Originally posted by cdtmSo you don't think he should be free to express his opinions through humour?
I got the joke, and if anything he should be fired for his ignorance.At least read up on some Allen Ginsberg, if you can't be bothered to take a road trip through the states that you're dismissing.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
The Professor was just joking about America's lack of history. You'd think people would protect his freedom of speech...
Freedom of Speech was upheld.
He wasn't arrested.
Freedom of Speech is about keeping the Government from oppressing you for your words. Because the English would imprison, torture, and murder Colonial Americans for speaking out against The Crown.
Preserving the right of the people to disagree with the government was important to Colonial Americans.
Freedom of Speech does not protect you from being fired from your employer for saying stupid shit. Here's how it breaks down:
Party 1: not government
Party 2: not government
Dan Bongino destroys Geraldo for siding with the anti-America dems in attacking Trump over the dead scumbag Soleimani being killed. Bongino tells Geraldo to pull his head out of his butt:
htttps:www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJmTaH6xlac&t=17s
lol that was a thing of beauty.
Originally posted by dadudemonSurely the same criticism should be levelled against this University as when people like Ben Shapiro aren't allowed to speak, I mean this guy cracked a joke they are serious with their lunacy.
Freedom of Speech was upheld.He wasn't arrested.
Freedom of Speech is about keeping the Government from oppressing you for your words. Because the English would imprison, torture, and murder Colonial Americans for speaking out against The Crown.
Preserving the right of the people to disagree with the government was important to Colonial Americans.
Freedom of Speech does not protect you from being fired from your employer for saying stupid shit. Here's how it breaks down:
Party 1: not government
Party 2: not government
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Surely the same criticism should be levelled against this University as when people like Ben Shapiro aren't allowed to speak, I mean this guy cracked a joke they are serious with their lunacy.
You are over 200 years late to this debate.
You oppress the freedom of speech of the employer by forcing them to accept any and all public representations of them: some representations do not reflect their morals, convictions, or ideas.
Thus, your idea goes against the fundamental design of freedom of speech if we ignore the fact the freedom of speech is not about private matters like this.
The gentleman can still tweet all the stupid shit he likes. Just not while being employed by that university. The university does not have to tolerate it's freed of speech being infringed by people in its organization who use speech that goes against their ideals: their freedom of speech is preserved by firing him. It's a freedom of speech win-win. Hooray!
Originally posted by Darth Thor
I bet you had no clue who he was before they killed him.
I didn't. I had no clue at all. I had never his face before, as well.
I have no idea if the world is a better place with him gone, too. I only have the word of some Iranians and the US Government to go by. No family members or personal experience.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
I bet you had no clue who he was before they killed him.
I doubt any of us has any clue who the people on the fbi's 10 most wanted list are either it doesn't mean they aren't bad people. Or that we shouldn't be glad once we hear someone in the top 10 has been captured, even if we didn't know of them before that point.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Surely the same criticism should be levelled against this University as when people like Ben Shapiro aren't allowed to speak, I mean this guy cracked a joke they are serious with their lunacy.
Name me one tweet from Shapiro that even alludes to violence against another, then I’ll back you up?
Originally posted by dadudemon
You are over 200 years late to this debate.You oppress the freedom of speech of the employer by forcing them to accept any and all public representations of them: some representations do not reflect their morals, convictions, or ideas.
Thus, your idea goes against the fundamental design of freedom of speech if we ignore the fact the freedom of speech is not about private matters like this.
The gentleman can still tweet all the stupid shit he likes. Just not while being employed by that university. The university does not have to tolerate it's freed of speech being infringed by people in its organization who use speech that goes against their ideals: their freedom of speech is preserved by firing him. It's a freedom of speech win-win. Hooray!
In theory this checks out.
In practice, people are as often fired for very petty whims of power brokers, with the "official line" merely a cover for them to fire someone they plain don't like, or who steps on their toes.
"Don't anger our affiliates" is a common phrase. Adults are generally taught to take offense gracefully, and not retaliate against it.
CEO's and presidents act against personal offense all the time, and hide behind excuses of corporate need, though no such need exists.
Originally posted by Surtur
I doubt any of us has any clue who the people on the fbi's 10 most wanted list are either it doesn't mean they aren't bad people. Or that we shouldn't be glad once we hear someone in the top 10 has been captured, even if we didn't know of them before that point.
I used to know that top 10 list because it was required in one of the criminology classes I took.
Seems like unless you're studying it, writing specifically about it for journalism, a criminal hobbyist, or working on law enforcement, you won't know about that kind of stuff at all: small fractions of the population.
^ Which is my point. People act like they know everything about the guy a few days after learning about him.
When in reality That sounds more like just repeating the rhetoric of whichever side they want to believe.
@ Surtur im sure most of those guys are ISIS, but when one is an Iranian government official whose even helped defeat ISIS, maybe take a bit of pause first before throwing labels around, because otherwise that just sounds like being closed minded to say the least.
I dont think he was on the FBIs list anyway. But you guys can correct me if im wrong on that:
Veterans group demands apology from Trump over comments on brain injuries
A prominent veterans advocacy group is asking President Trump for an apology over his remarks on injuries suffered by U.S. troops stationed at a military base in Iraq that was hit by Iranian airstrikes earlier this month.
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) said Trump “minimized” the injuries the troops suffered after the Pentagon announced that dozens of U.S. troops suffered traumatic brain injuries (TBI). Trump had referred to the injuries as “headaches" and "not very serious" earlier in the week. -snip
Despite Trump's claims, service personal where severely injured when Iran retaliated and fired missiles. Trump then downplayed their injuries.
Originally posted by Robtard
Veterans group demands apology from Trump over comments on brain injuriesA prominent veterans advocacy group is asking President Trump for an apology over his remarks on injuries suffered by U.S. troops stationed at a military base in Iraq that was hit by Iranian airstrikes earlier this month.
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) said Trump “minimized” the injuries the troops suffered after the Pentagon announced that dozens of U.S. troops suffered traumatic brain injuries (TBI). Trump had referred to the injuries as “headaches" and "not very serious" earlier in the week. -snip
Despite Trump's claims, service personal where severely injured when Iran retaliated and fired missiles. Trump then downplayed their injuries.
What about the actual individuals themselves, not a group with self-interested goals and strategies? What do the individuals themselves think?
I'm not for group-think politics a la Citizens United.
Originally posted by Robtard
Veterans group demands apology from Trump over comments on brain injuriesA prominent veterans advocacy group is asking President Trump for an apology over his remarks on injuries suffered by U.S. troops stationed at a military base in Iraq that was hit by Iranian airstrikes earlier this month.
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) said Trump “minimized” the injuries the troops suffered after the Pentagon announced that dozens of U.S. troops suffered traumatic brain injuries (TBI). Trump had referred to the injuries as “headaches" and "not very serious" earlier in the week. -snip
Despite Trump's claims, service personal where severely injured when Iran retaliated and fired missiles. Trump then downplayed their injuries.
I'm so sorry no soldiers were killed and you're reduced to whining about this. Thoughts and prayers 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
What about the actual individuals themselves, not a group with self-interested goals and strategies? What do the individuals themselves think?I'm not for group-think politics a la Citizens United.
Lol the joy the saddest folk on the planet mustered up in reporting these injuries negates me giving much of a shit about how Trump described them.
All that matters is that the troops apparently will be okay. And it keeps being said the WH initially said there were no injuries, but this isn't the gotcha the TDS afflicted think it is given these kinds of injuries tend to not always show up right away. So if they have to whine about something? My advice is to leave that off the table.
Seriously what has become of this country, there was a palpable disappointment no soldiers died and now there is a sad giddiness some got injured hidden behind a false sense of concern. It's astounding that such a thing as democrats losing an election could inspire this level of insanity so i wonder...was it there all along and they just hid it really well? I am at a loss here. Was this triggered only by the fact Hillary lost or does part of this sickness come from *who* beat her? Like if Ted Cruz had won would the Dems have revealed their insanity?