On October 5, while Jim Gilchrist, founder of the "Minutemen," was speaking at Columbia University, audience members shouted so loudly that Gilchrist could not be heard. Students stormed the stage. Soon after, the speech, and the event, abruptly ended.

You no doubt saw the mainstream media headlines:

At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder

Minuteman Project Heckled at Columbia University

Columbia Investigating Protests That Stopped Speaker

But on today's edition of Democracy Now, a different narrative emerged. In a debate between Jim Gilchrist and student organizer Karina Garcia, Gilchrist prematurely ended the debate by hanging up after Garcia's opening remarks. Garcia claimed that the student protest was always meant to be peaceful. They too, were exercising their own free speech rights, and that it was the student protesters that were attacked. Garcia claims that she has video footage which back up her claims.

Please familiarize yourself with the above links before participating in the debate.

Questions for debate:

In your opinion, what really happened at Columbia?

Did the students have any right to do what they did?

In your opinion, what really happened at Columbia?

Did the students have any right to do what they did?

In short, no. This IS an issue of free speech and Gilchrist's was violated when his speech was stifled by the actions of the student protest. If the students allowed the man to finish his speech and then go on with their spoiled, ivy-league antics then there would be no issue. But nobody has the right to drown out the opinions of another even if you disagree. The use of violence is never alright whether it was the CRs or the protesters. But the protesters were certainly the instigators. Thats not justification for them to be harmed (if it was in fact a CR who did it) but instigation nonetheless.

I think this quote says it all:



Well la dee da. I guess its easy to dismiss this as a free speech issue when you do not recognize their speech as legitimate.

And from the interview with Garcia:


Why your right, for what conceivable reason would the man feel threatened?

This is another case of complete disregard for opposing opinions that has become popular on today's college campuses. Certain viewpoints are accepted while others are either disregarded or drowned out. I hope that this man uses a legal avenue if one is open to him so that a point can be made that this violation of free speech will not be tolerated.

I agree in part with you Leder, but this isn't a free speech issue. It's a private property issue. Columbia University, a private entity invited Gilchrist to speak, students had no right to stop him.

No, but again, this isn't a free speech issue, free speech issues only apply when the government is involved. Students didn't have the right to interrupt a private entity's guest. Leder is right when he says that force is also not within the student's rights...What's funny is how these clowns came on Hannity and Colmes the next night and claimed that the people listening to the speach attacked them.

CP

I've said this before, but I'll say it again, freedom of speech does not guarantee anyone a microphone, a podium, or a radio spot. Even letters to the editor are screened - some printed, others rejected and still others printed but edited.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee that someone who disagrees will not heckle or in a case involving Ann Coulter - throw a pie. People who make public speeches should learn how to handle opposition.

The students had a right to disagree, but I think they crossed the line when they stormed the stage.

BTW: The Dr. Jerome Corsi mentioned in one of the articles was co-author of Unfit for Command, the book that started the swift boating of John Kerry.

It seems to me that someone at Columbia thinks the students need a good dose of right-wing non-sense. Considering what they pay for tuition, (Tuition and fees: $35,166; Room/board: $9,648) I think they have every right to oppose any speaker and should have a say in who gets to speak and who does not as long the protest doesn’t have a physically intimidating element.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/d..._2707_brief.php

I disagree. the school IS private property, and the students choose to go there. if they dislaike the schools choices for guests they are free to go elswhere instead of using the threat of violence against those they disagree with. Their smug attitude that they can do as they please shows their true colors.
They lost all credibility when they rushed the stage.

BOF: Again, I'm with you that this isn't a free speech issue, but paying tuition and fees doesn't mean that the students own any part of Columbia. The fact is this guy was a guest of the university, I don't care how much they disagree with his views, they have absolutely no right to disrupt him at all. They pay tuition to go to classes at Columbia and sleep in Columbia's dorms, they do not have any say if Columbia wants to invite someone they don't like to speak there.

CP

I believe that you are mor than correct in this assertion CP. I found a page outlining what you have maintained about freedom of speech only pertaining to government action on a webpage that was created in part by the American Bar Association.

