| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 21, 1:37 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... 2pid wonders if any "kook" can say what they want... Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!out02b.usenets erver.com! news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.u senetserver.com! in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!hwmnpe er01.phx! hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga! newsfe21.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "ScottW" Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion References: .com .com . com . com TCeRi. .com .com . com .com .com wpURi. .com Subject: OT: It's ON Now Lines: 34 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:27 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.181.144.45 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: newsfe21.lga 1192762769 70.181.144.45 (Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:29 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:29 MST Organization: Cox "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message roups.com... On Oct 18, 9:13 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... So we can chit-chat waiting for an audio topic, or move on. "Chit-chat" does not equal "political propaganda," 2pid. Damn...you got some weird rules. Luckily you're not in charge and I can post what I want. I know. You've avoided the question of whether or not you consider what you are doing 'right'. Do you follow rules, 2pid? Not yours...they change too often. Is what you are doing "right"? and true and just and the American way in accordance with the first amendment. I'll make a deal with you though...since this has become the only cause of your life you still have a chance of succeeding at, I'll throw you a bone. George is gonna be so jealous as his cause is hopeless. I'll restrict all my posts to audio for all your records. You deliver of course. ************************************************** ******** Of course, I've chosen to be charitable to 2pid and not address his "situational ethics" and his obvious solicitation of bribery... Does the first amendment require me to speak? So who wants to require you to speak? Does it prohibit my acceptance of compensation as a private citizen to keep quiet when within the law? Rationalization of poor ethical behavior noted. AFAIK...I'm only required to speak out in witness of a crime and much as I think your positions are foolish and often unethical. They aren't criminal. Why does this argument seem like it could come from good old Arns? LOL! Freedom is a 2-way street. I know you hate that. LMAO! Um, 2pid? That was the point, you imbecile. It was you who whined about any kook's ability to have a podium. Yet it was you who said what you did above a day or two earlier. So I agree with you, 2pid, that any kook, including you, can say whatever you want, as loudly as you want, anywhere you want, whether it's appropriate or not. That doesn't make it "right", it just means that anybody gets to. Yet you whine that some kook said something you don't like. And, (LOL!) you claim to be ethical. Therefore, you either walk the walk and quit hypocritically whining about what somebody said, as all are afforded the same rights as you, or you refute your right to free speech. If one gets shut down, we all do. You do not get to have it both ways. (Just to be clear, 2pid, I would never deny you your right to free speech. You can say whatever you want, no matter how stupid it is. I do, however, question the appropriateness of your selection of forum. You have clearly stated that does not matter to you. Coming in against the group charter (and the legions of people who told you that you are a drooling moron and who have asked you to take it elsewhere), is what is "right and true and just and the American Way". Therefore, in your world view, it is entirely OK for someone to stand up in church and bleat about the benefits of devil worship, or to announce all the new White Supremacy theories, or to incite Muslims to jihad, or even to (gasp!) question Iraq policy.) Have you looked up the word "hypocrite" yet? I didn't think so. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 21, 2:59 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Oct 21, 1:37 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... 2pid wonders if any "kook" can say what they want... Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!out02b.usenets erver.com! news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.u senetserver.com! in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!hwmnpe er01.phx! hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga! newsfe21.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "ScottW" Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion References: .com .com . com . com TCeRi. .com .com . com .com .com wpURi. .com Subject: OT: It's ON Now Lines: 34 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:27 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.181.144.45 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: newsfe21.lga 1192762769 70.181.144.45 (Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:29 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:29 MST Organization: Cox "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message roups.com... On Oct 18, 9:13 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... So we can chit-chat waiting for an audio topic, or move on. "Chit-chat" does not equal "political propaganda," 2pid. Damn...you got some weird rules. Luckily you're not in charge and I can post what I want. I know. You've avoided the question of whether or not you consider what you are doing 'right'. Do you follow rules, 2pid? Not yours...they change too often. Is what you are doing "right"? and true and just and the American way in accordance with the first amendment. I'll make a deal with you though...since this has become the only cause of your life you still have a chance of succeeding at, I'll throw you a bone. George is gonna be so jealous as his cause is hopeless. I'll restrict all my posts to audio for all your records. You deliver of course. ************************************************** ******** Of course, I've chosen to be charitable to 2pid and not address his "situational ethics" and his obvious solicitation of bribery... Does the first amendment require me to speak? So who wants to require you to speak? Does it prohibit my acceptance of compensation as a private citizen to keep quiet when within the law? Rationalization of poor ethical behavior noted. AFAIK...I'm only required to speak out in witness of a crime and much as I think your positions are foolish and often unethical. They aren't criminal. Why does this argument seem