Meet the Greasy White Spineless Underbelly of America; the Racist, Pro-Gun, Tea Party Movement Goes to Washington…Almost

There is little more that needs to be said about the anti-“We, the people” pro-gun movement. It it all summed up in this video of Alabama Militia Leader Mike Vanderboegh. For the most part, the fanatic pro-gun crowd are cowards. Thats why they are so scared and that’s why almost no one showed up despite the free advertising provided courtesy of Fox News Scum.

Thanks to The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence for the video.

Signs reading “Which part of ‘shall not be infringed’ confuses you?” and bright orange stickers saying “Guns save lives” dotted the crowd at the Washington Monument. Across the Potomac River in Alexandria, former Alabama Minutemen leader Mike Vanderboegh told the crowd armed confrontation should be reserved only for instances of the government threatening people’s lives.

However, he said it might be justified if people face arrest for refusing to buy insurance under the health care reform package recently passed by Congress.

“If I know I’m not going to get a fair trial in federal court … I at least have the right to an unfair gunfight,” Vanderboegh said. Source

For those of you too young to remember, this is the nothing more than a newly branded Klu Klux Klan.

Where is Alan (Coward) Korwin?

,

  1. #1 by glenn on April 20, 2010 - 7:09 am

    That is funny, as in Portland the other day a school teacher who created a site to incite people to be agent provocateurs at Tea Party gatherings was described by a local black civil rights leader (NAACP) described Levine and the like minded and their activities as having all the hallmarks…

    …of the Ku Klux Klan. Good job Cliff, you on their page. Funny.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/tea-party-crasher-gets-heat-from-civil-rights-leader/

  2. #2 by rmwarnick on April 20, 2010 - 7:41 am

    What part of “well-regulated militia” do they not understand? Including the right-wing Supreme Court justices.

    Meanwhile, TPM reports a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina included calls for an armed assault on Washington.

    Pastor Stan Craig, of the Choice Hills Baptist Church, was particularly angry about the state of Washington, saying he “was trained to defend the liberties of this nation.” He declared that he was prepared to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.”

    Dan Gonzales, who Chairs the Constitution Party in Florida, asserted that “this is the end of America right here,” and if the Tea Partiers “don’t get to work we’re going to be fighting in the streets.”

  3. #3 by glenn on April 20, 2010 - 8:06 am

    As a matter of context anyone who had fought in the Revolution would just laugh at you rmwarnick.

    The country was founded by men and their private arms. It was a damn requirement of the New England militias, that EVERY man have his own personal weapon. That is the source of the well regulated militia, a private force of individuals that had their OWN weapons.

    The truth of this and the history is irrefutable, except by those with an agenda.

  4. #4 by James Farmer on April 20, 2010 - 10:26 am

    glenn:

    Then I guess you will not mind the government forcing you to own health insurance now, will you?

  5. #5 by Weer'd Beard on April 20, 2010 - 11:14 am

    I’m certainly fine with the government allowing people to own as much or as little health insurance as they want.

    Just like I support your right to own as many or as little guns, and of whatever types you so desire.

  6. #6 by rmwarnick on April 20, 2010 - 12:00 pm

    Seems to me there is a difference between owning private firearms, and threatening the violent overthrow of the government.

    Whether or not you call yourself a militiaman.

  7. #7 by glenn on April 20, 2010 - 1:06 pm

    Are you kidding James? It likely shall not stand in its current form, or at least not as long as it takes for the disaster to take hold. After the payees see their taxes and premiums rise there will be political trouble for any who have supported it. 2010. Though in large, if you want to pay for my health care, I am more than happy to allow you to obligate yourself.

    rmwarnick, spoken like a tory, you would have fit in well after the revolution, in Canada. The requirement of private gun ownership is to defend the Constitution and the Republic from all enemies foreign and domestic up to and including a government and its officers who violate that Oath of Sacred Honor.

    You were in the military rmwarnick and swore that Oath, and the commitment does not end with the end of service. Kinda for life thing really.

  8. #8 by cav on April 20, 2010 - 1:56 pm

    The only way you’re going to get everyone to have their own private weapons is for the government to mandate it – then subsidize the purchase thereof. And yet, when everyone has them – even those who’d prefer nukes or nadda, the playing field will still won’t be level, but that is not the point. The point is: Just like in the health care rewrite, mandating participation, then providing subsidies for the purchase of insurance by those economically ill-equipped, broadens the pool, (making any one dollar go much further), while stablizing costs and evening out the class differences. All the while making it less likely the underprotected sector (individuals) will be run over by the machinations of greedy corporatists. Or something.

  9. #9 by cav on April 20, 2010 - 7:29 pm

    The Tea Baggers anger has everything to do with race and nothing to do with their own economic self interest in any way. Obama has been very corporate middle of the road, yet the Tea Baggers SCREAM about “socialism”!

    Wingers have disseminated a new meaning to the concept of socialism.

    Newt in New Orleans April 8th:

    “I think this is truly a historic turning point for America. I think we have every reason to be optimistic and to believe that the American people overwhelmingly prefer to have a return to a classic America of opportunity and courage and belief rather than a secular socialist machine that tries to define for all of us what we’re allowed to be.”

    Marketing: It’s a science.

  10. #10 by brewski on April 20, 2010 - 9:55 pm

    Richard,
    The part of “well regulated militia” they don’t understand is the same part of “public use”, “equal protection”, “interstate commerce”, “free exercise thereof”, not “abridging the freedom of speech” , and “powers not delegated” that they don’t understand.

  11. #11 by Richard Warnick on April 21, 2010 - 5:50 am

    brewski–

    I know I’ve asked this before, but nobody seems to be able to explain where all these great constitutional experts were from 2001 to 2009.

  12. #12 by cav on April 21, 2010 - 7:22 am

    Cheney’s ‘shadow’ Guantanamo?

  13. #13 by brewski on April 21, 2010 - 7:56 am

    I can tell you I became a great constitutional expert in 1982. That was when I, a flaming liberal, was in college and I learned that the school had a “speech code” which banned students from saying anything that might offend someone else. I thought to myself, “gee, if the Supreme Court could allow the Illinois Nazis to March in Skokie, then why can’t a college student say what he wants to, offensive or not?” I even went to a seminar conducted by the university adminsitration. The university lawyers were there and explained to us that “the constitution doesn’t go far enough” and that they had a “responsibility to make sure everyone feels welcome”. Whatever that means. It was then that I was instructed on the intellectual weakness of the left. They made no effort to understand or follow the law, or even change the law if they disagreed with it. They just used their own tyranny of being the bureaucracy to do what they wanted to do. This is exactly what the constitution was designed to avoid. That is why it is worded in the negative “Congress shall make no law….”

    It took a hell of a long time, decades in fact, for college speech codes to be thrown out. My favorite decision was when the UC Riverside adminstrators were ordered by the judge to attend courses on the first amendment. Justice came, eventually.

    Unfortunately, we are still waiting for some members of the Supreme Court to read the constitution. As you know, in the Kelo case, the liberal judges ruled that it is ok for a City to use eminment domain to seize people’s homes to make room for a private development. Hardly “public use”. Not like a school or road.

    In the Ricci case the majority (the right wingers as you called them) barely ruled that it was in fact not ok to throw out the results of firefighters promotion exams for the sole reason that the darker skinned applicants didn’t do so well. It it appalling that Ginsberg et al. somehow haven’t read the constitution on this topic and have such litle regard for the rights of individuals for “equal protection”.

    Similarly, state sponsored discrimination in the form of AA persists after the

    Michigan Law School

    and other cases.

    By the way, your dates are funny. 2001-2009? Why not say 2001 – present. Nothing has changed since 2009.

  14. #14 by Cliff Lyon on April 21, 2010 - 8:11 am

    Brewski, That was the most pitiful explanation of why you became a Republican. Because you college administrators were trying to limit hate speech on Campus?

    Corporations restrict speech by policy all the time, so do private Bible colleges and schools like BYU. So why then wouldn’t eschew conservatism?

  15. #15 by brewski on April 21, 2010 - 8:57 am

    That was not an explanation as to why I became a Republican. In fact, I did not start voting Republican then. I voted for Mondale in 1984. It was an example of the intellectual weakness of the left.

    My reasons for not liking Reagan at the time, as I have explained here before, also relate to his disrespect for the constititional rights of UC students.
    http://www.beauty-reality.com/travel/travel/sanFran/sfimages/gas.jpg

    I actually like Gerry Brown. I have met him a couple of times and would prefer him over some other candidates of both parties.

    Another good example (or “pitiful” to use Cliff’s term) of the intellectual weakness of the left is Cliff’s post #13. He is clearly intellectually too weak to understand the difference between the State of California, The University of California system, and private schools like BYU, private Bible colleges, and private corporations.

    The constitution says the government cannot restrict free speech. It says nothing about private companies or private institutions have their own internal policies. I suggest you read it, apparently for the first time.

  16. #16 by Uncle Rico on April 21, 2010 - 9:51 am

    So brew, I’d be interested then to hear your thoughts on the University of Wyoming’s refusal to allow William Ayers to speak on campus.

  17. #17 by brewski on April 21, 2010 - 10:17 am

    Rico,
    I know you are trying to catch me being a hypocrite. First of all, I am not stupid, and second of all I am not a hypocrite, unlike most liberals.
    Yes, of course Ayers should be allowed to speak at the U of Wy if he wants to. That is why they call it free speech. It isn’t that complicated.
    But apparently it is too complicated for some on the left to understand.
    http://www.nysun.com/new-york/at-columbia-students-attack-minuteman-founder/41020/

    The point is, that protecting free speech only matters when the speech is objectionable. If it isn’t objectionable then there is no effort to ban it. It is when you don’t like it, you don’t like the speaker, and you disagree with everything he/she says and stands for is when the principle really matters. So yes, Ayers is a murderer who got off due to prosecutorial misconduct. That is his construtional right too, by the way.

    Cliff’s defense of banning free speech is disgusting.

  18. #18 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 21, 2010 - 1:13 pm

    Brewski–

    “Congress shall make no law. . .abridging the freedom of speech.”
    U.S. Constitution, Amendment I

    Maybe you should read the Constitution, along with the judge who declared your favorite decisions. No one is forcing these students to go to UC, are they? And the administrators at UC aren’t exactly Congress, are they?

    So you’re going to have to expand your interpretation of the 1st Amendment a bit in order to apply it to the UC system, aren’t you?

    So you know, I’m on your side on this. I don’t think colleges should ban free speech, although some speech should be considered an expellable offense (someone has to kick Glenn out of school if he ever tries to go).

    But don’t even dare try to say that conservatives allow free speech while liberals don’t. You know better than that, and this is just one more example that shows that you’re one of the fashionable “Independents”–a Republican who won’t admit it. Ever hear of book bans? Censorship of the airwaves? “I object, I object, I object”? Outlawing the word “democracy” in our schools? Intellectual weakness all around, and you are not immune to that social pathogen any more than any of us. You just stick to one side constantly while denying any responsibility for their intellectual weakness. Congratulations. You’re intellectually weak and intellectually dishonest.

