Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 50

Thread: Ah the tolerant left

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,155

    Default Ah the tolerant left

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/01...eley-talk.html

    "The decision to cancel was made two hours before the start of the event because a crowd of more than 1,500 people had gathered outside the venue, the university said in a statement."

    What do we have police for? Lawlessness shouldn't be tolerated and no one should have to fear violence because of speech. It is often overdone but imagine the idea of a woman's march being canceled because 1500 people protested the march and the march organizer was concerned about violence. The media would have a field day... but let it be a conservative speaker and 'yawn' non-story.

  2. #2
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    It's such a non-story that it's being reported everywhere.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tense-protests
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,734
    Aye, was one of the bigger stories on the news this morning here as well. And yes I find the violence bad as well.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  4. #4
    Live feed was on CNN's homepage last night, and the story is still there this morning.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  5. #5
    SEŃOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,282
    Guys shush don't rain on the persecution complex parade.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  6. #6
    According to the locals the protestors got hijacked by the rather large anarchist group that area has a problem with. That's why people who were filming started getting attacked and the businesses across the street from the school get fucked up on a regular basis
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  7. #7
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,212
    This appears to be more of a story than someone getting shot at a Milo related event last week, so this entire thread: LOL.
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  8. #8
    SEŃOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,282
    I was surprised by how little coverage that shooting got btw, even on leftist alt-media.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  9. #9
    and now Trump is threatening to pull federal funding cause his nazis friends had their hate speech cancelled.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  10. #10
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,496
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    According to the locals the protestors got hijacked by the rather large anarchist group that area has a problem with.
    Pretty standard for the militant illiberal left.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Pretty standard for the militant illiberal left.
    This group shows up anytime they sense unrest or a protest they can overrun. They have a history under Obama and Bush. I think last time was because of the crowds from a football game. This has nothing to do with being left or right, but don't let that interrupt your childish name calling.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  12. #12
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,496
    That doesn't change the fact that it is standard practice at militant illiberal left protests. Instead of California you could have had a protest in DC, New York or ... or for that matter London, Paris or Madrid ... and the same outcome would be likely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    and now Trump is threatening to pull federal funding cause his nazis friends had their hate speech cancelled.
    Those darn Jewish Nazis...

  14. #14
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Those darn Jewish Nazis...
    Curious if you're at all concerned about Trump making unconstitutional threats. In case you don't know, federal funding levels are decided by Congress...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Live feed was on CNN's homepage last night, and the story is still there this morning.
    Well... all I can say is I'm surprised.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Curious if you're at all concerned about Trump making unconstitutional threats. In case you don't know, federal funding levels are decided by Congress...
    Really depends on how you interpret it. The executive can do things through diplomacy (lol) and bartering to get congress to do things he wants. That being said I doubt he actually looked into what he can and cannot do before he tweets.

  17. #17
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    So not a concern then?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    So not a concern then?
    Trump talking doesn't actually generate much of a threat if you look at his past talking. If he were more credible in his follow-through then yes there would be some concern.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Trump talking doesn't actually generate much of a threat if you look at his past talking. If he were more credible in his follow-through then yes there would be some concern.
    Might it be a little early in his presidency to be able to say anything about his follow through? If anything, it seems as though a fair reading of his early actions point to a willingness to back his words up with actions, and damn the torpedoes.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 02-03-2017 at 04:32 PM.

  20. #20
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    5,312
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    That doesn't change the fact that it is standard practice at militant illiberal left protests. Instead of California you could have had a protest in DC, New York or ... or for that matter London, Paris or Madrid ... and the same outcome would be likely.
    The militant extremist right is just as bad. Sorry, dude.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  21. #21
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Trump talking doesn't actually generate much of a threat if you look at his past talking. If he were more credible in his follow-through then yes there would be some concern.
    Right, so unconstitutional actions become a concern only after it's too late to do anything about them. Unless they're passed by a Democrat of course.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #22
    SEŃOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,282
    What I just don't understand is why these anarchists were so pissed off. It's not like he was there to out some transgender people to a hostile audience or anything.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Right, so unconstitutional actions become a concern only after it's too late to do anything about them. Unless they're passed by a Democrat of course.
    Simply because one is the president doesn't mean spouting off creates a constitutional crisis. If he does an executive action to the fact - he's done something. Until that point it is just him jabbering.

