Is Cornyn using the Ward Churchill logic of reactionary vengeance?

[AVID]

It seems a GOP Fundy has finally tried to open his mind a little and give critical thinking a try.

Too bad his claims of radical judges creating a volatile populace misses the mark and is rank with politics. But he should have no problem understanding Churchill's view of the cause and effect of terrorist activities.

Its nice to see a repug trying to think - however distorted it comes out.

[Jesus Saves]

1. He absolutely is...

Hypocrite...

[Onceuponalife]

2. and now I see in another thread that Cornyn's comments

must mean that he hates America. Well, that's exactly the absurd charge laid on Ward Churchill. Don't act like the reactionary assholes who scream "America hater" every time someone says something you don't like. Cornyn is an asshole, yes, but you're allowed to be that in America without a lynch mob being formed.

[qwghlmian]

3. Cornyn's comments are absurd and disgusting.

So were Ward Churchill's. Yet, to be consistent, folks on DU who fiercely defended Ward Churchill's right to express his views with no fear of repercussions should come to these threads and defend Cornyn - wouldn't you agree?

Don't see much of that happening.

[Onceuponalife]

4. I just did defend his right to an opinion

just like I have defended Churchill's right to his opinion, even though I don't totally agree with everything he says.

[qwghlmian]

6. Cool. But there are too many who have

defended Ward Churchill vehemently who are strangely quiet on the Cornyn issue.

[K-W]

9. Luckily some people fairly read Churchill's work

and arent still, months later, running around believing republican lies about it

[AVID]

5. They both have the right to say what they did

As they are both using similar arguments, Cornyn shouldn't have a problem with Churchills logic.

[K-W]

7. Churchill was making a good point, you simply misread it.

Churchill never ever suggested he agreed with the attackers. But yes, like Cornyn he suggested that the victims were taking irresponsible actions that endangered themselves.

The curious thing to me is, it should be pretty obvious to most DU'rs that Churchill was right. The US was irresponsible, and did run around the middle east sponsoring terror. The US did put troops in the Islamic Holy Land to protect oil reserves. Churchill's point, simply, was that we were being massive hypocrites after we killed innocent people and disturbed a region.

Cornyn, however was arguing that judges doing their jobs were not in fact doing their jobs but were being 'activist judges' a term with no definition to him but 'someone who rules in a way republicans dint like'. His argument is not offensive on the face, he might, in another dimension have a point. But here on earth there are activist judges on both sides of the aisle and they have nothing to do with this debate, he isn't referring to activist judges, he is lying. He is suggesting that the religious nut jobs who he and his like rile up for their own selfish political purposes are proof of a legitimate American grievance against unaccountable judges.

It isn't wrong because it suggests the things Churchill suggested, it is wrong for all the reasons it is different. I'm sorry that you cant bring yourself to understand that your first impressions of Churchill's work are wrong, but to compare a man who made an impassioned plea for America to wake up and stop seeing itself on a different moral plane to someone suggesting that violence against judges was a good way to judge the will of the people... I guess I just don't see where that is coming from.

[Onceuponalife]

14. Thanx, K-W

Good points made. The thing about Churchill, is, as usual, people are mouthing off about him when they really know nothing about him. I decided to go see him speak in person rather than let the Corporate Media(R) dictate how I should feel about him. Yeah, he's made some mistakes and done some dishonest things in the past, but that hardly means that his first amendment rights should be revoked. I tried starting a Churchill thread on another message board and one of the mods closed it down right away. People just don't want to talk about unpleasant truths. Thank goodness for DU.

[H2O Man]

8. Would you think

that the position of a private citizen writing an article for a magazine might be different than an elected official using his position as a platform?

[qwghlmian]

11. Ward Churchill is not a "private citizen" - he is a public

servant, a professor at a State University, who gets his salary paid by taxpayers.

[H2O Man]

13. By your standard

a person who is a janitor for a city government would qualify as a "public servant," and posts their opinion on DU is in the same position as an elected federal official who uses their position to make a statement that appears to endorse violence against the judiciary. After all, that janitor gets his/her salary paid by the taxpayers. While you have the right to believe such nonsense, I don't think many people on the democratic left will.

[K-W]

10. When did Conryn use Churchill's logic.

When did a judge come out and claim that he was an innocent victim when in fact he had been abusing religious people for years?

[AVID]

12. Cornyn is wrong

That is my point. He is trying to create a cause for the violence that is not a reality.

Was Brian Nichols, atlanta shooter, making a political statement?

I don't think so.

[candy331]

15. Cornyn was granted 5 minutes on the floor tonight to clarify that

the articles in the paper and elsewhere had taken his words out of context and in no way was he inciting violence but respected the courts and their decisions. Must have been feeling the Delay heat.

[autorank]

16. Great idea...TAG CORNYN WITH CHURCHILL. Excellent!