# Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Diversity of Opinion



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Does anyone think these left wingers feel that everyone has the right to these things in the US? The topic of the thing is secondary, the treatment dealt out is the issue.






Regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

It's always wrong when a confrontation turns physical, although it's hard to tell who escalated it. The protesters say the conservatives got physical first:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/nyregion/07columbiacnd.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=login

But who's being hypocritical here? The Minutemen are essentially vigilantes. And they would have a problem with people taking the law into their own hands how? I condone neither side, but it seems to me that they are very much alike.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I can not read the link, it requires a membership (damn elite leftists!).

In my link, it *is clear* who was the requested speaker, who was welcome on the stage, and who rushed the stage and what group wished to squelch the free speech rights of another group.

crs, I have spent a few hours with some Minutemen on the border (remember, this is not academic for me, I live it). How are they vigilantes? They do not detain and/or impede. They merely notify the Border Patrol. So if you witness a murder and phone the police, are you then a vigilante?

Edit: Are the Minute Men punishing the illegals they observe? If not, how can you call them vigilantes? Well, "How can you call them that *honestly?"* I guess I should ask.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I lived close the border for more than a decade, in Tucson and San Diego, so I've lived it as much as you have, although the issue was not quite as heated then.

I think there's a difference between a bystander witnessing a crime and self-appointed people on the lookout for desperate people attempting to cross a border. And I find it hard to believe that the Minutemen are mere observers and tattletales who don't sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross. Sorry, I don't buy it. I believe they do this for sport, not for some ideal. Just like many of the people who protested against the Minutemen at Columbia University. I know both kinds and they have more in common than they'd admit. Both need to get a life.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs, it's okay. Just admit it. The free speech rights and the concept of diversity were clearly violated in my video link. It's okay, we will not tell anyone, but just be honest. Those students shut down a peaceful assembly where people were going to use their right of free speech to voice a divergent view. The students wanted this not to happen. It should be clear who was acting the role of suppressing things here. 

Just for once, talk directly to my OP and give a friggin' honest answer.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I already said I don't condone the protesters' methods. However, I strongly believe they had the right to protest at the assembly, and as loudly as they wanted. They lost me when they stormed the stage.

BTW, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes and white supremicists nationwide, describes the Minutemen as "vigilantes":


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

And Webster's does not. Also, as a side note, check out the background of the founder's wife. Lastly....I'm an immigrant. All side issues. 

The protest was designed to stop the expression of free speech and a diverse viewpoint. The students stopped it. End of story, that's all she wrote, the fat lady (or metabolically challenged at Columbia no doubt!) sang and the students rather physically demonstrated exactly how much they value free speech and diversity, no matter what they might say. Actions do indeed speak louder than words, and we just saw some pretty extreme actions.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> BTW, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes and *white supremicists* nationwide, describes the Minutemen as "vigilantes":


They do not monitor supremicists of any other stripe? That seems pretty racist to me. And to forestall, yes, there are other groups into racial supremacy that are not "white", whatever you mean by that term.

Edit: A vigilante counter-vigilante, lol. However, to wit:


> IR: Have you seen or heard of any Minuteman volunteers pointing guns or committing acts of violence?
> 
> YBARRA: No, we haven't.


and just for chuckles:



> IR: What's your opinion of the media coverage of the Minuteman Project?
> 
> YBARRA: It's mostly lies, and very obvious lies. The biggest of these is that the Minuteman Project has closed a big stretch of the Arizona border. That just isn't true. *The Mexican government has gone to great effort to warn migrants* about the vigilantes, to alert them to the danger, *tell them where the vigilantes are located, and direct them to cross in different areas.*


All things are becoming clearer. Thank you for that enlightening link crs.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*diversity*

Great piece Wafarer!!! The question of whether or not the Minutemen are vigilantes is not the issue; the issue is freedom of speech in a civilized forum. Many speakers who have views that are not popular should have and continue to have the opportunity to present their views in a civilized forum. Of course, the speakers should face questioning and if possible have to face and refute speakers presenting the opposite views. To paraphrase an old phase from the 1960's, you have not converted someone because you have silenced them. Civilized debate should abide by proper rules agreed to by all.

Bill`


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> They do not monitor supremicists of any other stripe? That seems pretty racist to me. And to forestall, yes, there are other groups into racial supremacy that are not "white", whatever you mean by that term.


Actually, they do monitor non-white hate groups such as "black separatists." However, obviously there are fewer of these.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Actually, they do monitor non-white hate groups such as "black separatists." However, obviously there are fewer of these.


Then why did you single out "white" (again, whatever that term means) groups? This thread is becoming a most telling look into your inner world crs.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Then why did you single out "white" (again, whatever that term means) groups?


Because we were discussing the Minutemen. We were not discussing the Black Panthers, who have no role in border politics to my knowledge. The fact that SPLC monitors other kinds of hate groups besides the Minutemen did not seem relevant to this discussion.

"Vigilante militias have been capturing, pistol-whipping and very possibly shooting Latin American immigrants in Cochise County since the late '90s, when shifts in U.S. border control policies transformed the high desert region into the primary point of entry for Mexico's two most valuable black market exports, drugs and people.

But the Minuteman Project raised the stakes with a highly publicized national recruiting drive followed by a campaign of deceitful media manipulation. These maneuvers generated massive and mostly positive nationwide coverage of what in actuality was little more than a relatively small and ineffectual gathering of bigots and weekend warriors, led by a pair of dueling egos. While they played Army in the desert for a few weeks, this slapdash band was transformed by the hype into the elite vanguard of America's anti-immigration movement."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Because we were discussing the Minutemen. We were not discussing the Black Panthers, who have no role in border politics to my knowledge. The fact that SPLC monitors other kinds of hate groups besides the Minutemen did not seem relevant to this discussion.
> 
> "Vigilante militias have been capturing, pistol-whipping and very possibly shooting Latin American immigrants in Cochise County since the late '90s, when shifts in U.S. border control policies transformed the high desert region into the primary point of entry for Mexico's two most valuable black market exports, drugs and people.
> 
> But the Minuteman Project raised the stakes with a highly publicized national recruiting drive followed by a campaign of deceitful media manipulation. These maneuvers generated massive and mostly positive nationwide coverage of what in actuality was little more than a relatively small and ineffectual gathering of bigots and weekend warriors, led by a pair of dueling egos. While they played Army in the desert for a few weeks, this slapdash band was transformed by the hype into the elite vanguard of America's anti-immigration movement."


Yes, I read that lie about pistol whipping but did not feel I needed to comment on it. I am aware of one case, and it was far from a planned and/or organized thing. Also, I think it was in Texas, not Cochise County Arizona. The article is actually full of lies and mis-characterizations crs, I am just not bothering with them. As one of the founders has an immigrant wife, for instance, I sincerely doubt if he is "anti-immigration" as he is constantly called. Also, there were most certainly "non-whites" in the border watch, hence not making this a "white" issue as you are trying to.

However, you have us off topic yet again.

The students showed exactly what they think of free speech and diversity of opinion. They only want it for like minded folks. They are the true thought police in this little debate. To argue otherwise is just foolish.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> And I find it hard to believe that the Minutemen are mere observers and tattletales who don't sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross. Sorry, I don't buy it.


There is no evidence of this. Even the protestors themselves say as much.

It appears that you simply have a pre-conceived, stereotypical, cartoonish caricature in your mind of what you THINK is going on, a fantasy that just happens to fit nicely into your political agenda.

The definition of prejudice is conveniently filling in unknown details with whatever you need in order to justify your criticism of people you have already decided, for other reasons, to oppose.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Four out of five sources are derived from the Southern Poverty Law Cetner. The fifth recites no criminal vigilantism. 

I find it ironic that you would cite an organization (purportedly) dedicated to countering "bias" to lend credence to your own unsupported, biased claim against a group of people you happen to despise.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I only read one link, the first one. Since I live in Tucson, I find it surprising I have yet to hear of illegals being beaten by neo-Nazis. Also, let us just think here.....would the national media not have that plastered like Rodney King if it actually happens?

However, off topic. Off topic. Off topic. Also.....off topic.

The only Nazi-like actions I have witnessed in this thread was by the students in the link in the OP. Keep on that topic and drop the Nazi shyte. I understand that a group of people you disagree with crs, were wronged by a group of people you agree with. However, if you were even 1/10th the paragon of virtue you make out all journalists to be, you would simply agree that an invited speaker was thugishly treated and cleary the thugs had no use for free speech or diversity of thought.

End of story, the rest is just logical fallacy after logical fallacy because you do not wish to admit the above.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Four out of five sources are derived from the Southern Poverty Law Cetner. The fifth recites no criminal vigilantism.
> 
> I find it ironic that you would cite an organization (purportedly) dedicated to countering "bias" to lend credence to your own unsupported, biased claim against a group of people you happen to despise.


You got me, Phinn! I do not especially like Nazis. So shoot me. (Oh, wait. You folks take that literally.)

I could look for more mainstream sources, but then you'd ***** about "liberal bias mainstream media." Also, I'd probably run into the same registration problems that Wayfarer encountered on The New York Times' story.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> you would simply agree that an invited speaker was thugishly treated and cleary the thugs had no use for free speech or diversity of thought.


I did. I said more than once that I don't condone their behavior. But I can't say my outrage isn't mitigated at least a little by the fact they attacked someone really repulsive.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

When the Nazi's were attempting to become a power to be reckoned with in Weimar Germany they used the same tactics. They would scream and shout down anyone who disagreed with them. Why? Because they were devoid of ideas and operated purely on midguided ideology.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Those 'students' behaved absolutely beastly. Who lets these bounders into university*? They don't appear to have any sense of decorum, manners, taste (in dress), or propriety, nor any respect for the free exchange of ideas. 


*by 'university', of course, I refer to those institutions posing as such. The concept only lives on, at best, as a mere ghost of its former self - and in very few places at that.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Those 'students' behaved absolutely beastly. Who lets these bounders into university*? They don't appear to have any sense of decorum, manners, taste (in dress), or propriety, nor any respect for the free exchange of ideas.
> 
> *by 'university', of course, I refer to those institutions posing as such. The concept only lives on, at best, as a mere ghost of its former self - and in very few places at that.


What is worse is that this is Columbia University. Founded in 1754 as Kings College and boasts as her alumni Alexander Hamilton, John Jay (both of Federalist fame), TR and FDR. A member of the Ivy League and considered one of the finest universities in the world. I understand a bunch of dopey, hippy dippy students not caring about this but the administration and executive board need to protect the image of the institution a bit better.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> What is worse is that this is Columbia University. Founded in 1754 as Kings College and boasts as her alumni Alexander Hamilton, John Jay (both of Federalist fame), TR and FDR. A member of the Ivy League and considered one of the finest universities in the world. I understand a bunch of dopey, hippy dippy students not caring about this but the administration and executive board need to protect the image of the institution a bit better.


Ah - that sheds light upon the matter. So it was King's College (ie HM King George II's) until some of its alumni rebelled against the grandson of the _pater _of their _alma mater_? So this episode is more of a tradition than an aberrancy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Interesting.....*

Please watch this link: 




A black man, a member of the Minute Men, introducing the main speaker, jeered and called the n-word by the very people calling the Minute Men racists and Nazis in the video clip. Ahhh, there's diversity at Columbia from the left.

Cheers

Edit: Wonder why this was not deemed a "hate crime"? Oh yeah, liberals can not be charged with those. Sorry, I forgot.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Ah - that sheds light upon the matter. So it was King's College (ie HM King George II's) until some of its alumni rebelled against the grandson of the _pater _of their _alma mater_? So this episode is more of a tradition than an aberrancy.


Lol. Yes you have a point. There's just something more dignified about the image of a group of gentlemen, sitting around a fire at a pub arguing politics, laughing and joking with one another compared to the fiasco alluded to in this post.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

As always, CRS, you choose to take the side of people who are illegally trying to enter and harm the United States of America. You prolifically quote the ultra left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center as some bastion of protector of America's civil liberties. The SPLC is in the same category as the ACLU. They both believe that the U.S. Constitution is a suicide pact.

