Sen. Ted Cruz Was Defending the First Amendment, Not Nazi Salutes
The media mischaracterized the senator's back-and-forth with Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Republican senators clashed with Attorney General Merrick Garland during a tense Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. At issue was the Justice Department's recent memo instructing national law enforcement agencies to protect local school boards from the alleged threat of violently angry parents attending school board meetings.
Garland denied that his memo called for the FBI to police parents upset about school curriculum issues and other policies. He also equivocated on whether a letter from the National School Board Association—which had called irate parents a potential source of "domestic terrorism"—had prompted his department to act.
Mainstream media reporters seized on an exchange between Garland and Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Tex.). Aaron Rupar, formerly of Vox and ThinkProgress, described the moment as "Cruz defending Nazi salutes at school board meetings."
Ted Cruz defends Nazi salutes at school board meetings pic.twitter.com/9FJHJ97rFE
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 27, 2021
Similarly, The Daily Beast headlined its article, "Ted Cruz Defends Parents Doing Nazi Salutes at School Board Meetings." And on MSNBC, host Ari Melber said Ted Cruz "appeared to defend the right to do the Nazi salute, saying it's 'free speech.'" In response, National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke correctly noted that Cruz isn't merely "saying" it's free speech: "It is free speech. Garland agreed because he, too, knows it's free speech."
Clearly, something was lost in translation. For one thing, the parent doing the Nazi salute was not a Nazi; the parent was accusing the school board of being Nazis. (That is of course hyperbolic, though accusing one's political enemies of being Nazis is a time-honored tactic beloved by both left and right.) More importantly, Cruz was not defending the content of the speech; he was pointing out that it was protected by the First Amendment. As Cruz asserted, and as Garland agreed, parents have the First Amendment right to holler at the school board. And he did not pick this example at random; he cited it because the National School Board Association had mentioned it in its letter. Cruz was arguing, correctly, that First Amendment–protected activities should not be conflated with violent threats.
Feel free to dunk on Ted Cruz when he deserves it. In this case, he doesn't.
Update: This post initially identified Aaron Rupar as a former employee of Media Matters. He was a former employee of ThinkProgress.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The media mischaracterized the senator's back-and-forth with Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Anti-free speech institutions do what they do.
Well, I never!
Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.AFi You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..
Go Here..............Earn App
Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.TOo You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..
Go Here.............CASH APP
People dont think it be like it is...
But it do!
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now…… Visit Here
TO BE SURE.
Freaking media does cut and paste quite well. I watched the hearing from the beginning to end, it was quite obvious what Cruz was saying. But, Shhhh, don’t tell the Libtardary, they might cry.
I shouldn't be surprised by stuff like this, but his point was so obviously and immediately apparent that when I saw he was taken out of context, I actually was surprised. It's blatant and shameless.
Aaron rupars whole gig is taking shit out of context.
Sen. Ted Cruz Was Defending the First Amendment, Not Nazi Salutes
Are we sure? I mean it was reported on these very pages that "Ted Cruz Comes Out Against Liberal Democratic Values.
I'm tempted to say "Damn, Trump really broke Reason." but Trump didn't make Ted Cruz say anything, I can't rightly reconcile Sullum's thought process in saying that about Cruz (with regard to Trump), and even if Trump did somehow break Sullum, it doesn't explain how the magazine didn't exercise any sort of editorial discretion in publishing his disingenuous take.
It's almost like Reason wasn't a libertarian bullwark and Trump was the hurricane that topped the levees. Reason always was a house of cards and Trump was a stiff breeze.
Trump broke Koch. Sullum was just doing brown-envelope journalism for the boss.
Was it Trump or his brother's death and throwing in with Soros in the aftermath?
Probably all of that. His brother was the more libertarian one anyway.
House. Of. Cards.
Can you really blame Charles Koch for reacting poorly to the Drumpf years? I mean, there were actually times when Drumpf's draconian anti-billionaire policies caused Mr. Koch's hard-earned fortune to fall *gasp* below $50,000,000,000.
Guess progressives do nazi the difference.
They could if they would just go the extra m-heil.
I do not care for it when you Mengle the Puns.
MSNBC for one clearly swastikdoff…
That is of course hyperbolic, though accusing one's political enemies of being Nazis is a time-honored tactic beloved by both left and right.
