I found the limit of Freedom of Speech

[ol' man]

flavio, he wasn't making a joke:

I think it was sarcasm. Doesn't really matter. The author isn't really coming off very neutral.

I'm not the only one with my previously expressed opinion

Note above comment about the author. I'm sure it makes a lot of pro-war people feel better to think that way whether it's true or not.

O yeah I suppose it was all one big joke. The whole rally that is. I don't think so. In MN we had a talk from a guy just the same as these folk. He acted like he was joking to avoid questions but he really wasn't. I still asked him questions. He said that everyone should have only one child in the US to curb population growth. I guess he didn;t know the statistics that the third world nations are around 85% responsible for the massive increase in population growth while developed countries are take up the remaining 15%. The US's population really has not grown as much as many may have thought in the last 50 years. It definatly was not exponential. The undeveloped countries populations have grown exponentialy to almost a growth rate that on my graph is almost vertical. Alot of these people are the countries that hoard muslim extremists in africa and asia. NICE.

Anyway I questioned the guy how we ought to control our population in the US then. I asked maybe a totalitarian government like China maybe? He got quiet and his talk was about over. Kept saying that the church should put its money were its mouth was.

There were more than this guy that heard what was said there at that rally. He seems to have the facts pretty straight about the asshole De Genova, I doubt he iis going to be telling BS about this guy either. And do you think no matter who is in agreement any of this makes me feel better? One guys is calling for the murder of 18 million americans? Same guy who says that if you love America and are a patriot you are a white supremecist. What a dipshit. Yep thats me, a white supremecist married to my Korean wife.

Flav, I don't think there was anything about this rally that was a joke. Brainwashing was their motive.

 

[ol' man]

More

[Ad]


At Columbia, Call for Death of U.S. Forces Is Denounced
By TAMAR LEWIN


he president of Columbia University said yesterday that he was horrified by the remarks of an anthropology professor who said at a campus antiwar teach-in Wednesday night that he hoped to see "a million Mogadishus" — referring to the city in Somalia where American soldiers were ambushed in a lethal firefight in 1993.

The professor, Nicholas De Genova, also called for the defeat of United States forces in Iraq, and said the only true heroes are those who help defeat the American military. He said Americans who call themselves patriots are imperialist white supremacists.

"Under well-established principles of the First Amendment, this is within a person's right to free speech," Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia, said in an interview. "Not for a second, however, does that insulate it from criticism. I am shocked that someone would make such statements. I am especially saddened for the families of those whose lives are now at risk."

Those who attended the teach-in said most of the audience stayed silent at Professor De Genova's reference to the Mogadishu ambush, an event portrayed in the movie "Black Hawk Down." The raid, on Oct. 3, 1993, in which 18 Americans were killed and 75 injured — and the subsequent broadcast of images of a dead American being dragged through Mogadishu — prompted President Bill Clinton to order a withdrawal of troops from Somalia, where they had been sent to help relieve a famine.

"Professor De Genova's speech did not represent the views of the organizers," said Eric Foner, a history professor who was one of the teach-in's organizers. "I personally found it quite reprehensible. The antiwar movement does not desire the death of American soldiers. We do not accept his view of what it means to be a patriot. I began my talk, which came later, by repudiating his definition of patriotism, saying the teach-in was a patriotic act, that I believe patriots are those who seek to improve their country."

Professor De Genova's voice mail was not accepting messages yesterday. The anthropology department referred all calls concerning him to the public affairs office, where a spokesman said he had no further information on Professor De Genova, who is untenured and teaches anthropology and Latino studies.

The teach-in at Columbia, which went from 6 p.m. to midnight Wednesday and drew an audience of about 3,000, was organized by seven faculty members, who were joined by about two dozen other faculty members speaking on subjects like Middle East relations, civil liberties, pre-emptive war, the Geneva Conventions and Iraqi archaeological sites endangered by the war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/e...00&en=b2571f49df0e2981&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

 

[flavio]

I live under an unelected government," said Bruce Robbins, a professor of English and Comparative Literature. In Robbins's view, apparently, not all wars are equally evil: "I fantasize," he said, "about being liberated by a European invasion

I saw this as sarcasm and a simple comparison between btween Hussein not being an elected leader and out "liberating" invasion of Iraq.

I have no idea where you get this "brainwashing" from, but maybe you're being brainwashed by reading such biased opinion pieces from the National Review.