The criminals who interrupted the speech of the Minutemen will get their come-uppance. It appears that they will have to answer in Federal civil courts for violating the First Amendment rights of the Minutemen. I surely hope that the SPLC and ACLU will have their amicus briefs submitted for the Mintuemen when the time comes.

CRS, you need to clean your own borders and secure them. Canada's lax immigration policies, and subsequent problems caused for the United States are nothing short of criminal. The Canadian government should be givings marching orders to their own immigration and border security to protect the North American continent from hostile invasion.

And if you think that the previous paragraph is harsh, then improve things in Canada, and people like me won't be nearly so harsh in our attitudes toward Canada. You have lived off the protective largess of the United States since World War II. Maybe we should secure the northern borders to the same extent to which the southern borders should be secured.

Like most liberals, you can afford to be, since you live off the protective umbrella of the United States. Canada reminds me of 1960's France, which pulled out of the NATO security, because they knew that West Germany, the United Staes, and other commited NATO members, would carry their water if the Soviets had invaded the west. If you had to protect your own borders, and were subject to invasion, I believe your attitude would change quickly - or would you roll over like the French?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pendennis said:


> As always, CRS, you choose to take the side of people who are illegally trying to enter and harm the United States of America. You prolifically quote the ultra left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center as some bastion of protector of America's civil liberties. The SPLC is in the same category as the ACLU. They both believe that the U.S. Constitution is a suicide pact.
> 
> The criminals who interrupted the speech of the Minutemen will get their come-uppance. It appears that they will have to answer in Federal civil courts for violating the First Amendment rights of the Minutemen. I surely hope that the SPLC and ACLU will have their amicus briefs submitted for the Mintuemen when the time comes.
> 
> ...


I'm not a Canadian, Wayfarer is. I understand how we could be so easily mistaken for the other, though.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> I'm not a Canadian, Wayfarer is. I understand how we could be so easily mistaken for the other, though.


Now THAT"S funny!!


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

crs said:


> I already said I don't condone the protesters' methods. However, I strongly believe they had the right to protest at the assembly, and as loudly as they wanted. They lost me when they stormed the stage.
> 
> BTW, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes and white supremicists nationwide, describes the Minutemen as "vigilantes":


The SPLC only monitors hate crimes against blacks. They have completely ignored hate crimes against whites, which are committed by blacks in large numbers. The NAACP, SCLC, ACLU, and SPLC are as racist in their own right as any "White Supremacist" group. The NAACP and SCLC, including folks like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others, aren't called the "Tan Clan" for nothing.

As others have mentioned, there are no instances cited in which the Minutemen have violated anyone's rights. As to what the history of any individual in the Minutemen, it's of no consequence if their behavior is legally maintained as part of the Minutemen.

The next time you're called a "white SOB", when assaulted or robbed by some young black miscreant, try and get the ACLU and SPLC to take your case and file a civil action. Good luck!


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

pendennis said:


> The SPLC only monitors hate crimes against blacks. They have completely ignored hate crimes against whites, which are committed by blacks in large numbers. The NAACP, SCLC, ACLU, and SPLC are as racist in their own right as any "White Supremacist" group. The NAACP and SCLC, including folks like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others, aren't called the "Tan Clan" for nothing.
> 
> As others have mentioned, there are no instances cited in which the Minutemen have violated anyone's rights. As to what the history of any individual in the Minutemen, it's of no consequence if their behavior is legally maintained as part of the Minutemen.
> 
> The next time you're called a "white SOB", when assaulted or robbed by some young black miscreant, try and get the ACLU and SPLC to take your case and file a civil action. Good luck!


What exacty does any of those groups have in common with the Clan?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> Now THAT"S funny!!


I tell you, we're like identical twins, Waysie and I. People get us confused all the time.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Guilty as charged. I was born and raised in Canada, I've never made any bones about being a first generation immigrant to the US


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pendennis said:


> The SPLC only monitors hate crimes against blacks.


Not true, Michigander:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs, no reply about my last link, the testimony given by the black gentleman concerning the racial slurs cast against him? What are the odds of the SPLC looking into this do you think?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> crs, no reply about my last link, the testimony given by the black gentleman concerning the racial slurs cast against him? What are the odds of the SPLC looking into this do you think?


I can't watch it right now. The computer I'm using for the next four hours doesn't have sound.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I can't watch it right now. The computer I'm using for the next four hours doesn't have sound.


Let me sum it up in one sentence (and you can read the headline on the page): black person called the n-word by the kids swarming the stage, the same kids calling the Minute Men racists. I await your response.

Edit: Better yet, do not take my word for it. Here is a link to the transcript, read it yourself. Here's a head start:



> STEWART: The N-word. I'm not going to dignify it on air, right now, Bill. The N-word, sell-out, you name it, they said it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Thread Summation to Date:*

To summarize the posts directly relating to the OP so far:

Free speech rights violated by group at Columbia.
Diversity of opinion not wanted by this same group.
Black person has racial slurs thrown at him by this same group as they swarm a stage, shutting down an invited speaker on Campus.

Seems like a good group of people to align yourself with crs.

Cheers


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Now be honest, Wayfarer. I've aligned with neither side. I've said repeatedly I do not condone the protestors' behavior. But if I had to choose between aligning myself with rude children or bigoted grown men, I would choose the rude children because at least there is still hope for them.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Guilty as charged. I was born and raised in Canada, I've never made any bones about being a first generation immigrant to the US


Damned snowbacks stealing our jobs again.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Now be honest, Wayfarer. I've aligned with neither side. I've said repeatedly I do not condone the protestors' behavior. But if I had to choose between aligning myself with rude children or bigoted grown men, I would choose the rude children because at least there is still hope for them.


I have certainly not aligned myself with neo-Nazis yet you stated I did. Further, these young adults (nice try, but they are adults, however immature they might be) have now been accused of using racial slurs. I would call that bigoted, no?

No reply to the printed transcript yet?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Chuck Franke said:


> Damned snowbacks stealing our jobs again.


Dammit you bigot!! Me and _mes ami_ will come over with some hockey sticks and represent! That's right...and I'm just taking jobs you Yanks don't want to do!


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

On a serious note....

What irks me the most is that there is a Minuteman project. What is rarely mentioned is that most of the people involved spent years trying to ask their local, state and federal government to enforce the law.

Setting aside whether or not the law is right or wrong for a moment, the fact that every attempt to have these laws enforced has been blocked by lobbyists on the immigrant rights side and the lobbyist for employers who make a ton of money by looking the other way on the other. 

People tear down the block wear you live at 90 MPH while your kids are playing and you ask the town for speedbumps. They ignore you and you ask the state. They ignore you and you write your Congressman... Eventually you either get a kid run over or you say 'screw this', go to Home Depot and a couple or six dads build some damned speedbumps and if the county tears them out you put'm back.

Both sides are pointing at each other, both need to point where they ought to be pointing - at spineless politicians unwilling to either enforce the law or change the law.

It is not a tough problem to solve. If the government chose to enforce this law tomorrow it would be laborious but not complicated. If they really don't know where the illegals are have them call me - I'll be happy to help them solve the mystery and show them where they are hiding.

This is why we have a government and why we have laws. If the government was enforcing the law.. no strike that, if the government were not ORDERING local and state law enforcement agencies NOT to enforce the law, then this would be a non-issue.

Vigilantes take the law into their own hands rather than allowing the proper authorities to do their job. The Minutemen, having asked, pleaded and demanded that the laws be enforced for years without any answer decided 'fine, we'll do it'.

Hey... Dallas is firing English speaking teachers with 20 years of experience for one reason - they do not speak Spanish fluently and the school they teach in has 70-90% illegal immigrant enrollment. In order to staff those schools the Dallas school board hired 50 teachers from Mexico. I know, I know... Chuck MUST be making this one up, no WAY could this be going on.

Check it for yourself. I object to my property tax dollars paying to bring in 50 Mexican teachers to replace 50 well qualified American teachers simply because the American teachers are English speakers. That is not the same thing as being a racist or a vigilante. 

A few years ago a drunk illegal immigrant plowed through a red light and totaled Jill's car. Fake ID, Fake Insurance, drunk, illegal. If you or I were that drunk driver we would be in jail and would be held financially responsible for the damage. This driver was released, Jill was out a porsche and some medical bills - say 2 grand out of pocket since she was advised that nothing would/could be done. 

The problem lies directly with those responsible for the enforcement of our laws. President on down, both parties, all races.

Minutemen? I figure sooner or later some of them are going to wind up intercepting a drug shipment and all Hell will break loose. When there are a few dozen dead bodies on the border then maybe the government will stop arguing about the masturbatory habits of former congressmen and start doing their job.

...or not.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I like all you guys but if you did this at a dinner party I would pour soup on all your heads...


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> No reply to the printed transcript yet?


It seems that there is just the word of the Minuteman, no evidence that I can tell. So I will take this with a grain of salt. And even if true, I suppose I would want to know whether the people who used the word were black. That would mitigate it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It seems that there is just the word of the Minuteman, no evidence that I can tell. So I will take this with a grain of salt. And even if true, I suppose I would want to know whether the people who used the word were black. That would mitigate it.


This is too precious for words. I will not even bother to dissect it, it's just a jewel of liberal double think. Thanks for being you crs.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> What irks me the most is that there is a Minuteman project. What is rarely mentioned is that most of the people involved spent years trying to ask their local, state and federal government to enforce the law..


My sister was once a U.S. Border Patrol agent, keeping the U.S. safe from Canada. Patroling a border is sort of like the "war on drugs." It is impossible to do it to everyone's satisfaction, and the addition of even a million armed cretins ... umm, _volunteers_ ... will not help. People are going to get through no matter what, in fact the people who get caught are unlikely to be the most dangerous ones. It's absurd that these fools think they aren't doing more harm than good.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It's absurd that *these fools* think they aren't doing more harm than good.


Well using your logic, I feel your name calling is mitigated.

Sorry bud, you just make it too easy. You seem like a good, if somewhat misguided guy crs. Just thought you should know.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

CRS - I think there are a few guys you ought to meet. No kidding, i know you think we sit here in Texas picking our tooth until Bubba says "Hey Guys, catfish ain't bitin - let's go grab some beer and shoot some furrners!"

Unfortunately if you took a bit of time to sit and talk with some of these racist, foolish, vigilantish folks I think you would be pretty surprised - genuinely. Most have a full set of teeth, a belt buckle smaller than their head and a genuine concern based on things other than mere racism. I know that's a helluva fine card that is just too tantalizing to leave in the deck but you don't get to pull that card without challenge. 

Surely you will acknowledge that enforcing the law (or changing it) is important to an organized society.
Surely you will acknowledge that if hospitals and townships and schools are failing due to the burden that illegal immigration puts on border states that there is a problem
Surely if those conservative objections don't phase you then perhaps you can muster some righteous indignation over the fact that illegal workers are unprotected from employment abuses.

if not that then perhaps you are concerned that the increasing flow of cheap labor across the border is depressing wages in jobs that our own lower income folks are competing for (and losing).

...but to reach the conclusion that the Minutemen are a bunch of white racist hicks is a reach. I know a black minuteman - talk to him about why. (And no, I am not racially insensitive, he specifically indicated a preference for black rather than African American).

Pulling the race card is getting less effective. It used to silence people because there are few things people find more detestable than a bigot but the 40th or 50th time someone pulls it on you it's time to yawn and call bullsh-t. 

