NCclimber

Do you have anything to back this up? Please don't cite anything from one of those highly biased communist/socialist "worker" groups. Are you saying it's a bad that companies like Honda and BMW are manufacturing cars in the US? Are the perks provided to these companies greater than perks provided to US companies?

Don't hold back... Tell us how you really feel... Go ahead... Let it out.

I'm not so certain. I don't think she can get a majority in the general election; Currently, Hillary is the clear favorite. I don't see her doing anything stupid (like bowing to the far left) to piss away her share the moderate/swing votes. She's too shrewd for that. Like 2004, it will be about being less undesirable than the other guy (or other party).

How do you feel about the topic of the OP?

Now apply this standard to President Bush. Just ignore him.

Just curious, Bill. If you were on your way home from the DZ and you saw a fellow skydiver and friend getting beat up by 2 guys, would you stop and help him out or just keep on driving and think to yourself "I'm glad it isn't me getting the shit kicked out of me." If you later heard another skydiver stopped to help, would you consider that skydiver a bully? Sorry to burst your bubble, but that "World Police" smokescreen doesn't fool anybody (though the movie was really funny ). If communism hadn't been the big enemy of the US at the time, they would have done absolutely nothing to help the South Koreans. Just like the US currently does absolutely nothing to help out other countries unless it has further reasons to do so. That kind of BS doesn't fool anybody any more. Cheers, Vale Errr... yeah right. Living in Italy you most likely have no idea how appreciative the S. Koreans are that the US came to their aid and prevented them from suffering the same fate as their N. Korean brothers. Sure, the US acts in our own beat interests, but that doesn't demean the benefits others gain from our actions. Have you ever met someone from S. Korea who lived through those times and talked to them about their view of the US intervention? I'm guessing no. . Or it could just be hurt feelings / resentment going back to the 1940s.

Hell I would think the righties would jump on the chance to cash in. Which college administrations might be labelled "righties"? Or were you just piling on as some sort of pavlovian response?

While the final say does come down to the people in charge of a given university and... (in my opinion), banning ROTC from campus is not a violation of the First Amendment... universities that put themselves out there as beacons of free speech, but prohibit ROTC on philosophical grounds, are clearly hypocritical. From what I've read regarding Columbia's recent history, regarding whether or not to let ROTC back on campus, it is a philosophical issue, not a financial one.

Off the irony scale.

But that doesn't explain why you used MY POST, asking for "my statements about Muslims" to start your post. I expect you'll figure it out sooner or later. Well, I narrowed it down to two possibilities when you first posted it.... it was done intentionally (and maliciously) or... it was just sloppy writing. Perhaps, there is a third option. Perhaps.

Maybe he was thinking about statements like: All in SC in the last 6 months. Lots more too. ANd yes, none of them are from you. Well looky there... You quote a post specifically about my making derogatory statements regarding Muslims... then you quote a bunch anti-Muslim tripe... and then... in what seems like an after-thought... you add "none of them are from you". How subtle. What don't you understand about the word "others"? "I think he is making the point and you and the others " No. That's clear. But that doesn't explain why you used my post, asking for "my statements about Muslims" to start your post. It may come as a shock to you, but SC in general and this thread in particular are NOT all about you. But that doesn't explain why you used MY POST, asking for "my statements about Muslims" to start your post.

Just curious, Bill. If you were on your way home from the DZ and you saw a fellow skydiver and friend getting beat up by 2 guys, would you stop and help him out or just keep on driving and think to yourself "I'm glad it isn't me getting the shit kicked out of me." If you later heard another skydiver stopped to help, would you consider that skydiver a bully? Sorry to burst your bubble, but that "World Police" smokescreen doesn't fool anybody (though the movie was really funny ). If communism hadn't been the big enemy of the US at the time, they would have done absolutely nothing to help the South Koreans. Just like the US currently does absolutely nothing to help out other countries unless it has further reasons to do so. That kind of BS doesn't fool anybody any more. Cheers, Vale What's your point? That US efforts to thwart aggression should condemned, if the US has a vested interest in the outcome?

Why don't you pay attention? The presence or absence of a ROTC program on any university campus has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech. THAT was the red herring. Well then, you should have stated that it was, instead of countering it with your own red herring!!!

So what are you trying to say? That ROTC has been kept off campus as a financial matter... and that politics hasn't been a leading factor?

Maybe he was thinking about statements like: All in SC in the last 6 months. Lots more too. ANd yes, none of them are from you. Well looky there... You quote a post specifically about my making derogatory statements regarding Muslims... then you quote a bunch anti-Muslim tripe... and then... in what seems like an after-thought... you add "none of them are from you". How subtle. What don't you understand about the word "others"? "I think he is making the point and you and the others " No. That's clear. But that doesn't explain why you used my post, asking for "my statements about Muslims" to start your post.

Of course, this had little (if anything) to do with why ROTC was kicked off campus. Nice try, though. Allowing free speech does NOT involve accepting a financial obligation, setting aside office space, hiring support staff, etc. ROTC does not have "chapters", it is a structured educational program. Where'd all these red herrings come from? Here. Of course, this had little (if anything) to do with why ROTC was kicked off campus. Nice try, though. Dayum, this is easy.

I expect most students would be in favor of "A" grades in return for no work, too. Students don't run universities any more than unions run corporations. And speaking of crappy analogies...

Of course, this had little (if anything) to do with why ROTC was kicked off campus. Nice try, though. Allowing free speech does NOT involve accepting a financial obligation, setting aside office space, hiring support staff, etc. ROTC does not have "chapters", it is a structured educational program. Where'd all these red herrings come from?

Maybe he was thinking about statements like: All in SC in the last 6 months. Lots more too. ANd yes, none of them are from you. Well looky there... You quote a post specifically about my making derogatory statements regarding Muslims... then you quote a bunch anti-Muslim tripe... and then... in what seems like an after-thought... you add "none of them are from you". How subtle.

What does having a ROTC program have to do with free speech? Wasn't ROTC kicked off campus for philosophical reasons? Wasn't it because some members of Columbia's faculty particularly intolerant of the ROTC and the US Military? Of course, this had little (if anything) to do with why ROTC was kicked off campus. Nice try, though.

How about we extend to foreign dinitaries the same level of rights and privileges that they afford their citizens??? Arguably, in this case, you'd have to amend the US Constitution to do that. The instant his plane crossed into US airspace, he was afforded First Amendment rights, which are silent as to citizenship. I was just kidding. This whole situation has a lot of grey areas. He's a head of state - therefore he should be afforded all diplomatic courtousies(sp?) gven to heads of state. However... He is not coming here on a diplomatic visit to the United States. He is coming to the UN, which so happens, is on US soil. In other words, he's being allowed here (despite his antagonistic rhetoric) because our agreement with the UN. Since it's not cut and dried (to me), I say err on the side of diplomacy.

Well last week I think there was 2-3 threads maybe more just about the name Mohammed. The ignorance gets very old fast. I am sure you understand that this thread was not really made to say all Christians are child molesters but to point out you should not link a few bad apples to all. So that's what it's about. I thought it was just another attempt to demean the Catholic Church. I think my take (above) is a little closer to the truth. If you say so. I guess you're going to back away from your accusation about my statements about Muslims.

What proof do you have that I "have zero idea how the scientific process is supposed to work(s)"? Did you concluded that from my last two posts?

Or even the citizens.... like Oriana Fallaci?

How about we extend to foreign dinitaries the same level of rights and privileges that they afford their citizens???