like it could come from good old Arns? LOL! Freedom is a 2-way street. I know you hate that. LMAO! Um, 2pid? That was the point, you imbecile. It was you who whined about any kook's ability to have a podium. Freedom of speech does not guarantee a podium you buffoon. It guarantees that when you get a podium, you can say whatever you want. So what you were really mad about was that this speaker got a podium. What the speaker said at the podium did not matter. Right? |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 22, 7:16 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Oct 21, 2:59 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... It was you who whined about any kook's ability to have a podium. Freedom of speech does not guarantee a podium you buffoon. It guarantees that when you get a podium, you can say whatever you want. Tell that to Jim GilChrist. So what you were really mad about was that this speaker got a podium. Nope..that he keeps getting one to deliver hate speech. Another read for you: "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg" by Mark Twain. |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 22, 7:16 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Oct 21, 2:59 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... It was you who whined about any kook's ability to have a podium. Freedom of speech does not guarantee a podium you buffoon. It guarantees that when you get a podium, you can say whatever you want. Tell that to Jim GilChrist. Failure to address the point noted. Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent. The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were obstructed. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On 23 Oct, 01:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote: On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent. The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were obstructed. Did you see the tape of the disruption in the Bill Maher audience? I thought Bill appropriately handled the situation. couldn't have been handled better. Congrats to him, he understands free speech, and its limits. one of the few libs that are both smart and funny. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from speaking, an invited guest of the University. That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak. The protestors have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well. The fault lies with the university's poor security. They can protest outside the event but they have no right to disrupt the event. As I said, security was the actual issue. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from speaking, an invited guest of the University. That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak. The protestors have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well. The fault lies with the university's poor security. They can protest outside the event but they have no right to disrupt the event. As I said, security was the actual issue. The disruptors get a pass....typical. They can't be accountable for their actions..it was lack of parental supervision. Didn't he write, "There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant."? So in your twisted lack of self responsibility world downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security. The downloader's what? |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from speaking, an invited guest of the University. That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak. The protestors have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well. The fault lies with the university's poor security. They can protest outside the event but they have no right to disrupt the event. As I said, security was the actual issue. The disruptors get a pass....typical. They can't be accountable for their actions..it was lack of parental supervision. Didn't he write, "There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant."? Seems to touch security twice... as having true responsibility for not allowing rampant... Sorry...the culprits bear full responsibility...the idea that lack of security bears any fault for denial of free speech is absurd. If there is respect for free speech, security is not required. There was an anti-immigration meeting was planned in Carlsbad at a public meeting room...a town hall room attached to the Library. It's available for social, political and other public events. Immigration activists announced plans to disrupt the meeting. Carlsbad tried to cancel the event claiming security costs were too high, then tried to pass the costs on to event organizers. A judge had to intervene and explain to Carlsbad how they can't do that. So in your twisted lack of self responsibility world downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security. The downloader's what? sigh... "must also get a pass for lack of security." Nevermind. It's a grammar thing... |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
Jenn said: downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security. The downloader's what? "must also get a pass for lack of security." Nevermind. It's a grammar thing... Grammar is elitist, you snob. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote: "George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message ... Jenn said: downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security. The downloader's what? "must also get a pass for lack of security." Nevermind. It's a grammar thing... Grammar is elitist, you snob. and even worse....it's boring. ScottW Like spelling? |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
Yapper stoops to self-ridicule. downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security. The downloader's what? "must also get a pass for lack of security." Nevermind. It's a grammar thing... Grammar is elitist, you snob. and even worse....it's boring. As usual, you're totally oblivious to how ridiculous you are. I'd hate to be trapped in Moronland with you, Witless. Nearly everything must mystify you totally. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
A gruesome revelation wafts up from the ashes of the Great SoCal Fire of '07. Grammar is elitist, you snob. and even worse....it's boring. Like spelling? actually I learned something about ceramics I didn't know....more than I ever learned from George. Why were you trying to learn something from me, you nitwit? I have no interest in teaching you anything, especially basic language skills that educated people are supposed to learn by the age of 12. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
