Thee University said:

---

Bean bag shotgun blasts, rubber bullets and skunk water.

---

Wish a few more of them would set themselves on fire. I just feel sorry for those that have to clean up the mess.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Go back to accusing people of lying since you don't want to talk about thread topic anymore.

---

I've asked you repeatedly - did I have sufficient cause for it, or no?

The fact that you won't answer says it all, and that your argument against me has failed. Go away.

---

Yes, yes, you are right (because you say so). Even though you don't cite any laws and say other people are lying when they do.

Toodles.

---

Yes, yes, I'm SO wrong, that you are completely unable to argue why.

"Toodles" is exactly what you said when you argued with me for 2 pages about absolute vs. relative truth and later realized you had been proven wrong.

---

Yeah you quoted logic in that thread about as well as you quoted law in this one. But I remember you won! (Because you said so).

---

Right, that's why you couldn't answer the question there, just as you are completely unable to answer them here. If you disagree, then prove me wrong - answer it: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

You won't, and we all will know why.

---

I won't because I'm not going to derail this thread. However, if you would like I will create another thread later where I will respond to that question.

---

Likely excuse. In lesser words than what you just posted, you could have easily answered it. I don't need to create a whole other thread for it, the question is right before you now. You balked. I've proven my point.

---

Oh well. I offered.

---

It's a ONE WORD answer. So it required even less words than what you just posted right here. Nice try.

ron.reagan said:

---

NEW: Pro-Palestine protester has no clue why she is protesting and then asks a friend why they are protesting who also has no clue.

Remarkable.

Reporter: "Why are you protesting?"

Protester: "Demanding that NYU stops! I honestly don't know what NYU is doing... Do you know what… pic.twitter.com/cI46n6YNht

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 24, 2024

---

I couldn't imagine someone who is doing a challenging program like engineering, premed etc. having time to do this crap. Of course, most of these kids just want attention. Reminds me of all the "Slava Ukraine!" types that showed up to Kyiv for like one weekend when the war broke out just so they could take some photos for their social media and act like they were doing some heroic mission

whitetrash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Pretty eye opening…

The same goes for the Aaron Bushnell self-immolation. People don't want to believe it, but it's all there in his Reddit posts, which I looked over in detail recently for @theammind. It all came back to white people, not Jews, for Bushnell. https://t.co/2RGFRAjzdd pic.twitter.com/i1qF5A7eAs

— RAW EGG NATIONALIST (@Babygravy9) April 24, 2024

---

I suppose one way to abolish your own whiteness is to char yourself to a burnt crisp.

---

Yea but it's sad what young White people have been indoctrinated into…"kill yourself to be anti-racist"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Go back to accusing people of lying since you don't want to talk about thread topic anymore.

---

I've asked you repeatedly - did I have sufficient cause for it, or no?

The fact that you won't answer says it all, and that your argument against me has failed. Go away.

---

Yes, yes, you are right (because you say so). Even though you don't cite any laws and say other people are lying when they do.

Toodles.

---

Yes, yes, I'm SO wrong, that you are completely unable to argue why.

"Toodles" is exactly what you said when you argued with me for 2 pages about absolute vs. relative truth and later realized you had been proven wrong.

---

Yeah you quoted logic in that thread about as well as you quoted law in this one. But I remember you won! (Because you said so).

---

Right, that's why you couldn't answer the question there, just as you are completely unable to answer them here. If you disagree, then prove me wrong - answer it: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

You won't, and we all will know why.

---

I won't because I'm not going to derail this thread. However, if you would like I will create another thread later where I will respond to that question.

---

Likely excuse. In lesser words than what you just posted, you could have easily answered it. I don't need to create a whole other thread for it, the question is right before you now. You balked. I've proven my point.

---

Oh well. I offered.

---

It's a ONE WORD answer. So it required even less words than what you just posted right here. Nice try.

---

What exactly was the question?

BREAKING: Pro-Hamas protesters have executed a takeover of Harvard Yard.

2024's version of BLM is aimed squarely at Joe Biden and the elite left. This problem isn't going anywhere for the Democrats... pic.twitter.com/vf9l2bngbL

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 24, 2024

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Go back to accusing people of lying since you don't want to talk about thread topic anymore.

---

I've asked you repeatedly - did I have sufficient cause for it, or no?

The fact that you won't answer says it all, and that your argument against me has failed. Go away.

---

Yes, yes, you are right (because you say so). Even though you don't cite any laws and say other people are lying when they do.

Toodles.

---

Yes, yes, I'm SO wrong, that you are completely unable to argue why.

"Toodles" is exactly what you said when you argued with me for 2 pages about absolute vs. relative truth and later realized you had been proven wrong.