  24. #24
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    You mean like passing unconstitutional executive orders? Like the one that just canceled 60k visas on the basis of powers the presidency does not have?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    You mean like passing unconstitutional executive orders? Like the one that just canceled 60k visas on the basis of powers the presidency does not have?
    On what grounds? There are a couple of different beefs with it, the most common one I've heard is the 1st amendment which is utter silliness.

  26. #26
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    On what grounds? There are a couple of different beefs with it, the most common one I've heard is the 1st amendment which is utter silliness.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38864253

    Have you ever read the Constitution? The most obvious grounds is that Congress is in charge of immigration, not the president. And the 1965 immigration act passed by Congress explicitly bans discrimination on the basis of national origin.

    For green card holders, the ban violated the equal protection clause, due process, and the first amendment (establishment clause).

    Finally, the president cannot violate treaties ratified by Congress. The US ratified several treaties dealing with treatment of refugees and discrimination on the basis of national origin. According to the Constitution, international take precedence even over congressional legislation.

    So A) and this is most important: the president has no right to change immigration rules, B) this violates an existing law, C) this violates multiple constitutional protections for green card holders, and D) this violates multiple treaties. The fact that Trump is losing every one of the legal challenges to this executive order should provide a pretty big clue as to its constitutionality.

    Edit: and here's the tolerant right calling for a massacre of students: https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/stat...86827331055616
    Last edited by Loki; 02-04-2017 at 02:51 AM.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38864253

    Have you ever read the Constitution? The most obvious grounds is that Congress is in charge of immigration, not the president. And the 1965 immigration act passed by Congress explicitly bans discrimination on the basis of national origin.

    For green card holders, the ban violated the equal protection clause, due process, and the first amendment (establishment clause).

    Finally, the president cannot violate treaties ratified by Congress. The US ratified several treaties dealing with treatment of refugees and discrimination on the basis of national origin. According to the Constitution, international take precedence even over congressional legislation.

    So A) and this is most important: the president has no right to change immigration rules, B) this violates an existing law, C) this violates multiple constitutional protections for green card holders, and D) this violates multiple treaties. The fact that Trump is losing every one of the legal challenges to this executive order should provide a pretty big clue as to its constitutionality.

    Edit: and here's the tolerant right calling for a massacre of students: https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/stat...86827331055616
    I suppose we'll see what the courts decide on it.

    A different perspective (yes I know it's an opinion piece)

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...erfectly-legal

    ""(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.""

    I'm not a legal scholar and I won't pretend to be but my initial skepticism about the lack of constitutionality of it was rooted in everyone teeing it off with 'its a ban on Muslims which violates the 1st amendment waaaah.'

  28. #28
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I suppose we'll see what the courts decide on it.

    A different perspective (yes I know it's an opinion piece)

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...erfectly-legal

    ""(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.""

    I'm not a legal scholar and I won't pretend to be but my initial skepticism about the lack of constitutionality of it was rooted in everyone teeing it off with 'its a ban on Muslims which violates the 1st amendment waaaah.'
    The constitutionality of an act is not based on how many people that you dislike support it, Lewk.

    The ability to restrict a class is limited by the same law, which explicitly backs discrimination on the basis of several classes, including national origin ("no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence"). The fact that judge after judge is ruling against this order should tell you which side is correct. And the fact that the author of the opinion piece didn't bother to cite this limitation is pretty telling.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  29. #29
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post

    Edit: and here's the tolerant right calling for a massacre of students: https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/stat...86827331055616
    Friend of yours, Lewkowski?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Friend of yours, Lewkowski?
    Protest shouldn't draw lethal response. Protest should be protected (as long as it is done peacefully and violets no other laws). Violent rioting should draw escalating levels of force necessary to end the riots as soon as possible and preserve law and order. Criminals should be treated the same if it is one person smashing store windows and setting shit on fire or if there were 10,000. To suggest that we do differently is to give power over to mob rule. No system that supports law and public safety should ever allow its citizens to violently destroy property without seeking to stop them as soon as possible.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •