DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on August 28, 2014, 11:37:09 PM
-
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/08/28/dear-pbs-i-dont-think-theres-a-compassionate-way-to-murder-infants/
-
"Morbid Lunacy"
Yep, it is morbid.
http://www.withfetus.com/
-
What a crock!
PBS has an OBLIGATION to cover news that does not get coverage on commercial TV.
Taxes pay for a very minimal part of PBS's expenses, and a majority of the American people do NOT believe that abortions should be made illegal under all circumstances.
As the all those aborted fetuses... they don't feel a thing.
I seriously doubt that showing this will change anyone's position on abortion. It is, however, newsworthy and should be presented.
-
Should abortion be regulated somewhat?
Should abortion in some circumstance be forbidden or discouraged?
-
Not by any government. Bearing children or not bearing children is not something that the government should decide.
But that is not the issue here. The issue is PBS airing coverage of a valid news story.
-
I think that no woman who doesn't want a pregnancy should have a pregnancy, and there should be very little restriction on the availability of birth control.
But if a woman has a child she doesn't want, she should not have a right to kill her.
Bearing children or not bearing children is not something that the government should decide.
Shure, lets get them entirely out of it.
The government not supporting and financing Abortion would be pretty good.
The issue is PBS airing coverage of a valid news story.
I don't see the complaint being that the story was told, the tone of the story making the slain abortionist a hero is the problem.
Suppose they made another version, in which the assassin of the abortionist were the heroic figure, it would not be any harder to do.
-
The slain abortionist is certainly not a villain.He is not aborting anyone that does not request it.
As such, he is a doctor, doing his job.
Most Americans believe that some abortions are justified. So some abortion doctors are therefore required.
This is a news story. As I said, people are not likely to change their minds by seeing this. It is NEWS. It deserves to be broadcast.
-
I am confident to state that none of his victims asked to be killed.
-
Most Americans believe that some abortions are justified. So some abortion doctors are therefore required.
No .
Even most Doctors and Nurses are unwilling to kill this way.
-
So what. I do not accept what you say, but so what, anyway.
I am for a woman to have 100% the right to decide whether ti have an abortion. No government has the ru=ight to decide for her. And no, a fetus has no rights. None.
I am not a Catholic and I was not brainwashed by the Holy Mother Church.
But this is about PBS having the rights to show a documentary. I say they have an obligation to run the documentary.
There are several sides to the argument and the public has the right to know this side.
Showing the docun=mantary will not cause any extra fetuses to be "killed", as you call it.
-
"killed'
Everything else is euphemism.
-
But this is about PBS having the rights to show a documentary. I say they have an obligation to run the documentary.
I don't believe that the government itself has a first amendment right.
Every person and agency within the US that is somehow not government , has protection of the first amendment.
Gut not the government itself.
-
PBS is not the government.
There is no obligation to refrain from showing a program you do not like.
Hell, no one has even seen it, so censoring it is just stupid.
-
So there is no danger of considering PBS to be a government propaganda organ , just because it cannot bite the hand.
-
PBS has done a whole bunch of exposes of government dealings over the years. It has been a lot more fearless than any of the commercial stations.
You don't know, because you don't watch. You just see some stupid crap in Fox of some rightwing blog and you believe it.
If you do not wish to see this PBS documentary you do not have to watch.
-
I do like PBS, but I haven't any illusion about its evenhandedness.
Fox isn't perfectly even handed either , but they do better than PBS.
-
Fox wastes 21 minutes of every hour on hideous stupid commercials. They reduce every issue to two sides and pump up the rightwing side. Guys like O'Reilly are just hotheads and have no real training in anything other than running their mouths. It is hard to imagine anything that could possibly suck more than Fox.. Fox News has never been news, it is political infotainment with hideous commercials.
-
I have spotted Bill O'Riley being wrong , but I haven't seen him being unfair.
Nor is he consistently conservative , the danger of doing his own thinking is that he is liable to disagree with either side in turn and not have allies on either side.
He is consistent within his own thinking , even the mistakes I see him make are the same month after month.
