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". 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.

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.

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".

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.

Irrelevant, unless the University is behind the protests. Are faculty members considered representatives of "the University"? 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?

That is how it is in Canada. And yet we are not oppressed and have free elections. I agree, ...but try advocating that down here and you're branded a hateful racist. That is because motivation does matter. Election fraud is statistically non-existent in your current system. So why decide that now is the time that this is required? Didn't realize that Canada had such a problem with election fraud. Who knew! Uncanny how there are security threats only when Conservatives are booked to speak. Convenient, too. No ulterior motivation at Berkeley!

That is how it is in Canada. And yet we are not oppressed and have free elections. I agree, ...but try advocating that down here and you're branded a hateful racist.

Are you saying she isn't allowed on their property to speak? .....No Are they restricting access to her online content? Are her books not allowed on campus? .....No, but irrelevant The event is specifically being allowed. .....Not denying that Indeed sounds like her freedom to speak is being very much violated..... .....IMO, yep. Let's say you have the right to vote, but the Government is requiring you to get an ID first. It's worse than that.

Is Coulter considered hateful? ..or just opposed to "Progressive, Liberal" ideology. Does her Conservatism automatically make her (or anyone else) hateful? Or has she spewed actual "hate speech" (racism, etc.) IOW, for example, I don't consider opposition to a particular government spending program or some other initiative to automatically be "hateful" or racist. I don't follow her so I don't really know...

I've always advocated this. No better way to see who you're dealing with.

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.

You mean like how the right reacted to the ranchers? You mean consistent like that? Or maybe how Republicans feel about Russia? You mean consistency like that? Or how about the consistency of family values, anti gay republicans get caught sucking dick, having affairs or hosting pedophiles at the white house? Yeah makes perfect sense for somebody on the right to complain about those on the left not being consistent. ^^ all irrelevant nonsense WRT this discussion. But in another thread we might find some agreement with some of those points. Berkeley is a Government institution. Preventing her from speaking (or unreasonable suppressing her ability to speak), especially at a place that ostensibly espouses the free flow of ideas is, IMO, the definition of Government suppression of the 1st Amendment. 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. Apparently, this is not acceptable to the hosting student group, or their lawyer who is claiming that Berkeley "has a habit of shutting out Conservative speakers." "Coulter had been booked for April 27, but Berkeley administrators abruptly canceled her engagement on Wednesday, citing security concerns. After massive publicity, they reversed course but reset the event for May 2, when students will be taking finals and therefore will be less likely to attend, according to lawyers representing the Berkeley College Republicans and Young America's Foundation." ~The Hollywood Reporter. "Late Thursday, Harmeet K. Dhillon, a lawyer and the Republican National committeewoman from California, released a letter sent to UC Berkeley that indicates a lawsuit will be filed if the university does not allow Coulter's speech to go forward on April 27. The letter says that the sponsoring groups 'meticulously followed university protocol' in setting up Coulter's appearance, and that administrators' 'actions violate fundamental principles of free speech, equal protection and due process guaranteed by the United States Constitution.' Dhillon writes that the university’s counteroffer of May 2 was not good enough, in part because it would be in the middle of the day during a week when classes are not in session." ~ LATimes

Speaking at a university isn't speaking publicly. Nobody is stopping Ann Coulter from reaching billions on the internet, or to stand on a corner and preach to the locals. Arguments from the righties on here seem similar to the case made by lefties re: "the gay wedding cake", ...i.e., the gay couple's civil rights were violated by the baker (a private enterprise) who refused to bake their wedding cake. Of course, the couple had many other options for getting their cake made and were not prohibited from exercising one of those options. So ...In this case, Coulter's rights are seemingly being violated by the school (a public institution) making it difficult for the students who invited her to meet certain "requirements" which might be unreasonable or unnecessary, and not required, for some other "acceptable" speaker. The argument from the left is that she could just pack up and go speak somewhere else. Therefore, no rights violated. Coulter's rights are not being violated. The baker was breaking the law. Indeed a very clear comparison. ....and there we have the fundamental (maybe even irreconcilable) difference between left and right here. BTW, the left's "breaking the law" argument might carry a little more weight if the concept was applied a little more consistently.

Do, too!

Yes, they did. However, in the case cited, the baker ( who also had at least one option => provide the cake & keep the money ) was in violation of the laws of the State of Oregon. In this case, it was not a case of: Go somewhere else It was about violating the law. Jerry Baumchen Yes, a "violation of the laws of the State of Oregon". I suppose a case could be argued that those laws violate the civil rights of the baker. Obviously, opinions and interpretations differ either way. On the other hand, it appears that UCB (a California State institution) may have actually attempted to violate the US Constitution and the Constitutional civil rights of Coulter and the students who invited her by requiring unreasonable and unusual conditions to be met. I, personally, do not believe that private citizens, or entities, businesses, etc., can really actually violate a person's civil rights. My question would be whether the affected person can otherwise exercise his rights. A fine line there, and sometimes difficult to sort out individual cases. For an easy example, a person can be murdered and denied his Constitutional right to "life". Obviously, the disenfranchised person can't go somewhere else and not die after that. The killer then pays by losing his rights. The baker does not really have the power to prevent the wedding couple from getting a cake, just his cake. Any law forcing him to provide a cake is only as good as the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution (which may or may not change at some future time.) OTOH, Government entities do have the power to do that and they have; one of the more egregious and extreme examples being members of the US Congress publicly and explicitly (and disgustingly) prejudging and subverting the due process guaranteed a private citizen. UCB needs to permit the speaking engagement to proceed and to provide the necessary security and safety for the speaker and the sponsoring students, and whoever else wants to hear her. That would be to include arrests and prosecution of those who might violently dissent or otherwise commit violence. Civil penalties, too.

Speaking at a university isn't speaking publicly. Nobody is stopping Ann Coulter from reaching billions on the internet, or to stand on a corner and preach to the locals. Arguments from the righties on here seem similar to the case made by lefties re: "the gay wedding cake", ...i.e., the gay couple's civil rights were violated by the baker (a private enterprise) who refused to bake their wedding cake. Of course, the couple had many other options for getting their cake made and were not prohibited from exercising one of those options. So ...In this case, Coulter's rights are seemingly being violated by the school (a public institution) making it difficult for the students who invited her to meet certain "requirements" which might be unreasonable or unnecessary, and not required, for some other "acceptable" speaker. The argument from the left is that she could just pack up and go speak somewhere else. Therefore, no rights violated.

Wonder how long this program would last before the carrier realizes that we've been trained to pay them for the opportunity to leave the plane in flight.

Yeah, I'd think that making the tunnel system useless would be more important than killing 36 fighters. Also, how would you know how many people are in the tunnel system at a given time. Seems a bit early have an accurate damage assessment when you can't see inside. Maybe not.

Thought it might be something like that. But to make a single large "open-air" detonation worthwhile, they must have been reasonably sure that that particular cave network was fairly extensive and connected. I'd imagine that a ground-penetration bomb would mostly just collapse tunnels in a more localized (but maybe a still pretty large) area. Don't know.

I was wondering the same thing, sorta. I'd like to see the rationale for using an above-ground-level detonation rather than a ground penetration. Comparison might make an interesting PBS Special...

2 hour delay + about 1 hour for the trip + maybe an hour FA time = ~4 hours. He could have driven in 4 or 5 hours.

Oh, wow. Sorry, once that guy boarded it was too late. They need to put their crew member on a toilet or figure something else out. He can sit on the floor like we do.

Meanwhile, I heard that Michael O'Leary beat a doctor unconscious and dragged him onto an under-booked Ryanair flight.

I wonder what the "help" button does? It's for the handicapped, so an attendant will come help fuel your vehicle. Ahhh! ..."FUELING"! My bad!

I wonder what the "help" button does?