It's not hyperbolic at all. Democrats really are Nazis. Ask anyone on these here comments.
And Republicans really are
authoritariansmisunderstood libertarians.And how are Republicans authoritarian when compared to Democrats, Jeff?
I don't grade on a curve, ML. "Less evil" is still evil.
When it's Boss Hogg versus Lavrentiy Beria, your claim becomes farcical. Degrees matter you dishonest shit.
Okay, so who is the Lavrentiy Beria in your scenario? Joe Fkn Biden?
This is very simple. It is the Team Red/Team Blue two-step, what they do every single election in order to gin up votes for their tribes:
1. Declare that the other team is not just wrong, but HORRIBLY EVIL that is going to steamroll over America and turn it into a wasteland hellscape if they should win
2. Implore everyone to vote for the only team willing to stand up to such UNREPENTANT EVIL - that would be themselves - and to do otherwise is to allow evil to win.
And yes, BOTH Team Blue AND Team Red pull this type of bullshit.
It is just naked fearmongering and demagoguery that is so obvious and transparent I am surprised that so many people actually fall for this type of garbage, but you and many others demonstrate that they do. I am done forever with this nonsense. I'm not going to support Team Red and I'm not going to support Team Blue no matter how many times people try to convince me that the other team is Literally Hitler. Because they are lying, they are only doing so to try to scare up votes for themselves, and I refuse to be a part of it any longer.
Yep, both sides.
Why do you always run to castigated team red when team blue is attacked but never the other way around Jeff?
Almost like you are full of shit.
"Okay, so who is the Lavrentiy Beria in your scenario?"
The whole Democratic Party + establishment and it's enablers and apologists, and that fucking includes all the little Quislings like you.
You're the people purging the military.
You're the people locking up dissidents without trail.
You're the people expelling people from their jobs and threatening to dishonorably discharge soldiers for not violating their bodily autonomy.
You're the people branding parents "terrorists", calling for ideological internment camps, and wanting a "war on terror" against American citizens who disagree with you.
You're the people policing language.
You're the people reinstituting segregation and scientific racism.
You're the people censoring speech, banning speakers and burning books.
You're fucking evil, Jeff, and so is your party.
Cry more
Republicans are "mere" authoritarians while Democrats are evil totalitarians.
Funny how Ken went into great lengths to show this. But now he pretends he never said it after I pointed out he was telling libertarians to support authoritarians. Right down the memory hole. Some people just can't handle the logical implications of their own words I guess.
Look at sarcasmic desperately white knight for the Democrats, but he swears he isn't one. Just ask him.
If there is any justice in the universe, Sarc will die of an infected hemorrhoid waiting for his local Democrat Party apparatchik to approve his appointment at the free healthcare for all clinic.
sarcasmic: Republicans are authoritarians
ML: LOOK AT HIM DEFEND DEMOCRATS
It's just absurd at this point
"Republicans are "mere" authoritarians while Democrats are evil totalitarians."
People can read five comments up you desperate sot. I hope your boss gets his fifty-cents back for that one.
It's just absurd at this point
[Sarc flickers the gaslights while jeffy hides in the closet and moans]
Y'all are crazy for believing in ghosts!
I can't tell if ML is dishonest or retarded. Either way he's best on mute.
Mute! Drink!
We know sarc is.
I'm the number one mention in his enemies list, Jesse. Eat your heart out.
He only yells both sides when democrats are attacked retard. The same shit you pull.
Also, no matter how much you harass Ken, White Mike and chemleft aren't going to take you fishing.
"Funny how Ken went into great lengths to show this. "
It's funny to me how you White Knights all decided to pile on Ken over the last few months. He had never been a complete asshole to you guys- he tended to write his long screed (which I din't always disagree with) and be done with that.
Is that why you attack *him* with so much fervor? Because he at least tries to make a cogent argument, rather than the snark and shit slinging that passes for normal around here?
It truly is bizarre to me.
If pointing out the implications of his own words is attacking him, then yes I've been attacking him.
He said Republicans are authoritarians, that Democrats are totalitarians, and that we should vote for Republicans because totalitarians are worse than authoritarian.
I pointed out that that equals supporting authoritarians and he got mad. If you call that a personal attack then there's something wrong with you, not me. I've never said anything personal about the guy. Ever.
If you can't tell the difference between the gop platform and the dnc platform you really are stupid.
By the way... anyone else find it funny that Sarc is claiming he is pointing out implications of Ken's comments yet cried about muting me over me posting direct posts from him sans implications?
He's a retarded drunken hypocrite, and his only value to me is as a milkable lolcow. I've never seen a narcissist with so little self-awareness.
It is amazing how this is the tact you began to take after called out on your bullshitnfor a year. But really only started claiming both sides when the left started flailing badly and getting called out tepidly on reason.
Calling the party of slavery, of the Trail of Tears, of Jim Crow, of the Indian Wars, of the Black Codes, of the KKK, of segregation, of the Japanese internment camps, of redlining, of destroying the black family, of creating ghettoes, etcetera - Nazis? That's so mean.
An easier question, sarc, is what have the Democrats done in the last eight months that wasn't Nazi-like?
Jim Crow and worship of the Confederacy is a CONSERVATIVE characteristic.
Not to an ignorant Canuck: Conservative Strom Thurmond switched his party affiliation to Republican when Democrats guaranteed voting rights for black Americans.
Hundreds of conservatives followed him - including Ronald Reagan.
Wow, Reagan sure sounds evil. I wouldn't really know since I was born in the 1990s. But I bet anybody who voted for Reagan in the 1980s must have been a racist too.
Hey didn't you mention you're so old you've been voting since the 80s? You must have been a Mondale guy in '84. Teach that racist Reagan a lesson!
I actually voted for Reagan in 1984 (my first vote).
I then voted for libertarians every year until 2004 when I voted against the Bushpigs with the dreary old John Kerry.
Wow, you're old.
I thought you were in your early 40's or something.
Also calling Jim Crow and the KKK conservative characteristics when they were perpetrated by the progressives, culminating in the uber-progressive, Woodrow Wilson's segregation of the Civil Service, is pretty dumb.
It's like you've never picked up a history book.
I mean democrats TODAY are calling for segregation of the races.
Show me a racist Good 'ol Boy and I'll show you a red hat.
He already mentioned Strom Thurmond.
Being a racist requires freedom. Even the worst people in our society understand that the Democrats are against freedom. Ironic, because for the longest time, they clung to Andrew Jackson's party like ticks on a coon dog.
Bull Connor, Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr., George Wallace... whoops. Sorry, they're all Democrats.
Biden
Ah yes, the old false switcharoo argument. I love that intelligent people actually believe that all those bad people switched to the other pollical team and all the good people switched to my political team.
The ignorance people have to politics and political parties is so strong.
One.
One southern Democrat switched parties.
The rest, including those who filibustered the ’64 CRA, stayed Democrats until they were out of office. Most remained Democrats until they died.
There was no switch. The record of who was in Congress proves that.
Sarcasmic and Shrike won't acknowledge this because it means that their whole political identity is based on a lie.
All you have to do is actually note how much they relate absolutely everything to race. Clearly they care as much about the color of a person's skin as they do the content of a person's character. They are 100% convinced it is a defining trait.
Could I be wrong?
"You got more questions? I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain’t black."
Nope. Same as fucking always...
And it's fun to always point out that Repubs didn't actually control the south until 1994. A long, long way from the Civil Rights Amendment.
The southern policy racist switch was so effective that it took 30 years after the original racist generation died off.
Trail of Tears
I remember being taught about this in high school, but they left out a detail. I was rather shocked to learn a few years after high school that the Cherokee took their SLAVES with them on the "trail of tears". Kind of shatters that whole "slavery is exclusively a sin of the white man" party line I was fed.
-jcr
There sarc goes talking about ideas and not people again. And Jeff doing the same.
Almost like they are constantly projecting.
Certain elements have to put their Leftist spin on anything said by Cruz.
Feel free to dunk on Ted Cruz when he deserves it. In this case, he doesn't.
Why is this necessary? Is it not possible to ever just give the guy credit for being right without some sort of apologetic caveat?
Never mind Cruz. The phrase is appropriate for absolutely everyone. So what’s the point? “Feel free to tell Robby he’s a pedophile when he deserves it. Right now, he doesn’t.” Did that advance the conversation?
Just because Robby writes about performative signaling, it doesn't mean he's immune to it.
They still have to get invited to the cool kid parties. Can't do that unless you get the required "both sides" caveat in there.