Fox seems to me to be the wisest network for moneymaking, they do not favor conservative commentators over liberal commentators for the sake of conservatism they allow commentators of both types to have turns and feed the winners.
Since there is very harsh competition between the networks that serve the left , the winners tend to be those that serve the underserved right and Fox's liberals wind up late at night or in second bananas status. If the people were clamoring for more progressive commentators that is who Fox would seem to promote , because they feed their winners .
PBS has a niche market that they well serve , but they get a subsidy from taxes , which includes taxes taken from Bill O'Riley fans. This is patently unfair, but I don't want Fox to get a matching subsidy ............ or do I?
-
You subsidize Fox whenever you buy the crap that the advertise on Fox.
PBS is far more useful to this country in many ways than Fox.
The Ken Burns documentaries on the Civil War, Prohibition, Baseball, the National Parks. the NOVA nature shows, the cultural programs are better than any of that crap that Fox passes off as "News".
I don't think much of any of the commercial networks. Fox's only redeeming programming are the Simpsons, Family Guy, Bob's Burgers and Cleveland.
-
It doesn't hurt your feelings at all that the government itself is the sponsor of one of these competitors?
-
No, it does not. I have no idea why it should "hurt my feelings." I find the ads on PBS to be short and not so annoying. I detest the pledge drives, they go on forever. But the rest of what PBS shpws I usually find fascinating and informative, and many times better than History Channel documentaries, that ask stupid rhetorical questions and repeat the same crap over and over with the voice of someone who is somehow scandalized by what he is saying. The tone of PBS documentaries is calm and factual.
-
No, it does not. I have no idea why it should "hurt my feelings."
Then use your imagination and place yourself in the alternate universe where PBS relies on public approval ands FOX gets a government subsidy.
-
That makes zero sense.
Fox is not in the business of providing news, it is in the business of delivering rightwing eyeballs to advertisers to make a profit.
-
That makes zero sense.
Fox is not in the business of providing news, it is in the business of delivering rightwing eyeballs to advertisers to make a profit.
That is one way to look at it.
Looking at it this way explains why Fox needs no government subsidy.
There are many more right wing eyeballs than left wing eyeballs.
You know,.............. that makes us sound like a whole lot of pirates doesn't it?
-
Right wingers generally run in packs and mobs. They seek validation and social approbation for their views. They like to reward companies they admire buy buyig their products.
Left wingers generally do not listen to opinion radio and TV. They already have their opinions and mostly do not seek validation Also, they are leery pof all commercial advertising, and unless an ad deals with a very low price or a very new technology, they hop away. I never listen to opinion programs, because I know what I believe and do not care what the average guy thinks.
-
I never listen to opinion programs, because I know what I believe and do not care what the average guy thinks.
The left likes to think that, but when you make particular comments about how so&so shouldn't be listened to, kinda defies that position. The left is in constant shaping mode, as they do care, as a mob, what someone else thinks. In fact, I just heard that a new federal agency is being formed that will literally monitor what they consider as "hate speech". Tax dollars to be used to research how much "hate speech" is "out there". Now, there's no repercussions involved, as its simply tabulating....the problem is the Government has no blooming business monitoring what the "average guy" is thinking or saying. Who gets to define the parameters of "hate speech"?? What would they do with all this "research" after compiling it.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the Professor here, in that he doesn't care, but the left, especially hard core liberals care deeply what others think, and want that thinking to be massaged in the correct direction. Starts as early as Public schooling, extending right into the higher education colleges, and for those teens & adults out of college, that's where the MSM steps in to help with making sure folks are thinking the right way, whether its global warming, or rampant racism, or not enforcing laws is ok as long as its politically correct, or the sympathetic reporting to those who commit murder upon an unborn child, or a whole host of other social issues, all of which is to help others think the correct way
-
After WWII, the Allies demanded that the Germans ban all use of the swastika, Nazi insignia, and Nazi slogans.
How is that different from banning "hate speech"?
Personally, I do not care much about banning hate speech. People can listen to whatever idiot they want to, but there should be some sort of right of those with opposing views to use the PUBLIC airwaves to present them.
