University of Hawaii/Ward Churchill-LOSERS!

[ginshun]

Scheme not sceem. But that's beside the point about getting F's.

What can I say? I was an Engineering major, not an English major.

besides, who kares bout spelln anyhoo?

 

[Ray]

What can I say? I was an Engineering major, not an English major.

besides, who kares bout spelln anyhoo?

I am so sorry. I think it was a sucky thing for me to do, but who could resist?

An engineer? Anyone can toot the whistle, but it takes and engineer to drive the train.

 

[michaeledward]

Michael, I later elaborated on this issue and it is not conflicting at all. When I stated well beyond freedom of speech my point was it is not a freedom of speech issue when we, the taxpayers are compensating him for it. Don't I have rights too? I do not wish to pay to hear this clown spout off. Something else I'd like to add. I don't know where this Churchill is going but there is a time when what starts out to be a freedom of speech becomes a disorderly person which can escalate into a riot. I will not argue this one because I've seen it in my job, you haven't unless you've worked in law enforcement and the arrest and convictions have been upheld. If this Bozo continues his rants and it should escalate into disruptions, or breaches of the peace, and causes violent reactions by the weak minded then we have a problem. Don't tell me this can't happen because it has. I remember back in college S.D.S (Students for a democratic Society) instigated violent reactions which led to arrests at various college campuses to the point some colleges would not welcome their appearances and would call the authorities to have them removed. Now, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend these things don't happen or you can deal with it.

It was also nice to see David Duke, you know former Louisiana State Representative (right wing extremist) and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan stick up for Churchill's rights and freedom of speech on television last night. That right there should tell you there's something wrong with this picture!

Next, don't any of you even care how this man's comments are weighing on the survivors of the 9/11 victims, show some compassion and respect!

..............

Thanks for the discussion. Joe

The statements people are upset about were made by Mr. Churchill on September 12, 2001. Why are they only being raised now? Because O'Reilly is spouting about it for several hours a week.

If you don't want to listen to Churchill .... DON'T. Walk out of the room. I hears some did that to President Summers at Harvard.

As for not wanting your tax dollars to pay him ... are you a tax payer in Colorado? If not, problem solved. But, as others have responded to it, I am sure you say my post that we don't get to choose where our tax dollars are spent. (Oh, if only). --- and Yes -- I know Congress voted to abdicate its responsibility -- Throw the bums out.----


Good for David Duke ... at least he understands the freedom of speech is freedom to say what you want. And we all should defend it, especially if it something we find repulsive.

And please ... note that I am ignoring any reference to Alan Colmes and NAMBLA.

 

[DavidCC]

Simple question, if you had a daughter and she said to you Dad, I really want your opinion, this guy asked me out but I will go by your advice, his name is Ward Churchill.......

And if he was not expressing his ideas in a public forum, how would I know what a nutjob he is??? That's why I said it is better to have him out in the open, where we can keep an eye on him. If not for his right to free speech, I would have to say no for some other reason. (becasue I always say NO)

 

[Hawkeye]

Universities are full of academics who speak out against all forms of human conditions. Someone posted "we as taxpayers" you as tax payers don't support professors at universities. They are paid by those who pay to attend - contrary to some people's belief.

If we supress freedom of speech we won't have this board. Because as soon as someone disagrees with something posted we would be "fired".

Universities exist for one major purpose to provoke thought. That is exactly what Mr. Churchill does. As evidenced by this over reacting post.

I have only heard extremely negative response to Mr. Churhill's comments from those who have not had the fortunate experience to attend one or more universities which encourage free discourse and thought provoking commentary.

 

[Karazenpo]

1. Good to know that Hannity and Coombs have become the standard for intellectual discourse. And good to know that people who are parroting the politically-correct right-wing line of Hannity, Limbaugh, Larsen et al simply pulled their words out of the luminiferous ether because they never heard of them.

