Ward Churchill indistinguishable from a Nazi. I hope he gets/stays fired.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it."

Taxpayer's dollars shouldn't be spent subsidizing Ward Churchill's Nazi crap.

Nazi crap = saying an entire group of people deserve to be murdered for what they are (Jews, or in this case WTC workers) rather than WHO they are (mass murderers, terrorists, etc.)

All capitalists and those who work for them deserve to die, eh?

Wrong. All capitalists don't deserve to die and neither do all those who work for them.

Fuck you Ward Churchill, scumbag.

[King Coal]

1. We heard you the first time.

:smoke:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Mods asked me to re-word (I think "asshat" is a violation)

:hi:

[Walt Starr]

104. Nope, I use asshat all the time

:eyes:

[against all enemies]

2. There goes the First Amendment. Even unpopular speech is protected.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

3. He can say what he wants but taxpayers don't have to subsidize

the Nazi

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. That's BushTalk

You truly do not want to go down that road. You really don't. Not at the expense of your free speech and mine.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

9. So you believe all speech should be subsidized by taxpayers?

or just all speech by tenured college professors should be subsidized?

If he said all blacks should be killed, would you think he should remain employed by taxpayers?

[Stanchetalarooni]

66. We subsidize napalm.

I say protect speach and outlaw napalm.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

70. I agree

"I say protect speach and outlaw napalm."

I agree. And don't subsidize Nazi speech with taxpayer $$

[Career Prole]

13. Why not?

We subsidize all the other Nazis a great deal more. :shrug:

[Fla Dem]

92. He has a right to say whatever he wants...but he's a hypocrite.

He works for a state sponsored institution. He is paid by taxes collected by the state from citizens, many of whom work for just the same type of corporations he denounces. The College also receives grants from the government, which subsidizes the institution. He's probably enrolled in a state sponsored pension program, which invests in many of the companies he criticize.

So using his logic, he's a Nazi too.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. I can't see why he should be fired

Freedom of speech, and all that.

You'd curtail someone's right to speak because what he says offends you? That is precisely, then, the speech that needs the most protection.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Career Prole]

17. Have you vented such spleen on all the others

in taxpayer subsidized jobs who say or write whatever the fuck they want?
I honestly don't recall such an outburst from you about Armstrong Williams.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

20. I didn't see anyone defending Armstrong Williams here

and I did post on that subject

[Career Prole]

38. I'm speaking specifically about a comparable reacttion.

Did you or didn't you start a thread cussing out Armstrong Williams and expressing your hope that he be fired/stay fired?
Because like it or not Churchill's speech is protected, taxpayer subsidized or not, whereas Williams' actions were a blow at democracy and far more deserving of your wrath.
It's a fine rant, and God knows we all need one now and again but there are more worthwhile targets.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

43. My reaction was the same but I saw no defense of Armstrong here.

so saw no need to make such an obvious point

[Career Prole]

54. The enemy of your enemy in times such as these

is your friend. No need to hug him, but likewise you shouldn't want him shipped to Siberia. There are enough advocates of that on the right-wing radio right now.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

71. In some cases but not in others

I don't want him shipped to siberia, just off the taxpayer payroll.

[Career Prole]

69. I know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2919907

You didn't seem nearly as angry as you are about Churchill.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

73. I was

whether or not someone posted as much on one topic as the other isn't the best way to judge their anger especially when in one case the position they agree with already has thousands of posts supporting and none dissenting

[Eric J in MN]

5. What does the concept of being a tenured professor mean to you? nt

nt

[Proud2BAmurkin]

6. nothing

nt

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. Then you've not understood why tenure is so precious

and why it ties in with the academic freedom to explore ideas that others might find repugnant.

There are much larger issues in play here than your simply calling someone a Nazi - which I don't understand, by the way - and wanting him censored for speaking his mind.

First they punish him.

Then they punish you.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

11. So if he said blacks should be killed and had tenure.........

what then?