The fact is that the right wing is competitive, dogmatic and operates as a heard of pack, and this is far less true of the Left. I taught at five colleges and universities in my career and NEVER did anyone tell me what I should say to students regarding political views, other than to remind them to vote. Never HOW to vote, just to vote. And even that was seldom mentioned.
The story about how Academia brainwashes students was entirely untrue at every college or university where I taught.
I know at least a dozen people who get all their opinions from ideologues like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly or some other Fox "news" blatherer, and they always mention where they heard these opinions. Colleagues on the left, however, rarely quote anyone when they discuss their opinions of events. I may have spent a total of five hours in the last 30 years listening to Air America or some other dedicated left wing broadcaster. Mostly, I listen to CDs and NPR, which always presents not "both sides" of an argument, but MANY sides. If you would listen to Diane Rheems, you would note that she usually has two or three people commenting, and then takes calls from listeners, which present many opinions. Nearly all of what right wingers say about NPR and PBS is crap they heard on Fox and unrelated in any way to the truth.
-
Fox doesn't often criticize PBS.
But they might now and then hire commentators that PBS fires for being politically incorrect.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Juan_williams_2011.jpg/220px-Juan_williams_2011.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Williams
He was a senior news analyst for National Public Radio (NPR) from 1999 until October 2010.
..............................
Williams is the author of Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965 (1987),[3] a companion to the documentary series of the same name about the African-American Civil Rights Movement;Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary (2000), a biography of Thurgood Marshall, the first black American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States; and Enough (2006), which was inspired by Bill Cosby's speech at the NAACP gala, and deals with Williams' critique of black leaders in America, and as he puts it, the "culture of failure."[4] Williams has received an Emmy Award and critical praise for his television documentary work and he has won several awards for investigative journalism and his opinion columns.
..............................................................
Williams made the following comment on January 26, 2009, to Bill O’Reilly and Mary Katharine Ham, while appearing on Fox News' O'Reilly Factor: "Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going. If she starts talking...her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I'm the victim. If that stuff starts coming out, people will go bananas and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross".[10] NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard maintained that: "Williams tends to speak one way on NPR and another on Fox."[10]
NPR terminated his contract on Wednesday, October 20, 2010,two days after he made remarks on The O'Reilly Factor.[11] He had commented, "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."[12] According to NPR, the remarks were "inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR." As to the reason for the termination of Williams' contract, NPR’s President and CEO Vivian Schiller offered...................
[][][][][][][][][][][][]
Juans firing bears the message ,toe the line if your thinking is right of center , you can't have a job here.
I listen to Juan Williams often enough to have a very favorable opinion of him tho he seems to be 90% left of center.
Fox can put up with this they have no hiring bias against leftists , but at PBS if you have tendency to speak the truth as you see it , it had better be the left truth else you get canned.
-
You subsidize Fox whenever you buy the crap that the advertise on Fox.
Which I might willingly do.
I might willingly chip in a bit on a PBS fund drive , and I might not but the subsidy they take from taxes is taken from me by force with threat of arrest and prison and garnishment of wage .
That is not fair.
-
Williams appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and discussed his thoughts on how his role at Fox played into NPR's decision: "I don't fit in their box. I'm not predictable black liberal. You [O'Reilly] were exactly right when you said you know what this comes down to. They were looking for a reason to get rid of me because I'm appearing on Fox News. They don't want me talking to you."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Williams
-
After WWII, the Allies demanded that the Germans ban all use of the swastika, Nazi insignia, and Nazi slogans.
How is that different from banning "hate speech"?
As I said,
- who gets to define the parameters of hate speech??
- And don't we have a 1st amendment right to say whatever it is we want??
- And whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech??
The left is stumbling all over them selves claiming anything criticizing the current President is based on his race, and thus would be considered hate speech
THAT's what makes it different, since we're not in a war with Nazis, so there's nothing to connect the analogy. The only war were in is with radical Islamofascists. Do we tell them they're banned from using the word Jihad? the Koran?? Infidel?? That's the only rational connection you could make to your use of nazis
.
-
The issue is hate speech.