---

Yeah you quoted logic in that thread about as well as you quoted law in this one. But I remember you won! (Because you said so).

---

Right, that's why you couldn't answer the question there, just as you are completely unable to answer them here. If you disagree, then prove me wrong - answer it: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

You won't, and we all will know why.

---

I won't because I'm not going to derail this thread. However, if you would like I will create another thread later where I will respond to that question.

---

Likely excuse. In lesser words than what you just posted, you could have easily answered it. I don't need to create a whole other thread for it, the question is right before you now. You balked. I've proven my point.

---

Oh well. I offered.

---

It's a ONE WORD answer. So it required even less words than what you just posted right here. Nice try.

---

What exactly was the question?

---

He is saying I'm right only because I "say so". So I'm reminding him of a past debate where I asked him: "if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

The only correct answer is "yes". The above is a tautology. Logically, tautologies are always true no matter what, therefore they are absolute truths. His answer, however, was that it is a relative truth. I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right, and it was based on logic and reason, NOT simply "because I said so".

I believe this is when the college students turned into little brats - 8 years ago.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Go back to accusing people of lying since you don't want to talk about thread topic anymore.

---

I've asked you repeatedly - did I have sufficient cause for it, or no?

The fact that you won't answer says it all, and that your argument against me has failed. Go away.

---

Yes, yes, you are right (because you say so). Even though you don't cite any laws and say other people are lying when they do.

Toodles.

---

Yes, yes, I'm SO wrong, that you are completely unable to argue why.

"Toodles" is exactly what you said when you argued with me for 2 pages about absolute vs. relative truth and later realized you had been proven wrong.

---

Yeah you quoted logic in that thread about as well as you quoted law in this one. But I remember you won! (Because you said so).

---

Right, that's why you couldn't answer the question there, just as you are completely unable to answer them here. If you disagree, then prove me wrong - answer it: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

You won't, and we all will know why.

---

I won't because I'm not going to derail this thread. However, if you would like I will create another thread later where I will respond to that question.

---

Likely excuse. In lesser words than what you just posted, you could have easily answered it. I don't need to create a whole other thread for it, the question is right before you now. You balked. I've proven my point.

---

Oh well. I offered.

---

It's a ONE WORD answer. So it required even less words than what you just posted right here. Nice try.

---

What exactly was the question?

---

"Do you agree with me, or are you a bad person?"

From @GregAbbott_TX: Students joining in hate-filled, antisemitic protests at any public college or university in Texas should be expelled. https://t.co/G8CveUlfLG

— Jeremy Wallace (@JeremySWallace) April 24, 2024

Greg Abbott is sending reinforcements.

A massive line of Texas state troopers is headed from Houston to Austin. pic.twitter.com/9Ycb9CdpOD

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 24, 2024

At this moment in time, many of the student protestors appear more angered by police presence on @UTAustin campus than the conflict in Israel-Gaza itself. Big shift in the chanting has primarily been to “off our campus” rather than previous pro-Palestine chanting. Keep… pic.twitter.com/ENUYvjFq64

— Monica Madden (@themonicamadden) April 24, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

At this moment in time, many of the student protestors appear more angered by police presence on @UTAustin campus than the conflict in Israel-Gaza itself. Big shift in the chanting has primarily been to “off our campus” rather than previous pro-Palestine chanting. Keep… pic.twitter.com/ENUYvjFq64

— Monica Madden (@themonicamadden) April 24, 2024

---

Well, at least there was one chick with a little Palestinian flag, but it was more the size of the flag you raise to get more sopapillas brought to your table at Pancho's Mexican Buffet.

Student protestor tells me police presence from the start made it a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Says @UTAustin protestors had no intention of violence and wanted to exercise their 1A rights peacefully, but believes law enforcement in riot gear escalated situation to where it’s… pic.twitter.com/2RJcXEnjsa

— Monica Madden (@themonicamadden) April 24, 2024

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

---

Actually yes I can.

The ACLU is NOT for allowing all types of speech. So that there is my proof. That you would cite a group that HAS tried to limit speech is all the proof I need.

Fore example, the ACLU will no longer defend groups on the far right or any speech THEY deem as hate speech.

And for a group that supposedly fights for the Constitution it is a shame they violated that innocent until proven guilty thing you mentioned earlier.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

LOL. Their actions over the last 10 years or so. Their leaders going on record saying they would no longer defend hate speech. Their leaders saying they would not support or defend Trump supporters.

Wake up.

---

Sorry, but "their actions" without saying those actions are isn't proof of anything.

As far as leadership saying they would no longer defend hate speech-how about a link? And even if it says that, the statement is not what you cited it for which is the ACLU is trying to limit free speech.

Refusal to provide free representation defending speech is not the same thing as limiting speech.

---

Sorry look it up. Someone else already gave you a link. Use google. I am not your search engine. You won't because you want someone else to do the work for you (typical leftist) and then will find ways to deny the proof given to you.

---

Yeah I looked at the other link. It was critical of the ACLU while Trump was president. But it was not close to supporting your argument.

I always end up in the same place when I ask far right for factual support for their argument.


They can't produce it.

---

There were legitimate criticisms of the ACLU in that article and given the upcoming election I think it's fair to ask the question, "If Trump (or any Republican going forward) is elected, will the ACLU or its individual lawyers again act in ways that go against one of its stated core principles of supporting 1st amendment rights.

"The A.C.L.U. unfurled new guidelines that suggested lawyers should balance taking a free speech case representing right-wing groups whose "values are contrary to our values" against the potential such a case might give "offense to marginalized groups."

Other things noted included running ads against Justice Kavanaugh and a transgender attorney for the ACLU tweeting that a book criticizing transgenderism should be banned.

There may be nothing the organization is doing actively at the moment, but those things start to add up after a while and just saying "Well, that was under Trump" doesn't just make them go away or allay concerns that it might be seen again.

---

The real question is whether someone should arrest the student protestors for what they are saying.

---

No, the students should be arrested for unlawful assembly and trespass. They should be blackballed, doxed, and mocked for what they are saying in the great liberal tradition - much like was done to the Trump administration officials. But we all know that will not happen because deep down, the left has more in common with these terrorists than MAGA.

---

I have repeatedly said there should be arrests for actual crimes, whether that be unlawful assemnby, trespass, assault, etc. And that has happened. Its just that speech is not one of those crimes.

As far as the evil left, you might note that it all conservatives on this thread who want to restrain and punish speech.

boognish_bear said:

---

From @GregAbbott_TX: Students joining in hate-filled, antisemitic protests at any public college or university in Texas should be expelled. https://t.co/G8CveUlfLG

— Jeremy Wallace (@JeremySWallace) April 24, 2024

Greg Abbott is sending reinforcements.

A massive line of Texas state troopers is headed from Houston to Austin. pic.twitter.com/9Ycb9CdpOD

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 24, 2024

---

Abbott is a world-class grandstander.

it is our right to peacefully protest on campus we pay tuition to be here. Palestine will be free, fuck the fascist state, fuck all cops, ACAB. UT Austin is failing their students and faculty. Shame on UT. pic.twitter.com/Y0F2kx2PxQ

— Anthony Larraga (@anthony_larraga) April 24, 2024

UT AUSTIN PROTEST: @TxDPS confirms more than 20 people have been arrested.

One includes a @fox7austin photographer covering the event. @FOX4 pic.twitter.com/X9HWNMzhb8

— Peyton Yager (@peytonyager) April 24, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

UT AUSTIN PROTEST: @TxDPS confirms more than 20 people have been arrested.

One includes a @fox7austin photographer covering the event. @FOX4 pic.twitter.com/X9HWNMzhb8

— Peyton Yager (@peytonyager) April 24, 2024

---

It's hard to tell why they tackled the cameraman because he went out of frame for a second before he was pulled to the ground. It appears he lunges forward right before he goes out of frame, but hard to say for sure with this angle. Did he perhaps stumble and run in to the LEO and got tackled in a misunderstanding, or perhaps he shoved the LEO - I slowed it down to .25 speed and that's my guess, but it's hard to say. Cops don't typically go around tackling members of the media for no good reason. Maybe more camera angles will emerge with a better view.

This is the moment a ⁦@TxDPS⁩ trooper pushes another trooper into one of our photographers. Watch the video! They arrest him during a livestream from the UT campus. pic.twitter.com/2RlevxsaHl

— Chris Walker (@WalkerATX) April 24, 2024

Here is the cameraman talking

This man says he is a member of the press. An officer said his camera hit an officer. The man claims it was not on purpose. ⁦@KXAN_News⁩ pic.twitter.com/mZUcTSNJuZ

— Nabil Brent Remadna KXAN (@RemadnaKXAN) April 24, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

This is the moment a ⁦@TxDPS⁩ trooper pushes another trooper into one of our photographers. Watch the video! They arrest him during a livestream from the UT campus. pic.twitter.com/2RlevxsaHl

— Chris Walker (@WalkerATX) April 24, 2024

---

thanks for posting another angle. it's clear from the first video that nobody in view shoved the cameraman. that guy is full of it. but i would give the cameraman the benefit of the doubt here. he could have easily stumbled or been bumped/shoved by someone out of frame.

We're going to need to call in Dean Blandino to analyze this one.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

---

Actually yes I can.

The ACLU is NOT for allowing all types of speech. So that there is my proof. That you would cite a group that HAS tried to limit speech is all the proof I need.

