I saw exactly one smart protestor in the video, comes up around 5:50. Tells the other black guy "don't change the story".
Mizzou protesters vs student reporter
- Thread starter gusto79
- Start date
I think it's bothersome that a significant percentage of the population believes that they have the right to "safe spaces" and things of that nature and that universities are listening to them.
And honestly just as Kim Davis can not overturn the authority of the SCOTUS so too should a protest over nothing such as this be able to overturn the authority at a University. What is scary is that it did overturn the authority there.
What would have been more entertaining is if the president had called them on their crap. For example instead of being concerned about the student on hunger strike just say "Doesn't bother me, that he willingly chooses not to eat. Me, I like eating. In fact I think I'm gonna go get a nice juicy steak dinner."
Why do you think the people shouldn't be able to change policy at their school?
People can peacefully protest, but forcing other people to leave through the force of mob is not peaceful.
The students should not have the ability to force the president of a university out for no reason.
What's not being reported is that the protesters actually refused to meet with the president on several occasions.
Lol, is that the standard now? Every "government employee", regardless of where/how/when they are acting, it is "government action"?
What a weird way to position this...do you think they agree that it would be for "no reason"?
It is the American way, to say otherwise is either ignorant of history, naive, or willful idiocy. They weren't physically lifting up his chair and walking him out.
At least Iowa students/faculty just complained a lot when they didn't like the hiring of the new University president.
Nothing that drew major attention to themselves, though (correct??), which is good to see.
Nothing that drew major attention to themselves, though (correct??), which is good to see.
How, HOW, are these things even comparable?
People wanting to change X and protesting to change X (this situation), vs. an elected government official simply refusing to do X, in which X is mandated by her official office.
Seriously Hoosier, I'd like to hear how you even thought to compare these two things.
Talked to several people involved. People who were in many behind the scenes meetings.
And it is about nothing obama and sharpton have minimalized race and racism into trivial nothingnesd
Wait, now you are advocating for those "frivolous lawsuits" that your "side" is always raving against?
But, since you demand to go down this path: Was the "state employee" acting under her official capacity? How so? Are you further saying that state employees can't have their own freedom of speech? That they are necessarily speaking and acting on behalf of their state at all times?
Or you could just move on and stop with the CONSTITUTION! rhetoric.
Well, first, everyone is a "private citizen", unless acting in their capacity as a government official. So I will repeat my questions to Tradition to you: Do you believe she was acting in her official capacity, or as a private person?
This is, usually, fairly simple. Kentucky Kim = Clerk of Court = refusing to do clerk of court duties = Government official acting as such. Professor angry is privately protesting against her own employer outside of her scheduled class/building in a non-class-led protest =/= government official acting as such.
The government isn't on the hook for every single action taken by a "government employee". You can't sue your city because the Mayor, at 3am on a Sunday leaves the bar he was at by himself, driving his private car, and runs over your dog....on the basis that it was an unconstitutional taking of property.
She was on campus, directing a student activity. I would say that is in line with her official duties.
He's an idiot. The reason assault is a crime is because it violates your liberties.
No but I don't think they would be able to put together a sensible argument as to why he should go. Everything I've read was essentially "Some racist stuff happened around here, therefore the president should resign" That's no sensible then half the crap that Republicans blame on Obama.
My take-aways from conversations yesterday.
- Many student had no idea these issues or incidents were going on.
- Several of the incidents on campus weren't reported until the movement got going.
- The president did not want to step down, but knew if would get bad if he didn't.
- Some professors are now worried about giving minority students certain grades for fear of retribution. Several gave examples of coercion to give passing grades in lieu of receiving racial complaints.
- The hunger strike and the possibility of having to pay a $1 million fine for not playing BYU on Saturday weighed in.
all this protesting makes me want to watch PCU
Chips! Chips! Chips! Chips!
Huh, ok. Where to go from here. The CONSTITUTION restricts government. The Constitution restricts the government from things such as censoring the press, or preventing speech.
If a private individual punches a person they have committed assault, or battery, however each jurisdiction (see: State) defines and regulates it. States aren't required to outlaw assault, but each has done so. Whether a person is assaulted or not has no bearing on their "liberty" being violated, only on a statute being trespassed. Each criminal trespass also can lead to civil suits for the same.
They. are. not. based. on. the. Constitution. nor its requirement that the government not restrict freedom of press/speech.
Are you trying to boil down to criminal/legal theory, on why assault is statutorily penalized? Sure, it can stem from liberty, but that seems like a lot of work to try and convince yourself that the Constitution applies here.
So you are saying that prior to protesting they should have contacted you for your summary opinion, and if you disagreed with them they should simply abort?
How is this a "student activity"? Because it involves students?
If Professor A creates flyers, posts them around campus, rounds up 1,000 students...............and then they rush the gymnasium, destroy it, and set it on fire..............this was a "student activity" "directed by a state employee"? Could the school sue itself for violating the Constitution?
Seriously, think through all of the steps, not just one at a time. What does this professor teach, what are her duties? Do they include protesting?
Are you saying that it isn't the American way to join together collectively, protest, and demand that there be change in the leadership?
Lol, ok. Following this logic, if a state senator, say Marco Rubio, picks up a prostitute and proceeds to rape her with a clotheshanger, it was "government action by a government official" and a violation of the Constitution, right? 1983 lawsuit for the win!?!
Oh christ you are obtuse, I just wonder if it is intentional or not.
So a professor of statistics filling out an Excel sheet at home for his fantasy football league is, by necessity, acting under his employment? Come the f*** on.
What are her duties? Did she lead her class outside to take part? Did she make this an assignment?
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94