MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: reinko on August 28, 2019, 06:19:38 AM
-
Over/under on this be locked by 4pm EST today, but folks thoughts??
https://marquettewire.org/4014646/news/demonstration-policy-revised-this-past-week/
-
I think this quote from the article sums it up well:
“The message this policy sends to students is that you can have grievances and express them as long as you clear them with us, the administration, first,” Rocco said. “I think that’s a dangerous message.”
The point of protest is that people disagree. Whether due to on campus employment conditions or wages or something more political, protest is only effective when it makes people uncomfortable. That's the very reason protest can spark change. The idea that only approved, orderly, well organized protests will be allowed goes against the spirit and efficacy of the First Amendment. This should be struck down.
-
A few things.
First, this is a poorly witten and innaccurate article. They should have linked to the overall "Demonstrations Policy" and not the one specific to the Alumni Memorial Union which gives an incomplete picture of how Marquette handles these things. You can find that policy here:
https://www.marquette.edu/student-development/policies/demonstrations.php
Second, the reason colleges and universities have been adopting such policies are due to protests, oftentimes instigated by people not associated with the university, over various guest speakers. We have all seen the headlines where speakers have been shut down due to protests right? People have been rightly critical of those protests due to the university striving to be a "marketplace of ideas."
So in the end it really matters most how the University carries out this policy. It says right within the policy "All students who are members of the university community have the right to peaceful demonstration (including, but not limited to, rallies, gatherings, protests, parades, and processions) on campus."
Would they allow a student-lead "pro choice" demonstration or something similarly controversial? That's where the answer lies.
-
PCU is an under-rated movie.
"We're not going to protest".
-
I think this quote from the article sums it up well:
“The message this policy sends to students is that you can have grievances and express them as long as you clear them with us, the administration, first,” Rocco said. “I think that’s a dangerous message.”
The point of protest is that people disagree. Whether due to on campus employment conditions or wages or something more political, protest is only effective when it makes people uncomfortable. That's the very reason protest can spark change. The idea that only approved, orderly, well organized protests will be allowed goes against the spirit and efficacy of the First Amendment. This should be struck down.
What does a private institution have to do with the First Amendment?
-
Yeah this isn't a legal, First Amendment issue. Marquette has every right to limit whatever protest it wants on its grounds.
-
PCU is an under-rated movie.
"We're not going to protest".
Jeremy Piven's finest work
-
Most private businesses don't invite or allow protests on their property. Find me a business that says, "if you ask permission first, I'll allow you into my building to have your protest." It generally doesn't happen. Marquette does allow protests and demonstrations -- even in its private buildings. And it even specifically allows "walk through" protests without advance permission or approval at any time. Again, try that in another private business.
Also, this:
What does a private institution have to do with the First Amendment?
-
What does a private institution have to do with the First Amendment?
Two aspects. First is that there are numerous public portions of the private institution. Roads and sidewalks, for instance. Second, while a private institution, it is also a venue to educate and prepare students for the rest of their lives. Part of that is allowing them to participate in the (small d) democratic process.
I get the divide here, but protest and universities have been connected for generations. And as long as federal endowment money goes to universities, whether public or private, I lean toward more liberal allowance of protests. Again, the point of protest is discomfort, not falling in line with "acceptable" forms of protest.
-
Two aspects. First is that there are numerous public portions of the private institution. Roads and sidewalks, for instance. Second, while a private institution, it is also a venue to educate and prepare students for the rest of their lives. Part of that is allowing them to participate in the (small d) democratic process.
This policy doesn't cover public sidewalks. Anybody can protest along Wisconsin Avenue whever they want as long as they don't break the laws of the City or State.
I get the divide here, but protest and universities have been connected for generations. And as long as federal endowment money goes to universities, whether public or private, I lean toward more liberal allowance of protests. Again, the point of protest is discomfort, not falling in line with "acceptable" forms of protest.
I would argue that if Marquette executes this policy as it stands, it is a "liberal allowance of protests."
-
Two aspects. First is that there are numerous public portions of the private institution. Roads and sidewalks, for instance. Second, while a private institution, it is also a venue to educate and prepare students for the rest of their lives. Part of that is allowing them to participate in the (small d) democratic process.
I get the divide here, but protest and universities have been connected for generations. And as long as federal endowment money goes to universities, whether public or private, I lean toward more liberal allowance of protests. Again, the point of protest is discomfort, not falling in line with "acceptable" forms of protest.
But you linked an article that is discussing specifically a policy about protests within AMU. It's absolutely reasonable (and necessary) for Marquette to regulate that. And, as I mentioned before (and is mentioned in the article), they can protest/demonstrate in AMU without any advance approval or permission if they keep things moving. This is an extremely accommodating policy.
Edited to add from the policy: The Alumni Memorial Union (AMU) will allow members of the Marquette University community to host and participate in on-campus demonstrations within the AMU’s public spaces. The AMU will allow members of the Marquette University community to pass through the building as part of their peaceful demonstration. However, if groups would like to stay within the building beyond walking through it or if the group would like to request signatures from guests in the building for a petition, they must adhere to the AMU’s Demonstration Policy.
-
But you linked an article that is discussing specifically a policy about protests within AMU.
Just going to note, I didn't. I just responded.
-
Just going to note, I didn't. I just responded.
Fair enough.
-
Given my prior posts in this thread, I think it's only fair that I acknowledge that the broader policy that Fluffy linked also requires advance notice and approval for demonstrations in other locations.
-
I’ll just be happy when both sides are given equal treatment to speak on campus and not be blocked which is happening way too much. If we want a free speech convo, let’s fix the access part first.
-
Just an observation - It almost seems like my alma mater actively tries to promulgate policies that attract negative press. It is bewildering. This just seems completely unnecessary, especially on a college campus.
Edit - I see people correctly stating that this is not a 1a issue, and that Marquette is within its rights here. The question we should be asking is not whether it can be done, but whether it should.
-
Just an observation - It almost seems like my alma mater actively tries to promulgate policies that attract negative press. It is bewildering. This just seems completely unnecessary, especially on a college campus.
Some of this is definitely necessary. The preapproval part is not really necessary and where the sticking point lies. Could definitely be abused.
-
Jeremy Piven's finest work
Indeed.
And the last time the greater world witnessed his genetic hairline.
-
Two aspects. First is that there are numerous public portions of the private institution. Roads and sidewalks, for instance. Second, while a private institution, it is also a venue to educate and prepare students for the rest of their lives. Part of that is allowing them to participate in the (small d) democratic process.
