"John Higdon" <doc.minister@illegalzoom.com> wrote in message news:doc.minister-80A0AC.08445110012007@news.announcetech.com... > In article <1168419882.540323.46680@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > "leanstotheleft@democrat.com" <leanstotheleft@democrat.com> wrote: > > > joewo wrote: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCcY5LrCMSA > > > > Well worth watching, plus it's fair and balanced. Well at least fair > > since the Mouse declined to comment. Of course, it is hard to defend > > such crap. > > Isn't it interesting that in a country that prides itself on "free > speech", the right to express unpopular views (or > non-politically-correct views) must still be vigorously defended? I was attending Cal in '94 and witnessed many of the same individuals who were marching to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the "Free Speech Movement" one week, busting into an auditorium and rioting the following week to shut down some speaker because they didn't agree with his views. "Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee..." :O|

"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1168573116.827350.229940@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Stan de SD wrote: > > > I was attending Cal in '94 and witnessed many of the same individuals who > > were marching to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the "Free Speech > > Movement" one week, > > The Free Speech Movement started in 1964, 30 years before you claim to > have attended Cal. Care to clarify? Typo, meant 30th.. > > busting into an auditorium and rioting the following week to shut down > > some speaker because they didn't agree with his views. > > "Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee..." :O| > > So was it 1994 or 2004? And who was the speaker? 1994, speaker was David Irving, whose views I do NOT endorse BTW.

"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1168662188.640102.184950@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > Stan de SD wrote: > > "Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote... > > > > > I was attending Cal in '94 and witnessed many of the same individuals > > > > who were marching to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the "Free Speech > > > > Movement" one week, > > > > The Free Speech Movement started in 1964, 30 years before you claim to > > > have attended Cal. Care to clarify? > > > Typo, meant 30th.. > > > > > busting into an auditorium and rioting the following week to shut down > > > > some speaker because they didn't agree with his views. > > > > "Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee..." :O| > > > > So was it 1994 or 2004? And who was the speaker? > > > 1994, speaker was David Irving, whose views I do NOT endorse BTW. > > Apparently, he appeared at UC Berkeley several times during that time > frame. Some of his appearances went off without a hitch. One had to > be cancelled because the protestors wouldn't let anyone in the hall. That's a bit of the understatement. The mob rioted, forced their way into the hall, and started shoving people around, forcing the event to be cancelled.

"David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1168832615.258398.181380@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > Stan de SD wrote: > > > You seem to have a bit of a reading comprehension problem. Go back and > > re-read the thread, and try not to twist things around, OK? > > Once again, he has apologized for several things he has said in the > past, which he himself has admitted; this is not an isolated incident. > BZZZZT -- you lose. Thanks for playing. Where did I say that he didn't apologize? You're distorting the point of argument again, most likely because you can't win any type of argument or debate without doing such. For the record: ================================== "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message news:8233d$45a6f4c1$45035f0d$31776@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > So are comments made about "killing the Jews" by militant Muslim slime. At > least Sussman had the decency to apologize... :O| ================================== Once again, you dissed Sussman for using "hate speech", referring to a remark taken out of context (a caller said he wasn't Muslim, and Sussman tried to see if he was bluffing by asking if he would say "Allah was a whore."). Sussman apolgized, and you still pissed and moaned. I pointed out your hypocrisy and double standards in whining and crying about Sussman making remarks about Muslims that incited nobody, and for which he apologized, while refusing to make any such criticism of the incessant accusations and slanders made by Muslims that HAVE incited people to KILL, for which they have NEVER apologized for, and continue doing to this day. Naturally, being a dyed-in-the-wool doctrinaire Lefty Liberal, you can't deal with that remark, so you twist and turn this into somehow me being wroung becaause I somehow asserted that Sussman never apologized. You're merely showing your tendencies towards the Ric Silver/Bill Zaumen school of dishonest assholery - and it's not working... :O|

