The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Gerry Nicholls vs. Marc Emery on advancing freedom
Gerry Nicholls, blogger here at the Shotgun, and Marc Emery, columnist for the WS, have now squared up to debate twice. The first time was here, via email. The second time was at this past weekend's Liberty Summer Seminar, in person. And today, Gerry and Marc will go toe-to-toe over how to best advance freedom on CHRQ's "The World Tonight" with Rob Breakenridge.
Here's the bulletin:
The future of Freedom & How to Advance it DEBATE on CALGARY RADIO on WEDNESDAY JULY 30. 9 p.m. Eastern, 8 p.m. Central, 7 p.m. Alberta, 6 p.m. British Columbia...
LIVE ON RADIO on Rob Breckenridge's The World Tonight on CHQR radio in Calgary
GERRY NICHOLS vs. MARC EMERY
Moderated by Rob Breakenridge.
TUNE IN on radio or on the internet
UPDATE: listen to a recording of the debate here.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on July 30, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gerry Nicholls vs. Marc Emery on advancing freedom :
Now you are panicking that everyone will forget this loser whatsisname. This is the reason for your pathological reposts of irrelevancies from this drug pusher.
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-07-30 8:42:30 AM
Uhm, epsilon, the radio debate is a consequence of the Western Standard/LSS debate. The reason Breakenridge is having Gerry and Marc on the radio is because he read the piece in the Standard. I just don't see how any reasonable person would think that this is "irrelevant" to readers of the Standard. It is obviously relevant.
Both Marc and Gerry are participants here at the WS as well. So that's another reason to post about this.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-30 9:01:47 AM
Aiding and abetting a known criminal...lovely.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-30 10:12:45 AM
Yawn. That's a pretty lame argument, Jaws.
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-07-30 10:50:09 AM
Yawn. Those are pretty tired comments, Zeb and epsi.
Posted by: Janet | 2008-08-01 1:29:02 PM
"Aiding and abetting" is not lame. It's plain dishonest. Learn what the words mean, Zeb. Being my favourite resident dumbass doesn't give you license to be a dumbass, you know.
Posted by: ebt | 2008-08-01 1:45:31 PM
Would any of you debate Ernst Zundel on freedom of speech?
Didn't think so, but this is what it amounts to.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-01 1:59:40 PM
ZP: I think it's obvious that abstarct thought is way over your head. You've already said that you are a "follower." So, don't worry about common sense and reason. Just follow Harper like a good moonie.
I would support Zundel on speech, no matter how stupid his opinion is. It can't be any worse than your mindless regurgitated jargon.
Posted by: Opinion | 2008-08-01 2:18:14 PM
Nice to see that you so-called Conservatives have sunk to the level of the NDP, defending every low-life and scumbag who says they're a freedom fighter. For shame. Whatever happened to the days when conservatives beat up criminals and hauled them off to jail?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-01 2:25:17 PM
That's a good question, ZP.
The answer is that Harper has convinced his moonies that people who have never harmed a person or property are criminals.
So, in a Bastiat sense (legislated law vs moral law), Harper is beating up on the innocents to convince his gullible minions that he is about law and order.
Put the harmless in prison to convince the fearful that the gov't protects you.
You can either follow as a twit, or learn to think and really see, ZP. The choice is yours.
Think or stay stupid.
Posted by: Opinion | 2008-08-01 2:59:40 PM
Like I've said on other threads, Zebulon: I'd be happy if the police carted off those who harm others, whether they call themselves "freedom fighters" or not.
I hope you yourself recognize the outrageous absurdity of comparing Marc with Ernst. The former is a decent man, who intends no harm to anyone. The latter has no interest in being decent. But I didn't need to tell you that.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-01 3:14:35 PM
I appreciate ZP's honesty. One thing we can't challenge is his integrity. He has come out as a mindless brown shirted follower. He doesn't claim to be be decent or thoughtful. He only claims to be loyal, just as the Cosa Nostra or the NDSAP. Decency has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Opinion | 2008-08-01 3:20:49 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.