QUOTE

Since first amendment rights do not apply to anything outside the government does, what the students did was at worst, poor manners. Since we acknowledge that, we can't likewise turn around and say they didn't have the "right" to do what they did. Doing so brings back the false first amendment reasoning which we stated had nothing to do with it in the first place.

I'm not certain about what constitutes "force." Are we talking about forcing their way up there to unroll the banner and chant? Or are we talking about force to beat the guy up? The latter seems to be implied by the NY Sun article which has a headline of Lader being "attacked" but then has this interesting line in the story:



How he was attacked physically or had objects thrown at him is left unstated-therefore, it must not have occurred. It appears that verbal heckling was the only "force" these guys had to contend with. O'Reilly says so in the text of the FOX link

The students need a lesson in manners, that is pretty much it. Once again, we should be careful in using the word *rights* here since that is out of bounds territory constitutionally.

Nebraska, it's interesting that you've put it like that. The reason why I said they had "no rights" to do what they did is that their Constitutional rights don't apply in this situtation. Basically, because they have no first amendment rights with regard to Columbia University, they then had no right to break this speach up. So I think we're agreeing but we're just saying the same thing in different terms.

CP

Some students got amped up on their own bile and got unruly. I don't think there was any danger of physical violence although it was likely quite intimidating.



No. However the rules of discourse as I knew them in college seem to have changed. So it's possible that that sort of behavior is more accepted now than when I was in college.

This was very disheartening to see. Unfortunately, the students are under the impression that these minute men are supremacist (which undoubtedly some are, but very small portion) but do not know the meaning of what they are trying to accomplish. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have wanted to take the issue on so concerned citizens have taken the task. I have the utmost respect for these men and women and those students were 100% out of line.

I don't think we have much disagreement on this. I see freedom of speech from two angles. First, the legal definition provided by the 1st Amendment forbidding Congress and now all government abrigement of the 1st Amendment through the 14th Amendment.

Yet there is another more relaxed type freedom of speech. It's more of a traditional, not legal, value we share.

Short of rushing the stage, I hope they give swift boater, Dr. Jerome Corsi, even more hell, when an if he appears.

One way universities might blunt disruption of speeches is to demand that speakers, who are more likely than not being paid handsome fees, have open question and answer sessions at the end of the speech.

Did the students have any right to do what they did?

No, they did not. I don't really see this as a First Amendment issue, it is a security issue. Columbia University failed to provide proper security for the event, which they must have known would be a charged one.

The fact that Karina Garcia doesn't give any weight to the fact that the speaker's (Jim Gilchrist) glasses were broken is laughable. What initiated the confrontation? Was it the speech, which was interrupted within minutes of its beginning, or the storming of the stage. Any violence is the responsibility of the initiators: in this case, the student "protestors".

The students have a right to disagree and to challenge statements. They do not have a right to physically disrupt a lawful gathering.

I can't imagine why Univision's version of the event differed from the other footage. Univision is a spanish channel and their readership sympathetic with the disruptors. If a student was hurt in the scrum, you have to ask why the hell they were up on that stage without invitation. I wonder what Miss Garcia would say if somebody disrupted the evening news by going to the studio and interrupting the news anchor. Is that a lawful action? Her position is indefensible.


Considering the fact that they guy didn't get five minutes into his speech, how could this possibly have blunted the disruption in this case?

If it were understood from the beginning the a speaker would spend 30 minutes or so answering questions at the end of the speech, maybe he would have been allowed to finish.

In your opinion, what really happened at Columbia?

Things got out of hand, and now there's argumentation about who threw the first, uh, foot.

Did the students have any right to do what they did?

They have a right to protest, and that protest got out of hand. Once violence starts, the right goes out the door. But who threw the first kick? Eh, doesn't matter. End of rights, start of police action.

Okay, now what I really think happened:

This looks like a manipulated publicity stunt for two issues. The first is to show how unruly the liberal students are at Columbia and that the college itself doesn't allow conservative ideas to be freely discussed. The second issue dovetails off the first. The conservative issue for this election season is illegal immigration and how we ought to handle the problem; however, the issue isn't gaining much attention as the elections rapidly approach. So, have a riot. That ought to do it.

But that didn't work either. This thing is so low on the radar that I missed it entirely until finding it here on AD. Part of the low flight is probably how really irrelevant this is to the major issues of the day. This irrelevance stems from the problem of illegal immigration being handled through other means, namely requiring employers to demand proof of citizenship before employing anybody.

It's simple. First, the state makes driver licenses that are real hard to fake. Colorado now uses holographic technology on its licenses. Then, the state makes the driver license one of two required documents for employment, the other being a Social Security card. Well, the laws aren't perfect on this. Lots of small employers still get away with hiring illegals, but it would be easier to bolster the laws and enforcement than erecting a big fence. More effective too.

Anyway, the hobnailed-boot approach to illegal immigration isn't getting much traction. The fear of all immigration isn't grabbing the ears of voters, at least those who decide elections.

Dang! And even a campus riot doesn't work. It's almost as if people have bigger concerns than this, such as where did all the good jobs go, how come we can't get straight answers, and who the heck is driving this bus anyway?

Another thing seems to be happening: The economy might be swinging upward. I'm going by two recent trends we've noticed -- there's more hiring and less demand for higher education. Now this isn't the imaginary economy of Dow Jones, but the real meat-and-potatos economy of people getting off their backs. It's probably too early into it for any of the bean counters to see, but it just might impact the elections in November.

Oh, why I think this incident was planned: First, invite some goof-nut to spew off. Then, plaster posters of the goof-nut all over campus. Third, let the protesters get all up in a lather. And fourth, kick some kid in the head, allegedly speaking of course. Got to be careful here, the goof-nut has a lawyer or two.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
I don't see the logic. Frankly, there was no chance to discuss his ideas, have open debate, or to even give him a piece of their minds. The protesters most likely stifled an open discussion between opposing views that might've gotten better press for their angle otherwise. It's hard to say what would've come from it... but I'd venture to say that there are most likely intelligent liberals at Columbia that had questions to ask...

The problem I see with Ivy-League schools in their current form in the US is that they seemingly are proud of the notion that they're liberal breeding grounds. These schools used to be for the best and the brightest, and now it's becoming apparent that they're for the richest and most useless.

All universities bring in speakers with diametrically opposing views. Even relatively conservative LSU brought in people who'd be considered to be Uber-Liberal, and rightfully so. The whole idea is to get the kids to consider their thoughts, ponder outside influence, etc...

Well, if nothing else AuthorMusician, that is one hell of a theory. Do you have anything to back it up? As far as I can see liberals going on the attack as a result of this event here makes as much sense as conservatives going on the attack during the Foley sexcapades.

First of all, AM, they have no right to protest on Columbia property, just as they have no right to interrupt the speaker. Second of all, and this really doesn't address anything anyone here has said, how don't Ivy League political activists not know that the First Amendment states "CONGRESS shall make no law, etc, etc" and that it doesn't protect them on private property? I go to a much lesser institution and I could've told you that. But anyway, back to the point at hand, do you really think Columbia University [a bastion of conservative academia ] used a Minuteman as bait for liberals to barge in on and make themselves look bad? To what end do you think Columbia invited him, what do you think they were trying to acomplish? Who set this "publicity stunt" up? And are liberals in Columbia SO predictable that someone can essentially plan on them bargining in uninvited on a conservative speaker? You'd have to do better than a theory to convince me that this was nothing more than a few liberal Ivy Leaguers being abonoxious.

CP

You use this phrase about as often as you drop the race card when debating nighttimer. It gets old. Did you learn this phrase from your grandmother?

I will, however, attempt to answer.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I was around during the 60s when all the campus unrest was prominent. I am basically a passive liberal. I applauded the sit-ins, campus demonstrations, Martin Luther King's "March on Washington" and the marches and protest concerning the Vietnam War, but I didn't participate.

I have a slightly different theory than AM. I don't think the 2000s will be a carbon copy of the 60s, but I think Iraq and other 60s like issues are producing anger and driving campus unrest.

As I’ve thought this over, I've decided that this is a quasi free speech issue. Did you know that Columbia University is 10th in the nation when it comes to feeding from the federal trough?

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives...ord2021.16.html

I think the students have a right to a plethora of dissent tactics, including protest, picketing and boycott, but not physical violence.

I don't know how Columbia selects its speakers, but student input - not a veto - coupled with a question and answer period would go along way to curbing open dissent.

If Jerome Corsi, of Unfit for Command appears imagine the possibilities. Placards reading "Dr. Jerome Corsi speaking in ___ auditorium at 8:00 p.m. followed by coffee and an informal question and answer session with a wingnut.”

If anything, that's all the more reason why speakers should be chosen whose views are different from those of the students, and why those speakers should be allowed to speak unmolested. It's taxpayers like you and I who are helping to fund these students' education, and so in exchange, it's not too much to ask of the students that they show a little of that good-ol' "tolerance" towards views that don't square with their own preconceptions and ideological comfort zones.

Blackstone this is a rather flimsy argment.

We all pay taxes for things we don't like. I would rather pay part of mine to indirectly support a dissenting student than to continue pouring billons into the Iraq fiasco.

You just love to bring up Iraq on off-topic threads, don't you? Never mind actually debating it on threads dedicated to it, because there, you'd actually have to deal with counterarguments to your opinions without the mods bailing you out. But at least that part is on-topic, because it neatly mirrors the attitude of the Columbia students. They only want their own opinions heard. That's fine if they were paying for it all themselves, but if they're receiving taxpayer funds, then it won't kill them to be a little-more open-minded.

By the way, this has nothing to do with whether or not public money should "support a dissenting student", whatever that's supposed to mean. It's about whether the dissenting student should be able to shut out opinions that he dissents from, at a publicly funded institution.

ConsrvPat,

If you read the links provided, you'll discover that the speakers were invited in by a campus Republican organization, so yeah, I think that organization very well could have had a plan in mind to get publicity for the illegal immigrant issue that many Republicans are trying to make an election season issue. As for why the school gave the nod, I guess it isn't so anti-conservative as the campus Republican organization claims.

I'm only half serious here, and the impression comes from the last link in the kick-off post. It's an interview that mentions a video that allegedly shows a student getting kicked in the head. Hey, I was asked what I think, and so I wrote it out.

I put a few facts together, and out comes a suspicion that the hotheaded students at Columbia were set up. Note that I'm not defending their actions, just suggesting that we really don't have the full story to go on. A major question is in the air: Did a violent act provoke the students? Might not get them off the hook, but it also might bring the guest speakers into the legal fray.

What in holy hell are you talking about? More babble?



I've never said any opinion should be "shut out." Perhaps you need to read what I said about question and answer sessions. Questioning, protesting and discussion do not shutting out.

Blackstone I mat not agree with BoF on many topics but you should do a little research before making statements like that. He has participated in many Iraq threads, so your saying he does not participate in threads dedicated to it is very misleading to those viewing this thread.

Back on topic...

Free speech doesn't apply here because it is not the government limiting it, but rather the opposing side. All they have done is lose credibility to their side by showing they don't want the minutemen's side voiced in a public forum. It really makes them look puerile.

In your opinion, what really happened at Columbia?
I think it is pretty clear what happened. I haven't viewed any compelling evidence that refutes the charge of students rushing the stage, taking control of the event and roughing up Gilchrist in the process.

Did the students have any right to do what they did?
Like others, I don't view this as a free speech issue, per se. I view it as a maturity issue. Those who cannot debate issues with their opponents like adults are immature. Those who steal college newspapers from campus are immature. Those who must resort to physically and violently stop someone from speaking because they don't agree with them are immature..........and especially hypocritical when those same people would lay claim to the mantle of diversity and tolerance.

Immature as the tactic is, it would be entertaining to see the same reception for a liberal speaker......

"Ask and ye shall receive."

I don't want to belabor the past, but hat happend more than 40 years ago. It wasn't at a college, but mobs led by conservative Dallas Congressman, Bruce Alger, blocked Vice President Lyndon Johnson on a Dallas street and disrupted U. N. ambassador, Adai E. Stevenson at a U. N. Day speech, also in Dallas, three years earlier, shortly before the Kennedy asassination.



http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2003/j...isit.61c45.html

I hate our local Wal-Mart. I have told my wife on numerous occasions that if I have to stand in one more "30-minute" line or negotiate my way through one more mono-lingual, Spanish-speaking attendant I will never return. Dozens of lines & "clueless linguists" later I am still shopping there. No one makes me go. I can certainly shop at Target or any number of other competitors. I continue with Wal-Mart because they trump everyone on prices, selection, and convenience (one on every corner, open 24-hrs, grocery store, and the like).

