April 25, 20241 yr Popular Post 2 hours ago, PTINS said: Does the UTPD have adequate resources to "control" the number of people that gathered? They absolutely did today. With 10 times as many people in attendance. I was there, as my office is in the tower. The Statesman estimated over a thousand today, and no issues. Amazing how when you treat folks with respect and don’t try to drive them into the ground, you don’t need a goon squad.
April 25, 20241 yr 13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said: Yes....if only there was a trail of past actions of the folks who submitted those affidavits, DPS officers, with which to discern.....hmmmm. "DPS says it, I believe it." That's not something to put on one's resume. Unless you're applying to join the new gestapo, I guess. Oh, and again, based on your stated standard, we need to shut down having crowds at UT football games, right? I mean, we KNOW that there will be lots of lawlessness among that group of miscreants, why wait until they actually do something? Let's nip it in the bud, and just get all of those assholes off our campus. That's your rule. Let's apply it. Most in attendance aren’t even students!
April 25, 20241 yr 9 minutes ago, Anastasis said: I haven't been down on campus for a while. Are there really people still wearing N95s as they walk around outdoors? You should have hit the accelerator. And poor fitting N95s at that. Performative. Perhaps the young person has a cold or some other respiratory illness and is trying to be considerate of others while still going about his day?
April 25, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said: Most in attendance aren’t even students! Been staff since 2007.
April 25, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Dahobbs said: I don't understand what is offensive or scary about this. Are we concerned that occupying grass is going to disrupt something? What is offensive or scary or about the 2023 Israeli-American Council Summit in Austin that this same PSC group demanded to be shut down, on grounds of danger? https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/article-715248 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said: Ummmm.....show me the problem here? It's perfectly fine for any group to tell the university "this shit/that shit doesn't belong here. You shouldn't sponsor it it." Put the complaint on the desk, let the university consider it and act/not act. That's how the process works. If these guys were demanding that the university not ALLOW a jewish group to march, speak, etc., because of the CONTENT of that message, they'd be in the wrong. They can still make the demand, of course. It's just that it should be summarily rejected. I dont disagree. The state has no right infringing on speech that is not yet violent and the university has no place shutting down events that are not disruptive. Correct, its “fine” for the PSC to make this *plead* against another groups right to convene. My point wasnt that their demand per se is a problem, but that its hilariously backfired. Didnt know the jaguar would eat MY face.
April 25, 20241 yr Author 1 minute ago, 52-80 said: What is offensive or scary or about the 2023 Israeli-American Council Summit in Austin that this same PSC group demanded to be shut down, on grounds of danger? https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/article-715248 Something tells me you didn't give a shit about any of this group or even know about them until abbott targeted them for brutality 2 minutes ago, 52-80 said: Correct, its “fine” for the PSC to make this *plead* against another groups right to convene. My point wasnt that their demand per se is a problem, but that its hilariously backfired. Didnt know the jaguar would eat MY face. Yes. We know you think it's hilarious when protesters are beaten up by cops.
April 25, 20241 yr Just now, Captainant said: Something tells me you didn't give a shit about any of this group or even know about them until abbott targeted them for brutality Do I need to be sympathetic to either party to notice hypocrisy? Just now, Captainant said: Yes. We know you think it's hilarious when protesters are beaten up by cops. You should cry into your keffiyeh over it.
April 25, 20241 yr Author Abbott and bootlickers today: putting down this protest was all about fighting antisemitism!!! When there were actual fucking neonazis marching in the streets y'all were more concerned about free speech then.
April 25, 20241 yr Just now, Captainant said: Abbott and bootlickers today: putting down this protest was all about fighting antisemitism!!! When there were actual fucking neonazis marching in the streets y'all were more concerned about free speech then. They’re wearing masks!!!!!
April 25, 20241 yr Popular Post 3 minutes ago, 52-80 said: Correct, its “fine” for the PSC to make this *plead* against another groups right to convene. My point wasnt that their demand per se is a problem, but that its hilariously backfired. Didnt know the jaguar would eat MY face. But you missed the difference: speech that is ALLOWED, vs. speech that is SPONSORED. Imagine a group that says that jews exercise outsize control in the world, have sinister motivations, and we must keep our eyes on them. Or, flip that, and make it a group that says the same thing about muslims. That group, the anti-jew or anti-muslim group, intends to have a rally on campus, where they state their views and try to get the university and its students to adopt those views. I am 100% in favor of such speech being ALLOWED, even though I find it abhorrent. Now, imagine those same two groups....except the university INVITES the group's leader to come give a speech on "why the jews/arabs are the world's biggest problem, and my suggestions on how to drive them out of America." It's part of the University of Texas Distinguished Thought Leader Lecture series. I don't want my university SPONSORING such speech, so I don't think we should invite that speaker to our lecture series. ALLOW abhorrent speech -- yes, we must. SPONSOR abhorrent speech -- we should think really, really hard about it, weighing a shitload of factors. But we should lean AGAINST doing so, as a university. That's a big difference.
April 25, 20241 yr 12 minutes ago, 52-80 said: What is offensive or scary or about the 2023 Israeli-American Council Summit in Austin that this same PSC group demanded to be shut down, on grounds of danger? https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/article-715248 The Summit wasn't mere public speech, but an event sponsored by the University. Those are different things. The University has to allow the KKK to speak and march in the public forum. But that doesn't mean it must or should invite the KKK to a University conference on racial relations. As to particular Summit you identified, I don't know enough to comment either way. It also isn't relevant to the thread.
April 25, 20241 yr 38 minutes ago, 52-80 said: This is from the group that organized this weeks UT pro-Palestine event As noted Jew Albert Einstein once said, “the ironing is delicious”. That this organization petitioned to silence another organization is irrelevant. I generally disagree with that approach, but they didn’t waive their own right to free speech by advocating that another group should be silenced. Edited April 25, 20241 yr by BrickHorn
April 25, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Brisketexan said: But you missed the difference: speech that is ALLOWED, vs. speech that is SPONSORED. Imagine a group that says that jews exercise outsize control in the world, have sinister motivations, and we must keep our eyes on them. Or, flip that, and make it a group that says the same thing about muslims. That group, the anti-jew or anti-muslim group, intends to have a rally on campus, where they state their views and try to get the university and its students to adopt those views. I am 100% in favor of such speech being ALLOWED, even though I find it abhorrent. Now, imagine those same two groups....except the university INVITES the group's leader to come give a speech on "why the jews/arabs are the world's biggest problem, and my suggestions on how to drive them out of America." It's part of the University of Texas Distinguished Thought Leader Lecture series. I don't want my university SPONSORING such speech, so I don't think we should invite that speaker to our lecture series. ALLOW abhorrent speech -- yes, we must. SPONSOR abhorrent speech -- we should think really, really hard about it, weighing a shitload of factors. But we should lean AGAINST doing so, as a university. That's a big difference. You missed a big difference: their call to action against the IAC had no element of sponsorship, and nothing to do with UT. (Which is separately from their cancellation request on a speaker). They demanded, verbatim, for that IAC event to be “shut down”. Meaning they wanted, if they had their way, that that event could not exist. And the nature of the IAC Summit is far from anti-anything. And yes, man, i already agree with you: that all this shit must be *allowed*, no matter how abhorrent and anti-whomever. Although people in this thread dont demonstrate the same beliefs. Im pointing how ironic the turns tabled in this instance.
April 25, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said: The Summit wasn't mere public speech, but an event sponsored by the University. Those are different things. The University has to allow the KKK to speak and march in the public forum. But that doesn't mean it must or should invite the KKK to a University conference on racial relations. As to particular Summit you identified, I don't know enough to comment either way. It also isn't relevant to the thread. The summit they wanted to shut down was a private event merely hosted in the city of Austin. The single speaker (Yaron Brooks) whose UT lecture they wanted to cancel was a separate event. I dont know Yaron Brooks. But the relevance to this thread is obvious: a major matter of speech (and funny minor matter of hypocrisy) Just now, BrickHorn said: That this organization petitioned to silence another organization is irrelevant. I happen to disagree with their approach, but they didn’t waive their own right to free speech by advocating that another group should be silenced. well…ditto.
