Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

Why would a principal or board member make a good teacher's life
hell?

OFMG. _Maybe_ you could have been taken seriously before this gem.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

Why would a principal or board member make a good teacher's life hell?

This statement alone shows an astounding ignorance of life.

wrote in message
oups.com...

OFMG. _Maybe_ you could have been taken seriously before this gem.


Can you answer the question? Will you?

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
news

This statement alone shows an astounding ignorance of life.


Can you answer the question? Will you?

More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the
origin of terrorism. Terrorists didn't just appear out of nowhere. As
awful as their tactics are, their motivations are related to our
demonstrably unfair and in some cases highly disruptive meddling in Middle
Eastern affairs. Inasmuch as we as Americans continue to tolerate our
government's paternalistic and selfish behavior in the Middle East, we are
just as guilty as our government itself.

You know, Peter, I can't decide which is worse: Having a person in academic
authority like Churchill teaching this kind of tripe to our youth, or having
a relatively intelligent member of our society like you exercising moral
relativism (on such a grand scale!) in defense of an indefensible position.

Hell, I don't believe in God most days, but even I can tell right from
wrong. Blaming the victims in the World Trade Center for being complicit in
their own deaths is just so incredibly wrong, I don't even know were to
start. How can anyone possibly argue with someone who has absolutely no
moral belief system whatsoever? There's nothing to push against, or for.

I'll say this about it, though: Your post better illustrates everything
that is wrong with the Left, and its "nothing is black and white in a gray
world" philosophy, than anything I could have ever said.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:30:57 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote in
::

this mental furrball is spewing is not merely
offensive, it's nownright demented.

Are you able to quote a few examples of Churchill's statements that
you feel constitute evidence of his dementia?

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:16:58 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
by the current administration.


What rights "granted under the Constitution" are being trampled here?


Here, none yet. But if Churchill is dismissed by his employer for
what he wrote, that would appear to be a breach of his 1st amendment
right.

The current administration's enactment of the Patriot Act suspends a
citizen's right to due legal process.

....



After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
the truth.


What noble journalists?


Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper:

http://www.observer.com/pages/offtherec.asp
The Times and Time Reporters to go to the Supremes
by Tom Scocca

The latest turn in the First Amendment martyrdom of Time’s Matthew
Cooper and The New York Times’ Judith Miller was underdramatic. On
Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia posted an 83-page decision online rejecting Mr. Cooper
and Ms. Miller’s claims that they were not bound to give up
confidential sources to a grand jury. The failed appeal left the
two reporters on the hook for contempt—for refusing to cooperate
with the investigation into the leaking of CIA agent Valerie
Plame’s identity to the press—and one step closer to jail, though
still free pending their next appeal.

...



Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
is ours.


I'd prefer a free, objective press.


It's difficult to insure an objective press, but freedom of the press
is fundamental in a free society. And it would appear that there is
no Constitutional necessity for an objective press despite it's
desirability.



Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
disparate opinions?


The Constitution HAS become meaningless and Churchill had nothing to do with
it.


Perhaps. But I have successfully won legal cases on Constitutional
grounds, so I wouldn't characterize the Constitution as entirely
meaningless.



If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
Bush" for what he said:


What 1st Amendment right is being denied to Churchill?


My statement was in the subjunctive tense.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Here, none yet. But if Churchill is dismissed by his employer for
what he wrote, that would appear to be a breach of his 1st amendment
right.

The first amendment prohibits the *government* from interfering with your
speech. Employers can and do control what you say without breaching your rights.

George Patterson
He who tries to carry a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in
no other way.

("Steven P. McNicoll")
I'm done.

I'm not surprised.

Bye.

Bye.


Do you like my hat?
I do not like that hat.


Montblack
(Waiting for the President of Harvard angle in this thread)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:e9HSd.16228$4D6.7303@attbi_s51...
[...]
I'll say this about it, though: Your post better illustrates everything
that is wrong with the Left, and its "nothing is black and white in a gray
world" philosophy, than anything I could have ever said.

And your post (and John's) simply affirms exactly what I said would happen.
Thank you very much for proving my point.

You're probably too old for you to ever get over the "Left versus Right"
mentality. If you haven't done it by now, you probably never will. But
suffice to say, it's not a useful way to think about things.

Pete