| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
Embattled Interior official resigns post
5/1/2007, 7:06 p.m. ET By MATTHEW DALY The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — An Interior Department official accused of pressuring government scientists to make their research fit her policy goals has resigned. Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, submitted her resignation letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, a department spokesman said Tuesday. MacDonald resigned a week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on accusations that she violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. MacDonald was recently rebuked by the department's inspector general, who told Congress in a report last month that she broke federal rules and should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to private groups. Interior Department spokesman Hugh Vickery confirmed MacDonald's resignation but declined to comment further. Environmentalists cheered the departure of MacDonald, who they say tried to bully government scientists into altering their findings, often without scientific basis. "Julie MacDonald's reign of terror over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is finally over," said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Endangered species and scientists everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief." MacDonald, a civil engineer with no formal training in natural sciences, had served in her post since 2004. She was a senior adviser in the department for two years before that. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said MacDonald had "betrayed the mission she swore to uphold," adding that her actions "undermined both the work and the integrity of the Fish and Wildlife Service and its many dedicated employees." Wyden placed a hold Monday on President Bush's nomination of Lyle Laverty to be assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks until allegations against MacDonald were resolved. The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains based on a questionable study, and reduced by 80 percent the amount of streams to be protected to help bull trout recover in the Pacific Northwest. MacDonald also pressured the Fish and Wildlife Service to alter findings on the Kootenai River sturgeon in Idaho and Montana so dam operations would not be harmed, the report said. ___ |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
Harry Krause wrote:
Embattled Interior official resigns post 5/1/2007, 7:06 p.m. ET By MATTHEW DALY The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — An Interior Department official accused of pressuring government scientists to make their research fit her policy goals has resigned. Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, submitted her resignation letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, a department spokesman said Tuesday. MacDonald resigned a week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on accusations that she violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. MacDonald was recently rebuked by the department's inspector general, who told Congress in a report last month that she broke federal rules and should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to private groups. Interior Department spokesman Hugh Vickery confirmed MacDonald's resignation but declined to comment further. Environmentalists cheered the departure of MacDonald, who they say tried to bully government scientists into altering their findings, often without scientific basis. "Julie MacDonald's reign of terror over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is finally over," said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Endangered species and scientists everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief." MacDonald, a civil engineer with no formal training in natural sciences, had served in her post since 2004. She was a senior adviser in the department for two years before that. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said MacDonald had "betrayed the mission she swore to uphold," adding that her actions "undermined both the work and the integrity of the Fish and Wildlife Service and its many dedicated employees." Wyden placed a hold Monday on President Bush's nomination of Lyle Laverty to be assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks until allegations against MacDonald were resolved. The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains based on a questionable study, and reduced by 80 percent the amount of streams to be protected to help bull trout recover in the Pacific Northwest. MacDonald also pressured the Fish and Wildlife Service to alter findings on the Kootenai River sturgeon in Idaho and Montana so dam operations would not be harmed, the report said. ___ Did you just chastise Chuck for cut and pasting a boating article from Boat/US? |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On May 1, 6:13?pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
Did you just chastise Chuck for cut and pasting a boating article from Boat/US?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I didn't feel chastised. Harry simply remarked that the same information is available directly from BOAT US. No problem, that's exactly where I said I found it. Everything cut and pasted here can be found somewhere else, that's not the point. One function of the NG is to share news. His article isn't entirely inappropriate, either. It has to do with the US Fish and Wildlife Department and that's of interest to almost anybody who fishes. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains This is important stuff! |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On May 1, 10:49 pm, "NOYB" wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains This is important stuff! I know, I miss my jumping mouse, I may have to go buy a convertable. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 02:49:15 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains This is important stuff! Absolutely. That mouse has no doubt become a pawn in yet another development/anti-development battle. How's your fishing been recently? |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
Harry Krause wrote:
Embattled Interior official resigns post 5/1/2007, 7:06 p.m. ET By MATTHEW DALY The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — An Interior Department official accused of pressuring government scientists to make their research fit her policy goals has resigned. Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, submitted her resignation letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, a department spokesman said Tuesday. MacDonald resigned a week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on accusations that she violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. MacDonald was recently rebuked by the department's inspector general, who told Congress in a report last month that she broke federal rules and should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to private groups. Interior Department spokesman Hugh Vickery confirmed MacDonald's resignation but declined to comment further. Environmentalists cheered the departure of MacDonald, who they say tried to bully government scientists into altering their findings, often without scientific basis. "Julie MacDonald's reign of terror over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is finally over," said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Endangered species and scientists everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief." MacDonald, a civil engineer with no formal training in natural sciences, had served in her post since 2004. She was a senior adviser in the department for two years before that. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said MacDonald had "betrayed the mission she swore to uphold," adding that her actions "undermined both the work and the integrity of the Fish and Wildlife Service and its many dedicated employees." Wyden placed a hold Monday on President Bush's nomination of Lyle Laverty to be assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks until allegations against MacDonald were resolved. The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains based on a questionable study, and reduced by 80 percent the amount of streams to be protected to help bull trout recover in the Pacific Northwest. MacDonald also pressured the Fish and Wildlife Service to alter findings on the Kootenai River sturgeon in Idaho and Montana so dam operations would not be harmed, the report said. Political pressure on the "career" federal employees has been occuring since the first postmaster patronage job was handed out. What makes now, in time, special? |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On May 1, 7:53?pm, wrote:
On May 1, 10:49 pm, "NOYB" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains This is important stuff! I know, I miss my jumping mouse, I may have to go buy a convertable. It's a lot easier for a mouse to jump into a convertible- when the top's down. I've never had a mouse nest aboard my boat. (knock wood). |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
... In message , Harry Krause sprach forth the following: The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does? I personally authorized this type of program. And no, you can't see the paperwork. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. Harry Krause wrote: Embattled Interior official resigns post 5/1/2007, 7:06 p.m. ET By MATTHEW DALY The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — An Interior Department official accused of pressuring government scientists to make their research fit her policy goals has resigned. Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, submitted her resignation letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, a department spokesman said Tuesday. MacDonald resigned a week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on accusations that she violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. MacDonald was recently rebuked by the department's inspector general, who told Congress in a report last month that she broke federal rules and should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to private groups. Interior Department spokesman Hugh Vickery confirmed MacDonald's resignation but declined to comment further. Environmentalists cheered the departure of MacDonald, who they say tried to bully government scientists into altering their findings, often without scientific basis. "Julie MacDonald's reign of terror over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is finally over," said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Endangered species and scientists everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief." MacDonald, a civil engineer with no formal training in natural sciences, had served in her post since 2004. She was a senior adviser in the department for two years before that. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said MacDonald had "betrayed the mission she swore to uphold," adding that her actions "undermined both the work and the integrity of the Fish and Wildlife Service and its many dedicated employees." Wyden placed a hold Monday on President Bush's nomination of Lyle Laverty to be assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks until allegations against MacDonald were resolved. The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains based on a questionable study, and reduced by 80 percent the amount of streams to be protected to help bull trout recover in the Pacific Northwest. MacDonald also pressured the Fish and Wildlife Service to alter findings on the Kootenai River sturgeon in Idaho and Montana so dam operations would not be harmed, the report said. Political pressure on the "career" federal employees has been occuring since the first postmaster patronage job was handed out. What makes now, in time, special? Because it doesn't matter who wears the kneepads at the postal service. For other government services, it does matter. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
|
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
|
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:34:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: wrote: On 02 May 2007 02:14:37 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote: In message , Harry Krause sprach forth the following: The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does? I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable laws? There's an entire subpopulation of "righties" who have no understanding of the Constitution, the government, or process. You mean like "hate speech" laws? |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:02 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:34:13 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: On 02 May 2007 02:14:37 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote: In message , Harry Krause sprach forth the following: The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does? I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable laws? There's an entire subpopulation of "righties" who have no understanding of the Constitution, the government, or process. You mean like "hate speech" laws? Oh, I think there's a place for federal laws against certain kinds of "hate speech." There are certain thoughts involving violence and hate that one should not be able to say in public. Give me an example of "hate speech". Or something, other than shouting fire in a theatre, that one should not be able to say in public. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:02 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:34:13 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: On 02 May 2007 02:14:37 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote: In message , Harry Krause sprach forth the following: The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does? I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable laws? There's an entire subpopulation of "righties" who have no understanding of the Constitution, the government, or process. You mean like "hate speech" laws? Oh, I think there's a place for federal laws against certain kinds of "hate speech." There are certain thoughts involving violence and hate that one should not be able to say in public. Give me an example of "hate speech". "Cram it up your ass Doug. Sideways." :-) :-) |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:02 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:34:13 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: On 02 May 2007 02:14:37 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote: In message , Harry Krause sprach forth the following: The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does? I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable laws? There's an entire subpopulation of "righties" who have no understanding of the Constitution, the government, or process. You mean like "hate speech" laws? Oh, I think there's a place for federal laws against certain kinds of "hate speech." There are certain thoughts involving violence and hate that one should not be able to say in public. Give me an example of "hate speech". "Cram it up your ass Doug. Sideways." :-) :-) Depending on the guy and the relationship, that might be love talk. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On May 2, 12:11 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:02 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:34:13 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: On 02 May 2007 02:14:37 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote: In , Harry Krause sprach forth the following: The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does? I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable laws? There's an entire subpopulation of "righties" who have no understanding of the Constitution, the government, or process. You mean like "hate speech" laws? Oh, I think there's a place for federal laws against certain kinds of "hate speech." There are certain thoughts involving violence and hate that one should not be able to say in public. Give me an example of "hate speech". Or something, other than shouting fire in a theatre, that one should not be able to say in public.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, currently California is trying to pass a law that would call the mention of Mommy and Daddy, or other suggestions of hetero families, hate speech to be banned in schools. Personally, I don't like being reffered to as "cracker", or "breeder" but I don't think it should be banned. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:16:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:02 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:34:13 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: On 02 May 2007 02:14:37 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote: In message , Harry Krause sprach forth the following: The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does? I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable laws? There's an entire subpopulation of "righties" who have no understanding of the Constitution, the government, or process. You mean like "hate speech" laws? Oh, I think there's a place for federal laws against certain kinds of "hate speech." There are certain thoughts involving violence and hate that one should not be able to say in public. Give me an example of "hate speech". "Cram it up your ass Doug. Sideways." That's not hate speech - that's a love tap. :) |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:39:04 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:02 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:34:13 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: On 02 May 2007 02:14:37 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote: In message , Harry Krause sprach forth the following: The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does? I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable laws? There's an entire subpopulation of "righties" who have no understanding of the Constitution, the government, or process. You mean like "hate speech" laws? Oh, I think there's a place for federal laws against certain kinds of "hate speech." There are certain thoughts involving violence and hate that one should not be able to say in public. Give me an example of "hate speech". "Cram it up your ass Doug. Sideways." Depending on the guy and the relationship, that might be love talk. Agreed. Still, the question remains - what is "hate speech". For example, would you consider "hate speech" to be something a black person calling a white person a "cracker"? Or a white person calling a black, yellow or brown person colored, colored, chink or spic? |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. It does not apply to someone who merely advocates ideas or expresses beliefs, if those ideas and beliefs do not involve advocating violence." Hate speech: "type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them." I suppose you could stretch the definition a little, but to me, they are two wholly different issues. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On May 2, 2:46 pm, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". CWM Would there be a difference in saying: "I think we should kill all the......" and "You should go out and kill all the......"? |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Inciting to kill someone because of their race, gender, religion, country of natural origin, or ethnic background. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. However, it still begs the question - what is hate speech. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:06:58 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Inciting to kill someone because of their race, gender, religion, country of natural origin, or ethnic background. No - that's inciting to riot. I'm looking for an example of hate speech. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
|
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? If you are low-life Texas redneck, and you get up in front of a larger group of same and say, "let's catch us one of those damned n*****s, chain him to the back of the pick-up and drag him to death," you'd likely be found guilty of hate speech. As you should be. And murder. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:25:02 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? If you are low-life Texas redneck, and you get up in front of a larger group of same and say, "let's catch us one of those damned n*****s, chain him to the back of the pick-up and drag him to death," you'd likely be found guilty of hate speech. Ok - why? If the statement was offered and resulted in nothing other than some cheering and shouting, who did it hurt as a result? Consider: If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house. Would that be considered hate speech? And murder. Different issue. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On May 2, 4:39 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:25:02 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? If you are low-life Texas redneck, and you get up in front of a larger group of same and say, "let's catch us one of those damned n*****s, chain him to the back of the pick-up and drag him to death," you'd likely be found guilty of hate speech. Ok - why? If the statement was offered and resulted in nothing other than some cheering and shouting, who did it hurt as a result? Consider: If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house. Would that be considered hate speech? And murder. Different issue.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I can't define hate speech, but I know it when I hear it, hey if it's good enough for a senator... |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get it". Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question. To wit: What constitutes "hate speech". Let's try something different then. Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by that comment. Would that be hate speech? |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
|
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get it". Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question. To wit: What constitutes "hate speech". Let's try something different then. Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by that comment. Would that be hate speech? I'm not gonna take sides here, but perhaps the Supreme Court will eventually define hate speech not by what is said, but by the reaction to what is said. And if that's not vague enough, guess what just fell off the bookcase behind me. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get it". Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question. To wit: What constitutes "hate speech". Let's try something different then. Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by that comment. Would that be hate speech? Nope. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:13:15 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get it". Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question. To wit: What constitutes "hate speech". Let's try something different then. Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by that comment. Would that be hate speech? Whoops - let me rephrase that. Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that you are offended by that comment. Would that be hate speech. My bad. :) |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. .. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get it". Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question. To wit: What constitutes "hate speech". Let's try something different then. Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by that comment. Would that be hate speech? Nope. OK. Change his words a bit to make it into hate speech. |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:20:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get it". Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question. To wit: What constitutes "hate speech". Let's try something different then. Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by that comment. Would that be hate speech? I'm not gonna take sides here, but perhaps the Supreme Court will eventually define hate speech not by what is said, but by the reaction to what is said. And if that's not vague enough, guess what just fell off the bookcase behind me. ROTFL!!! You statue of Jack Bruce? |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:22:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get it". Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question. To wit: What constitutes "hate speech". Let's try something different then. Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by that comment. Would that be hate speech? Nope. Why not? |
Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:20:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Give me an example of "hate speech". Inciting to riot. Hmmmm.... Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed to breathe our air! That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes". No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech". They are two seperate concepts. Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech I understand what you are saying, but they are different. For instance: If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers" and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot. If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate speech? Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get it". Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question. To wit: What constitutes "hate speech". Let's try something different then. Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by that comment. Would that be hate speech? I'm not gonna take sides here, but perhaps the Supreme Court will eventually define hate speech not by what is said, but by the reaction to what is said. And if that's not vague enough, guess what just fell off the bookcase behind me. ROTFL!!! You statue of Jack Bruce? Close, but no cigar. The A.J. McLane Encyclopedia of Fish Cookery. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com