They wouldn't dunk on Cruz if he hadn't been siding with Trump. Had Cruz been elected POTUS in 2016, there'd've been no Cruz Derangement Syndrome at HyR.
"the parent was accusing the school board of being Nazis"
Why do people on the left and the right always use a national socialist political movement in Germany to explain something they despise, don't like, disagree with, etc...? I always facepalm myself when I heard stupid things like this. They always come from Boomers.
Why do progressives cheer on using the FBI to target parents for opposing the policies of their local school boards?
If you don't like being compared to Nazis, not acting like Nazis is the first step.
P.S. Smearing people as insurrectionists for opposing their local school boards is also acting like a Nazi.
P.S. If progressives don't like being compared to Nazis, they should stop rationalizing the government shooting an unarmed protester for trespassing on public property.
The second Ku Klux Klan was very progressive. They wanted to outlaw private schools.
Ken,
They ARE Nazis. Socialists are Socialists. They just want to paint the people who disagree with them as Nazis.
You know, when I make a list of all the bad things that the Nazis did, calling people who did not support local school boards is way, way down there.
Why do people on the left and the right always use a national socialist political movement in Germany to explain something they despise, don't like, disagree with, etc...? I always facepalm myself when I heard stupid things like this.
Depending on the use-case (and setting the aptitude of the analogy aside), it's an agreed upon axiomatic/apolitical evil that everybody recognizes and doesn't exactly carry any religious connotation (you don't have to believe in God, Allah, or Buddha to agree that what the Nazis did was evil). The Holodomor or Great Famine/Cultural Revolution doesn't work because nobody's heard of it and a good chunk are pro-Socialism and the idea isn't exactly to impugn socialism but bolster free speech.
They could use something like The Empire and Stormtroopers from Star Wars, but that's even more cartoonish (and itself carries Nazi tones/references).
Because the Nazis were singularly evil amongst the Western democratic countries. Other anti-democratic authoritarians like Mussolini, the Argentine junta and Franco didn't compare.
I'm late Gen-X and I see huge parallels between the Democrats behavior since last November and the early days of the Nazi's.
They turned January 6 into a Reichstag fire and an excuse to ring the capitol in barbed wire, suspend the legal rights of the protesters and purge the military.
A victim of an unrelated stroke was turned into a new Horst Wessel and his body lay in state in the capitol rotunda.
An unholy corporatist alliance was created, whereby on party orders social media censored and banned anyone questioning party narratives regarding the election and vaccine effacacy, and removed dissenting platforms from the internet.
This is all Nazi shit of the first order, and it's crazy to deny the obvious historical parallels.
Agree.
Because the Nazis were the quasi-capitalist authoritarian dickweasels and the democrats haven't formally renounced capitalism yet. Thus, Nazis
Mostly socialist dickweasels. They nationalized everything they could before the war, and practiced corporatism with everything they couldn't. It was part of the party's charter, and Hitler and Goebbels mentioned it in every speech.
quasi-capitalist
Nope. Hitler was a socialist, and he was certain that Germany would out-produce the USA during the war since he had a "scientific" command economy instead of our degenerate, Jewish capitalist market economy.
Lefturds like to pretend that Hitler was a right-winger, but that's bullshit. The right wing in Weimar Germany were the people who wanted to restore the Kaiser and the aristocracy to power, and they were not friendly to the Nazis.
-jcr
In the case of the school board, it is quite appropriate.
Go watch "Education for Death" and try to NOT see today's government schools represented there.
Dog bites man.
"Cruz was arguing, correctly, that First Amendment–protected activities should not be conflated with violent threats."
For a convincing left-libertarian argument that First Amendment protections should be dramatically scaled back — IOW that we actually have too much free speech — I recommend Is the Fist Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America by Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky.
#BringBackBerlatsky
Weak. You've been doing much better lately.
I'm sorry you feel that way. But whenever the First Amendment comes up I will continue to highlight the important work of Noah Berlatsky. He's part of Reason.com's proud tradition of having its contributors eventually reveal themselves as garden variety progressive Democrats. (See also Dave Weigel and Will Wilkinson.)
No worries, your fanbase is solid.
Words are violence.
Yes. Literally.
From Berlatsky's piece: "For example, a John Hopkins study published in 2013 concluded that being exposed to racism can lead to high blood pressure and stress among African Americans."
