83° Mostly Cloudy with Haze
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Too bad. I support Dr Guth, and wonder why people seem to have knee-jerk reactions whenever somebody makes a statement they disagree with?
Knee jerk reactions are hardly limited to Kansas people and the type of people who live in Kansas, of course.
The man wrote that he wants the children of NRA members to be killed. There is no other way to interpret that tweet. I do not agree with that nor do I believe that mass killings are the direct fault of the NRA. God will damn who He will, I don't know who that is, but I am quite sure that he does not need my help in making that decision.
This goes beyond a mere disagreement about a statement.
This is one of those fabulous stories where just about everybody is wrong.
I detect some hypocrisy in calls by Senators Terry Bruce and Susan Wagle for Guth's firing. Guth apologized. He admitted his comments caused "a great deal of pain for many people."
I don't recall Bruce or Wagle demanding Kansas State Representative Virgil Peck's firing two years ago after his comments over a plan to use gunmen in helicopters to control the state's feral swine population. Rep. Peck said "If shooting these immigrating feral hogs works, maybe we have found a (solution) to our illegal immigration problem."
Sounds like he gets to keep his $82k paycheck AND simultaneously not have to work very hard. Sounds awesome. Sign me up.
Where is the outrage towards Obama for firing a White House staffer for his personal tweets? Oh that is right, there is none because you like Obama.
Barbara - did I say he should keep his job? Nope , the WH was right to fire him. Same thing for Guth. He should be held accountable for wishing death upon children Very callous, offensive remark that should not be tolerated.
Should he have been fired for it? Probably not, but he should have been disciplined.
My point is there exists a double standard. The same people who defended Guth's first amendment rights and condemned anyone for suggesting he be fired remain silent about the WH firing someone for offensive personal tweets.
Why is Guth protected by the first amendment but not the WH employee?
It isn't the action of the employer that I am questioning, but the selective outrage of people over the employer's actions.
The double standard exists on both sides. The issue isn't first amendment rights or offensive remarks, it is instead an opportunity to try and score political points. Scoring political points is a fact of life, but it often is hypocritical.
It should be obvious but I will spell it out for you. People who see nothing wrong with the WH staffer who got fired, but think it is an outrage that Guth was put on administrative leave along with the people who defended Peck but call for Guth's firing.
Do you really not see the double standards in these types of issues? Do you really not see how each side tries to score political points and does not treat each situation the same, but bases their view on whether it is their party or the other party?
I do. I condemn both sides for their double standards.
There is a very simple test to determine if Guth's remarks crossed the line. Simple substitute another group or person for "NRA" in his tweet and honestly assess whether you would support his right to tweet what he did.
I can think of several groups and people if substituted for the NRA that would spark outrage among those defending Guth today.
People have the right to speak, but sometimes it is best to remain silent or to choose your words carefully because there are consequences for speaking your mind.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.