In Germany you can probably get arrested for raising your arm in a Nazi salute and saying Zeig Heil! Which means Hail Victory.
I do not see "hate speech" as much of an issue.
On the other hand this documentary is titled "after Tiller" Tiller beign a doctor murdered by some fanatic that I am sure many of the anti-choice crowd sees as some sort of hero.
They want to CENSOR a TV documentary about actual events.
They are defending "hate actions" like putting so many BOGUS restrictions on clinics that do abortions that they can no longer stay in business.
-
Bogus?
Is applying the same requirements to abortion clinics as are applied to other clinics bogus in some way?
I think that preventing the state from applying standards for clinics is asking for trouble, like that hero Dr Gosling.
-
That is not what they are doing, and you know it.
The goal of this BOGUS legislation is NOT to ensure the safety of patients but to make abortions impossible. The assholes that submitted these bills have admitted this.
-
I suppose that it was not the intent of legislators to make an abortion mill dangerous for its adult patients , but by shielding Dr Gosnel from regulation that is what they got.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/philadelphia-abortion-doctor-accused-killing-babies-scissors-charged/story?id=12649868
It is not unreasonable to require of abortion profit centers the same requirements as other sorts of clinics that are performing equally invasive procedures.
If most of the Texas abortion clinics cannot meet requirements that all of their dentists already meet , is this not evidence that they were sub standard?
I do not think that the solution to sub standard is the erasure of standard.
-
The issue is hate speech.
Exactly.....You seemed to have side stepped the most pertinent points being made here, regarding that issue. Specifically:
- who gets to define the parameters of hate speech??
- don't we have a 1st amendment right to say whatever it is we want, even if it offends someone else??
- And whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech??
They are defending "hate actions" like putting so many BOGUS restrictions on clinics that do abortions that they can no longer stay in business.
Now its about hate "actions", not speech? And who gets to define what actions are "hate" vs "protection" of the unborn child?? :o
-
There is no such thing as an unborn child.
To be a child, a fetus must be born.
-
And who gets to define that supposed non-existent term?? The same folks that get to define what is and isn't "hate speech"? Precisely my point. A child not yet born is defacto an unborn child
Can you try answering the rather simple questions vs just launching into yet another irrelevant tangent?:
- who gets to define the parameters of hate speech??
- don't we have a 1st amendment right to say whatever it is we want, even if it offends someone else??
- And whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech??
-
I get to define words for my own use.
I say that a woman has an ABSOLUTE right to decide for herself whether she has an aboution, whether a fetus is an unborn child, all that stuff. You have no right to tell her what she cannot do, neither dies any government.
You rightwingers are always blathering about government intrusion, but you deny women the right to determine the most basic act of all.
I note that the documentary in question is scheduled to be on tonight. So you can watch it and piss and moan, or watch Foxcrap instead.
-
Putting aside your parameters of abortion, as that was not related to any of the questions posed (but ironically does demonstrate the substantive flaw in those who would want to define hate speech), Can you try answering the rather simple questions? "The issue is hate speech"...YOUR Words. So:
- who gets to define the parameters of hate speech, as it relates specifically to this pending Government agency??
- don't we have a 1st amendment right to say whatever it is we want, even if it offends someone else??
- And whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech??
Try answering one at a time, if you're not really a multi-tasker
-
Are you saying that there should be no such thing as hate speech?
I don't think much about hate speech. I don't really have an opinion about it.
It does seem rational for the Allies to insist that the Germans ban Nazi symbols, slogans and political groups after WWII. What do you think about that?
It doesn't seem rational to assume that Americans, or anyone, is not all that different from Germans. The difference is that the Nazis were respected in Germany as they never were here.
-
There is no such thing as an unborn child.
To be a child, a fetus must be born.
If this were true there would be no problem.
But this is an invented distinction that represents no difference.
Women have been "with child" for centuries.
Though you have a right to your own opinion , you don't get to define reality for everyone with your own facts.
That very childlike thing that exists within a womb is not a child until it exits the womb?
Can you prove it?
-
Are you saying that there should be no such thing as hate speech?
No, never eaid, or even implied such a thing. Now, can you please try answering the question(s). Or is your non-answer the answer I kind of figured it to be??
Let's try one at a time:
Whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech??
It does seem rational for the Allies to insist that the Germans ban Nazi symbols, slogans and political groups after WWII. What do you think about that?
See, you ask a question, while consistently avoiding answering mine. What do I think?...it was a war, and the ban was applied towards those we had just won a war over. Again, to apply that to current reality, we'd have to win our war against Islamofascism, followed by instituting a ban on terms like Jihad. That's the only place your analogy makes any sense
Now, care to answer mine?
-
I have no idea what the Hell your question was.
-
- Whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech??
- Who gets to define the parameters of hate speech, as it relates specifically to this pending Government agency??
- Don't we have a 1st amendment right to say whatever it is we want, even if it offends someone else??
-
I have no idea how anyone could answer the first question. It is grammatically defective and makes no sense.
You can't say "anything you want" The Court has made that clear. You cannot threaten to kill people, you cannot yell FIRE! or otherwise cause people, to panic or riot.
What "pending government agency" are you talking about?
Who does the government claim gets to define hate speech? Surely you know who allegedly claims this right? Why ask me?
-
I have no idea how anyone could answer the first question. It is grammatically defective and makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense for someone who wants to take the question seriously. Here's how it should have been answered....The Government has no bloody business monitoring or tabulating what THEY think is hate speech. Especially if its the Government that gets to decide what is and isn't hate speech.
You can't say "anything you want" The Court has made that clear. You cannot threaten to kill people, you cannot yell FIRE! or otherwise cause people, to panic or riot.
And none of that has anything to do with hate speech, the point that you yourself have said is the issue, outside of threatening to kill someone, which no one is claiming is ok, or even constitutionally protected. The issue specifically here is that no one has a right not to be offended. If someone says something you don't like, or support, or agree with...TOUGH. If someone says something that offends the living snot out of you....TOUGH. And the Government has no blooming business in trying to monitor what someone says that might offend someone else, based all the more on what they have decided is hate speech
What "pending government agency" are you talking about?
Just the beginning (http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-creating-database-to-track-hate-speech-on-twitter/)
Who does the government claim gets to define hate speech? Surely you know who allegedly claims this right? Why ask me?
Because I have no clue, what you're talking about
-
You are not all that good at normal speech. Perhaps you should seek out a hate speech coach, so as to achieve that proper amount of hatefulness.
People at the very least should know that you are hating them, and not just blathering to yourself like the Cat Lady on the Simpsons.
No one has a right not to be offended. Too bad the missed putting that one in the Constitution.
This has become far too silly to continue.
-
People at the very least should know that you are hating them, and not just blathering to yourself like the Cat Lady on the Simpsons.
Speaking of making no sense, people can think and feel anything. What one person says to 2 others, 1 person can think its you hating them, the other can think it's a bad joke. So no, no one can know that "you are hating them", unless they actually say so...as in "I hate you"
No one has a right not to be offended. Too bad the missed putting that one in the Constitution.
Wow, doesn't that demonstrate just how warped a hard core socialist would take things, if they had the control to do so, and why the 1st amendment to the Constitution remains the most important amendment, to the Constitution, followed by the 2nd amendment
-
This has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. You are inarticulate because you are clueless.
-
Speaking of clueless, never claimed this had anything to do with socialism, professor deflection ::)
-
You called me a "hard core Socialist".
I am not any sort of hard core anything.
-
Your actions/words, speak otherwise, not to mention the point I made again had nothing to do with Socialism in general. So, deflect at will, as that is your SOP
-
If Socialism has nothing to do with it, why o why did you mention it?
Of course, none of you silly righties bothered to watch the documentary that according to CU4, PBS had no right to show.
The point of the documentary was that rthe Supreme Court ruled that late term abortions could be performed in extenuating circumstances, and that there were ony a few places where this was done. It presented the doctors and the patients. Nearly all of the abortions were of fetuses that were grossly deformed and that the parents lacked the resources to cover the potential medical bills, It was very well done.
