From Victims to Victimizers: The Left’s Long Journey
Gilgul said:
ml1 said:
Gilgul said:
The anti-BDS bill is not about preventing anyone from "expressing support" for it, it is 100% about not having dealing with anyone who actually DOES it. Speech is free, actions are not.
if you read the resolution, it does just that.
Actually the one cited does not DO anything at all on anything. H-2815.1 does at least have some actual action. So you bringing it up is just an unrelated distraction that only shows once again the selective view the left has on bigotry.
says you.
the reference to baseball bats... one of the group of congressional members and aides huddled in the dugout, watching the shooter,commented that all they had to protect themselves were baseball bats. If only one had been armed...
There are congressmen and women who served on the military and fully trained on gun use who could be depended upon to react on such situations.
That was the case on that ball field in Virginia.
The statements also decry people for speaking out in support of BDS. It's criticizing people for putting forth signs and speeches to speak their minds. It seems many of the sponsors of the so-called free speech bill are not as accepting of opinions they oppose.
RealityForAll said:
Please provide the bill number for the WA bill which allegedly is an anti-BDS bill.
The link that you provided (see your posting below) linked to Washington State House Memorial 4004. This WA House Memorial 4004 was apparently never enacted. The House Memorial 4004 was a statement merely decrying BDS against Israel.
How is this House Memorial 4004 linked to free speech? I am not seeing it. Please help me out.
My link to House Memorial 4004 is as follows: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/...
ml1 said:
and fwiw, many of the same sponsors of this Washington "free speech" bill also sponsored an anti-BDS bill. Whatever one thinks of BDS, isn't expressing support for it protected speech?
http://www.freespeechwa.org/hj...
mtierney said:
the reference to baseball bats... one of the group of congressional members and aides huddled in the dugout, watching the shooter,commented that all they had to protect themselves were baseball bats. If only one had been armed...
There are congressmen and women who served on the military and fully trained on gun use who could be depended upon to react on such situations.
That was the case on that ball field in Virginia.
You really are something.
There were three armed capital police officers art the game. They were not there to play, They were there to protect the politicians. Also, within minutes two city police officers joined them, resulting in a lengthy gun battle.
We see a lot of mass shootings in easy and open carry states. You'll rarely see any civilians try to stop the shooters. Armed civilians do what other civilians do, run and hide.
I've seen you "agonize" over incivility when its done by the "left." You're upset about the current Caesar play. I didn't notice you being upset in 2012 when Caesar was a black Obama.
You're upset about comments made of Trump. What about comments made of Obama? That was OK with you. One example being Ted Nugent, who instead of being pilloried, gets a White House by trump.
You're constant one sided bias makes you a hypocrite, deplorable at that, considering your publicly stated love of Christ and what he stand for.
If Christian religion is true and valid and considering you postings, there is one thing I can tell you - you're not going upstairs.
mtierney said:
the reference to baseball bats... one of the group of congressional members and aides huddled in the dugout, watching the shooter,commented that all they had to protect themselves were baseball bats. If only one had been armed...
There are congressmen and women who served on the military and fully trained on gun use who could be depended upon to react on such situations.
That was the case on that ball field in Virginia.
They were playing baseball. They would not (and should not) have been playing in the field with their weapons on them. And they definitely should not have left a weapon unattended on the bench, even "hidden" in their bags. Any weapons they had would and should have been secured in their locked vehicles.
I'll preface this by saying I don't believe we have a free speech "crisis" in this country. But I figured the disruption of "Julius Caesar" performances by Trump supporters might be relevant to this discussion.
Clearly it is wrong to disrupt the performance. But these idiots just learned the lesson of the left's actions so many times in the recent past. This is the inevitable spiral into the abyss.
Gilgul said:
Clearly it is wrong to disrupt the performance. But these idiots just learned the lesson of the left's actions so many times in the recent past. This is the inevitable spiral into the abyss.
yes, of course you would blame this on "the left." Even when "the right" does it, it's not their fault. I thought conservatives were big on personal responsibility.
After the shock and disgust about the shooting, my next thought was "are there really that many guys in Congress who can play baseball (as opposed to softball)?" People don't play casual "pick up" baseball the way they play softball or basketball or touch football. Plus the average age in Congress is like 57. Touche, Congress, touche.
@ml1 are we talking about the same "bill". Are you talking about WA Joint Memorial 4004?
Are you referring to the whereas clauses?
Whereas Clauses” generally are of little or no meaning or effect, but are generally considered non-binding, and deemed by most Courts to be “background”.See https://skloverworkingwisdom.c.AFAIK this Memorial 4004 was never enacted. Please correct me if I am wrong on this point.
ml1 said:
The statements also decry people for speaking out in support of BDS. It's criticizing people for putting forth signs and speeches to speak their minds. It seems many of the sponsors of the so-called free speech bill are not as accepting of opinions they oppose.
