Speak Out in America and You WILL Pay for it!

[Strykervet]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/parkland-kyle-kashuv-harvard.html

Fuck forbid he use his 1A Rights to talk about his 2A Rights in this ever spiraling wannabe 3rd world shithole.

It's about time we divide this place up, it's just not working. Some of us depend on a working BOR, some of us will trade it away for a McDonald's coupon, especially if it's a "limited edition". I don't see us coming to terms or meeting halfway or whatever the fuck you wanna call it, they have a complete and fundamentally different concept of government, it's powers and it's obligations.

Not to mention they feel the BOR protects the government and coprorations from the people whereas the rest of us feel the BOR protects the people from the government (which is the only goddamn logical reason it was written, but whatever). We wanna get away from begging for permission for every damn detail of life, they want to fill out more forms and pay for permission. They want social justice, political correctness and trial by propagandist media. Fine. Let's just recognize differences and get a divorce. I had to get one when my wife walked out on Christmas just over a year ago. Let's just walk the fuck out., and start over with just the BOR and a few new constraints on government, and let them keep on keepin' on.

What's the worst that can happen, some pedophiles and criminals will call us names and say no? Because I'm pretty sure the social justice types and illegals all want the same thing. It's only a handful of greedbag megalomaniacs that benefit from the current divide.

 

[fdkay]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/parkland-kyle-kashuv-harvard.html

Fuck forbid he use his 1A Rights to talk about his 2A Rights in this ever spiraling wannabe 3rd world shithole.

It's about time we divide this place up, it's just not working. Some of us depend on a working BOR, some of us will trade it away for a McDonald's coupon, especially if it's a "limited edition". I don't see us coming to terms or meeting halfway or whatever the fuck you wanna call it, they have a complete and fundamentally different concept of government, it's powers and it's obligations.

Not to mention they feel the BOR protects the government and coprorations from the people whereas the rest of us feel the BOR protects the people from the government (which is the only goddamn logical reason it was written, but whatever). We wanna get away from begging for permission for every damn detail of life, they want to fill out more forms and pay for permission. They want social justice, political correctness and trial by propagandist media. Fine. Let's just recognize differences and get a divorce. I had to get one when my wife walked out on Christmas just over a year ago. Let's just walk the fuck out., and start over with just the BOR and a few new constraints on government, and let them keep on keepin' on.

What's the worst that can happen, some pedophiles and criminals will call us names and say no? Because I'm pretty sure the social justice types and illegals all want the same thing. It's only a handful of greedbag megalomaniacs that benefit from the current divide.

While I'm sure that his pro-2nd amendment stance had something to do with it, what got him in trouble was racist shit he posted 2 years ago, which he admits that he posted.

 

[diverdon]

Not to worry, another leftist indoc center will make room for him.

 

[SilentStalkr]

While I'm sure that his pro-2nd amendment stance had something to do with it, what got him in trouble was racist shit he posted 2 years ago, which he admits that he posted.

View attachment 7096742

While I’m against racist comments, it is his 1A rights to be able to make whatever comments he wants. And of course in this case, he paid the price. The problem I see is, why does Harvard get to refuse this dude enrollment when a cake shop doesn’t have the right to turn away biz that it doesn’t religiously agree with? Where do you draw the line? Seems to me if Harvard can refuse this dude based on racist comments then a cake baker should be able to refuse or serve whoever they want.

 

[fdkay]

While I’m against racist comments, it is his 1A rights to be able to make whatever comments he wants.

That is true, and it is within the colleges rights to say they don't want him there.

 

[SilentStalkr]

That is true, and it is within the colleges rights to say they don't want him there.

Nice selectivity of my post. Do you work for the media? Did you read the rest of my comment? How do you make the case that it is within one parties right to deny and yet not another’s?

 

[fdkay]

Nice selectivity of my post. Do you work for the media? Did you read the rest of my comment? How do you make the case that it is within one parties right to deny and yet not another’s?

The question at hand is his admission or rejection from Harvard.
I only stated facts. He can say what he wants to. They can revoke his admission. Both are facts.
Do you have a problem with facts?

 

[SilentStalkr]

The question at hand is his admission or rejection from Harvard.
I only stated facts. He can say what he wants to. They can revoke his admission. Both are facts.
Do you have a problem with facts?

I have a problem with how things are selectively applied. You can’t do for one and not another or allow one entity to do so while the other gets taken to court and sued/castrated for refusing service of someone themselves. I’m pretty confident a half ass decent lawyer could get this dude some money.

 

[hlee]

In the same way that you can be banned from this site for any reason, your application to a private college can be denied for any reason. Post a bunch of toxic shit about the mil or police and you will get the boot from SH. Frank's house, Frank's rules. Post a bunch of shit that a college doesn't like and don't expect to be invited to attend. Neither SH nor Harvard are government entities. Neither decision violates the first amendment- which begins, "CONGRESS shall make no law..."

Should a bakery be forced to make a cake against their religious beliefs? No, and the SC has twice sent decisions back to lower courts for additional scrutiny. One is likely headed back to the SC. Should a college be forced to admit a student with public opinions not in line with their own? I think that an institution of higher learning should not need force to bring in countering opinions, but should not be forced to by law- for the same reasoning that says the baker shouldn't be forced to bake that cake.