    Richard–

    It’s reasonable that the people would believe in protecting themselves from a violent or intrusive government. Outdated as it may be, our country has a history of that. It’s also reasonable, however, to expect them to be responsible gun owners and to support their government up to the point of violent intrusion. These blowhards getting up and trying to drum up support for a violent revolution need to get a clue. The government isn’t Great Britain and their rights are still far more intact than the Founding Fathers’.

    The part of the 2nd Amendment that people seem to miss is a couple of conjoined words: “well-regulated.” Ok, so is a “well-regulated militia” closer to a collection of gun-toting yokels, or to a well-trained volunteer civilian force? I wonder how many of these “well-regulated militia” members have thought about why we have a national guard.

    So I don’t think it’s right to outlaw gun ownership, but I don’t think it’s wrong to restrict it.

  19. #19 by James Farmer on April 21, 2010 - 1:25 pm

    brew:

    You state:

    He is clearly intellectually too weak to understand the difference between the State of California, The University of California system, and private schools like BYU, private Bible colleges, and private corporations.

    Does that mean you are likewise too intellectually weak to understand the difference between the U of Wyoming and Columbia U? Or are you, in fact, a hypocrite? Take you pick; either way, you lose!

  20. #20 by brewski on April 21, 2010 - 1:45 pm

    Anon,
    I do not defend book banning or the limiting of free speech by the left of the right. You are holding me accountable for the actions of people who are not me and whose actions I have not defended. In fact, just above, I defended Ayers right to speak at the U of Wy. Also, the left has done their share of book banning. So I am being entirely intellectually honest and consistent.

    Also, you scare me when you say “although some speech should be considered an expellable offense”. This is the problem. Who is going to decide what some speech is expellable? Should we set up a kangaroo court of speech police to expell anyone who wears a Dead Kennedys concert t-shirt to class since it is offensive to some? Oh wait, we already tried that and it turns out it doesn’t work.

    Then you undermine your credibility with some questions which show you don’t know much about the constitution and how it applies to the state, cities and public universities.

    See Doe v. The University of Michigan and UWM Post v. Board of Regents and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.

  21. #21 by brewski on April 21, 2010 - 2:01 pm

    James,
    Columbia was not obliged to allow the Minuteman speaker to speak. I am not a hypocrite on this. However, once they invited him he was there and entitled to speak. There was no ban.

    However, the lefty students in the audience took it upon themsleves to rush the stage and physically attack the speaker. Makes the Tea Party-ers look downright civilized.

    Nice try. You lose.

    P.S. Don’t claim victory when you have lost. It just isn’t cricket.

  22. #22 by James Farmer on April 21, 2010 - 2:19 pm

    Brew:

    Sorry, but I thought you just might be intelligent enough to recognize the difference between Columbia and the U of Wyoming.

    I guess I was wrong; but no worries, your intellectual weakness will certainly make you a great teabagger.

  23. #23 by brewski on April 21, 2010 - 2:34 pm

    Sorry, I thought that you could recognize the difference between not inviting a speaker and rushing the stage and physically attacking a speaker.

    I guess I was wrong; but no worries, your intellectual weakness will certainly make you a great National Socialist.

  24. #24 by Uncle Rico on April 21, 2010 - 2:38 pm

    brewski :Rico,I know you are trying to catch me being a hypocrite. First of all, I am not stupid, and second of all I am not a hypocrite, unlike most liberals.

    brew- we really must discuss your creeping paranoia one of these days. I’m starting to get concerned about you.

    The point of my question was not to trick you or to paint you as a hypocrite. The point was to try to understand the curious thought process that on the one hand, would cause a self-described “flaming liberal” to convert on the spot to whatever political ideology it is that you presently subscribe to because of the “intellectual weakness” of statements made by your college’s lawyers regarding speech codes, yet on the other hand cause nothing more than a luke warm “I disagree” from you when that same “intellectual weakness” is demonstrated by the other end of the politcal spectrum. I suspect I know the answer and you know the answer, but you just can’t bring yourself to say it.

    In terms of your response to Anon (DSA), you can’t have it both ways. You can’t paint the “left” with a broad brush like you constantly do, and then disclaim responsibility for the conduct of the “right” when someone does the same to you. What is so special about you that you, and you alone, get to hold me, for example, accountable for the conduct of the “left” but then brush off comments/questions about the right with claims of independence and individuality?

    And for whatever its worth (and this will be scary to you, but don’t be frightened), I’m with you and DSA on this. When it comes to speech, it should be wide open baby!

    -Rico

  25. #25 by brewski on April 21, 2010 - 3:52 pm

    It wasn’t on the spot, it took four years. After all, I still voted for Mondale 2 years after I figured out the lefties were a bunch of hypocrites.

    It wasn’t just the speech code. It was the minority scholarships and AA for rich Latinos who were blonde, blue-eyed and grew up with servants. It was watching my dirt poor white girlfriend from Chula Vista work three jobs and get bugger-all help. Then it was the education about distortions and subsidies and protections which result in misallocations of resources and asset bubbles, which we are all paying for dearly now. My professors were prophetic.

    Yeah, there are a lot of people who call themselves conservatives I don’t agree with much either. Some of them are racists. Most of them not. There are a lot of liberal racists too, just in a different form. Sort of the “Looks Who’s Coming to Dinner” kind. Or the “I support the idea of public schools, but I send my kid to private school to stay away from the riff raff” kind.

    Watching the Tea Party-ers is interesting. There are a lot of diffent motivations among them. It is too easy to dismiss all of them as stupid white people. A few are. The whole movement wouldn’t exist if Congress hadn’t come up with a health care bill which was one giant corporate giveway that only 38% of the public supported, and then passed it in the most corrupt way possible. Watching that process and that result offended anyone who ever had 9th grade civics. These are people who love their country and wish they had a government that lived up to its ideals. As has been noted, if you peel back the rhetoric, their sentiments are very mainstream.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304252704575155942054483252.html

    What is more interesting is watching the reaction to the Tea Party-ers than the Tea Party-ers themselves. The reaction is nakedly classist and elitist and reveals a pretty ugly personality among the left. Comment on their substance all you want. But calling them poor white-trash should be beneath the left. At least I would hope so.

  26. #26 by james farmer on April 21, 2010 - 4:23 pm

    brew:

    What a hypocritical bunch of gobbledygook, served up with a dose of wild-eyed and bitter insecurity!

    The fact your dirt-poor girlfriend has to work three jobs is the free market economy at work, correct? Isn’t that the same free-market economy espoused by your beloved repugs? Maybe she needs a fourth job – then she will only be poor, and not dirt poor. Either way, this is repug idealism at work.

    Precisely what minority scholarships do you refer? The same question re education about distortions and subsidies. You come across as really bitter and racist here; indeed, what is your beef toward rich blond Latinos. Don’t just blow smoke, be specific, especially as you continually criticize others for allegedly failing in that regard.

    What offends you about the health care process? It was perfectly legal, so what’s your bitch? How does the process offend those with a 9th grade education? What government ideals do you refer? Again, you might provide a specific or two, just for kicks.

    Bottom line, your comment is nothing but a series of overreaching sound bites designed to appeal to the stupid and susceptible. You are everything you accuse others of being. Congratulations!!

  27. #27 by brewski on April 21, 2010 - 7:35 pm

    James,
    So in your world, the children of the Chairman of Citigroup should get given free education and the children of unskilled laborers should get squat.
    Thank you for the lesson in lefty ethics.
    Point proven.

  28. #28 by James Farmer on April 21, 2010 - 8:20 pm

    brew:

    Again, where is your evidence?

  29. #29 by John on April 21, 2010 - 8:23 pm

    Seems that James is more the person interested in race and class than Brewski.

    Just my 2 cents. If we are keeping score, this is not really a sporting game.

    James seems like he absolutely needs some affirmative action to lift him up intellectually.

  30. #30 by James Farmer on April 21, 2010 - 8:29 pm

    john:

    Actually, quite the opposite, but thanks for your contribution just the same – all 2 cents worth.

  31. #31 by brewski on April 21, 2010 - 8:32 pm

    James,
    I will not bother giving you evidence since when I have before and you didn’t read it. In fact we know that you don’t even read the links you provided, since if you did you would have realized that you were proving my point and not yours. So, based on the evidence, I am not sure you can read.

  32. #32 by James Farmer on April 21, 2010 - 8:51 pm

    Very well, brew. Again, your failure to provide even a modicum of evidence to support your wild assertions suggests you will make a very fine teabagger – all volume and no substance!

  33. #33 by brewski on April 22, 2010 - 9:53 am

    Jimbo,
    I did in the past, you didn’t read them, so why should I waste my time?

  34. #34 by james farmer on April 22, 2010 - 10:50 am

    brew:

    You won’t “waste” your time because you possess no such evidence. Your assertions are ridiculous; but, if there is any truth to them at all, such occurrences are extremely confined and far from widespread. At any rate, let’s start with your assertion re the Chairman of Citigroup. Back that statement up with evidence and, further, explain how the occurrence is so widespread that we should be concerned one way or another.

  35. #35 by brewski on April 22, 2010 - 1:39 pm

    James,
    Under your principles, the children of the Chairman of Citigroup and the CEO of Xerox, automatically, by law, are entitled to preferential treatment in admissions, employment and government contracting. In addition, their children are entitled to money for college which a poor ditch-digger’s child is not. This is a matter of emerical fact and not opinion.

    These are the laws you support and you defend and Glenden has refused to defend since he knows they are indefensible.

  36. #36 by james farmer on April 22, 2010 - 2:31 pm

    brew:

    Yet again, you supply no factual basis for your incredulous assertions. Empirical fact, you say? Prove it!

  37. #37 by brewski on April 22, 2010 - 11:13 pm

    It doesn’t need to be proven. Why don’t you ask me to prove it to you than 1+1=2 ?

    Besides, I proved that the combined health care bills increased the deficit and you just covered your ears and screamed “NANANANANANA”. So what is the point of proving anything to you if you are incapable of reading, incapable of analayzing and incapable of considering anything that is not already branded into your preconceived notions?

    This coming from the man who considers other wind farms which have already been formally rejected as being suitable alternatives.

  38. #38 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 23, 2010 - 8:43 am

    Brewski–

    You harp on Glenden for his elitist private school attendance (and supposed desire to disallow poor kids from getting the same benefits he got), yet you are willing to exempt private colleges from the obligation to protect freedom of speech? I never could have imagined you were such an elitist, Brew.

    Yeah, there are a lot of liberals I disagree with, too, and they all disagree somewhat with each other, yet that doesn’t stop you from assuming that every liberal who ever lived was a die-hard fan of campus speech codes and abortion and private schools for the rich and public schools for the poor, etc. etc. etc. So allow us the same liberty to assume that you’re just like every other Republican who says the things you say.