I get the divide here, but protest and universities have been connected for generations. And as long as federal endowment money goes to universities, whether public or private, I lean toward more liberal allowance of protests. Again, the point of protest is discomfort, not falling in line with "acceptable" forms of protest.
All fair, but if the line in the sand is first amendment that invites chaos that is totally counter to the mission of a university. Government by its nature is slow and methodical and is designed to be disrupted so that it is responsive to the citizenry. A university does not have that mission and it while it should be a place to educate in both theory and practical application it certainly should be a 100% real world experience, etc.
-
Jeremy Piven's finest work
"You're wearing the t-shirt of the band that you are going to be?!?! Don't be that guy"
-
The problem with protesters (read: not protesting) in the current age is the same issue that makes fraternities so dangerous... you want people to remember you (or the movement), so everyone thinks they have to keep one-upping their predecessors.
That's why you need boundaries and limits on protesters, not the actual protest.
That said, I'm curious as to how many people who participate in a public protest honestly believe they're doing so more for purposes of making a difference than they are for purposes of saying "I was there."
-
The problem with protesters (read: not protesting) in the current age is the same issue that makes fraternities so dangerous... you want people to remember you (or the movement), so everyone thinks they have to keep one-upping their predecessors.
That's why you need boundaries and limits on protesters, not the actual protest.
That said, I'm curious as to how many people who participate in a public protest honestly believe they're doing so more for purposes of making a difference than they are for purposes of saying "I was there."
I believe the majority of people that were killed at Jackson State and Kent State weren't even onlookers/gawkers, they were literally just walking by to get to class/work/home.
I trust protesters to know how to protest more than I trust universities or law enforcement to discern the difference between a protest and an insurrection.
-
What does a private institution have to do with the First Amendment?
Marquette, like most private universities, guarantee first amendment rights to students as part of their acceptance. It's a contractual obligation.
-
Marquette, like most private universities, guarantee first amendment rights to students as part of their acceptance. It's a contractual obligation.
Perfectly fine, what does a private institution "limiting" protests on private property do to impinge on the students right to protest their government. The first amendment prevents the government from limiting speech in anyway.....that has nothing to do with a private entity "limiting" speech on private land.
If Marquette were to discipline a student for going to Madison to protest in the capital.....that's an infringement of that students first amendment right(though it's somewhat tenuous because that depends on MU getting funding from the government)
If Marquette were to discipline a student for violating it's policy on protest on MU property that has no infringement concerns.
I'm all for open dialog on campus and providing as much opportunity for voices to be heard, but we can't do so by hiding behind the first amendment.....it has no bearing on this concern.
-
My daughter recently started at Purdue. Reading up on things, I've been pretty impressed with their commitment to protecting free speech and public discourse (and yes, I'm aware that it's public and has some different rules that apply). It was hilarious on Facebook last week when some parents realized that their children were being exposed to a very harsh and vocal preacher on campus. People were literally disappointed that the campus police weren't hauling the preacher away. Several expressed extreme concern for their kids' safety (because they equated him calling girls whores and saying their skimpy clothes meant they wanted to be raped with an actual threat of rape). The thread was disturbing.
I kept quiet, but I couldn't help thinking that the kids' classmates almost certainly posed far more danger to them than some preacher.
The guy reminded me of the "God-mobile" from back in the day.
-
This policy may in fact help promote free speech.
-
This policy may in fact help promote free speech.
Why do you say that?
-
Why do you say that?
When appropriately used, it can be used to stop jaga$$es who seek to protest for the purpose of shutting down the free speech of others.
-
My daughter recently started at Purdue. Reading up on things, I've been pretty impressed with their commitment to protecting free speech and public discourse (and yes, I'm aware that it's public and has some different rules that apply). It was hilarious on Facebook last week when some parents realized that their children were being exposed to a very harsh and vocal preacher on campus. People were literally disappointed that the campus police weren't hauling the preacher away. Several expressed extreme concern for their kids' safety (because they equated him calling girls whores and saying their skimpy clothes meant they wanted to be raped with an actual threat of rape). The thread was disturbing.
I kept quiet, but I couldn't help thinking that the kids' classmates almost certainly posed far more danger to them than some preacher.
The guy reminded me of the "God-mobile" from back in the day.
Not quite sure what the preacher was doing and where.... but if he is publicly - on campus - calling girls whores, he should be arrested.
-
Not quite sure what the preacher was doing and where.... but if he is publicly - on campus - calling girls whores, he should be arrested.
On what ground?
-
On what ground?
Depending on state law, it's quite possibly a crime.
In Wisconsin, for example, a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if he/she "in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance."
I would guess many young women would be disturbed or provoked by being called a whore by a strange man in public, and would consider that abusive, indecent and profane.
-
Not quite sure what the preacher was doing and where.... but if he is publicly - on campus - calling girls whores, he should be arrested.
classic shutting down free speech-if ya don't know what he was doing or saying, best ya find out before ya advocate for his arrest
-
i do not understand how or why "demonstrations" are allowed by people concealing their identity. i can't walk in to a bank or many other businesses like that. can't walk thru airport security, etc etc
-
Perfectly fine, what does a private institution "limiting" protests on private property do to impinge on the students right to protest their government. The first amendment prevents the government from limiting speech in anyway.....that has nothing to do with a private entity "limiting" speech on private land.
If Marquette were to discipline a student for going to Madison to protest in the capital.....that's an infringement of that students first amendment right(though it's somewhat tenuous because that depends on MU getting funding from the government)
If Marquette were to discipline a student for violating it's policy on protest on MU property that has no infringement concerns.
I'm all for open dialog on campus and providing as much opportunity for voices to be heard, but we can't do so by hiding behind the first amendment.....it has no bearing on this concern.
Oh I agree, I was just answering your question about the link between free speech and private institutions
-
Not quite sure what the preacher was doing and where.... but if he is publicly - on campus - calling girls whores, he should be arrested.
No he shouldn't. Other people should call him out, shout him down, or try to have an educational conversation with him, but not arrest him. You cant arrest someone just because you don't like their speech. The best way to fight hateful speech is with more speech
-
i do not understand how or why "demonstrations" are allowed by people concealing their identity. i can't walk in to a bank or many other businesses like that. can't walk thru airport security, etc etc
But you can walk in a public space like that.... which is where people have a right to protest.