Come on now CRS - you're a bright guy. Tell me why 100 folks sitting at the border calling in the border patrol when they see the law being broken is one bit different than people in a neighborhood forming a neighborhood watch (Which politicians love - creates that warm fuzzy 'on the same side' impression)

Race card is beneath you - you're smarter than that.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck, I've lived in border states. I have a family member approaching retirement in law enforcement in a state bordering Mexico who thinks these militia people are dangerous, although I'm sure you could find a law-enforcement person with an opposing view. Mine is not an uninformed opinion arrived at from afar in New Jersey, it just differs from yours. Same data, different conclusion, that's all.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I admire what the minutemen are doing, but one has to really pause at the profound neglect of a government that has a border fence like:



and from the looks of it, that fence is being built by the minutemen themselves. So perhaps the government neglected to have any kind of barrier at all. Astonishing, especially with terrorism concerns and considering how much time and money have gone by since the attacks of 2001.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Mine is not an uninformed opinion arrived at from afar in New Jersey, it just differs from yours. Same data, different conclusion, that's all.


Not quite true. You simply ignore all data I present that does not agree with your set world view. You see, I can easily tell you that there are certainly some closed border people that *are* racists and just plain against immigration. You however seem unable to admit that there are also good people that simply want the border secured yet welcome needed and legal immigration with open arms. You also seem unable to deal with the fact the clearest racism so far presented in this thread was against the thugs in my OP on video.

So it is not that you are arriving at a different conclusion using the same data, you are merely ignoring data that does not fit the predetermined outcome for you.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

CRS... Fiar enough, felt the overwhelming desire to slap that race card out of your hand.

I'm curious though on your opinion regarding what I said regarding where the problem lies - when the government refuses to address an issue that is a matter of law what are the citizens to do?

If the police decided not to stop robberies in your neighborhood would you and your neighbors keep an eye on things? Would you attempt to stop the crime?

It's not Mexicans I am angry with, it's Americans. Americans who refuse to let law enforcement enforce the law.

I can understand the argument that the law is flawed but that is a paltry excuse for not enforcing it. if the law is wrong you change it or get a court to strike it down. You don't ignore it.

I know - us conservatives and our conformity and all that but there are real problems down here, for the illegals as well as the citizens and frankly it should not be a local or state issue. The border is a NATIONAL issue given that we don't stop folks at state borders.... though some of us Southern ******* types have tried to argue that one unsuccessfully. 

You can't stop someone from breaking the law when doing so is far more appealing and has fewer consequences than obeying the law. Tell me I can make 5 times as much in Canada if I'm jobless in Michigan and the Mounties can kiss my butt - I'd go to canada and feed my kid.

Want it fixed? Couple weeks - start verifying tax documents that businesses turn in. It is neither complicated nor difficult. Like any important issue this one is being mucked up by lobbyists and cowardice.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*Bon voyage*

Gentlemen,

As I start preparing for another deployment as a part of the Global War On Terrorism (this time to Afghanistan), I feel that there are some good patriotic Americans that are behind me at home. Wayfarer, Chuck, Pendennis, and others, I know you are behind the troops. I do not feel much like putting my life on the line and enduring the base discomforts we deal with for the New York Times or George Soros but for you guys, I will.

Bill


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Be safe Bill. Can't properly express the gratitude an humility I feel for the what you guys do for the rest of us. Hope you know how much we appreciate, revere and take comfort in the courage and selflessness you guys display each and every day.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Bill,
God speed and stay safe. Thank you for your service and sacrifice. Keep the wind at your back and a crease in your pants.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> CRS... Fiar enough, felt the overwhelming desire to slap that race card out of your hand.
> 
> I'm curious though on your opinion regarding what I said regarding where the problem lies - when the government refuses to address an issue that is a matter of law what are the citizens to do?
> 
> ...


Not so fast Chuck. The debate as it is currently being played out is undoubtedly racist. Want to stop the illegal immigration problem? Throw the people who are hiring the illegals in jail! Take away the jobs you take away the illegals. Unfortunately the current solutions ,fence, deportation all address the symptom and not the problem.

Think about this, Mexicans who are not U.S. citizens should be held accountable to U.S. laws but businessmen who are U.S. citizens shouldn't.

A few months back the Carolinas sent people to help with border patrols but no one to help investigate which businesses were using undocumented labor. The argument that dark skinned people trying to feed their families are criminals and should be treated as such while white skinned people trying to feed their families are not and should not be treated as such is blatantly racist. The groups are flip sides of the same coin.

Wayfarer, I apologize for the hijack but I get tired of the obvious bigotry of conservative "philosophy" trying to get a pass.

Chuck, not personal, I'm speaking of the national debate, some of what you say makes me think you may think that employers should also be penalized (You didn't specifically address the issue). If you don't then it is personal.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> You got me, Phinn! I do not especially like Nazis. So shoot me. (Oh, wait. You folks take that literally.)


Question No. 1: What do you mean by "you folks"?

Question No. 2: How do you know that the speaker at this event would have expressed Nazi-like ideas? After all, the brownshirts in the audience prevented him from speaking at all.

Question No. 3: Now that you have revealed your biases and prejudices to this small, anonymous clothing forum ("If I had to choose between aligning myself with rude children or bigoted grown men, I would choose the rude children because at least there is still hope for them."), will you do so in the pages of your newspaper? A writer who announces his prejudices can at least be honestly wrong, but hiding behind a pretense of objectivity while either ignoring or actively concealing these prejudices is perpetrating a fraud.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Clothesboy - that is precisely what I said - that the government could fix this tomorrow if they started verifying the documentation employers turn in and back when I was handing out blame I mentioned lobbyists for those who hire illegals.

Nope, you mistook me for someone who does not agree with you 100%. The ONLY way to put a stop to the problem would be to start checking the docs turned in by employers, letting them know quickly when a set is wrong and then start throwing employers' asses in jail for breaking the law when they do it intentionally.

On your side there.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Bill: 

Thanks for risking that ultimate sacrifice for us. Hope you also meet some good Canadians over there, we are having a big part to play there it seems.

Clothesboy:

Np about the mini-jack. I would be careful about tossing that "bigot" chip though. Many of us you would deem conservative are first generation immigrants, in bi-racial marriages, or "protected" minorities ourselves. Makes that a tough sell.

No doubt there are bigots on the "conservative" side however. Equally true, as seen demonstrated in this thread, are bigoted people on the "liberal" side. The key difference I discern is that liberals are so holier-than-thou they fail to see bigotry on their side when it is smacking them in the face. Or if reality intrudes in the least, it is marginalized such as we have seen here, i.e. mitigation of racial slurs depending on who uses them, "rude children" vs. young adults engaged in stifling diversity and free speech, etc.

Regards


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> I already said I don't condone the protesters' methods. However, I strongly believe they had the right to protest at the assembly, and as loudly as they wanted. They lost me when they stormed the stage.
> 
> BTW, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes and white supremicists nationwide, describes the Minutemen as "vigilantes":


Well, I'm glad to see they've scrounged up a new issue with which to pander money out of the paranoid left. The whole "racist" inspired burning of churches down South really didn't pan out for them long-term and the next great threat to all of our safety - militias, which was quite the boon after McVeigh, really is pretty much off the radar screen for their fund-raising purposes post 9-11. Now, the next GREAT threat - citizens monitoring the border - will the tyranny never stop? Poor guys, they may soon have to find another "threat" if congress ever funds a meaningful border wall/surveillance.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Question No. 1: What do you mean by "you folks"?
> 
> Question No. 2: How do you know that the speaker at this event would have expressed Nazi-like ideas? After all, the brownshirts in the audience prevented him from speaking at all.
> 
> Question No. 3: Now that you have revealed your biases and prejudices to this small, anonymous clothing forum ("If I had to choose between aligning myself with rude children or bigoted grown men, I would choose the rude children because at least there is still hope for them."), will you do so in the pages of your newspaper? A writer who announces his prejudices can at least be honestly wrong, but hiding behind a pretense of objectivity while either ignoring or actively concealing these prejudices is perpetrating a fraud.


1. Crazy people.

2. Past performance.

3. Most people think these Minutemen are extremists. If they didn't, there would be a lot more people joining them at the border. I hate to break this news to you, but Minutemen and their supporters are well outside the mainstream. It's not prejudice to call a kook a kook after one has researched the issue with an open mind, as I have.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> 1. Crazy people.
> 
> 2. Past performance.
> 
> 3. Most people think these Minutemen are extremists. If they didn't, there would be a lot more people joining them at the border. I hate to break this news to you, but Minutemen and their supporters are well outside the mainstream. It's not prejudice to call a kook a kook after one has researched the issue with an open mind, as I have.


This is exactly what I am talking about.

So anyone that wishes the borders secured now are "crazy people" that are likey to shoot anyone at random for disagreeing and it is an extreme position to support anyone that actually takes part in what is basically an expanded Neighorhood Watch.

Perfectly sums it up crs. Thanks. Unbiased journalist work at its best. I can see why the papers are so unbiased *cough* *cough*.

Edit: Forgot to comment on the "open mind" part. You have basically called someone a "liar" in this thread because his testimony bumped smack dab into your fantasy. You did leave some wiggle room though, because maybe it was "okay" depending on who hurled the racial slur at him if he was not lying, as you intimate he was. Man, how twisted is that?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Crazy people.


By resorting to insults instead of arguments, you demonstrate that you have no argument.



> Past performance.


Please provide a link describing this speaker's past performance. Since you have so thoroughly researched the issue, you should be able to do so quickly.

Also, we can all count on your personal honor to only provide us with a document that you read BEFORE you formed your opinions on this matter. After all, fnding some document or other evidence that confirms your bias does not disprove that you are biased. It merely shows that bias is not always a problem.



> Most people think these Minutemen are extremists.


Argumentum ad populum.



> It's not prejudice to call a kook a kook after one has researched the issue with an open mind, as I have.


Yet your open-minded research has yielded nothing but speculation and opinion that some member of this group, contrary to the group's internal rules, regulations and objectives, might, at some point in the future, engage in some as-yet-unspecified crime.

FYI: Prejudice is defined as "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

Besides, you didn't just "call a kook a kook." That is just opinion. You said,


> I find it hard to believe that the Minutemen are mere observers and tattletales who don't *sometimes* directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross. *Sorry, I don't buy it.*


Where is your evidence for this conclusion about what has or hasn't happened as a matter of historical fact?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn:

Do not waste time giving proper definitions of words for crs. If you read above, I gave him Webster's for "vigilantee" and even after this instruction, he failed to see where the Minute Men do not meet the accepted definition. He has passed into his own realm, safe and immune from reason and reality. Or possibly he just feels he needs to hold that party line and not allow any breaches of the ****, lest that harbinge a deluge. 

Sad, as I always thought he was fairly intelligent.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

There are several aspects to this discussion, here are my opinions on them.

1) The Columbia students were out of line in rushing on to the stage. In watching the video, there was one long haired gentleman who seemed very agitated and was very animated in pointing his finger at another man wearing a suit. The man in the suit appears to have been the one speaking at the podium. I agree that the students have the right to protest the speach by the Minutemen, but their actions were beyond those rights.

2) The whole "race card" issue does not seem to be appropriate in this discussion. Just because someone used the "N" word during this protest doesn't make this a racial issue, it just means someone used the "N" word.

3) The Minutemen as long as they are acting like a neighborhood watch group are within their rights. As a member of law enforcement, I will say when a group decides to take proactive measures because they don't feel law enforcement/the government is doing enough, there is the chance that the "Mob Mentality" can take over and people might do things in a group they wouldn't do by themselves. That said, I have not heard or read any specific accounts of Minutemen overstepping their watching boundaries.

As a first generation Italian in this country and the son of an Italian who was deported to Cuba for a short period, I do believe this country is open to all of those people willing to enter legally and go through all of the steps to become a legal citizen. For those who "sneak" in or stay beyond the expiration of their visas, if you are caught you must accept the consequences.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I gave him Webster's for "vigilantee" and even after this instruction, he failed to see where the Minute Men do not meet the accepted definition.


Your Webster's entry says this: 
_broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice _



Wayfarer said:


> not allow any breaches of the ****


I am fairly certain that if you use your beloved Webster's on the last word of this quote, you are in for a chuckle.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> By resorting to insults instead of arguments, you demonstrate that you have no argument.


