• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Koran burner Derek Fenton booted from his job at NJ Transit

The tone of this thread seems to be "Capitalism rocks....if it's working in our favor!" As soon as someone actually exercises the rights one supposedly has in the free market to do something the free-market supporters dislike, well we just cant have that, now can we?
 
I think it would be very difficult for NJ Transit to argue that the symbolic burning of a Quran at ground zero on 9/11 in the midst of a debate about the construction of a mosque two blocks away did not "relat[e] to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community."
I think that if he were revealing that this center was going to be built, then he would be expressing something of public concern. However, this is already common knowledge.
The actual content of his expression is rather small. The only new information he is providing is that he is personally opposed to it and doesn't care for Islam. Neither of which seems to be a matter that concerns the public.
 
I think the NJ transit system could make a reasonable case that what this guy did was fire-worthy. When you have the President of the United States and General Petreus (among others) saying that the minister who planned a Burn The Koran Day would harm the US mission in Afghanistan, cause soldiers to be killed, etc., I think they'd make their case.

One might be mistaken to view this as "How does it interfere with how the transit system operates." It might be completely appropriate, since he is a government employee, to extend it to our entire government, not just the transit system.

Going to be interesting.
 
I think the NJ transit system could make a reasonable case that what this guy did was fire-worthy. When you have the President of the United States and General Petreus (among others) saying that the minister who planned a Burn The Koran Day would harm the US mission in Afghanistan, cause soldiers to be killed, etc., I think they'd make their case.


Well then, I guess that Union membered government employees should be fired if it was found that they participated in the picketing of Bush policies during his terms right?


j-mac
 
Well then, I guess that Union membered government employees should be fired if it was found that they participated in the picketing of Bush policies during his terms right?

Did you do that on purpose? Or do you need your morning coffee?
 
I completely, 100% support the rights of private businesses to hire/fire whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. No one has the right to work anywhere.

However, I do not support the rights of our government to do the same. I would assume the transit authority is under the state govt, in which case I hope the fired guy sues their asses off and wins.
 
Well then, I guess that Union membered government employees should be fired if it was found that they participated in the picketing of Bush policies during his terms right?


j-mac

Apple and oranges.

Picketing and hate speech.
 
Apple and oranges.

Picketing and hate speech.


No, I don't think it is....Plenty of "hate speech" coming from liberals against conservatives, just none that liberals will ever admit to.

j-mac
 
No, I don't think it is....Plenty of "hate speech" coming from liberals against conservatives, just none that liberals will ever admit to.

j-mac

While I'm sure there are nutters on both sides, could you be more specific? And then explain why that would justify anything?
 
6681ccm.jpg
 
No, I don't think it is....Plenty of "hate speech" coming from liberals against conservatives, just none that liberals will ever admit to.

j-mac

For instance?

Do you consider being called a redneck or white trash or an idiot Teabagger or wealthy elitist... hate speech??
 
Remember folks.

Burn specific pages from a holy book = Hate Speech
Burn another countries flag = Hate Speech
Burn your countries flag = Patriotic American expressing himself in a wonderful and protected way

:roll:
 
While I'm sure there are nutters on both sides, could you be more specific? And then explain why that would justify anything?








As far as justification, I would cite the 1st amendment and free speech. But I do find it interesting that only liberals like you seem to have the right to pose that it is ok to do something because your political opponent did it too.


j-mac
 
For instance?

Do you consider being called a redneck or white trash or an idiot Teabagger or wealthy elitist... hate speech??


Redneck? Depends on the context.
White Trash? Yes, no other possible context other than contempt for the individual.
Wealthy Elitist? Possibly, again a context issue.
Teabagger? Absolutely, and childish as well.


j-mac
 
Remember folks.

Burn specific pages from a holy book = Hate Speech
Burn another countries flag = Hate Speech
Burn your countries flag = Patriotic American expressing himself in a wonderful and protected way

:roll:

What make you think either is only one or the other? We're free to burn the Koran. But it is a hateful thing to do. Same with flags.
 






As far as justification, I would cite the 1st amendment and free speech. But I do find it interesting that only liberals like you seem to have the right to pose that it is ok to do something because your political opponent did it too.


j-mac


How many do you think this speaks for? How may do you think actually threatened Bush?
 
[

As far as justification, I would cite the 1st amendment and free speech. But I do find it interesting that only liberals like you seem to have the right to pose that it is ok to do something because your political opponent did it too.


j-mac

I would like to point out I've been on this guys side the whole time. So please, don't paint such a broad brush.
 
Remember folks.

Burn specific pages from a holy book = Hate Speech
Burn another countries flag = Hate Speech
Burn your countries flag = Patriotic American expressing himself in a wonderful and protected way

:roll:

Who said that?

Mr. Straw Man.

or Mr. Words In Mouth.
 
As far as justification, I would cite the 1st amendment and free speech. But I do find it interesting that only liberals like you seem to have the right to pose that it is ok to do something because your political opponent did it too.

Liberals?? You're posting some fringe-left extreme videos and grouping them with mainstream?

That's the problem.

Mainstream muslims are not radical extremists.

Mainstream conservatives are becoming a rare breed or their voice is not being heard.

Teabaggers are not mainstream.
 
No, I don't think it is....Plenty of "hate speech" coming from liberals against conservatives, just none that liberals will ever admit to.

j-mac

And I'll ask again, since you ignored it the first time around:

For instance? (hate speech coming from liberals)

Do you consider being called a redneck or white trash or an idiot Teabagger or wealthy elitist... hate speech??

Calling you a bigot or a homophobe, is that hate speech?

Identifying intolerance, fear, ignorance... how is that hate speech?

When you burn up a holy book, you're expressing hate toward that religion? Why? Because you're afraid of them. (fear) Why? Because you lack the intelligence to know/understand that you should not be afraid of the religion itself, but only the radical fringe elements. Which is true of Christianity as well.
 
And I'll ask again, since you ignored it the first time around:

For instance? (hate speech coming from liberals)

Do you consider being called a redneck or white trash or an idiot Teabagger or wealthy elitist... hate speech??

And I answered specifically first time around, you must not have anticipated that cuz you so obviously don't get it.

Calling you a bigot or a homophobe, is that hate speech?

It is if you are trying to categorize me into some sub group, isn't that what liberals say that conservative do to them?

Identifying intolerance, fear, ignorance... how is that hate speech?

Difference is that is NOT what you are doing. I don't know of anyone embracing the name "idiot Teabagger".

When you burn up a holy book, you're expressing hate toward that religion? Why? Because you're afraid of them. (fear) Why? Because you lack the intelligence to know/understand that you should not be afraid of the religion itself, but only the radical fringe elements. Which is true of Christianity as well.

Again you mischaracterize greatly. But I would ask you to name the so called "Christian terror attacks" occurring in the modern times. See problem is that even if you can name a few, the larger Christian community stands up with a loud voice to condemn them, something we don't see with the same force coming from the larger Islamic community. And don't give me the fatwas supposedly issued in condemnation of attacks, they are weak, and of low volume compared to response from Christians.

Problem is hazelnut, is that you, through your words here so obviously do "hate" conservatives. you hold contempt for people you don't even know personally, that you meet over the internet because they hold different views than your liberal ideological viewpoint, that you attach names like "idiot" and whatever other disgusting name you can think of to troll like "pig" to them.

I tell you what, if I want to hear trash like that I would turn on Ed Schultz, or Olberman, or better yet LINK TV. As for in here, you should have some self respect and tone it down a notch. Because what you are asking about is exactly what you are doing in my book, which is engaging hate speech pure and simple.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom