - he just went 'too far' - most of the Loony Left are far more clever in their attacks, even if what they say is just as false.

But - I would draw the line at using taxpayer dollars for him to peddle any of this crap. Im not gonna have Federal funds pay for a course on America is Evil and Deserved 911.

A university is also a business of sorts, students are its customers and I can tell you I do not want someone like him teaching and influencing me in any way. He should be fired not because of what his beliefs are but what they will do to the university.

 

[Calanen]

Btw - som1 here mentioned the irony of protestors resorting to violence.

In Australia, shortly after 911, a whole heap of loony lefties took to the streets and had a march saying 'Stop the Racist Anti-Muslim War' 'Bush is the real cause of 911!' and similar rubbish. In any event, a guy I know, who is in a wheelchair from polio as a kid (wont say his name, but he is in the Liberal Party in Australia, who are *kind* of like the Republicans, but more Nationalists than religious right wingers) and he is an activist of the Right (and there are very few of those).

In any event, he went along with a small group of people, protesting in support of attacking Afghanistan, in support of the USA, and at the same time as the 'Stop the Racist War' marchers. Now he was pulled out of his wheelchair and beaten by the 'peace protesters'. When he told me I said I was sorry to hear that, and he said 'Its Ok. Made great press coverage. They had zero street cred as peace protesters after they bashed this poor old cripple in front of a group of journalists.'

 

[qckbeam]

The loony left- because there aren't any ****ing wack-jobs on the right.

 

[gh0st]

The loony left- because there aren't any ****ing wack-jobs on the right.

No, the right isnt stupid enough to savagely beat and attack those who oppose them. Must have something to do with those damn morals we have.

 

[Edcrab]

Aargh, the Manhacks are fighting... look at the sparks. Sorry, couldn't resist.

It's not as if accepting the presence of left-wing idiots (not that I'd even call Churchill left-wing, personally) precludes the existence of right-wing idiots.

 

[bliink]

(wont say his name, but he is in the Liberal Party in Australia, who are *kind* of like the Republicans, but more Nationalists than religious right wingers)

hah... the libs are hardly nationalist.. nationalism is probably at an all time low in australia atm

EDIT: and everyone needs to stop flaming

 

[burner69]

In Australia, shortly after 911, a whole heap of loony lefties took to the streets and had a march saying 'Stop the Racist Anti-Muslim War' 'Bush is the real cause of 911!' and similar rubbish. In any event, a guy I know, who is in a wheelchair from polio as a kid (wont say his name, but he is in the Liberal Party in Australia, who are *kind* of like the Republicans, but more Nationalists than religious right wingers) and he is an activist of the Right (and there are very few of those).

Well I believe it was Bush senior in power when American bombs destroyed Iraqi water treatment facilities. That was one of the primary motives for 9/11, so says OBL. Rubbish? Erm.. think what you will.

I love how you take any argument from the left, dismiss it immediately as crap, and resort to insulting to back up your cause.

This thread, entitled as such, will soon fall foul of flaming, the sooner the better.

 

[burner69]

No, the right isnt stupid enough to savagely beat and attack those who oppose them. Must have something to do with those damn morals we have.

Morals like; War is the only answer, gays can't marry, no-one can be given the freedom to take drugs if they choose, torture should be legal, you should be allowed to be arrested without trial, killers should be killed to show us that killing is wrong... that kinda thing?

 

[Mr.Awesome]

wow i live in fort collins so this has been on the news a lot... and it's funny because the debate that's going on in this thread is almost exactly like the debates going on here about it, almost all the same points have been brought up. As for me, i think he should be allowed to say what he will, but not on taxpayers' money. I disagree strongly with him so i'd like to see him out of a job, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Edcrab]

Well, I personally agree with the execution of serial murderers, but that's because I genuinely believe that some people are beyond rehabilitation, which isn't a stance you'll find amongst those who trust in our current justice system.

Didn't we just know this would degenerate outside of the "topic"? It's true: you can't mediate politics. It'd be like trying to measure someone's faith or belief- impossible. But probably fun to watch.

 

[kmack]

My view btw - is that he should not be fired. I know that sounds weird. But I truly do believe that I will defend to the death your right to say something, even if I do not agree with what you say. Yes I think he's a loony left nutjob. And he's not the only one by any stretch - he just went 'too far' - most of the Loony Left are far more clever in their attacks, even if what they say is just as false.

But - I would draw the line at using taxpayer dollars for him to peddle any of this crap. Im not gonna have Federal funds pay for a course on America is Evil and Deserved 911.

there is the First Amendment. you are right, but when Howard Stern gets fined for a sex joke, the times, they are a changin, free speech isn't that free.

 

[Korgoth]

No, the right isnt stupid enough to savagely beat and attack those who oppose them. Must have something to do with those damn morals we have.

Bar attacking entire countries with different religous beliefs right?

 

[bliink]

there is the First Amendment. you are right, but when Howard Stern gets fined for a sex joke, the times, they are a changin, free speech isn't that free.

Theres no 1st ammendment in australia (which is what I think the OP is referring to.) we have no constitutionally protected freedom of speech here.

But - I would draw the line at using taxpayer dollars for him to peddle any of this crap. Im not gonna have Federal funds pay for a course on America is Evil and Deserved 911.

Huh? This was in colorado... your taxes only affect Australian schools, and plus, its a university, which as you know are hardly getting any govt. attention over here!

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well I believe it was Bush senior in power when American bombs destroyed Iraqi water treatment facilities. That was one of the primary motives for 9/11, so says OBL. Rubbish? Erm.. think what you will.

Where is Mecha calling out against OT debate now. Ohh the irony.

 

[Apos]

No, the right isnt stupid enough to savagely beat and attack those who oppose them. Must have something to do with those damn morals we have.

Good grief. Let's play along: are you really claiming that no one on the right has ever savagely beat or attacked anyone who has opposed them?

When I worked on the campaign this year one of your "damn moral" buddies assaulted one of my coworkers late at night.

And we didn't even gleefully incite it in the hopes of getting sympathetic press, like the guy in the wheelchair probably did. Heck, the religious crazies that painted themselves as marytrs for getting arrested for "reading the Bible" (Actually, they were also screaming: AIDS, kills fags dead! over megaphones and refusing to move out of the way when police told them, a fact they forgot to mention) were previously quoted as saying that they try to get themselves arrested, hopefuly in front of the media. All is not quite what it seems when you hear it over one-sided anecdotes.

There are unstable people of all political persuasions. Too glibly trying to read anything out of an incident here and there isn't just unwarranted, it's a pretty low blow: straw man attacks in effect.

 

[gh0st]

Bar attacking entire countries with different religous beliefs right?

Well, wouldnt want to attack countries with different religious beliefs! That might be construed as racism! Wouldnt want to disrupt your precious affirmative action. Get over it.

There are unstable people of all political persuasions. Too glibly trying to read anything out of an incident here and there isn't just unwarranted, it's a pretty low blow: straw man attacks in effect.

Of course there are. Theres just many, many more from the left. Rarely do you hear of conservatives hitting liberals, its certainly something thats x-ed my mind, but I'd not do it. To deny the fact that these college aged city-rat liberals arent more violent than conservatives is laughable. More laughable still is the utter hypocrisy in which they do it. Look at some of protestwarriors peaceful protests, and we see how peace-loving the left really is. So youre right in a way, I am putting liberals under the umbrella of more likely to be violent and disruptive. Lets not forget PETA[RDS] who disrupt oil refinerys and other factories and cry when they are kicked out.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Where is Mecha calling out against OT debate now. Ohh the irony.