    Just look at your own words. You can’t criticize the right without saying that the left does it, too. You can certainly criticize the left exclusively, though. It’s this one-sidedness masked in equanimity that makes your anti-liberal arguments so clownish. It seems that, to you, liberals are a huge body of like-minded robots, while conservatives are generally small clumps of free thinkers, while you—you are the only person in the world who is truly free of any influence whatsoever, and therefore free of any of the group blame that you cast left and right (mostlyalmost exclusively left) all of the time.

    In the immortal words of Jon Stossel: give me a break.

    So I don’t disagree with your position on speech codes, but you clearly have to recognize that the courts have upheld numerous times that inciteful speech and the equivalent of shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater are not protected speech–hence my earlier statement that some speech is expellable. I just disagree with your hubristic self-sold individualism and the pretension of your transparently vapid claims of non-partisanship.

    As for your case law madness, which I have before denounced due to its inherent appeal to the supposed infallibility of the court system and your tendency to cherry-pick to support your claims, consider that almost all of the case laws regarding speech codes have found against the speech code not because of the illegality of having speech codes of any kind, but because of the vagueness and real abuses of the specific speech codes in question. The court, contrarily, has found that, among other forms of free speech, so-called “fighting words” may be reasonably prohibited and punished by state and local governments with respect to specific limitations, which governments, by your interpretation, would include appointed school and university boards.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  39. #39 by James Farmer on April 23, 2010 - 9:06 am

    brew:

    As I suspected (and if I may condense Dwight’s comment above to its essence), you are a gas bag devoid of substance whose MO is merely to repeat soundbites heard from talk radio. The fact that you refuse, repeatedly, to provide evidence for even one of your above wild-eyed assertions is most telling. My, oh my, just what will you do for the rest of this am, waiting for Hannity to air this afternoon? You epitomize the phrase “uninformed teabagger”!

  40. #40 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 23, 2010 - 10:56 am

    Actually, Brewski is quite intelligent and insightful. He just has a tendency to be outrageously one-sided, especially for the persona he projects. I would hardly call him an “uninformed teabagger.”

  41. #41 by brewski on April 23, 2010 - 5:45 pm

    DSA,

    Yes, I accept and agree with the limits that the Supreme Court has made on free speech. Fighting words, inciting riot and libel are all limits that no one disagrees with. But after that I have no confidence that a group of college administrators, or worse, a group of college student politicians can limit free speech with any compliance to the letter or spirit of the constitution. One only needs to look at the case history of when this has been tried to see the path of constitutional destruction that these do-gooders laid in their path.

    One non-native-English speaking student at the University of Pennsylvania was threatened with expulsion for calling other students “water buffalo” after they were loud and boisterous and interrupted his studying. At UC Riverside students were punished for putting up posters advertising an author who was speaking on campus whose book was titled “American Plantation”. At UCLA a fraternity was suspended for holding an off-campus Cinco de Mayo party (although the MECHa Cinco de Mayo party was considered just fine). At Harvard University a student was threatened with discipline for having a Confederate flag inside her dorm room.

    I don’t think any of these cases remotely are in the same universe as fighting words. Were some others offended? Sure. But grow up. If being offensive was grounds for being censored then OneUtah wouldn’t exist.

    That is the whole point. The point is not can we craft rules to make sure no one is offended, but not infringe on our constitutional right to free speech, including offensive speech. The point is that it is impossible, so don’t even try, don’t go there, don’t even think about it.

    As for my apparent lack of consistency for riding Glenden for his taking the position that school choice is only for rich people but defending a private college or business for having its own speech rules, I don’t see any conflict between the two. I am quite comfortable in the position that we all have the right to a taxpayer funded education which could be provided by a state run school or in a private school. Just as we fund the U of U and Pell grants for students to attend Grinnell.

    I am also comfortable that if you go to work at IBM and you are on their private property and they pay you a paycheck to be their employee, and if you have a blog called “IBM Sucks” that they have no obligation to pay you anymore. You have all the right in the world to have a blog called “IBM sucks”, but they don’t have an obligation to keep you employed. Free speech does not mean speech with no consequences.

    As for private universities, I personally disapprove of them limiting free speech. And most of the time when they do so they merely harm their own prestige. The BYU professor who was fired for speaking against the LDS’s leadership’s position on gay marriage comes to mind. It just made the LDS church look petty and intolerant. More importantly, it made BYU look not like a real university. It made it look like a giant exercise in group-think where students would not be exposed to new ideas and be challenged and forced to think. But we already knew that. This just confirmed it. Nevertheless, BYU has the right to be stupid and allow or not allow its employees or students to abide by their rules, as lame as they may be.

  42. #42 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2010 - 12:56 am

    brewski:

    You have made some good points here and it’s been a great discussion due to your strong views. I’ve told you somewhere before on this blog to read David Brock’s book, “Blinded By The Right”, because his college experiences with speech suppression by liberals, almost, exactly coincide with yours, and in the same time period too.

    He became so livid at the situation that he became a darling of people who would normally slit his throat for being gay, and VERY arguably got Clarence Thomas elected to the Supreme Court by lying in his writings about Anita Hill.

    If you can read his book and not be shaken by the abuses of people of extreme power on the right and their ability to escape any accountability over decades, I can only salute your ability to distill your anger against one side only.

    A tiny fraction of powerful people on the right are a MUCH bigger threat then any thousand people on the left. Tyranny is not going to come from the left anytime soon.

    Pleases read the book and get to personally know the public figures who are your real enemies.

  43. #43 by James Farmer on April 24, 2010 - 10:42 am

    brew:

    Still waiting ….

    Under your principles, the children of the Chairman of Citigroup and the CEO of Xerox, automatically, by law, are entitled to preferential treatment in admissions, employment and government contracting. In addition, their children are entitled to money for college which a poor ditch-digger’s child is not. This is a matter of emerical fact and not opinion.

    Spoken like a true teabagger!! All volume and no substance.

  44. #44 by brewski on April 25, 2010 - 7:56 pm

    1+1=2
    QED

  45. #45 by James Farmer on April 25, 2010 - 8:19 pm

    brew:

    You are wrong. QED generally follows a mathematical proof or logical argument – not a conclusory statement, which seems to be your MO for the most part.

    Regardless, still waiting for some proof; no worries, though, as I don’t expect to see such from you as I know such doesn’t exist.

  46. #46 by brewski on April 26, 2010 - 10:16 am

    James,
    I stand corected. You are right. In your world 1+1 does not equal 2.
    Also, you have not provided me with a reason why I should provide you with any proof on any topic since I did provide you with proof that the three health care bills combined would increase the deficit and you wouldn’t, or couldn’t read them. So if you won’t/can’t read then what is the point?

  47. #47 by james farmer on April 26, 2010 - 11:22 am

    brew:

    Also, you have not provided me with a reason why I should provide you with any proof on any topic since I did provide you with proof that the three health care bills combined would increase the deficit and you wouldn’t, or couldn’t read them.

    This statement is a shell game. Look back through the requests. I asked specifically for evidence backing your statement re “the children of the Chairman of Citigroup should get given free education and the children of unskilled laborers should get squat.” That is your statement, brew, at #27.

    This statement has nothing to do with health care, so don’t shell game your inability to back it up with evidence. Prove the substance of your statement, if you can. Or, on the other hand, you might just admit your statement is incorrect and leave it at that.

  48. #48 by brewski on April 26, 2010 - 6:52 pm

    James,
    You are the one playing the shell game. This most recent statement has have everything to do with health care. The connection is you, James. You asked me to prove that the combined three health care bills would increase the deficit and I did provide that evidence. But you wouldn’t or couldn’t read it. Now you ask me to prove that, by law, the children of the Chairman of Citigroup and the children of the CEO of Xerox are, by law, provided with money and preferences not afforded to poor children of ditch diggers. So, what am I supposed to do, give you more evidence that you won’t or can’t read? Yes, they are connected and the connection is you.

  49. #49 by James Farmer on April 26, 2010 - 9:31 pm

    brew:

    If you have evidence to support your claim, just present it without all the hyperbole and hand waving. You are really becoming quite the bore, now.

  50. #50 by brewski on April 27, 2010 - 1:24 am

    James,
    I understand you have been humiliated by your being so wrong about both the health care bill and Cape Wind, so now you are looking to try salvage what little dignity you have left. You might want to consider a 12 step program.

  51. #51 by james farmer on April 27, 2010 - 8:39 am

    brew:

    Speak for yourself. I have been wrong on neither. Nevertheless, I will permit you yet again a chance to back up the assertion you made earlier that “the children of the Chairman of Citigroup and the children of the CEO of Xerox are, by law, provided with money and preferences not afforded to poor children of ditch diggers.” You want to be taken seriously? Then this might be a good time to start. You are intelligent enough (at least in Dwight’s eyes) to see what I mean. Either put up or shut up.

  52. #52 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 27, 2010 - 9:43 am

    OKAY, you guys were cute. Now you’re just getting annoying.

    Brewski: Ya got nothing to prove.
    James: You don’t need to try to bully everyone you disagree with. Reserve it for the truly destructive personalities on this site.

    Neither one of ya got anything good to say, so both of you shut up.

    Constructively criticizing,
    Dwight

  53. #53 by james farmer on April 27, 2010 - 10:30 am

    The purpose of 1U includes exposing right-wing or teabagging rhetoric. If brew insists on making outlandish statements designed to attack liberals, with no support whatsoever, then he will be called on it, over and again, as necessary. Statements such as “the children of the Chairman of Citigroup and the children of the CEO of Xerox are, by law, provided with money and preferences not afforded to poor children of ditch diggers” fall within such rhetoric. If brew wants a podium for his rubbish, that is fine, but he will be called out on the rubbish he spews without factual support. One Sean Hannity in this world is too many already.

  54. #54 by brewski on April 27, 2010 - 10:44 am

    James,
    Just as a point of information, do you even know who the Chairman of Citigroup and the CEO of Xerox are?

    • #55 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 27, 2010 - 11:38 am

      James is in a safe place on this one, Brewski. You made the assertion about the Chairman and CEO. It’s your job to make it matter. On the other hand, if you can provide some good evidence, James’ll be in some hot water when you throw his bluster back in his face. Good luck.

      –Dwight

  55. #56 by brewski on April 27, 2010 - 12:41 pm

    James,
    I am assuming you already know this, since you are such an educated man, but this is the Chairman of Citigroup:
    http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1873165,00.html
    By all accounts, a very wealthy successful man.

    This is the CEO of Xerox:
    http://news.xerox.com/pr/xerox/ursula-m-burns.aspx
    Also, by all accounts, a very successful executive.

    However, due to laws that are supported by the left, their children are considered underprivileged, at-risk, and targeted for preferences. In addition, their children are eligible for a long list of minority-only scholarships and other benefits. Their eligibility for many of these benefits is due to their skin color ALONE, with no actual demonstration of hardship or need.

    Ergo, the children of the Chairman of Citigroup and the CEO of Xerox are provied with preferential treatment in admissions and scholarships over other students who may be far more needy, but don’t share their skin color.

    That, my friend, is an indisputable fact.

