What the Left Did Last Week

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

It's a perfectly reasonable mainstream view that I don't agree with.

OK.
I'll remember that.
I'm curious, however, as to how your posse feels about that.
Heretic?
Scorpion?
Eunuch?
Do any of you believe that being anti-gay marriage is a perfectly reasonable mainstream view?

Hold it, time out.
Being anti-gay marriage like Dennis Prager is not a reasonable mainstream view.
Simply being not in favor of gay marriage like millions of peopls are, is a perfectly reasonable mainstream view.

Now why don't you go first. Are you anti gay marriage like Dennis Prager (an extremist view) or do you simply not support gay marriage which is a perfectly reasonable mainstream view?

edge540 wrote:

   
Being anti-gay marriage like Dennis Prager is not a reasonable mainstream view.

But being anti-gay marriage like Barack Obama is a reasonable mainstream view?

I have explained to you the difference between an extremist conservative view and the perfectly reasonable mainstream view and so has Scorpion. If you insist on being dense and a willfully ignorant dick, well then I'm afraid we can't help you.

Now is there any chance you will answer a simple question?
Are you anti gay marriage like Dennis Prager (an extremist view) or do you simply not support gay marriage which is a perfectly reasonable mainstream view?

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Now is there any chance you will answer a simple question?
Are you anti gay marriage like Dennis Prager (an extremist view) or do you simply not support gay marriage which is a perfectly reasonable mainstream view?

Neither of the above.

OK, So your "view" or opinion on same sex marriage is what?

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Now is there any chance you will answer a simple question?
Are you anti gay marriage like Dennis Prager (an extremist view) or do you simply not support gay marriage which is a perfectly reasonable mainstream view?

Neither of the above.

OK, So your "view" or opinion on same sex marriage is what?

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

- Sherlock Holmes

Back on subject..."What the Left Did Last Week"

Harry you're 100% spot on.

Quote :

Harry Reid defends ‘domestic terrorists’ comments


Posted by
CNN Capitol Hill reporter Lisa Desjardins

(CNN) - In a blunt exchange that hit on a major American divide, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, stood by his comments that militia groups involved in a ranch standoff are “domestic terrorists,” while the state’s Republican senator, Dean Heller, replied that he considers them “patriots.”

The two men appeared Friday afternoon on KSNV’s “What’s Your Point?” question-and-answer show.



The first question went to Reid, about his comments that a few hundred people protesting and blocking federal action against rancher Cliven Bundy are “domestic terrorists.”

“What did you mean by that?” co-host Amy Tarkanian asked.

“Just what I said,” Reid responded.

The Democrat later clarified that he was not talking about Bundy himself necessarily, but about outside individuals who traveled to the area in the recent days.

The standoff on the dusty Nevada land has been building for decades, as the federal government has worked to block Bundy’s cattle from grazing on public land. The family has raised cattle in the area for generations, but 20 years ago the land they used was declared off limits in order to protect a desert tortoise.

edge540 wrote:

Back on subject..."What the Left Did Last Week"

Harry you're 100% spot on.

Quote :

Harry Reid defends ‘domestic terrorists’ comments


Posted by
CNN Capitol Hill reporter Lisa Desjardins

(CNN) - In a blunt exchange that hit on a major American divide, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, stood by his comments that militia groups involved in a ranch standoff are “domestic terrorists,” while the state’s Republican senator, Dean Heller, replied that he considers them “patriots.”

The two men appeared Friday afternoon on KSNV’s “What’s Your Point?” question-and-answer show.



The first question went to Reid, about his comments that a few hundred people protesting and blocking federal action against rancher Cliven Bundy are “domestic terrorists.”

“What did you mean by that?” co-host Amy Tarkanian asked.

“Just what I said,” Reid responded.

The Democrat later clarified that he was not talking about Bundy himself necessarily, but about outside individuals who traveled to the area in the recent days.

The standoff on the dusty Nevada land has been building for decades, as the federal government has worked to block Bundy’s cattle from grazing on public land. The family has raised cattle in the area for generations, but 20 years ago the land they used was declared off limits in order to protect a desert tortoise.

Coming to theater near you...here's the trailer for ..."Grazing Cattle"  
https://soundcloud.com/rockymountainmike/grazing-cattle/s-q1X9n

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Back on subject..."What the Left Did Last Week"

Harry you're 100% spot on.

Quote :

Harry Reid defends ‘domestic terrorists’ comments


Posted by
CNN Capitol Hill reporter Lisa Desjardins

(CNN) - In a blunt exchange that hit on a major American divide, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, stood by his comments that militia groups involved in a ranch standoff are “domestic terrorists,” while the state’s Republican senator, Dean Heller, replied that he considers them “patriots.”

The two men appeared Friday afternoon on KSNV’s “What’s Your Point?” question-and-answer show.



The first question went to Reid, about his comments that a few hundred people protesting and blocking federal action against rancher Cliven Bundy are “domestic terrorists.”

“What did you mean by that?” co-host Amy Tarkanian asked.

“Just what I said,” Reid responded.

The Democrat later clarified that he was not talking about Bundy himself necessarily, but about outside individuals who traveled to the area in the recent days.

The standoff on the dusty Nevada land has been building for decades, as the federal government has worked to block Bundy’s cattle from grazing on public land. The family has raised cattle in the area for generations, but 20 years ago the land they used was declared off limits in order to protect a desert tortoise.

Fill me in - who was 'terrorized' by them, and how were they 'terrorized'?

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

- Sherlock Holmes

happy jack wrote:

You still haven't figured it out yet?
I thought that I was reasonably clear, but maybe not; my fault, not yours.
I'm perfectly fine with gay marriage.

Excellent. Holy crap, I had no idea you agree with liberals and Barack Obama on gay marriage.

Quote :

So, who are these people who were 'terrorized', and precisely how were these people 'terrorized'?

Right wing government hating extremists with semi-auto weapons threatened violence and actually pointed these weapons at federal law enforcement officials who were doing their job. They're not only domestic terrorists they're also cowards for using women and chidren as shields.
IMO, threating viololence and pointing a gun at federal law enforcement officials is a terrorist act.

Their leader even admitted they're rioting against the federal governmet.

Quote :

"I'll tell you, there's unhappy people here, and we are rioting against the federal government" - Cliven Bundy

I'd say "rioting against the federal government" is a terrorist act against the United States.

Cliven Bundy Cries To Fox After Harry Reid Calls Him A Domestic Terrorist
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/cliven-bundy-cries-fox-after-harry-reid

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

You still haven't figured it out yet?
I thought that I was reasonably clear, but maybe not; my fault, not yours.
I'm perfectly fine with gay marriage.

Excellent. Holy crap, I had no idea you agree with liberals and Barack Obama on gay marriage.

I was OK with it long before Obama told you and the others on this board that you had been granted permission to be OK with it.

That's great! Good to see you do not agree with Dennis Prager.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

You still haven't figured it out yet?
I thought that I was reasonably clear, but maybe not; my fault, not yours.
I'm perfectly fine with gay marriage.

Excellent. Holy crap, I had no idea you agree with liberals and Barack Obama on gay marriage.

I was OK with it long before Obama told you and the others on this board that you had been granted permission to be OK with it.

Yeah. Well I already explained how I arrived at my opinion.  I'm curious... did you support DOMA when it passed?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

You still haven't figured it out yet?
I thought that I was reasonably clear, but maybe not; my fault, not yours.
I'm perfectly fine with gay marriage.

Excellent. Holy crap, I had no idea you agree with liberals and Barack Obama on gay marriage.

I was OK with it long before Obama told you and the others on this board that you had been granted permission to be OK with it.

Yeah. Well I already explained how I arrived at my opinion.  I'm curious... did you support DOMA when it passed?

Honestly, I don't recall paying a whole lot of attention to it.

There was also an effort to pass a Constitutional Amendment that would have basically banned gay marriage... it was a big deal during the 2004 Presidential election. Did you favor that?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

You still haven't figured it out yet?
I thought that I was reasonably clear, but maybe not; my fault, not yours.
I'm perfectly fine with gay marriage.

Excellent. Holy crap, I had no idea you agree with liberals and Barack Obama on gay marriage.

I was OK with it long before Obama told you and the others on this board that you had been granted permission to be OK with it.

Yeah. Well I already explained how I arrived at my opinion.  I'm curious... did you support DOMA when it passed?

Honestly, I don't recall paying a whole lot of attention to it.

There was also an effort to pass a Constitutional Amendment that would have basically banned gay marriage... it was a big deal during the 2004 Presidential election.  Did you favor that?

I've never been one to either seek to ban gay marriage, nor to actively advocate in favor of it. It is something that has no effect on me either way so, again, I did not put a lot of energy into worrying about it one way or the other.

Fair enough. How about the "Gays in the military" issue? Were you against that?