You asked. I tried to avoid the C-word, but you pressed me to be specific.

I do not annotate everything I read; I read for a living. I've been reading about border issues for quite a while because I lived in a couple cities on or near the border. I can safely say this was an issue, albeit a less heated one, when I took a job in Tucson in 1982. My education about the border began then.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Your Webster's entry says this:
> _broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice _


crs, you have to have done that on purpose. I mean, surely you knew I had read it and would catch your shoddy journalistic attempt to manipulate. Let us examine the *full* definition.


> a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice


So my dear crs, you are maintaining the Minute Men punish the crime of illegal border crossing summarily? Where are the people telling of their punishments? And the Minute Men are "doer(s) of justice"? Please good sir, what justice are they doling out? Or is observations, _a la_ Neighborhood Watch style, now "doing justice"? crs, is this an example of the shining ethics of journalists you keep carping about?



crs said:


> I am fairly certain that if you use your beloved Webster's on the last word of this quote, you are in for a chuckle.


I did that just for a chuckle, glad someone noticed it.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I did not ask about your residential history. 

I asked, and you have not answered, what evidence of "past performance" you have that enables you to reach the conclusion that the Minutemen are not mere observers and tattletales and that they sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross the border? 

You clearly stated that you have reached this conclusion. Other than speculation by the SPLC that some member of the Minutemen, contrary to its internal rules, regulations and objectives, might, at some point in the future, engage in some as-yet-unspecified crime, what is the basis for this conclusion? 

If by "past performance" you meant what this speaker would have said if he had been allowed to speak, then what past speeches by this Minutemen representative contain Nazi-like opinions?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> crs, you have to have done that on purpose. I mean, surely you knew I had read it and would catch your shoddy journalistic attempt to manipulate.


You gave only the first definition, leaving out the second. I merely corrected your error by including the dictionary's broader definition. Indeed, George W. Bush called the Minutemen "vigilantes" in 2005 while speaking in Waco, Texas. This is acknowledged on this conservative blog, which doesn't agree with the characterization, of course, but does state that our president made it:

An Associated Press story appearing in the extremely conservative San Diego Union-Tribune (run by Nixon administration alumni when I worked there) referred to Mexican officials complaining about "vigilante groups hunting illegal immigrants in Arizona."

There, I went out of my way to find sources that could not possibly be called "liberal." My job is made immeasurably more difficult when the most reliable mainstream sources are going to be dismissed as "liberal mainstream media." But there you have it.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

The unsupported opinions and characterizations by Mexican and American government officials are not evidence of the "past performance" on which you claim to have relied in reaching your conclusion, nor is it evidence that the Minutemen are not mere observers and tattletales and that they sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross the border.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> You gave only the first definition, leaving out the second. I merely corrected your error by including the dictionary's broader definition. Indeed, George W. Bush called the Minutemen "vigilantes" in 2005 while speaking in Waco, Texas. This is acknowledged on this conservative blog, which doesn't agree with the characterization, of course, but does state that our president made it:
> 
> An Associated Press story appearing in the extremely conservative San Diego Union-Tribune (run by Nixon administration alumni when I worked there) referred to Mexican officials complaining about "vigilante groups hunting illegal immigrants in Arizona."
> 
> There, I went out of my way to find sources that could not possibly be called "liberal." My job is made immeasurably more difficult when the most reliable mainstream sources are going to be dismissed as "liberal mainstream media." But there you have it.


crs, a few things then I shall let you have your way with this issue as anyone can see where the lines are drawn.

First, you using Dubya as a source? Oh my heart! However, this shows where Dubya stands and I certainly do not agree with him. He lacks the will or the desire to solve this problem and I think he is in the pocket of special interest groups and this is why he says some of the things he does. I do not have to march in lock stop with Dubya and I do not. I am not a dogmatic meat puppet. This is one of the many things I disagree with the man on. And as to using Mexican officials as a source....yes, mighty unbiased there. You embarrassed yourself with that one. The source might not be "liberal" but geez, can you not see the inherent bias?

Second, I do not care who mis-uses a word, it does not make it correct.

Lastly, as to your "correction", neither definition is met. They are not "doing justice" nor are they meting out punishments. We do not have a lynch mob here no matter how much you try to make it out that way.

However, this does not change anything with my OP. Liberal thugs acted in a brownshirt fashion and have been accused or hurling racial slurs against a black man. Sounds like a job for the SPLC but where are they? Yeah, no where to be found.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Other than speculation by the SPLC


You may not consider SPLC credible, but I've come to trust its reporting. I had occasion some years ago to read a lot of its material as we were researching an issue unrelated to the border, and while we were skeptical, as we would be with any advocacy organization, we later found during our firsthand research that while SPLC was sometimes a bit shrill, its facts were on target from what we could tell. Its writers are mostly former journalists; SPLC currently has a help-wanted ad on journalismjobs.com. You can slam that if you want, but I am satisfied that SPLC doesn't knowingly play loose with the facts and I am confident that I've read more of its stuff than you have (and I did so initially with a critical eye, I might add). I still get an e-mail from SPLC every Wednesday called "Hatewatch" that almost always is links to newspaper stories rather than primary reporting. SPLC's stories are usually a more in-depth followup to stories already done by mainstream publications.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> You gave only the first definition, leaving out the second. I merely corrected your error by including the dictionary's broader definition. Indeed, George W. Bush called the Minutemen "vigilantes" in 2005 while speaking in Waco, Texas. This is acknowledged on this conservative blog, which doesn't agree with the characterization, of course, but does state that our president made it:
> 
> An Associated Press story appearing in the extremely conservative San Diego Union-Tribune (run by Nixon administration alumni when I worked there) referred to Mexican officials complaining about "vigilante groups hunting illegal immigrants in Arizona."


It does not matter what the President or Mexican authorities *call* the Minutemen or *say what the Minutemen are doing*, but rather what they actually are doing. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

We do have a report by the SPLC as to what they are doing:



> IR: Have you seen or heard of any Minuteman volunteers pointing guns or committing acts of violence?
> 
> YBARRA: No, we haven't.


So there we have it, it is definitive. SPLC has cleared the Minute Men from being vigilantes! Let there dancing in the streets.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> We do have a report by the SPLC as to what they are doing:
> 
> So there we have it, it is definitive. SPLC has cleared the Minute Men from being vigilantes! Let there dancing in the streets.


Come on. That's one person. I wouldn't call that case closed.

Until I read a bit on the topic and found out the president calls them "vigilantes," I thought they were called Minutemen because their wives said they lasted about that long.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Come on. That's one person. I wouldn't call that case closed.
> 
> Until I read a bit on the topic and found out the president calls them "vigilantes," I thought they were called Minutemen because their wives said they lasted about that long.


Ah, so now suddenly the SPLC reporting is not good enough and Dubya's word is law? Christ man, how many ways do you want to bend things to suit your world view?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah, so now suddenly the SPLC reporting is not good enough?


It's not reporting, it's a Q&A. A Q&A is the unedited words of an interview subject without the inclusion of additional sources or rebuttal, which is why use of this technique is the exception rather than the rule in print. An interview subject can say whatever he wants. When we use this format, we take it as a given that readers know it's read at your own risk.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It's not reporting, it's a Q&A. A Q&A is the unedited words of an interview subject without the inclusion of additional sources or rebuttal, which is why use of this technique is the exception rather than the rule in print. An interview subject can say whatever he wants. When we use this format, we take it as a given that readers know it's read at your own risk.


Blah, blah, blah. I would assume I would not have to explain that in this Q&A, the person being interviewed viscerally hates the Minute Men and has made it his life to spy on them, hoping, praying, CRAVING to find them doing something wrong. In other words, he is a motivated expert on the topic. Further, the article seems to present his testimony as telling and factual. The fact the SLPC presents his view without counter point nor rebuttal is very telling as to the credibility they feel he has. You are slipping further and further into the mire of your dogma.

Also, liberal brownshirts still shut down a peaceful and invited speaker and the same brownshirts have still been accused of using racial slurs to one of the guests. Oh yeah, that damn OP again.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Why haven't the Republicans done anything to protect the border, with a Republican President, Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court, and control of many (most?) state governments? It seems both parties have very consciously abdicated responsibility of 'homeland security' in this regard, and they've each had opportunities when in control of government. What is the problem? Lobbyists? I can understand why private citizens have become exasperated enough to take the matter into their own hands. Pity these citizens seem to be an electoral minority.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I suppose this partly answers my question:


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Smudger said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> As I start preparing for another deployment as a part of the Global War On Terrorism (this time to Afghanistan), I feel that there are some good patriotic Americans that are behind me at home. Wayfarer, Chuck, Pendennis, and others, I know you are behind the troops. I do not feel much like putting my life on the line and enduring the base discomforts we deal with for the New York Times or George Soros but for you guys, I will.
> 
> Bill


Smudger, as always, be polite to all; friendly to none; and be prepared to kill on a moment's notice.

If required to fight, bring a gun, more than one; bring friends who have guns.

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap; life is dear.

When in doubt, empty the clip.

Always cheat; always win. If you walk away, it was a fair fight. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

Thanks for what you and others who stand the post do. May God go with you and protect you and your comrades in arms from harm.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JLP, good one


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*In Summation*

I think I would like to summarize and depart the thread, it is bringing out my hyper-competative nature.

Undisputed facts:

1) Liberal kids at Columbia shut down a peaceful, invited speaker.
2) Clear violation of free speech and also demonstrated no respect for diversity of opinion.
3) Even crs and the SLPC can not give us a confirmed instance of the Minute Men acting in a violent fashion or handing out "street" justice, hence the term "vigilante" is at the very least, being somewhat stretched when applied to them.
4) Our borders remain unsecured.

Fact in dispute:

1) Same liberal kids above used racist slurs at the Columbia incident.

That's all she wrote for me on this, even I get tired of hammering the same points after a while.

Cheers


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I've always been a bit skeptical of the magnitude of liberal bias in the media claimed by some conservative pundits, but crs's display in this thread is leaving me a bit concerned. His resolve to hold is ground in the face of piles and piles of evidence that his beliefs are incorrect is not something I'm fond of in people chosen to report the truth. Does anyone think Democrats/leftists would stand a chance in American politics without the benefit they receive from media bias?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

The president, a Republican, called them vigilantes. Are you saying GWB was:

A.) lying?

B.) speaking without the benefit of law-enforcement intelligence?

C.) saying the popular thing while speaking in not San Francisco or New York, mind you, but speaking in Waco, Texas, a border state if I am not mistaken.

I mean, come on.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

The question of whether you are deeply biased and prejudiced, crs, was conclusively answered in the affirmative 30 or 40 posts ago, but the interesting question that remains is whether you actually believe that you are not, or if you (mistakenly) think you are fooling anyone into believing you are not. 

Your comments on this thread are either an extraordinarily long bad joke, or self-knowledge has never visited your door.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

crs said:


> The president, a Republican, called them vigilantes. Are you saying GWB was:
> 
> A.) lying?
> 
> ...


The Bush isn't known for his skill with words.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> 1) Same liberal kids above used racist slurs at the Columbia incident.


I really have to disregard the Marvin Stewart interview on Fox that Wayfarer linked to. Not even the New York Post, a conservative newspaper with the same owner as Fox-TV, has reported his allegations, and I'm sure they would have if there had been any corraborating evidence. The Post didn't even think it was worth running anything on Stewart. All we have is one man saying there were slurs.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> The question of whether you are deeply biased and prejudiced, crs, was conclusively answered in the affirmative 30 or 40 posts ago, but the interesting question that remains is whether you actually believe that you are not, or if you (mistakenly) think you are fooling anyone into believing you are not.
> 
> Your comments on this thread are either an extraordinarily long bad joke, or self-knowledge has never visited your door.


It is you who have the bias. Why do think GWB called them vigilantes? How come you haven't answered that?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wow, some college kids getting rowdy. Boo hoo.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> It is you who have the bias. Why do think GWB called them vigilantes? How come you haven't answered that?