  56. #57 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 27, 2010 - 12:49 pm

    Thanks for clarifying the rubbish, Brewski. Now it’s time for James to dissemble and obfuscate.

    James? You’re up.

    (On a personal note, I agree with you, Brewski, that qualifications by skin color alone are ridiculous. But, as Glenden pointed out, however abusable such programs may be, at least something is being done for those who genuinely need them. I encourage you to work for these programs’ improvement, not their downfall)

  57. #58 by james farmer on April 27, 2010 - 1:47 pm

    brew:

    Well, you are getting there, but not quite. Maybe it’s the lawyer in me or maybe the ph.d. scientist or both, but you were quite specific in your initial comment that, given my politics, “the children of the Chairman of Citigroup should get given free education and the children of unskilled laborers should get squat.” Check it out, those are your exact words. (see #27) But the links you provide evidence no such thing; they are simply bios/stories of the chairpersons you refer.

    Now, I am prepared to let you off the hook were you to simply admit that maybe your emotions took you over the top, leading you to say something absurd that you cannot back up. After all, you still have not provided a scintilla of evidence that the children of the chairman of citigroup should receive or have received free education that the children of dirt diggers are denied. Indeed, the only thing the links you provide suggest is that the two individuals are black and successful (although, apparently, Mr. Citigroup was denied admission to Princeton).

    Stated otherwise, if you have a beef with blacks or the wealthy, then just say so. Your comments throughout 1U postings suggest such a beef may not be that far off (see, e.g., your reference to blond latinos above). On the other hand, if you are suggesting that because a certain few (and as yet unidentified by you) people abused affirmative action to the degree that children of these (unidentified) very wealthy persons were provided free education their ditch-digging neighbors (also unidentified) were denied, then I might point you right back to the criticism you level at others who suggest or conclude the teabagger movement is filled with racists because of the repulsive and racist actions of a few of the members of the movement.

    Once again, brew, you have positioned yourself between a rock and a hard place – either the evidence you suggest exists does not or your current line of reasoning based on groundless assertions tears apart your various arguments elsewhere.

  58. #59 by brewski on April 27, 2010 - 2:24 pm

    James,
    Apparently the “lawyer in you” is failing you since I have said not one thing ever against black people or Latino people. Ever. Period. What I have criticized is the false premise that all blacks and Latinos are deprived and that all white people are advantaged. It just simply ain’t true. So what the predictable result is that there will be a significant number of advantaged people of color who will get preferences they don’t need, and that a significant number of white people who need some help and don’t get it. Surely you can at least agree with that statement.

    Since everyone here seems to challenge me for alternative solutions to my critical posts (even though the lefties are left free to dump on conservatives and Tea Party-ers with no such additional standard) it isn’t at all difficult to come up with some very workable solutions.

    Rather than race, only give a preference to children with no parent with a college degree. Only have need-based scholarships and ban all race-based. Give preference to graduates of high schools with low college enrollment rates.

    The data is there. It can be used. But we are stuck in the rutted mindset that black people are poor and uneducated and white people all went to Choate and summer in the Hamptons.

    There are definitely better ways.

    And it is interesting that Glenden still has not explained his position of discriminating aganist Asians and women.

  59. #60 by james farmer on April 27, 2010 - 2:39 pm

    brew:

    Well, then, pardon me for misconstruing your comments referring to black children of wealthy black chief executives receiving preferences and free money not given to children of ditch diggers, and rich, blue-eyed blond Latinos who grew up with servants, while your dirt poor white girlfriend from Chula Vista worked three jobs and get bugger-all help. My bad!

  60. #61 by brewski on April 27, 2010 - 6:17 pm

    Yes it was your bad. There is nothing wrong with children of successful black executives and there is nothing wrong with blone haired blue eyed Latinos who grew up with servants. There is also nothing wrong with growing up the child of a ditch digger. What is wrong is to hand out preferences to the privileged at the expense of the needy.

  61. #62 by James Farmer on April 27, 2010 - 9:34 pm

    Well, then, yet again, I ask, where is the proof? Please present your evidence that preferences are being systematically handed out to the privileged at the expense of the poor.

  62. #63 by brewski on April 28, 2010 - 6:30 am

    I already did.

  63. #64 by James Farmer on April 28, 2010 - 9:24 am

    Hardly! You’ve done nothing of the sort, and the last few comments amply prove as much.

    Regardless. You have become quite the bore on this subject. See you on another top post.

    Cheers ;)

  64. #65 by brewski on April 28, 2010 - 9:50 am

    Brewski -6, James +6

  65. #66 by brewski on April 28, 2010 - 12:53 pm

    Bore? I didn’t realize you thought I was here for your entertainment value. You might find “Dancing with the stars” more suited to your intellectual level.

  66. #67 by James Farmer on April 28, 2010 - 1:24 pm

    Ah, there you go again, brew. When your back is against the wall in debate (be it by me, Glenden or anyone else), resort to ad hominem appears your favored MO, as evidenced in both the above comment and, further, the entire above string.

    As stated previously, your unwillingness to back up your outlandish assertions with evidence (any evidence other than self-serving ipse dixit statements) renders discussion with you both unattractive and boring, to say the least.

    Cheers!

  67. #68 by cav on April 28, 2010 - 1:57 pm

    Gentlemen, pleeeze! I would suggest we’ve got more important things to consider: Bigmouth Steven Hawking is going to get us all killed by aliens.

    And it’s going to require a bipartisan solution!

    …starting from scratch, of course.