You should take your own advice on this
classic shutting down free speech-if ya don't know what he was doing or saying, best ya find out before ya advocate for his arrest
-
But you can walk in a public space like that.... which is where people have a right to protest.
You should take your own advice on this
i didn't say arrest him or shut it down tamu-i said i do not understand it
-
Interesting thread. I appreciate the different viewpoints.
-
Depending on state law, it's quite possibly a crime.
In Wisconsin, for example, a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if he/she "in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance."
I would guess many young women would be disturbed or provoked by being called a whore by a strange man in public, and would consider that abusive, indecent and profane.
I don't know anywhere where a preacher calling women whores from his soapbox would rise to the level required for arrest
-
But you can walk in a public space like that.... which is where people have a right to protest.
You should take your own advice on this
but i do know what they are saying and protesting. if i wanted to address them with free speech on my part, i better have a body guard or three though i've seen what happens to people who disagree with them
-
i didn't say arrest him or shut it down tamu-i said i do not understand it
You said "you don't understand how it is allowed". Unless you literally don't understand the logistics of how someone gets permission to protest while concealing their identity (the answer is to be alive in America), it sounds like you are suggesting that protesting while concealing your identity shouldn't be allowed (in other words, shutting down a form of free speech)
-
Depending on state law, it's quite possibly a crime.
In Wisconsin, for mexample, a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if "in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance."
I would guess many young women would find being called a whore by a strange man in public as abusive, indecent and profane.
is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
And, depending on the application and enforcement, it's quite possibly unconstitutional. I strongly suspect that the police could not arrest a street preacher under that statute for "speech only" issues.
-
but i do know what they are saying and protesting. if i wanted to address them with free speech on my part, i better have a body guard or three though i've seen what happens to people who disagree with them
Im confused, who do you know is saying and protesting what? Who's them in this situation?
-
And, depending on the application and enforcement, it's quite possibly unconstitutional. I strongly suspect that the police could not arrest a street preacher under that statute for "speech only" issues.
Are you suggesting that a person can't be arrested for speech considered "disturbing or provoking?"
-
Are you suggesting that a person can't be arrested for speech considered "disturbing or provoking?"
No.
Edited to add: I'm suggesting a street preacher almost certainly can't be arrested for doing their typical schtick which, sadly and disgustingly, often involves calling women whores.
-
Are you suggesting that a person can't be arrested for speech considered "disturbing or provoking?"
Can't? No. But the threshold is very very high. Calling someone or even multiple someones a whore. Not going to cut it anywhere I know.
-
You said "you don't understand how it is allowed". Unless you literally don't understand the logistics of how someone gets permission to protest while concealing their identity (the answer is to be alive in America), it sounds like you are suggesting that protesting while concealing your identity shouldn't be allowed (in other words, shutting down a form of free speech)
ya see tamu, this is where you get yourself into trouble-"it SOUNDS like"
i truly do not understand it or get it, but once again, i did not say shut them down. i may not like it, but i didn't say shut them down, i may think it's wrong to conceal ones identity during a protest, but i did not say shut it down
you are confused? i think you know very well who/what i'm referring to. i want this thread to make it beyond 4 pm eastern standard
-
I believe the majority of people that were killed at Jackson State and Kent State weren't even onlookers/gawkers, they were literally just walking by to get to class/work/home.
And you would be wrong.
-
Can't? No. But the threshold is very very high. Calling someone or even multiple someones a whore. Not going to cut it anywhere I know.
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/jun/17/street-preachers-arrested-tennessee-accused-calling-people-sinners/310071/
https://marioncountymessenger.com/2016/09/jury-finds-jasper-man-guilty-of-inciting-a-riot-at-lee-highway-memorial/
To be clear, I'm not suggesting an arrest should or shouldn't happen. But it was asked "on what grounds" could a person be arrested in that circumstance. This is the answer.
-
Why are we focusing on the calling people whores? It was stated that he actually threatened rape and my understanding is that is more than enough to warrant an arrest.
-
Can't? No. But the threshold is very very high. Calling someone or even multiple someones a whore. Not going to cut it anywhere I know.
Well, it's certainly enough to get a person arrested, depending upon the officers on the scene. As to whether it is enough to get a person charged with any kind of crime, I doubt it.
-
Why are we focusing on the calling people whores? It was stated that he actually threatened rape and my understanding is that is more than enough to warrant an arrest.
He did not threaten rape. He said that girls who dress provocatively are asking to be raped. That is absolutely not a threat to rape them. My point in the initial post about this was that some parents' response to that was to claim he was threatening to rape them and should be arrested. They cited that as evidence he was dangerous. In reality, this guy (who apparently has been preaching there for many, many years) is not dangerous.
-
ya see tamu, this is where you get yourself into trouble-"it SOUNDS like"
i truly do not understand it or get it, but once again, i did not say shut them down. i may not like it, but i didn't say shut them down, i may think it's wrong to conceal ones identity during a protest, but i did not say shut it down
That's...not what you said. You said: "i do not understand how or why "demonstrations" are allowed by people concealing their identity."
It certainly does sound like you mean that it should be against the rules, law...whatever. If that's not what you meant, then fine. But I certainly understand why TAMU misunderstood you.
-
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/jun/17/street-preachers-arrested-tennessee-accused-calling-people-sinners/310071/
https://marioncountymessenger.com/2016/09/jury-finds-jasper-man-guilty-of-inciting-a-riot-at-lee-highway-memorial/
To be clear, I'm not suggesting an arrest should or shouldn't happen. But it was asked "on what grounds" could a person be arrested in that circumstance. This is the answer.
Going back one post further, Jockey said he should be arrested. I asked, "On what ground [should he be arrested]?" And you responded.
I'm well aware that he "could" be arrested. He "could" be arrested for a lot of things. And, depending on the facts, he might even be charged and convicted. But, to address what Jockey said, unless there is something really unique about the situation, he "should not" be arrested.
-
No he shouldn't. Other people should call him out, shout him down, or try to have an educational conversation with him, but not arrest him. You cant arrest someone just because you don't like their speech. The best way to fight hateful speech is with more speech
Then, using the same rationale, would you be fine with someone standing at a busy street corner calling for all women to be killed? I don't mean that sarcastically, TAMU, but where is the line crossed?
If a man is speechifying about how women are whores, doesn't that make it more likely that women will be assaulted or worse because once you can de-humanize a group, history has shown that the group is in mortal danger.
Where is the line between speech that is unpleasant/nasty and speech that can cause injury or death? We have seen how hateful speech ("invasion", "rapists", "drug dealers") has caused death to Hispanics. Is this OK? Is this what we want to protect?