[Eric J in MN]

27. Keep him, unless he was violating a law, such as

inciting a race riot or something.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

39. So keep a professor who preaches all blacks should be murdered?

Thanks for the honest answer.

[Eric J in MN]

47. In order to get tenure in the first place, a professor needs to

demonstrate research skills and reasoning.

A man who is a crazy racist would have a tough time getting tenure.

I don't know of any American professors calling for the murder of Americans, and so the system works well enough that your hypothetical has never arisen as far as I know.

[onecent]

29. Oldlefti, could I please ask you a question? I'm a BIG believer

in free speech and I want to know more about what you said about you
remark "Then you've not understood why tenure is so precious"

If we lose freedom of speech we have lost everything in my mind. I'm 60 years old and I think the young people of this world better start waking up.

But please share with me more about the larger issues. I DO know that professors are in some way held to a higher esteem or manner of some sort...so I'm just asking if there is anything you can tell me that will make this more clear?

I'm going to be needing this in a discussion with a couple my husband and I hang around with. They think this professor is a Nazi just like some of the people in the thread. Need just a little something to hand them so I don't feel like I'm losing the battle.

Thanks in advance.

[Igel]

49. I've said it before, I'll try to say it clearly.

Tenured faculty almost invariably must abide by the code of faculty conduct. It's a condition of their employment.

If there's something in the code of conduct that he transgressed in his writing and lectures, and the powers that be want to enforce it, he'll be punished.

Otherwise, he's officially in a state of grace.

Still, if those folks in charge of granting him university grants, merit pay increases, leaves, and promotions don't like what he did, they can be denied without much of a reason being given. He can probably research and say what he wants, but academic freedom doesn't require perks.

Academic freedom isn't unlimited. Freedom of speech isn't unlimited. Both have costs, both have limits.

[DrWeird]

12. Ward Churchill's critics indistinguishable from nazis.

The little Eichmann's are proving Churchill's point.

Silly scumbags.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

14. Nazis said taxpayers shouldn't fund "all Jews should die" speech?

wow, never read that one

[DrWeird]

15. Nazis like to lie about the people they don't like.

It's part of their final solution.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

21. I quoted scumbag Churchill directly in my post. Please defend him.

no one has defended his comments yet.

[DrWeird]

24. "all jews should die" is a Churchill quote?

Care to back that up?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

26. "All employees in the WTC center deserved murder" same thing

It's different how?

[DrWeird]

30. Well, then he didn't really say it, did he?

If you put it in quotes, it means he said it, when you say it's a quote, that means he said it.

So you deliberatly misquoted somebody in order to denigrate them.

So you owe Ward Churchill an apology.

Oh, and deliberately taking something out of context is a form of misquotation, so you owe him one for that, too.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

33. Here's the exact quote. Worse than what I quoted.

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it."

befitting = what they deserve

any way of visiting some penalty = any other way than mass murder

Churchill = filthy Nazi scumbag

[DrWeird]

42. Deliberately taken out of context.

He's basically saying "chickens coming home to roost."

And he's right.

Whereas you're deliberately misquoting, and defaming him. And it's not even close to what Churchill is saying. And I suspect you'd know that if you actually read what he was saying.

Churchill's critics = filthy Nazi unamerican scumbags.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

45. You're rewording his exact statement

which was that mass murder was "befitting" every worker in the WTC who was murdered.

[DrWeird]

52. You're assuming it's mass murder.

And not the death penalty.

Or karmic justice.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

55. murdering 3000 civilians of all stripes isn't justice it's Nazism

.

[DrWeird]

59. Are you calling our troops nazis?

They've murdered over 100,000 people.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

61. anyone who thinks civilians "deserve to die"

.

[DrWeird]

67. Well, then that wouldn't be Churchill, now would it?

Since he's on the record as clearly saying 9-11 was a horrible tragedy.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

80. He said it was only tragic for firefighters and children but not for

WTC workers of all employment levels and beliefs and actions

[DrWeird]

81. Wrong again.

Maybe you should do a little fact checking on the subject and then come back when you're ready.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

84. What part of this EXACT QUOTE am I misinterpreting?

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it."

If he's not saying those working in the WTC deserved to be slaughtered, enlighten me as to what he is saying.

That's rhetorical request, because it's EXACTLY what he is saying.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

111. Then what do YOU think this comment means?

There's only one meaning.

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it."

[stopbush]

129. Who are the "little Eichmanns?"

You're assuming he's talking about every human being in that building. I've only seen the excerpt you've quoted, but I don't see him condemning *everybody* in the WTC. What if he had said "little Eichmann Republicans?" That certainly lets every non-Republican (even the non-Republican Eichmanns) off the hook.

I think you're reading it too broadly. Does Hardmann consider janitors to be Eichmanns? Do you?

His comment seems directed at the profit-grubbing types who will do anything for the almighty dollar and commerce, including backing illegal wars and the killing of civilian populations...genocide, if you will.

Past that, I don't see it the same as you. Can you post more-extended remarks that show Hardmann was being all-inclusive of every person in those towers and considering everyone of them down to the janitors to be Eichmanns?

Anybody?

[AZCat]

64. That actually isn't Nazism

It's just mass murder. Plenty of non-Nazis have killed 3000+ civilians.

Nazism is an ideology.

[sierrajim]

98. Now that sounds like racist hate speech to me

YOU SILLY SCUMBAG.

[Az]

16. How would you propose those affected by our policies react

We don't exactly give them many options. We come in forcefully shoving our culture and morality down their throats. If they don't have a standing army to resist our presense we do so all the quicker. If they resist we proclaim their morally bankrupt or tyrants. If they actively resist we proclaim them terrorists and attack them outright.

To them we are evil. We are destroyers of their culture. We are dismantling their traditions and values. We try to seduce their young away. We are the single greatest threat they face. We are in their eyes the great Satan.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. in some other way than killing 3000 civilians?

just a thought

[Az]

37. It would be nice

But then how come we are not supposed to do the same? How many have we killed spreading our concept of freedom?

That is exactly the point here. We have killed and impoverished nations in our attempts to maintain our position of economic dominance.

The people affected by our actions would love to engage us in dialog. They beg to do so. But we conviene our economic meetings inviting only major producers to the table. Any discussion of working conditions or advicacy for poor nations is forbidden at such discussions.

Cut off from dialog and having no military to defend themself with they are left with few options. We obviously will not respect their culture so they will return the favor.

At first they start off with tryin to repel Americans in their nation. But this is seen as attacks on innocent Americans by our forces so we respond by demanding action from their government. But they may have trouble complying if it is the general position of their populace. So they hedge. We respond by escalating pressure and threatening military action or economic boycott. This may wind up forcing internal chaos as the government has to decide between appeasing the mighty US or following the will of its people.

If they choose to side with their people we start bombing. If they choose to side with the US their citizens rebel or turn reacionary.

[Career Prole]

46. Our measured reaction to that of course was to kill 100,000 people

in a country which had nothing to do with our national injury.
Hey...now there's some Nazis you should put a good cussin' on!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

53. yup. Iraq slaughter advocacy no better than Churchill's or Hitler's

.

[Az]

101. Ward advocated killing no one

He is saying that not understanding the dynamics leads to the killing.

[Disturbed]

28. What if he said this that or the other?

He didn't say anything other than what he DID say and he has the right to say it and others have the right to rebut what he said.

[cyclezealot]

18. Churchill overstated his message...

The victims of 911 are tragic and innocent. He is wrong to corelate them with bad American foreign policy...But to not allow him to say his piece if very wrong...First Amendment need be protected for all..To not allow that, is heading for a Nazi state..Condemn where he overstated, yes...
But, some of what he said needs be said....The CIA agent who wrote "Blowback" would be in agreement with Churchill...We need examine our policies where needed to understand why we are hated so much around the world...The essence of what Churchill is badly needed...You know the history of American policy in Afghanistan or maybe you need to...The word is 'blowback'. Had these messages been heard 20 years ago, there would have been no 911...

[Proud2BAmurkin]

23. He's allowed to say it. I don't have to pay him to say it.

nt

[cyclezealot]

31. You are not..

He did it on his own time...People can be fired in public /private jobs...It could be you. In the 50's the FBI intimidated employers in both public/private fields...Called blacklisting..
Intimidation silences unpopular voices...You refuse to accept the fact, people like his said what he said in more acceptable way,years ago..There would have been no 9-11...
Self examination should be a part of gaining acceptance in the world..To disallow unpopular speech is the path to Fascism.Not what Churchill did...

[EST]

19. Second try today.

Have you actually, thoughtfully, read what he really said? Don't mean to hand you a burr, but I have yet to discover anything to engender such intense hatred.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

25. The quote in the original post could have been uttered by Hitler

No one can really defend it as something taxpayers should be subsidizing

[LostInAnomie]

57. How are you paying for it?

He isn't teaching this in his classes, he did this on his own time. You didn't pay him one damn cent for what he said.

What you are essentially saying is that you don't like what he said, and for that reason you think he should be censored and fired from his job for something he did as a private citizen. You are willingly shitting on the first amendment just so he can't offend you precious ears.

[reorg]

32. it is quite obvious that he hasn't

... another hallmark of Churchill's critics (well, most them, anyway): they act on cues promulgated through media gossip instead of reading and thinking for themselves.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

36. The exact quote if you care to defend paying the Nazi who says it

No one has defended taxpayers paying this scumbag yet. The defense is that he can say what he wants. That doesn't address whether taxpayers should employ him


"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it."

[reorg]

41. is that all you were provided with by Fox News? n/t

[Proud2BAmurkin]

48. Sorry, there's no "context" that would make it acceptable

none.

[reorg]

meaning: you didn't actually read the text. Typical.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

74. yes I did. It was an attempt to support the scumbag's comment

and he failed.

[reorg]

87. your insults are a sad testimony

of a closed mind

Churchill made a pointed argument. It does seem to get to you, even though you don't quite seem to understand it.

Maybe you should take a deep breath and read the article again?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

83. LOL!

You are cracking me up today! Veil danke! :D

[pretzel4gore]

58. especially considering the groupthink at work at the time....

the other side actually went out and using 911 for justification killed and ruined god knows how many people.... regardless of what you think of churchill's ideas, he has defied convention like few have, publicly and with his name attached...to call him a 'nazi' overestimate nazi courage (as bullies, they have none)...notice, nazis when shouting and protesting, are always standing behind armies of cops and soldiers and fleets of warplanes

[Proud2BAmurkin]

76. I might agree he is more "courageous" than a Nazi but no less a scumbag

nt

[pretzel4gore]

89. you can't make omelets...

w/out breaking eggs....you disagree with this? i'd love to see your omelets!

[UdoKier]

35. I didn't care for some of his comments, and he's a lousy spokesman

for the left. Chomsky could have said what he did in a more eloquent way and without being so needlessly inflammatory.

But, that being said, I disagree that he should be fired, as he is entitled to his opinion and has broken no rules that I can imagine. I also don't see why we should be beating up on this guy and giving more attention to someone who is already a favorite punching bag of the right.

I say let the stupid Churchill non-story die.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

40. If a professor declares all blacks should be slaughtered

should he continue to be paid by the taxpayers?

That's the crux of it. I say no.

[reorg]

44. which professor said this?

Churchill didn't even say that all "proud Americans" should be punished.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

50. "all slaughtered workers in the WTC deserve to be slaughtered"

that is different HOW?

[reorg]

60. problem is, he didn't say that at all ...

>> The Amiriya Bomb Shelter in western Baghdad is a reinforced concrete building that sheltered up to 1,000 civilians throughout the first Gulf War. The walls are several feet thick, designed specifically to withstand the blast of many types of bombs. It was always regarded as a safe haven for the civilians in the area. Each time the air raid sirens of Baghdad sounded, women and children, sometimes complete families, would seek shelter within its walls.