Really?

I am not the one who judged, on the basis of no evidence, that the Minutemen are, in fact, not "mere observers and tattletales and that they sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross the border," a conclusion that is even more certain (despite the aforementioned lack of evidence) than the position of the overtly biased and interested SPLC, which has dedicated itself to discovering and reporting just that sort of thing, but which has only _speculated_ that the Minutemen _might_, at some point in the _future_, engage in some as-yet-unspecified crime. That was you. That's prejudice.

I am not the one who concluded on the basis of as-yet-unspecified "past performance" that the speaker at this event was going to make Nazi-like statements, despite the fact that (a) he was not actually allowed to speak, and (b) you have no evidence that he ever made such statements in the past. That was you. That's prejudice.

I was not the one who said, "if I had to choose between aligning myself with rude children or bigoted grown men, I would choose the rude children," even though there is no need under the circumstances to actually "choose" between these two groups, but rather spontaneously announced your bias in favor of protestors and against a speaker who has not made any "bigoted" statements that you have shown us (presumably from times when he is allowed to speak). That was you. That is biased AND prejudiced.

But, let's see ... why would a politician, whose department is ultimately in charge of the law enforcement agency that is responsible for preventing the acts that are occurring in large numbers on a regular basis, criticize the Minutemen, who are organized for the purpose of alerting the public to this fact and are devoted to the proposition that this very agency is derelict in its duties? Gee, I can't imagine why. Maybe he has a political interest in the public opinion on this issue? Although, if his administration believed the Minutemen were guilty of a crime, or (dare I say, had EVIDENCE to support such a conclusion), it would have charged them by now.

But, by all means, continue to display your open-mindedness.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*..and as loudly as they wanted."*

crs,

You comment in the first page of this thread that they-the protesters-should be allowed to protest as loudly as they wanted is of concern. Do you mean that one should be allowed to shout or drown out with other noise someone who is speaking in a proper forum? 
Bill


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

If the minutemen can't protect the stage, how can they protect the border? ;-)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I really have to disregard the Marvin Stewart interview on Fox that Wayfarer linked to.


Shocking that!

People, honestly, I have not hacked crs's account and typing this stuff for him.

Cheers


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

In his hometown paper (Libertarian):

Gilchrist: "I'm damned proud to be a vigilante"



Gilchrist: "I'm not going to promote insurrection, but if it happens, it will be on the conscience of the members of Congress who are doing this. I will not promote violence in resolving this, but I will not stop others who might pursue that."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayfarer said, "I'm damn proud to be purple, nine feet tall, and weight 900 lbs."

Damn, I am none of those things even though I said I was.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Wayfarer said, "I'm damn proud to be purple, nine feet tall, and weight 900 lbs."
> 
> Damn, I am none of those things even though I said I was.


Purple large man, do you promote insurrection?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Purple large man, do you promote insurrection?


What bearing does that question have? Even your quote specifically said the person in question does not.

You're not getting tired of being beaten like a drum yet?

Edit: Guess I need to add something. I am not one of the brownshirts you back in the video crs. I do not support insurrection. I am one of those boring people. You know the type. Follow the law, believe society is best served by seeking just laws and following them, working my a$$ off, making a lot of money, paying a lot of taxes, and do not piss off my home owners association.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Even your quote specifically said the person in question does not.


Does that not strike you as a wink-wink quote? As in he can't promote violence and insurrection, but he's not going to try to stop anyone who's dumb enough to say so on the record.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Does that not strike you as a wink-wink quote? As in he can't promote violence and insurrection, but he's not going to try to stop anyone who's dumb enough to say so on the record.


OHHHHHH, so now I need to read the secret code? Man, you are just losing it.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Wow, some college kids getting rowdy. Boo hoo.


Good point!

Isn't that part of the fun of being in college? Don't many of our politicians claim "I was in college" as their excuse for many of their young exploits. Some even claim they didn't inhale.

You can be certain once these young idealists graduate from Columbia and have moved on to their corner offices, BMWs and 401Ks they'll be complaining the Minutemen aren't doing enough to keep those illegals out of this country.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

That's OK, I know I can't convert his henchmen or expect them to give an inch even when confronted with the Minuteman's own words. But rational people will read his words and make up their own minds.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> That's OK, I know I can't convert his henchmen or expect them to give an inch even when confronted with the Minuteman's own words. But rational people will read his words and make up their own minds.


Who are you talking about? What henchmen? Are you referring to me? I hope so as I've always wanted henchmen. Can you claim them as dependents though?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Where is your evidence for YOUR CONCLUSION that the Minutemen are, in fact, not "mere observers and tattletales and that they sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross the border"?

Point to bigotry. Point to Nazi tenets.

The article you cited says this: 


> The activists have a "no contact" policy. When they see illegal crossings, they notify officials.


You should either support your conclusions with evidence or admit that you can't do so. (Although it's really painfully obvious, to apparently everyone but you, crs, which side you have already come down on.)


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Where is your evidence for YOUR CONCLUSION that the Minutemen are, in fact, not "mere observers and tattletales and that they sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross the border"?


You are editing my post to suit your bias. I wrote:



crs said:


> And I find it hard to believe that the Minutemen are mere observers and tattletales who don't sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross.


That is clearly an _opinion_ expressed on a message board, not a conclusion or sworn legal statement or act of journalism, and you damn well know it. They claim non-violence, I don't buy it as an absolute. I happen to believe the claims by the president of Mexico, I happen to believe the SPLC that neo-Nazis are among the border volunteers, and I happen to believe that President Bush had been briefed about the Minutemen before he called them vigilantes and gave it some thought before using that word (maybe you think he's dumber than I think he is?). You can believe what you want, I really don't care. But don't stoop to trying to twist something I wrote.

Why should I be surprised? Someone who thinks amateurs can do better than trained border-patrol agents is trying to lecture me about about journalism. Maybe you can become an expert on dentistry next and tell them what to do.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Why should I be surprised? Someone who thinks amateurs can do better than trained border-patrol agents is trying to lecture me about about journalism. Maybe you can become an expert on dentistry next and tell them what to do.


Read your own sources you have posted here crs. The Mexican government claims the Minute Men were having an effect. How many different ways do you want to twist things? I know, I know....as many as it takes, right?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

You know Lush, that was a damn good post. I even agree with 95% of it. No doubt there will be nothing done for, as I said earlier, Bush is in the pocket of special interests. I agree with expanding that out to most national level elected officials as their true job is merely to get re-elected.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

You know, I once read that people have a tendency not to read messages that are more than five lines long.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*Problems solved*

Ah brilliant. I see that while I was off downloading from emusic the world's most pressing problems have been sorted out here.

And I thought I was wasting time.

Back to the downloads...


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Dangit - missed Lushington's post that Wayfarer agreed with 95% of... can't leave you guys alone for one afternoon, can I?

Oh - brief interruption for moderator hat - bipartisan call to move just a tad closer to civility. I know it is tricky but we have a 95% agreement between Wayfarer and Lushinton - don't tell me it isn't possible.

OK, back to being another obnoxious poster.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

crs said:


> The president, a Republican, called them vigilantes. Are you saying GWB was:
> A.) lying?
> B.) speaking without the benefit of law-enforcement intelligence?
> C.) saying the popular thing while speaking in not San Francisco or New York, mind you, but speaking in Waco, Texas, a border state if I am not mistaken.
> I mean, come on.


Here's where I pull that sneaky Republican Mind Trick on CRS by one upping his disdain for a Republican... watch this guys.

A. Perhaps
B. Perhaps
C. A little

Actually we're not as kind to our President as you are on this issue. Most on the right, who do not employ or support employing illegals, are absolutely furious with him on this one and he has no cover whatsoever with his voting base. Willing to say that our party leadership has been asleep at the wheel on this one? Try mutinous, try absolutely furious. OK, picture the rank and file Dem reaction if the Senators from Massachusett's proposed an absolute ban on abortion and a 30% across the board cut on entitlements - that's your border state Republican reaction to the proposed amnesty (with back pay in earned income tax credits) that was floated not too long ago by our leadership.

If you think abortion is a litmus test on judges for liberals wait til you see what immigration becomes for Republican primary candidates next time around.

I've brought it up a few times already - Dallas is firing experienced American teachers and importing (Legally) Mexican teachers to fill the jobs that Americans can't do - educating schools where 80% of the students are here illegally and don't speak English. Anyone care to comment on that? Mildly disturbing precedent?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

This is what you wrote:


> I find it hard to believe that the Minutemen are mere observers and tattletales who don't sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross. *Sorry, I don't buy it.*


You edited out the highlighted sentence where you expressed your conclusion in unequivocal terms. And in a post where you were expressly pretending to set the record straight, no less.

Your proposition that this is supposed to be a "sworn legal statement" is a strawman, as it is quite obvious that no one suggested it was.

It is clearly what it purports to be -- the conclusion that you have drawn that a group of people whose politics you do not like and against whom you have already stated a bias ("if I had to choose between aligning myself with rude children or bigoted grown men, I would choose the rude children") have engaged in certain (vaguely defined) bad acts.

To point out the obvious, all forms of prejudice are opinions. They are (by definition) opinions, since they are (by definition) conclusions that the prejudiced person draws _without evidence_. They are opinions, made without evidence, about what some other person has done, is doing or will do, just as you have done here.

The SPLC's speculation about what might happen in the future is not evidence that the Minutemen "sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross." Your conclusions about what they have done are actually more biased and prejudiced than those of an openly biased advocacy group.

An interested politician's characterization of them is not evidence.

Why is it so hard for you to acknowldge your own prejudices?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> Why should I be surprised? Someone who thinks amateurs can do better than trained border-patrol agents is trying to lecture me about about journalism. Maybe you can become an expert on dentistry next and tell them what to do.


That statement is such a prime example of liberal elitism: _The masses don't know any better and aren't able to take matters into their own hands. The government knows better and therefore we should continue to abdicate these matters into the hands of the government._.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lush, that was a good post, what made you delete it? It's a big tent daddy-o, I was showing my non-party alignment with the truth and fully supported your post!

Sorry if I grew less than civil, both me and my henchmen shall reel it in 

Cheers


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*Wayfarer*

We need to make some T-shirts up with henchman of Wayfarer on the front; we can make them in camo without any sleeves. I wear a XXL. If these really sell, we can move into ballcaps, sweatshirts, and maybe we can expand overseas!!! I think we can get a good price quote somewhere overseas.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Smudger said:


> We need to make some T-shirts up with henchman of Wayfarer on the front; we can make them in camo without any sleeves. I wear a XXL. If these really sell, we can move into ballcaps, sweatshirts, and maybe we can expand overseas!!! I think we can get a good price quote somewhere overseas.


Maybe we can get the good people at MyTailor.com to give us a bulk discount on MTM "Henchmen" wear? Now I just have to decide whether to refer to you all as "my posse", "my entourage", or something else....


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Maybe we can get the good people at MyTailor.com to give us a bulk discount on MTM "Henchmen" wear? Now I just have to decide whether to refer to you all as "my posse", "my entourage", or something else....


I have different attire in mind for you, Wayfarer ...



Chuck Franke said:


> Willing to say that our party leadership has been asleep at the wheel on this one? Try mutinous, try absolutely furious.


See, I think Chuck is a gentleman and is just using hyperbole to blow off some steam when he writes of mutiny. But Jim Gilchrist, when he says he would do nothing to stop a violent "insurrection" against our federal government and would blame Congress rather than the murderous, treasonous thugs he tacitly condones, well, I take him at his word. And I also believe he and his traitorous ilk belong in a cage at Guantanamo because I think they are a bigger threat to America than Osama's band. If a leftist were to advocate the violent overthrow of our government just because the president won't validate his paranoid BS, you guys would be screaming for blood. What hypocrites you are. Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are.

Why is there never a clothing-obsessed FBI agent around when you need him?

Look, I read that the food is plentiful at our special prisons, but I hear the straitjackets are _fused_. If you won't consider the welfare of your families, at least consider your wardrobes.

Just to show there's no hard feelings, I promise to mail you all my Ben Silver catalogs after they haul you away.

Signed,

Lefty


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> Signed,
> 
> Lefty


At least the accuracy of your posts is increasing.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> At least the accuracy of your posts is increasing.


Hopkins, you are surrounded. Come out with your hands up!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> And I also believe he and his traitorous ilk belong in a cage at Guantanamo because I think they are a bigger threat to America than Osama's band.


Wow! Now that we've lanced the boil of your prejudice, your true feelings are flowing out like pus.



> If a leftist were to advocate the violent overthrow of our government just because the president won't validate his paranoid BS, you guys would be screaming for blood.


Have you ever read the kind of comments posted every single day of the week over at places like Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I am an American first, Phinn, and I have no tolerance for treason. Why do you hate America?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Have you ever read the kind of comments posted every single day of the week over at places like Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos?


Actually, no, I've never heard of those sites. What are you, a double agent?

Gentlemen, I think Phinn is an America-hating commie in sheep's clothing.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

*Hey, Phinn*

They all started laughin and I felt kinda sick
And I knew I better think of something pretty quick
So I just reached out and kicked old green teeth right in the knee

Now he let out a yell that'd curl yer hair
But before he could move I grabbed me a chair
And said "Now watch him Folks cause he's a fairly dangerous man!"

"You may not know it but this man is a spy.
He's a undercover agent for the FBI
And he's been sent down here to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan!"

He was still bent over holdin on to his knee
But everybody else was looking and listening to me
And I laid it on thicker and heavier as I went

"He's a friend of them long haired, hippy-type, pinko ****!
I betchya he's even got a commie flag
tacked up on the wall inside of his garage."

"He's a snake in the grass, I tell ya guys.
He may look dumb but that's just a disguise,
He's a mastermind in the ways of espionage"

"Would you believe this man has gone as far
As tearing Wallace stickers off the bumpers of cars.
And he voted for George McGovern for president."

They started lookin real suspicious at him 
He jumped up and said "Now just wait a minute Jim!
You know he's lying, I been living here all of my life!"

"I'm a faithful follower of Brother John Birch
And I belong to the Antioch Baptist Church.
And I aint even got a garage, you can call home and ask my wife!"

--- Charlie Daniels


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I'm sure that any minute now, you will be revealing the evidence you relied on to support your conclusion that the Minutemen are not mere observers and tattletales, but sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Why do you hate America, Phinn?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Why do you rely on insults, logical fallacies, dishonest reposting of your own comments and strawmen rather than making rational arguments based on evidence, facts and reason? 

Where is the evidence you relied on to support your conclusion that the Minutemen are not mere observers and tattletales, but sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Why do you rely on insults, logical fallacies, dishonest reposting of your own comments and strawmen rather than making rational arguments based on evidence, facts and reason?
> 
> Where is the evidence you relied on to support your conclusion that the Minutemen are not mere observers and tattletales, but sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross?


Mexico's president said so. Do you think he's lying? Do you think he's lying because he's a Mexican? Is that it?

The U.S. president called them "vigilantes," not "observers." Do you think George Bush is lying?

Yes or no, Phinn: Do you condone violent insurrection against the U.S. government like Jim Gilchrist does?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

CRS - I appreciate the courtesy and you are correct, I did not mean mutinous in the violent insurrection sense of the word. More like returning donation request letters sans check and with "fix my border then ask for my money" written on it. We don't really do the protest thing very well, all that pushing and shouting is really for those commoners anyway.

But...
The frustration on the right with the current powers that be ignores party lines. We're voting the same way this year based on the "You guys sicken us, the other guys scare the hell out of us" premise but ours is an annoyed party. Government is growing, those in power are enjoying it and those charged with certain responsibilities are ignoring them. We get all testy about that sort of thing.

If the Minutemen were shooting first and asking later I'd agree that they were vigilantes but that term is not used properly. It brings to mind the lynch mob more or less every B movie Bronson ever did.

The term has a more honorable history dating back to Ancient Rome and more noble intentions.

Now I must ask this Lefty as the realization pains me. You are against Vigilante justice in general, the justness of the justice delivered notwithstanding...

You, sir... are against Superman. ...And Spiderman, Wonder Woman (Are you nuts? Dude, you are besmirching my first love!) The Incredible Hulk, Captain America, Batman.... Probably the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Scooby Doo and occasionally Bugs Bunny. I don't mind your shots at Republicans, I don't mind your shots at us border hicks but now you are expressing disdain for Scooby and Bugs. 

I'm all for good civil debate among gentlemen but you really are going too far if you don't like Bugs Bunny. What kind of man are you anyway? You call yourself an American yet besmirch the noble beast that is Scooby Doo. I pity you, Sir.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

JLP - are those bespoke boots on your Pa? Spiffy!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> JLP - are those bespoke boots on your Pa? Spiffy!


Ask your mother...as you can see she was standing there beside him. :devil:


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

LOL... Well deserved but not plausible. Mom sticks with the sawed of side by side.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

A politician's characterization of the Minutemen as "vigilantes" is not evidence that they are not mere observers and tattletales, but sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross.

As you stated earlier in this very thread, crs, the term vigilante includes:

_broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice_

You stated that it was an "error" to fail to include the dictionary's broader definition in our understanding of the term.

Apparently, when it suits you, you want to rely on the narrow definition of the term (when you want to conclude, without evidence, that the Minutemen are not mere observers and tattletales, but sometimes directly attempt to disuade those attempting to cross). Yet, when it suits you, you also want rely on the broad definition of the term.

As you stated earlier in this thread, one can be a vigilante, and merely be a "self-appointed doer of justice." Thus, even the unsupported, evidence-free accusations of politicians do not, according to the meaning of the term that you urged us to accept, support your conclusion.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I think what I like most so far, is that crs maintains he believes Gilchrist, believes Dubya....believes everyone on this topic but who? The black guy that said liberal kids called him racial slurs and the liberal hispanic that hates the Minute Men and pathologically spies on them but states he has no knowledge that they have ever pulled a gun or used violence. Them folks is lying. Do we see a pattern? crs thinks minorities are liars and white guys tell the truth. Why are you such a racist crs?

That and the *wink*wink* secret code crs has decoded.

Edit: Spelling and grammar. Sounded like Rachel Ray.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I'm not the one who consorts with neo-Nazis, Wayfarer, you are. You said on this thread you spent some time with the Minutemen.



Wayfarer said:


> crs, I have spent a few hours with some Minutemen on the border


By the way, I never said the person in the Q&A was lying and your attempt to characterize it as such is incorrect, perhaps unintenionally. I merely pointed out the difference between reporting and a Q&A. The person interviewed gave his answer, but that doesn't mean he answers for everyone. He could be wrong but not intentionally.

As for the guy in Bill O'Reilly clip, all the NYC newspapers, including the ultra-right-wing Post, wrote about the protest, but none wrote about the allegation of racial slurs. That makes me extremely skeptical. The Post would be all over it if it were true because the Post was very anti-protestors in the story it ran, and the Post hasn't touched Marvin Stewart. It would seem to me even the conservative editors at the Post must have a problem with that story or they'd report it. Obviously they filmed the conflict, yet no footage of the slurs seems to exist.

You are really stooping now. Why don't you just admit you're wrong in supporting someone who condones violent insurrection? You don't have to change your views on border politics, just disassociate yourself from a dangerous wacko who condones violent insurrection against the federal government and call it a night. Everyone will understand that you were unwittingly roped into this crowd. Renounce and be free!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> *Why don't you just admit you're wrong in supporting someone who condones violent insurrection?* You don't have to change your views on border politics, *just disassociate yourself from a dangerous wacko who condones violent insurrection against the federal government and call it a night.* Everyone will understand that you were unwittingly roped into this crowd. Renounce and be free!


Actually, can you point out where I made a statement of support? I argued some points here, such as they really do not seem to fit the dictionary definition of a vigilante and I argued that Gilchrist had his free speech rights violated and I also argued some other mischaracterizations. I did scoff that you really, really are twisting things nine different ways sometimes to fit your predetermined opinons. I also offered some balance, pointing out where I feel Dubya and the Repubs have dropped the ball on this and shown no political will to secure the border. However, I will go on record as saying this very clearly, as I know your lying liberal a$$ will try and twist this: I back the laws of the US and would like to see them enforced fairly and consistently. I believe the US is the greatest country currently in existence and rivaled only by certain other civilizations in history, such as the ancient Greeks. I think most people feel this way.

You offered no balance. You excuse the "rude children", that are actually well organized adults squelching free speech and diversity of opinion. You refused to find valid any information that ran counter to your predetermined views. Hell, you even disavowed your own sources when handy for you. You did your best to drag in Nazis, white supremacists, and all kinds of other nasty things. Now you are putting words in Gilchrist's mouth with claims of breaking his *wink*wink* secret code and have him waving a shot gun on horseback ready to lead a revolt. crs, you are growing slimier and slimier in this thread.

I am not the only one losing what respect we had for you. Some have posted here and some have PM'ed me. All this simply because someone that claims he is a journalist, someone that counts on the First for his living, refused to just say, "Yeah, those kids were wrong and Gilchrist had every right to speak."

I admit I have been pushing you and twisting back. I did not always turn the other cheek. I also will point out I tried through the first three pages or so to keep it on the OP as much as possible. You won though, I let it wander off topic. However, even though you won swinging this thread to your desired topic, you lost the intellectual battle of honesty and forthwright debate.

Regards

Edit: I just have to highlight this quote. It really underscores just how slimey you've become here:



crs said:


> I'm not the one who consorts with neo-Nazis, Wayfarer, you are.


I can assure you, the fat old lady in a lawn chair and the skinny guy that looked part Indian that offered me a tamale did not strike me as neo-Nazis. I want to be very clear here crs and then have you never again make such a statement about me. I do not support white supremists, neo-Nazis, similar groups, and neither do I associate with them. What a completely assinine and insensitive thing to say to a guy in a bi-racial marriage.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I said several times, including in the first response to your thread, that I don't condone the behavior of the protestors. You keep twisting it, but it's there in black and white repeatedly. That I find them less repulsive than the man they shut up does not mean I approve of them.

Again, from your hero:

"I'm not going to promote insurrection, but if it happens, it will be on the conscience of the members of Congress who are doing this. I will not promote violence in resolving this, but I will not stop others who might pursue that."

"I will not stop others who might pursue that."

What kind of an American is that?

I do not care what your toadies think. It is a mark of whining extremists on both ends of the spectrum to cry bias whenever someone disagrees with them and calls them on their crap.

I was listening to Hannity, I think, on the radio while I was driving today, and he started off by saying that even though the elections probably won't go the Republicans' way, take heart, it could be worse, you could have cancer. And in the next breath he cited a bunch of "biased" headlines from across America about how the Republicans are losing support. So on one hand he admits this is true and on the other hand he says the press is biased for reporting it. This is fairly typical of what I see here, and this is why I disregard it: The people who cry "bias" are biased themselves.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I do not support white supremists, neo-Nazis, similar groups, and neither do I associate with them. What a completely assinine and insensitive thing to say to a guy in a bi-racial marriage.