2. Unlike others, college professors are paid not only to teach, but to come up with wacky ideas and discuss them with students. That's their job.

3. If Churchill's students and colleagues are too gutless to argue back, whose problem is that? Look at the post upstream, from somebody who described his own life as a student as one of mindless memorization and regurgitation--whose fault is that? You don't have to take these classes. You are perfectly empowered to argue back. The prof behaves badly, talk to the guy. That doesn't work, file a complaint. {Insert religious name here}, show a little moxie, and a little responsibility for your own education!

4. I'm going to track down, a little, what was up with Hamilton College, where this particular flap started. I smell one of our new right-wing student police groups; they're appearing everywhere now, and they're getting outside financing to go after professors whose views they don't like.

C'ome on Robert. who is your standard for intellectual discourse, Barbara Boxer and Ted (over the bridge and drown her and get away with it because you have the left wing power at the time)) Kennedy? Ask Mary Jo's family about it. Really, we can go on and on with that one and get absolutely nowhere. So let's not go there on that one please.

 

[Karazenpo]

And if he was not expressing his ideas in a public forum, how would I know what a nutjob he is??? That's why I said it is better to have him out in the open, where we can keep an eye on him. If not for his right to free speech, I would have to say no for some other reason. (becasue I always say NO)

See David you and I are reasonable because I will say openly I agree on your post. I know you agree on some of my viewpoints but hardcore liberals like PeachMonkey and robery never ever concede or give us credit if they inwardly think we made a point. Think about it and go over all their posts, they are never wrong, are they? Anyone, go look, they are laways rights. They take excrpts and say what/ You're wrong on this, you're wrong on that, you're wrong on this too, check it out. typical far left wing, no one is ever right but them. Remember the Fonz? 'Happy Days'! he could never get it out of his mouth that he was, was, was wrrrr, wrrrooo, wwwwrrrooonnn, couldn't say it! LOL.

 

[Karazenpo]

The statements people are upset about were made by Mr. Churchill on September 12, 2001. Why are they only being raised now? Because O'Reilly is spouting about it for several hours a week.

If you don't want to listen to Churchill .... DON'T. Walk out of the room. I hears some did that to President Summers at Harvard.

As for not wanting your tax dollars to pay him ... are you a tax payer in Colorado? If not, problem solved. But, as others have responded to it, I am sure you say my post that we don't get to choose where our tax dollars are spent. (Oh, if only). --- and Yes -- I know Congress voted to abdicate its responsibility -- Throw the bums out.----


Good for David Duke ... at least he understands the freedom of speech is freedom to say what you want. And we all should defend it, especially if it something we find repulsive.

And please ... note that I am ignoring any reference to Alan Colmes and NAMBLA.

Michael, that's an old one about walking out of the room, it's like changing the channel. However, I think you are mistaken on that point only because it was brought up earlier that some at the college are 'captive' audiences. Several of us brought that up, I was one. Some students have to take that course from this fruitcake and get a decent mark from him. They really have no choice so they may have to kiss butt for it, degrading yes, but some do it.
No, we can't always choose where our tax dollars are spent but in this case, if some of us would grow some balls and complain about this Churchill deal, well then, maybe we can make a difference, don't you think?

Hey, so waht if O'rReilly is the reason for this? So what? Didn't you want to know? Didn't the the friends and relatives of the 9/11 victims want to know? or would you rather hide your head in the sand? Isn't his slogan, 'I'm looking out for you', what the hell is wrong with that? Guys like Churchill aren't looking out for us!

Please, I'm from Massachusetts and have some input here, give me just a little credit for that so please, I said please, don't put Dr. Summers in the same category as that maniac Churchill.

Michael, you stated and this is a direct quote, out of context you may say but you said it in defense of the man no matter how you want to spin it:
"Good for David Duke ..."

I hate to play the race card so I'll go easy but for those who don't know David Duke he is the former "Imperial Wizard" of the Klu Klux Klan. Michael, I'd call that one back if I were you because nothing that man could say would give crediability to any debate. You might as well say 'Good for Adolph Hitler"..., no, Michael, you don't think? Why? Hitler inspired the KKK and is the head figure, isn't he? they use his Nazi symbol or am I wrong again? Here end of the lesson.

I'll give you an 'attaboy' for not siding with Alan C. on the NAMBLA issue.

PS: Michael, I know I'm a little hard on my responses but as you, I am very passionate about this country and the bad guys. Please don't take it personal, this goes for everyone here. I'm passionate about kempo but I'm an entirely different person when discussing martial arts, they're two different animals, that's why I can only stay on these political forums so long, then I need a BREAK. Thanks. With respect, Joe

 

[PeachMonkey]

C'ome on Robert. who is your standard for intellectual discourse, Barbara Boxer and Ted (over the bridge and drown her and get away with it because you have the left wing power at the time)) Kennedy? Ask Mary Jo's family about it. Really, we can go on and on with that one and get absolutely nowhere. So let's not go there on that one please.

What exactly does the Chappequidic (sp) incident have to do with the fascist vitriol that the right-wing attack machine, in the forms of Hannity, Savage, and the like constantly push?

And why are you so unable to focus on actual points of discussion instead of launching into insults?

 

[PeachMonkey]

I know you agree on some of my viewpoints but hardcore liberals like PeachMonkey and robery never ever concede or give us credit if they inwardly think we made a point.

So you're not only putting words in my mouth and assuming my gender, but now you're reading my mind too? Have you read each of my 700+ posts, as well as private message conversations to determine if I ever concede or give credit?

Why are you so determined to insult those you disagree with?

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. What's my standard for intellectual discourse? Glad you asked. To begin with, it is NOT bringing up Senator Kennedy's tragedies of some thirty years ago because I could not think of a way to respond to getting caught at echoing the Hannity/Limbaugh party line. Indeed, one of the signs that this country is in trouble is that we've replaced the public face of intelllectualism that used to include guys like Mark van Doren and Lionel Trilling and Hannah Arendt and Susan Sontag with multi-millionaire blowhards like the, "Crossfire," boys.

2. What's my standards? Glad you asked. Among books written by people I've actually had as teachers on these sorts of issues--you asked, remember--I recommend E.P Thompson, "The Poverty of Theory," and Robert Scholes' recent book (whose title I disremember) on the profession of letters in the contemporary American academy. I also tend to approch these sorts of issues through the intellectual lenses offered by Barbara Johnson's work--see, "Apostrophe, Animation and Abortion," in her "A World of Difference," for example.

3. Uh...at the risk of making sense...David Duke was cited because a) he stuck up for free speech, always a good thing, and b) as a bit of irony, given that even a racist KKK Wizard appeared to understand why we should encourage dissent. But how charming to bring up NAMBLA, and what a good reminder of Tailgunner Joe's good old smear tactics. Hey, did you know that Ward Churchill was personally responsible for Stalin?

4. If folks aren't repelled or even mildly bothered by the concept of a politically biased, multimillionaire talk-show host launching a well-financed and supported campaign against a lecturer in order to whip up hatred, keep his ratings high, and sell his latest book--you do realize that this schmuck is actually hawking, "Bill O'reilly For Kids," now?--well, what can one say?

5. What in the HELL are people so scared of? It's a college professor doing EXACTLY what college professors are supposed to be doing--encouraging people to think. Eeeew, lawzy me. Fer crying out loud, the students who wrote in to Hamilton College's newspaper and argued about it understand the whole thing way better--read them, at the link I posted, fer crissake. There's yer intellectual discourse--exactly as it should be.

6. This is a free society. Sorry 'bout that. I'd think folks would be proud that in THIS country, you can say what you want without so much fear or favor.

 

[PeachMonkey]

ome students have to take that course from this fruitcake and get a decent mark from him. They really have no choice so they may have to kiss butt for it, degrading yes, but some do it.

Even if, as you're assuming (since you don't actually know, once again), that Churchill's courses are required, no one has to kiss his butt. First, as Robert has pointed out clearly, there are worse things than failing a course in college. Second, I have yet to experience any teacher at any level who will fail a student for disagreeing with them -- if the student is capable of arguing logically, they are normally thrilled to have an independent thinking student on their hands.

No, we can't always choose where our tax dollars are spent but in this case, if some of us would grow some balls and complain about this Churchill deal, well then, maybe we can make a difference, don't you think?

It's nice to see that the difference you're interested in making is in the repression of freedom and education.

Please, I'm from Massachusetts and have some input here, give me just a little credit for that so please, I said please, don't put Dr. Summers in the same category as that maniac Churchill.

Why not? They're both academics who have made statements that people want to see them punished for. Both should be protected under the same standard.

Michael, you stated and this is a direct quote, out of context you may say but you said it in defense of the man no matter how you want to spin it:
"Good for David Duke ..."

nothing that man could say would give crediability to any debate. You might as well say 'Good for Adolph Hitler"..., no, Michael, you don't think? Why? Hitler inspired the KKK and is the head figure, isn't he? they use his Nazi symbol or am I wrong again? Here end of the lesson.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Giving credit to someone for doing the right thing isn't the same thing as endorsing the evil they do.

PS: Michael, I know I'm a little hard on my responses but as you, I am very passionate about this country and the bad guys.

I'm not Michael, but I have to point out that people that happen to disagree with you on many of these issues are also very passionate about their country. I hope you recognize that when you throw around insults about "far left wing liberals", telling us to "love it or leave it", it's hard to not take these things personally.

My preference would be for a spirited political debate based on actual facts where we can avoid telling one another to leave the country that we love.

 

[PeachMonkey]

This is a free society. Sorry 'bout that. I'd think folks would be proud that in THIS country, you can say what you want without so much fear or favor.

This is, in fact, the primary issue, and the only real one that should matter.

There have been, and still are, many societies where freedom can be suppressed by the state and by the whims and wills of outraged people. America was founded largely to repudiate such concepts, and Americans have fought and died to protect those freedoms for over two centuries.

Many Americans were stripped of their livelihoods and freedoms as recently as the 50's (and even the 70s) for daring to voice opinions that didn't match the common party line. Maybe many of us simply don't know anything about that history; maybe they're entirely comfortable with that sort of thing.

Regardless of the reasons, trying to suppress academic freedom stands against everything that helped bring society out of the Dark Ages, and helps make America stand out against societies of oppression and dictatorship.

 

[michaeledward]

Michael, that's an old one about walking out of the room, it's like changing the channel. However, I think you are mistaken on that point only because it was brought up earlier that some at the college are 'captive' audiences. Several of us brought that up, I was one. Some students have to take that course from this fruitcake and get a decent mark from him. They really have no choice so they may have to kiss butt for it, degrading yes, but some do it.
No, we can't always choose where our tax dollars are spent but in this case, if some of us would grow some balls and complain about this Churchill deal, well then, maybe we can make a difference, don't you think?

Hey, so waht if O'rReilly is the reason for this? So what? Didn't you want to know? Didn't the the friends and relatives of the 9/11 victims want to know? or would you rather hide your head in the sand? Isn't his slogan, 'I'm looking out for you', what the hell is wrong with that? Guys like Churchill aren't looking out for us!

Please, I'm from Massachusetts and have some input here, give me just a little credit for that so please, I said please, don't put Dr. Summers in the same category as that maniac Churchill.

Michael, you stated and this is a direct quote, out of context you may say but you said it in defense of the man no matter how you want to spin it:
"Good for David Duke ..."