Fore example, the ACLU will no longer defend groups on the far right or any speech THEY deem as hate speech.

And for a group that supposedly fights for the Constitution it is a shame they violated that innocent until proven guilty thing you mentioned earlier.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

LOL. Their actions over the last 10 years or so. Their leaders going on record saying they would no longer defend hate speech. Their leaders saying they would not support or defend Trump supporters.

Wake up.

---

Sorry, but "their actions" without saying those actions are isn't proof of anything.

As far as leadership saying they would no longer defend hate speech-how about a link? And even if it says that, the statement is not what you cited it for which is the ACLU is trying to limit free speech.

Refusal to provide free representation defending speech is not the same thing as limiting speech.

---

Sorry look it up. Someone else already gave you a link. Use google. I am not your search engine. You won't because you want someone else to do the work for you (typical leftist) and then will find ways to deny the proof given to you.

---

Yeah I looked at the other link. It was critical of the ACLU while Trump was president. But it was not close to supporting your argument.

I always end up in the same place when I ask far right for factual support for their argument.


They can't produce it.

---

There were legitimate criticisms of the ACLU in that article and given the upcoming election I think it's fair to ask the question, "If Trump (or any Republican going forward) is elected, will the ACLU or its individual lawyers again act in ways that go against one of its stated core principles of supporting 1st amendment rights.

"The A.C.L.U. unfurled new guidelines that suggested lawyers should balance taking a free speech case representing right-wing groups whose "values are contrary to our values" against the potential such a case might give "offense to marginalized groups."

Other things noted included running ads against Justice Kavanaugh and a transgender attorney for the ACLU tweeting that a book criticizing transgenderism should be banned.

There may be nothing the organization is doing actively at the moment, but those things start to add up after a while and just saying "Well, that was under Trump" doesn't just make them go away or allay concerns that it might be seen again.

---

The real question is whether someone should arrest the student protestors for what they are saying.

---

No, the students should be arrested for unlawful assembly and trespass. They should be blackballed, doxed, and mocked for what they are saying in the great liberal tradition - much like was done to the Trump administration officials. But we all know that will not happen because deep down, the left has more in common with these terrorists than MAGA.

---

I have repeatedly said there should be arrests for actual crimes, whether that be unlawful assemnby, trespass, assault, etc. And that has happened. Its just that speech is not one of those crimes.

As far as the evil left, you might note that it all conservatives on this thread who want to restrain and punish speech.

---

The conservatives here want the left (which is you) to apply the same standards to these terrorists as you would moms speaking out a school board meeting.

The left hates speech it doesn't agree with. The lack of concern here, proves it.

---

There are people in the world who are for free speech of all types. I am one of them.

Your worldview that there is only far left and "conservatives" is incorrect. Many mistakes follow.

Today, Governor Abbott said student protestors at @UTAustin should be expelled, accusing the pro-Palestine group of being Antisemitic. In 2019, he signed a law protecting free speech on college campuses.

Will be interesting to see how these criminal trespassing charges play… https://t.co/9rf6etc2vk

— Monica Madden (@themonicamadden) April 24, 2024

Now at UT Austin:

Protester walked up to Austin Police and starts yelling “fuck you,” to which one officer responded, “thank you for your support.” pic.twitter.com/kSVm8fbyyB

— Anna Giaritelli (@Anna_Giaritelli) April 24, 2024

Abbott should just print 10,000 signs reading "Women have 2X Chromosomes!"

it would trigger them al to a safe space.

And....they just came back

UT Austin protesters have returned to the South Lawn pic.twitter.com/hsjJbkyOht

— Phil Jankowski 🌟 (@PhilJankowski) April 24, 2024

"conservatives on this thread who want to restrain and punish speech"

Apparently English is not your first language, Frank. Congrats on your legal success as you struggle with basic definitions, confusing "speech" and "violence" as you have here.

The question is how has our education to wholly failed in its duty.

Ask these protester morons what "from the river to sea" means. It's literally shocking how many can't tell you which river and which sea.

The do a good job spouting Al-Jazeera talking points because they get their news from TikTok.

They are lemmings and you can probably guess any of their stances with a high degree of accuracy as well.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

From @GregAbbott_TX: Students joining in hate-filled, antisemitic protests at any public college or university in Texas should be expelled. https://t.co/G8CveUlfLG

— Jeremy Wallace (@JeremySWallace) April 24, 2024

Greg Abbott is sending reinforcements.

A massive line of Texas state troopers is headed from Houston to Austin. pic.twitter.com/9Ycb9CdpOD

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 24, 2024

---

Abbott is a world-class grandstander.

---

How so? He is putting down unlawful assembly, something you agree with.

---

I'm sure the Austin police can handle it.