• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Minutemen may sue Columbia, claim attack on them was a "hate crime"

ProfJohn

ProfJohn

Lifer
Columnist Larry Elder interviewed Jim Gilchrist and Marvin Stewert from the Minutemen and it seems that are talking to a law firm about suing the University and the protestors from last weeks stage rushing. (not sure the basis of the lawsuit) They also claim that the actions of the students amounted to a "hate crime" Marvin, who is black, also claims he was called a "house ******" among other things. (I love the selective nature of racism on the left, macaca is bad, but calling someone a "house ******" or an "Oreo" is ok)

And since we love to throw around the Nazi label on this forum I thought it would be nice to get the comments of an actual Nazi on this. Hilmar Von Campe a member of the Nazi youth was on Hannity and Colmes and said
Hilmar Von Campe: Well, I did see (the Columbia University Minuteman attack video) before. I did see the video about the event before. That was no surprise for me. We had, we called them "storm troopers". Hitler had storm troopers who would shut up the opposition. And, that is what these people were trying to do, the same thing.
Click to expand...
Link

But wait!! There is even more examples of the left trying to shut down speech that they don't like.
Peggy Noonan had a nice piece in the Wall Street Journal on this
At Columbia University, members of the Minutemen, the group that patrols the U.S. border with Mexico and reports illegal crossings, were asked to address a forum on immigration policy. As Jim Gilchrist, the founder, spoke, angry students stormed the stage, shouting and knocking over chairs and tables. "Having wreaked havoc," said the New York Sun, they unfurled a banner in Arabic and English that said, "No one is ever illegal." The auditorium was cleared, the Minutemen silenced. Afterward a student protester told the Columbia Spectator, "I don't feel we need to apologize or anything. It was fundamentally a part of free speech. . . . The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration."

On Oct. 2, on Katie Couric's "CBS Evening News," in the segment called "Free Speech," the father of a boy killed at Columbine shared his views on the deeper causes of the recent shootings in Amish country. Brian Rohrbough said violence entered our schools when we threw God out of them. "This country is in a moral freefall. For over two generations the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum. . . . We teach there are no moral absolutes, no right or wrong, and I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children." This was not exactly the usual mush.

Mr. Rohrbough was quickly informed he was not part of the legitimate debate, either. Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post: "The decision . . . to air his views prompted a storm of criticism, some of it within the ranks of CBS News." A blog critic: Grief makes people say "stupid" things, but "what made them put this man on television?" Good question. How did they neglect to silence him?

Soon after, at Madison Square Garden, Barbra Streisand, began her latest farewell tour with what friends who were there tell me was a moving, beautiful concert. She was in great form and brought the audience together in appreciation of her great ballads, which are part of the aural tapestry of our lives. And then . . . the moment. Suddenly she decided to bang away on politics. Fine, she's a Democrat, Bush is bad. But midway through the bangaway a man in the audience called out. Most could not hear him, but everyone seems to agree he at least said, "What is this, a fund-raiser?"

At this, Ms. Streisand became enraged, stormed the stage and pummeled herself. Wait, that was Columbia. Actually she became enraged and cursed the man. A friend who was there, a liberal Democrat, said what was most interesting was Ms. Streisand made a physical movement with her arms and hands--"those talon hands"--as if to say, See what I have to put up with when I attempt to educate the masses? She soon apologized, to her credit. Though apparently in the manner of a teacher who'd just kind of lost it with an unruly and ignorant student.

On "The View" a few days earlier it was Rosie O'Donnell. She was banging away on gun control. Guns are bad and should be banned. Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who plays the role of the young, attractive mom, tentatively responded. "I want to be fair," she said. Obviously there should be "restrictions," but women have a right to defend themselves, and there's "the right to bear arms" in the Constitution. Rosie accused Elizabeth of yelling. The panel, surprised, agreed that Elizabeth was not yelling. Rosie then went blank-faced with what someone must have told her along the way is legitimately felt rage. Elizabeth was not bowing to Rosie's views. Elizabeth needed to be educated. The education commenced, Rosie gesturing broadly and Elizabeth constricting herself as if she knew physical assault were a possibility. When Rosie gets going on the Second Amendment I always think, Oh I hope she's not armed! Actually I wonder what Freud would have made of an enraged woman obsessed with gun control. Ach, classic projection. Eef she had a gun she would kill. Therefore no one must haf guns.
Click to expand...
Her key line "Let us be more pointed. Students, stars, media movers, academics: They are always saying they want debate, but they don't. They want their vision imposed. They want to win. And if the win doesn't come quickly, they'll rush the stage, curse you out, attempt to intimidate."
Read the rest if you are brave

And finally, in an attempt to act like a network news person and end my story on a happy note I give you this great bit of humor.
It is from the student group that rushed the stage at Columbia. Seems they are upset that someone may have thrown a bunch in the middle of their mad rush to the stage, how dare someone being rushed by 50+ people try to defend himself against what he might have thought was a threat to himself
On October 4, the College Republicans at Columbia University hosted Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist. The Minutemen are known for inciting racist violence (of course charging the stage and calling someone a "house ******" is neither of the above) against immigrants. In an exercise of free speech, students unfurled a banner on the stage reading ?No One is Illegal?, prompting audience members to join them on the stage with another banner with the message, ?No to Racism?. These peaceful protesters were violently assaulted. We fully support these students? courageous stand against racism (see "house ******" comment) and violence (see 50 people charging the stage comment) and demand that no reprisals are taken against them.
Click to expand...

my source for most of this info Right wing blog 🙂
 
Republicans hurt at the polls so they pay the minutemen millions of dollars to make a big fuss outa nothing. Typical dirty Republican tactics.
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
Republicans hurt at the polls so they pay the minutemen millions of dollars to make a big fuss outa nothing. Typical dirty Republican tactics.
Click to expand...
Nice way to ignore all sense of reality.
Had the socialist student organization not rushed the stage we would not even be talking about this event.
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
Republicans hurt at the polls so they pay the minutemen millions of dollars to make a big fuss outa nothing. Typical dirty Republican tactics.
Click to expand...

Right. More like the typical liberal hypocrisy. "FREE SPEECH!!!" (If you agree with our point of view!)

I hope they sue them and win a nice award. It is time for these quacks to understand their actions have repercussions.
 
Also, what if anything do the Minutement have to do with the Republican Party?

Some people say that the biggest supporter of illegal immigration is actually GWB.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Hacp
Republicans hurt at the polls so they pay the minutemen millions of dollars to make a big fuss outa nothing. Typical dirty Republican tactics.
Click to expand...
Nice way to ignore all sense of reality.
Had the socialist student organization not rushed the stage we would not even be talking about this event.
Click to expand...

Oh my God you mean a bunch of teenagers did something stupid. This is only about the rights obsision with tring to be the vicitim.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Hacp
Republicans hurt at the polls so they pay the minutemen millions of dollars to make a big fuss outa nothing. Typical dirty Republican tactics.
Click to expand...
Nice way to ignore all sense of reality.
Had the socialist student organization not rushed the stage we would not even be talking about this event.
Click to expand...

I find it funny that when the difference between socialism and communism are a few freedoms, that a socialist group would wage a war against the freedoms of those they oppose. Of course, this is the very nature of our partisan political war; we stab at each other as we slide into dictating against "the greatest threat to the world" which happens to be ourselves. This event is just an example of a country wide trend.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Hacp
Republicans hurt at the polls so they pay the minutemen millions of dollars to make a big fuss outa nothing. Typical dirty Republican tactics.
Click to expand...
Nice way to ignore all sense of reality.
Had the socialist student organization not rushed the stage we would not even be talking about this event.
Click to expand...


This is how the left respond when confronted with the truth. But at least he didn't call you names, which is another trait of the left.
 
You know, for a bunch of tough guys "guarding" our border from the "invasion" of Mexican illegal immigrants, these guys sound like a bunch of pansy-ass whiners more intent on stirring up trouble than doing anything productive. I don't agree with what the students did, free speech is only free if it's free for people you disagree with, but there is point at which the Minutemen are making way too big a deal about it...and that point was passed quite a while ago.
 
What do the minutemen have to do with the republicans lol.

They are pretty much just a group of people trying to get our EXISTING LAWS enforced.

I don't really agree with their methods, and frankly I don't really care about the whole issue.

Oddly enough, the people who I talk to who seem to really really hate the illegals are the LEGAL immigrants. Go figure 😉

Some of the ideas, like building the wall, seem like a good idea. I'm all for having a wall for keeping people out. HOWEVER the wall starts to sound scarier when you take into account that it can also be used to KEEP US IN 🙂.
 
Originally posted by: extra
...

Some of the ideas, like building the wall, seem like a good idea. I'm all for having a wall for keeping people out. HOWEVER the wall starts to sound scarier when you take into account that it can also be used to KEEP US IN 🙂.
Click to expand...

And it starts to sound a lot less useful when you consider that it won't even come close to blocking off border crossings.

There are lot better ways to deal with the issue, but they aren't as big and flashy, and don't appeal to idiots, quite like throwing up a big wall.
 
Some of the ideas, like building the wall, seem like a good idea. I'm all for having a wall for keeping people out. HOWEVER the wall starts to sound scarier when you take into account that it can also be used to KEEP US IN .
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's real scary I'm sure. :roll:

I'll live with a little bit of scariness. Personally I'm a lot more scared of the gangbangers that walk the streets after 8, than I am of some potential wall 1000 miles south of me that I have very little interest in ever going across.

If doomsday was coming and the entire USA was about to get nuked or something, I would first try to escape by air, then by sea, then to Canada... And if that didn't work, I'd try building a rocket to go to the moon before I walked across to Mexico.

Given the absolute explosion in the number of illegals here in the northern, non-border state of Ohio in the last 5 years to seemingly California like levels, I think a wall to keep out border jumpers is a good idea. The cost of such a wall may be in the billions, but we're spending tens or hundreds of billions on public services for illegals.
 
Originally posted by: extra
HOWEVER the wall starts to sound scarier when you take into account that it can also be used to KEEP US IN 🙂.
Click to expand...

Yes, because we all know that the evil right wing is going to make America so bad that we will all want to flee to Mexico to escape oppression from corrupt officials.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
There are lot better ways to deal with the issue, but they aren't as big and flashy, and don't appeal to idiots, quite like throwing up a big wall.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so all the people that want a wall are idiots eh? The wall is not being built to counter a military (permanent fortifications are near useless in modern warfare). The wall is being built to combat illegal immigrants (civilians) that have little financial resources. Modern fortifications can counter most civilian threats to its breaching. One can put sophisticated sensors in to detect people that are tunneling or build the foundation very deep underground. No, it will not keep people from trying to scale it or dig beneath it, or trying to get in via other means. But, it will make it a hell of a lot harder to get across the border than it is right now.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
There are lot better ways to deal with the issue, but they aren't as big and flashy, and don't appeal to idiots, quite like throwing up a big wall.
Click to expand...

Such as?

I haven't seen your party proposing anything.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
There are lot better ways to deal with the issue, but they aren't as big and flashy, and don't appeal to idiots, quite like throwing up a big wall.
Click to expand...

Such as?

I haven't seen your party proposing anything.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that I had my own party...

I've said this MANY times before, but it's worth repeating. My alternative to putting up a wall is to combat the root causes of illegal immigration, a very lax enforcement of rules regarding employing illegals and a difficult immigration process that makes bypassing it attractive. My proposed solution is to enforce rules against employing illegals, perhaps making the penalties stiffer if warranted...but basically make it a lot less attractive to employ illegals. However, since not all illegals are gang-bangers, and DO contribute a lot to the economies of many states, I also want policies that would make it easier for LEGAL immigrants to make it here and find work. One idea that I like is to grant work visas to people attempting to immigrate legally (this would NOT apply to current illegal aliens, they'd have to go home and start the process) and relax the minimum wage rules and tax burdens for the period of the visa while they are working towards becoming citizens. This allows for a pool of low cost labor and a way for immigrants to grab a toehold in this country while working towards something better.
 
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
...
Originally posted by: Rainsford
There are lot better ways to deal with the issue, but they aren't as big and flashy, and don't appeal to idiots, quite like throwing up a big wall.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so all the people that want a wall are idiots eh? The wall is not being built to counter a military (permanent fortifications are near useless in modern warfare). The wall is being built to combat illegal immigrants (civilians) that have little financial resources. Modern fortifications can counter most civilian threats to its breaching. One can put sophisticated sensors in to detect people that are tunneling or build the foundation very deep underground. No, it will not keep people from trying to scale it or dig beneath it, or trying to get in via other means. But, it will make it a hell of a lot harder to get across the border than it is right now.
Click to expand...

Perhaps idiots is too harsh a word, but clear thinking is clearly lacking here. Your comments about a wall might have merit, IF the entire border was being walled off. But building a wall is not like filling your gas tank, doing if halfway is almost as useless as doing nothing at all. The current wall plan is like putting in a huge, steel security door while the window next to it is wide open. Yes, a wall would be hard for civilians to overcome...unless they went around it.

The reason I'm not a big fan of the wall folks is that they assume that the cause of illegal immigration is a poorly defended border. They want walls and guards and landmines and think THAT is the key to ending our illegal immigration problems. But a quick look north reveals that an open border is not a cause of illegal immigration, or we would be flooded with Canadians. Instead of attacking the root causes of illegal immigration, they just want the quick and dirty "solution".
 
Do both, build the wall and bust the balls of both employers, the personal who hire them and the illegals.

Tyson immigrant hiring lawsuit gets class action status

Associated Press
Oct. 12, 2006 12:26 PM

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. A federal judge in Chattanooga has granted class action status to a lawsuit that contends Tyson Foods depressed wages by hiring illegal immigrants at eight plants in Tennessee, Alabama, Indiana, Missouri, Texas and Virginia.
Tyson employees' attorney Howard Foster of Chicago today described the ruling as a "very big step," and says he is now seeking damages for thousands of workers at the eight plants.


Topics: illegal immigration, Tyson Foods, Illegal Immigrants, Depressed Wages, big business, class action lawsuit


An attorney for Arkansas-based Tyson, Roger Dickson of Chattanooga, declined comment, saying he has not had a chance to read the judge's order.

U-S District Judge Curtis Collier in the ruling yesterday set a January 29th, 2007 conference with attorneys. Foster said the judge will then likely set a trial date.

A federal jury in March 2003 acquitted Tyson Foods and three former managers of conspiring to hire illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America for low-wage production jobs to boost profits. Two former Tyson managers who made plea deals were each sentenced to one year of probation.

The acquittal dealt a setback to the government's strategy of enforcing immigration laws by going after big business.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
my source for most of this info Right wing blog 🙂
Click to expand...

Dude, does any of your information NOT come from a right wing blog?! Jesus tapdancing christ, get some better sources. As for the minutemen, what a bunch of freaking babies. "Hate Crime." Puh-lease. Waaaaa! Cry me a river... :brokenheart:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top