Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So what they are doing now is the "I didnt say that game"
"Hey I'm not calling them criminals all I'm saying is that INTIMIDATION IS ASSAULT! Hey? What? I didnt SAY they were Criminals tho!"
Actually assault is assault, threatening to have someone "removed" by force implies assault, and fighting words are fighting words.
Yeah, I know, which makes your "I didnt say that act" easy to see through
It's no act. The fact that all you have is semantics and outright ignorance of what I am posting as a "response" shows you are all hat, no cattle.
It may be actionable in a civil court, is what he said.And the USMB King of the Straw Man strikes again.Did you accuse them of suppressing free speech?
Yes. As far as I know that is not a crime. It may be actionable in a civil court, but not a criminal one.
So you're calling them 'lawbreakers' for having an opinion about whether or not someone should keep their job.
.
The other poster admitted I was right about what he said:
"It may be actionable in a civil court"
And you said "so you're calling them 'lawbreakers" for having an opinion..."
It's all right there, on the screen.
Do you even know how blatantly dishonest you are? Maybe you don't, I don't know.
.
Get load of this man/thug you put in as President. You see: everything he's done is because HE WANTED IT. not because it's what WE THE PEOPLE WANTED mind you. And now look at our college campuses to see the END results because of what he wanted. We have the BLM, the OWS, Al Shartpon etc causing riots, lootings, burning down towns and people businesses, shutting down our ways to work, fairs, etc. and now your children are being USED to make everyone's lives Miserable. how freaking sick a President would bring this down on us. I didn't believe in my lifetime we would ever live under someone like this. wake up folks. you put in another progressive like Hillary, Bernie, etc and you will get a continuation of THIS MAN
video at the site if you can stomach it
SNIP.
Obama Praises Mizzou Protesters “I Want An Activist Citizenry” (VIDEO)
November 15, 2015
In a recent interview with ABC News, President Obama praised protesters at the University of Missouri saying that he wants an “activist citizenry.”
He says that people should be engaged in a dialogue and that the protesters should be open to hearing the voices of the other side but of course, that’s not what’s happening at Mizzou or anywhere else.
Here’s a partial transcript from ABC News:
President Obama Praises University of Missouri Protesters: ‘I Want an Activist Citizenry’
“There is clearly a problem at the University of Missouri, and that’s not just coming from students. That’s coming from some faculty,” the president told Stephanopoulos Thursday at the White House. “I think it is entirely appropriate for students in a thoughtful, peaceful way to protest what they see as injustices or inattention to serious problems in their midst.
all of this thugs spew here:
Obama Praises Mizzou Protesters "I Want An Activist Citizenry" (VIDEO) - Progressives Today
Every politician wants an activist citizenry. Right up until they're on the receiving end of the activism.
I don't know, do you?It may be actionable in a civil court, is what he said.And the USMB King of the Straw Man strikes again.Yes. As far as I know that is not a crime. It may be actionable in a civil court, but not a criminal one.
So you're calling them 'lawbreakers' for having an opinion about whether or not someone should keep their job.
.
The other poster admitted I was right about what he said:
"It may be actionable in a civil court"
And you said "so you're calling them 'lawbreakers" for having an opinion..."
It's all right there, on the screen.
Do you even know how blatantly dishonest you are? Maybe you don't, I don't know.
.
You have to break the law to be justly found liable in a civil court don't you?
No, that would be LIBERALS. You know, the freaks who want Global Warming skeptics to be JAILED!Remember everyone...Republicans support the right to protest and the right to free speech unless you say something they dont like. Then you're a criminal!!
I was talking about the professor who's head was being called for due to a email she wrote about a statement on Halloween Costumes.
Yale Students Demand Resignations from Faculty Members Over Halloween Email - FIRE
From the article:
Yale students have every right to express their anger and frustration with Yale faculty. But FIRE is concerned by yet another unfortunate example of students who demand upsetting opinions be entirely eradicated from the university in the name of fostering “safe spaces” where students are protected from hurt feelings.
They chose the low hanging fruit. The stuff thats easily objectionable... Of course no one is protected from hurt feelings. But when people take ACTIONS that are racist its no longer about hurt feelings. No matter how you spin it.
What racist actions were taken by the Missouri administrators?
NONE and thats the problem. They werent doing their job but you think they should stay because...something about protesters, I guess
Actually they weren't doing enough to satisfy the protesters, not "none".
The President said himself he didnt do anything because he was going to roll out a plan that summer. He did nothing about the incidents. Why dont you believe the President himself?
But why do you keep going back to Missouri when I really don't go into that? Why do you feel the need to blow off the examples I do give?
I thought this thread was about Missouri
We demand that the University of Missouri composes a strategic 10-year plan on May, 1 2016 that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.
So what they are doing now is the "I didnt say that game"
"Hey I'm not calling them criminals all I'm saying is that INTIMIDATION IS ASSAULT! Hey? What? I didnt SAY they were Criminals tho!"
Actually assault is assault, threatening to have someone "removed" by force implies assault, and fighting words are fighting words.
Yeah, I know, which makes your "I didnt say that act" easy to see through
It's no act. The fact that all you have is semantics and outright ignorance of what I am posting as a "response" shows you are all hat, no cattle.
Semantics? You claimed the protesters broke the law then said you arent saying they are criminals.
You might be able to talk this circular shit with other people but when you say someone is committing a crime and say you're not saying they are criminals after committing a crime, you're just stupid and lying
Yeah, like...no one has done. I see your point
When you call for a person to be sacked from them job for an opinion piece, you are suppressing free speech. When you manhandle a reporter who is covering your protest, you are suppressing freedom of the press. When you whine to get a speaker dis-inivted to your campus, you are suppressing free speech.
Calling for people to stop calling for someone to be fired is suppressing free speech.
No it isn't. I'm not trying to ruin them over it, I'm asking them to stop it, with no force behind the request.
It's COUNTERING their speech. Evidently the fascist twat in you fails to get the nuance of it.
You're "asking" them to stop by calling them criminals? Thats not asking...you're thinking of the word "slander".
Where did I call them criminals? They are not breaking any law, they are just being assholes.
It may be actionable in a civil court, is what he said.And the USMB King of the Straw Man strikes again.Yes. As far as I know that is not a crime. It may be actionable in a civil court, but not a criminal one.
So you're calling them 'lawbreakers' for having an opinion about whether or not someone should keep their job.
.
The other poster admitted I was right about what he said:
"It may be actionable in a civil court"
And you said "so you're calling them 'lawbreakers" for having an opinion..."
It's all right there, on the screen.
Do you even know how blatantly dishonest you are? Maybe you don't, I don't know.
.
You have to break the law to be justly found liable in a civil court don't you?
From the article:
Yale students have every right to express their anger and frustration with Yale faculty. But FIRE is concerned by yet another unfortunate example of students who demand upsetting opinions be entirely eradicated from the university in the name of fostering “safe spaces” where students are protected from hurt feelings.
They chose the low hanging fruit. The stuff thats easily objectionable... Of course no one is protected from hurt feelings. But when people take ACTIONS that are racist its no longer about hurt feelings. No matter how you spin it.
What racist actions were taken by the Missouri administrators?
NONE and thats the problem. They werent doing their job but you think they should stay because...something about protesters, I guess
Actually they weren't doing enough to satisfy the protesters, not "none".
The President said himself he didnt do anything because he was going to roll out a plan that summer. He did nothing about the incidents. Why dont you believe the President himself?
But why do you keep going back to Missouri when I really don't go into that? Why do you feel the need to blow off the examples I do give?
I thought this thread was about Missouri
This thread is about Obama's comments on the protesters, and even his admission that some of them are trying to suppress dissenting speech.
Here is one of their "demands"
We demand that the University of Missouri composes a strategic 10-year plan on May, 1 2016 that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.
When you ask for a more "safe and inclusive campus" you are really asking for the administration to silence those who disagree with you. pure and simple.
Here’s the list of demands from Mizzou’s protesting athletes, students
When you call for a person to be sacked from them job for an opinion piece, you are suppressing free speech. When you manhandle a reporter who is covering your protest, you are suppressing freedom of the press. When you whine to get a speaker dis-inivted to your campus, you are suppressing free speech.
Calling for people to stop calling for someone to be fired is suppressing free speech.
No it isn't. I'm not trying to ruin them over it, I'm asking them to stop it, with no force behind the request.
It's COUNTERING their speech. Evidently the fascist twat in you fails to get the nuance of it.
You're "asking" them to stop by calling them criminals? Thats not asking...you're thinking of the word "slander".
Where did I call them criminals? They are not breaking any law, they are just being assholes.
It's a waste of time to argue with idiots. just a little reminder.
What racist actions were taken by the Missouri administrators?
NONE and thats the problem. They werent doing their job but you think they should stay because...something about protesters, I guess
Actually they weren't doing enough to satisfy the protesters, not "none".
The President said himself he didnt do anything because he was going to roll out a plan that summer. He did nothing about the incidents. Why dont you believe the President himself?
But why do you keep going back to Missouri when I really don't go into that? Why do you feel the need to blow off the examples I do give?
I thought this thread was about Missouri
This thread is about Obama's comments on the protesters, and even his admission that some of them are trying to suppress dissenting speech.
Here is one of their "demands"
We demand that the University of Missouri composes a strategic 10-year plan on May, 1 2016 that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.
When you ask for a more "safe and inclusive campus" you are really asking for the administration to silence those who disagree with you. pure and simple.
Here’s the list of demands from Mizzou’s protesting athletes, students
This thread is about Missouri and Obamas comments. Thats why I'm talking about Missouri.
As far as what you think they "really mean" thats nothing but the musings of a fraud who cant address the point so make up weird translations that only you can see.
You know why? Because its all in your head
It may be actionable in a civil court, is what he said.And the USMB King of the Straw Man strikes again.So you're calling them 'lawbreakers' for having an opinion about whether or not someone should keep their job.
.
The other poster admitted I was right about what he said:
"It may be actionable in a civil court"
And you said "so you're calling them 'lawbreakers" for having an opinion..."
It's all right there, on the screen.
Do you even know how blatantly dishonest you are? Maybe you don't, I don't know.
.
You have to break the law to be justly found liable in a civil court don't you?
No, but you could be found to have violated terms of an agreement or contract.
NONE and thats the problem. They werent doing their job but you think they should stay because...something about protesters, I guess
Actually they weren't doing enough to satisfy the protesters, not "none".
The President said himself he didnt do anything because he was going to roll out a plan that summer. He did nothing about the incidents. Why dont you believe the President himself?
But why do you keep going back to Missouri when I really don't go into that? Why do you feel the need to blow off the examples I do give?
I thought this thread was about Missouri
This thread is about Obama's comments on the protesters, and even his admission that some of them are trying to suppress dissenting speech.
Here is one of their "demands"
We demand that the University of Missouri composes a strategic 10-year plan on May, 1 2016 that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.
When you ask for a more "safe and inclusive campus" you are really asking for the administration to silence those who disagree with you. pure and simple.
Here’s the list of demands from Mizzou’s protesting athletes, students
This thread is about Missouri and Obamas comments. Thats why I'm talking about Missouri.
As far as what you think they "really mean" thats nothing but the musings of a fraud who cant address the point so make up weird translations that only you can see.
You know why? Because its all in your head
The idiotic concept of a "safe space" is well known and agreed upon. You can ignore it all you like.
Obama's comments were in general about the current trend of speech on Campuses. Missouri was part of the question, but his answer was about certain people wanting to shut down opposing opinions, and HIS opposition to said attempts.
It may be actionable in a civil court, is what he said.And the USMB King of the Straw Man strikes again.
.
The other poster admitted I was right about what he said:
"It may be actionable in a civil court"
And you said "so you're calling them 'lawbreakers" for having an opinion..."
It's all right there, on the screen.
Do you even know how blatantly dishonest you are? Maybe you don't, I don't know.
.
You have to break the law to be justly found liable in a civil court don't you?
No, but you could be found to have violated terms of an agreement or contract.
Contracts are legally binding.
NONE and thats the problem. They werent doing their job but you think they should stay because...something about protesters, I guess
Actually they weren't doing enough to satisfy the protesters, not "none".
The President said himself he didnt do anything because he was going to roll out a plan that summer. He did nothing about the incidents. Why dont you believe the President himself?
But why do you keep going back to Missouri when I really don't go into that? Why do you feel the need to blow off the examples I do give?
I thought this thread was about Missouri
This thread is about Obama's comments on the protesters, and even his admission that some of them are trying to suppress dissenting speech.
Here is one of their "demands"
We demand that the University of Missouri composes a strategic 10-year plan on May, 1 2016 that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.
When you ask for a more "safe and inclusive campus" you are really asking for the administration to silence those who disagree with you. pure and simple.
Here’s the list of demands from Mizzou’s protesting athletes, students
This thread is about Missouri and Obamas comments. Thats why I'm talking about Missouri.
As far as what you think they "really mean" thats nothing but the musings of a fraud who cant address the point so make up weird translations that only you can see.
You know why? Because its all in your head
The idiotic concept of a "safe space" is well known and agreed upon. You can ignore it all you like.
Obama's comments were in general about the current trend of speech on Campuses. Missouri was part of the question, but his answer was about certain people wanting to shut down opposing opinions, and HIS opposition to said attempts.
Actually they weren't doing enough to satisfy the protesters, not "none".
The President said himself he didnt do anything because he was going to roll out a plan that summer. He did nothing about the incidents. Why dont you believe the President himself?
But why do you keep going back to Missouri when I really don't go into that? Why do you feel the need to blow off the examples I do give?
I thought this thread was about Missouri
This thread is about Obama's comments on the protesters, and even his admission that some of them are trying to suppress dissenting speech.
Here is one of their "demands"
We demand that the University of Missouri composes a strategic 10-year plan on May, 1 2016 that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.
When you ask for a more "safe and inclusive campus" you are really asking for the administration to silence those who disagree with you. pure and simple.
Here’s the list of demands from Mizzou’s protesting athletes, students
This thread is about Missouri and Obamas comments. Thats why I'm talking about Missouri.
As far as what you think they "really mean" thats nothing but the musings of a fraud who cant address the point so make up weird translations that only you can see.
You know why? Because its all in your head
The idiotic concept of a "safe space" is well known and agreed upon. You can ignore it all you like.
Obama's comments were in general about the current trend of speech on Campuses. Missouri was part of the question, but his answer was about certain people wanting to shut down opposing opinions, and HIS opposition to said attempts.
What IS a person allowed to do in protest, that you won't complain about?
Actually they weren't doing enough to satisfy the protesters, not "none".
The President said himself he didnt do anything because he was going to roll out a plan that summer. He did nothing about the incidents. Why dont you believe the President himself?
But why do you keep going back to Missouri when I really don't go into that? Why do you feel the need to blow off the examples I do give?
I thought this thread was about Missouri
This thread is about Obama's comments on the protesters, and even his admission that some of them are trying to suppress dissenting speech.
Here is one of their "demands"
We demand that the University of Missouri composes a strategic 10-year plan on May, 1 2016 that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.
When you ask for a more "safe and inclusive campus" you are really asking for the administration to silence those who disagree with you. pure and simple.
Here’s the list of demands from Mizzou’s protesting athletes, students
This thread is about Missouri and Obamas comments. Thats why I'm talking about Missouri.
As far as what you think they "really mean" thats nothing but the musings of a fraud who cant address the point so make up weird translations that only you can see.
You know why? Because its all in your head
The idiotic concept of a "safe space" is well known and agreed upon. You can ignore it all you like.
Yes its well known, bullshit. If you want to legitimize it then fine...but dont cry after it. I call it bullshit. You call it valid. You can also feel free to translate english into Strawmen for your own enjoyment. Because you're not fooling anyone
Obama's comments were in general about the current trend of speech on Campuses. Missouri was part of the question, but his answer was about certain people wanting to shut down opposing opinions, and HIS opposition to said attempts.
Yes it is, which is the polar opposite of your phaggot ass cryings about liberals wanting to kill free speech
Actually they weren't doing enough to satisfy the protesters, not "none".
The President said himself he didnt do anything because he was going to roll out a plan that summer. He did nothing about the incidents. Why dont you believe the President himself?
But why do you keep going back to Missouri when I really don't go into that? Why do you feel the need to blow off the examples I do give?
I thought this thread was about Missouri
This thread is about Obama's comments on the protesters, and even his admission that some of them are trying to suppress dissenting speech.
Here is one of their "demands"
We demand that the University of Missouri composes a strategic 10-year plan on May, 1 2016 that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.
When you ask for a more "safe and inclusive campus" you are really asking for the administration to silence those who disagree with you. pure and simple.
Here’s the list of demands from Mizzou’s protesting athletes, students
This thread is about Missouri and Obamas comments. Thats why I'm talking about Missouri.
As far as what you think they "really mean" thats nothing but the musings of a fraud who cant address the point so make up weird translations that only you can see.
You know why? Because its all in your head
The idiotic concept of a "safe space" is well known and agreed upon. You can ignore it all you like.
Obama's comments were in general about the current trend of speech on Campuses. Missouri was part of the question, but his answer was about certain people wanting to shut down opposing opinions, and HIS opposition to said attempts.
What IS a person allowed to do in protest, that you won't complain about?