  68. #69 by James Farmer on April 28, 2010 - 2:39 pm

    cav:

    I disagree. Aliens will quickly devour pugs and baggers first because they are relatively overweight and, therefore, appear more delectable to the alien palate than do libs. Afterward, the aliens will leave because of feeling full of crap (and who could blame them after feasting on pugs and baggers). Libs will then remain on earth happily ever after, finally free from the hate and fear mongering (and argument based on nothing but self-serving ipse dixit gobbledygook) lying behavior that so permeates today’s pugs and baggers.

  69. #70 by cav on April 29, 2010 - 7:55 am

    James, point taken. Would it make any difference if I inserted ‘illegal’ in front of aliens?

    But, I digress. Take the bait only if you must.

  70. #71 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 29, 2010 - 10:10 am

    James–

    Please provide conclusive evidence that “pugs and baggers. . .are relatively overweight,” as well as what they are “relatively overweight” in relation to.

    –Dwight

  71. #72 by James Farmer on April 29, 2010 - 10:45 am

    Dwight:

    You are kidding, correct?

  72. #73 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 29, 2010 - 11:46 am

    James–

    Only as much as you are when Brewski says something over-the-top stupid. No worries. I’m just teasing.

    All the same, it would be nice if you retracted your statement. ;-)

    –Dwight

  73. #74 by brewski on April 29, 2010 - 2:07 pm

    Dwight,
    Don’t you understand that James demands proof from anyone who doesn’t agree with his preconceived biases (and then ignores it when he gets it), but cowers at the thought of providing proof himself?

  74. #75 by James Farmer on April 29, 2010 - 2:26 pm

    Dwight & brew:

    brew’s comment was meant to be taken in all seriousness and I called him on it; yet still, as of today, he either cannot or will nor provide evidence to support his assertion.

    My comment, on the other hand, was not serious, was never meant to be serious, was a joke, was facetious, and is not capable of evidentiary support because no such evidence exists. As such, I retract the statement.

    brew: Found any evidence yet to support your statement re the children of Citigroup and Xerox CEOs, or are you ready to concede that no such evidence exists and retract the same as being unsupportable and without evidentiary support?

  75. #76 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 29, 2010 - 3:24 pm

    James–

    Stated otherwise, if you have a beef with blacks or the wealthy, then just say so. Your comments throughout 1U postings suggest such a beef may not be that far off (see, e.g., your reference to blond latinos above). On the other hand, if you are suggesting that because a certain few (and as yet unidentified by you) people abused affirmative action to the degree that children of these (unidentified) very wealthy persons were provided free education their ditch-digging neighbors (also unidentified) were denied, then I might point you right back to the criticism you level at others who suggest or conclude the teabagger movement is filled with racists because of the repulsive and racist actions of a few of the members of the movement.

    Once again, brew, you have positioned yourself between a rock and a hard place – either the evidence you suggest exists does not or your current line of reasoning based on groundless assertions tears apart your various arguments elsewhere.

    Good job. You succeed at character assassination but otherwise have no substance. Your ability to dissect the personal flaws of an effective non-entity (Brewski) are amazing, but what do you have to say about the issue at hand? It is true that affirmative action, on occasion, can favor minorities in a discriminatory fashion (that is, by disallowing non-minorities with equal life circumstances but for their ethnic/gender status from equal consideration). We don’t need evidence to this effect (though I’ll provide it, anyway).

    Brewski may have a crass style at times, and he may not be able to circumvent your vapid ruminations, but that doesn’t make his basic point wrong. You won’t defeat conservatism by defeating conservatives in word games; you have to present a superior concept.

    To be metaphorical about it (and I do loves a good metaphor!), your ability to be a bigger void than Brewski is pointless; after all, however dim it may be, at least he has a star at the center of his.

    So, like I said before, you might want to try getting more bang for your verbal buck. The oratorial wrecking ball should be a last resort, not a matter of course.

    Brewski–

    James is a bit of a punk, and so I understand your outrageous claim. But it really was a misstep to say he supported government benefits for rich minorities and not for poor white people, so you did kind of deserve the tongue-lashing.

    I agree, though, with your judgments of James. He hasn’t impressed very much over the last few (dozen) posts.

    –Dwight

  76. #77 by James Farmer on April 29, 2010 - 4:47 pm

    Dwight:

    Apologies to you and others if you are offended by my demands that teabaggers and pubs (yes, brew, that means you) are held to account for and provide evidence to support the outrageous claims they make.

    Here it is for you, Dwight, in plain English. brew stated quite matter of factly that “the children of the Chairman of Citigroup and the children of the CEO of Xerox are, by law, provided with money and preferences not afforded to poor children of ditch diggers.” Or, at best for brew, that I supported such nonsense. I called him on it and asked for evidence that such was the case or that any policy generally supported by liberals provided such to occur. As you know, brew has been unwilling or unable to provide such evidence. Period!

    I would expect nothing else from you or others here were I to post such nonsense. If you find that unimpressive, too bad. While brew states quite correctly that my comments should not be intended to entertain him, you also should appreciate that my comments are hardly intended to impress you.

    My only request throughout this tiresome post is for brew to back his claims with evidence – which, BTW, from a tactical standpoint, is every bit as valid as presenting a superior argument. Were he to do so, he would at least be a step above Sarah Palin (and Glenn and Ken Bingham and several other 1U regulars) and the rest of the pathetic liars and purveyors of misinformation out there making unfounded claims and ridiculous assertions against the current administration and liberals in general.

    Finally, Dwight, notice how I refrained, difficult as it was, from telling you to kiss my ass for your rather pompous observations. You are encouraged to read between the lines on that one!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: