Ann Coulter,they can't stop me. I'm an American

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Uncanny how there are security threats only when Conservatives are booked to speak.

Irrelevant, unless the University is behind the protests.

Quote

Didn't realize that Canada had such a problem with election fraud. Who knew!

The system was just set up differently from the beginning. There are still accusations of voter fraud. So to use typical right wing logic, there is no need to do anything about voter fraud because it won't be 100% eliminated.

[muff528 3]

SkyDekker

***Uncanny how there are security threats only when Conservatives are booked to speak.

Irrelevant, unless the University is behind the protests.

Are faculty members considered representatives of "the University"?

Quote

muff528

Didn't realize that Canada had such a problem with election fraud. Who knew!

The system was just set up differently from the beginning. There are still accusations of voter fraud. So to use typical right wing logic, there is no need to do anything about voter fraud because it won't be 100% eliminated.

You're mixing up voting rights and gun rights. So while the left uses that logic WRT voting rights, the right uses it for gun rights.

Well, in the beginning, only white males with higher property values were permitted to vote. Also, white males who paid high rents. I suppose that in the beginning they all had driver licenses? But, Indians couldn't vote until after 1960, and then they had to give up their "aboriginal rights". Other non-white races couldn't vote until after 1948. So, was the motivation for Canadian ID laws a concern for fraud or was it based in discrimination?

[billvon 2,380]

Quote

The latest I heard is that UCB has rescheduled her speech to May 2 between 1 and 3 pm, at an "undisclosed location". My understanding is that this is during "...'dead week,' when students aren't even in class". So, apparently they are allowing her to exercise her Constitutional 1st Amendment rights as long as no one can hear her.

I will bet you $200 (payable to your favorite charity) that if she does show up at that time, there will be a lot of people in the audience to hear her. Say, more than halfway to capacity or 100 people, whichever is less.

[wmw999 2,116]

Quote

while the bakery's actions *might* be interpreted by some as a violation of the gay couple's civil rights (I do not agree)

If the Oregon law is clear that discrimination is illegal, even by private businesses, when it's based on sexual orientation as well as based on color etc, what's the basis for your disagreement? I can understand disagreeing with the law, but the interpretation is pretty straightforward to me.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,116]

Quote

Is Coulter considered hateful? ..or just opposed to "Progressive, Liberal" ideology.

She identifies herself as a polemicist who likes to stir the pot. Since polemics is contentious rhetoric, it's not surprising that a significant number of people will find that her arguments, designed to elicit strong reactions (that's what contentious is), do, in fact, elicit strong reactions.

She's also very clear that as a commentator and not a news person, she has no responsibility to be fair and/or balanced. So she might be funny to the people whom she's not attacking, just as, say, the Dixie Chicks might have been funnier to liberals than conservatives with their far less targeted comments.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[muff528 3]

I have no doubt that any nationally-known figure could draw well over 100 people on a moments notice. But, I'd be very surprised if she accepts the May 2 date given the hoopla and the statements by the lawyer. Could be wrong, though. IMO, it still doesn't get the school off the hook for attempted 1st Amendment suppression.

[Phil1111 908]

normiss

She does make a lot of hateful and racist comments.
Seems to me she's just a terrible insult comic.

1.) “There’s a cultural acceptance of child rape in Latino culture that doesn’t exist in even the most dysfunctional American ghettos. When it comes to child rape, the whole family gets involved.”

2.) “A lot of people are upset when I talk about Mexican child rapes, Muslims clitorectomies, Muslim honor killings…white people don’t do that. America is not used to these types of crimes. We are bringing in cultures where child rape is very common.”

3.) “These unaccompanied children (anchor babies) we [America] have, you know, hundreds of these [immigrants] being reported they have never seen a flushed toilet before. It is simply a fact; we are bringing in peasant cultures.”

4.) “If we don’t cut off bringing in millions and millions of these very backward cultures, we won’t have America again.”

5.) “I’ve never understood the argument ‘we’re going to war for oil.’ We need oil. Why shouldn’t we go to war for oil, we need it…drop a nuc, daisy cutter, it doesn’t matter.”

6.) “If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream. It’s a personal fantasy of mine.”