RealityForAll said:
Please provide the bill number for the WA bill which allegedly is an anti-BDS bill.
The link that you provided (see your posting below) linked to Washington State House Memorial 4004. This WA House Memorial 4004 was apparently never enacted. The House Memorial 4004 was a statement merely decrying BDS against Israel.
How is this House Memorial 4004 linked to free speech? I am not seeing it. Please help me out.
My link to House Memorial 4004 is as follows: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/...
ml1 said:
and fwiw, many of the same sponsors of this Washington "free speech" bill also sponsored an anti-BDS bill. Whatever one thinks of BDS, isn't expressing support for it protected speech?
http://www.freespeechwa.org/hj...
so just because it's non-binding, you're ok with members of the legislature officially condemning people for advocating for BDS?
RealityForAll said:
@ml1 are we talking about the same "bill". Are you talking about WA Joint Memorial 4004?
Are you referring to the whereas clauses?
Whereas Clauses” generally are of little or no meaning or effect, but are generally considered non-binding, and deemed by most Courts to be “background”.See https://skloverworkingwisdom.c.AFAIK this Memorial 4004 was never enacted. Please correct me if I am wrong on this point.
ml1 said:
The statements also decry people for speaking out in support of BDS. It's criticizing people for putting forth signs and speeches to speak their minds. It seems many of the sponsors of the so-called free speech bill are not as accepting of opinions they oppose.
RealityForAll said:
Please provide the bill number for the WA bill which allegedly is an anti-BDS bill.
The link that you provided (see your posting below) linked to Washington State House Memorial 4004. This WA House Memorial 4004 was apparently never enacted. The House Memorial 4004 was a statement merely decrying BDS against Israel.
How is this House Memorial 4004 linked to free speech? I am not seeing it. Please help me out.
My link to House Memorial 4004 is as follows: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/...
ml1 said:
and fwiw, many of the same sponsors of this Washington "free speech" bill also sponsored an anti-BDS bill. Whatever one thinks of BDS, isn't expressing support for it protected speech?
http://www.freespeechwa.org/hj...
Disagreeing with someones ideas, without taking an action to prevent them from expressing their ideas or punishing them for doing so, which is what this non-binding proclamation does, is simply an expression of free speech. So left-like to feel immune to criticism.
Gilgul said:
Disagreeing with someones ideas, without taking an action to prevent them from expressing their ideas or punishing them for doing so, which is what this non-binding proclamation does, is simply an expression of free speech. So left-like to feel immune to criticism.
You keep giving examples of the right doing things "left-like" or after learning "the lesson of the left," which nullifies that framing.
Even if some folks are ok with the Washington bill because it was non-binding, there have been other anti-BDS bills that passed in other states that prohibit pro-BDS speech, equating it with "hate speech." Such as in NY:
Senate Bill 2493, meanwhile, would “prohibit student organizations that participate in hate speech, including advocating for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) of Israel and American allied nations from receiving public funding.”
I'm not putting this out in support of BDS. It's noteworthy however, in a discussion of free speech, that this is an actual instance of a state legislative body trying to shut down speech they don't like as "hate speech." This seems to me more concerning than a bunch of undergrads shouting down a professor in Washington.
This was actually a broad bill (and rightfully criticized as such). Yes it says "including" BDS, which you in your bias pick to make a point of. But this bill refers to ALL hate speech broadly, with the issue being that it does not define it.
Gilgul said:
This was actually a broad bill (and rightfully criticized as such). Yes it says "including" BDS, which you in your bias pick to make a point of. But this bill refers to ALL hate speech broadly, with the issue being that it does not define it.
so you're contending that this bill would have come up in the NY Senate if there was no BDS? I don't think there is a widespread call for boycotts of NATO members or Japan that needed to be addressed.
BG9 said:
mtierney said:
the reference to baseball bats... one of the group of congressional members and aides huddled in the dugout, watching the shooter,commented that all they had to protect themselves were baseball bats. If only one had been armed...
There are congressmen and women who served on the military and fully trained on gun use who could be depended upon to react on such situations.
That was the case on that ball field in Virginia.
You really are something.
There were three armed capital police officers art the game. They were not there to play, They were there to protect the politicians. Also, within minutes two city police officers joined them, resulting in a lengthy gun battle.
We see a lot of mass shootings in easy and open carry states. You'll rarely see any civilians try to stop the shooters. Armed civilians do what other civilians do, run and hide.
I've seen you "agonize" over incivility when its done by the "left." You're upset about the current Caesar play. I didn't notice you being upset in 2012 when Caesar was a black Obama.
You're upset about comments made of Trump. What about comments made of Obama? That was OK with you. One example being Ted Nugent, who instead of being pilloried, gets a White House by trump.
You're constant one sided bias makes you a hypocrite, deplorable at that, considering your publicly stated love of Christ and what he stand for.
If Christian religion is true and valid and considering you postings, there is one thing I can tell you - you're not going upstairs.
BG 9....you respond as though you knew me. You obviously do not, as you proved by your total misinterpretion of my comments.
I was "upset" over the severed head of our President displayed as humor by a so- called comedian.
I do not recall the incident referring to Mr. Obama. I would not have approved of it for the same reason many objected to the recent Trump/Caesar .
We do not need to invite violence in this country.
I will pray that you are not in touch with God and really have no idea what the good Lord thinks of me.
I can not think of anything more pro free speech than a bill memorializing a POV (like Joint Memorial 4004 for the State of Washington) without taking any action (non binding). Apparently, you have through distorted logic and rhetoric, concluded that 4004 is an anti-free speech measure because it states a POV with which you disagree. Clearly 4004 is not intended for anyone to take action. Instead, 4004 is intended to memorialize a POV. This instance is the ultimate in f ree speech (just POV - no action ). Finally, my understanding is that half of the sponsors of 4004 were democrats (and that 4004 was never enacted).
ml1 said: if
Even if some folks are ok with the Washington bill because it was non-binding, there have been other anti-BDS bills that passed in other states that prohibit pro-BDS speech, equating it with "hate speech." Such as in NY:
Senate Bill 2493, meanwhile, would “prohibit student organizations that participate in hate speech, including advocating for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) of Israel and American allied nations from receiving public funding.”
I'm not putting this out in support of BDS. It's noteworthy however, in a discussion of free speech, that this is an actual instance of a state legislative body trying to shut down speech they don't like as "hate speech." This seems to me more concerning than a bunch of undergrads shouting down a professor in Washington.
RealityForAll said:
I can not think of anything more pro free speech than a bill memorializing a POV (like Joint Memorial 4004 for the State of Washington) without taking any action (non binding).
Really?
ok, so we can agree to disagree. The bill definitely mentioned speech that they didn't like, not just actions. I find it bothersome when an elected body chooses to condemn people's speech. You apparently don't find that intimidating.
how about the NY State bills that clearly have more teeth to them? Are they ok too?
https://www.insidehighered.com...
RealityForAll said:
I can not think of anything more pro free speech than a bill memorializing a POV (like Joint Memorial 4004 for the State of Washington) without taking any action (non binding). Apparently, you have through distorted logic and rhetoric, concluded that 4004 is an anti-free speech measure because it states a POV with which you disagree. Clearly 4004 is not intended for anyone to take action. Instead, 4004 is intended to memorialize a POV. This instance is the ultimate in f ree speech (just POV - no action ). Finally, my understanding is that half of the sponsors of 4004 were democrats (and that 4004 was never enacted).
ml1 said: if
Even if some folks are ok with the Washington bill because it was non-binding, there have been other anti-BDS bills that passed in other states that prohibit pro-BDS speech, equating it with "hate speech." Such as in NY:
Senate Bill 2493, meanwhile, would “prohibit student organizations that participate in hate speech, including advocating for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) of Israel and American allied nations from receiving public funding.”
I'm not putting this out in support of BDS. It's noteworthy however, in a discussion of free speech, that this is an actual instance of a state legislative body trying to shut down speech they don't like as "hate speech." This seems to me more concerning than a bunch of undergrads shouting down a professor in Washington.
Hate speech is very broad despite your biased attempt to make it seem as if it is only something narrow.
ml1 said:
Gilgul said:
This was actually a broad bill (and rightfully criticized as such). Yes it says "including" BDS, which you in your bias pick to make a point of. But this bill refers to ALL hate speech broadly, with the issue being that it does not define it.
so you're contending that this bill would have come up in the NY Senate if there was no BDS? I don't think there is a widespread call for boycotts of NATO members or Japan that needed to be addressed.
I will read up on the NY bill and get back to you.
ml1 said:
ok, so we can agree to disagree. The bill definitely mentioned speech that they didn't like, not just actions. I find it bothersome when an elected body chooses to condemn people's speech. You apparently don't find that intimidating.
how about the NY State bills that clearly have more teeth to them? Are they ok too?
https://www.insidehighered.com...
RealityForAll said:
I can not think of anything more pro free speech than a bill memorializing a POV (like Joint Memorial 4004 for the State of Washington) without taking any action (non binding). Apparently, you have through distorted logic and rhetoric, concluded that 4004 is an anti-free speech measure because it states a POV with which you disagree. Clearly 4004 is not intended for anyone to take action. Instead, 4004 is intended to memorialize a POV. This instance is the ultimate in f ree speech (just POV - no action ). Finally, my understanding is that half of the sponsors of 4004 were democrats (and that 4004 was never enacted).
ml1 said: if
Even if some folks are ok with the Washington bill because it was non-binding, there have been other anti-BDS bills that passed in other states that prohibit pro-BDS speech, equating it with "hate speech." Such as in NY:
Senate Bill 2493, meanwhile, would “prohibit student organizations that participate in hate speech, including advocating for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) of Israel and American allied nations from receiving public funding.”