#BlackBloodPressureMatters
It's assault and battery basically.
We all know assault with batteries is a right-wing tactic and evil while assault with bike lock is noble and just when wielded by anti-fascist forces.
More like salt and batter.
I laughed at the hashtag
Silence is also violence.
"Clearly, something was lost in translation. For one thing, the parent doing the Nazi salute was not a Nazi; the parent was accusing the school board of being Nazis."
If progressive school board members don't like being compared to Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis.
Texas Republican to "investigate" 850 books for potential banning:
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/10/26/texas-school-books-race-sexuality/?utm_campaign=trib-social&utm_content=1635281265&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
So nobody actually banned any books but someone wants to look into it? Okay.
Strange that you were silent when lefty public schools were physically purifying (burning) unwoke books earlier this year, and now you've suddenly become upset about it.
"His list of titles includes... Michael J. Basso’s “The Underground Guide to Teenage Sexuality"
I think I just discovered the source of Buttplug's opprobrium.
Not just someone, a State Representative, the Education Administration, and the General Investigation Committee. The very sort of people that, if schools were requiring or teaching instructively from The Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf, you'd want looking into it. The lynchpin or keystone that's why public eduation is fundametnally populist and we should do away with it.
They aren't going to ban the books, they just need a centralized list or database of which school districts own the books:
It is unclear what will happen to the districts that have such books.
The letter did not give a specific reason that Krause was launching the investigation, only that “the committee may initiate inquiries concerning any ‘matter the committee considers necessary for the information of the legislature or for the welfare and protection of state citizens.’”
So, not only can parents not stay informed of and/or oppose the curriculum, but now the lawmakers in charge of overseeing and funding the schoolboard can't either? They are a self-contained indoctrination entity unto themselves? Sounds like a religious order. Or a cult.
Let's say there's a group of people here in the U.S., and they believe everything the Nazis believed--except they weren't anti-Semitic. Would it be okay to compare them to Nazis?
They wear Nazi uniforms. They march around duck step style. They advocate all the same policies that the Nazis did. They're ultra-nationalists. They have brownshirts that go around roughing up their enemies.
Is it still not okay to compare them to Nazis?
I maintain that any comparison to the Nazis is appropriate insofar as it's legitimate. If someone salutes like a Nazi, then comparing the salute itself to the Nazis is appropriate--even if accusing the person who gave of being a Nazi isn't legitimate because the person in question was sarcastically mocking someone else for acting like a Nazi.
If you're acting like a Nazi in some way . . .
1) Maybe you rationalize shooting an unarmed protester for trespassing on public property.
2) Maybe because you think the FBI should target parents for opposing their local school boards.
3) Maybe you think the legitimate purpose of government is to force the unwilling to bend to the will of your political party.
4) Maybe because you think the government should control what people can or can't say on social media.
5) Maybe because you think our rights only exist if and when the government says so.
6) Maybe because you're contemptuous of democracy and the individual desires of individual people.
. . .
If you're acting like a Nazi in this or any one of a dozens of other ways, then you should absolutely expect to be called out as a Nazi.
If you don't want to be compared to ducks, don't go around quacking like a duck, you fucking Nazi.
1) Maybe you rationalize shooting an unarmed protester for trespassing on public property and breaking and entering.
FTFY. Breaking a window and climbing through it isn't just trespassing.
Maybe rewatch the shooting video and try again.
I watched the video. She's clearly climbing through the broken window when she is shot. What am I missing?
The part where the police guarding the door stand down and basically let them go through it less than a minute earlier.
So that means Ashli and her friends get to later on break windows and climb through them to another part of the building? Sorry nothing excuses her breaking a window and trying to climb through it.
And my stance isn't to castigate her, I truly think the Capitol Police completely fucked up and that I wouldn't doubt that it is all because the FBI instigated the violence but no one should be downplaying her role in this.
Breaking a window isn't a capital offense...
How are you defending this? Multiple officers on her side of the window did not intervene as they knew she was unarmed. It was a bad shooting. Stop defending it.
She broke a fucking window.
I can't wrap my head around the idea that anyone watching that video thought shooting her was even remotely justified.
