Florida State Seminoles

[Jungle Rat]

"I never said that people weren't racist. I know they are. And I have known racists. But if you are just 18 years old, you don't know shit. And I call bullshit on this "Klan meetings in high school story." You are a lying sack of shit DS.

I actually have two very close, personal relationships with people who were truly racist. I'll spare you the details DS but the point being, in both cases, the individuals were PROUDLY racist. Like if you called them racist they would smile and say damn straight. That wouldn't hurt their feelings. You couldn't shame them."

IB. Like DS said, you are clueless. You really think that after 18 years of growing up in racial hatred you don't believe an 18 year old can be a racist? You can't really be this stupid yet you are.

[Jungle Rat]

Anybody else who grew up thinking about the ACLU raise your hands.

[eCat]

we all can't dedicate our lives to being drunk and the highlight of our life talking about the shits we took

[Jungle Rat]

Hey! He's not blocking me anymore! Still gotta work on those 20 year old insults though. Welcome back to my incredible life e.

[aTm]

eCat can’t block anybody

[Jungle Rat]

Can you block somebody on this thing?

Yes, if you go to your "User Control Panel" and then go to the "Friends & Foes" tab and click "Manage Foes", then any username you add to the "Add new foes" box will not be fully visible.

The following users cannot be added to anyone's foe lists because they are mods.

aTm
eCat
hedge
Cletus
C MAC
Dr. Strangelove
AlabamaAlum
bluetick
puterbac
10ac
Hacksaw
The Talent
T Dot O Dot
Owlman
Bklyn
Jungle Rat

That's questionable

[Jungle Rat]

He's a mod within "The Skid Mark" forum only, however, I'm pretty sure if you tried to add his name to your foe list it would tell you you can't because he is a mod. I guess the foe list works site wide only, unlike the mod lists which are for specific forums.

Hmmm... No matter. Our love for each other has returned.

[hedge]

"Now it turns out they said Heard made a $3.5m donation that was really made mostly by Elon Musk on behalf of Amber - and you can draw your own conclusion as to why Musk is making a multi-million donation on behalf of Amber Heard."

What conclusion am I supposed to draw?

[innocentbystander]

I remember growing up believe the ACLU was a well intentioned organization. Didn't like every hill they decided to die on but generally I believed they fought for Americans who never had anyone else fight for them.

But now? I don't who the ACLU is run by or who they think they represent but this group is a huge collection of the worst piece of shit individuals America has to offer.

They stay silent about topics that blaringly need their involvement due to playing politics and wade into fights that they shouldn't

The latest is now about the whole Amber Heard /Johnny Depp defamation trial. They pushed Amber, hell probably wrote it for her, to publish that op-ed and behind the scenes they are telling her to include Depp's name and call him out for greater impact - without doing any due diligence on whether she was factual or not. Now it turns out they said Heard made a $3.5m donation that was really made mostly by Elon Musk on behalf of Amber - and you can draw your own conclusion as to why Musk is making a multi-million donation on behalf of Amber Heard.

The group approached the actress to write an op-ed about gender-based violence and suggested that “she can interweave her personal story, saying how painful it is, as a GBV survivor,” an ACLU executive wrote in an email read in court. Despite the fact that Heard had been arrested for hitting ex-partner Tasya van Ree during an altercation at an airport in 2009 — an incident that was widely reported well before Heard became an ACLU ambassador — the group doubled down on its relationship with her. (Heard was not charged in the incident and van Ree later said the events were “misinterpreted and over-sensationalized.”) According to testimony in the defamation trial, the ACLU wound up writing the op-ed and pitched it to the Washington Post, with a member of the communications team writing, “Wondering if we might interest you in a piece by Amber Heard (who, as you may recall, was beaten up during her brief marriage to Johnny Depp), on what the incoming Congress can to do to help protect women in similar situations.”

this isn't about being a fanboy of Johnny Depp, this is about an organization that I once respected just lowering their standards to trying to win political points and grabbing headlines.

They are horrible now.

I feel a great disturbance in liberalism. It was as if millions of voices were instantly silenced in fear of being #Cancelled. And they were suddenly #Woke.

[innocentbystander]

"I never said that people weren't racist. I know they are. And I have known racists. But if you are just 18 years old, you don't know shit. And I call bullshit on this "Klan meetings in high school story." You are a lying sack of shit DS.

I actually have two very close, personal relationships with people who were truly racist. I'll spare you the details DS but the point being, in both cases, the individuals were PROUDLY racist. Like if you called them racist they would smile and say damn straight. That wouldn't hurt their feelings. You couldn't shame them."

IB. Like DS said, you are clueless. You really think that after 18 years of growing up in racial hatred you don't believe an 18 year old can be a racist? You can't really be this stupid yet you are.

Racist? Yes. An 18 year old can be that.

A member of the KKK and a White Supremacist? No. An 18 year old (racist or not) couldn't even properly define white supremacy.

[Jungle Rat]

Stop wasting my time with your crazy stuff.

[sardis]

The truth is we are all inheritedly racists to some extent. It's how you act on that determines if you are a decent human being or not.

[DooKSucks]

I don't think anyone here actually believes in this "Great Replacement" nonsense rat. I know I don't.

That said, I don't really think it is possible that an 18 year old boy could be a white supremacist. He hasn't lived on the earth long enough to build up that kind of hate. But he is an adult and I do believe in capital punishment. Just try him, convict him, put a needle in his arm, stop his heart, and end his 18 year old life ASAP. The boy is a murderer.

Further evidence that this dimwit is far removed from reality.

I have seen racist, white supremacist types my entire life, and I knew of multiple dipshits who were Klan fanboys who bragged about attending the pathetic local Klan meetings in high school. One of the dipshits led a petition drive asking to be allowed to wear confederate flag clothing to school the year after I graduated, and he looked like the horse’s ass he was and is for it.

James happened to be at a table next to mine my senior year during lunch and went went on a rant one day talking about black people being on “welfare” and the like. Having known the dipshit for some time, I asked him what his mother did for a living. He told me she was disabled. I explained to him that disability is a form of government assistance — and thus “welfare” — and that I had seen his mother outside cutting the grass a few days prior, thus begging the question of whether she was disabled or faking it. Except I wasn’t so polite and was far more demeaning…

I never said that people weren't racist. I know they are. And I have known racists. But if you are just 18 years old, you don't know shit. And I call bullshit on this "Klan meetings in high school story." You are a lying sack of shit DS.

I actually have two very close, personal relationships with people who were truly racist. I'll spare you the details DS but the point being, in both cases, the individuals were PROUDLY racist. Like if you called them racist they would smile and say damn straight. That wouldn't hurt their feelings. You couldn't shame them.

Did I say it was a high school club? They were going with their dad or whoever was helping indoctrinate them, you dumb son of a bitch.

[Jungle Rat]

What sardis said

[DooKSucks]

I'm not the only one

It was supposed to be the celebration of a grand career, as the American Civil Liberties Union presented a prestigious award to the longtime lawyer David Goldberger. He had argued one of its most famous cases, defending the free speech rights of Nazis in the 1970s to march in Skokie, Ill., home to many Holocaust survivors.

Mr. Goldberger, now 79, adored the A.C.L.U. But at his celebratory luncheon in 2017, he listened to one speaker after another and felt a growing unease.

A law professor argued that the free speech rights of the far right were not worthy of defense by the A.C.L.U. and that Black people experienced offensive speech far more viscerally than white allies. In the hallway outside, an A.C.L.U. official argued it was perfectly legitimate for his lawyers to decline to defend hate speech.

Mr. Goldberger, a Jew who defended the free speech of those whose views he found repugnant, felt profoundly discouraged.

“I got the sense it was more important for A.C.L.U. staff to identify with clients and progressive causes than to stand on principle,” he said in a recent interview. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.”

--------------------
Not that long ago, this kind of thinking would be considered alien to the essential mission of the ACLU. But now, to progressives at the 101-year-old organization, free speech apparently is worth fighting for only when the cause is sufficiently woke.

This new attitude is causing considerable anguish among traditional free-speech liberals. Floyd Abrams, one of America’s preeminent First Amendment lawyers, told the Times: “The last thing they should be thinking about in a case is which ideological side profits. The ACLU that used to exist would have said exactly the opposite.”

It’s hard to pinpoint precisely when the ACLU took a hard-left turn but 2016 is a good place to start. When Donald Trump was elected, liberal lawyers at the ACLU filed some 400 lawsuits against his administration. “Its annual reports from 2017 to 2019 highlight its role as a leader in the resistance against President Donald J. Trump,” the Times reports. “But the words ‘First Amendment’ or ‘free speech’ cannot be found. Nor do those reports mention colleges and universities, where the most volatile speech battles often play out.”

Link?

[Jungle Rat]

www.redneckracistswithcarsintheirfrontyards.com

[eCat]

NY Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/a ... peech.html

[eCat]

another good article and the final statement is what all these 25 year old progressives on social media don't understand - but are getting a taste of now with Elon Musk and more recently, Netflix - although Netflix is not interested in free speech, they see that censorship is hurting their bottom line.

---------------------------------------

The ACLU’s internal conflict has deep roots, going back well beyond Skokie almost to its very inception 101 years ago.

In 1934, for instance, the organization was already on the defensive, issuing a controversial pamphlet titled “Shall we defend the free speech rights of Nazis in America?” In it, the organization wrote: “If the [ACLU] ... condoned the denial of rights to Nazi propagandists, in what position would it be to champion the rights of others?” Among those who could lose free speech rights if Nazis lost them were birth control advocates and pacifists, the pamphlet argued.

For the most part, the organization has stuck to its principles, defending the speech rights of organizations it disagreed with, from the Ku Klux Klan to the pedophiles of NAMBLA to the adherents of the Westboro Baptist Church, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled “arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America.”

But on some occasions, the group has bowed to critics who asserted that free speech had its limits.

In 1940, for example, it capitulated to red baiters by expelling Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a communist and founding ACLU member, from its board of directors. Twenty-six years later, the ACLU officially acknowledged that to have removed Flynn solely because of her political opinions was contrary to its values.

When communists were being blacklisted in the 1940s and ’50s, many complained that the ACLU failed to speak out forcefully. In the 1970s, like today, critics contended that abstract talk about the 1st Amendment rights of Klansmen “ignored the rights of Blacks.”

The most recent iteration of this internal battle began in 2017, when the ACLU fought on behalf of the right of white nationalists to protest in downtown Charlottesville, Va. — only to watch as the march descended into brawls and confrontations and ultimately to the killing of a 32-year-old counterprotester. That led to much soul-searching about guilt and complicity, and not long after, the ACLU announced new guidelines for selecting future cases that disturbed some longtime supporters — suggesting it might reject free speech cases that “impede progress toward equality” or cause trouble for “allies and coalition partners.”

I fall squarely into the defend-unpopular-speech camp. The ACLU does lots of great work, including fighting for immigrants and LGBTQ people and racial justice. But its commitment to the 1st Amendment has always been its core mission.

Call me fusty, but I still believe, because we’ve seen it in the world again and again, that if government silences the people you disagree with today, they can silence you tomorrow. The victims of government censorship are most often the powerless, the poor and those who dissent.

[innocentbystander]

Further evidence that this dimwit is far removed from reality.

I have seen racist, white supremacist types my entire life, and I knew of multiple dipshits who were Klan fanboys who bragged about attending the pathetic local Klan meetings in high school. One of the dipshits led a petition drive asking to be allowed to wear confederate flag clothing to school the year after I graduated, and he looked like the horse’s ass he was and is for it.

James happened to be at a table next to mine my senior year during lunch and went went on a rant one day talking about black people being on “welfare” and the like. Having known the dipshit for some time, I asked him what his mother did for a living. He told me she was disabled. I explained to him that disability is a form of government assistance — and thus “welfare” — and that I had seen his mother outside cutting the grass a few days prior, thus begging the question of whether she was disabled or faking it. Except I wasn’t so polite and was far more demeaning…

I never said that people weren't racist. I know they are. And I have known racists. But if you are just 18 years old, you don't know shit. And I call bullshit on this "Klan meetings in high school story." You are a lying sack of shit DS.

I actually have two very close, personal relationships with people who were truly racist. I'll spare you the details DS but the point being, in both cases, the individuals were PROUDLY racist. Like if you called them racist they would smile and say damn straight. That wouldn't hurt their feelings. You couldn't shame them.

Did I say it was a high school club? They were going with their dad or whoever was helping indoctrinate them, you dumb son of a bitch.

You said Klan meeting in high school. Of course there was no KKK club at the high school. But obviously you meant that the boy went to a Klan meeting while in high school. You are a lying son of a bitch. That never happened. Say it again, and I'll demand pictures of the boy standing next to people in sheets.

You are a lawyer. You are supposed to be bright. If you actually believe that an 18 year old boy would be brought (with his father) to a damn KKK meeting (at anytime in the last.... FIFTY YEARS!!!!!) then you functionally brain dead. This just for a second how stupid that is to believe such a thing? How the hell did you pass the damn bar exam in the state of North Carolina?

[innocentbystander]

"I never said that people weren't racist. I know they are. And I have known racists. But if you are just 18 years old, you don't know shit. And I call bullshit on this "Klan meetings in high school story." You are a lying sack of shit DS.

I actually have two very close, personal relationships with people who were truly racist. I'll spare you the details DS but the point being, in both cases, the individuals were PROUDLY racist. Like if you called them racist they would smile and say damn straight. That wouldn't hurt their feelings. You couldn't shame them."

IB. Like DS said, you are clueless. You really think that after 18 years of growing up in racial hatred you don't believe an 18 year old can be a racist? You can't really be this stupid yet you are.

DS is wrong. And so are you.

You can not "SHAME" someone who is truly racist. You can't do that. A truly racist person, he or she (yes sometimes its a she) they genuinely see superiority in one race over another. Call them a racist, and they take PRIDE in that. They will smile. They will think that they know something that you do NOT know.

Of course an 18 year old can be racist. But he is not going to a Klan meeting. I don't think any of you guys would even know where a Klan meeting is being held, if one was being held. Dad bringing son to a Klan meeting, is horseshit. And an 18 year old kid who is racist, he is probably not going to have enough wisdom to defend the logic to explain his racism. He will not have enough life experience yet.

I have two stories rat, two stories of people who were truly (PROUDLY) racist. Do you want me to get into the details? I will. But it might bore you.