-
Then, using the same rationale, would you be fine with someone standing at a busy street corner calling for all women to be killed? I don't mean that sarcastically, TAMU, but where is the line crossed?
If a man is speechifying about how women are whores, doesn't that make it more likely that women will be assaulted or worse because once you can de-humanize a group, history has shown that the group is in mortal danger.
Where is the line between speech that is unpleasant/nasty and speech that can cause injury or death? We have seen how hateful speech ("invasion", "rapists", "drug dealers") has caused death to Hispanics. Is this OK? Is this what we want to protect?
The line is exactly where you have just drawn it. If a person stands on a street corner and is encouraging or inciting violence, it is not protected speech. He can and should be arrested. if a person stands on a street corner and screams that all the women are whores and sinners (and bear in mind that the men are getting blasted too), it is not inciting violence.
Edited: Actually, I want to modify my answer: if he's calling "for all women to be killed" it might be protected. If he's calling, "kill that woman right there" it probably would not be protected. Depends on how specific he's getting.
-
Then, using the same rationale, would you be fine with someone standing at a busy street corner calling for all women to be killed? I don't mean that sarcastically, TAMU, but where is the line crossed?
If a man is speechifying about how women are whores, doesn't that make it more likely that women will be assaulted or worse because once you can de-humanize a group, history has shown that the group is in mortal danger.
Where is the line between speech that is unpleasant/nasty and speech that can cause injury or death? We have seen how hateful speech ("invasion", "rapists", "drug dealers") has caused death to Hispanics. Is this OK? Is this what we want to protect?
This is precisely why the first amendment exists.....to protect all speech from the government. If someone wants to yell on a public space about the need to kill people that speech should be protected(by protected I mean not arrested or otherwise engaged by government entities). There is no need to draw a line because there shouldn't be a line....that's preciously why drawing a line of any kind around speech is extremely problematic.
-
Is this OK? Is this what we want to protect?
No. Generally, yes.
-
It is important to confront that speech, argue with that speech, actively work against the premises of that speech, rebut that speech, but not outlaw that speech.
It is also fair to judge people by the stupid stuff they say. We all have made judgements about each other. If somebody makes liberal, conservative, hippie, sexist, racist, vegan, grain free comments, well......
And on a message board, the moderators set the rules and get to decide where their line is.
-
ya see tamu, this is where you get yourself into trouble-"it SOUNDS like"
i truly do not understand it or get it, but once again, i did not say shut them down. i may not like it, but i didn't say shut them down, i may think it's wrong to conceal ones identity during a protest, but i did not say shut it down
you are confused? i think you know very well who/what i'm referring to. i want this thread to make it beyond 4 pm eastern standard
So say you don't like it. What you actually said was "I don't get how this is allowed." Which is advocating for that form of free speech to be shut down.
I honestly am confused. The first thing that popped into my head was Klansmen in robes but that doesn't seem to be what you're referring to. Please explain.
-
It is important to confront that speech, argue with that speech, actively work against the premises of that speech, rebut that speech, but not outlaw that speech.
It is also fair to judge people by the stupid stuff they say. We all have made judgements about each other. If somebody makes liberal, conservative, hippie, sexist, racist, vegan, grain free comments, well......
And on a message board, the moderators set the rules and get to decide where their line is.
Agreed, which is why I've found all the maligning of "cancel culture" confusing. Isn't cancelling exactly what we claim should be the response to abhorrent speech and ideas?
-
This is precisely why the first amendment exists.....to protect all speech from the government. If someone wants to yell on a public space about the need to kill people that speech should be protected(by protected I mean not arrested or otherwise engaged by government entities). There is no need to draw a line because there shouldn't be a line....that's preciously why drawing a line of any kind around speech is extremely problematic.
"Fire" in a crowded theater?
False report of a crime?
Threats against the president?
-
"Fire" in a crowded theater?
False report of a crime?
Threats against the president?
Obviously, those are three examples of unprotected speech. I took a very quick look at how the Wisconsin law you cited has been interpreted, and one of the cases upholding its constitutionality said, "Because the disorderly conduct statute only proscribes speech that is not constitutionally protected, it does not result in the statute becoming overly broad...the disorderly conduct statute does not infringe on speech that is protected under the First Amendment because the statute sanctions only categories of speech that have been traditionally regarded as beyond the protection of the First Amendment."
In other words, things like those you listed (and some others) which have historically not been protected, will cause someone to get arrested for disorderly conduct. Things like street preaches, which have historically been protected, will not.
-
"Fire" in a crowded theater?
False report of a crime?
Threats against the president?
First one is problematic, but is it really "speech"?
False report of a crime is an action....just because words are used doesn't make it speech in that concept
Threats against the president....sure investigate to see if there is any action planned, but if it's just speech who cares?
-
I honestly am confused. The first thing that popped into my head was Klansmen in robes but that doesn't seem to be what you're referring to. Please explain.
I can't speak for him, but from context I'm guessing he means Antifa.
-
I can't speak for him, but from context I'm guessing he means Antifa.
Of course. Mindless regurgitation of the latest talking point.
-
Of course. Mindless regurgitation of the latest talking point.
(https://i.imgflip.com/1uanft.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/1uanft.jpg)
It says more about you as a person than it does Antifa. Cura personalis
-
It says more about you as a person than it does Antifa. Cura personalis
??? I’m saying that Ike was an original Anti Fascist.
-
Missing the point. DDE was the original Antifa. Led entire armies against the Nazis and Fascists.
-
I’ll just be happy when both sides are given equal treatment to speak on campus and not be blocked which is happening way too much. If we want a free speech convo, let’s fix the access part first.
Hdy chicos said something that wasn't insane.
-
nm
-
Well... I think this thread may have turned a corner toward inevitable closure. Disappointing. Not surprising, of course, but disappointing nonetheless. Damn. I thought it was an interesting conversation.
I apologize to all for my role in that (naming the previously unnamed group that I thought someone else was referring to). My bad.
-
No he shouldn't. Other people should call him out, shout him down, or try to have an educational conversation with him, but not arrest him. You cant arrest someone just because you don't like their speech. The best way to fight hateful speech is with more speech
There is a segment of American society who actively block the right of others to speak.
The fact that someone demands the arrest of someone because he doesn't like what they have to say is chilling.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrased Voltaire when she wrote, "I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say." It's a damn shame that so many people have lost sight of that fundamental principle of freedom and a just society.