Fair enough. I was equally offended when you insinuated racism on my part. While I am not in a biracial marriage, I was sharing an NYC apartment with two black people when I met my wife.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*Free speech*

Gentlemen,

I wish to state a position which we all agree upon. In reference to the Columbia incident, the invited speakers were shouted down and then a mob charged the stage, in effect, threatening the speaker and his entourage. Freedom of speech is so fundamentally sacred that we have to protect it from all attacks. Speakers, espousers of unpopular positions or ideas should have the right to speak without intimidation. But, if the speakers wish to have a their forum, they should agree to having rebuttals and questions given in a civilized way. At no time should there be heckling, shouting down or intimidation of any speaker. There are common sense situations in which freedom of speech is not the sumum bonum; for example, a speaker should not be allowed to urge murder or for others commit other crimes. Of course, one should not be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. The location is important; that is, you cannot exercise your freedom of speech say if one is an atheist and wanted to protest Christians or Muslim worship services, one cannot go into their houses of worship and shout or carrying signs that disrupt the services. However, protestors can be outside to picket if so desired. What should not be condoned is the shouting down or doing anything which disrupts a service or threatens the speakers or others safety. crs, in one of your postings on the first page of this thread, you mentioned that "protesters...can be as loud as they want to be. "
If that should be true, then there can be no "free speech".....the winner of any issue will be the one who has the loudest voices or noisemakers.

Bill


----------



## lackspolish (Apr 14, 2005)

Oh, I don't know. I'm late to this disagreement, so please forgive me if this point's already been made, but my understanding of the importance of the right to free speech is that it is a right that cannot be abridged by the government; likewise the right to freedom of assembly. The obligation to allow others to be heard is a matter of courtesy, rather than one of rights, no?

Personally, I believe that if one is going to stand up in public to make statements that are likely to be found offensive by a portion of one's audience, then one should be prepared for a certain amount of disruption; the marketplace of ideas is not always a well-regulated one. But perhaps I am wrong.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

lackspolish said:


> Personally, I believe that *if one is going to stand up in public to make statements that are likely to be found offensive by a portion of one's audience, then one should be prepared for a certain amount of disruption;* the marketplace of ideas is not always a well-regulated one. But perhaps I am wrong.


Correct me if I am wrong, but does not being a member of the audience usually imply that you are there voluntarily, because you wish to *hear* what the speaker is about to say? I would say if you went with the express purpose of disrupting the speaker and not allowing him/her to speak, you had no intent of going as an audience member, but rather as an interloper. As mentioned above, counterpoint and rebuttal is one thing, shutting down a peaceable assembly is another.

This goes, in my view anyway, for everything from anti-abortion rallies (I am pro-abortion) to anti-Bush rallies to pro-Saddam rallies. In the "market place of ideas", if an idea is not heard, it has not reached market, now has it? We can extend your analogy further to include the definition of a market place, again showing your analogy is fundamentally flawed in its presentation.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

lackspolish said:


> Oh, I don't know. I'm late to this disagreement, so please forgive me if this point's already been made, but my understanding of the importance of the right to free speech is that it is a right that cannot be abridged by the government; likewise the right to freedom of assembly. The obligation to allow others to be heard is a matter of courtesy, rather than one of rights, no?
> 
> Personally, I believe that if one is going to stand up in public to make statements that are likely to be found offensive by a portion of one's audience, then one should be prepared for a certain amount of disruption; the marketplace of ideas is not always a well-regulated one. But perhaps I am wrong.


You are not wrong. The First Amendment only protects the rights enumerated therein, including that of speech, from restrictive state action; with a few very narrowly drawn exceptions, it does not address private action that impairs those rights. (Of course, if the juridical cavemen who wish to rollback the incorporation doctrine are successful, the enumerated rights contained in the Constitution would not apply to the states, which would then be free to enact content-based restrictions on public and private speech - but that's another topic.) Further, there is no constitutional right to a polite audience, and shouting down a speaker who is advancing an unpopular viewpoint is as American as fudging quarterly earnings projections, and even more venerable. Of course, those challenging the speaker must remain within the bounds of legality when doing so; and should the topic under discussion be especially sensitive or controversial legal opposition to the speaker's message may quickly turn illegal - as it may or may not have in this instance. However, given that no one was injured, and given also that the Minutemen pride themselves on being bold and fearless men who are not averse to confrontation, it appears that should they press state law claims against the Columbia University or the unruly students their recoverable damages would be small.

I suppose the thing that most offends those who are offended is that this clip presents graphic evidence that privileged students attending elite universities are often self-righteous and intolerant, and given to juvenile displays of political theater and pointless agitprop. However, this is a mere truism, and hardly qualifies as earth-shattering news. Further, as others have observed, it seems quite likely that in rather short order many of these lively Lions will become shareholders in America, Inc., and will then profess views sufficiently reactionary to meet with the approval of all right-thinking men and women, wherever they may be found. I shouldn't worry too much.


----------



## lackspolish (Apr 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but does not being a member of the audience usually imply that you are there voluntarily, because you wish to *hear* what the speaker is about to say? I would say if you went with the express purpose of disrupting the speaker and not allowing him/her to speak, you had no intent of going as an audience member, but rather as an interloper. QUOTE]
> 
> I don't agree with the distinction between audience and interloper. Certainly one can attend a public appearance out of solidarity with the speaker, opposition to them, or mere curiousity.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Smudger said:


> crs, in one of your postings on the first page of this thread, you mentioned that "protesters...can be as loud as they want to be. "
> If that should be true, then there can be no "free speech".....the winner of any issue will be the one who has the loudest voices or noisemakers.


Well, yeah. It's unfair, but loud and/or repetitive tends to win in our society regardless of whether the message has any merit, an example being Swift Boats.

NYC is just a loud place. You have two tabloids slugging it out by shrieking at readers in 300-point headlines. You have sports talk radio declaring a third baseman as the anti-Christ. People are gonna yell or not be heard, unless it's tea time on Park Avenue. It's kind of nuts to arrive in a city of immigrants with what many people consider an anti-immigration message and expect a sedate hearing. He should have brought a louder P.A. system and barbed wire if he wanted to be heard.

The flip side to this is that while Jim Gilchrist didn't get to give his little speech, more New Yorkers know who he is now than would have if the students had patiently heard him out.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Humans cannot agree on anything...even about diversity of opinion.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> The First Amendment only protects the rights enumerated therein, including that of speech, from restrictive state action; with a few very narrowly drawn exceptions, it does not address private action that impairs those rights. (Of course, if the juridical cavemen who wish to rollback the incorporation doctrine are successful, the enumerated rights contained in the Constitution would not apply to the states, which would then be free to enact content-based restrictions on public and private speech - but that's another topic.)


Yes, the First Amendment, by its own terms, only prohibits Congress from passing a law that infringes on the right to free speech. I've never understood why otherwise literate people would not only allow but actively endorse a government re-writing its own founding document to expand its own powers, disregarding the amendment process that is written into another portion of that very same document. What's even more odd is that these people often then assume an aire of pompous self-righteousness when anyone dare suggest this might be a problem.

In any event, the legal ramifications of this incident appear to be that the venue owner has the right to set the standards for the behavior of the participants. If Columbia wanted to expel disruptive people from the premises, it should certainly have been allowed to do so. If it wanted to tolerate students acting like cavemen (or cave-persons), it could do that as well. Unless a crime or tort was committed, or a contract breached, which is not readily apparent, there would be no legal recourse.

Which is all well and good. Allowing people to demonstrate their own buffoonery is part of a far more effective mechanism for dealing with socially unacceptable behavior (assuming again it is non-tortious and non-criminal). Decent people will invariably form their own opinions. For example, when someone resorts to insults instead of cogent argument, dishonestly re-prints his own earlier statements in a pitiful attempt to hide the true nature of what he had said, quotes song lyrics rather than engage in civilized discourse, and generally hops around like a baboon and stamps his foot rather than answer simple, direct questions that could be understood by a child, the rest of the members of civilized society watching such a sorry display will know that such a person will have earned his rightful reputation.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

lackspolish said:


> Wayfarer said:
> 
> 
> > Correct me if I am wrong, but does not being a member of the audience usually imply that you are there voluntarily, because you wish to *hear* what the speaker is about to say? I would say if you went with the express purpose of disrupting the speaker and not allowing him/her to speak, you had no intent of going as an audience member, but rather as an interloper.
> ...


Of course anyone can attend a public appearance. That is not the question. The question is what defines "audience" due to the wording of your initial argument. Let us see what Webster's has to say:



> Main Entry: au·di·ence
> Pronunciation: 'o-dE-&n(t)s, 'ä-
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin audientia, from audient-, audiens, present participle of audire
> ...


Webster's backs me. It would seem going to hear is key to being part of the "audience". You might not back my distinction but the English language does. The position you are not left in is to re-formulate and say you think it is fine if interlopers squelch free speech. Then you have to re-cant your analogy of a market place for ideas, as again, the term "market place" has meaning. I think more what you meant to say is "the Texas caged match of ideas" where might makes right. Not a society I wish to foster.

I agree with what Lush said above concerning this. My personal beef is the very people constantly calling for "diversity" and tolerance displayed an incredible act of intolerance and showed people can only be "diverse" if they are just like them. It was the hypocrisy that blew me away, calling people "Nazi" and then storming the stage like brownshirts. When people are so strident and then act worse than those they condemn, it is sure to take their credibility away.

Cheers


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

It seems the Minutemen have a tendency to harass day laborers who may or may not be illegal aliens, going so far as to visit their homes well north of the border:

https://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3258963.html

Oh, and this may interest those of you who donate money:


----------



## lackspolish (Apr 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Webster's backs me. It would seem going to hear is key to being part of the "audience". You might not back my distinction but the English language does. The position you are not left in is to re-formulate and say you think it is fine if interlopers squelch free speech. Then you have to re-cant your analogy of a market place for ideas, as again, the term "market place" has meaning. I think more what you meant to say is "the Texas caged match of ideas" where might makes right. Not a society I wish to foster.


An interesting argument; however, focusing on my use of the word "audience" to imply hearing, spectating, admiring, or conduct other than expressing disagreement obscures what I intended as my point (and that is no doubt because I expressed it poorly) - that when we make statements likely to be offensive to those who hear or read them, we must be prepared for some to take offense and to express their disagreement, constitutional rights to freedom of speech notwithstanding. Some would even suggest that from time to time certain individuals may make public statements so outrageous as to be calculated to provoke others to respond. That they may do so in a manner that is abrasive, offensive, or otherwise discourteous naturally is to be deplored by polite company.

I share your wish of fostering a more courteous society, of course, and I hope that in such a society, metaphors drawn from lurid spectacles such as professional wrestling would not be part of conversation between gentlemen.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

More:

https://www.kpbs.org/news/local?id=4913

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5074841

https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/tempe/articles/0322mr-protest22Z10.html


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> So far, *no one has complained about the Minutemen in Wheaton*, said Natalie Cantor, director of the Mid-County Regional Services Center. Staff members from the center have seen the Minutemen working from across Veirs Mill Road.
> 
> ''They don't come on the property or come close to the workers' center, so I have heard no complaints. Things have been quiet."
> 
> ...


Ghastly.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It seems the Minutemen have a tendency to harass day laborers who may or may not be illegal aliens, going so far as to visit their homes well north of the border:


I clicked one link at random to sample. It is the bolded link. Nothing about Minute Men mentioned. One woman was charged for spraying another with water and I have to confess, the writing is a tad blocky, I am not sure which party in that altercation backed which side. However, a nice little quote from the article I clicked at random:



> The two sides taunted each other in English, Spanish and with hand gestures that needed no translation. The protesters who dubbed themselves "patriots" waved American flags and placards demanding deportation of illegal immigrants. The counterprotesters waved *a Mexican flag and signs calling the people across the street "racist."*


I think the goal of one of those sides is clear enough to me. I would not be using them as shining examples crs.

Again, doesn't change the video tape in the OP. Yeah, I am going to keep bringing up the fact that was the original topic.

Also, I do not see your beef with the current prevailing theme. I thought in an earlier thread you had wanted the people employing illegals to be held accountable? Wish granted it seems.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> > So far, no one has complained about the Minutemen in Wheaton, said Natalie Cantor, director of the Mid-County Regional Services Center. Staff members from the center have seen the Minutemen working from across Veirs Mill Road.
> >
> > ''They don't come on the property or come close to the workers' center, so I have heard no complaints. Things have been quiet."
> >
> ...


Yeah, dragging people's kids into things like that is uncalled for. Well crs, thanks for showing us the true vigilantes.

Cheers


----------



## lackspolish (Apr 14, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Ghastly.


Indeed.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I thought in an earlier thread you had wanted the people employing illegals to be held accountable? Wish granted it seems.


No, I don't think so.

"Maybe they (protesters) know from some intuition which jornaleros (short-time workers) are legal, but my perception is they brand you by color. I would like to know what their criteria is - I cannot tell if a person is legal by looking at them."


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Well crs, thanks for showing us the true vigilantes.


Why, are the Minutemen so ashamed of their activities that they wouldn't want others to know about it?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Nothing about Minute Men mentioned.


It's in the caption:

VOLUNTEER: Jim Ibbotson of Huntington Beach showed his support for the Minutemen protesting the Laguna center.

Edit: But missing it is understandable.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> No, I don't think so.
> 
> "Maybe they (protesters) know from some intuition which jornaleros (short-time workers) are legal, but my perception is they brand you by color. I would like to know what their criteria is - I cannot tell if a person is legal by looking at them."


You are just squirming so far afield here and also making me laugh so hard. Why? Okay, one guy you disagree with makes some serious accusations. You inherently KNOW he's lying. Now someone you agree with makes insinuations and you inherently KNOW they are telling the unadulerated truth. There is just no room for you to see this in a balanced light it seems.

crs, want the truth? Everyone from Dubya on down is to blame for this but the biggest part of the blame lays with the actual people doing the actual wrong doing. That would be first, the illegals and second, those that employ them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Why, are the Minutemen so ashamed of their activities that they wouldn't want others to know about it?


You ignore my point. As usual. Children should be left out of the fights of adults. Just my opinion but one I am pretty comfortable with.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Now someone you agree with makes insinuations and you inherently KNOW they are telling the unadulerated truth.


It seems logical that when Minutemen show up where day laborers gather and take pictures of day laborers, legal immigrants are being harassed along with the illegals and made to feel like they're doing something wrong. And they're being profiled based on skin color. I don't know about you, but if someone were systematically spying on me as I sought employment, I'd be pretty pissed and I would do anything I could to turn the tables on them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It seems logical that when Minutemen show up where day laborers gather and take pictures of day laborers, legal immigrants are being harassed along with the illegals and made to feel like they're doing something wrong. And they're being profiled based on skin color. I don't know about you, but if someone were systematically spying on me as I sought employment, I'd be pretty pissed and I would do anything I could to turn the tables on them.


So then what you are saying is that you endorse innocent children being harrassed by people that back illegal immigration and by illegal immigrants themselves? Wow, now we have it for all to see exactly what you stand for. I am not twisting this, not pushing the boundaries, you just spouted it out all by yourself.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> So then what you are saying is that you endorse innocent children being harrassed by people that back illegal immigration and by illegal immigrants themselves? Wow, now we have it for all to see exactly what you stand for. I am not twisting this, not pushing the boundaries, you just spouted it out all by yourself.


I didn't say that. Personally, I do not think it would be necessary to picket their children's schools, I think picketing their place of employment would be effective enough, or perhaps picketing the downtown with large photos of the Minutemen.

Anyway, children do not live in a bubble. You picket downtown and they will hear about it or see it.

Does your concern extend to the migrant workers' children whose camp was invaded by Minutemen in north San Diego County? Were they uninvolved as they hid in the bushes?

Come on, Waysie. You picked tomatos as a kid same as I did. Did you not work with migrant workers? I did, and I'm pretty sure they were here legally.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I didn't say that. Personally, I do not think it would be necessary to picket their children's schools, I think picketing their place of employment would be effective enough, or perhaps picketing the downtown with large photos of the Minutemen.
> 
> Anyway, children do not live in a bubble. You picket downtown and they will hear about it or see it.
> 
> ...


Nope crs-ie. You are not weasling out now. This developed over several posts where I made specific and clear points specifically saying to keep the kids out of things. Your reply was "do anything I could". No child should be dragged into the fight of adults and any adult that does this on purpose is morally deficient in my books, does not matter what side of what argument we're on. I also think illegals bringing childred through the desert with them are committing child abuse, but I am sure you will disagree with that too.

All the migrant workers I worked with as a kid in the fields were from Quebec.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Nope crs-ie. You are not weasling out now. This developed over several posts where I made specific and clear points specifically saying to keep the kids out of things. Your reply was "do anything I could". No child should be dragged into the fight of adults and any adult that does this on purpose is morally deficient in my books, does not matter what side of what argument we're on. I also think illegals bringing childred through the desert with them are committing child abuse, but I am sure you will disagree with that too.
> 
> All the migrant workers I worked with as a kid in the fields were from Quebec.


I said anything I could, not whatever they did. Stop twisting.

But again, did the Minutemen think of the children when they invaded that camp? I think not.

Anyway, you say just because Gilchrist called himself a vigilante doesn't mean he is one. Just because someone says he'll picket the schools of Minutemen's children doesn't mean they followed through on it. Of course, if you can find a news story that says the did, more power to you.

I think if the Minutemen are ashamed of what they do, and don't want coworkers and neighbors and family knowing about it, they shouldn't do it. Or, I don't know, wear a sheet over their head or something.

Most of the migrants I worked with were from Florida. They were poor but didn't need to be treated like criminals.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Personally, I do not think it would be necessary to picket their children's schools, I think picketing their place of employment would be effective enough, or perhaps picketing the downtown with large photos of the Minutemen.


Now you have me wondering. "Effective enough"? Effective enough for what exactly?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs, 

The conversation ceased to be productive a long time ago. Your latest allusion to the KKK is enough. 

Regards


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> I think if the Minutemen are ashamed of what they do, and don't want coworkers and neighbors and family knowing about it, they shouldn't do it. Or, I don't know, wear a sheet over their head or something.


That's a very unfair comment. Tell me how the KKK and the minutemen compare? And please don't tell me that that is not what you meant!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Now you have me wondering. "Effective enough"? Effective enough for what exactly?


It seems to me it would be a taste of their own medicine. The Minutemen want to intimidate people (some of them legal residents) from showing up where day laborers gather and shame employers into not hiring them. The Minutemen's opponents also want to use tactics of intimidation and shame. This certainly wouldn't be the most mature or nice tactic by either side, but it does seem to have a bit of justice to it, don't you think? Bully us and we'll bully you? Take our picture and we'll take yours? Hold us up to hate and ridicule and we'll make sure you are too? I love it.

The Minutemen probably wouldn't lose their jobs if their workplace were picketed. But people there might revise their opinion of their colleague, not eat lunch with him anymore, carpool, promote into management ...


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> That's a very unfair comment. Tell me how the KKK and the minutemen compare? And please don't tell me that that is not what you meant!


Well, I read one report of a Minuteman wearing a ski mask over his face, but I didn't think the source would be seen as credible.

Both seek to affect change through fear and intimidation, wouldn't you say? The severity differs, of course.

I need to stop now, I have things to do.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

crs said:


> I
> Oh, and this may interest those of you who donate money:


More heartwarming 'fiscal conservatism'. Interesting, if sad, article.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> Well, I read one report of a Minuteman wearing a ski mask over his face, but I didn't think the source would be seen as credible.
> 
> Both seek to affect change through fear and intimidation, wouldn't you say? The severity differs, of course.
> 
> I need to stop now, I have things to do.


The KKK did more than intimidate and yes severity matters as do tactics. People who picket and boycott look to intimidate as well but their means are legal. Lynchings, cross burnings and random beatings are completely different. There have been ZERO reports of minutemen lynching or physically abusing those attempting to cross legally.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Take our picture and we'll take yours? ...I love it.


Actually, it's more like "if you collect evidence of these people's employers violating the law, we'll intimidate your school-age children."

But, please, continue displaying your lack of prejudice and bias. It's very entertaining.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Lushington said:


> I suppose the thing that most offends those who are offended is that this clip presents graphic evidence that privileged students attending elite universities are often self-righteous and intolerant, and given to juvenile displays of political theater and pointless agitprop. However, this is a mere truism, and hardly qualifies as earth-shattering news. Further, as others have observed, it seems quite likely that in rather short order many of these lively Lions will become shareholders in America, Inc., and will then profess views sufficiently reactionary to meet with the approval of all right-thinking men and women, wherever they may be found. I shouldn't worry too much.


Good point, Lushington, but a sad one. I certainly hope those callow youth learn some good manners very soon; but, despite my disagreement with their position, it is a bit depressing to see idealism so easily squelched by membership in the Establishment.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*speech*

What I have learned from these postings is that because New York is noisy and competative, it is alright to shout down any speaker with whom you disagree. There is no such thing as a civilized forum. Humans can manipulate words to justify almost anything!
Bill


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> But, please, continue displaying your lack of prejudice and bias. It's very entertaining.


You seem to not understand something. I am permitted to have an opinion like anyone else. They do not surgically excise that part of us. I am permitted to be guided by my personal values, same as you. I am permitted to vote in elections, worship God (or not), and have an opinion on whether my neighbor's activities, while legal, are unsavory and unseemly and, in fact, un-American. It is sort of like a gynecologist being permitted to retain his sex drive, as long as it does not interfere with his work.

I work with conservatives and I have worked in places where they composed the majority of my colleagues, believe it or not. They respect me and I respect them. If one of them thought my personal beliefs got in the way, or vice versa, then I would be worried. I could not possibly care less what some anonymous person on a message board thinks, although my temper may take over when things get personal. You may be an expert on the subject matter, or you may be writing from the library of an insane asylum, I don't know. You strike me as being the kind of person who believes that it's OK to have an opinion as long as it agrees with yours. That's not how it works. I think your constant honking of "bias" puts you in the very same class as the people who drowned out your hero at Columbia University. There are message boards where everyone is of the same mind, this isn't one of them. I suggest you grow up.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

The discourse does get rather...coarse around here, doesn't it?

I'm tempted to shout, "Ayn Rand called and she wants her highlighter back!" But that probably wouldn't help.

Still, tempting.

But better spirits prevail.



crs said:


> You seem to not understand something. I am permitted to have an opinion like anyone else. They do not surgically excise that part of us. I am permitted to be guided by my personal values, same as you. I am permitted to vote in elections, worship God (or not), and have an opinion on whether my neighbor's activities, while legal, are unsavory and unseemly and, in fact, un-American. It is sort of like a gynecologist being permitted to retain his sex drive, as long as it does not interfere with his work.
> 
> I work with conservatives and I have worked in places where they composed the majority of my colleagues, believe it or not. They respect me and I respect them. If one of them thought my personal beliefs got in the way, or vice versa, then I would be worried. I could not possibly care less what some anonymous person on a message board thinks, although my temper may take over when things get personal. You may be an expert on the subject matter, or you may be writing from the library of an insane asylum, I don't know. You strike me as being the kind of person who believes that it's OK to have an opinion as long as it agrees with yours. That's not how it works. I think your constant honking of "bias" puts you in the very same class as the people who drowned out your hero at Columbia University. There are message boards where everyone is of the same mind, this isn't one of them. I suggest you grow up.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Yes, the First Amendment, by its own terms, only prohibits Congress from passing a law that infringes on the right to free speech. I've never understood why otherwise literate people would not only allow but actively endorse a government re-writing its own founding document to expand its own powers, disregarding the amendment process that is written into another portion of that very same document. What's even more odd is that these people often then assume an aire of pompous self-righteousness when anyone dare suggest this might be a problem.


Pomposity aside, the debate over the "Incorporation Doctrine" that has waxed and waned over the last 140 years has addressed the meaning and effect of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to the ratification of that amendment the matter had been considered settled after the Supreme Court's 1833 decision in _Barron v. Baltimore_. This provides conclusive proof, should anyone need it, that frequent amendment of the Constitution pursuant to Article V would increase the need for judicial construction - or "re-writing" in Federalist-speak - of that fascinating text.

If you object to "juridical cavemen" you are welcome to substitute "paleojurisprudes" in its place.

And if anyone is interested:


----------