 

[Fig]

Would have been nice if he had stayed off social media. My kid will not be posting or I’ll tan his ass.

 

[thejeep]

Who cares. He got 1550 on the sat. Surely he will find somewhere better than Harvard.

 

[Steel+Killer]

Shit they did him a favor in ten years from now he will be thanking them, Pretty sure all he would have gotten was a bunch of left leaning socialist shit crammed down his throat every second of every class.

 

[acudaowner]

I never did get the whole thing about worrying about what people you will never meet think , I do understand not getting too foul mouthed and typing any old thing that comes to mind (cursing too much ) it never really supports any thought well . I would never give out my email to employers its not there business what i think after work or which group or groups I visit . if they have to know it's not a place i would choose to work .

 

[SilentStalkr]

In the same way that you can be banned from this site for any reason, your application to a private college can be denied for any reason. Post a bunch of toxic shit about the mil or police and you will get the boot from SH. Frank's house, Frank's rules. Post a bunch of shit that a college doesn't like and don't expect to be invited to attend. Neither SH nor Harvard are government entities. Neither decision violates the first amendment- which begins, "CONGRESS shall make no law..."

Should a bakery be forced to make a cake against their religious beliefs? No, and the SC has twice sent decisions back to lower courts for additional scrutiny. One is likely headed back to the SC. Should a college be forced to admit a student with public opinions not in line with their own? I think that an institution of higher learning should not need force to bring in countering opinions, but should not be forced to by law- for the same reasoning that says the baker shouldn't be forced to bake that cake.

Well stated. I think most of us here agree. I stated earlier that he went public with some thoughts, exercising his rights and the institution answered him in kind by turning him down. That was not my concern as both were well within their rights to take the actions that they did. My issue is selective application of things against certain groups. If Harvard can turn this guy down for these reasons then the famous cake baker should have been equally within his rights to not be forced to service someone that doesn’t agree with his religious beliefs. Both are private entities.

It seems like even if decisions are bounced back, it’s often times after certain groups, like the Christian cake baker seem to be ran out of business, able to go back in business and bankrupted several times for the same issue whereas others seem to get a pass. This shouldn’t be near as convoluted as it has become. I believe certain groups are exploiting the system, so to speak.

In short, I have an issue with unequal interpretation and application of law, as in this case.

 

[hlee]

How fricken hard can it be to find a baker that caters to the LGBQTXYZ crowd? Has anyone else flipped through one of those baking comps on Food Network? Seems like you would need to go out of your way to find one that doesn't. I have no doubt that there is an element in society actively using existing non descrimination laws to attack those that they do not agree with. Unfortunately, those attacked need to show that the perceived act of discrimination was constitutionally protected free speech or religious belief- and that the law infringes on that right. This is lengthy and expensive.

The moral in this is to keep your kids off of social media. Something told to me a long time ago applies. "Keep your head AND YOUR ASS down..."

 

[SilentStalkr]

How fricken hard can it be to find a baker that caters to the LGBQTXYZ crowd? Has anyone else flipped through one of those baking comps on Food Network? Seems like you would need to go out of your way to find one that doesn't. I have no doubt that there is an element in society actively using existing non descrimination laws to attack those that they do not agree with. Unfortunately, those attacked need to show that the perceived act of discrimination was constitutionally protected free speech or religious belief- and that the law infringes on that right. This is lengthy and expensive.

The moral in this is to keep your kids off of social media. Something told to me a long time ago applies. "Keep your head AND YOUR ASS down..."

Exactly!

 

[Unknown]

While we have a great bill of rights in theory, there are problems with it's current application, or acceptance by the courts and liberals. While liberals would fight tooth and nail over any intrusion against the 1st amendment, they accept or even encourage intrusions against the 2nd amendment at every turn. Religion isn't going to be too far behind the 2nd amendment...

Some factions of our society want acceptance of homosexuality and Islam without investigating far enough to realize that Islam is adamantly opposed to homosexuality.

While I like the idea that Harvard is holding youths accountable for things they posted while they were younger and trying to be "edgy", there is a problem with that.

What usually happens is that as long as the group in power holds the majority view, they think all is fine. When the winds of change occur, their decisions become "incorrect" and they will then howl and bitch about how those decisions shouldn't be made. Hence the problem with censorship. What is censored today, may be popular in the future...and the reverse can happen...

As long as I make the decisions, I think the world is great...shift that power, and I don't think the world is so swell.

 

[Unknown]

The Havard decision reminds me of a previous discussion about implementing qualifications for voting. At first blush, requiring some qualifications to vote sounds like a great idea, things like ethics, knowledge of how government works, etc all sound great.. While my buddies and I are in power, we will think our voting qualifications are intelligent, common sense qualifications. However, someone with opposite views from ours also thinks their voting qualifications are intelligent, common sense ones, and that my views are simply idiocy or fascistic.

Therein lies the problem..whoever is in power thinks they have the answers and that anyone who disagrees with them is unintelligent, and needs to be re-educated until they can come to the "right" decisions and thoughts.

I haven't yet figured out a solution to this dilemma...of course I think I'm right but so does the other side.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

The BOR is about what the government may and mayn't do, not private entities like colleges; no matter how much we might desire otherwise.

Civil law is the only recourse in such actions.

Sorry...

Greg