Circumcision Equality

Only in your libertarian ‘up-is-down, black-is-white’ world, wherein you help people by not helping them, and hurt them by helping them.

Crickets re the white-supremacists-supporting-Dems links request, I see.

This is nonsense, of course. Oh, I know of the YouTube video, but that has been thoroughly debunked.

Before he publicly repudiated the Klan, yes. Byrd’s ancient history–is that all you’ve got? Pretty weak beer.

Didn’t know the Dems had headquarters in the UK.

You mean, like Beth Din courts?

There you go again, making one of those sweeping generalizations…

How do you think the ADL would respond if state after state voted to enact anti-Jewish law statutes?

From your mouth to @Basement_Gainz’ ear…

Just as many who call themselves ‘right’ are vile racists. Since no political affiliation has the market cornered on them, what is gained by shouting about the wackos on one side or the other?

1 Like

@pfury “The Halisi Scholars Black Living-Learning Community” Nope. Not segregated housing at all. Everyone is welcome to apply. Nothing to see here.

Meanwhile at LSU “The Stonewall Jackson White Living-Learning Community” all students are welcome to apply. Imagine the hellfire and brimstone.

There’s a reason some groups need special accommodations, but others don’t.

@EyeDentist the ADL is not a co conspirator in 9/11. CAIR is.

Let me know when the ADL issues marriage licenses to 30yo men and 13yo girls like the sharia clerics in the UK.

Maybe I’m googling this wrong. Got this off their official site.

The Halisi Scholars Black Living Learning Community is designed to enhance the residential experience for students who are a part of or interested in issues regarding the Black community living on campus by offering the opportunity to connect with faculty and peers, and engage in programs that focus on academic success, cultural awareness and civic engagement.

The college I attended has a similar group. It’s about 75% black. Sure sounds segregated to me :wink:

1 Like

Berkley

Yes, it does matter. There should be complete freedom of speech. This tears at the fabric of our country …our very constitution. People should have a right to offend with words screw hate speech!

Like welfare actually helps people long-term?..

Some animals on the farm are more equal than others.

This is housing for African Studies majors. These are the very people that argue that the results of the ethnic makeup of a neighborhood/college major/career mean there’s inherent racism in the process.

Blacks are under represented in neighborhood A = racist banks and HOA’s. Blacks are under represemted in college = racist education system. The results reveal the racism inherent in the system (their argument).

So I’d just like to use their argument. If you have a housing block with 95% black students living there… evidence of inherent racism.

If you’re in support of COMPLETE free speech, wouldn’t “hate speech” qualify as something you support? I guess I’m confused as to your support of the left’s “hate speech.”

Also if the origin matters, do you hold Republicans responsible for the federal income tax that you don’t seem to be a fan of?

Edit: Complete freedom of speech also legalizes making death threats, does it not? Or yelling fire in a theater?

You are confused my friend. I did not complain about the “lefts hate speech”. I complained that they would not allow Ann Coulter to speak at Berkley…and there have been other instances where right wing folks have not been allowed to speak on College Campuses.

Those are things that have been in the law almost since the beginning. No one was ever allowed to holler “fire” in a crowded theater. But, I am sure you will agree that there is quite a difference between that example and what the pc left now calls hate speech.

So you are in support of the left’s hate speech as it is free speech? Just getting clarification.

Complete free speech. Not complete free speech. Kinda gotta pick one. Absolutes don’t leave much wiggle room. If a logical view of free speech isn’t absolute, wouldn’t that mean that Ann Coulter (who is the Elizabeth Warren of the right, fwiw) is free to speak, just not on the grounds that she doesn’t have permission to speak at?

Evidence, please.

"In an opinion piece for The Washington Post Sunday, Fraidy Reiss, founder and executive director of a nonprofit called Unchained At Last, asks why some states in our country are allowing 12-year-olds to get married. There are 27 states in the country that don’t have a minimum age requirement for marriage. Louisiana is one of those 27. If the parents of the child are OK with the marriage and a juvenile court judge approves, a child of any age could be married in this state.