Yapper dinks along in the gutter. As usual, you're totally oblivious to how ridiculous you are. I'd hate to be trapped in Moronland with you, Witless. Nearly everything must mystify you totally. You don't. Maybe you should sharpen your teeth, Scooter. I can barely feel you nipping at my heels. |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
Scottie, you're so addled you can't even follow your own "discussion". more than I ever learned from George. Why were you trying to learn something from me, you nitwit? I'm not. Should we be worried? Your hazy grasp on reality seems to be slipping. Are you sure you checked out of your firebox house? Maybe you should go to the hospital and ask them to check for smoke damage in your "brain". |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 23, 10:21 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from speaking, an invited guest of the University. That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak. The protestors have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well. The fault lies with the university's poor security. They can protest outside the event but they have no right to disrupt the event. As I said, security was the actual issue. The disruptors get a pass....typical. They can't be accountable for their actions..it was lack of parental supervision. So in your twisted lack of self responsibility world downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security. There is but one conclusion I can draw here, 2pid: you're an imbecile. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 23, 11:26 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message In article , "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message groups.com... On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from speaking, an invited guest of the University. That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak. The protestors have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well. The fault lies with the university's poor security. They can protest outside the event but they have no right to disrupt the event. As I said, security was the actual issue. The disruptors get a pass....typical. They can't be accountable for their actions..it was lack of parental supervision. Didn't he write, "There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant."? Seems to touch security twice... as having true responsibility for not allowing rampant... It does touch security twice, 2pid. Most people could have predicted that when you have the head of a vigilante group appear, there may be problems. It looks to me like there was not enough security. Sorry...the culprits bear full responsibility...the idea that lack of security bears any fault for denial of free speech is absurd. If there is respect for free speech, security is not required. Duh. Tell that to the American Nazi Party, 2pid. From what I've seen, there is extra security wherever they appear in public. Somebody must foresee potential trouble. Bratzi, what's your experience in this regard? There was an anti-immigration meeting was planned in Carlsbad at a public meeting room...a town hall room attached to the Library. It's available for social, political and other public events. Immigration activists announced plans to disrupt the meeting. Carlsbad tried to cancel the event claiming security costs were too high, then tried to pass the costs on to event organizers. A judge had to intervene and explain to Carlsbad how they can't do that. So damn. As a society, we have to pay for the freedoms we enjoy. I'm shocked. Like, totally. You didn't finish the story, 2pid. What happened? Did Carlsbad have to furnish the extra security? Was the meeting disrupted? Were people allowed to speak? So in your twisted lack of self responsibility world downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security. The downloader's what? He's confusing the RIAA thread with this one. But 2pid cannot see his part in making RAO what it is today, so we know 2pid's "personal responsibility" schtick is bull****. sigh... "must also get a pass for lack of security." No, just like the Minuteman episode, both are subject to arrest. It appears, though, that there wasn't adequate security to perform that function the disruptive element at Columbia. Why do bars have bouncers, 2pid? Shouldn't we all be allowed to drink in peace? And WTF do we need police for? LOL! |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 23, 12:42 am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 23 Oct, 01:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote: On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent. The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were obstructed. Did you see the tape of the disruption in the Bill Maher audience? No, recently? I thought Bill appropriately handled the situation. couldn't have been handled better. I saw General Alexander Haig speak once. He was getting heckled. He stood away from the podium and let them heckle for about five minutes. He said, "I've fought in three wars to make sure you can do that..." You could hear a pin drop after that. Damned Starship Trooper... one of the few libs that are both smart and funny. Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 23, 4:42 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in There is but one conclusion I can draw here, 2pid: you're an imbecile. and you're toast. Lol  .Why? Do you feel as though you've 'won'? LMAO! I'd love to see your MMPI results, 2pid. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another. i already know you can't think |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 23, 11:09 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another. i already know you can't think That's pretty harsh, Clyde. If you call me "Phoebe" I may have to leave. Are you happy now that you've trashed the place? Seriously, aside from Miller, name some "smart" conservative comedians. You can't include bushie, because he's not supposed to make his living from comedy. (Ditto ;-) Rush or Hannity or Hewitt.) Besides, we can all agree that bushie isn't very smart. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On 24 Oct, 00:40, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote: On Oct 23, 11:09 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another. i already know you can't think That's pretty harsh, Clyde. If you call me "Phoebe" I may have to leave. Are you happy now that you've trashed the place? Seriously, aside from Miller, name some "smart" conservative comedians. You can't include bushie, because he's not supposed to make his living from comedy. (Ditto ;-) Rush or Hannity or Hewitt.) Besides, we can all agree that bushie isn't very smart. don't tell me not to include rush. i consider myself an apostrophe head, since i agree with him about half the time. bush is a **** poor communicator. he is smart enough to handle a jet without crashing it. certainly not funny. Hannity is neither smart nor funny i don't know hewitt that well anyway, we should not include the funny pro comedians with political bents say, Miller, Alda, Farell, Gregory, Clay, Bruce and certainly not the unfunny pro comedians O'Donnell, Colbert, Franken |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 23, 9:39 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in glegroups.com... On Oct 23, 12:42 am, Clyde Slick wrote: On 23 Oct, 01:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote: On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent. The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were obstructed. Did you see the tape of the disruption in the Bill Maher audience? No, recently? I thought Bill appropriately handled the situation. couldn't have been handled better. I saw General Alexander Haig speak once. He was getting heckled. He stood away from the podium and let them heckle for about five minutes. He said, "I've fought in three wars to make sure you can do that..." You could hear a pin drop after that. Damned Starship Trooper... I've never heard Haig suggest only military have a say... in fact...you're the only ex-military (supposedly anyway) I've ever heard suggest that. But I never have, 2pid. You're making things up... again. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 23, 5:01 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 23, 11:26 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message groups.com... On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from speaking, an invited guest of the University. That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak. The protestors have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well. The fault lies with the university's poor security. They can protest outside the event but they have no right to disrupt the event. As I said, security was the actual issue. The disruptors get a pass....typical. They can't be accountable for their actions..it was lack of parental supervision. Didn't he write, "There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant."? Seems to touch security twice... as having true responsibility for not allowing rampant... It does touch security twice, 2pid. Most people could have predicted that when you have the head of a vigilante group appear, What's it like to have to take the side of Bush on this one? He's an idiot of course...and wrong. So are you. Do explain. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 24, 12:17 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 23, 11:09 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another. i already know you can't think That's pretty harsh, Clyde. If you call me "Phoebe" I may have to leave. Are you happy now that you've trashed the place? Seriously, aside from Miller, name some "smart" conservative comedians. Jackie Mason Is he still alive? |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 24, 1:56 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 24, 12:17 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 23, 11:09 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another. i already know you can't think That's pretty harsh, Clyde. If you call me "Phoebe" I may have to leave. Are you happy now that you've trashed the place? Seriously, aside from Miller, name some "smart" conservative comedians. Jackie Mason Is he still alive? He's on Ingraham quite often. Does he look like an anteater in real life? |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 26, 3:16 pm, "
wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in glegroups.com... On Oct 23, 12:42 am, Clyde Slick wrote: On 23 Oct, 01:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote: On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent. The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were obstructed. Did you see the tape of the disruption in the Bill Maher audience? No, recently? I thought Bill appropriately handled the situation. couldn't have been handled better. I saw General Alexander Haig speak once. He was getting heckled. He stood away from the podium and let them heckle for about five minutes. He said, "I've fought in three wars to make sure you can do that..." You could hear a pin drop after that. Damned Starship Trooper... one of the few libs that are both smart and funny. Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another. When did Dennis Miller become a Conservative? "In recent years, Miller has become known for his conservative libertarian opinions, emphasizing an aggressive stance on U.S. military action and campaigning for Republican presidential candidates (George W. Bush, Rudolph Guiliani).[2] He is a regular political commentator on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Miller I saw him on HBO a few months ago. His 'routine' sounded like it was written by Karl Rove. There was an almost nervous laughter from the audience. It seemed to me like they thought they were supposed to laugh, but obviously not too many found what he was saying very funny. How have you been? You don't come around these parts very often. |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not without compensation I won't
On Oct 26, 1:16 pm, "
wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in glegroups.com... On Oct 23, 12:42 am, Clyde Slick wrote: On 23 Oct, 01:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote: On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" wrote: Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same, apparently. You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected. There were two culprits at work he the venue, for not providing adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should not have been allowed to run rampant (see above). Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent. The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were obstructed. Did you see the tape of the disruption in the Bill Maher audience? No, recently? I thought Bill appropriately handled the situation. couldn't have been handled better. I saw General Alexander Haig speak once. He was getting heckled. He stood away from the podium and let them heckle for about five minutes. He said, "I've fought in three wars to make sure you can do that..." You could hear a pin drop after that. Damned Starship Trooper... one of the few libs that are both smart and funny. Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I thinkDennisMilleris a drag. I can't think of another. When didDennisMillerbecome aConservative? Since the lobotomy. ;-) |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Well, 2pid | Audio Opinions | |||
| Atkinson's "Fabricated Post" thread starts with a post he fabricated! | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