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/31/drexel-professor-george-ciccariello-maher-trying-not-to-vomit-after-passenger-gave-up-first-class-seat-to-soldier

Drexel professor George Ciccariello-Maher 'trying not to vomit' after passenger gave up
first-class seat to soldier

FIRST POSTED: FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 2017 10:00 AM EDT | UPDATED: FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 2017 10:11 AM EDT

A professor is on the defence after tweeting earlier this week he was “trying not to vomit” after watching a passenger give up his first-class seat for a soldier in uniform.
George Ciccariello-Maher, an associate professor at Drexel University’s department of politics and global studies, is facing immense backlash as a result of the observation, which has since gone viral online.
“Some guy gave up his first class seat for a uniformed soldier,” Ciccariello wrote. “People are thanking him. I’m trying not to vomit or yell about Mosul.”
The comment was in response to a recent report that U.S.-led military strikes might have killed as many as 200 civilians while targeting Islamic State fighters in Iraq.
That wasn't enough to stop Fox News host Tucker Carlson from wrapping himself in the American flag Thursday night. Carlson asked Ciccariello-Maher to explain himself in a segment that went on for roughly 10 minutes.
“I think it’s really irresponsible to blindly support, for example, wars that send off young people into combat, risk their lives, kill many others as we’ve just seen in Mosul,” Ciccariello-Maher said, adding “U.S. troops need real support. They don’t need symbolic gestures.”
Carlson pushed back: "Somebody's trying to be nice to the guy who's going through all these hardships ... and that makes you mad. Why?"
Ciccariello-Maher told the New York Daily News that his tweet was “misrepresented” by “right-wing media.”
He took to Facebook Thursday to expand his controversial statement, which he added had nothing to do with his employer amid some calls for his dismissal from Drexel.
“I respect anyone who makes difficult and dangerous decisions out of economic necessity – whether they are public school teachers, construction workers, economic migrants, or young soldiers,” Ciccariello-Maher wrote. “What I don't respect is a brutal invasion and occupation of Iraq that has not made our world any safer – a war that has taken advantage of economically disadvantaged Americans, a war that has given the world ISIS, and a war that has wrought carnage like that seen in Mosul and elsewhere.”
As Carlson noted, though, Ciccariello-Maher struggled to connect how a kind gesture by a civilian relates to a so-called “brutal invasion".
A high volume of social media users have since deemed Ciccariello-Maher’s tweet to be anti-military.
“Thank goodness my child wont attend your school. George Ciccariello-Maher is a disgrace,” wrote one Twitter user.
Another added: “Sickened to be a @DrexelUniv alum after hearing of George Ciccariello-Maher's remarks after a true act of kindness and respect. Embarrassed.”
This isn’t the first time Ciccariello-Maher has inflamed the masses using social media.
On Christmas Eve of last year, he tweeted “All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide.”
He later attempted to pass the controversial tweet off as being satirical.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/26/george-ciccariello-maher-drexel-professor-calls-fo/

Drexel University professor calls for ‘white genocide’ on Christmas Eve

By Douglas Ernst - The Washington Times - Monday, December 26, 2016

Drexel University officials were forced to respond to a controversy on Christmas after one of their professors called for “white genocide” on Twitter.
George Ciccariello-Maher, associate professor of political science, tweeted on Christmas Eve, “All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide.” Backlash at the comment, which he framed as a joke, soon prompted Drexel officials to intervene. The tweet was deleted and Mr. Ciccariello-Maher’s account was locked from further public viewing.
“While the University recognizes the right of its faculty to freely express their thoughts and opinions in public debate, Professor Ciccariello-Maher’s comments are utterly reprehensible, deeply disturbing, and do not in any way reflect the values of the University,” Drexel said in a statement Sunday afternoon, The Daily Caller reported. “The University is taking this situation very seriously. We contacted Ciccariello-Maher today to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter in detail.”
The Daily Caller noted that Mr. Ciccariello-Maher’s defense of his tweet as a joke — “white isn’t a race” — is belied by previous racial commentary.
“Yacub made a lot of white folks,” the professor tweeted Feb. 3, 2013, the website reported before his account was locked.
Nation of Islam theology claims white people were created as a “race of devils” by the scientist.





White genocide sounds like a good thing, George.
Why not get the ball rolling and show us how it's done by starting with yourself?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447075/ann-coulter-berkeley-mob-wins-threats-violence