7.) “It’s going to be a thousand years of darkness if this country stops being this country and we just become a second Mexico, which is where we’re heading right now.
http://racisminamerica.org/the-top-10-most-obnoxious-and-racist-ann-coulter-quotes/

[normiss 620]

"If Trump wants an Indian Sec of State, how about Tonto?"

Or when you disagree or don't understand her rhetoric:
"The point, brainless sack-of-shit,"
while trying to explain this:
"Total # of deaths connected to American Nazi Party in last quarter century: ZERO; Total # of deaths connected to Al Sharpton: 9 I know of."

[muff528 3]

wmw999

Quote

while the bakery's actions *might* be interpreted by some as a violation of the gay couple's civil rights (I do not agree)

If the Oregon law is clear that discrimination is illegal, even by private businesses, when it's based on sexual orientation as well as based on color etc, what's the basis for your disagreement? I can understand disagreeing with the law, but the interpretation is pretty straightforward to me.

Wendy P.

I do agree that the Oregon law is clear that discrimination is illegal when etc, etc.... ...and that the baker is violating that law.

I disagree that the baker is violating civil rights by refusing to bake the cake. The baker cannot prevent the couple from getting a cake from anyone else. He may be violating Oregon law, but he is not violating the couple's civil rights. (IMO) Only the Government has the power to violate someone's civil rights without retribution. An example would be the Government's punishment of a baker for refusing to provide a cake for an event which opposes the baker's religious beliefs and 1st Amendment freedoms.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with anyone marrying anyone they choose. I do believe that Government has no business endorsing, advocating, denying, licensing or having any interest in anyone's marriage of any kind. That includes, tax ramifications, health care, inheritance rules, hospital or prison visitation rules, public housing, blue laws, and any other benefit or penalty that could be associated with any "marriage".

[lummy 4]

muff528

The latest I heard is that UCB has rescheduled her speech to May 2 between 1 and 3 pm, at an "undisclosed location". My understanding is that this is during "...'dead week,' when students aren't even in class".

Not true, it's called RRR week. In a ntushell, faculty are not allowed to introduce new material the week before finals. The time is to be used for review of already presented materials. Just because it's review week doesn't mean you don't have to attend the class.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[muff528 3]

lummy

***



The latest I heard is that UCB has rescheduled her speech to May 2 between 1 and 3 pm, at an "undisclosed location". My understanding is that this is during "...'dead week,' when students aren't even in class".

Not true, it's called RRR week. In a ntushell, faculty are not allowed to introduce new material the week before finals. The time is to be used for review of already presented materials. Just because it's review week doesn't mean you don't have to attend the class.

Ah, thanks for clarification. Info came from The Hollywood Reporter (whoever that is) site, quoting the lawyer: "Associate vice chancellor Nils Gilman 'grudgingly offered to allow the event from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2 — during 'dead-week,' when students are not even in class,' wrote Harmeet Dhillon of Dhillon Law Group in a letter to Berkeley interim vice chancellor of student affairs Stephen Sutton." Actually, I was only looking for the latest decision by UCB when I found this. It had the latest date/time at the time.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

muff528

We actually share some common ground here. But, notwithstanding the Oregon law, my specific point was that, while the bakery's actions *might* be interpreted by some as a violation of the gay couple's civil rights (I do not agree), I do agree that the actions of the University definitely *are* a violation of Coulter's Constitutional rights, and maybe the rights of the Conservative student group, too. Obviously, all my opinion. The "fine line" is whether discrimination (whether it is or is not unlawful) is a violation of rights. Also, whether the baker's civil rights are being violated. Getting deep in the weeds here.

No. Again, the situations really don't compare.

The first is clearly a violation of the couple's civil rights. Gays were designated as a "protected class" due to systemic and pervasive discrimination.
Once so designated, any discrimination is, by law, a violation of their civil rights.

The baker, by operating a business open to the public, has certain obligations. It's called "public accommodation". Basically, the right of someone to be served without discrimination trumps the baker's right to pick and choose what groups of people they will serve (particularly when it comes to those groups designated "protected classes").

OTOH, I don't see the Berkeley admin as shutting down Coulter as intending to silence her. Or to keep her from sharing her message. They are simply knuckling under to the threats posed by the "snowflakes" who aren't going to hide in their 'safe spaces', but are planning on coming out and disrupting Coulter's speech.

Those idiots are violating her right to free speech. Although I'm not sure they could be prosecuted for it.

And I don't agree with them cancelling the speech. If there are security threats, deal with them. Bring in extra security forces, use the intel that tells them of the threat to go after those that are making the threats (incitement to violence is one possible charge, conspiracy is another). OTOH, Coulter (and that Milo idiot before her) have a long history of making statements (that are protected speech) that are intentionally provocative. Since the threats to security are a direct result of her prior statements and positions, make her pay for the extra security.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi muff,

Quote

Berkeley is a Government institution.

Possibly this is not relevant. I worked for the feds and we had to have ID to enter the building. Everyone had to have the ID ( or some employee vouching for you ), so nothing based upon anything that could be considered discrimination.

I simply do not know if Berkeley is an open campus; quite possibly some areas are not. I would think that where she was scheduled to speak would be an 'open' area.

I also believe that they have the right to revoke an invite as they choose.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,380]

>I have no doubt that any nationally-known figure could draw well over 100 people
>on a moments notice.

OK, so you retract that claim. Fair enough.

>IMO, it still doesn't get the school off the hook for attempted 1st Amendment suppression.

"They won't let me have the date/venue I want" is not grounds for a claim of . . . well, anything.

If I go to Stanford and demand that they let me speak on New Years Eve at Tressider, and they refuse - are they suppressing my First Amendment rights?

[AlanS 1]

Berkeley Campus On Lockdown After Loose Pages From ‘Wall Street Journal’ Found On Park Bench

http://www.theonion.com/article/berkeley-campus-lockdown-after-loose-pages-wall-st-55815

[muff528 3]

billvon

>I have no doubt that any nationally-known figure could draw well over 100 people
>on a moments notice.

OK, so you retract that claim. Fair enough.

>IMO, it still doesn't get the school off the hook for attempted 1st Amendment suppression.

"They won't let me have the date/venue I want" is not grounds for a claim of . . . well, anything.

If I go to Stanford and demand that they let me speak on New Years Eve at Tressider, and they refuse - are they suppressing my First Amendment rights?

Not sure what claim you think I made and retracted, unless you can pull some kind of "claim" out of "So, apparently they are allowing her to exercise her Constitutional 1st Amendment rights as long as no one can hear her". Not sure I can even discern the point you're making, unless you really think they are honoring her First Amendment rights, and their contract, by "allowing" her to make her speech in some kind of moronic "free speech zone" of UCB's choice, that would keep her and the riff-raff who would hear her separated from the other, enlightened students and other protesters who otherwise would uncontrollably commit violent, criminal acts. So, yes, I retract the statement that "no one would hear her". I'm sure that if they put her in a broom closet, I would lose that stupid bet because at least one or two folks would show up.

But she, and the Conservative student group, and UCB did agree, to a venue and date. The sponsoring group jumped through the same hoops and filled out the same paperwork and kissed the same asses that are required for events by the school's more erudite and acceptable mobs. The school then reneged and stated that they will not honor that commitment. But then after a little blowback, they "magnanimously" offered to let her have a much less desirable date at an "undisclosed" venue. Seems to fit their pattern of inhibiting or attenuating speech that doesn't conform to the ideology of the collective. I'd tell them to pack sand, too.

I'm guessing that even the so-called "lilberal-progressives" that took over the school in the 1960s are rolling over in their graves over this. Either that, or they, too, were/are a bunch of hypocrites.

[jakee 1,254]

muff528

Not sure what claim you think I made and retracted, unless you can pull some kind of "claim" out of "So, apparently they are allowing her to exercise her Constitutional 1st Amendment rights as long as no one can hear her".

Of course that's a fucking claim. It's in there plain as day.

Here's a thought, if you don't mean it, don't say it

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[muff528 3]

jakee

***Not sure what claim you think I made and retracted, unless you can pull some kind of "claim" out of "So, apparently they are allowing her to exercise her Constitutional 1st Amendment rights as long as no one can hear her".

Of course that's a fucking claim. It's in there plain as day.

Here's a thought, if you don't mean it, don't say it

I already said that if what I wrote is considered a "claim", then I retract it. It's down a little further in the same post you pulled my above quote. I realize I shouldn't have said "no one". I'll amend it to say "a less than optimal number of folks" or "not quite as many folks" or "only a few right-wing nazis who are skipping finals" or "at least 100 but maybe only half a roomful, whichever is smaller". Moot point, anyway. She's not speaking on May 2. But if she's offered May 1, she should take it.