But I suppose that Football, Faux Snooze and Dancing with the Stars was just too enticing for you schlubs to watch.
PBS regularly shows documentaries credited to David Koch, by the way, but you would not know anything about that, either.
-
If Socialism has nothing to do with it, why o why did you mention it?
Because your verbal antics appear to portray you as one. It's no different than when you're calling me a "silly rightie". The point I was making, that you quickly tried to deflect, is how quickly you'd support the idea that there should actually be a right not to be offended. Good god :o That mindset is right out of the book Divergent, where you're not allowed to think or act in any form, outside of some established parameter of thought. Very scary mindset. Likely worse than a Socialist state
Of course, none of you silly righties bothered to watch the documentary that according to CU4, PBS had no right to show.
ok, now you're going to have to back up that claim that they said that PBS "had no right", because from what I've read is frequent criticism of what PBS ran, minus any complimentary documentaries. In other words, criticism isn't the same as "they had no right" in the 1st place. I do realize that to the left, the act of criticism gets mutated into all forms are far more nefarious conclusions, such as racism. So, you're going to have to provide actual quotes from them that say PBS had no business/right running that documentary, since that's merely your twisted opinion. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
The point of the documentary was that rthe Supreme Court ruled that late term abortions could be performed in extenuating circumstances, and that there were ony a few places where this was done.
And guess what, I'm one of those pragmatic conservatives that actually supports abortion, in those rare circumstances, that without the procedure, the mom could die.
But I suppose that Football, Faux Snooze and Dancing with the Stars was just too enticing for you schlubs to watch.
A) I rarely watch football, B) I rarely watch Fox News, and C) I never watch Dancing with the Stars. So much for that erroneous claim
PBS regularly shows documentaries credited to David Koch, by the way, but you would not know anything about that, either.
Since I don't watch PBS, you'd be right. I guess now that makes you a fan of the Kochs.
-
Some shows sponsored by David Koch are pretty good, actually. They tend to be nature shows.
I am a fan of learning new stuff, which is harder to do by watching sports, sitcoms and the usual TV fare.
-
If Socialism has nothing to do with it, why o why did you mention it?
Because your verbal antics appear to portray you as one. It's no different than when you're calling me a "silly rightie". The point I was making, that you quickly tried to deflect, is how quickly you'd support the idea that there should actually be a right not to be offended. Good god :o That mindset is right out of the book Divergent, where you're not allowed to think or act in any form, outside of some established parameter of thought. Very scary mindset. Likely worse than a Socialist state
Just in case we missed the point of my response, vs what the Kochs do or don't support via PBS
-
....................Nearly all of the abortions were of fetuses that were grossly deformed and that the parents lacked the resources to cover the potential medical bills, It was very well done.
.......................
So , it included some lies?
-
I saw no lies. They presented no one who leered and chuckled as tiny fetuses were flushed. It presented what I would call a fair assessment of the daily routines of several doctors, none of whom seemed to be motivated by money. There were no doctors or patients that seemed in any way disturbed, evil or unusual. I suppose that it is still available to watch on your computer.
-
The point I was making, that you quickly tried to deflect, is how quickly you'd support the idea that there should actually be a right not to be offended. Good god :o That mindset is right out of the book Divergent, where you're not allowed to think or act in any form, outside of some established parameter of thought. Very scary mindset. Likely worse than a Socialist state
Just in case we missed the point of my response, vs what the Kochs do or don't support via PBS
Here's a fella, that I sincerely believe the Professor would love to get to know...if he doesn't already The head of Berkeley is instituting rules to curb free speech, in the supposed name of free speech (https://twitter.com/zunguzungu/status/508027777363480577/photo/1). Indeed, what a steaming pile of ideology
-
To you anything other than a cowering admission that you are 100% right about everything is a "deflection", and somehow, I resemble everyone you disagree with. The Chancellor seems to agree with you more than he does with me. He talks about the necessity of civility accompanying free speech.
He would almost certainly not tell you to go F*ck yourself".
-
He doesn't agree with me in any way. He's of the ilk that no one should be offended by what someone else says. You two could be best buds