I recall the Supreme Court ruling which guaranteed the right of the American Nazi Party to march through Skokie which had the highest concentration of Nazi Death Camp survivors. The high court found that while it found the message reprehensible the Constitution ensured the right to say it.
Denying the right of free speech is anathema to the proper function of a democratic society. Only an idiot would suggest someone be arrested because of what they are saying.
-
Then, using the same rationale, would you be fine with someone standing at a busy street corner calling for all women to be killed? I don't mean that sarcastically, TAMU, but where is the line crossed?
If a man is speechifying about how women are whores, doesn't that make it more likely that women will be assaulted or worse because once you can de-humanize a group, history has shown that the group is in mortal danger.
Where is the line between speech that is unpleasant/nasty and speech that can cause injury or death? We have seen how hateful speech ("invasion", "rapists", "drug dealers") has caused death to Hispanics. Is this OK? Is this what we want to protect?
(https://creatingherstory.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/nazis-burning-books.jpeg)
-
There is a segment of American society who actively block the right of others to speak.
The fact that someone demands the arrest of someone because he doesn't like what they have to say is chilling.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrased Voltaire when she wrote, "I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say." It's a damn shame that so many people have lost sight of that fundamental principle of freedom and a just society.
I recall the Supreme Court ruling which guaranteed the right of the American Nazi Party to march through Skokie which had the highest concentration of Nazi Death Camp survivors. The high court found that while it found the message reprehensible the Constitution ensured the right to say it.
Denying the right of free speech is anathema to the proper function of a democratic society. Only an idiot would suggest someone be arrested because of what they are saying.
(https://i.imgur.com/3Qyjwf9.gif)
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DisastrousLargeDotterel-size_restricted.gif)
-
I recall reading that the leader of the Chicago-based National Socialist Party of America was raised Catholic but had a German Jewish emigre father who fled Nazi Germany.
You cannot make that up.
-
??? I’m saying that Ike was an original Anti Fascist.
Hahaha I was driving and briefly looked at it and swear to god thought I saw an SS on the uniform.
Going to go hide in shame now lol
-
So say you don't like it. What you actually said was "I don't get how this is allowed." Which is advocating for that form of free speech to be shut down.
I honestly am confused. The first thing that popped into my head was Klansmen in robes but that doesn't seem to be what you're referring to. Please explain.
i am truly concerned about people being able to protest while concealing their identities. anitfa. they also come out in helmits, armour, kevlar, not to mention weapons, etc that is not protesting imho. ok, once again, i am not saying they cannot do what they are doing. i personally may be against it, but i am not advocating for our government to stop it.
why must they conceal their identities? show us who you are and protest away
-
i am truly concerned about people being able to protest while concealing their identities. anitfa. they also come out in helmits, armour, kevlar, not to mention weapons, etc that is not protesting imho. ok, once again, i am not saying they cannot do what they are doing. i personally may be against it, but i am not advocating for our government to stop it.
why must they conceal their identities? show us who you are and protest away
Are you concerned about all people and groups that protest while concealing identities?
Do you think the Hong Kong protestors have a valid argument for concealment?
-
Are you concerned about all people and groups that protest while concealing identities?
Do you think the Hong Kong protestors have a valid argument for concealment?
hong kong is not U.S.A. even though we do have their interests at heart, or most of us do anyway. i'm thinking however, concealed or not, xinping can "suppress" them either way. a mask or a helmet for that matter ain't gonna help
-
hong kong is not U.S.A. even though we do have their interests at heart, or most of us do anyway. i'm thinking however, concealed or not, xinping can "suppress" them either way. a mask or a helmet for that matter ain't gonna help
And what about the first question?
-
And you would be wrong.
Can you clarify, or are you just yet again professing ignorant confidence?
Out of the 6 shot dead by police, 3 were confirmed to be walking through/by and not involved in the protest in any way. James Earl Green, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Lee Scheuer were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Maybe you mean that technically they must have been onlookers as they walked past to their work/school, as they must have had their eyes open as they were shot...
-
Not quite sure what the preacher was doing and where.... but if he is publicly - on campus - calling girls whores, he should be arrested.
What if they were girls calling people NAZIs or fascists? Arrest them?
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/1uanft.jpg)
I didn’t realize Ike wore ski masks, protested, justified violence and did everything he could to thwart law enforcement. Do you have something that justifies the comparison?
-
I didn’t realize Ike wore ski masks, protested, justified violence and did everything he could to thwart law enforcement. Do you have something that justifies the comparison?
Dumb post, or dumbest post? ?-(
-
Dumb post, or dumbest post? ?-(
Feel free to tell us why
-
Boy, times have changed since the 1970s!
-
I miss the time when we knew who the nazis were.....simpler times man, simpler times
-
Can you clarify, or are you just yet again professing ignorant confidence?
Out of the 6 shot dead by police, 3 were confirmed to be walking through/by and not involved in the protest in any way. James Earl Green, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Lee Scheuer were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Maybe you mean that technically they must have been onlookers as they walked past to their work/school, as they must have had their eyes open as they were shot...
Half is not a majority, genius.
-
Half is not a majority, genius.
I chuckled, so much my jaw hurt a bit.
-
And what about the first question?
other than the klan, i am not aware of another group here in the U.S.A. who protest incognito. unless you count bank robbers who are protesting the fact that the bank has too much money and they are entitled to some of it. i really haven't seen much, if any Klan activity since robert byrd(well known and "admired" west virginia democrat and past kleagle and recruiter for the kkk) was around and believe me, if they were out there, they would get a hell of lot more coverage than antifa
so the short answer would be that i don't really like to see anyone protest looking like they are going to play football with a batman mask and brass knuckles and clubs throwing "milkshakes", using bear spray among other "stuff". that does not have the appearance of looking for an exchange of ideas other than their own
-
Feel free to tell us why
Because Antifa literally means anti-fascist. So unless you are asserting Ike was pro-fascism, pro-Nazism, which he clearly was not based on his military and political record, he was Antifa. By definition.
Similarly, anyone that is against fascism is Antifa. In the world of Nazis, you're either pro or anti. It's pretty simple.
EDIT: And the reason it's in the "dumbest post" category is the implied question of "what did Dwight Eisenhower ever do that was anti-fascist?" Which should elicit a massive, earth-shattering "Duh" from any sentient being with two brain cells to rub together.
-
other than the klan, i am not aware of another group here in the U.S.A. who protest incognito. unless you count bank robbers who are protesting the fact that the bank has too much money and they are entitled to some of it. i really haven't seen much, if any Klan activity since robert byrd(well known and "admired" west virginia democrat and past kleagle and recruiter for the kkk) was around and believe me, if they were out there, they would get a hell of lot more coverage than antifa
so the short answer would be that i don't really like to see anyone protest looking like they are going to play football with a batman mask and brass knuckles and clubs throwing "milkshakes", using bear spray among other "stuff". that does not have the appearance of looking for an exchange of ideas other than their own
Maybe look a bit closer at some of these rallies?
(https://itsgoingdown.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/1a-15.jpg)
-
other than the klan, i am not aware of another group here in the U.S.A. who protest incognito. unless you count bank robbers who are protesting the fact that the bank has too much money and they are entitled to some of it. i really haven't seen much, if any Klan activity since robert byrd(well known and "admired" west virginia democrat and past kleagle and recruiter for the kkk) was around and believe me, if they were out there, they would get a hell of lot more coverage than antifa
so the short answer would be that i don't really like to see anyone protest looking like they are going to play football with a batman mask and brass knuckles and clubs throwing "milkshakes", using bear spray among other "stuff". that does not have the appearance of looking for an exchange of ideas other than their own
If you put even ten seconds of effort into educating yourself you would learn that many Unite the Right types also wear body armor, helmets, and other protective gear and many also show up to rallies incognito.
-
Antifa's roots are in fighting Nazis, Fascists, white nationalist skinheads. Confronting them directly and being willing to engage physically. I will not defend every action of every member of Antifa. I will, however, applaud the concept of standing against Nazis, Fascists, and white nationalists.
-
I didn’t realize Ike wore ski masks, protested, justified violence and did everything he could to thwart law enforcement. Do you have something that justifies the comparison?
Not to speak for TinyTim, but this meme has been floating around on Facebook for awhile. I think the point is that "Antifa" isn't a set organization, and that while parts of the movement tend toward violence, much of it isn't. So being "anti facist" takes many forms.
-
Hahaha I was driving and briefly looked at it and swear to god thought I saw an SS on the uniform.
Going to go hide in shame now lol
Cmon man. Don't scoop and drive. Not only do you not scoop well, you don't drive safely either. Don't jeopardize lives to make a freaking internet post.
-
Because Antifa literally means anti-fascist. So unless you are asserting Ike was pro-fascism, pro-Nazism, which he clearly was not based on his military and political record, he was Antifa. By definition.
Similarly, anyone that is against fascism is Antifa. In the world of Nazis, you're either pro or anti. It's pretty simple.
EDIT: And the reason it's in the "dumbest post" category is the implied question of "what did Dwight Eisenhower ever do that was anti-fascist?" Which should elicit a massive, earth-shattering "Duh" from any sentient being with two brain cells to rub together.
I’m aware of what it stands for, that doesn’t mean they don’t act in exactly the way they claim not to be. They can claim to be anti fascist all they wish, their actions of suppressing free speech, bashing people’s (including journalist) skulls in, etc says otherwise.
(https://michaelpramirez.com/uploads/3/4/9/8/34985326/mrz083017-color-1-7_orig.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DH_VPLqXcAESIap?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/3-1.jpg)
(https://i.imgflip.com/306ii0.jpg)
(http://blog.jonolan.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Berkeley-Antifa-.jpg)
-
"Fire" in a crowded theater?
[...]
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
When you claim you "can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" you're relying on a 90+ year old case (Schenk v. US) that has been repeatedly and universally backed away from in every free speech case that has followed it. And, the "fire" being shouted in the case was about someone protesting the draft. But don't trust me, a dude on a message board, let's here it from the far more eloquent first amendment lawyer, Ken White:
"Holmes' famous quote is the go-to argument by appeal to authority for anyone who wants to suggest that some particular utterance is not protected by the First Amendment. Its relentless overuse is annoying and unpersuasive to most people concerned with the actual history and progress of free speech jurisprudence. People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons, both bolstered by Holmes' fame. First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Saying it is not an apt or persuasive argument for the proposition that some particular speech is unprotected, any more than saying "well, some speech is protected by the First Amendment" is a persuasive argument to the contrary. Second, people tend to cite Holmes to imply that there is some undisclosed legal authority showing that the speech they are criticizing is not protected by the First Amendment. This is dishonest at worst and unconvincing at best. If you have a pertinent case showing that particular speech falls outside the First Amendment, you don't have to rely on a 90-year-old rhetorical flourish to support your argument.
Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
-
Cmon man. Don't scoop and drive. Not only do you not scoop well, you don't drive safely either. Don't jeopardize lives to make a freaking internet post.
Rush hour though :( but you're right I had it coming
-
Not to speak for TinyTim, but this meme has been floating around on Facebook for awhile. I think the point is that "Antifa" isn't a set organization, and that while parts of the movement tend toward violence, much of it isn't. So being "anti facist" takes many forms.
Fair point, but can you not say that about many organizations or "movements", yet one side highlights the worst attributes or parts of that movement?
-
Well I wish I could say it was nice knowing this thread, but that wouldn't be true.
-
Antifa's roots are in fighting Nazis, Fascists, white nationalist skinheads. Confronting them directly and being willing to engage physically. I will not defend every action of every member of Antifa. I will, however, applaud the concept of standing against Nazis, Fascists, and white nationalists.
Fine, the danger comes in when they decide to label anyone they don't care for....Nazis, Fascists and white nationalists. Sort of like people throwing out racism at every turn. Someone can justify anything in their mind if they just label their foes in a way that conveniently fits their narrative, even if it is untrue.
-
Fair point, but can you not say that about many organizations or "movements", yet one side highlights the worst attributes or parts of that movement?
That's kind of what people do. They marginalize and criticize movements they don't care for by pointing out their worst behaviors.
-
If you put even ten seconds of effort into educating yourself you would learn that many Unite the Right types also wear body armor, helmets, and other protective gear and many also show up to rallies incognito.
i actually have never seen these pics of a faction of the MAGA crowd concealing their identities-i do know it's not the rule for them as it is for antifa however.
no need for the 10 seconds thing dude-this is how the ugly back n forth chit starts. i understand you probably know more than anyone here on the board, but you might want to start with some anger management
i'm against all people concealing their identity during protests. it creates a hostile environment before anything has even started. if one needs to conceal themselves for a protest, it can't be that worthy of their cause. if they are afraid for their safety, the police should be present. i did hear that the police weren't very effective in portland during one their protests however. but that is another subject that would probably get contentious so...never mind
-
That's kind of what people do. They marginalize and criticize movements they don't care for by pointing out their worst behaviors.
Agree.
-
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
When you claim you "can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" you're relying on a 90+ year old case (Schenk v. US) that has been repeatedly and universally backed away from in every free speech case that has followed it. And, the "fire" being shouted in the case was about someone protesting the draft. But don't trust me, a dude on a message board, let's here it from the far more eloquent first amendment lawyer, Ken White:
"Holmes' famous quote is the go-to argument by appeal to authority for anyone who wants to suggest that some particular utterance is not protected by the First Amendment. Its relentless overuse is annoying and unpersuasive to most people concerned with the actual history and progress of free speech jurisprudence. People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons, both bolstered by Holmes' fame. First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Saying it is not an apt or persuasive argument for the proposition that some particular speech is unprotected, any more than saying "well, some speech is protected by the First Amendment" is a persuasive argument to the contrary. Second, people tend to cite Holmes to imply that there is some undisclosed legal authority showing that the speech they are criticizing is not protected by the First Amendment. This is dishonest at worst and unconvincing at best. If you have a pertinent case showing that particular speech falls outside the First Amendment, you don't have to rely on a 90-year-old rhetorical flourish to support your argument.
Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
Thanks for this. Popehat's a fun twitter follow. He's an extreme legal libertarian who its fed up with prosecutorial misconduct, government overreach, and pretty much any law or practice that he feels violates first amendment rights. Progressives and non-Trumpian conservatives can find him interesting. (He thinks Trump is completely corrupt though.)
-
i actually have never seen these pics of a faction of the MAGA crowd concealing their identities-i do know it's not the rule for them as it is for antifa however.
Rocket, Antifa is not an actual organization. It is a movement that a bunch of different people subscribe to. There is no "rules" for antifa members.
And if you've never seen pictures like that....I suggest you broaden your new sources.
-
Fine, the danger comes in when they decide to label anyone they don't care for....Nazis, Fascists and white nationalists. Sort of like people throwing out racism at every turn. Someone can justify anything in their mind if they just label their foes in a way that conveniently fits their narrative, even if it is untrue.
This is true but it's also fair to point out that there is a strong presence of neo nazi, neo fascist, and white nationalist organizations at many of the rallies which draw Antifa counter protestors. Not to mention the intimidation used with guns that a certain side uses. Of course there's well meaning conservatives caught in the crossfire but between the two Id choose those that fight hate through hate as having a morally higher ground than the one that aligns itself with hateful views for no good reason.
-
This is true but it's also fair to point out that there is a strong presence of neo nazi, neo fascist, and white nationalist organizations at many of the rallies which draw Antifa counter protestors. Not to mention the intimidation used with guns that a certain side uses. Of course there's well meaning conservatives caught in the crossfire but between the two Id choose those that fight hate through hate as having a morally higher ground than the one that aligns itself with hateful views for no good reason.
Again, define what is hateful is going to be different to everybody.
Let's use an example of illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants are just trying to escape oppression, find a better life in the USA. Some come here to criminalize activity with drugs, robbery, murder. Therefore, if one is against illegal immigration are they hateful bigots or against criminal activity?
I think we could all go through many topics and do this and one side will say it is 100% hate and other group will say it absolutely is not, and more than likely neither is truly correct while both have arguments to support their claim.
I personally find it ironic when historically one side has been about free speech and non-violence is now clamping down on any free speech that goes against their beliefs and violence is now justified. Times have changed.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/1uanft.jpg)
Comparing Gen Eisenhower to the craven cowards who comprise the antifa rabble is not just absurd but demeans the honor and sacrifice of the brave men and women who destroyed nation-state fascism in the world war.
Suggesting that anyone in the current American government is a fascist on a par with Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy is not just fatuous but dangerous.
Tell you what Tiny Boy - if you are so deeply concerned about injustice in this world I suggest you head down to the local recruiting office and enlist in the United States Marine Corps. If you have the stones and discipline to make it through boot camp you can go to hot dusty places and fight real oppression of human rights and dignity.
I'll bet my three Bronze Stars with combat vees you aren't man enough to take up the sword in the defense of freedom. Easy to armchair quarterback. Gutless sh1t.
-
Comparing Gen Eisenhower to the craven cowards who comprise the antifa rabble is not just absurd but demeans the honor and sacrifice of the brave men and women who destroyed nation-state fascism in the world war.
Suggesting that anyone in the current American government is a fascist on a par with Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy is not just fatuous but dangerous.
Tell you what Tiny Boy - if you are so deeply concerned about injustice in this world I suggest you head down to the local recruiting office and enlist in the United States Marine Corps. If you have the stones and discipline to make it through boot camp you can go to hot dusty places and fight real oppression of human rights and dignity.
I'll bet my three Bronze Stars with combat vees you aren't man enough to take up the sword in the defense of freedom. Easy to armchair quarterback. Gutless sh1t.
Careful, your post is going to be called dumb or the dumbest....because Antifa are "anti-fascists". LOL. Agreed, the comparison to Ike is maybe one of the most absurd things I have ever seen and having anyone with an ounce of wits to defend it is truly amazing.
-
NM....straying too much into politics for my liking
-
Again, define what is hateful is going to be different to everybody.
Let's use an example of illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants are just trying to escape oppression, find a better life in the USA. Some come here to criminalize activity with drugs, robbery, murder. Therefore, if one is against illegal immigration are they hateful bigots or against criminal activity?
I think we could all go through many topics and do this and one side will say it is 100% hate and other group will say it absolutely is not, and more than likely neither is truly correct while both have arguments to support their claim.
I personally find it ironic when historically one side has been about free speech and non-violence is now clamping down on any free speech that goes against their beliefs and violence is now justified. Times have changed.
Chico's that's arguing for arguing sake. If a well meaning anti immigration conservative is there then then whatever. But There's a large difference between anti immigrant views and those wearing SS, iron Crosses, swaztikas, etc and I think on some level you know those individuals are there and are primarily those who Antifa are there to counter protest, not people like you or rocket who they just vehemently disagree with.
-
Chico's that's arguing for arguing sake. If a well meaning anti immigration conservative is there then then whatever. But There's a large difference between anti immigrant views and those wearing SS, iron Crosses, swaztikas, etc and I think on some level you know those individuals are there and are primarily those who Antifa are there to counter protest, not people like you or rocket who they just vehemently disagree with.
The latest videos I saw were of no people wearing what you suggested, though many were wearing red white and blue, one journalist got crushed and assaulted....a gay, conservative journalist that wasn’t just in the crossfire, he was targeted.
Antifa is not there to just counter protest, though that may be the case often. There are plenty of videos showing their actions including instigating, targeting and attacking peaceful protests.
-
lol I thought this thread is about a university policy.
-
Besides, when I skimmed through the policy the other day after hearing about this little kerfuffle, it seemed like a self-inflicted PR wound rather than a substantively objectionable policy. Most of the things were pretty self-evident (no entering offices without permission, don't hang stuff on university property), and it seemed like everything they forbid ought to have already some level of regulation in other places. As in, why a special "demonstration" policy to forbid students from barging into a professor/faculty office without permission when, presumably, that's already against the rules?
Why court the backlash with the "demonstration" framing?
-
The latest videos I saw were of no people wearing what you suggested, though many were wearing red white and blue, one journalist got crushed and assaulted....a gay, conservative journalist that wasn’t just in the crossfire, he was targeted.
Antifa is not there to just counter protest, though that may be the case often. There are plenty of videos showing their actions including instigating, targeting and attacking peaceful protests.
Which protest are you referring to? Or just protests in general? I mean technically anybody even associated with Proud Boys could be called supporting a hateful organization as they're following an organization founded by a self proclaimed islamophobe, who has also referred to asians as slopes and riceballs. And since the main group behind say the Portland rally then there's certainly hate groups worth counter protesting. Additionally, there was plenty of people in the documentation of Charlottsville wearing all sorts of SS, Iron Crosses, etc I'd say you need to look harder at your photo and videos of that one.
I don't know enough about said gay conservative journalist to try and argue about that, but if it was Milo Yiannopolous he had it coming as much as any other hate espousing individual does.
-
That's kind of what people do. They marginalize and criticize movements they don't care for by pointing out their worst behaviors.
Pretty sad that this behavior has been so normalized that we simply dismiss it as human nature. But hey, pointing out the worst is a great way to get your base to turn out at the polls.
Think of how much more civil we would be to each other if we had compulsory voting.
-
Comparing Gen Eisenhower to the craven cowards who comprise the antifa rabble is not just absurd but demeans the honor and sacrifice of the brave men and women who destroyed nation-state fascism in the world war.
Suggesting that anyone in the current American government is a fascist on a par with Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy is not just fatuous but dangerous.
Tell you what Tiny Boy - if you are so deeply concerned about injustice in this world I suggest you head down to the local recruiting office and enlist in the United States Marine Corps. If you have the stones and discipline to make it through boot camp you can go to hot dusty places and fight real oppression of human rights and dignity.
I'll bet my three Bronze Stars with combat vees you aren't man enough to take up the sword in the defense of freedom. Easy to armchair quarterback. Gutless sh1t.
Internet tough guy is bloviating again.
The military has been used and abused by this country for the sake of "freedom" for years when in reality it has just been used as a means to extend power. Ike was right when he stated: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."
So thank you very much for your service, but sorry if I think that people such as yourself have been largely mislead into thinking you were fighting for something worthwhile, when in reality you volunteered to support mostly a projection of power that in the end wasn't always necessary and left a bunch of carnage in its wake.
So I'm not joining the military. I'm not going to scramble my brains for the sake of the shareholders of Raython and Lockheed Martin. I am going to work to improve the world around me in my own ways. I'm sure they don't rise to your standards but I don't really care.
-
Thanks for this. Popehat's a fun twitter follow.
"Popehat"-Fluffy?
That's just eerie....
IBTL.
-
Comparing Gen Eisenhower to the craven cowards who comprise the antifa rabble is not just absurd but demeans the honor and sacrifice of the brave men and women who destroyed nation-state fascism in the world war.
Suggesting that anyone in the current American government is a fascist on a par with Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy is not just fatuous but dangerous.
Tell you what Tiny Boy - if you are so deeply concerned about injustice in this world I suggest you head down to the local recruiting office and enlist in the United States Marine Corps. If you have the stones and discipline to make it through boot camp you can go to hot dusty places and fight real oppression of human rights and dignity.
I'll bet my three Bronze Stars with combat vees you aren't man enough to take up the sword in the defense of freedom. Easy to armchair quarterback. Gutless sh1t.
*yawn*
-
Comparing Gen Eisenhower to the craven cowards who comprise the antifa rabble is not just absurd but demeans the honor and sacrifice of the brave men and women who destroyed nation-state fascism in the world war.
Suggesting that anyone in the current American government is a fascist on a par with Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy is not just fatuous but dangerous.
Tell you what Tiny Boy - if you are so deeply concerned about injustice in this world I suggest you head down to the local recruiting office and enlist in the United States Marine Corps. If you have the stones and discipline to make it through boot camp you can go to hot dusty places and fight real oppression of human rights and dignity.
I'll bet my three Bronze Stars with combat vees you aren't man enough to take up the sword in the defense of freedom. Easy to armchair quarterback. Gutless sh1t.
Please keep posting posts like this. My wife is entertained to no end by your narcissistic bloviating. She also gets a kick out of your attacks on me - so keep those coming, as well.
-
Comparing Gen Eisenhower to the craven cowards who comprise the antifa rabble is not just absurd but demeans the honor and sacrifice of the brave men and women who destroyed nation-state fascism in the world war.
Suggesting that anyone in the current American government is a fascist on a par with Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy is not just fatuous but dangerous.
Tell you what Tiny Boy - if you are so deeply concerned about injustice in this world I suggest you head down to the local recruiting office and enlist in the United States Marine Corps. If you have the stones and discipline to make it through boot camp you can go to hot dusty places and fight real oppression of human rights and dignity.
I'll bet my three Bronze Stars with combat vees you aren't man enough to take up the sword in the defense of freedom. Easy to armchair quarterback. Gutless sh1t.
we are living in a whole new world jonny. not many under 40 today will ever understand how and why this country has the freedoms it does. the training, dedication and perseverance under circumstances many cannot nor care to even fathom-sad. i am always in awe with the utmost respect for our military and our police. it's an honor to know you and it ain't bragging if you can back it up. thank you for all you have sacrificed
-
it ain't bragging if you can back it up.
Wrong again. Truth or the lack of it is not an element of boasting.
"Christian bible: Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches (Jeremiah 9:23 ESV). "
Wiki