Similarly, if you don't like experiencing the annoyance of "strong-armed" dissent on some college campuses - go somewhere else. I can take my money & go anywhere. Nor does this have anything to do with my 1st Amendment rights. I can stand on public property and complain about the minutemen all I want.

The problem is that Columbia in this case has so many compelling reasons to attend, most conservatives will continue seeking an education there. They realize that although this type of liberal opposition is juvenile at best it is not yet enough of a reason to go elsewhere. Put simply, the sacrifice of losing an opportunity at an esteemed education trumps the growing reality that conservative opinions are not welcome on college campuses.

With that said, this recent episode is just one more in a long list of out-of-control, budding pseudo-intellectualists mistakenly thinking that they have a God-given right to "yell more loudly" than another in a public forum without virtually any consideration for others both conservative & liberal-minded.

I am discouraged when these things happen. I want a good discussion about a legitimate topic. If I wanted this type of bully-mongering I would have attended a soccer game.

I am not sure looking at the evidence at this time- non-violent protest, even if childish, and they accept the consequences, like arrest for tresspassing aka "civil disobiediance" is okay with me- however, if the students turned violent- no sympathy for them, but if the minutemen were kicking folks in the head and inciting violence, well, no sympathy for them, and they should be charged with felony assault.

I think it is interesting that the minutemen terminated an interview when pressed on the subject however.

I withhold further judgement either way until I see a tape!

Here ya go: Link to video and with Lou Dobbs take on the matter

I wonder if somebody is gonna say Lou Dobbs is a right-wing hack now.

I'm talking about what would happen if someone were to actually challenge your prejudices here on this thread.


No, you just took exception to my post stating that speakers of differing opinions should be chosen and allowed to speak. If you don't disagree with that, then was there, at long last, anything in my post (#18) that you actually do disagree with?

So special interest groups that pay politicians millions to buy their vote is ok to? What does how much the students pay for tuition have anything at all to do with justifying their actions?



It's pretty obvious that they were not going to allow him to finish wether or not there... well how do you even know there wasn't going to be a Q&A at the end?

This is a classic case of hyporcrits that teach tolerance but show none.



Ok, so in other words, liberals can just be counted on to do things like this if the situation is brought before them and the conservative's knew it.

gun in holster shoots self in foot

Edited to add :



The guy was standing up at a podium on stage giving a speech. The students rushed the stage not letting him speak is were the intolerance come's in. There's no way he could have initiated it.... what's he going to do "go go gadget leg" and hit them?

Vampiel,

Close but no cigar.

Hot-headed college-aged liberals are real easy to lather up. Older, more experienced liberals, such as yours truly, are not easy to lather up.

Conversely, college-aged conservatives are actually old men to begin with. The old saying goes if you aren't a liberal in your youth, you have no heart. If you have no heart, then the brain dominates, so yeah, it's apparent to me that a lathering tactic could have been used, and I'm betting on the odds here.

You know, being as I was asked what I think really happened. Who knows yet what really happened?

Maybe the video link will be enlightening. I'll get to it sometime today.

A little later on . . .

Kay, watched the Lou Dobbs segment, then found this on Wiki:



Wiki Source

Seems I should take the Dobbs video segment with a ten-pound block of salt.

I know it's hard to pin you down on anything, including the meaning of "common sense," but your answer here is evasive at best. Are you saying the mods are biased? Could you do better?

While we're talking about "prejudices" it seems you have a gunnysack full of your own.



Oh, Lord forgive me for challenging someone on a debate board.



I haven't said anyone should not be allowed to speak. Short of violent behavior, (I did say if you'll read back a bit, that the students should not have rushed the stage) I also think students should have the right to protest. Did you live through the 60s? It seems to be a decade some, particularly of conservative stripe, woud like to eradicate.

You haven't addresed the idea of a question an answer session to give students an acceptable chance to challenge a speaker.



I agree. Had I been living in New York and the speech had been open to the public, I would not have gone.

I still haven't seen the vid evidence- all the left and right wing hacks can go on forever, but until I see that vid- no judgement one way or the other. I am actually sympathetic to the minutemen, and I think the idea is a good one, it is just one of those movements that atracts right wing white supremicists as well.