That explains why Louisiana was one of the states where Reiss’s nonprofit found children as young as 12 who’d been wed. It’s hard knowing how old the youngest children were, Reiss writes, because the data provided by some of the states used language such as “14 and under.” How much under is unknown.

Some of the states that have set a minimum ae [sic] for marriage have set it too low. In New Hampshire, for example, a boy has to be 14 before he can get married. A girl can be 13. A child in New York can marry at 14."

No, not it at all.

Obama’s assistant USDA confirmed it. Obama’s FBI did also. So if the DOJ and the FBI think so…

Yes I support the 1st amendment to the constitution. Are you against it?

I’m not a constitutional lawyer as you know. So I will now begin cutting and pasting…But this was decided a long time ago

“According to Schenck, freedom of speech is always protected EXCEPT when that speech presents a “clear and present danger” to the nation or to individuals. In the theater example, yelling fire when there is no fire causes a panic which can cause people to be trampled and killed. The injury and death of the patrons is an immediate and direct effect of the word “fire” being shouted, and is a predictable effect of the person’s actions. The person knows exactly what the impact of his actions might have, and it is the malicious intent which exempts them from protection under the First Amendment.”

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/foghorn/second-amendment-yelling-fire-crowded-theatre/

I was talking about the left in the West. You inferred Democrats.

Hillary’s “superpredator” comment of course. And the first couple results for “racist democrat quotes” on Google for fun. DOG whistle anyone? No party has the market cornered on racism and stupidity. So projecting moral superiority is rather funny.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/03/26/25-examples-of-liberal-racism-in-quotes-n1549044%3Famp%3Dtrue

Of course not.

I’m fully aware that you can’t use your free speech in certain manners. Due to this, I also don’t support complete free speech, as I believe it should have obvious limits.

The source of your first two links is not reliable (to put it mildly).

From your Politico link:

“[P]ublication of the ruling is a mixed blessing for the groups: the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust. That’s because U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis found that the government presented “ample evidence to establish the association” of the three organizations with Hamas” [emphasis mine]

To my knowledge, there have been no links established between Hamas and the 9/11 attack.

I was talking about the left in the US. As I know nothing about ‘the left’ elsewhere, I won’t discuss it.

Man, you are reaching. Superpredator was a term from the sociology of crime literature:

“In 1995, John DiIulio, Jr., then a Princeton professor, coined a phrase that seemed to sum up the nation’s fear of teen violence: “superpredator.” In the previous decade, teenage crime rates had exploded. Television news led with story after story of seemingly incomprehensible violence committed by children as young as 10. Many criminologists feared the trend would continue, and DiIulio warned that hundreds of thousands of remorseless teen predators were just over the horizon.”

BTW, and to his credit, Deliulio has admitted he got it wrong:

"Mr. DiIluio still defends the quality of his research, saying that ‘‘the data we used was correct’’ – largely crime statistics and projections of growth in the teenage population. Of his conclusions, however, he said, ‘‘Thank God we were wrong.’’

Ah, so resorting to attacking me on unrelated fronts instead of addressing the point again. I guess that’s admission. And for the record, I give about 10% of all my earnings to charity. You? Being against using guns against innocent people doesn’t mean I don’t want to help people. I just consider it a personal responsibility, not making others do it. The only upside down thing here is the people using coercion against others “for their own good” and claiming charity. That and a Dem trying to lecture conservatives on racial supremacy ideology.

Well, no, it is true. they endorsed her. Sure it’s crap, but you were the one claiming endorsements of supremacist groups were important. But even further, this doesn’t pertain to the original topic and doesn’t relate to any claim I made. It was moved goal posts, and even then you failed at it.

1 Like

While I strongly disagree with the tactics these colleges are taking, I don’t for a minute believe anything legislation-wise should be done about it re: the “free speech” aspect. These colleges are pandering to the masses, as American colleges are businesses. These colleges are making business decisions because they’re businesses.

While the system remains broken, I see a bunch of colleges making the wrong decision, but I can’t convince myself I would do anything different. Not making excuses for them, however, as there’s no justified excuse for being a pawn to limit free speech.

Just to point this out. ED is not an extremist and right here in this very thread is advocating inequality under the law based on race, which is point blank a white supremacist ideology.