I hate to play the race card so I'll go easy but for those who don't know David Duke he is the former "Imperial Wizard" of the Klu Klux Klan. Michael, I'd call that one back if I were you because nothing that man could say would give crediability to any debate. You might as well say 'Good for Adolph Hitler"..., no, Michael, you don't think? Why? Hitler inspired the KKK and is the head figure, isn't he? they use his Nazi symbol or am I wrong again? Here end of the lesson.

I'll give you an 'attaboy' for not siding with Alan C. on the NAMBLA issue.

PS: Michael, I know I'm a little hard on my responses but as you, I am very passionate about this country and the bad guys. Please don't take it personal, this goes for everyone here. I'm passionate about kempo but I'm an entirely different person when discussing martial arts, they're two different animals, that's why I can only stay on these political forums so long, then I need a BREAK. Thanks. With respect, Joe

OK Joe .. let's break this down ...

No body is required to do anything in College. If something is that offensive to you, drop the class. There are plenty of other courses you can take. And Higher Education is not mandatory in this country.

O'Reilly is not 'Looking Out for Anyone'. He is desperately distributing bread and circuses. Distracting the citizenry from the machinations of power. He is creating a lens of hatred and giving it a focal point.

I'm a Massachusetts Native myself ... and watch carefully the parallels between Churchill and Summers. They will be clear, because the same media is playing to the same rules with both persons. And don't forget about that nutcase from Massachusetts we almost put in the Governors chair a few years back. Silber .... Now there was a democrat I was glad lost an election.

Concerning David Duke - take the argument away from David Duke, and give it to Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln. The argument is valid. Either the first amendment means we can freely make statements about anything, provided they don't cause the physical damage (yelling FIRE in a crowded theater) without reprise, or the first amendment doesn't mean that. If Grand Imperial Wizard says it is okay for the professor to profess a thing because the first amendment says so ... it really is irrelevant who is making the statement.

If Adolf Hitler said the First Amendment guarantees that Churchill can say what he wants, Hitler would be correct.

The truth about me and Churchill is that I have no idea what he said. The only source I have for his statements are this thread, and what O'Reilly has been screaching from his radio program. I look at the whole discussion with about the same seriousness I give to the folks who claim a surface-to-air missile brought down TWA 800. Nice theory ... Yawn!.

But, if we start making statements about 'Free Speech Going Too Far', then you capture my attention.

Thanks - Mike

 

[Karazenpo]

OK Joe .. let's break this down ...

No body is required to do anything in College. If something is that offensive to you, drop the class. There are plenty of other courses you can take. And Higher Education is not mandatory in this country.

O'Reilly is not 'Looking Out for Anyone'. He is desperately distributing bread and circuses. Distracting the citizenry from the machinations of power. He is creating a lens of hatred and giving it a focal point.

I'm a Massachusetts Native myself ... and watch carefully the parallels between Churchill and Summers. They will be clear, because the same media is playing to the same rules with both persons. And don't forget about that nutcase from Massachusetts we almost put in the Governors chair a few years back. Silber .... Now there was a democrat I was glad lost an election.

Concerning David Duke - take the argument away from David Duke, and give it to Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln. The argument is valid. Either the first amendment means we can freely make statements about anything, provided they don't cause the physical damage (yelling FIRE in a crowded theater) without reprise, or the first amendment doesn't mean that. If Grand Imperial Wizard says it is okay for the professor to profess a thing because the first amendment says so ... it really is irrelevant who is making the statement.

If Adolf Hitler said the First Amendment guarantees that Churchill can say what he wants, Hitler would be correct.

The truth about me and Churchill is that I have no idea what he said. The only source I have for his statements are this thread, and what O'Reilly has been screaching from his radio program. I look at the whole discussion with about the same seriousness I give to the folks who claim a surface-to-air missile brought down TWA 800. Nice theory ... Yawn!.

But, if we start making statements about 'Free Speech Going Too Far', then you capture my attention.

Thanks - Mike

Hey Mike, thanks for you response and again in all sincerity I want no hard feelings what-so-ever and I do get the feeling you realize that. My Dad always tells me not to argue politics but it's hard to resist. I still don't agree with your rebuttal at all but I'm not going to address it again because we're both set in our ways and nothing wrong with that either, lol. I will however only address this. You stated: O'Reilly is not 'Looking Out for Anyone'. He is desperately distributing bread and circuses. Distracting the citizenry from the machinations of power. He is creating a lens of hatred and giving it a focal point.

Mike, I totally disagree with this completely and I would love to see if I could somehow pull some strings and get you on the O'Reilly Factor, don't get me wrong, not that i have any clout, I'm reaching, but I'd like to try. From debating you I think you would go for this, okay? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I swear it, but your statement against O'Reilly would make one helluva segment on his show, you have to agree on that, lol. Take care & be safe, Joe

 

[Karazenpo]

I'm not Michael, but I have to point out that people that happen to disagree with you on many of these issues are also very passionate about their country. I hope you recognize that when you throw around insults about "far left wing liberals", telling us to "love it or leave it", it's hard to not take these things personally.

My preference would be for a spirited political debate based on actual facts where we can avoid telling one another to leave the country that we love.
__________________

Okay, PeachMonkey, I hear ya on that but you don't think I perceive your digs and inuendos and others just because you sugar coat it. C'ome on now, here we go again. The difference between me and you is I say it bluntly and you dress t up a little but it's still a matter of delivery. It's like the martial arts, whether you use a direct hard technique or an indirect soft technique it still hurst when it hits.

My problem with you and some others is did you hear what I said: "Okay, PeachMonkey, I hear ya".

You won't give me or anyone else for that matter even that much. I will always concede to someone and have when they make a good point but your attitude and others (I won't say liberals anymore, see I'm conceding again) is that you are always right. hell, you can't see that!!!!!!! Go back and read ever post you ever wrote! It's absurd. You are never, ever wrong. Everyone else is but you! It must be nice to be perfect. What a crock of sh_t! Sorry, but the facts are in your posts. Now, this may piss you off but I'm willing to bet you don't have a boyfriend/husband and if you had a husband you're divorced, sorry, you may say irrelavent and none of my business but it goes perfectly in line with your attitude! I wouldn't bring this up, I really wouldn't, but there's no healthy discussion you can have with someone who is always right! Michael and I don't debate that way and neither do many others. Hey, PeachMonkey, no offense but what the hell, no one is right all the time, I'm the first to change my position on things nad have and said the magic words 'stand corrected' but I'm willing to bet oyu never have, have you? No, not on this forun anyway. Wonder Woman, I guess. God bless you.

 

[Karazenpo]

What exactly does the Chappequidic (sp) incident have to do with the fascist vitriol that the right-wing attack machine, in the forms of Hannity, Savage, and the like constantly push?

And why are you so unable to focus on actual points of discussion instead of launching into insults?

I insult like you, the only difference is we have soft and hard, direct and indirect. You don't think I perceive your digs and iuendos because you dress it up a little? You're soft and indirect, I'm hard and direct, much like Shotokan vs. Kung Fu but the bottom line is both methods hurt when they hit! You're no different with your insults, you just have a more sutle (sp.?) way of doing it. Ted Kennedy? Simple. You can't make the analogy of the most liberal left wing politician in Massachusetts second only to John Kerry?? Hey, my crystal ball, why do I bet you voted for John Kerry? You say a lot about me and mine but who won the damn election in this country? Who one the majority? Overall? Everything!, the seats? Who? Get over it, will you! George W. & Co. won fair and square and by a good margin despite the lies of Dan Rather and CBS News. Move on! You lost, it's that simple. I hope you realize how foolish Barbara Boxer looked a little while ago and Uncle Ted, the 'bridge man" is no better either. Move on!!!!

 

[Karazenpo]

PeachMonkey, I'm going to ask for one favor and one favor only then I'm out of this section and sticking to the martial arts foums. Please, give me your honest feelings about Ward Churchill. No b.s., no holds barred. I don't want to hear about any rights or anything because that is not what I'm asking. I'm asking you if he is your type of person. Is he someone who's views you relate to, someone that you believe in. If he ran for political office, would you vote for him? You have made such a strong stand on this that I think the members of this discussion forum have the right to know this. Plus, your freedom of speech, you should have no problem expressing your viewpoints to my questions. Again, no b.s., no rhetoric, no dancing around the questions, no spin, just please give honest answers to the above questions. I think that's fair enough for you know how I stand. Thank you for the debate, take care & be safe. Respectfully, "Joe"

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Joe, you need to read Jacques Lacan's essay, "Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis." Or else Tindbergen's experiments with male stickleback fish and mirrors.

2. Your last four posts will stand as an example of what you apparently think of as being intellectual discourse.

3. As far as I'm concerned, this has become a class issue. Joe, you're pissed because you identify intellectual life as upper class, and because you live in a society that exploits working class labor to support intellectual life, among other things. Then, your society--via people like Hannity and O'Reilly--turns around and tells you that a) you're here to serve upper class interests; b) this is because you're not good enough to be an intellectual; c) this is perfectly OK, and how God planned things to be. They're worse than wrong--they're lying.

4. See the topic of "ressentiment," as discussed in Frederic Jameson, "The Political Unconscious."

5. You should be pissed, Joe. Just not at us--or more precisely, you shouldn't be pissed at us for the reasons you think you should be pissed at us. You shouldn't be pissed because we look down on you ("we?"), or because we are pointy-head America-hating intellectuals who are all just dying to join NAMBLA. You shouldn't be pissed because we don't support our troops, or the hard-working cops who help keep us safe. You should be pissed because the way ideology works in this country, it is far too easy for guys like me to overlook or look down on--let's go all Wobblies here--the working-class stiffs who fix our cars and collect our garbage and, "guard us while we sleep."
6. So--you wanna be pissed at Prof. Churchill? Fine. Be pissed at him because because he depends on privilege to make his point. And because he's haughty. And because you've been lied to about who your enemies are. And because the guys who you think are, "on your side," for ex Hizzoner Bush and Bill O'Reilly--also depend on privilege and haughtiness to make their points.

7. But you should be glad that for all its flaws, this is still the United States. A place where it's almost true that Sad Sam in Anton Myrer's, "Once an Eagle," (read it...you'd like it; I know I did) can quote Shakespeare and piss everybody off:

"The weight of this sad time we must obey/Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say."

 

[Karazenpo]

HA, HA, HA!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a little after 11:00pm my time and I thought I'd catch some t.v. Well guess what? Remember a few posts ago I said time will tell and things would escalate to violence and you guys put me down? Remember? Well a reporter uncovered information that Mr. Churchill stole someone elses work. There is more to it than that but it's a breaking story and more will be coming out. He ASSAULTED the reporter and before anyone questions me on this, IT WAS ON FILM, YES CAUGHT ON TAPE. Good old Ward got violent 'TWICE' when this reporter attempted to inquire about this situation.

PeachMonkey, Robert and Company who supports good old Ward better regroup so you can make 101 excuses for this pathetic imbecile but many of us would respect you more if you just admitted what an idiot loser he is. YOU HAVE TO SEE THE TAPE BECAUSE HE ACTS EXACTLY LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ME ACT IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT SO YOU COULD BE ALL OVER ME!
However, that's the difference bewteen good old Ward and me and that's why I just can't understand your thinking but that's okay, it's your opinion BUT you have to see this tape for his actions are uncalled for, unruly, assaulting, moronic and I guarrantee to you I'll be back soon to post of his FIRING! Freedom of speech, huh? You mean freedom to assault, I said it would escalate to violence sooner or later, slowly but surely, little by little but your pompous attitudes put me down. well, who's laughing now? What was my title of this post, was it something like: 'LOSER"!!!!!!, LOL, LOL.