[TriGirl 268]

I don't have time to cut/paste etc. all the quotes I want to address (including those other posters whose positions I'm about to support). So I'll try to be clear:

1 -- IIRC, the violence that resulted from Milo Y's scheduled appearance was determined not to be committed by students, but by citizens from outside the school. The students did demonstrate, and I'll submit that it's possible some eventually participated in some of excessive actions once the vandalism began, but for the most part, the school determined the students were not the catalyst for the destruction.

2 -- If Ms. Coulter was invited by a student group to present ideas at the school, then she was being invited (and provided a campus forum) to speak to STUDENTS, and those associated with the university (professors, advisors, etc). Therefore, the school actually is doing the right thing by scheduling her appearance when the students are most likely to be on campus. Sure, classes are likely scheduled during that time block, but university isn't secondary school, where everyone has to be in a class from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm. Students who want to attend have a much better opportunity if the event is held during a weekday.

3 -- Combining both points, scheduling the event during the school day also limits the opportunity from outside actors to elevate any demonstrations to the aggressive vandalism of the previously referenced event.

So, if you want all opinions to touch these students' minds, so a thoughtful exchange of these ideas can help them form well-rounded minds, then UC Berkeley is doing the right thing: continuing to offer Ms. Coulter the opportunity to address students and faculty as intended by the group that invited her; schedule her appearance at a time conducive to that audience; and limit the opportunity destructive influences to hijack that opportunity.

PS -- as for the baker and the wedding: they weren't asking the baker to SPONSOR the wedding and ENDORSE the event. They just wanted to buy a cake. If I want to buy a cake and use it to poison rats around my apartment complex, the baker can't decide he disagrees with my cruel treatment of animals and refuse to sell me the cake because it violates his code of conduct.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[normiss 620]

Coulter cancels

"I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team," she wrote."

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

Coulter cancels

"I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team," she wrote."

and from students "It said they had not offered assurances that campus police would protect attendees from any violent protests, a charge the school denied."

so threats of violence can keep people from the free exchange of ideas.....good to know..... (the specific subject matter is not the point now - this is purely wrong)

How long until this gets turned around at some other campus?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lummy 4]

Im pretty danged sure the campus offered her a place to speak that they could protect and keep secure. She turned that venue down in favor of an open plaza that couldn't be adequately secured.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[tkhayes 124]

I do not consider this to be a victory. She is a miserable cunt and a nasty person, and shutting down her speech simply emboldens the causes of the right wing demonstrating how intolerant the left is.

Far better to give her free reign to have her speech and then report on how few people showed up to hear her. Instead we will elevate her to a higher platform for her rhetoric.

[Phil1111 908]

tkhayes

I do not consider this to be a victory. She is a miserable cunt and a nasty person, and shutting down her speech simply emboldens the causes of the right wing demonstrating how intolerant the left is.

Far better to give her free reign to have her speech and then report on how few people showed up to hear her. Instead we will elevate her to a higher platform for her rhetoric.

Yes. Thats the whole justification for free speech. Having said that, she currently seems to have no limitations on the broadcasting of her hate.

[rehmwa 2]

tkhayes

I do not consider this to be a victory. She is a miserable cunt and a nasty person, and shutting down her speech simply ........... demonstrating how intolerant the left is.

Far better to give her free reign to have her speech and then report on how few people showed up to hear her. Instead we will elevate her to a higher platform for her rhetoric.

Simplified it for you...and I agree with both paragraphs.

One might want to consider that the more fanatical elements of the party are extremely intolerant of anything that doesn't validate them. Not unusual, and not a left only type of thing. The disturbing part is that element is growing in leaps and bounds and it was wrong when it was just intimidation and shouting down people - now it's becoming a norm for it to go way beyond that even.

Hell - you can agree with someone, but if you even say it slightly wrong, you can be attacked physically over a semantics tweak. Let alone have true and substantial debates over significant philosophical differences.

This is a huge problem and clearly it's getting worse over time as it has moved from shouting down to actual violence. The inability to acknowledge within one's own party speaks loads.

This will only encourage the same behavior from all groups out there of all beliefs.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants