Campus Free Speech

Valdosta State Admins Side with Flag-Stompers Over Veteran. As They Should.

The First Amendment: It matters.

|

American flag
Dreamstime

A veteran who interrupted a demonstration at Valdosta State University in Georgia was arrested and then released by campus police officers after she took an American flag away from protesters who were trampling it.

According to valdostadailytimes.com:

Michelle Manhart, an Air Force veteran, said she was not planning to take the flag from the group, but she had heard about the group's recent campus demonstrations and wanted to take action.

"I did not want anything like this, but I got a call from a student who told me that the flag was on the ground, and they were walking on it," said Manhart. "I was just going over there to pick up the flag off the ground. I don't know what their cause is, but I went to pick it up because it doesn't deserve to be on the ground."

Manhart said she was taken into custody by VSU police officers who then returned the flag to the demonstrators. She admitted to The Valdosta Daily Times that she resisted arrest after seeing the flag being returned.

The group reportedly declined to press charges against Manhart. The officers attempting to detain her also declined to press charges for resisting.

Instead, Manhart was given a criminal trespass warning which effectively bans her from any university activity, including graduation and football games, said Andy Clark, vice president for enrollment, marketing and communications.

The demonstrators declined to identify their group to The Valdosta Daily Times or speak with a reporter about their cause, but they did engage VSU students in heated debate.

I suppose you could say the flag being trampled was triggering to Manhart? But since her right to not be offended is overriden by the protesters' right to engage in public advocacy, authorities made the correct decision when they stopped her. The university and its Board of Regents issues a statement in support of free speech—even when it involves flag stomping—and that seems justified, too.

I only wish that the conviction of university administrators was always so strong. Freedom of speech on campus includes the freedom not just to defile the American flag, but also to assert that abortion is murder, homosexuality is sinful, Israel is guilty of war crimes, all women lie about being raped, President Obama deserves a third term, or any other alarming, offensive, or distasteful idea. Students can benefit from hearing about different perspectives, even if those perspectives are mostly or entirely incorrect.

And yet all too many universities routinely cave-in to students' requests for censorship of offensive speakers, or take punitive action against community members for daring to engage in constitutionally-protected activities. Valdosta State, for instance, expelled a student in 2007 for protesting the construction of a new parking area that would have been named after the university's president. (The student sued, eventually winning a settlement against VSU and its president thanks to the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.)

The First Amendment: It's not just for flag stompers.

NEXT: VIDEO: 5 Insane Devices for Monitoring Your Kids

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Students can benefit from hearing about different perspectives, even if those perspectives are mostly or entirely incorrect.”

    I don’t think this matters one way or the other. If NOBODY benefits from me carrying my “space-aliens for Hitler” banner, I still get to carry it.

    1. You only *get* to carry what the Progressive Theocracy *allows* you to carry.

    2. Your group sounds interesting and I would like to sign up for your newsletter.

      1. You’re not, uh, well, you don’t eat a ‘special diet’, do you?

        1. Just humans, er… kittens. Yes, kittens.

          1. “Space Aliens for Hitler” are evil fascists, and cannot be tolerated! “Space Aliens for Stalin”, now, on the other tentacle, those are WAY cool and hippagroovalistic… That’s the newsletter that I as a compassionate collectivist space alien, wish to sign up for!

            1. “[…]on the other tentacle,[…]”
              So OTOT?
              I LIKE it!

    3. although hitler did get elected (isnt democracy great?) the alien turnout was tiny.

      1. Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

  2. What about eating the flag?

    1. No ketchup on hamburgers!

      1. Never trust anyone who puts ketchup on hot dogs.

        1. I’ll throw up. Ketchup on hot dogs is terrible!!!!!!!!!!

    2. I don’t condone what Dr. Zoidberg did but I’ll fight tooth and nail for his freedom to do it. Or I would if I hadn’t lost my teeth and nails on Mars and Saturn respectively.

      1. As Emperor Obozo’s empire always expands, I am not in the least bit surprised that you lost humanoid body parts on Mars and Saturn. You, though, Sir or Maam, with all due respect, are small potatoes! I lost 6 of my 12 tentacles fighting for Obozo’s Empire, in the Andromeda Galaxy Quest!

      2. I can’t wait to tell my husbands!

    1. Way to not save us a click or two

      1. I wouldn’t mind running her up *my* flagpole…

        Hey, who keeps hijacking my account and posting dirty jokes?

        1. Hey, who keeps hijacking my account and posting dirty jokes?

          I’m guessing Tonio. He really has it out for you for some reason.

          1. Has it out for me? TMI.

      2. She had the freedom of speech to pose nude in playboy! Oh wait, no she didn’t. She willingly signed those rights away when she joined the Air Force. But you know who didn’t sign their rights of free speech away? Those students trampling the flag!

    2. Looked her up.

      Would.

      1. While I may disagree with the causes for which she strips, I will defend to the death her right to strip for them

        1. Hmm… maybe if she’s got a ball gag in her mouth I could put up with it.

          TISWTANLW.

      2. So it’s okay to use the flag in a sexual display covering up your tits, but not okay to trample on it as a form of protest. She’s not being very consistent in her respect for the flag.

  3. American Flag Toilet Paper

    Because America is strong. America is non-chafing. America is biodegradable.

    This 4th of July, remember the people who fought and died to protect your right to wipe your ass with the nation’s flag. Honor them.

    1. While I am a little miffed that this product was made in China…

      …i was pleased by one of the reviews, which said, “I rate this product 9/11….”

    2. The first review almost had to of been written by one of us.

    3. I was looking for something Koran-based.

    4. Hah! There is no ‘Venezuelan flag toilet paper’. Or any other Venezuelan toilet paper, for that matter.

  4. I got a call from a student who told me that the flag was on the ground, and they were walking on it
    .
    The horror
    .
    The HORROR

  5. “I only wish that the conviction of university administrators was always so strong.”

    That’s where you’re entirely mistaken. The Progressive Theocracy has *no* commitment to free speech. That’s just a convenient rationalization for protecting viewpoints which further their power *in this case*.

    1. “Freedom of speech on campus includes the freedom not just to defile the American flag, but also to assert that abortion is murder, homosexuality is sinful, Israel is guilty of war crimes, all women lie about being raped, ”

      That’s what *actual* freedom of speech would include, which puts the lie to their rationlization about being “for free speech” in this case.

      No, they’re for one agenda, and against another.

    2. Agreed. The WaPo story has a lot of quotes from the protesters, who sound very much like a bunch of black college kids who just watched Malcolm X and stopped before he got to Mecca. There’s a distinct, shall we say ‘tone’, to the protest that makes it perfect for the Progressive agenda. Someone actually referred to “white privilege” in the crowd, for chrissakes. It’s like they read the SJW manual.

      My guess is that if it was a crowd of white college kids with a Confederate battle flag, or Jewish kids against Palestinian terrorism, the school’s administration wouldn’t be so quick to take a brave stand for freedom.

      1. Enh. They’d probably be OK with the Confederate flag one.

  6. … all women lie about being raped …

    Dammit Robby, you can stop rubbing it in now!

    Sincerely, Jezebel

    1. I bet Jezebel doesn’t want him to stop…

      Hey, who’s been posting dirty jokes from my computer?

      1. Hitler?

        1. It’s always Hitler. Or the butler.

    2. Eeeeew!

      /teenage girl

  7. The relevant freedom in the 1st amendment is SPEECH, not putting feet down.

    1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

      They were assembling peacefully then.
      How does walking on the flag in any way violate anyone elses rights?

      1. Yeah, it sucks. But she was in the wrong here. If it were her flag, that she paid for…

        1. Although, I have to say the video of guardsmen(?) patiently collecting all the pieces of a US flag desecrated in Ferguson choked me up a little.
          http://nypost.com/2014/12/31/n…..-ferguson/

    2. Speech is more than just spoken words.

      1. Dr. Albert Mehrabian, author of Silent Messages, conducted several studies on nonverbal communication. He found that 7% of any message is conveyed through words, 38% through certain vocal elements, and 55% through nonverbal elements (facial expressions, gestures, posture, etc).

        The founders really should have used “freedom of communication”.

        1. I’ve always thought that “freedom of speech” pretty obviously covers multiple forms of communication but I guess I was wrong. There’s a linguistics term covering this sort of thing (e.g. “man” as a stand-in for “humanity”) but I would have to dust off some old textbooks to recall it.

          1. Are you thinking of “metonymy” perhaps?

            1. Well, “synecdoche”, specifically.

              1. Yep, I think that’s right.

            2. Actually “metonym” popped into my head but I’m sort of drunk and too lazy to look it up.

              1. but I’m sort of drunk and too lazy to look it up.

                I know that feel, bro.

  8. On this one story, Fox News lives up to the stereotype:

    “Valdosta State University, which is funded by tax dollars, issued two statements defending the desecration of the American flag….

    “In other words, Valdosta State University loves flag burners more so than flag wavers….

    “The intellectual elites at Valdosta State University should be ashamed of their behavior. They should be honoring brave patriots like Michelle Manhart. Instead, they hauled this brave woman away in handcuffs and banished her from their campus.

    “The way I see it – her only crime was behaving exactly the way we would expect a veteran of the Armed Forces to behave.”

    http://nation.foxnews.com/2015…..esecration

    1. “The way I see it – her only crime was behaving exactly the way we would expect a veteran of the Armed Forces to behave.”

      By using force to stifle speech she didn’t like?

      Why is Fox News insulting veterans?

      1. I think Fox would be surprised to find that most veterans understand the Constitution and although they would hate to see the flag walked on they would just turn away and ignore them.

        Just as the left would be shocked to find out that an overwhelming majority of the military prefers peace to war.

        1. In the endless game called American politics, veterans are just another political football to be tossed between TEAM Red and TEAM Blue.

      2. Why is Fox News insulting veterans?

        Because FOX doesn’t give a flying fuck about veterans OR the Constitution. FOX cares only about taking the opposite position of the other Team.

        1. I mean, I understand why Fox News was formed. The left (or at least a narrative sympathetic to its worldview) dominates the mainstream news and culture, especially today. But for God’s sake, can’t they at least think before they put pen to paper keyboard to screen?

          1. I think Fox is far superior to most of the rest of the mainstream press when it comes to reporting the news. They actually give you the facts without commentary. I’m seeing more commentary mixed with the straight news everywhere else. There is no question that Fox is an arm of the Republican party when it comes to opinion pieces just as CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC is for the Democrats. Fox also doesn’t seem to get fixated and go 24/7 on a particular story like the other 24 hour news channels. The missing flight a couple months ago is a perfect example.

            Fox for the most part admits their bias unlike the others who keep lying to themselves about unbiased they really are. Truthfully I think the papers in overseas do a better job of reporting on the US than the US based news.

            1. “I think Fox is far superior to most of the rest of the mainstream press when it comes to reporting the news.”

              Who saw that coming from FUQ?

              1. In a post where I clearly state that Fox commentary is part of the Republican party platform and I say that Fox has a bias towards the right. The best you can quote is the part where in my opinion I think that Fox does a better job reporting the straight news that the other channels. There is a difference in news reporting (who,what,where,when,why) and opinion pieces. Is Fox clearly in the camp of the right on opinion pieces? Absolutely. Do they at least try to give me the news without opinion in their news segments? Yes. There is a clear defining line between opinion segments and news segments on Fox. The others blur that line more and more. Further more I also state that I believe the foreign press does a better job reporting US news than does our domestic news agencies.

                But yes, I must be a right wing conservative because I disagree with you.

                1. news without opinion

                  The NYT is a worse offender than any news channel.

            2. Fox for the most part admits their bias unlike the others

              They actually give you the facts without commentary.

              The “fair and balanced” opinion cable news channel?

              Hannity, Bill-O and crowd are nothing but opinion.

              You must be really stupid and apparently fairly new here. I look forward to ridiculing your idiot conservative world view.

              1. You don’t have the intellect to ridicule 2 dogs fucking on the side of the road.

                1. Why would that be ridiculous?

              2. Palin’s Buttplug|4.19.15 @ 8:42PM|#
                “You must be really stupid and apparently fairly new here. I look forward to ridiculing your idiot conservative world view.”

                Turd, you’d have to look, oh maybe at the post directly above you to find someone as abysmally stupid as you.
                So please improve the overall intelligence of mankind and have a nice shot of cyanide.

              3. Hannity, Bill-O and crowd are nothing but opinion.

                Um… yes? Is there anyone who think those aren’t obviously opinion shows?

                1. Well, turd was AMAZED! And he thinks MSNBC is, well, a little to the right for his tastes.

                  1. MSNBC sucks. I despise Al Sharpton as much as anyone else does and never watch that network out of fear that I will see him.

                    Al Sharpton = Rush Limbaugh. They are both despicable race-baiters who thrive on lying to a captive audience.

                2. Um… yes? Is there anyone who think those aren’t obviously opinion shows?

                  Our newest conservative dumbass – Private FUQ does. He actually said “They actually give you the facts without commentary.” about Fox News on this very thread.

                  1. By completely ignoring the context and the rest of the post you would have a valid complaint. The fact that you ignored the rest clearly shows your lack of understanding which fits with the rest of your posts here. As I already stated, it seems you only read and understood 8% of what I said. But thanks for again proving you can’t argue in good faith. You cherry pick your quotes like you cherry pick data to make a point.

                  2. I thought it was pretty clear that he was talking about news reporting. But I guess you decided to pretend otherwise.

                    1. Thanks to those who actually read what I wrote. In no way do I see Fox opinion pieces (which includes just about everything they show in the evening) as straight news reporting or unbiased. I may not write things in the best way but I thought I was pretty clear.

                  3. Palin’s Buttplug|4.19.15 @ 9:10PM|#
                    “Our newest conservative dumbass – Private FUQ does. He actually said “They actually give you the facts without commentary.”

                    You stupid shit, the question was about two specific shows, and your stupidity is such that you miss that entirely and beat up on a straw man!
                    How do you brush your teeth without instructions?

                3. Is there anyone who think those aren’t obviously opinion shows?

                  judging from his post, PB is unable to make that distinction. Happens a lot in the Obama dogwashing brigade.

                  1. Fox News has no straight news shows.

                    The only one that is a candidate (the one with Bret Baier?) has some straight news for 10-15 minutes then they bring an idiot like Bill Kristol or Charles KrautHimler on to tell the viewers what to believe about the events of the day.

                    1. It’s too late to salvage yourself here. You claimed you would be ridiculing me but only made yourself look like a bigger asshat. But please keep trying. You’re about 8% effective.

                    2. Fox News has no straight news shows.

                      Someone tell that to Pew Polling.

                      In its study of the cable networks in late 2012, Pew reported that commentary and opinion was “far more prevalent on the air” than straight news reporting, with 63 percent of the airtime devoted to talk compared to 37 percent dedicated to reporting. CNN’s coverage was made up of 54 percent reporting compared to 46 percent opinion, while MSNBC had just 15 percent reporting. Fox News, meanwhile, fell between the two with 55 percent commentary and 45 percent reporting.

                      Be honest – you don’t actually watch Fox so you based your argument on Young Turk videos you saw on Youtube.

                    3. “Be honest – you don’t actually watch Fox so you based your argument on Young Turk videos you saw on Youtube.”

                      I doubt that. I’m guessing he watches it obsessively, charting every deviance from Team Blue orthodoxy.

                4. O’Reilly might be beyond-opinion rather than nothing-but-opinion.

              4. I enjoy ridiculing you all the time you ignorant twit. I suspect you only understood 8% of my post.

        2. FOX cares only about taking the opposite position of the other Team.

          And making money.

          1. ^this

            taking the opposing side is just the means to the end.

    2. Whoda thunk…the right is JUST as unprincipled as the left.

      Shocked, I am.

      1. “Whoda thunk…the right is JUST as unprincipled as the left.”

        And at dinner last week, someone claimed the R’s are mostly involved on getting re-elected and handing out favors to cronies!
        My goodness!

      2. So libertarians are just as unprincipled as the left?

    3. The intellectual elites at Valdosta State University should be ashamed of their behavior. They should be honoring brave patriots like Michelle Manhart. Instead, they hauled this brave woman away in handcuffs and banished her from their campus.

      This is the most brilliant series of cliches I’ve ever seen.

      Intellectual elites: Yep.

      Brave patriot: Yep

  9. Wait a second… Why aren’t all you TEAM RED SOCONS outraged over this.

    /Bo

    1. I went to a friend’s housewarming party on Saturday night. I talked to one group of people and soon enough I was called a far right extremist. I talked to another group that called me a leftist apologist and isolationist. Decided to introduce them to each other. They found common ground; I was being an asshole. Possible, but other explanations exist.

      1. All of my liberal friends are convinced I’m a tea partier, while the conservatives are sure I’m a communist.

    2. We’re throwing him off the scent by not protesting, even though I’m dying inside to show those pinko hippies what’s what.

    3. If only I’d ever said that there’s a lot of social conservatives around here…

      1. excuse me? There is no one more fixated on so-cons than you, as if this place is crawling with them. There are some but it’s hardly the norm.

        1. That’s why he also talks about GAMURGATE PSYCHOPATHS.

          If you’re not a SoCon, he’ll just declare you’re some sort of depraved misogynist who spends his days sending death threats to innocent, pure women and his nights maintaining the torture implements in his rape chamber.

          1. It was suggested I could advance from private easier if I joined the Gamergate Psychopaths instead of the Offended White Guys Brigade. Do I have to send death threats daily or will weekly death threats work?

  10. In this case this article is exactly right. I however believe this same university will have no problem telling students they can”t wear or show an American flag of the 5th of May. And I further suspect that if one were to walk on the Mexican flag on the 5th of May the walkers would be removed from campus.

      1. Why not? The people who run colleges in Georgia aren’t the same people who hang out at truck stops and tractor pulls.

        1. I just didn’t think Mexiphilia would be as strong in Georgia as it would be in, say, California.

          1. I don’t actually know, but I suspect university administrators are PC enough to do it if someone gave them the idea. So thanks a lot for putting it into their heads.

          2. Then you’ve never been to Athens.

            1. Or Atlanta

              1. Depends on where in Atlanta. Some parts of town are very anti- Messican.

                1. Atlanta may be one of the most self segregated places I have ever been. It’s not just race segregation but also depends on your original origination.

                2. Yeah but those are the Black neighborhoods.

          3. We got more Mexicans than any other state that doesn’t border Mexico. Or we did until the 2008 crash. Nevada might have more now.

        2. Goldstein is everywhere, sabotaging things.

      2. It happened in a California High School and was upheld by the 9th circuit. Students are not allowed to wear the American flag as shirt on the 5th of May. And the stupidity that is the college campus it not exclusive to the coasts or Northeast.

      3. You never know.

        I’ve been continually surprised by how ubiquitous the whole P.C. nuttery is across campuses. Hell, they recently banned display of the confederate flag….

        at Robert E. Lee chapel at the University of Washington & Lee.

        *note to students = if you’re really so sensitive about US History, maybe attending the university named after Robert E Lee wasn’t the best call.

        1. Only certain kinds of hate speech are allowed, see?

          1. Because students paying tuition asking a college to stop an official display is exactly the same thing!

            1. So it makes sense to pay to go to a college that had a particular display before you decided to go there and then complain about that display? Why not go elsewhere so your tender feelings aren’t hurt?

        2. Don’t get me started on the College of William and Mary.

          1. Why, what’d they do?

            (*uncle, mom both went there. mah ol’ virginny home)

            1. http://www.jacobite.ca/

              Don’t worry, I’m kidding around about the college’s name.

          2. Is that what they did after Mama Cass died?

        3. I’ve always found it incredible there’s a college named after Lee still. Someone should start up the Erwin Rommel Military Sciences College somewhere in the US, complete with a Erwin Rommel chapel with Nazi flags to demonstrate how awful that is.

          1. Ah, yes, to celebrate a general who tried to overthrow Hitler, good idea, but what’s with the Nazi flags?

            1. Yes, you could say Rommel would be more correct to be honored than Lee, but I picked him for a reason, because you could say the same ‘he was a noble warrior though his cause was flawed’ about him. Lee was loyal to his awful cause to the end.

              1. And, iirc, isn’t there some question that he was involved in the plot?

              2. Lee suggested freeing the slaves in order to support the Confederate war effort. (The Confederate establishment didn’t go along).

                But by all means keep up your adolescent screaming.

                1. I’m sure Rommel disapproved of concentration camps too Eddie.

                  1. I’m sure he disapproved of jackasses.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtQLIU4ze0g

                2. “Lee suggested freeing the slaves in order to support the Confederate war effort. (The Confederate establishment didn’t go along).”

                  So he promptly resigned, telling the establishment he could not serve to further a cause devoted to the enslavement of other human beings, and went to join the forces that were fighting to suppress/eliminate it.

                  Oh, wait.

                  1. Adolescents are always outraged to find that people in history were so darn *complicated,* whereas everyone knows they either were paragons of virtue (like the adolescent himself), or else members of the League of Evildoers.

                    Why can’t people like Lee fit themselves into one category or the other, rather than force indignant adolescents to confront nuance and complexity in life?

                    1. Poor Eddie, there seems to be nothing he was born into that he has resisted one iota in his life. Not only does he not question the faith of his fathers, but his regional ties dominate too. Eddie, that’s the opposite of nuance and seeing things as complicated.

                    2. As far I know, I’m the first Catholic in my family since the Reformation. I don’t boast of this, though – I find it embarrassing.

                      Lee was on the wrong side, and I’m totally grateful to those who fought against him – but by all means, demonstrate your courage by pissing on his grave.

                    3. There’s a big difference between pissing on someone’s grave and saying we might not should name a college after him. There’s that nuance thing you mentioned.

                    4. You wouldn’t know nuance if it bit you on the ass, ass.

                    5. “There’s a big difference between pissing on someone’s grave and saying we might not should name a college after him.”

                      It was named after George Washington *and* Lee.

                      Now, why does the college have Lee’s name?

                      Maybe because he was PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE?

                      http://www.wlu.edu/presidents-…..bert-e-lee

                    6. Wow, Bo, you didn’t even try to bluster your way out of this one, you simply stopped replying altogether!

              3. “Lee was loyal to his awful cause to the end.”

                You mean abolition of slavery? Why would you say that?

                1. My, he had a funny way of working his cause, ably leading an army fighting to preserve slavery!

                  1. You realize that once the war started it had very little to do with slavery and more to do with the North using force to maintain the Union?

                    1. The South was clear what they were fighting to maintain and what they saw Lincoln’s administration as threatening. Lincoln was clear that at the least he wasn’t going to allow slavery to expand. Many of the Northern recruits were abolitionists who joined knowing full well what was going on, not to mention the thousands of blacks that joined later. And of course, the result of the war, the consequence of it, was emancipation.

                      Yeah, that war was all about state’s rights and tariffs dude!

                    2. Lincoln was clear that at the least he wasn’t going to allow slavery to expand.

                      he was also willing to let it be to keep the Union intact. The prospect of all those raw material that fed Northern factories going elsewhere got in the way of the anti-slavery principle.

                  2. It’s almost as if history was more complicated than the childish morality play you were taught by government teachers.

                    1. If you’re going to play that relativism game, then don’t condemn any historical figure, ever. I mean, Woodrow Wilson was just a man of his time and place. FDR was swept along with the Zeitgeist of his day. Etc.

                      Of course history is complicated. But if we, as libertarians for crying out loud, can’t draw a line and say ‘OK, people who broke with their contemporaries to support the enslavement of other human beings are going to be seen as bad people’ then we’ve given up any right to any meaningful moral judgment at all.

                    2. “”If Bo can’t make glib, ignorant comparisons to Nazis, well then, we’ve lost the right to any meaningful moral judgement at all“”

                      /dramatic fall onto feinting couch

                    3. I wonder when Little Bo Blue is going to start chimping out to the DoD about Fort Hood.

                    4. Question: If we’re going to start renaming everything because the person did something bad during his life hundreds of years ago, should Planned Parenthood have to scrub its history of all mentions of Margaret Sanger due to her support for eugenics?

                      There’s actually a Margaret Sanger Award which obviously must be renamed due to her racial beliefs.

                      This is why this is idiotic. After a certain length of time, pretty much everyone will have their views fall into disrepute. It therefore makes no sense to go after Robert E. Lee as some supreme example of this when in fact virtually everyone living in his time had beliefs we would now find abhorrent.

                    5. According to Bo, memory of the Civil War should be expunged from the public consciousness a la Germany’s speech-repression re: Nazis

                      Because the “open minded” and intelligent approach to history is to denounce certain periods and characters as “Awful” and simply erase them from living memory.

                    6. but Sanger supported abortion. Who cares that she also supported eugenics. She was all about choice, so that makes everything else about her irrelevant.

                    7. “It’s almost as if history was more complicated than the childish morality play you were taught by government teachers.”

                      Get him started on how the National Socialists were really right wind, ’cause, uh, Hitler said something about that.

                    8. …right win*g*…

          2. Bo Speaks About Another Subject He is Entirely Ignorant Of
            – Film @ 11

            1. Your projection is noted. Stick to ties and slacks criticism, Gilmore.

            2. A feature film, I presume?

              1. The epic scale of Bo’s ignorance would require an series of 3D IMAX films

                1. I can see it now! Crowds walking out 5 minutes into the first segment, pinching their noses!
                  And if Bo was in attendance, he could stand on the stage and scream that they are projecting, just projecting!

          3. What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  11. I agree that the students could do what they want with the flag. It’s their property. But at Valdosta State and most other colleges and universities, the First Amendment IS just for flag-stompers, as your examples indicate.

    1. This. I guarantee the university would not defend my right if I want on that campus and burned a Koran. In fact, I may just go ahead and do that.

      1. Should we send flowers or contribute to your favorite charity?

    2. You sound like someone who thinks the city is a bad place because you listen to the police blotter all day. Most colleges don’t make the news on these kinds of things, despite the fact that right wing media is watching every step they make, because most college life is politically boring.

      1. I am a college student there, Bo-tard. And I’m willing to bet that a large number of universities would react more negatively to a Koran burning than stomping on the flag.

        Both fall under free speech.

        Tip: Bacon grease is not as good an accelerant as you’d think.

        Hm. I’ll just have to bring a bunch of Korans. Some to be doused in pig lard, and the others for burning.

  12. But since her right to not be offended…

    Umm. I don’t get it. Is this some sort of inside joke I’m missing?

    1. Is this some sort of inside joke I’m missing?

      Yes.

    2. “Umm. I don’t get it. Is this some sort of inside joke I’m missing?”

      It’s a sarcastic ‘example’ of why proggies and assholes like Bo consider a concept like “hate speech” to be a valid one.

    3. Got it. For some reason it just came off as too sincere. Guess my meter is off.

  13. When I read Salon, I feel the same sense of shame about being an atheist that I imagine Christians must feel when the Westboro Baptist Church is on T.V.

    Marco Rubio’s deranged religion, Ted Cruz’s bizarre faith: Our would-be presidents are God-fearing clowns

    With the dapper Florida Sen. Marco Rubio we move into the more disturbing category of Republicans we might charitably diagnose as “faith-deranged” ? in other words, as likely to do fine among the unwashed “crazies” in the red-state primaries, but whose religious beliefs would (or should) render them unfit for civilized company anywhere else.

    Among the faith-deranged, Rubio stands out. He briefly dumped one magic book for another, converting from Roman Catholicism to Mormonism and then back again. (Reporters take note: This is faith-fueled flip-flopping, which surely indicates a damning character flaw to be investigated. Flip-flopping of a different sort helped sink John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid.)

    1. Yet even as a re-minted Catholic, Rubio cheats on the Pope with a megachurch in Miami called Christ Fellowship. As religion and politics blogger Bruce Wilson points out, Christ Fellowship is a hotbed of “demonology and exorcism, Young Earth creationism, and denial of evolution,” and is so intolerant it demands its prospective employees certify they are not “practicing homosexuals” and don’t cheat on their spouses. (Check out its manifesto under “About Us ? What We Believe.”) As regards evolution, Rubio confesses that he’s “not a scientist” and so cannot presume to judge the fact of evolution on its merits, and holds that creationism should be taught in schools as just one of many “multiple theories” about our origins.

      That last bit’s retarded, but I find it amazing that they’re playing this guilt by association nonsense when Rubio himself has never expressed support for ideas about demonology and exorcism. We’re not supposed to point out Hillary’s affinity for Alinskyite tactics or else it’s evidence we’re crazy, but if a dude went to a church with other members who apparently believe crazy shit, apparently he is rendered unfit for high office.

      1. So, if you accept the Bible in its totality, do you think sex workers should be burned alive (Leviticus 21:9) or that gays should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13)? Should women submit to their husbands, per Colossians 3:18? Should women also, as commands 1 Timothy 2:11, study “in silence with full submission?” Would you adhere to Deuteronomy 20:10-14 and ask Congress to pass a law punishing rapists by fining them 50 shekels and making them marry their victims and forbidding them to divorce forever? Given that the Bible ordains genocide (as in 1 Samuel 15:3:), will you work for the release of Athanase Seromba, the Catholic priest imprisoned for his role in the mass Rwandan slaughter of 1994? Will you call on Congress to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment and reinstate slavery, since the Bible, in 1 Peter 2:18, de facto sanctions the horrific practice and demands that slaves submit to their “masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel?” Please clarify.

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

        This is ridiculously stupid. I also doubt Salon would be okay with someone doing the exact same thing to a Muslim candidate.

        “Do you believe all apostates should be put to death?” I somewhat suspect Salon would lose their shit if someone asked that of a Muslim candidate.

        1. I’m not sure why someone who said they believed every word of the Bible or Koran were literally true shouldn’t have to answer such a question. Do you believe it or not?

          1. Because they’re wrong about believing the Bible is literally true but it’s a 100% irrelevant question to ask of a president.

            None of them actually believe it’s literally word for word true. They might tell themselves they do, but they really don’t. None of them believe slavery is okay. None of them believe genocide is alright. It’s a nonsense question that’s just meant to impugn presidential candidates on a subject entirely irrelevant to the actual work of leading the executive branch.

            And you’d be screaming to high heavens along with Salon if someone asked a Muslim candidate similar questions. You got pissed off when people here were criticizing Muslim women for engaging in vandalism, so there’s no way you’d let such a question pass were it asked of a Muslim candidate. Then when you got called on your hypocrisy you’d declare everyone an outraged white man and stomp away huffily.

            1. So let me get this straight, when they want to appeal to the faithful they’ll proclaim they believe in every word and letter of the Bible, and that specific Bible verses command certain of their policy positions because ‘the Bible said it, I believe it, ’nuff said,’ but then they can’t be asked “well, OK, what about X or Y in the Bible?”

              1. Bo Cara Esq.|4.19.15 @ 9:00PM|#
                “So let me get this straight,”
                You lying sack of shit; you have no intent of EVER getting anything straight.

            2. “And you’d be screaming to high heavens along with Salon if someone asked a Muslim candidate similar questions.”

              Er, no. One wonders where you got that?

              “You got pissed off when people here were criticizing Muslim women for engaging in vandalism, ”

              Oh I see, from terrible reasoning.

              My comment about the Muslim student was that her actions were getting disproportionate focus. She was an undergrad that egged another student’s dorm door. Have you ever been to college? If that became a national story every time it happened the news would have little room for anything else.

              On the other hand, someone running for POTUS is kind of warranting of national coverage. If a Muslim candidate was running, especially if he was linked to a controversial Mosque, I’d want myself to ask him what he thought about what his Scriptures say about things like treatment of women, gays, etc. Scriptural literalism is a bad thing for whatever faith it’s found in.

        2. This is ridiculously stupid. I also doubt Salon would be okay with someone doing the exact same thing to a Muslim candidate.

          Actually, I’m surprised they published an essay by the same author where he states this:

          In other Salon essays (see here, for example), I’ve denounced the semantic mud pie to which the noun “Islamophobia” amounts. The vogue term, with its echoes of mental illness and shame, should really be placed in quotation marks whenever used, or, far better, discarded as deleterious to rational discourse. In free societies, those who object to canonical Islam ? to its universalist claims, to its explicit injunctions to commit violence against unbelievers, to its inherent misogyny ? must have every right to air their opinions without fear of reprisal in the public square. (I am not suggesting by any means that all Muslims are prone to violence, but the extremists are determining the conversation.) Such opinions may, yes, cause offense to some Muslims (and to quite a few progressives beholden not to honest debate, but to PC speech codes), but so be it. Our right to discuss one of the most critical issues of our time has to trump the tender sensibilities of one or another group. There can be no compromise here, especially under threat of violence.

          1. Impressive. At least this guy seems to be intellectually consistent. That one article doesn’t quite make up for Salon’s dozens of other articles where they declare everyone on Earth to be an ‘Islamophobe,’ including rational atheists like Sam Harris.

            Here’s a Salon article where they interview someone who says Sam Harris criticizing Islam could result in concentration camps.

            If you search Sam Harris on Salon, there are tons of crazy articles, including this one.

            Basically, a guy claims Muslims are actually less violent than non-Muslims based on flawed data and by ignoring all wars (he only counts homicide rates, not terrorism or warfare) and Salon eats it up.

            1. “That one article doesn’t quite make up for Salon’s dozens of other articles”

              Who is doing the guilt by association game now?

              1. Bo Cara Esq.|4.19.15 @ 9:07PM|#
                “That one article doesn’t quite make up for Salon’s dozens of other articles”
                ————–
                “Who is doing the guilt by association game now?”

                “Guilt by association” is a concept that’s sort of above your ability to understand?
                Because there is zero “guilt by association” in that statement. I’m willing to help you here; my fee is usually $250/hr, but the aggro in dealing with ignoramuses like you means you pay $500/hr.
                Post your credit card info and I’ll try to help.

                1. Because there is zero “guilt by association” in that statement.

                  Bo is the dumbest person on Earth. I was criticizing Salon for Salon’s own articles but somehow it’s guilt by association to critique a website for articles that website actually published.

                  He’s going to have a rough time as a lawyer.

                2. Sevo, c’mon. There IS NO helping him. But props for even trying.

            2. The guy who wrote the book claiming Muslims are actually less violent made some hysterical mistakes, as I documented here.

              Let us begin with Sudan, a nation which, according to Fish, has a homicide rate of 0.3 per 100,000, about one-fourth the homicide rate of Canada. I was immediately suspicious when I saw that number, as any intelligent person should be, so, unlike Zack Beauchamp, I did some independent research. Every single source I found regarding Sudan’s homicide rate said that their homicide rate is over 10 per 100,000, with some sources putting Sudan’s homicide rate as high as 25 per 100,000. Even if we take the lower bound and say that Sudan’s murder rate is 10 per 100,000 people, that’s 30 times higher than the number cited by Fish’s book. If the 25 per 100,000 people statistic were accurate, then the real numbers would be 83 times higher than those claimed by Steven Fish.

              Basically, Fish cited numbers that were consistently 10-30 times lower than the actual homicide rate. I don’t know how on Earth this guy was stupid enough to do this, but I’m even more impressed progressives mindlessly believe his claims when they’re so easily refuted.

              1. But one possible explanation arises from the data: Greater socioeconomic inequality is correlated with higher homicide rates, and Muslim societies have comparatively low levels of inequality. The regions with the most murder, Latin America and southern Africa, also have the highest values on the so-called Gini score, the statistic that economists and political scientists use to measure class inequality. High economic inequalities (which is what a high Gini score indicates) and high murder rates go together. Statistical analysis shows that countries with proportionately larger Muslim populations have lower Gini scores and lower murder rates.

                We don’t yet know why Muslims have lower murder rates and lower economic inequalities, but we do know that they enjoy both. We also suspect that lower inequalities make for less social tension and less homicide.

                Christ, what a cunt.

                As I get out of my car near home in Oakland tonight, I will miss the relative safety of the teeming slum I once lived near in Surabaya, Indonesia’s second-largest city. And while there are quite a few Muslims in my neighborhood in Oakland, I can’t say I’ll be on edge worrying about a terrorist attack. In fact, the guys in Muslim skullcaps and the women in hijabs I might run into tonight at the Arab-run convenience store down the street will be last folks I’ll fear.

                Did he just write the Prog version of Derbyshire’s “The Talk”?

                  1. As I said, his claim about homicide rates is also completely wrong because his data is provably inaccurate if you go back to his original source and look at the homicide rates he’s claiming these various Muslim countries have.

                    As I said in the post I linked to:

                    Fish claims that Morroco has a homicide rate of 0.5 per 100,000. According to the Moroccan government (which, much like Egypt’s, is not particularly trustworthy) their homicide rate is 1.4 per 100,000 – 3 times higher than the number Fish gives. Fish claims that Niger’s homicide rate is 0.9 per 100,000, but the most recent numbers I could find come from a Guardian article which lists Niger’s homicide rate at 20 per 100,000 as recently as 2004 – 20 times higher than Fish’s claim. He says that Senegal’s homicide rate was only 0.3 per 100,000, but as of 2008, Senegal’s homicide rate was 8.7. Again, that’s 30 times higher than the number provided to us from Fish’s study.

                    This fucking idiot claimed Niger had a homicide rate lower than Germany. Any intelligent person would have realized ‘hey, maybe the numbers I’m working with aren’t quite accurate and should be reassessed.’

                    He also ignores war so he lists Libya’s homicide rate as being really low despite the fact that as he was writing the book tens of thousands of Libyans were being slaughtered by militias.

                    Oh, and he ignores the Darfur genocide because it doesn’t get counted in homicide rates. Brilliant.

                    1. I advise all to read Irish’s linked post. He did God’s (!) work there.

                      Sampling bias isn’t just a river in Egypt.

      2. But don’t you dare say a word about Jeremiah Wright and his flock!

      3. I seem to remember a few people commenting about how Obama, having attended Wacky Rev. Wrights church, should answer for some of the wacky things the Reverend said.

        1. Obama promptly disowned Wright.

          Meanwhile the nutcases in the GOP begin campaigns at Liberty U and Bob Jones U. Big difference.

          1. If I recall, Obama said he would no more disown Wright than he’d disown his (Obama’s) racist white grandma.

            1. All communication with Wright and his church ceased. Was it strictly for PR? I don’t know.

              1. Let me give you a hint as to the answer…YES.

              2. Let me see . . .

                The man went to the church for years and didn’t cut off contact until others pointed out that Wright is a bit crazy, racists, and anti-American and that would seriously hurt Obama’s presidential runs.

                So, either he:

                Spent years at this church and never listened to a word Wright said

                or

                Dumped Wright as soon as Wright became politically damaging.

                  1. Palin’s Buttplug|4.19.15 @ 10:48PM|#
                    “Or both.”

                    […],he guessed.
                    Go lick Obo ass.

      4. Except when the attendee of said church is a progressive. Like Obama attending Jeremiah Wright’s Church of the Devout Whitey Hating Marxist.

    2. Hitchens was correct. Religion poisons everything. If people really believe that bullshit and use GAWD to make decisions (like when Dumbya said a “higher” father told him to invade Iraq) then you have a really deranged person.

      1. “Religion poisons everything.”

        Oh come on. Abolitionism? The Civil Rights Movement? These were more than tinged with religion and they didn’t seem ‘poisoned’ thereby.

        1. Aren’t emancipation and civil rights worthy goals without religion?

          1. The point was that it was religious commitment that seemed to animate them.

            1. Bo Cara Esq.|4.19.15 @ 8:56PM|#
              “The point was that it was religious commitment that seemed to animate them.”

              Boshit claim from Bo.

      2. You know, of course, that Hitchens supported Pres. Bush’s decision to attack Iraq?

        1. Yes he did. I doubt he supported his reasoning though (a “higher” padre told him to invade).

          1. So the key question of the Iraq war in the intentions of those who supported it?

            1. No. Hitch (who I have great respect for) would today say that war failed to accomplish its goals as he perceived them to be. He did vote for Obama after all – a candidate who always said the Iraq War was a big mistake.

              1. Palin’s Buttplug|4.19.15 @ 9:05PM|#
                “[…]Hitch (who I have great respect for) would today say[…]”

                Now turd presumes to speak for the dead!
                Just keep the hits coming, turd!

              2. Hitch (who I have great respect for) would today say that war failed to accomplish its goals as he perceived them to be.

                And he’d say that war failed to accomplish its goals because we weren’t aggressive enough and also should have been invading Iran while we were at it.

                You know – exactly what he was saying right before he died.

              1. Who didn’t disagree with Hitch about something?

                But he was well respected even here.

              2. Hitchens was of course completely right. Destroying the Iranian regime is the most pro-peace ME policy possible.

                1. I think you got Iran and Iraq mixed up…

      3. Yeah, that MLK guy was just a monster because of his overt Christianity.

      4. Nothing more poisonous than your church. You are a devout Progressive Orthodox,, are you not?

  14. But since her right to not be offended is overriden by the protesters’ right to engage in public advocacy, authorities made the correct decision when they stopped her.

    You have it all wrong Mr. Soave. Under the “reasonable woman standard”: if the average woman would be annoyed, alarmed, or threatened by a particular comment, it should be considered illegal speech.

    As a woman (today I feel like a woman), I know I would certainly have been annoyed, alarmed, and threatened by the disgusting display of the protesters.

    1. Sarc, right?

      1. Sarc, right?

        Yes, regarding the “reasonable woman standard” (what woman is reasonable) but not me being a woman (for today) who also just so happens to have a penis.

        1. “Yes, regarding the “reasonable woman standard””
          That’s what I thought.

  15. The demonstrators declined to identify their group to The Valdosta Daily Times or speak with a reporter about their cause

    I take it these guys are new to the whole protesting thing.

    1. Maybe they were members of Anonymous?

  16. This is the flakiest conspiratorial nonsense I have ever read – worse than Truthers:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026531352

    In short a “memo” was written by Larry Summers to engineer worldwide financial deregulation based on WTO rules so that banks could trade derivatives then crash and get a TARP bailout and NAFTA 1% something or other.

    Conservative sites usually have the biggest whackjob CT but now a progressive site just topped them.

    1. I wondered where you got your imbecilic talking points. Democraticunderground makes sense.

  17. Gee, you would think a military veteran would understand that they fought to defend your rights to free speech, including flag trampling or flag burning.

    1. If you talked to a military veteran you would find an overwhelming majority of them do. They will die to protect your rights and they understand them better than most people do. This woman went out of her way to be offended. She is not representative of those who have served. And being former miltary myself along with being raised an Air Force brat plus being married to a current Army nurse I suspect I have an insiders view of this. Most military people would just walk away and ignore assholes like this. They might also verbally defend these idiots their right to walk on the flag. Having seen this happen many times when flag burning was the burning issue of the day I get to agree that I’m right.

    2. Yes. But as a military veteran I can tell you that seeing some anti American hippie shitbag trashing the flag is quite irksome. Sometimes that gets away from us for a moment.

  18. You know who else shouldn’t have a college named after him….

    1. Professor Peter Hore?

    2. Charles Lewis Cocke?

    3. Marc L?pine?

    4. Marcus Dontgiveusanymoney?

        1. Dewey, Cheatim and Howe?

    5. Electoral?

      1. That is hilarious. It’s even more funny because I completely missed it the first time.

    6. The answer is always Hitler isn’t it?

    7. Joseph Pulitzer?

    8. Ra’s al Gul?

  19. Be afraid, America

    (CNN) ? Twenty years ago, on April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh detonated a massive truck bomb in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The attack killed 168 men, women and children, injured hundreds more, and remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history.

    The attack’s aftermath saw a storm of media coverage with themes such as “attack on the heartland” and America’s “lost innocence.” In fact, the bombing took the country by surprise. It wasn’t simply the scale of the tragedy that drew attention, but the fact that the bombing exposed something new: American citizens targeting their own government with a deadliness hitherto unseen.

    The public became aware of the true danger of the extreme right. Reports connected McVeigh and his accomplice Terry Nichols to anti-government ideology movements, such as the militia movement, as well as to white supremacist causes.

    1. http://www.outpost-of-freedom……okcwhy.htm

      I just don’t think he falls into the right wing very well. He was anti government because of abuses he felt they had committed in Waco. I guess that falls under right wing? But he also was against the our foreign policy for abuses against other nations. In that time that fell under a more left wing stance. He just doesn’t fit in any team camp very well.

      And in response to your post below. I don’t even believe the government anymore when they talk about terrorist plots. If the FBI and CIA didn’t encourage and supply most of these plots then they would never get off the ground.

    2. “Let us not pass up this opportunity to accuse an entire swath of the political spectrum of secretly harboring the desire to commit mass-murder of their fellow citizens. Even though that was like, one crazy group of guys, and nothing like it has ever appeared elsewhere, ever.”

      but seriously….

      in the course of their heated frothing about Right-Wing Extremisms!! (including the 2 Occupy Wall St kids who shot people in Vegas? sooo right wing)

      …some other people have pointed out that the ADL seems to have completely abandoned their original purpose of being concerned about ‘Anti-Semitism’, and seems to spend all their time freaking out about “Social Justice” issues, Gun Control, and potential Republican terrorists …. and entirely ignores anything Muslim Imams in the US say about teh joos, because HELLO?! Islamaphobia!

      sort of funny, really.

  20. However, during the past six years, from 2009 through 2014, right-wing extremists in the U.S. were involved in at least 42 actual or attempted terrorist acts.

    In other words, right-wing violence today is actually at or very close to levels during the days of the Oklahoma City bombing.

    These statistics illustrate that “homegrown violent extremism” is not limited to extremism motivated by radical Islam. The anger and hate that generated the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 is still around in 2015?and still dangerous.

    Yes, of course. Redneck gun nuts are coming to get you.

    1. “However, during the past six years, from 2009 through 2014, right-wing extremists in the U.S. were involved in at least 42 actual or attempted terrorist acts.”

      PB, someone posted this earlier and it is total horseshit: Define “right-wing extremist” and define “violence”.
      I’m sure you’re familiar with the claims that ‘one in five Americans is starving!’. Well, drill down into that crap and you’ll find that one in five is ‘at food risk’, meaning it is possible that one night a year, if the stars align correctly, they *might* go to bed hungry!

      1. I believe food insecure is the preferred nomenclature.

        Progressives have become very adept at lying with manipulated statistics. For example, they love claiming America has an abnormally high poverty rate for an industrialized country, but they don’t know or don’t care that there is no international poverty line for wealthy nations, every nation calculates its poverty rate based on its own metrics which normally amount to scaling the poverty rate as a particular percentage of the average national income.

        As a result, America’s poverty rate is technically higher than Uzbekistan because America’s poverty rate is set at like $20,000 while Uzbekistan’s poverty rate is around $1000. America’s poverty line is actually like 7 times higher than Uzbekistan’s average income so it’s obviously absurd to claim America has more poverty than Uzbekistan – it just seems that way if you’re an idiot who doesn’t know how relative poverty is calculated.

        1. Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns|4.19.15 @ 10:15PM|#
          “I believe food insecure is the preferred nomenclature.”

          Only if you call proggies on bullshit; prior to that, they will simply claim “STARVATION!”
          After you make the call, a cite will appear with the title ‘food insecurity’ and then you can find it means some guy spent his stipend and didn’t get a can of soup before the end of the month.

      2. Kind of like how employment is calculated. If you worked for a couple hours in week you are fully employed. If you not eligible for unemployment but still not working you are magically not counted in the unemployment numbers anymore.

  21. Define “right-wing extremist”
    Tea Party Republicans.

  22. . . . she was not planning to take the flag from the group, but she had heard about the group’s recent campus demonstrations and wanted to take action.

    She shoulda cried out that she was *triggered!* Then she’d have probably gotten away with it.

  23. Can’t we agree to hate both US right-wing terrorists and Islamo-terrorists (also right wing) without shitting our pants like they happen with any real frequency in this country?

    1. You’re clearly soft on Christfags

      how else does TEAM work, if not spinning the other TEAM as hateful violent enemies of freedom?

    2. Can’t we agree to hate both US right-wing terrorists and Islamo-terrorists (also right wing) without shitting our pants like they happen with any real frequency in this country?

      I agree they are the same, however the increase in frequency of right-wing terrorists is alarming.

      The first step is admitting we have a problem. It would be idiotic to say that Islamic terrorists pose Americans no threat. Maybe it’s time to not act like idiots by ignoring a similar if not greater threat from domestic terrorists.

      it’s not just the NAACP bombing. It’s also three militia members who were arrested in January for plotting to bomb the Atlanta police station, the murder at a Kansas City mosque in December, and the right-wing extremist who shot more than 100 rounds at government buildings the same month in Austin, which is where the software engineer flew his Piper Dakota into an IRS building in Austin not too long ago.

      It’s the couple from the Bundy Ranch who killed three people, including two police officers, before shooting each other in Las Vegas last June.

      Let’s not also forget, Jared Loughner, Elliot Rodger and James Eagan Holmes

      1. Let’s not also forget, Jared Loughner, Elliot Rodger and James Eagan Holmes

        Yes, I agree that we shouldn’t forget about them on “Mental Illness Awareness Day”.

      2. Eliot Rodger the son of leftists who killed people because he couldn’t get any, Jared Loughner the nutcase who disturbed classmates with his erratic behavior and hated George W. Bush, and James Eagan Holmes, the random whacko who shot up a movie theater?

        So we shouldn’t forget three mass killers who had nothing to do with the American right-wing. You’re and idiot.

        1. Loughner – who tried to kill a popular Dem Congresswoman? Don’t be an idiot.

          Certainly there are left-wing terrorists in the USA. The Monkey Wrench Gang for instance. But they are far less in numbers than the right-wing ones.

          Quit making everything about TEAM!

          1. Palin’s Buttplug|4.19.15 @ 11:23PM|#
            “[…]Don’t be an idiot. […] Quit making everything about TEAM![…]”

            Now folks, this sort of self-ignorance doesn’t show up often; this is to be SAVORED!
            This is turd, for pete’s sake, lecturing someone on being an idiot and being a TEAM playah!
            This is an Academy Award performance from our fave lying asshole (or at least one of them).

          2. You realize Loughner is a paranoid schizophrenic, right?

            1. Loughner : “What is section 10 you ask? If you make a purchase then it’s illegal under section 10 and amendment 1 of the United States constitution. You make a purchase. Therefore, it’s illegal under section 10 and amendment 1 of the United States constitution.” He also states: “Top secret: Why don’t people control the money system? Their Current Currency(1/1) / Your new infinite currency (1/~infinte) This is a selcte information of revoluntary thoughts!”

              he was a devotee of Ayn Rand and favored the gold standard

              To call his crime an attempted assassination is to acknowledge that it appears to have had a political and not merely a personal context. That context wasn’t Islamic radicalism, Puerto Rican independence, or anarcho-syndicalism. It was the anti-government, pro-gun, xenophobic populism that flourishes in the dry and angry climate of Arizona. Extremist shouters didn’t program Loughner, in some mechanistic way, to shoot Gabrielle Giffords. But the Tea Party movement did make it appreciably more likely that a disturbed person like Loughner would react, would be able to react, and would not be prevented from reacting, in the crazy way he did.

              1. Holy shit, your idiocy and dishonesty are breathtaking.

        2. Mr. Loughner shot a democratic congresswoman. He was also anti-choice:
          After another student read a poem about getting an abortion, Mr. Loughner compared the young woman to a “terrorist for killing the baby.”. How much more proof do you need.

          James Eagan Holmes, tea-party member.

          Elliot Rodgers was a racists and mysoginist

            1. ABC apologized. Will you?

              Yes. It appears I was wrong about him being in the tea-party.

              1. Good on you. But even if Holmes was, the fact is that all 3 men were nuts. Loughner and Holmes were especially nuts with Loughner having been diagnosed with schizophrenia and a diagnosis for Holmes being most likely. As these men were so detached from reality, it’s impossible to seriously point to their actions as ideologically motivated as we would define it.

                1. All terorist are mentally imbalanced.

                  This isn’t to argue that these people aren’t crazy. But why didn’t Dzokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev get called crazy too? Instead of engaging in armchair psychoanalysis, the media ran long profiles of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, emphasizing their political radicalization, despite the fact that the marathon was not an obviously political target. When a Muslim commits an act of mass violence, any craziness is downplayed in favor of his beliefs, but when the perpetrator is a white, non-Muslim man, his action is understood as a product of his broken psychology, not the structural or political forces that surround him.

                  Before an act of terrorism was assumed to be the work of Muslims from abroad, it was a regular (if extreme) part of American politics. Despite the stereotypes of bomb-throwing anarchists and ecoterrorists, terrorism in the U.S. has been a much more common tactic of white supremacy and the far right.

                  1. You know who else had their craziness downplayed? The eco-terrorist who was going to bomb the Discovery Channel’s corporate headquarters if they didn’t read his manifesto on climate change on air. Read HuffPo’s apologia for the “deeper meaning” behind his “rage”.

                    1. Heroic Mulatto|4.20.15 @ 12:13AM|#
                      “You know who else had their craziness downplayed?”

                      Hitler, right?
                      Naah, I’m joking; Ted Kaczynski.

                    2. Ted Kaczynski? I never got that sense from the coverage about him. Granted I was only in college when he was caught, so I probably wasn’t paying a lot of attention to it at the time.

                  2. Further fun from the ADLs “Right Wing Extremism!” report

                    (the source of the quoted “42 incidents” of Right Wing terror since 2009)

                    This is pretty epic.

                    “In early March 2010, a 36-year old man from California, John Patrick Bedell, drove east on a murderous mission. Reaching Washington D.C., by March 4, that evening he drove to the Pentagon….Bedell reached into his pocket, but instead of an ID card, he pulled out a 9mm semi-automatic pistol (he brought along two and many ammo clips) and opened fire, wounding both officers. The two officers, despite being injured, were able to return fire and critically injured Bedell, who died shortly thereafter.

                    An ADL investigation into the mindset and beliefs of John Patrick Bedell reveals a man who idealistically sought to change the world into a cherished libertarian utopia, but who was also convinced that the current world was run by dark forces and malignant conspiracies”

                    From Wikipedia on the “Pentagon Shooter

                    “Bedell was a registered Democrat,[13] as a part of the only nominally Democratic LaRouche movement, who was critical of the U.S. government.[14]”

                    He also liked Rothbard, and was a 9/11 truther, to be fair. Sadly, i’m not sure this is the same “Right Wing” as the teen-nazis mentioned earlier.

          1. Holmes was not a tea-party member. You’re a liar.

            Moreover, Eliot Rodgers being a racist and misogynist is of no relevance. There are a large number of leftists throughout history who have been racists or misogynists, so it is not a right-wing trait.

            Secondly, Rodgers’ massacre was an apolitical massacre of a) some people he knew and b) various women because of his problems with women. It was not political so it is disingenuous to claim it was an example of right-wing terrorism.

            That would be like claiming that being a Democrat makes you a murderer since the most likely people to commit homicides are African Americans and they’re also the most consistent Democratic constituency. The problem is, unless those murders are committed because they vote Democrat it would be unfair to blame such crimes on the Democratic party.

            Therefore, even if Rodgers were a right-winger (which there’s really no evidence he was) the apolitical nature of his crime cannot rationally be declared an example of right-wing terrorism.

            I was wrong – you’re not an idiot. You’re functionally retarded and a mendacious liar, though the ‘functional’ part of ‘functionally retarded’ does seem to be up for debate.

            1. Left wing misogynists? Of course. Ted Kennedy comes to mind. And Hell, Bill Clinton is the poster child for date rape.

          2. So many proggy lies. You are a truly regrettable ahitbag.

        3. Eliot Rodger

          As I wrote in ‘The True Alpha Male’: The Santa Barbara Mass Shooting, Elliot Rodger, and Aggrieved White Male Entitlement Syndrome, when the bad behavior of white people is publicly called to account, said person’s relationship to “Whiteness” is rarely discussed.

          To be forced to include white mass murderers, madmen, and Right-wing domestic terrorists as part of the tribe is very uncomfortable and disconcerting…

          Elliot Rodger constructed an identity for himself as “Eurasian” and proceeded to internalize American society’s cues and lessons about power, privilege, race, and gender. He then lived out his own particular understanding of what it means to be white and male in the United States.

          Elliot Rodger demanded and expected power and control over others. He saw respect from others not as something earned but rather as a birthright. Elliot Rodger’s life is the very definition of unearned privilege and advantage. In his desperate search for validation and affection from his white father, he projected and acted on a particular type of elite, dominative, aggressive, white masculinity and sense of entitlement.

          1. Wait, if the “white male privilege” were actually a thing, then why did he go on a killing spree then? I mean, the whole point of that article was that he was upset because nobody respected his privilege, but if this privilege actually exist, wouldn’t somebody have “respected” this douchenozzle?

            1. Wait, if the “white male privilege” were actually a thing, then why did he go on a killing spree then? I mean, the whole point of that article was that he was upset because nobody respected his privilege, but if this privilege actually exist, wouldn’t somebody have “respected” this douchenozzle?

              His being half Chinese was probably the reason.

              1. His being half Chinese was probably the reason.

                I see you’re still engaging in ludicrous arm chair psychology for which you provide no evidence as there isn’t any.

                You have a rough time with ‘facts’ and ‘logic’ and prefer to take refuge in wild accusations for which you have no proof, don’t you?

                1. I see you’re still engaging in ludicrous arm chair psychology for which you provide no evidence as there isn’t any.

                  Elliot Rodger was deprived of all the benefits of white-privilege because he was only half-white.The frustration he experienced due to his exclusion from enjoying all the benefits sent him over the edge. How is this arm chair psychology? It is quite obvious.

                  1. this is sub-par troll work.

                    its not even effective parody. Can’t you at least plumb the linked source material for something that actually takes some ‘deconstructing’?

                    so far i need nothing but lack of effort AND lack of creative input. Sad, really. You should study Hihn’s work.

                    1. As an example =

                      The infamous Barack Obama assassination plot

                      Unfortunately, these would-be Lee Harvey’s never really got past Phase 1 of “OPERATION WHITEWASH MURICA” – as they were swept up somewhere in the fundraising stage… (the ‘planned’ robberies to fund the ‘planned’ murder rampage which would lead to the eventual ‘planned’ Presidential Nixing)

                      “In October 2008, authorities found the pair of skinheads and their conspicuous getaway vehicle, which had “Honk if you love Hitler” written on the hood, at the West Tennessee home of Cowart’s grandparents which was where the two men resided. They also purchased ski masks and nylon rope to be used during the robberies. “

                      No One Expects the Right Wing Terror Menace!!

                    2. and = for the record… that example above? Was indeed one of the 42 cited incidents of “right wing terror” in the ADL report.

                      See how easy it is, bro? You just have to put in a little research effort, and spice them up.

                    3. How is this a conspiracy? FTA: He pleaded, “guilty to charges that he plotted to assassinate then-presidential nominee, Barack Obama.” What more do you want?

                    4. I’m pointing out how lazy and incompetent you are at making Big Deals out of bullshit.

                      You really don’t have even the basic skills for this. You’re like a troll-intern.

                  2. So Rodgers went mad and killed all those people from the stress of being a tragic mulatto.

                    Sounds legit.

          2. I see that you linked an arm-chair psychology article from a hack site like Alternet as your ‘evidence’ that Rodgers was somehow right-wing. That right-wing domestic terrorist statement isn’t something Rodgers said and it doesn’t even apply to Rodgers – it’s editorializing by the Alternet writer for which he provides no sources or evidence.

            Try harder because your evidence thus far is not only pathetic, but shows that you’re none too sharp.

            1. Try harder because your evidence thus far is not only pathetic, but shows that you’re none too sharp.

              I am just getting started. You do concede Mr. Loughner though, right?

              1. You do concede Mr. Loughner though, right?

                Indeed. You know who else also vehemently opposed abortion? Mao Zedong.

              2. block|4.20.15 @ 12:23AM|#
                “I am just getting started.”

                Well, that’s good to hear, since you’re going to have to do ‘way better than you have.

            2. Its probably Bo, in drag now.

              that’s how bad his attention-desperation disorder is

              1. GILMORE|4.20.15 @ 12:26AM|#
                “Its probably Bo, in drag now.”

                Sorta doubt it; not nearly enough unwarranted smuggery.

      3. And Lee Harvey Oswald!

  24. The Mountain Goats inexplicably released an album entirely based on professional wrestling and some of the songs are kind of awesome.

  25. If only Bo’s energy were spent doing something productive instead of being a tiresome mendacious cunt.

    1. If only Rosie O’Donnell could sing opera.

    2. His argument about how it’s totally reasonable to ask religious presidential candidates whether or not they support slavery was my personal favorite Boism of the night. If someone did the exact same thing to a Muslim, Bo would be howling about racism.

      1. The things I miss thanks to fascr.

  26. If pigs had wings, they’d be eagles.

    1. YOU DONT LIKE THE EAGLES YOU CAN GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS CAB

      1. I hate the fucking Eagles, man.

  27. Whatever the veteran may have done, or what the protesters were protesting…when it comes down to it, the protesters should have been fined/arrested for being in violation of federal law (outlined according to the US Government Publishing Office below). And fyi, the first amendment does not cover desecration of the US flag – again see below:

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/U…..sec700.htm

    1. That statute is awfully cute, though it’s too bad that the Supreme Court invalidated it back in 1989.

      The majority of the Court, according to Justice William Brennan, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of “symbolic speech” that is protected by the First Amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society’s outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech.

      In particular, the majority noted that the Texas law discriminated upon viewpoint, i.e., although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects, e.g., burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon viewpoint.

      Also, the first amendment does cover desecration of the US flag, no matter what laws congress may pass later. Congress can try all they like to ignore the stated duties of the First Amendment, but it’s written in awfully clear language.

      1. that’s funny since it was amended in 2000:

        Short Title of 2000 Amendment

        Pub. L. 106?547, ?1, Dec. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 2738, provided that: “This Act [enacting sections 716 and 1036 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000’.”

        PS you do not amend invalid laws

        1. What makes you say that?

          1. Because lawmakers don’t spend the time correcting stupid, active laws, why would they waste money on inactive (e.g Sacramento, CA still has a valid law statute on the books from the 18th-19th century forbidding women from wearing skirts/dresses that go above their ankles…obviously it’s not enforced but it’s still there and no one’s bothered to look at it).

            1. Because lawmakers don’t spend the time correcting stupid, active laws, why would they waste money on inactive (e.g Sacramento, CA still has a valid law statute on the books from the 18th-19th century forbidding women from wearing skirts/dresses that go above their ankles…obviously it’s not enforced but it’s still there and no one’s bothered to look at it).

              Have you met our congressmen? Because they’re dumb.

              Your points are all irrelevant. The courts have struck these down as unconstitutional. The courts have final say on that subject. Congress can do whatever they want, the courts will strike it down again if they try to imprison people under such laws.

            2. 1. You don’t think congresscritters waste time on symbolic bullshit? What country do you live in?

              2. Not every law invalidated by the Supremes is struck down in it’s entirety They often only invalidate one or a few parts of the law..

        2. plus it’s still a violation of Georgia State Law:

          Georgia
          The State of Georgia prohibits anyone from mutilating, defacing, defiling, or abusing contemptuously the U.S. flag, the Florida state flag or the flag of the Confederate States of America. The law also forbids the use of such flags for advertising or publicity purposes. [Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 50-3-8 and 50-3-9]

          1. plus it’s still a violation of Georgia State Law:

            Well, if Georgia ever actually tried to enforce that law, the law would be struck down by the first federal court that intervened because the Supreme Court struck down a similar New York law in 1969, invalidated an anti-desecration Texas law in 1989, and invalidated an anti-desecration federal law in 1990.

            How many times does the Supreme Court have to strike down these laws before you will acknowledge that it has been continuously held that flag desecration is protected by the 1st Amendment? Are you intent on just ignoring all court decisions on this matter?

        3. PS, all legitimate legal authorities agree flag burning is not currently illegal in the United States.

          Furthermore, back in 2006, the idiot Republican senators of the time tried to pass a Flag Desecration Amendment to make it illegal to burn or desecrate the flag.

          Now, please tell me why they would try to amend the constitution in such a way if flag burning already isn’t covered by the First Amendment? I’d love to hear your logic and await your learned insights with bated breath.

          Supreme Court decisions regarding flag desecration go all the way back to 1969 when they held a New York anti-desecration law to be unconstitutional because it limited free expression. The court has upheld this decision subsequently and it is still good law.

          This is not open to interpretation. Any law against flag desecration is absolutely dead letter because they have been invalidated by the courts. I’m sorry if you want to pretend otherwise, but you’re wrong.

        4. Congress tried to pass a Flag Desecration Amendment in 2005 and 2006 and failed both times. You don’t need to pass an amendment making something illegal if it’s already illegal.

          Flag burning was upheld as protected speech in 1989 and 1990, and those SCOTUS decisions still stand today.

  28. Well this thread certainly didn’t disappoint.

    1. It’s not a “thread” thread until it’s Hihnfected, at least.

      I, for one, fervently pray for the return of Hercule.

      1. Man, I miss [HERC]. He was awesome.

        Botox is like a dumber MNG – just strawman after strawman, arguing against points no one made…

        Hihnfection is…occasionally sentient, but usually like Agile Cyborg’s Evil Twin (I assume it has a mustache) – retarded instead of illuminating, obtuse rather than inspired.

        So sad…

        1. Go here for your Hihn fix.

          The hell? You think I’m that lady who’s addicted to bee stings or something?

          1. The bee sting is preferable.

  29. I think these “first amendment” arguments about free speech on campus are b.s. Sure, personally, I think free speech is very valuable as part of an educational experience, but ultimately, that decision is up to the university administration. The only reason this becomes a first amendment issue is because many universities are publicly financed; but I think that if you insist on holding public universities to the first amendment, you are implicitly already legitimizing their public financing.

    Instead of arguing that VSU should be held to the first amendment (because it is publicly financed), you should argue that it should be privately financed. Once it’s privately financed, feel free to argue strongly that free speech is an important part of the educational experience, but it ceases to be a first amendment issue.

    1. Instead of arguing that VSU should be held to the first amendment (because it is publicly financed), you should argue that it should be privately financed.

      Fair enough.

    2. Instead of arguing that VSU should be held to the first amendment (because it is publicly financed), you should argue that it should be privately financed.

      ?Porque no los dos?

  30. She can grab my flagpole any day.

  31. OT: Can anyone recommend a good libertarian forum?

    I really like the quality of discussion here. I like how there are a variety of viewpoints that fit under the “libertarian” umbrella, but there is still plenty of variation among viewpoints. However, the comment thread format doesn’t work for in-depth discussions.

    I was on a site called Freesteader, but the quality of discussion was mediocre. It seemed to be overwhelmingly populated by the people who don’t give a shit about any solutions, but just want to be left alone. Not that there’s anything wrong with that viewpoint (as a victim of IRS ass rape myself, I can certainly understand it) but there were very few discussions with any intellectual substance to them.

    Any suggestions?

    1. Reason mentioned a set of the “5 best Libertarian Blogs” a while back. A quick glance over a few of them doesn’t show a lot of activity in the actual comments.

      Cato’s blogs came to mind…but i don’t think they have comments at all.

      Mises.org seems to spark discussion-action from time to time.

    2. This is the most active forum with commenters I have found. And by most active, second is not even close. Posts are days apart and comments are few and far between.

      1. A appreciate the suggestions, but I meant something along the lines of an actual forum – a message board.Maybe I should have specified.

        1. ” a message board.”

          they still have those?

  32. Honestly, I’m a little torn here. On its own, I’d say the protesters were within their rights and Ms. Manhart was wrong to try to take their flag. I probably find their speech despicable, but a right to despicable speech is what free speech means.

    On the other hand….anyone want to wager whether the university would apply the same rules to a feminist stealing the sign saying “Shut the Fuck Up and Make Me a Sandwich”? A world where some speech is free while other speech gets to be censored isn’t one of free speech. In fact, I’d say it’s less so than one where all speech is censored. At least the latter doesn’t carry an effective endorsement of one political outlook.

  33. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $65 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do…

    ??? http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  34. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  35. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com

  36. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  37. Agreed. The only question is whether the administration would have been so tolerant if the students had chosen to stomp all over the Mexican flag, or if they’d chosen to burn a copy of the Quran? Or a number of other actions deemed politically incorrect or evidence of Islamophobia?

  38. Hey, here’s an idea. Since B. Hussein has rendered the Constitution into socialist mush, I’d like to go to D.C., extract the original document from its protective case, and burn it. In the lefwing effete New World Order, it means nothing anyway. Wonder if the president of Valdosta University will join me. Freedom of speech and all….

  39. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.