Uh, his post was a direct response to a post by the topic creator concerning the aforementioned 'loony lefties', which are the basis of the topic. Things rarely get as on-topic at that.
The real irony is that in your attempt to point out the off topic-ness of the thread, you were actually the one who knocked it off course.
Again, quick to react. But not really understanding what you're reacting to. At least pay attention to what you're saying if you're going to get all personal when I'm not even around.


As for the professor guy, I'm still torn between free speech and bitch-slapping him. If TV shows can get censored for being too gay, and the superbowl has to run the live shows ten seconds behind, you'd think this jackass could get his well-deserved firing.

But still, as I've said in another thread, people this insane aren't 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Just idiots.
So using a bizare man hated by 95% of the country as indicative of liberals in general is somewhat crude.
Edit: as Apos said.

 

[gh0st]

So using a bizare man hated by 95% of the country as indicative of liberals in general is somewhat crude.
Edit: as Apos said.

God... did I quote the man? No I quoted the part talking about the protesters who are always liberal, and always violent and disruptive.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Uh, his post was a direct response to a post by the topic creator concerning the aforementioned 'loony lefties', which are the basis of the topic. Things rarely get as on-topic at that.
The real irony is that in your attempt to point out the off topic-ness of the thread, you were actually the one who knocked it off course.

Well somehow the loony left has transformed into Bush, Iraq, and gay rights. It seems that somebody's true colors are showing, if it isnt conservative, dont accuse!

This guy is a nutjob, hopefully the college fires him on their own. I wouldnt want a wacko teaching me or my kids.

 

[Apos]

No I quoted the part talking about the protesters who are always liberal, and always violent and disruptive.

Well sure, if you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit into your cramped worldview. The so-called "Penn 11" must not exist then, because surely going to a gay celebration with signs telling gay people that god wants them to have AIDS and chanting on a bullhorn about how they are all going to burn in hell isn't disruptive. Surely blowing up abortion clinics isn't violent. Surely murdering a jugde's family because she ruled against your church's copyright infringement isn't violent.

Rarely do you hear of conservatives hitting liberals, its certainly something thats x-ed my mind, but I'd not do it.

Rarely do you hear it if all you read is drudge and worldnetdaily.

Look at some of protestwarriors peaceful protests, and we see how peace-loving the left really is.

Many of these protests have been disrupted by anarchist groups who aren't supported or invited. And regardless, your eagerness painting everyone with a broad brush simply reflects poorly on you as an individual.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well somehow the loony left has transformed into Bush, Iraq, and gay rights. It seems that somebody's true colors are showing, if it isnt conservative, dont accuse!

Yeah, the thread poster brought up the protestors, and and then someone said the things they are protesting (Bush sr.'s iraq policy) might be valid concerns. A thread about 9/11 leading to discussion of pre-2001 mideast policy is hardly the destruction of the topic.

Now that you mention it though, Burner probably should have left gh0st's claim of the right's superior morality alone, but a one-sentence interjection into an otherwise on-topic thread is hardly 'the complete abandonment of a topic.'
That is what I dislike, you know. When a topic is all but completely lost. Half a sentence about gay marriage that is vaguely connected to the topic is not that case.
I thought I made that perfectly clear in my last threads, that such diversion is necessary to a degree.

I'm not a moderator though, so I decided to try and keep that point to that single thread. I'm not going to go around and spam every thread that has an off-topic post. Just comment on the ones that go irreparably off-track.

So quit with the public display of personal vendetta, because it's just cluttering the threads. If you'd like to criticise me specifically, do it through a PM. This is the last time I'm going to let you bait me off-topic.

And, for that matter, no-one respond to this post. The thread is pretty much on topic, and should stay that way.
This is just an open message for anyone who would like to focus on me personnally, but can't muster the courage to do it without an audience. PM me, or shut it up. The discussion of me ends here.

Edit: gh0st, the post you quoted was not referring to you.

Edit 2: QFE what Apos said. Both sides have their violent and abusive crapheads that no-one likes.
The simple fact is that they are so far out there that they barely even count. Every group has a dangerous extremist wing.
So using them as indicative of any sort of 'one side is better' argument is out of line.

 

[gh0st]

Well sure, if you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit into your cramped worldview. The so-called "Penn 11" must not exist then, because surely going to a gay celebration with signs telling gay people that god wants them to have AIDS and chanting on a bullhorn about how they are all going to burn in hell isn't disruptive. Surely blowing up abortion clinics isn't violent. Surely murdering a jugde's family because she ruled against your church's copyright infringement isn't violent.

They stormed security fences or simply turned their backs as the president passed. They threw snowballs and raised their middle fingers. They hoisted signs reading "Worst President Ever" and shouted slogans such as "No justice, no peace."

Sorry buddy, in America we have this thing called freedom of speech. We can say whatever the hell we like, as long as it isnt disruptive. The Penn 11 (Which I find nothing about in google, please provide link im curious about them now) were showting rude things? Aww. Thats so sad. Maybe you guys should suck it up and deal with it before you start storming security fences, throwing snowballs at people. Lets see what commondreams says about liberals protesting "They believe protest – whether mass marches or more individualized, potentially disruptive acts of civil disobedience called “direct actions” – has significant worth and power despite the powerful forces arrayed against it." Mock our laws, you dont take the proper steps and people get hurt. When you protested the WTO in Seattle a couple years ago, people were killed by the violence you instigated. You can always say there are peaceful protests, there are by both sides, but these big republican gatherings NEVER turn into the kind of bloodshed that happens when a bunch of drunk liberals get together and start breaking thing.

Rarely do you hear it if all you read is drudge and worldnetdaily.

I dont read drudge. I do listen to his show though.

Many of these protests have been disrupted by anarchist groups who aren't supported or invited. And regardless, your eagerness painting everyone with a broad brush simply reflects poorly on you as an individual.

Thats true. But you dont exactly see libs rushing to their aid.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well, I think it should be pointed out that this man was in no way attacking the reasons for 9/11. However, he was attacking the dead victims that he related to Nazis. Lets not get that point lost, he was attacking dead victims of 9/11, not the action itself.

And Mecha, if you wanted to use PMs, then why did you need to make a public stint in the other thread? You shouldve just PMed the involved parties and asked them to stop, preventing this entire fiasco. Anyways, water over or under the bridge. I think all parties involved know each other's stances now.

 

[Kangy]

Theres no 1st ammendment in australia (which is what I think the OP is referring to.) we have no constitutionally protected freedom of speech here.

Damned straight. And if the Queen wants her freedoms back, what are you going to do? Bow down and work, that's what you'll do.

 

[Apos]

We can say whatever the hell we like, as long as it isnt disruptive. The Penn 11 (Which I find nothing about in google, please provide link im curious about them now) were showting rude things? Aww. Thats so sad.

You said disruptive. I provided an example of a bunch of hatemongers being so disruptive and attempting to incite a riot that they got arrested. That you can't bea man and admit that your statement was overblown hyperbole is your own problem.

Maybe you guys should suck it up and deal with it before you start storming security fences, throwing snowballs at people.

I didn't storm any fences or throw any snowballs, so this "you guys" is just yet again an example of your poor character.

Mock our laws, you dont take the proper steps and people get hurt. When you protested the WTO in Seattle a couple years ago, people were killed by the violence you instigated

Again, I didn't protest the WTO. And the people who were violent weren't the actual protestors, but an anarchist group.

I dont read drudge. I do listen to his show though.

Reading may be harder, but it's more edifying in the end. To each their own.

 

[seinfeldrules]

They stormed security fences or simply turned their backs as the president passed. They threw snowballs and raised their middle fingers. They hoisted signs reading "Worst President Ever" and shouted slogans such as "No justice, no peace."

Sorry buddy, in America we have this thing called freedom of speech. We can say whatever the hell we like, as long as it isnt disruptive. The Penn 11 (Which I find nothing about in google, please provide link im curious about them now) were showting rude things? Aww. Thats so sad. Maybe you guys should suck it up and deal with it before you start storming security fences, throwing snowballs at people. Lets see what commondreams says about liberals protesting "They believe protest – whether mass marches or more individualized, potentially disruptive acts of civil disobedience called “direct actions” – has significant worth and power despite the powerful forces arrayed against it." Mock our laws, you dont take the proper steps and people get hurt. When you protested the WTO in Seattle a couple years ago, people were killed by the violence you instigated. You can always say there are peaceful protests, there are by both sides, but these big republican gatherings NEVER turn into the kind of bloodshed that happens when a bunch of drunk liberals get together and start breaking thing.

Personally, I think liberals are a much more excitable bunch. I dont necessarily mean that in a bad way.

Reading may be harder, but it's more edifying in the end.

I dont know about you, but reading in the car sure is a hell of a lot harder.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Again, I didn't protest the WTO. And the people who were violent weren't the actual protestors, but an anarchist group.

Not always true -- these people dont just randomly spawn at the onset of every Conservative gathering. Its been recorded -- from New York to Los Angeles, peace protestors, no matter what affiliation, cannot handle the "peace" part of protesting.

Its also been recorded, that more of these incidences have been instigated by people who would profess themselves Liberals. So, not you Apos, as you've provided us with the fact you were'nt there.

So, other people. If that clears it up.

 

[Apos]

So, other people. If that clears it up.

It doesn't clear it up, because it wasn't a matter of my confusion, but rather Ghost's lying.

Its also been recorded, that more of these incidences have been instigated by people who would profess themselves Liberals.

I can't wait for you to show me the cites. Abortion clinic protestors, even the non-homicidal ones, are not exactly a peaceful bunch either. But of course since you block out all news that doesn't fit your worldview, I doubt you'd know that.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Try to make yourself more approachable Apos; I mean, we all could've done without the rant.

Now, I disagree with you that these people are simply Anarchists -- and that such an affiliation would explain they're behavior. You've obviously not seen the videos of Conservatives having they're signs torn down by people who again, professed themselves as Liberals.

You've also not seen the beatings and assaults that have occured, against Conservative Protestors by professed Liberal ones.

We were discussing that SOME lefters, not all, on the display for Peace-Protests, were'nt very peaceful. I've seen enough videos, and enough idiots to justify that position. Now, you've asked me for cites:

What videos do you want to see, and from what year and event?

Oh, and dont think its not impossible for me to do.

 

[No Limit]

I love this 'loony left' since this sounds more like the crazy right trying to assasinate the character of a guy they don't agree with. Let me ask you something, did you just listen to what O'Reilly said or did you actually read the entire essay? I can bet you didn't actually read it; instead you took a liar's word on it. Here is a statement from Churchill:

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 no more than "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.

Ward Churchill
Boulder, Colorado
January 31, 2005

Suddenly when you get both sides of the story he doesn't sound so evil, does he?

Here is the essay with other information:

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

 

[burner69]

Nice one nolimit. I had a feeling there'd be more to this.

 

[No Limit]

No, the right isnt stupid enough to savagely beat and attack those who oppose them. Must have something to do with those damn morals we have.

I hope you were just kidding because I just demonstrated how this is a hack job by the right to destroy this liberal simply because they don't agree with him.

 

[CptStern]

No, the right isnt stupid enough to savagely beat and attack those who oppose them. Must have something to do with those damn morals we have.

hasnt stopped any of you from sending me hate mail or insulting my character/family/what have you. In fact you and your cronies were warned the other day

 

[jondy]

No, the right isnt stupid enough to savagely beat and attack those who oppose them. Must have something to do with those damn morals we have.

Yup, morals. Like the fact that the 10 top states with the highest divorce rates are all red

Back on topic - nice to see the other side of the argument coming out of the woodwork.