"John Higdon" <doc.minister@illegalzoom.com> wrote in message news:doc.minister-80A0AC.08445110012007@news.announcetech.com... > In article <1168419882.540323.46680@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > "leanstotheleft@democrat.com" <leanstotheleft@democrat.com> wrote: > > > joewo wrote: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCcY5LrCMSA > > > > Well worth watching, plus it's fair and balanced. Well at least fair > > since the Mouse declined to comment. Of course, it is hard to defend > > such crap. > > Isn't it interesting that in a country that prides itself on "free > speech", the right to express unpopular views (or > non-politically-correct views) must still be vigorously defended? I was attending Cal in '94 and witnessed many of the same individuals who were marching to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the "Free Speech Movement" one week, busting into an auditorium and rioting the following week to shut down some speaker because they didn't agree with his views. "Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee..." :O|

"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1168573116.827350.229940@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Stan de SD wrote: > > > I was attending Cal in '94 and witnessed many of the same individuals who > > were marching to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the "Free Speech > > Movement" one week, > > The Free Speech Movement started in 1964, 30 years before you claim to > have attended Cal. Care to clarify? Typo, meant 30th.. > > busting into an auditorium and rioting the following week to shut down > > some speaker because they didn't agree with his views. > > "Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee..." :O| > > So was it 1994 or 2004? And who was the speaker? 1994, speaker was David Irving, whose views I do NOT endorse BTW.

"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1168662188.640102.184950@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > Stan de SD wrote: > > "Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote... > > > > > I was attending Cal in '94 and witnessed many of the same individuals > > > > who were marching to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the "Free Speech > > > > Movement" one week, > > > > The Free Speech Movement started in 1964, 30 years before you claim to > > > have attended Cal. Care to clarify? > > > Typo, meant 30th.. > > > > > busting into an auditorium and rioting the following week to shut down > > > > some speaker because they didn't agree with his views. > > > > "Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee..." :O| > > > > So was it 1994 or 2004? And who was the speaker? > > > 1994, speaker was David Irving, whose views I do NOT endorse BTW. > > Apparently, he appeared at UC Berkeley several times during that time > frame. Some of his appearances went off without a hitch. One had to > be cancelled because the protestors wouldn't let anyone in the hall. That's a bit of the understatement. The mob rioted, forced their way into the hall, and started shoving people around, forcing the event to be cancelled.

"David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1168832615.258398.181380@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > Stan de SD wrote: > > > You seem to have a bit of a reading comprehension problem. Go back and > > re-read the thread, and try not to twist things around, OK? > > Once again, he has apologized for several things he has said in the > past, which he himself has admitted; this is not an isolated incident. > BZZZZT -- you lose. Thanks for playing. Where did I say that he didn't apologize? You're distorting the point of argument again, most likely because you can't win any type of argument or debate without doing such. For the record: ================================== "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message news:8233d$45a6f4c1$45035f0d$31776@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > So are comments made about "killing the Jews" by militant Muslim slime. At > least Sussman had the decency to apologize... :O| ================================== Once again, you dissed Sussman for using "hate speech", referring to a remark taken out of context (a caller said he wasn't Muslim, and Sussman tried to see if he was bluffing by asking if he would say "Allah was a whore."). Sussman apolgized, and you still pissed and moaned. I pointed out your hypocrisy and double standards in whining and crying about Sussman making remarks about Muslims that incited nobody, and for which he apologized, while refusing to make any such criticism of the incessant accusations and slanders made by Muslims that HAVE incited people to KILL, for which they have NEVER apologized for, and continue doing to this day. Naturally, being a dyed-in-the-wool doctrinaire Lefty Liberal, you can't deal with that remark, so you twist and turn this into somehow me being wroung becaause I somehow asserted that Sussman never apologized. You're merely showing your tendencies towards the Ric Silver/Bill Zaumen school of dishonest assholery - and it's not working... :O|