Never say justified, started by correcting Ken that her crimes that day weren't just trespassing. I just don't think that her crimes should be minimized, just like George Floyds shouldn't be. She was involved in rioting unlike 95+% of the other people who just strolled in that day and just took some selfies.
Suck that State dick, bitch.
It might also be breaking and entering. Nevertheless, if I shoot an unarmed person climbing into my window, I will be charged with some kind of felony. My name will be in all the papers. What it sure as hell isn't is insurrection.
Good points that should engender self-reflection on these issues, but you know that they never will. If people like sarcasmic and Laursen had the ability to be introspective they would never have taken those stances in the first place.
"except they weren't anti-Semitic"
They swapped antisemitism for "standing up to Israel". Some of the BDS wokies say shit that wouldn't be out of place in Mein Kampf.
They swapped antisemitism for "standing up to Israel". Some of the BDS wokies say shit that wouldn't be out of place in Mein Kampf.
Cogent to the point; which version of Mein Kampf? Hitler and various groups more or less aligned with him published varying versions that tamped down various facets of his manifesto to play to local/regional audiences. English translations tamped down/omitted the anti-Semitism. French translations ommitted the anti-French sentiments. Pro-monarchy European groups published works on the anti-socialist and anti-democratic screeds. The only reason many of the early Jews fled other parts of Europe was because they were fluent in German and could read the original translation.
they were fluent in German and could read the original
translationJeez, Reason, if you're going to rig the comments link to fight spammers at least provide a working edit button.
Ever wonder what happened to the Aflac duck? It had too much to drink and went around raising its right wing* and saying "Hitler's back."
Their search committee is looking for some other bird to replace the old duck, and meanwhile the executives treated themselves to a dinner of duck a l'orange.
*It probably should have raised its left wing for the sake of historical accuracy.
If everyone's a Nazi, then no one's a Nazi, and the comparison loses all meaning.
The word has been thrown around so cavalierly nowadays that it only means "people I don't like". Like calling someone a racist, or a Progressive (around here, or calling someone "anti-American", etc.
You're so wrong. The left are now literal Nazis because they want to exclude from society those who won't get vaccinated. That's exactly like making them wear a Star of David. Concentration camps are just around the corner. Mark my works.
Oh, that was sarcasm by the way in case anyone's stupid enough to think I was making a serious argument. You know who you are.
Your motivation for this post was to attack people against mandates. Weird.
And who is calling them actual nazis besides the strawman on your head?
The Biden Administration is attempting to use dubious regulatory authority to co-opt private employers into enforcing a vaccination mandate the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to issue directly. It is a bit on the fascist side of government behavior, don't you think?
If you assume your audience understand that not all libertarians are Libertarians, and that there's a difference between fascism and Fascism, then yeah. But considering most people associate that word with swastikas and corpses, using the argument is intended to bring images of liberals throwing rednecks into ovens. Which is really, really, reaaaaalllly stupid.
You know sarcasmic will be one of those moaning, "If only Comrade Stalin knew", in the not to distant future. He reminds me of 1984's Tom Parsons.
because they want to exclude from society those who won't get vaccinated
sarcasmic thinks that this is just fine, but he swears he's totes libertarian. Just ask him.
Just because some people don't understand the real meaning of words and use them incorrectly doesn't mean those words lose their real meaning.
Here is one you don't seem to understand. Sophist.
You are a piece of shit sophist. Trust me, everyone who isn't being disingenuous will understand what I mean.
Can I prove my premise? Yes:
https://reason.com/2021/09/30/equity-multiculturalism-and-racial-prejudice-among-concepts-that-could-be-banned-in-schools-by-wisconsin-bill/?comments=true#comment-9133648
You know who else lied about his opponents and wanted to censor them?
This article Godwin-ed itself, it doesn't need our help.
"For wherever the joke is, there will the trolls be gathered together."
Klement Gottwald?
>>As Cruz asserted, and as Garland agreed
yes but one did not threaten anyone with Flowers By Irene
Leftists will be deliberately obtuse when in their interest.
Leftists will be sharp (well, as sharp as they can be) when in their interest.
Leftists will take you at your word, when in their interest.
Leftists will question your motives and assign things to you that you didn't say and/or didn't mean, when in their interest.
Leftists will be quiet, when in their interest.
Leftists will shout, when in their interest.
Note the common denominator and don't be surprised at leftists when one principle explains everything.
So Sevo, Nardz, JesseAz, ML, R Mac, Chucky, Alphapha-idiot and the rest of the trolls here are leftists?
That explains a lot!
Here he goes talking about ideas and not people again. At least we got his partial list. ABC, do better to get higher up.
Unmute, Mute JesseAz!
Fuck. I got demoted to forth on sarcasmic's enemies list. My only consolation is that Jesse's moving down with me.
What did Sevo and Nardz do to shoot up like that?
Also, as usual sarcasmic's triggered by a post attacking lefties, but he swears he isn't one.
OMG, Robby said something nice about Ted Cruz? Shame!!
Here's the thing: Even if Ted Cruz was doing to the exact thing he's accused of, he's still in the right. Even if he's advocating for the rights of Nazis to have their voices heard at a public forum, the thing he's been mischaracterized as doing, that's not even a tiny little problem.
If self-professed Nazis do not have free speech, nobody has free speech.
"The media mischaracterized,' Rico, you could have simply stopped here. Concise, if in need of some clarification. Rupar and Melber rarely present anything without mischaracterizing, assigning motive based on their biases, or worse. Which is to say, they are horrific examples of how journalism should not be as a profession.
So Garland is going to sic the FBI anti-terrorist gestapo on parents arguing with school boards and what the media takes out of that is that Cruz is a Nazi.
I keep waiting for our media to find a bottom and keep being disappointed that they don’t.
Garland looks like a person who hates his job.
He's also not very good at it. He was unaware that a bunch of environmental rioters tried to occupy the department of the interior building right down the street in DC. He didn't know that federal prosecutors acting on his memo were advising cops to use the Patriot Act to go after school board protesters. Whether he or Biden slides into full blown dementia first is anybody's guess at this point.
He just doesn't watch FOX News because he prefers his brain not pickled.
Wow, that was a desperate reach.
Let me guess, you felt like you needed to say something but couldn't find an applicable retort in your Act Blue talking-points pdf.
Ted Cruz like the rest of USA Patriots are mistaken to believe the Nazi-Politicians care even a speckle about The People's supreme law. The Democratic-Nazi's have a proven and overwhelming record of ignoring it everywhere. Heck; The entire DNC platform never mentions it within context ONCE!! It's all about [WE] mob-gang building... After all; The party name is Democrat (as-in Democracy) as-in [WE] popularity-gang (Prom King Winner) RULES all those little people however the [WE] foundation deems necessary for them.
"Sell your Individual souls to the [WE] foundation; because you don't own you, [WE] own you!", the DNC flagship.
What a stupid thing to bitch about. Sure he was defending the Nazi salute. Why else bring it up? Nobody was arrested for doing a Nazi salute.
Is this more "being criticized means my free speech is being infringed" crap? Get in line behind Dave Chapelle. So much whining
Plus Ted Cruz actually is a fascist, if a particularly unpleasant one.
Funny thing is that you're actually closer to being a fascist than he is.
They were requested people be investigated for making a Nazi salute. An FBI investigation is not a casual thing, even if no charges are brought, and people don't want to undergo it. It's almost like it has a "chilling" effect on free speech if people are aware that there are things they simply can't say when expressing their real political concerns.
Not only was Cruz not defending the free speech rights of a Nazi--which they have. He was merely defending the right of a non-Nazi to use Nazi imagery in speech to sarcastically insinuate that someone else was a Nazi.
Clearly, something was lost in translation. For one thing, the parent doing the Nazi salute was not a Nazi; the parent was accusing the school board of being Nazis."
You know who else would have had a hissy fit over that use of the “salute?”
Secondly, even if the parent was a Nazi, Cruz is still in the right. Nazis also have free speech.
Free speech is an inalienable right with limitations on I nciting violence.
Advocating abortion is inciting violence.
Saying that a fetus is not a person and therefore doesn’t deserve the right to life is like anyone saying that you are not a person, don’t deserve the right to life and that anyone should be free to kill you if they desire to. That’s inciting violence.
We have inalienable rights so the government can’t politically decide who doesn’t get them.
When DNA fingerprinting science defines who is a person that’s inalienable reality.
When government decides who is a person that’s just politics.
When you recognize the fact that the holocaust is a bullshit bogeyman story, Nazis are no big deal.
Springtime For Misek….