Oh come on AM, your still young even with all of your experience, OLD is not a four letter word. I agree with you though at least from my experience, many, and for the most part left leaning college students seem to take the word "dissent" a bit to far by doing the very things they preach against. This is just one example of many. Even if it was a setup.. who cares? It just show's how easily predictable some hypocrites can be and that is nothing to be proud of.

I posted the video evidence above... Are you just ignoring it?

Sorry- I can't load it- I will try again when I get home- I thought it was a dead link- turns out it is just blocked at work.

Can you fill me in please? Is this vid the video evidence claimed by the protestors? If it is, does it in any way make thier point?

My position on this thread has never been to support rushing the stage, but more peaceful forms of dissent.

Therefore, I'll repost Sleeper's link.



I like Lou Dobbs and don't consider him a right-wing hack.

Of late, however, he seems to have become victim of his tendency to crusader on three issues:

1. Illegal Immigration,
2. Outsourcing of jobs,
3. Destruction of the middle class.

Dobbs is almost xenophobic on illegal immigration, however. The other two issues there are mainstream Democrat issues, however.

Peggy Noonan had a great piece today illustrating the general pattern that some on the left have towards dissent, including on this issue. The Sounds of Silencing



As admitted here, young liberals think with their hearts and not with their minds. They are prone to being fired up easily. In this case, it lead to a minor case of assault. In other instances, the emotions so overwhelm the intellect that such tragedies as the Kent State shootings occur.

Can't we just have an honest, civil debate and let the best ideas win out?

In your opinion, what really happened at Columbia?

I think it happened just like Mr Gilchrist has stated.


Did the students have any right to do what they did?

Partly, they had no right to become threatening in their posture during the speech. The university is legally responsible for the poor security.




I have no idea how some can say that this is not a free speech issue. Does Columbia University receive federal funds? I think they do, which means it's a free speech issue. Furthermore, the students could potentially be charged with assault even if they did not tough anyone. They moved in a threatening manner. They also defamed the character of the the speakers and the Minutemen Project. These men were invited to speak by a bonafide university organization, which means their message was not forced upon the students. The students had a right to protest peacefully.



Let's take a look at the comment that Gilchrist is a coward by Karina Garcia. She did not bring up the issue of the National Alliance until after Gilchrist stated he would end the interview. Then after he left she commenced an attempt to tie the Minutemen Project with this Neo-Nazi organization. I have no doubt that the American people have a much different opinion of the Minutemen Project. Furthermore, Gilchrist speaks from personal experience at the border and a Californian; on what basis does Ms Garcia speak? Gilchrist is an experienced and educated retired California reporter and decorated Marine. From their website, "MMP has no affiliation with, nor will we accept any assistance by or interference from, separatists, racists, or supremacy groups." Clearly, Ms Garcia was promoting unsubstantiated rhetoric. The MMP has been around long enough to be completely discredited if they had ties to Nazis or other separatist groups. The National Border Patrol would have found this out as well. All MMP members have to sign a pledge stating that they will obey all applicable laws and hold no predudice against any race. I wonder if Ms Garcia has taken such a pledge. Furthermore, the MMP SOP manual does not promote firearms.

I think Noonan is hitting an important aspect. As far as I can tell an element of (civic / democratic) grace is indeed missing nowadays in the U.S. politics. But to say that it is only a problem Democrats are facing is not honest: both sides of the political spectrum are missing decency and grace in the political debate. (most of the times it is a mud-slinging bonanza out there )

I fully agree with Amlord when he wrote:



As for the student protest at Columbia I follow Author Musician's view:


and Bof's explanation:

No, they do their job just fine within the constraints imposed by the rules. Right now, the rules apparently are that people are allowed to take an off-topic swipe at another issue, but no one's allowed to challenge them when they do, without risking the wrath of the White Box.


So...would that be a yes or a no to my question? (speaking of "evasive" and "hard to pin down"...)


Nothing wrong with the idea at all. You haven't addressed Vampiel's point that that was ever even an issue to begin with. Most times a speaker is invited to speak at a college or university, there's a Q&A session. What gave you the impression that that wouldn't have been the case with the Minuteman speaker?

.

This is not a courtroom and you are not Perry Mason. Board rules prohibit one liners, so I'm certainly not going to give you a one word answer. Just to show we can both do courtroom theatrics, would you repeat the question, counselor? We both need to be on the same page, you know. Repeat the question, which got lost in your verbal mask, and I'll try to give you and Vampiel (are you his attorney?) a substantive answer - not a "yes" or "no" - when I get home from the coffee shop.

I included my question in my reply, and it had nothing to do with Vampiel. All I wanted to know is if you disagreed with what I wrote in Post #18. You initially replied to it by saying it was "flimsy", implying that you disagreed with it. But when I followed up on that by continuing to defend my position, you implied that I was misrepresenting yours. That would imply that you didn't disagree with me. I just wanted to know which it is, and if so, what you disagree with me on.

Then why did you bring Vampiel up?





This argument is, depending of course on your definition of “is” - flimsy.

First, I have not said that Gilchrest should not have been allowed to speak. I have repeatedly said that the students should not have rushed the stage.

Second, your argument is flimsy because, Iraq aside, none of us have much control over how our tax dollars are spent.



I’m getting a little tired of folks indiscriminately playing the hypocrisy card. Considering that I never endorsed, nor did any other liberal on this board, a right for the students to storm the stage, your broad rushing of liberals or Democrats or whoever you were addressing this to, is just one sick, mean, vicious ad hominem attack.



You make a good point Amlord, but the Ohio National Guard was just as out of control emotionally as the students. I read James a. Michener's Kent State: What Happened and Why some years ago and have seen documentaries. None of the four students killed were armed and all were at lest 300 feet from where the guard was firing indiscriminately into a crowd. The "authorities," including Gov. James Rhodes, overreacted.

http://www.amazon.com/Kent-State-What-Happ...TF8&s=books

I think you completely misread what AMlord said here. He was talking about the shootings, not those who were protestors at Kent State. I believe he was saying that emotions need to be kept in check and that we were lucky that all that happened was a minor assault case and not something like Kent State.

You may be right. There were some things that happened at Kent State that shouldn't have happened - the burning of the ROTC building, for example. Other activities, such as burying a copy of the constitution after Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia were an entirely appropriate method of peaceful protest.

I think part of what still gets a number of liberals is that none of the guardsmen was ever convicted of murder in this matter.

I'll give Amlord the benefit of the doubt, though. If he wants to elaborate, I welcome that.

BoF I believe you misunderstood my posts.

I wasn't calling you or any other Liberal on this message board a hypocrite but the students that participated in this particular incident. My comment of "Ok, so in other words, liberals can just be counted on to do things like this if the situation is brought before them and the conservative's knew it." was just putting AM's post in a different way of stating it, then he went on to clarify which I responded :



I never said "all Liberals" or anyone on this message board is a hypocrite, in fact I stated "for the most part" implicating conservatives and other groups as well take part in such hypocrisy. I also never stated that you or anyone else here endorsed the students actions of rushing the stage.

Thanks for the clarification. Actually, I missed this completely until Blackstone brought it up.

One other point. You don't even know that the students, who stormed the stage, are philosophical liberals in all case.

Cripes, so I'm not allowed to make more than one point in the same reply? One point had to do with Vampiel, the other did not. Is that really such a problem?


You said that students should have some say in who gets allowed to speak. That would at least have made it less likely that he would have been chosen.


And that has what to do with my point? Or yours, for that matter? It was you who initially brought up the fact that Columbia receives our tax dollars, as if to suggest that that somehow bolsters your argument that the students should therefore have some control over who gets chosen to speak. My point is that if the tax dollars have any bearing at all on this question, it works against your conclusion rather than in favor of it. If they're receiving tax dollars, there's nothing wrong with asking for a little reciprocity by tolerating some views that they may not be comfortable with.

Are you trying to limit debating your posts to only what you want debated? Am I not allowed to respond to more than one of your "points"? Perhaps you should stop playing "phantom" moderator and just debate.



Correction. My pointing out that Columbia receives massive amounts of federal funds was to argue that this is at least a quasi-freedom of speech issue.

The idea of students having input and possibly a question and answer session was a separate argument not intended to stop speakers like Gilcherest, but to facilitate dialogue.