The Coalition waging war on Iraq had the coordinates to the shelter, along with the acknowledgement that it was simply a shelter for civilians.

On February 13, 1991 at 4 in the morning it was hit by two American bombs, which incinerated the building, including all but ten of the 400 women and children seeking refuge inside of it.

People in the community today tell the horrible tale of the two bombs. They believed they were designed specifically to carry out the slaughter. The first gave off a terrible high pitched whine as it spiraled its way into the reinforced ceiling, creating an entrance for the second bomb, which entered immediately behind the first, releasing the instant incineration of all those inside. It turned their safe haven into a fiery inferno for the group comprised primarily of women and children.

... <<

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1291.shtml

[Proud2BAmurkin]

63. yes he did

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it."

[reorg]

77. repeating your false claim doesn't make it better

You still don't get it, do you?

Why don't you tell us then what you consider a

"better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation" ...

in US atrocities visited upon other countries by means of throwing bombs, imposing deadly sanctions that admittedly killed hundreds of thousands, and pursuing policies of impoverishment in the entire Third World.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

82. Uh....

"better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation" ...

How about --- TALKING THEM OUT OF working for the companies whose offices were in the WTC, if you agree that working for those companies amounts to "participation" in any crimes against their humanity they commit?

Slaughtering them in cold blood isn't acceptable.

[reorg]

91. that's what Churchill is trying to do

"talking them out of" supporting deadly policies they support.

Yet even you, on this here Democratic UNDERGROUND board, are not listening to him? Even though he is a tenured professor with an impressive record of publications.

How on earth are then a few Arab students from countries ruled by US supported authoritarian regimes supposed to talk to company board members, politicians, the US military -- not to mention talking them OUT OF anything -- by distributing leaflets or what?

When even slightly left-leaning oppositional members of established parties, like the Dean Democrats for instance, don't seem to be able to make their mark on US politics?

Show me your democratic process, your open minded media, the rule of reason in your country and I shall agree that Churchill went overboard with his remarks. Given what I have read here in this forum alone within the last few years I thoroughly doubt you'll be able to convince me, though.

[UdoKier]

51. He didn't say that.

What he said was offensive, and his essay was pretty poorly written, IMO. He's probably not the best professor around. But I'd rather have him there than some right-wing a-hole.

Sorry, but count me out of the witch hunt.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

56. well if it comes down to a right wing nazi vs a left wing nazi

maybe i agree the left wing is better, but not so sure

[ConsAreLiars]

62. Those who reject the Bill of Rights are indistinguishable from

the Nazis. Today American fascists are using hyperbole and disinformation in a campaign against voices of dissent and freedom of speech in general. Join them, if you wish. I prefer freedom.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

65. Agree with everything in your post

But to compare the scumbag who said this to a Nazi isn't hyperbole or disinformation:

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it."

[AZCat]

68. It is hyperbole

From the OP:
Nazi crap = saying an entire group of people deserve to be murdered for what they are (Jews, or in this case WTC workers) rather than WHO they are (mass murderers, terrorists, etc.)
</quote>

from dictionary.com:

hy·per·bo·le (h-pûrb-l)
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

Nazism is an ideology, and I have yet to find any significant correlation between Churchill's essay and the tenets of Nazism. Claiming equivalency is hyperbole.

[Swamp Rat]

78. I don't think ConsAreLiars was referring to Churchill

"Those who reject the Bill of Rights are indistinguishable from the Nazis." - Isn't ConsAreLiars referring to right wing neo-Nazis who are attacking Ward Churchill's right to free speech? :shrug:

"Today American fascists are using hyperbole and disinformation in a campaign against voices of dissent and freedom of speech in general." - Isn't ConsAreLiars, again, referring to people, "American fascists," who are attacking and creating propaganda about Ward Churchill?

You said: "Agree with everything in your post," but then contradict this in the very next line: "But to compare the scumbag who said this to a Nazi isn't hyperbole or disinformation:" :shrug:

[ConsAreLiars]

122. That's right

It seems some people will happily destroy the Constitution and try to rally lynch mobs, while claiming to be "true patriots" or whatever. At the top of the hierarchy they know what they are doing, but people who get swept up in the crowd either don't "get it" or are just "authoritarians" by nature and don't care. They either do not understand democracy, or they wish to destroy it.

This has happened before: during Vietnam; during the McCarthy era; with pro-Nazi Americans like Henry Ford and Bush before the US entered WWII; with the Palmer and anti-immigrant raids before that. Today they operate through Scaife-Coors-etc funded corporatist operations like the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society, and fashion campaigns designed to appeal to irrational passions through inflammatory rhetoric, but intended to further consolidate political power in the hands of an elite.

We see a lot of their talking points repeated here on DU, usually with posters who claim to be so holy or righteous that they cannot accept this or that type of "free speech" or "offensive" behavior. They are seeing only a very small part of reality, or are gullible dupes of a clever PR campaign, or are consciously collaborating in an attack on democracy. In any case, they serve those who see the Bill of Rights, Geneva Convention, and so on, as "quaint" or "outdated."

(edit: add a couple words for clarity, maybe)

[ngant17]

72. your logic = nazis helped to make america great?

Actually, a lot of Nazi war criminals were given 1st class special treatment here after the war - such as Operation Paperclip and NASA, the CIA work, ect. If Ward Churchill was a real Nazi, he would have long since been given top security clearance and be working in the Pentagon or NASA or the CIA. Maybe he would have a medal or two for it, too.

For example, Dr. Arthur Louis Hugo Rudolf received NASA's highest honor, the Distinguished Service Medal, at an official ceremony in the Reagan White House in 1984. BTW he renounced his US citizenship and returned to Germany that year! Government investigators realized he was a war criminal, he joined the Nazi party in 1931 and the SA Storm Troopers in 1933. He was a close colleague of Wehner von Braun at the Mittlewerk Dora slave-labor factory in Harz, Germany. Rudolf and von Braun were closely associated with General Walter Dornberger, who faced the hangman's noose at Nuremburg for his war crime, this war criminal instead became the Director of Research and Development at Bell Aircraft in Texas, via 'Operation Paperclip'.

hey, with friends like that, who needs enemies?

[DrGonzoLives]

75. Moron? Yes

Fired for saying it? No. If he's a shit professor, then, yes, can him, but otherwise, if we fired everyone for saying stupid things, few of us would have jobs.

And, technically, unless you're a resident of Colorado, you're not paying his salary.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

85. I agree. He has a right to say anything

Just not to keep a taxpayer subsidized job if he says all blacks should be slaughtered OR the slaughter of thousands of workers in two particular buildings in NYC was righteous.

[sendero]

86. Yeah..

.... there's always the angle. He can't have a taxpayer-subsidized job, he can't have a corporate job, he can't have a job.

Real swift.

[tishaLA]

88. I'm going to be using this thread

to teach my college students about logical fallacies, the importance of quotations and proper paraphrasing, and why careless analogues doom analytical arguments.

[Karenina]

90. GOOD IDEA!

Teach your children well.

[G_j]

106. observation,

and I've noticed how the people most outraged over Churchill pretty much flat out refuse to discuss the context of his entire 'rant',
or the point he was attempting to make about the terrible consequences of US policies.
Churchill certainly doesn't understand the concept of 'sound-bites' (or does he?) If people would begin to discuss the terrible legacy of American foreign policy, then maybe this is all a good thing.

[tishaLA]

117. You're right and that's really the problem, isn't it?

They can't even "hear" him long enough to adequately recite his argument (this is not always the case as I have had discussions with some who are outraged over it who can) and they therefore resort to hyperbole, pretend he said things that simply aren't there, and/or extend his what they construe as his argument to absurd lengths.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. It Seems Like Some Of Churchill's Defenders Are Setting Up A False

Dichotomy....

So many issues?

Does Churchill have a right to speak?

Yes

Has American foreign policy in the Middle East created an atmosphere that gives seed to the despair that causes terrorism?

Yes

Can America change it's policies in the Middle East..

Yes, some of them....

Did Professor Churchill say some insensitive things about folks who can no longer defend themselves because they were literally turned into carbon

Yes...

The problem with folks on both sides of the political spectrum is they talk past one another and turn their opponents into cartoons...

It might be cathartic but it hardly leads us to greater understanding....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. John Stuart Mill

"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."


That being said I find some of his comments offensive and hurtful to the families of the 9-11 victims...

[Proud2BAmurkin]

95. Taking him off taxpayer payroll isn't "silencing" him

any more than boycotting Dr Laura's show and causing her to get fired from stations/TV shows "silenced" her or denied her free speech.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. He Is A Tenured Professor...

He can't be fired without cause...


And making inflammatory and insensitive statements does not amount to cause...

[rasputin1952]

94. For those who are unaware...the first WTC bombing was prepared by

Osama as well. He was specific in stating that the WTC was a target because of the worldwide connections associated with that building.

The 9-11 attacks were designed as a terroristic attack against much of the corporate world, as well as the US. There was no thought to how many would die, in fact, Osama, two days after the attack was seen and seemed genuinely surprised that the "attacks went so well".

It pays to look at the entire history of a situation, and this professor did. His arguments may indeed be flawed, but the truth of the matter is, he did research and came to a conclusion, regardless of how unpopular that conclusion might be. He has the right, and perhaps the obligation to speak out about his conclusions.

Nowhere, do we have to accept them; and it is good to question these things. However, to deny him the right to speak his mind, or censor him is beyond the pale. I am empowered by the First Amendment, just as we all are. I cannot remove the protection of Free Speech without removing my own capacity for the same. No one has to agree with anything that is said, and indeed, it is an obligation to point out faults. But to cry for the crucifiction of someone for speaking their mind, is a bit much for me....:(

[Proud2BAmurkin]

97. Is denying taxpayer funding the same as "crucifying" him?

DAMN, I've been crucified too

[The Magistrate]

102. To Clarify The Matter, Sir

You would have no objection to his being published in private journals, being employed by a private college, or speaking to audiences that had invited him to do so for honorariums?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

109. I might think less of them for hiring them and say so but

would not say they had crossed the line of whether they had a legitimate right to continue paying him, as private individuals or institutions

[The Magistrate]

114. Thank You, Sir

Purely a private interest on my part, but it seems from that that you understand the essential pont, that the man has the right to say any damned fool thing he pleases here in this country of ours....

"People have a right to transport themselves to what ever Hell they desire by the route and conveyance of their own free choice."

[Proud2BAmurkin]

116. Yes, he has every right to say it, write it, preach it, shout it

This is America

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. I Agree With Your Post In It's Entirety...

He should no more be censored than David Duke, Jerry Falwell, Leonard Jeffries, and Khalid Muhamad but that doesn't mean we have to defend the content of his speech only his right to make it...


The man's a fucking Republican wet dream... If he didn't exist it they would have to create him and am not convinced they didn't...

[RBHam]

96. Churchill is an idiot...

And a useful one at that - for the Bush Crime Family.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. Look At My Post...

eom

[90-percent]

105. churchhill

I find Bush's repression of the 9-11 commission and Bush's participation in the 9-11 cover up to be far more offensive than anything this prof may have ever said.

I think America's ACTIONS in Iraq are more offensive than anything this prof may have ever said.

The utter devastation this admin is wreaking on Iraq in terms of innocent death and the devastation soon to befall the USA as a result of world economic backlash and Bush's favor the rich economic policies are far more offensive than anything this prof wil ever say in his/her next 27 lifetimes!

Actions vs. words. Take a good look at our good old USA actions in the world in the last 4 years.

