i can only pray this guy gets sued beyond belief

i wish i could post the link, but its all java, but go to cnn's homepage, its a video where this proffessor says it was an inside job

I heard this on O'Reilly last night. Hey Peeps, what do you think is the over/under before IEB! comments?

Here's a small description.

http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/1050050

A UW-Madison professor who raised the ire of state legislators by suggesting the U.S. government orchestrated the September 11 attacks has been cleared to teach a class on Islam by UW provost Patrick Ferrell.

During a June 29 radio interview in Milwaukee, Kevin Barrett aired his views and drew immediate calls for his dismissal from state Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater. The criticism spanned both sides of the aisle. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle also expressed doubts about Barrett’s ability to teach the class after Barrett send Doyle a sarcastic letter.

Outrage emanating from the Capitol prompted action in Bascom Hall. Ferrell undertook a review of Barrett’s syllabus and decided to allow him to teach “Islam: Religion and Culture” in the fall.

Nass criticized the decision and said it would make it easier for legislators to cut money from the UW System in the future.

well they say sharks can smell a drop of blood in the ocean from a 3rd of a mile away, so...........

Whyzzat?

i cant just publicly say, so and so raped my mother, can i?

Well, yes you can, and could be sued for that in the right cirumstances. But if you had a case that you could present that at least shed a little bit of doubt on said guy's alibi during said raping or other important evidence, than you wouldn't really be making a slanderous claim and it would be up to the courts to decide what happened, if you were to press charges. This guy has at least attempted to research and come up with a conclusion, so it's not quite the same as just saying "Cheney's responsible" out of his ass.

id like to see this guys proof to get out of it, if its so solid that is

This Professor Barrett was on Hannity and Colmes on Monday. While he says that he leaves it up to his students to decide for themselves, he personally believes that all of the events on 9/11/01 were the work of the government. His theories are in line with the pair of pinheads who made "Loose Change" (if you haven't seen it, you can view it for free on Google Video). For example, he believes that the WTC towers were brought down in a controlled demolition. Alan Colmes threw neutral questions at him regarding his teaching of the subject, but Sean let him have it. It was great t.v.

You found the story; it's probably not hard to find the case he makes. Read it and decide for yourself.

Your ideals of what constitutes slander or defamation of character are pretty amazing.

ive read all the articles and they dont make sense. all anyone ever does is criticize how stupid bush and his cronnies are, and yet they are willing to say they masterminded all of this?

i totally believe our government does shady things, and i totally accept that and dont have a major problem with it, but to think they would do this on their own soil, to me, is about as laughable as saying there was a unicorn with adam and eve as they ate chocolate cake in the garden of eden

I'm not saying this is my own viewpoint, or the viewpoint of the administration, but look at it this way. If you want something so incredibly bad, and think it would be worth anything to do it--say, the war on terror and taking down Saddam Hussein--wouldn't allowing something like this to happen be a small price to pay? If you knew it would galvanize the American public and give you what you wanted, and you knew you could say it was an honest mistake, what keeps you from letting it happen? It's far-fetched to say this was undertaken by the government, but it's a lot less far-fetched to say that they stood by and let it happen.

Once again, I don't necessarily believe this, but I think it's something that deserves consideration.

I've pondered this as a possibility, I don't think it's true, but still, it is not out of the question.

someone in the camp is bound to be pissed about something, therefore the cat would be out of the bag with documentation of said illegalities, theres no way anyone in the admin would leave a paper trail

That is one reason why I don't think it is true; the shit would have hit the fan by now

if this guy is full of shit, you dont think he should be sued out the ass?!

he is blaming the VP for the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans... i mean, that's much worse than saying something about his mama

seriously, though, that's quite an accusation, and if he's full of it, he should be punished for it, imo

No, he shouldn't be sued. If we sued for everything that wasn't 100% true and provable, then we'd all be in court all day long.

so what youre saying, is by mitchell calling your wife a whore/slut or whatever he did, doesnt mean he shoulda been banned?

how bout i get up on national TV and say how you sucked 9 guys off and took 18 loads in your face and lapped up like the little whiteboy slut you are?

that wouldnt tarnish youre reputation? (probably not )

Courts and RM are 2 different things Peeps. You're the king of the Red Herring.