The other guys (Genova) I don't agree with, but there's always some people on one side of things with a bit of an extreme view. Witness members of this discussion board calling for the death of ALL muslims.

I do hope that the longer we are over in Iraq the more rallys will spring up.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I live under an unelected government," said Bruce Robbins, a professor of English and Comparative Literature. In Robbins's view, apparently, not all wars are equally evil: "I fantasize," he said, "about being liberated by a European invasion

I saw this as sarcasm and a simple comparison between btween Hussein not being an elected leader and out "liberating" invasion of Iraq.

I have no idea where you get this "brainwashing" from, but maybe you're being brainwashed by reading such biased opinion pieces from the National Review.

The other guys (Genova) I don't agree with, but there's always some people on one side of things with a bit of an extreme view. Witness members of this discussion board calling for the death of ALL muslims.

I do hope that the longer we are over in Iraq the more rallys will spring up.

Poor flavio...Once again adding what you like and openly vehement on what you do not. Nowhere in that statement does the 'professor' in question compare Bush and Hussein, but, in order to prop up your own views, you've added into what was mentioned...Perhaps he isn't the only one 'brainwashed'...

 

[flavio]

I saw it obvious sarcasm. I'm just stating how I saw it. Is that ok for me to state my opinion?

You don't think ol man and Gonz are a little vehement? I suppose you would prefer we only have one-sided discussions here?.

Poor Gato....not everyone thinks like him.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Where, in that article, was sarcasm mentioned?

Where did he say he was joking?

Did he say he was joking before, or after the fact?

Point it out, and I'll step down, otherwise you need to open your eyes a bit.

 

[flavio]

In your world when people use sarcasm do they need to actually tell you that their using sarcasm? That would be a little weird.

That article has such an obvious tilt to it that we're never going to know what reality is. It doesn't really matter though. I saw it as sarcasm and explained why. You don't see it as sarcasm for your own reasons.

I don't see any way to settle it one way or the other and I'm really not very interested in the first place.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Sorry. edited out because it was gramatically incorrect. Next post please...

 

[Gato_Solo]

In your world when people use sarcasm do they need to actually tell you that their using sarcasm? That would be a little weird.

In a teacher's meeting, which is supposed to be serious, sarcasm is not looked upon kindly.

That article has such an obvious tilt to it that we're never going to know what reality is. It doesn't really matter though. I saw it as sarcasm and explained why. You don't see it as sarcasm for your own reasons.

So you admit you saw only what you wanted? (serious question)

I don't see any way to settle it one way or the other and I'm really not very interested in the first place.

Then why bring it up in the first place? Defending his position in any form makes most of us question your motives simply because of your arguments in other threads.

 

[ol' man]

Then why bring it up in the first place? Defending his position in any form makes most of us question your motives simply because of your arguments in other threads.

My thoughts exactly. Anyone who thinks that is funny or a joke in context with the rest of the rally possibly agree's with him.

Yeah lets laugh and joke about american freedom being taken away by Europes uncanny opinions on life and liberty. Apparently the world court doesn't like a jury. Democrats seem to like the though of the world court ruling over america. maybe someday they could get their paws into the supreme courts decisions and change policies here in america. They already think they can tell the US what to do with convicted murderers on its soil. That is only the begining.

Anyone else see a pattern here?

I guess the high court is trying to make it so if you want someone killed use a mexican assassin cause if caught international law says he should not be executed. What a plan. Maybe they could do this same deal for terrorists?

Yeah what a deal?

I see a pattern.

2 years after 9/11 it is clear to see who is on our side from Europe.

Soon we will have terrorists in this country commiting acts of terrorism but we will not be able to persecute/execute them under international law. Only the world court will be able to persecute in which they get 14 years instead of death for malicioulsy killing americans. You know it is coming.

That is if the democrats get back in.

Soon they will have the US under the world courts rule just like they try to in Israel. Must be nice to commit murder in Israel but when Israel defends itself the world court calls it war crimes. They even have charges against the leader of that country for warcrimes. What the heck can Israel do to protect its citizens?

What the heck can the US do to protect its citizens since much of Europe thinks any sort of war on terrorism should be done with inspections and political debates. All that did was allow Saddam to send millions to terrorists operating in Israel. One has to ask were does all of the cash flow come from that goes to Saddam and eventually to Israeli terrorists? France, Germany, Russia, and China????? Just cause Iraq trades oil for aid does not mean it cannot be transfered into cash, and quite easily at that.

 

[flavio]

In a teacher's meeting, which is supposed to be serious, sarcasm is not looked upon kindly.

Sarcasm is an often used tool even among academia.

So you admit you saw only what you wanted? (serious question)

I saw what I think is accurate. Did you see what you wanted?

Then why bring it up in the first place?

I didn't bring it up, ol man did.

Defending his position in any form makes most of us question your motives simply because of your arguments in other threads.

What is that supposed to mean? I question your motives because of your comments in other threads as well. So what?

 

[Matrox]

An academic furor was brewing Friday over a Columbia University professor who told thousands of students and faculty that he would like to see the United States defeated in Iraq and suffer "a million Mogadishus" -- referring to the 1993 ambush in Somalia that killed 18 Americans.

Every casuality, no matter what site, is one too many. This man needs a shrink.

 

[outside looking in]

Is it any surprise that flavio is, in one way or another, defending what this crackpot says? I've made jokes before that someone could say they wished a million americans could die, and flavio would somehow find a way to agree. Well, good work flav. You're not agreeing with this lunnatic (hopefully), but you still found some contrived way to argue against those saying this guy needs a serious ass reshuffling.

You make it a point of arguing against the "right wingers" just because it's them, not because of what they are saying. I really want to find some common ground with you, but you make that exceedingly difficult.

 

[flavio]

The quote in question sure looks like sarcasm to me. What's "contrived" is the article it came from.

 

[Gato_Solo]

OLI, don't waste your time on flavio. He's going to support this guy solely on his anti-war stance regardless of what he said. Flavio's defense of the 'sarcasm' alone speaks volumes about his views.

As for the use of sarcasm in academia...

While useful to break monotony, sarcasm is generally used in context of something other than the deaths of people. I don't find what he said sarcastic, and niether does anybody else with any good sense. Wishing harm upon someone is not funny, and never should be taken so. If you want to protest the war, fine. I can live with that. Protest away, but once you cross the line of wishing death upon those who serve...and I am included in that number...then I say you, and those who defend you, are ignorant at best and hypocritical at worst. You perch your happy asses on the backs of those of us who must be here, and then condemn us for doing a job that you, yourself, haven't the courage to do, and base your stance on the fact that you are an 'intellectual'. Of all of us, you are the worst sort. If you really want to do something about the war, bring your cowardly, slothful butts over here and sit down in Iraq. Anything else is a cop-out.
I know what you're thinking...You're trying to come up with some kind of witty response. Go ahead. It won't make any difference to me, or anyone else here. I don't know about the others here, but I have had enough of your whining. I'm here. You're not.

 

[flavio]

It's hard to have a conversation with you when you don't follow along. We were talking about this quote which doesn't really talk about death and is also pretty obvious sarcasm.

[quoteI live under an unelected government," said Bruce Robbins, a professor of English and Comparative Literature. In Robbins's view, apparently, not all wars are equally evil: "I fantasize," he said, "about being liberated by a European invasion[/quote]

 

[Gato_Solo]

I live under an unelected government

Sarcasm, or belief. I don't see the sarcasm. Frankly, none in is sanctum did either.

An academic furor was brewing Friday over a Columbia University professor who told thousands of students and faculty that he would like to see the United States defeated in Iraq and suffer "a million Mogadishus" -- referring to the 1993 ambush in Somalia that killed 18 Americans.

Any other dodges you care to make? Nice try, but I don't think anybody here is buying it.

 

[flavio]

Apparently you still don't understand that those are two different people and two different quotes. The one I have been talking about is from a guy named Bruce (the one I just posted again for reference). The other one is from a guy named Nicholas.

Are you following along yet?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Okay. My bad, and I apologize. I don't have time to read every post because of where I'm at and what I'm doing.

 

[Gonz]

"Professor De Genova's speech did not represent the views of the organizers," said Eric Foner, a history professor who was one of the teach-in's organizers. "I personally found it quite reprehensible. The antiwar movement does not desire the death of American soldiers. We do not accept his view of what it means to be a patriot. I began my talk, which came later, by repudiating his definition of patriotism, saying the teach-in was a patriotic act, that I believe patriots are those who seek to improve their country."

Specifically, the bold text. If that's true, why was this guy allowed to go on? Making a "reprehensible" statement calls for interuption or, at the outside, removal. Maybe it's better to allow someone, invited or not, to deeply damage your presentation?