Round up the Dissenters

[Mac-7]

A couple of things, if you don't mind:
Can you name universities?
Can you name names.....profs, teachers, etc...who are instrumental in this teaching discipline?
Can you list source material for these 'teachings'?
Lastly, and probably most importantly.......can you offer us a curriculum and perhaps your own description on what you think CRT is based on your own reading of the material?

No, I cant fill in all that info for you by name

does that mean i have to take your word that everything is peachy and the public has nothing to complain about?

I dont believe you can

 

[Mac-7]

Does that make all undocumented immigrants guilty?

It makes them all guilty of being here without permission

and they all should be deported without appeal

 

[BluesLegend]

Does that make all undocumented immigrants guilty? Of course not. If a black person kills someone you know, does that make all black people killers? In your demented mind, it does.

You people encourage illegals to flood into our country illegally. It's YOUR fault.

 

[Rigby5]

You people encourage illegals to flood into our country illegally. It's YOUR fault.

What I hear is illegals have half the crime rate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Attorney General Merrick Garland unveiled the new 32-page strategy document, calling domestic terrorism 'the most urgent terrorism threat the United States faces today.'
Nicholas Giordano, a professor at Suffolk Community College on Long Island, raised his concerns about the new National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism in an interview with Fox News on Friday.
Giordano raised his concerns about the wording of the strategy, calling it 'overly broad and dangerous' and 'ripe for abuse and targeting any political opposition.'
Giordano raised a second concern that the label 'anti-government extremism' could be applied to anyone who disagrees with government policy.
'If you look at the coronavirus and question the mandates that came out as unconstitutional, well, you are classified as anti-authority,' he said.

Biden's domestic terror strategy 'could be used to SILENCE criticism'

Nicholas Giordano, a professor at Suffolk Community College on Long Island, raised his concerns about the new National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism on Friday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Comment:

Have you also wondered why AG Garland was attempting to claim that domestic terrorism are 'the most urgent terrorism threat the United States faces today.'?
Who are these “domestic terrorist” that Garland is talking about?
It sounds like far left hyperbolic totalitarian fear mongering.
But it is more than that.
It will be used as an excuse to arrest people who refuse to submit to the one party rule of the Corrupt Democrat Party.
Don't kid yourself and think that could not happen in America.
Democrats want to silence any voices of opposition and dissent because it is a threat to their power.
We have already seen how Pelosi has put the 1/6 protesters in solitary confinement and not allowed them to be released to await their trials.
The Democrats are taking America down a dark dangerous path that Humanity has seen many times before.

This is the future, unless the US gets proper democracy.

 

[1stNickD]

Attorney General Merrick Garland unveiled the new 32-page strategy document, calling domestic terrorism 'the most urgent terrorism threat the United States faces today.'
Nicholas Giordano, a professor at Suffolk Community College on Long Island, raised his concerns about the new National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism in an interview with Fox News on Friday.
Giordano raised his concerns about the wording of the strategy, calling it 'overly broad and dangerous' and 'ripe for abuse and targeting any political opposition.'
Giordano raised a second concern that the label 'anti-government extremism' could be applied to anyone who disagrees with government policy.
'If you look at the coronavirus and question the mandates that came out as unconstitutional, well, you are classified as anti-authority,' he said.

Biden's domestic terror strategy 'could be used to SILENCE criticism'

Nicholas Giordano, a professor at Suffolk Community College on Long Island, raised his concerns about the new National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism on Friday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Comment:

Have you also wondered why AG Garland was attempting to claim that domestic terrorism are 'the most urgent terrorism threat the United States faces today.'?
Who are these “domestic terrorist” that Garland is talking about?
It sounds like far left hyperbolic totalitarian fear mongering.
But it is more than that.
It will be used as an excuse to arrest people who refuse to submit to the one party rule of the Corrupt Democrat Party.
Don't kid yourself and think that could not happen in America.
Democrats want to silence any voices of opposition and dissent because it is a threat to their power.
We have already seen how Pelosi has put the 1/6 protesters in solitary confinement and not allowed them to be released to await their trials.
The Democrats are taking America down a dark dangerous path that Humanity has seen many times before.

I don't trust either party right now, not as far as i can pick up and throw the Washington Monument. But these Dems are in charge now and what they have been saying and doing must never be allowed to happen. last Jan6th was as wrong as it gets, but so is the left wings attack on our morals, work ethics, decency and our nations form of government. You cannot attack the Capitol, but you also cannot attack our cities and innocent civilans non stop for years and call it peaceful protest.

And that Universal pre K is for the purpose of indoctrinating our nations kids against Judeo christian values and western civilization. They don;t want to help familys go to work, they want to pay families not to work. So if they are not working why do their kids need to be in daycare/preschool? Answer: Indoctrination. And parents who do not comply will be charged with abuse or terrorism.

 

[1stNickD]

What I hear is illegals have half the crime rate.

100% of illegals are criminals. Thats what illegal means.

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

The Historical Fact:
Authoritarian Leftists would round up Conservatives to end their ability to exist and thrive in the nation based on their principles. They'd add court seats, add states, or upheave any institution to get what they'd need to end their opposition.
Conservatives would not round up leftists based on their principles. They'd disagree with them, but respect the Constitution and electoral process, They wouldn't add seats or states, even if in their best interest. They'd demand a debate, and liberty.

 

[Bobob]

You people encourage illegals to flood into our country illegally. It's YOUR fault.

 

[Bobob]

No, it is YOUR fault. For many years, your leaders were in bed with Central American dictators for oil, and supported their horrific treatment of their population while allowing criminal groups to run rampant, resulting in the current crisis. YOU and I have responsibility. Get an education.

 

[Bobob]

It makes them all guilty of being here without permission

and they all should be deported without appeal

True, but all guilty of murder?

 

[Bobob]

Without googling...border policies, trade policies, foreign policies, economic policies...seriously, all of them. And this administration has basically reversed them all leading to serious problems at the border, a large trade deficit, a more dangerous world and out-of-control non-transitory inflation.

Trump was known to inflate his importance and wealth through a media that loved covering him. When he was denied an NFL franchise, he became an investor in the USFL, which he ruined. He owned several failed casinos, becoming the first person to lose money in that sector. He famously stiffed contractors who worked on his properties, and filed for bankruptcy several times. In the end, only Russian-backed banks would lend to him, which compromised his presidency. As president, he divided the nation, preferring white nationalist ideology over inclusion. He enjoyed a cult following while the nation withered, and his loyalty to America was always in question, since Russia held much of his debt. He was slow to respond to the Covid pandemic, and appeared weak and undecided on the matter. Regarding policy, he sided with anyone who he thought liked him. He was a small man, without virtue or conscience. His lack of understanding of history set the stage for a neo-fascist movement, lauded by white supremacist kids who were easy to manipulate. President Trump is a stain on our democracy, as he presses for an autocracy with him as King.
His trade policy was a disaster and a failure, as our allies began to make trade deals with China, which boosted China's economic influence. Trump's 25% tariffs only hurt us, since we pay them, and the trade deficit increased.
Trump inherited an economy which was on the mend. He slashed 100 regulations regarding the environment, which were put into effect to protect your health, for profit. His tax reduction for the rich only helped the rich become richer. His "locked and loaded" nature has put the world on edge and has cost us the respect that we once had. His deal with the Taliban without including the Afghan government, removing all but 2500 troops, was a recipe for disaster. North Korea "diplomacy" was a failure.
The deficit dramatically increased in spite of his promise to eliminate it. Trump did not resolve the border problem and did create a bubble at the border, and it burst.
,

 

[Mac-7]

True, but all guilty of murder?

No

If they were I would find a harsher punishment than mere deportation

 

[j-mac]

No, it is YOUR fault. For many years, your leaders were in bed with Central American dictators for oil, and supported their horrific treatment of their population while allowing criminal groups to run rampant, resulting in the current crisis. YOU and I have responsibility. Get an education.

Wrong as usual Bob...If the people of these countries are unhappy with their governments, and how they are being treated, then it is up to them to change it. NOT pack their gear, and stroll into America....

 

[BluesLegend]

What I hear is illegals have half the crime rate.

You heard PROPAGANDA, illegals crime rate is off the charts. They have killed more Americans than terrorists did on 9/11.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Trump was known to..........................."


Poster Bob in #192 offers us a dense but articulate post filled with insightful perspective.
I applaud it as a 'on-the-other-hand' corrective for so many of the Rightfield histrionics that get aired out on this venue.

A hat-tip to Bobob.

 

[Batcat]

Your point?

The officer had no reason to shoot an unarmed woman. She posed no immediate threat to his life or health.

The Cop Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Committed Involuntary Manslaughter and DOJ Has Lost All Credibility

By John Taylor and David Bolgiano On Jan. 6, 2021 U.

www.linkedin.com

***snip***

The law on use of deadly force by law enforcement is very clear. In layman’s terms it requires that the officer must hold an objectively reasonable belief that the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or innocent others. In a subsequent public statement, Byrd attempts to justify his act by claiming he shouted at Babbitt to stop. This in no way makes his actions reasonable.

That Byrd shouted at her or that she was “entering the Speaker’s Lobby” are legally irrelevant. The speakers lobby is neither a nuclear facility nor secret military compound with clearly posted signs indicating that deadly force is authorized solely to stop incursions. While there may be portions of the Capitol such as its Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) that warrant such warnings, “The Speaker’s Lobby” is not imbued with special protections or less restrictive rules concerning its defense. In fact, a citizen in their own home probably has more latitude to defend himself.

In this case it is patently clear that Lieutenant Byrd is legally obligated to act like every other police officer. Read the Supreme Court cases of Graham v. Connor, Tennessee v Garner and Scott v Harris and their progeny. The 4th Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard applies.

 

[Batcat]

I can imagine that the tump supporters do view an education as a brainwashing experience, especially since many of them do not have one. The alternative to socializing in an education environment is
a stint at the gin mill with cronies after work.

I remember talking to an engineer at work. When he left high school he started a summer job along with several friends as a roofer. He decided after one summer on that hot roof he was going to go to college.

So he became a production engineer for a large corporation. Are his friends still out there sweating while fixing roofs? No, they now run their own construction businesses. For example one runs a pool installation company. They make as much or more money than the engineer and have no college debt to pay off. If they did decide to go to college they had the money to pay for it up front.

 

[Bobob]

I remember talking to an engineer at work. When he left high school he started a summer job along with several friends as a roofer. He decided after one summer on that hot roof he was going to go to college.

So he became a production engineer for a large corporation. Are his friends still out there sweating while fixing roofs? No, they now run their own construction businesses. For example one runs a pool installation company. They make as much or more money than the engineer and have no college debt to pay off. If they did decide to go to college they had the money to pay for it up front.

There are exceptions to every rule, and they are few and far between.

 

[Bobob]

The officer had no reason to shoot an unarmed woman. She posed no immediate threat to his life or health.

The Cop Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Committed Involuntary Manslaughter and DOJ Has Lost All Credibility

By John Taylor and David Bolgiano On Jan. 6, 2021 U.

www.linkedin.com

***snip***

The law on use of deadly force by law enforcement is very clear. In layman’s terms it requires that the officer must hold an objectively reasonable belief that the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or innocent others. In a subsequent public statement, Byrd attempts to justify his act by claiming he shouted at Babbitt to stop. This in no way makes his actions reasonable.

That Byrd shouted at her or that she was “entering the Speaker’s Lobby” are legally irrelevant. The speakers lobby is neither a nuclear facility nor secret military compound with clearly posted signs indicating that deadly force is authorized solely to stop incursions. While there may be portions of the Capitol such as its Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) that warrant such warnings, “The Speaker’s Lobby” is not imbued with special protections or less restrictive rules concerning its defense. In fact, a citizen in their own home probably has more latitude to defend himself.

In this case it is patently clear that Lieutenant Byrd is legally obligated to act like every other police officer. Read the Supreme Court cases of Graham v. Connor, Tennessee v Garner and Scott v Harris and their progeny. The 4th Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard applies.

She definitely posed a threat to his life and health. What was he supposed to do--let them break down the door and find our lawmakers? Then what, hugs and kisses? If he let her through the broken door, she and others would become a threat to the health of lawmakers. When the police give you an order, just do it and complain later. You are trying to justify the unjustifiable.
If Antifa did it, you would be screaming bloody murder..