Argus Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 You mean sort of like this? http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewpost&blog_id=43&post_id=12272 Sounds like a whole lot of incoherence and anger there. Why is not quite clear. Yes, kind of like that. Such people should be dealt with by the authorities. If they want to protest, they are free to do so outside. If they interupt a discussion inside, and won't stop, they should be kicked out or arrested. I don't know anything further on it, the reason for the protest, etc. Perhaps the subject was too politially sensitive to get heavy-handed (cancer care protestors?). Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 82 pages on what would have been a non event if she had just been allowed to have her say and had to defend her views in a public forum. Should tell you something. That this discussion isn't about Coulter, but a larger issue - freedom of speech. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Born Free Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 (edited) That this discussion isn't about Coulter, but a larger issue - freedom of speech. What's the issue? Up until Coulter did her thing...there was no issue regarding "freedom of speech". A bunch of protestors disrupted an assholes venue and she moved on to another venue. Whats the big deal here? Protestors tried to disrupt the Olympics too. Surely you recall the torch run had to divert its path once or twice but life went on....no yelling and arm waving over "freedom of speech" stuff...get a life.. Edited March 28, 2010 by Born Free Quote
Argus Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 Not to mention making the University and its student's look like clowns, and delivering her point without making a speech. She has in essense made her speech in Ottawa. She did it in a calculated way, and made her opponents look like fools. From CTV.ca ctv Link fixed. Incidentally, in the story, notoriously left wing Judy Rebick is quoted as saying "The University of Ottawa is a bit notorious in being very restrictive in speech issues." Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 But she doesn't even believe in free speech? "They're [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." I think any but the humour impaired would see that as dry wit. Here is a video of the Palin Crowd beating up the REPUBLICAN protester. "Translation: someone might have punched him once, though that isn't obvious. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 Because Ezra Levant was trying to make a point. He made it, but he, like her, is an idiot. The University wasn't playing games. Why is Levant an idiot? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
nicky10013 Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 I haven't seen any accusation you love dictators, just that you love to dictate and in your sanctimonious way, feel reassured of your moral superirity by telling people what's best for them. If you haven't seen a coherent argument you haven't been reading. A number of them have been posted. You might do a google on Noam Chomsky, who wrote a rather notorious and insulting letter defending his signing a petition on behalf of a Holocaust denier. Noam Chomsky isn't a man generally given to affection for Hitlerites, as I understand it, but he does seem to have a reasonable grasp on freedom of speech. If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. Noam Chomsky They all have to do with facts that never happened. Nothing prevented her freedom to speak except for her; a widely accepted fact. Quote
nicky10013 Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 Police told her they feared violence. That is the ONLY reason they would have given her, in their own words "options" which included moving to a larger building. Funny, the only people saying that are the people that cancelled the events. Not the cops, not the people that were there, only the people who had a motive in trying to make it look like there was a threat of violence. Quote
nicky10013 Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 No, he/she/it is juvenile or stupid. I'm not the one equating mandating security for an event where there will OBVIOUSLY be protestors to satiating a mob. There's a difference because as I'm sure you're so aware, things are far more black and white than that. Quote
Argus Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 (edited) What's the issue? Up until Coulter did her thing...there was no issue regarding "freedom of speech" Of course there was. That was the reason for Levant to invite her to come and give a series of speeches in the first place. And when you have a notorious leftist like Judy Rebbick admitting that the UofO is notorious in its restricting of free speech you know there is an issue there. Protestors tried to disrupt the Olympics too. Surely you recall the torch run had to divert its path once or twice but life went on....no yelling and arm waving over "freedom of speech" stuff...get a life.. A guy who takes on the moniker "born free" sneers at people for wasting time discussing free speech. Gotta love the intellectual quality and mindless hypocrisy of the Left. Edited March 28, 2010 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 They all have to do with facts that never happened. Nothing prevented her freedom to speak except for her; a widely accepted fact. Again we have this clear misunderstanding of the term "fact". Tell me, when you were being lauded for your intellectual prowess at... York, was it? Did any of your classes require the use of a dictionary? Because I can show you how to use one, if you like. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
nicky10013 Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 Of course there was. That was the reason for Levant to invite her to come and give a series of speeches in the first place. And when you have a notorious leftist like Judy Rebbick admitting that the UofO is notorious in its restricting of free speech you know there is an issue there. A guy who takes on the moniker "born free" sneers at people for wasting time discussing free speech. Gotta love the intellectual quality and mindless hypocrisy of the Left. You're not discussing free speech. That's the problem. You're whining about Anne Coulter. The two things are completely different. I've still yet to see something definitely proving that she wasn't allowed to speak. Quote
Smallc Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 Why is Levant an idiot? Because he makes outrageous statements to inflame people, just like Coulter. Quote