I'm not putting this out in support of BDS. It's noteworthy however, in a discussion of free speech, that this is an actual instance of a state legislative body trying to shut down speech they don't like as "hate speech." This seems to me more concerning than a bunch of undergrads shouting down a professor in Washington.
I'm an open-minded person. If you can show me the extensive list of all the allied countries that people on college campuses have called for boycotts over the past couple of years, I'm willing to modify what I've written.
But my point still holds if the legislators were trying to stop such speaking out against many countries. It's still an attempt at quelling political speech
Gilgul said:
Hate speech is very broad despite your biased attempt to make it seem as if it is only something narrow.
ml1 said:
Gilgul said:
This was actually a broad bill (and rightfully criticized as such). Yes it says "including" BDS, which you in your bias pick to make a point of. But this bill refers to ALL hate speech broadly, with the issue being that it does not define it.
so you're contending that this bill would have come up in the NY Senate if there was no BDS? I don't think there is a widespread call for boycotts of NATO members or Japan that needed to be addressed.
Why are you trying to limit it to calling for a boycott of a country? The bill doesn't. It just says hate speech. It is meant broadly (which is a problem). That is hate speech of any kind in any context.
Gilgul said:
Why are you trying to limit it to calling for a boycott of a country? The bill doesn't. It just says hate speech. It is meant broadly (which is a problem). That is hate speech of any kind in any context.
Because:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 2 165-b to read as follows: 3 S 165-B. PURCHASING RESTRICTIONS; PERSONS BOYCOTTING CERTAIN AMERICAN 4 ALLIES. 1. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS SHALL 5 APPLY:
-
6 (A) "ALLIED NATION" SHALL MEAN:
-
7 (I) ANY COUNTRY THAT IS A MEMBER OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGAN-
8 IZATION; 9 (II) ANY COUNTRY THAT IS A SIGNATORY OF THE SOUTHEAST ASIA TREATY OF
10 1954; 11 (III) ANY COUNTRY, OTHER THAN VENEZUELA, THAT IS A SIGNATORY OF THE 12 RIO TREATY OF 1947;
-
13 (IV) IRELAND;
-
14 (V) ISRAEL;
-
15 (VI) JAPAN; AND/OR
-
16 (VII) THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA.
-
17 (B) "BOYCOTT" SHALL MEAN TO ENGAGE IN ANY ACTIVITY, OR TO PROMOTE OR
18 ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO ENGAGE IN ANY ACTIVITY, THAT WILL RESULT IN ANY 19 PERSON ABSTAINING FROM COMMERCIAL, SOCIAL OR POLITICAL RELATIONS, WITH 20 ANY ALLIED NATION, OR COMPANIES BASED IN AN ALLIED NATION OR IN TERRITO- 21 RIES CONTROLLED BY AN ALLIED NATION, WITH THE INTENT TO PENALIZE, 22 INFLICT, OR CAUSE HARM TO, OR OTHERWISE PROMOTE OR CAST DISREPUTE UPON, 23 SUCH ALLIED NATION, ITS PEOPLE OR ITS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS. 24 (C) "PERSON" SHALL MEAN ANY NATURAL PERSON, CORPORATION, LIMITED 25 LIABILITY COMPANY, UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OR ANY OTHER NONGOVERN-
Section 1. The state finance law is amended by adding a new section
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Our amazing driving nanny is available for work.
Apr 28, 2024 at 8:05am
-
(NO FEES) Hire A Fresh Energetic Nanny/ Housekeeper Here ! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(No Fees) Hire A Baby Nurse Here for Your New Borns! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(NO Fees) Hire Housekeepers Here! ( 732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(No Fees) Hire Home Health Aides Here! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
Summer Private Speech Therapist
Apr 26, 2024 at 9:12pm
-
Apr 26, 2024 at 1:58pm
-
(Classic Painting and Materials) Fair Prices. Spring and Summer Specials
Apr 25, 2024 at 5:14pm
Help Wanted
-
Part Time help for special needs young adult
Apr 27, 2024 at 4:43pm
-
Apr 25, 2024 at 6:15pm
Lessons/Instruction
Advertisement
Please provide the bill number for the WA bill which allegedly is an anti-BDS bill.
The link that you provided (see your posting below) linked to Washington State House Memorial 4004. This WA House Memorial 4004 was apparently never enacted. The House Memorial 4004 was a statement merely decrying BDS against Israel.
How is this House Memorial 4004 linked to free speech? I am not seeing it. Please help me out.
My link to House Memorial 4004 is as follows: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/...