Cowardice at Berkeley

by THE EDITORS April 26, 2017 6:18 PM

We have had our differences with Ann Coulter over the years, differences that led to our eventually declining to continue publishing her work. She is charming and funny and sometimes brilliant. She is also a glib and irresponsible self-promoter. We suspect that she will not like having that written about her. We suspect that she might write something hostile in reply. All of that will happen without the need for police supervision. What has happened at Berkeley is an outrage. Coulter was invited to give a speech on campus, and left-wing terrorists threatened to use violence to prevent the event from taking place. The cowardice begins at the top, with the university administration and the Berkeley police department, who lack the courage and the commitment to principle necessary to discharge their official duties. But the Young America’s Foundation and the College Republicans, both of which withdrew their support for the event under duress, are not beyond criticism in this matter, either. For those at Berkeley celebrating what they believe to be a moral victory, consider this: As much as you may detest Ann Coulter, she has never used violence or the threat of violence to keep someone from speaking. She is a better citizen than you are, with a deeper commitment to genuinely liberal and humane values. You may call yourselves the anti-fascists, but your black-shirt routine — along with your glorification of political violence and your rejection of liberal and democratic norms — suggest that the “anti” part of that formulation is not entirely appropriate. Perhaps you are only young and ignorant, but if you had any power of introspection at all, you would see that you are the thing you believe yourselves to be fighting. You are the oppressors, the censors, the violent, the hateful, the narrow-minded, the reactionary. So, what now? University of California system president Janet Napolitano should be dismissed. Napolitano used to head up the Department of Homeland Security. She had executive responsibility for keeping al-Qaeda out of New York and Washington, but she can’t secure a lecture hall on a California college campus? That beggars belief. The issue here is not an inability to act responsibly but an unwillingness to do so. She should go. The Berkeley police department, which among other things has encouraged violent protests and cooperated with their organizers by offering to make “symbolic arrests,” also requires new management. It is engaged in systematic viewpoint discrimination in violation of federal law. Public institutions should be expected to live up to their public duties; when they fail to do so, sanction is appropriate. Congress, too, should consider ways to clamp down on this lawlessness. One possibility might be to make it costlier to colleges to censor than to uphold constitutional rights, perhaps by tying federal funding to their protection. Public institutions should be expected to live up to their public duties; when they fail to do so, sanction is appropriate. As much as we are disgusted by the criminal antics in Berkeley, though, we also are more than a little embarrassed for the perpetrators. Mentally normal adults can have conversations about contentious issues without babysitters. The thumb-suckers at Berkeley and Middlebury and Yale cannot. But there is intellectual cowardice as well as physical cowardice, and in many ways the former is more debilitating than the latter. This is a sorry show all around. The only person who emerges from this muck undiminished is Ann Coulter. But poetic justice for the prosaic is a high price to pay for the normalizing of political violence as an ordinary instrument of our public discourse. Shame.

Liberal pussydom ranges from the university administration, down through the Berkeley city administration and police department administration, and down to the liberal boycunts, who are brave enough to come out and throw things at a 120 lb. woman, yet not brave enough to hear what she has to say.
You would think that watching liberals being monumentally and publicly wrong so frequently would get old after a while, but it doesn’t.
It is always, always great fun to watch.



http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/04/26/uc-berkeley-gears-up-for-violent-protests-over-coulter-speech-cancellation/

.........

Late Wednesday, the City of Berkeley urged peaceful demonstrators in a press release to keep a distance from those violent groups on both sides, and not to get baited by provocateurs.
“This is the best way to keep yourself and others safe. It allows police to focus on and apprehend criminals while keeping bystanders safe,” the statement read. “People with cameras who surround violent incidents can complicate the safety of other peaceful bystanders and impede police. When individuals commit violence surrounded by a peaceful crowd, police are always concerned about how the violence might spill over onto those who are not committing any crime whatsoever.”

.........

Yes, no cameras.
We certainly don’t want video evidence of liberals demonstrating what complete dickholes they are.



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speech.html

What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech

Ulrich Baer
THE STONE APRIL 24, 2017

.........

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

.........

What in the hell is this guy even talking about?
It occurs to me that the New York Times would have a much higher degree of journalistic credibility if they would stop trolling mental hospitals in order to find their op-ed writers.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/27/portland-rose-parade-canceled-after-antifascists-threaten-gop-marchers/?utm_term=.e68724798f36

Portland rose parade canceled after ‘antifascists’ threaten GOP marchers

By Katie Mettler April 27 at 6:31 AM

For 10 years, the 82nd Avenue of Roses Business Association has kicked off the city of Portland’s annual Rose Festival with a family-friendly parade meant to attract crowds to its diverse neighborhood.
Set to march in the parade’s 67th spot this year was the Multnomah County Republican Party, a fact that so outraged two self-described antifascist groups in the deep blue Oregon city that they pledged to protest and disrupt the April 29 event.
Then came an anonymous and ominous email, according to parade organizers, that instructed them to cancel the GOP group’s registration — or else.
“You have seen how much power we have downtown and that the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely,” the anonymous email said, referring to the violent riots that hit Portland after the 2016 presidential election, reported the Oregonian. “This is nonnegotiable.”
The email said that 200 people would “rush into the parade” and “drag and push” those marching with the Republican Party.
“We will not give one inch to groups who espouse hatred toward LGBT, immigrants, people of color or others,” it said.
On Tuesday, the business association buckled, announcing it would cancel the parade altogether.

………

Online, others were outraged, calling members of the antifascist groups who planned to protest “snowflakes,” “anti-American” and “a bunch of chickens and brats.”
“Shutting down free speech is the (epitome) of fascism,” one person wrote on Facebook. “This is America.”

.........

Not altogether different from what Artie60438 did on the old Times forum by having posters banned and by having their posts deleted.

Seriously? With all the fucked up shit that's going down in this country, this is what you choose to focus on? I think that it's way past time that we start talking about policy, not "politics."