nicky10013 Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 Again we have this clear misunderstanding of the term "fact". Tell me, when you were being lauded for your intellectual prowess at... York, was it? Did any of your classes require the use of a dictionary? Because I can show you how to use one, if you like. University of Toronto. I'm also the only one citing anything here. The best report came from Kadey O'Malley at the CBC. The rest skipped right from coverage to the actual event to shouting down the university with dubious evidence at best. The fact remains is that the only people there reporting on the issue have either rejected outright claims of the organizers or called their claims into serious doubt. There can be no other conclusion as there is no other evidence. No evidence of any facebook threat was found, the police treated the whole thing at arms length calling into question whether or not her security was ever in contact with Ottawa Police. The pictures you posted and and the CBC article clearly refuted the young conservative leader's claim that there were 2,000 violent protestors. The pictures you posted showed people smiling and waiting in line. A dangerous crowd if I've ever seen one. Since these are the only real, non-biased, observations of what actually happened, then is it really me who is ignoring the truth? I've said it before and I'll say it again, the fact that you want to have a freedom of speech discussion is great. However, that's not what we're doing. You're using freedom of speech as a political baseball bat; a bat with which you're beating people whom you despise IE "lefties." If this truly was a discussion on freedom of speech, we'd be discussing all sides of the issue, including what Harper is doing, what Bush did etc. Not just what a person from the left may be doing. The notion that you're trying to have an academic type of discussion whilst ignoring these facts is disingenuous at best and downright stupid at worst. As if we can't see through what you're trying to accomplish. If you're not willing to actually discuss freedom of a speech on the whole, and this case in the light of all evidence presented, then you can have it by yourself. You don't need me to make yourself look like a raving lunatic. Quote
waldo Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 Because he makes outrageous statements to inflame people, just like Coulter. danger Will Robinson! Levant bots are on high alert! Level is Litigious_1 Quote
Born Free Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 (edited) A guy who takes on the moniker "born free" sneers at people for wasting time discussing free speech. Gotta love the intellectual quality and mindless hypocrisy of the Left. Thats because you're very sneerable. You keep harping about free speech yet you make no case. The law hasnt changed. Why are you making a hullabalo about it now? Where were you during the Olympics? Probably sucking back a few suds, counting Canadian gold medals and not being the least bit concerned about Olympic protesters and their minor effect. Sorry pal but you're obsessed with this Coulter stuff. Her stupid story doesnt amount to an anthill in the scheme of things. Of that, there is no doubt. Edited March 28, 2010 by Born Free Quote
Shady Posted March 28, 2010 Author Report Posted March 28, 2010 Of course there was. Exactly. For somebody to say that up until this point freedom of speech wasn't an issue, hasn't been following current events. Both Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn were prosecuted by the HRC. Others have been as well. Quote
Shady Posted March 28, 2010 Author Report Posted March 28, 2010 A guy who takes on the moniker "born free" sneers at people for wasting time discussing free speech. Gotta love the intellectual quality and mindless hypocrisy of the Left. LOL! I just noticed that now. It's also quite Orwellian. A brownshirt with the handle of "Born Free." Quote
Argus Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 Thats because you're very sneerable. You keep harping about free speech yet you make no case. I think I've actually made a considerable case. It's just that I didn't include crayon drawings so you could understand it. Damned inconsiderate of me, I know. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 Because he makes outrageous statements to inflame people, just like Coulter. What outrageous statements has he made? And why would you describe someone as an idiot if they profit by making outrageous statements? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Born Free Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 Exactly. For somebody to say that up until this point freedom of speech wasn't an issue, hasn't been following current events. Both Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn were prosecuted by the HRC. Others have been as well. Do tell us how the prosecution went... Quote
Smallc Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 And why would you describe someone as an idiot if they profit by making outrageous statements? Because I want to. Freedom of speech, you know. Quote
Argus Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 University of Toronto. I'm also the only one citing anything here. The best report came from Kadey O'Malley at the CBC. Actually, there have been a number of reports cited. Your eyes simply glaze over whenever one appears which disagrees with you and you can't read the words. The fact remains is that the only people there reporting on the issue have either rejected outright claims of the organizers or called their claims into serious doubt. There can be no other conclusion as there is no other evidence. No evidence of any facebook threat was found, the police treated the whole thing at arms length calling into question whether or not her security was ever in contact with Ottawa Police. Uhm, your own cite quoted the ottawa police as saying "we gave her a number of options". Have you forgotten that? Every report agrees the police had concerns and made them known to the organizers. Every one. So I guess this is another example of your misunderstanding of the word "fact". It is also not a "fact" that no evidence of any facebook threat was found. YOU simply haven't seen it. That doesn't mean it didn't exist. The pictures you posted and and the CBC article clearly refuted the young conservative leader's claim that there were 2,000 violent protestors. The pictures you posted showed people smiling and waiting in line. A dangerous crowd if I've ever seen one. Sorry?I posted a picture of smiling people waiting in line? The only pictures I recall seeing of the event were of angry coloured people screaming at angry white people. Since these are the only real, non-biased, observations of what actually happened, Also not necessarily a "fact". Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 LOL! I just noticed that now. It's also quite Orwellian. A brownshirt with the handle of "Born Free." Shady, did any of your internet warrior tribe take you up on your call for them to exercise their free speech rights? Did you have sufficient reserves or did you need to go on a bottle-drive walkabout? $100 dollars from me, to the first person who spits in Francois A-Houle's face. However, you need to provide a pic/vid as proof. Quote
Argus Posted March 28, 2010 Report Posted March 28, 2010 danger Will Robinson! Levant bots are on high alert! Level is Litigious_1 Who has Levant sued? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.