Bush's actions dishonor the families of 9-11 victims a billionfold more than Churchill words would ever do.

-85%

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. I Think He's Saying Churchill Empowers The Right By Giving Them Cannon

Fodder...

[reorg]

110. uhuh, as long as wimpish moderates

feel knocked down by the rebound.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. If You Define Moderate As Someone Who Is Offended By Ward Churchill's

Remarks Then 99% Of Merikans Are Moderate...

[reorg]

120. you're presupposing that all murkins grasp what he is saying

which I doubt.

You may be correct, though, in that 99% haven't read him at all and may therefore be outraged at what the media claim he said, whether in moderate attack mode or not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. I Think There Are Folks Who Are Open To Persuasion

that we need to revisit our policies in the Middle East but if we SHOUT at them they will just tune us out....

[Az]

112. Good grief

A liberal standing up and saying something challenging qualifies as cannon fodder? Give up already. We're done. If we can't defend someone saying something that challenges our complacent thinking we are over. Liberal thought is extinct. Go to sleep. The battle is over.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

118. Saying mass murder is good isn't "challenging complacent thinking"

It's challenging the most basic of morals accepted by ALL civilized and humane people. It's indefensible.

[Az]

119. Oh for crying out loud he does not say that

He is saying that the attacks on our people were the results of actions we took. Consequences. The logical outcome of a series of events. He is saying we need to look at the entirety of our actions and see what they may bring back to us.

No where does he say killing is good. His entire point is that we need to figure out how to avoid killing. Both our killing and their killing. Killing bad. Not killing good.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

126. he didn't only say it was the logical outcome of events

He said it was the RIGHTEOUS outcome. I don't see how anybody can get around that from this comment.........

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it."

[Az]

128. Well answer his question

What alternative did they have from their perspective? Just say no? Get their massive military force in the field to defend themselves from our actions? This is the crux of the point. They don't have the power we do. They cannot fend us off the same way Russia or China might. If they wish to preserve their identity and nature against our advances they have to resort to the tools they have available. In their eyes their attack was righteous. In their eyes it was the only recourse left to them.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

130. OK, no alternate from their perspective, but the Germans felt the same way

mass murder of the scapegoats was the "final solution" in both cases.

[Az]

133. Not exactly the same situation

The scapegoats they targetted were within their society. Our situation is enormous nation forcing itself onto a smaller impoverished nation. We cut them out from any dialog. We create a situation where they cannot win. Not by so called civilized means. A people do not simply lie down and give up when their culture and identity are assailed. They struggle and survive any way they can.

The harder we squeeze them the more they will struggle and lash out at those applying the pressure.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. !

I defend his right to speak but I no more have to defend his views of 9-11 than I have to defend David Duke's views of 9-11 which were essentially the same....

[Az]

124. And what would you say his views are?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. Been There...Done That....

The gulf between our interpetations of what Professor Churchill said are too wide to ever be narrowed....



IMHO , for the last time I do not believe anybody in the WTC was responsible for their demise....

[Proud2BAmurkin]

113. Churchill's words are not worse than Bush's actions, but..so?

?

[90-percent]

123. relativism

Ayup. In my book the guy that goes out and slaughters 100,000 innocent people is a lot worse than the guy that just yaps about it, however eloquent they may be.

But Bush has got a lot more than tenure on his side.

More like the whole military-industrial-congressional complex!

-85%

[walldude]

132. While I think the guy was a little over the top

I think maybe you have no idea what life is like from his perspective. What if some people came to your country, stole your land, killed off most of your people, your way of life, your language and dumped what was left of your race on reservations, then proceeded to turn the place of natural beauty you lived in into a freakin strip mall? Would you be angry at those people? Would you have some disparaging things to say about them?
Also I think you are overstating the "I'm paying for this crap" idea. Last I checked it costs over $40,000 a year to send a kid to CU, I'm sure what little subsidies they get aren't all going to pay his salary.

[Moderator]

134. Locking

This has led to a flamefest.