In my way of thinking it is aiding and abetting. We are enabling these terrorists to enter the universities which validates them, and their way of thinking. We aid them by having them here as condoning their positions. We may not condone it but it sure looks that way.
I believe we do need to hear them, but in a different venue. Let them tout their propaganda at the UN or even in the White house or on their own soil, and not in universites to undermine our youth.
We are then able to prepare and negate terrorist positions that oppose our way of life.
I also like what the Dead Marxist said!
2007-09-27 01:00:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by Moody Red 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
The Right of Freedom of Speech is or should be a universal one. I have that right and many others around the world also have that right. When in Rome, however, do as the Romans. That means respect the rights and traditions of the culture you are in.
Are you prepared to keep your mouth shut in other countries where freedom is not allowed?
Are you prepared to give up your right to freedom of speech just so that others don't have that right either?
Remember, when you advocate freedom of speech then you are just going to have to accept that certain people will say things that you don't like. That goes both ways.
Maybe other countries should ban Bush from speaking on his visits or indeed other Americans. How would you like that? Once you start that ball rolling the snowball effect will quickly strip away the rest of your freedom. Mind you that is already happening in your country.
2007-09-27 01:57:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The problem here is two-fold. On the one hand, we have a University of higher learning that lacks common sense and a US President, New York Governor and a New York Mayor that lack the will to block this or any other enemy of the United States from going anywhere other than from the airport to the UN and back.
Therefore, I guess we shall have to attempt to get the job done through our Congressional Representatives. Under no circumstances does the right of free speech grant anyone a forum to do so. Besides, Hamilton was correct in that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
.
2007-09-27 01:01:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jacob W 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Do you even know why you're not upset the Iranian leader had a press conference for your right-wing corporate media outlets? Probably not, because most people don't think. You're upset at Columbia University because they're having a talk with world leaders, but not at the right wing corporations who put his every word on national TV, for children to hear?
btw, Alexander Hamilton was a nut, and stood against George Washington and Thomas Jefferson on nearly every point in the founding of this country.
2007-09-27 01:11:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
this may well be a demanding question to reply to. The Bible names many enemies. some are actual, some religious. So right it is my take on the undertaking: a million. not everybody is in the physique of Christ. This factors to the tip that not everybody is your brother in Christ. Even spiritually. In turn, in the event that they don't seem to be in the physique, they're an "enemy", yet purely to the ingredient the place they flatly refuse the gospel of salvation. it is the place the Bible tells us to shake the airborne dirt and dirt off our feet and pass on. 2. in case you ingredient to a greater religious nature, you are able to call the "seven deadly sins" or somebody or tension that seeks to divert our interest from serving God. those might matter between our enemies. 3. The Bible says to love those that detest you. needless to say then we would desire to love our enemies. The Bible by no skill says to hate all people, which includes our enemies and this leads to a distinction between enemy and hate. merely by using fact I call you an enemy does not propose that I hate you. merely the different. i will love you greater on account which you're my enemy. Why? you like it greater desirable than my brother in Christ, who already has the terrific Love of all. In end-love those you call enemy, yet ensure you comprehend who they're. in the event that they carry forth a distinctive gospel, refuse the real gospel of salvation or blaspheme the Holy Ghost, then those could be worth of the identify of enemy. lower back, this does not propose i will hate you or shun you away. The Bible supplies a strict command on enemies, and a greater strict command on hate.
2016-12-17 11:28:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by eisenhauer 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
A few more need added to this list as well.
Illegal from any county which the Government is now trying to pass the amnesty bill under a new named " the Dream bill" to not only allow them in but to pay for their education and free rides in any state when our children and you and I can not and should not let alone them.
Thanks Dick Durban.
Our government is selling us out at every turn to China for trade, Islam and any one. Looks like Clinton selling the Lincoln bedroom was just the start.
Also call your congressman on this and tell them no and to vote on HR 106 to recognize the Armenian Genocide the Turks did and stop using our tax money to give to them and then have them turn around to fund these schools and pay off all of our politicians.
2007-09-27 01:23:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
And Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist by nature.
What are you so fearful of that you want to deny the rights of others to express their opinions and ideas ? HOW is this a crime ?
I did not know we were a totolitarian society quite yet.
Only someone who is fearful and insecure would support this arguement. Americans are better than that
2007-09-27 00:30:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I really don't see any harm by permitting foreign leaders to speak in America. In the case of the Iranian president, he seemed uncannily like a small minded and smallish of a human being in his denials of the root of hostility that Iran has towards the west and people of Jewish descent.
Somehow, having a leader speak in a free and open society brings such a leader into the light, into a breath of freedom that perhaps his or her own people are ill afforded.
2007-09-27 00:27:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by alphabetsoup2 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
It is best that our citizen know what our potential enemies are saying so we can figure out if our government is lying to us again.
============
Thor Girl, enact a law like that, and eventually that same law will come and bite you back. Someone will find a reason to censor your free speech, guaranteed.
Nothing stays static, everything changes.
Once you realize that, then you will never ask for something like that again.
============
Peace
Jim
.
2007-09-27 00:30:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
THe best thing you can do is let a pyschotic open his mouth. They make some many ignorant comments that they make a farce of themselves. That is one of the positive sides of free speech. The speaker is allowed to show how much of an idiot they really are.
2007-09-27 00:26:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bob D 6
·
3⤊
0⤋