PolyNewbie Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Defend Rosie Petition Evene if you do not think 911 was an inside job, if you believe in free speech speak to the establishment by signing this petition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Defend her? They should put her in the smithsonian.....either that or Bel Brands should sue her for copywrite violations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Defend Rosie PetitionEvene if you do not think 911 was an inside job, if you believe in free speech speak to the establishment by signing this petition. Why ? Rosie is a dunce and spouts inanities , why would I support her? She has no free speech restraints. Hope she goes straight to Flavour Flav's series , she looks much like the rest of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stignasty Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Why ? Rosie is a dunce and spouts inanities , why would I support her? She has no free speech restraints. Hope she goes straight to Flavour Flav's series , she looks much like the rest of them. Flav has his own series? WTF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Flav has his own series? WTF? Yes and it is a total train wreck, funny it is so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted April 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Defend her? They should put her in the smithsonian.....either that or Bel Brands should sue her for copywrite violations No. You should understand the difference between defending someones right to free speech and defending what they are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Defend her? They should put her in the smithsonian.....either that or Bel Brands should sue her for copywrite violations No. You should understand the difference between defending someones right to free speech and defending what they are saying. I am a huge advocate of free speech...indeed I am filing a court challenge on a file next week to defend a client's Charter right to freedom of expression. I read the "petition" as a plea to defend what Rosie is saying, not to defend the right to free speech. Otherwise, why would the author of the petition list all of the content that purports to be proof of the fact that WTC 7 was intentionally brought down? I will not lend my support to such a petition. See, the problem with your logic is that Rosie has already spoken...sure, there may be backlash and consequences for her but that is different from violating her right to speak. No matter which way you slice it, saying things that are controversial will bring you hardship to some extent. Having freedom to say those controversial things is a double-edged sword. If Rosie is truly fighting the good fight here, things will go her way...just ask the Dixie Chicks. Regardless of the side anyone takes here, you have failed to convince me that the right to free speech is at risk here. FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Good call FTA. Your spot on. If she's saying it, then obviously she has the freedom to do so. If you want to fight for free speech, fight for the elections websites that get shut down or the outright ban on third party advertising during a campaign. Those are real violations of free speech, if you violate them you can ultimately end up in jail. Rosie won't go to jail for what she said, just has to live with the consequences of her personal choice of issues to defend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Defend her? They should put her in the smithsonian.....either that or Bel Brands should sue her for copywrite violations No. You should understand the difference between defending someones right to free speech and defending what they are saying. I am a huge advocate of free speech...indeed I am filing a court challenge on a file next week to defend a client's Charter right to freedom of expression. I read the "petition" as a plea to defend what Rosie is saying, not to defend the right to free speech. Otherwise, why would the author of the petition list all of the content that purports to be proof of the fact that WTC 7 was intentionally brought down? I will not lend my support to such a petition. See, the problem with your logic is that Rosie has already spoken...sure, there may be backlash and consequences for her but that is different from violating her right to speak. No matter which way you slice it, saying things that are controversial will bring you hardship to some extent. Having freedom to say those controversial things is a double-edged sword. If Rosie is truly fighting the good fight here, things will go her way...just ask the Dixie Chicks. Regardless of the side anyone takes here, you have failed to convince me that the right to free speech is at risk here. FTA Well put. No one is denying her right to squack stupidity. If she wants to sink her career because of public or job-related backlash, I'm all for it. If she were being prosecuted by the forces of law and order, that would be a different thing, but all this petition is trying to do is shout down the so-called "talking heads" who are, after all, merely exercizing their own freedom of speech in calling for her head. If she is fired for squacking stupidity, that has nothing to do with her freedom to squack, it has to do with the fact that her bosses don't want to be associated with her stupid squacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted April 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 I guess the petition signing can be read either way. I read it as a free speech thing as I described above but I can see your point. Even if you dissagree with what she is saying you must acknowledge that there is a significant number of people who do agree with her including many structural engineers, others from the top of the establishment such as ex sentors, ex congressmen,ex generals, ex intelligence heads, and top physicists. It is arrogant and silly to say that what she is saying makes her a nutcase. You can't call Stephen Jones a fool - at least not credibly. He is a top scientist. This movement is growing. If there was no credibility behind it it would have died off a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 This movement is growing. If there was no credibility behind it it would have died off a long time ago. Not if nutcases keep flogging it whilst strenuously ignoring reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moderateamericain Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 This movement is growing. If there was no credibility behind it it would have died off a long time ago. Not if nutcases keep flogging it whilst strenuously ignoring reality. I could care less what that fat cow says. Why would anyone actually listen to her anyway? Shes on par with Michael Moore and Anne Coulter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Even if you dissagree with what she is saying you must acknowledge that there is a significant number of people who do agree with her including many structural engineers, others from the top of the establishment such as ex sentors, ex congressmen,ex generals, ex intelligence heads, and top physicists. It is arrogant and silly to say that what she is saying makes her a nutcase. I've argued this in other threads. Groupthink is very very intense amongst professional groups, standing out opposed to the status quo is certainly going to get you marginalised. In science, your unlikely to get the support of reputable universities after conducting research into non-anthropologenic sources of global warming, for example. Those in professional occupations would find it hard to find a job after coming out strongly against any issue. No one wants to hire a wacko. But I suppose that this market-type of censorship is a good thing when all is said and done. People think twice before speaking (most of the time), and this eliminates alot of dangerous fear mongering. Poly, do you think your chances of employment as a professional (whether you are one or not) would be hampered if the potential employer knew of your views on issues like 9/11 and Britain faking the Iranian hostage takings? The internet has allowed a great deal of anonymity and it's allowed people to express things they'd otherwise wouldn't if they had to live with the consequences. Rosie up'ed the anti and said what you say in public. She'll now have to live with the consequences. She obviously believed at the time that her expressing such a view was more important than all the wealth she sacrificed in mere seconds through lost sponsorships and future contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted April 8, 2007 Report Share Posted April 8, 2007 She'll now have to live with the consequences. She obviously believed at the time that her expressing such a view was more important than all the wealth she sacrificed in mere seconds through lost sponsorships and future contracts. The right is quick to dixie-chick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted April 8, 2007 Report Share Posted April 8, 2007 She'll now have to live with the consequences. She obviously believed at the time that her expressing such a view was more important than all the wealth she sacrificed in mere seconds through lost sponsorships and future contracts. The right is quick to dixie-chick. Indeed - but again they can't fight back with any kind of facts (since there are NONE to support thier twisted view of the situation). So, as usual they name call and smear - makes ya wonder what they are all so darn afraid of - perhaps folk realizing their own duplicity in the matter. Anyway - defending the freedom of speech for those one agrees with is easy - but it is more important to defend the right of expression for those we may not agree with. As usual - the name calling bullies come out - with NO real argument just schoolyard behaviour. pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted April 9, 2007 Report Share Posted April 9, 2007 She'll now have to live with the consequences. She obviously believed at the time that her expressing such a view was more important than all the wealth she sacrificed in mere seconds through lost sponsorships and future contracts. The right is quick to dixie-chick. Indeed - but again they can't fight back with any kind of facts (since there are NONE to support thier twisted view of the situation). So, as usual they name call and smear - makes ya wonder what they are all so darn afraid of - perhaps folk realizing their own duplicity in the matter. Anyway - defending the freedom of speech for those one agrees with is easy - but it is more important to defend the right of expression for those we may not agree with. As usual - the name calling bullies come out - with NO real argument just schoolyard behaviour. pathetic. but, B , name calling /smear is always the choice of those who are weakest in their position. They got nothing but name calling/smear. We must let them use there weakest tactic, if it makes them feel better ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 Perhaps you should direct those remarks to Rosie, who recently insulted all those of Chinese decent with her racist remarks, "ching ching, ching ching ching." Someone like Rush Limbaugh got forced out for saying much milder remarks, but Rosie gets chance after chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 Well Rosie is thrice blessed by Political Correctness. Limbaugh is just a healthy white male, while Rosie is fat, female and fag. Until such time as she sits down to a heaping helping of African baby stew, she couldn't do anything wrong if she tried... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 Rush Limbaugh, wasn't that the guy that made fun of Michael J Fox and his medical condition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F05T9cU8hxQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 Anyway - defending the freedom of speech for those one agrees with is easy - but it is more important to defend the right of expression for those we may not agree with. Just so my position is clear on this... I fully support Rosie's right to assert whatever conspiracy theory she believes in regarding 9/11. I don't agree with her, but I will defend her right to say it. I re-state though, that I don't see her right to speak being violated here, and I find the plea to "sign the petition" to be a disingenuous attempt to build support for the content of the message, and not the right to speak it. FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 Well Rosie is thrice blessed by Political Correctness. Limbaugh is just a healthy white male, while Rosie is fat, female and fag. Until such time as she sits down to a heaping helping of African baby stew, she couldn't do anything wrong if she tried... Again, why do you have to tack homophobic crap in your posts? Rosie is Rosie, dont like her much at all myself. But at least she , from what I know, is honest in her delusions. Rush..?...does not have a truthful bone in his body. Hypocrite , liar, lets see what else? Oh , and you say Rosie is fat and Rush isn't ..?.... umm.....thats what one would call a Dittohead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 Well Rosie is thrice blessed by Political Correctness. Limbaugh is just a healthy white male, while Rosie is fat, female and fag. Until such time as she sits down to a heaping helping of African baby stew, she couldn't do anything wrong if she tried... Again, why do you have to tack homophobic crap in your posts? Rosie is Rosie, dont like her much at all myself. But at least she , from what I know, is honest in her delusions. Rush..?...does not have a truthful bone in his body. Hypocrite , liar, lets see what else? Oh , and you say Rosie is fat and Rush isn't ..?.... umm.....thats what one would call a Dittohead. Given a choice of the two as a radio host, I would take rosie....as long as the sound was off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 The right is quick to dixie-chick. The right doesn't have a corner on smear jobs or malicious innuendo, the left is bettert at it actually, more practice - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 Regardless of the side anyone takes here, you have failed to convince me that the right to free speech is at risk here. There is a bit of an interesting question here though ... while there seems to be no state action or any illegality* from other parties directed at O'Donnell in this case, she may suffer the imposition of a private economic sanction from her employer. The interesting question then, is to what extent should the state consider protecting free speech from private economic sanction. (*Then again, there is a tort of inducing breach of contract. If someone calls for someone to be fired, are they inducing breach?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 The right is quick to dixie-chick. The right doesn't have a corner on smear jobs or malicious innuendo, the left is bettert at it actually, more practice - I'm glad you're not trying to say that with a straight face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.