April 25, 20241 yr Someone espousing a stupid opinion about wanting an event shut down is a different thing than actual police in riot gear teakettling a peaceful protest. Even if the people with the dumbass opinion are the ones being teakettled, which may or may not be the case here. not hard Edited April 25, 20241 yr by Celery Man
April 25, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, 52-80 said: The summit they wanted to shut down was a private event merely hosted in the city of Austin. The single speaker (Yaron Brooks) whose UT lecture they wanted to cancel was a separate event. I dont know Yaron Brooks. But the relevance to this thread is obvious: a major matter of speech (and funny minor matter of hypocrisy) well…ditto. Ok? So it was private event that they were protesting? Freedom of speech includes protesting the speech of others and shaming other private entities to shun that speech. That's perfectly acceptable. It only becomes a constitutional issue when the government gets involved.
April 25, 20241 yr Do we really need to go through the freedom of speech basics again? Private individuals can censor speech all they want. The government cannot.
April 25, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Dahobbs said: Ok? So it was private event that they were protesting? Freedom of speech includes protesting the speech of others and shaming other private entities to shun that speech. That's perfectly acceptable. It only becomes a constitutional issue when the government gets involved. Which post number suggested that the PSC has no right to protest other parties speech, or that that invalidates their own future right to speech, or that their suppression this week was legal/constitutional? Why are we litigating a non argument? Just dont feign as if theres zero moral/logical/karmic (but not legal) relevance to these incidences though.
April 25, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Dahobbs said: Do we really need to go through the freedom of speech basics again? Based on the past few days the answer is a resounding yes. Our university clearly failed a good many on basic American civics. And fails a good many at the current.
April 26, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, 52-80 said: Which post number suggested that the PSC has no right to protest other parties speech, or that that invalidates their own future right to speech, or that their suppression this week was legal/constitutional? Why are we litigating a non argument? Just dont feign as if theres zero moral/logical/karmic (but not legal) relevance to these incidences though. I don't know, why are we discussing it if you understand these are different things? The PSC never ordered anyone to shut down via threat of legalized violence (i.e., government power). There is only irony here if you don't understand the difference or why the difference exists.
April 26, 20241 yr Just now, Dahobbs said: I don't know, why are we discussing it if you understand these are different things? The PSC never ordered anyone to shut down via threat of legalized violence (i.e., government power). There is only irony here if you don't understand the difference or why the difference exists. If you wish other people get shutdown, and you end up getting shut down, thats karmically related. Has nothing to do with the legal aspect. Thats why the first post that brought it up mentioned only irony. Why are you pretending ive said anything else. Or is your comprehension truly that poor? given ive been explicit, 5x by now, i neither agree with the police action nor believe it has legal standing.
April 26, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, 52-80 said: If you wish other people get shutdown, and you end up getting shut down, thats karmically related. Has nothing to do with the legal aspect. Thats why the first post that brought it up mentioned only irony. Why are you pretending ive said anything else. Or is your comprehension truly that poor? given ive been explicit, 5x by now, i neither agree with the police action nor believe it has legal standing. So you're just trolling? Again?
April 26, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Dahobbs said: So you're just trolling? Again? Is trolling anything and everything you deem to hurt your feelings? Feel free to move on big boy ✊🏾
April 26, 20241 yr 19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said: I don't know, why are we discussing it if you understand these are different things?
April 26, 20241 yr Before I went to UT, while I was at UT, and after I went to UT : UT is not my mother, father, nor caretaker. I am my own person. They owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing. I don't understand people wanting universities to follow their own individual views of the world. Am I crazy?
April 26, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, Steel Shank said: Before I went to UT, while I was at UT, and after I went to UT : UT is not my mother, father, nor caretaker. I am my own person. They owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing. I don't understand people wanting universities to follow their own individual views of the world. Am I crazy? I mean you are, but not about this
April 26, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said: But you missed the difference: speech that is ALLOWED, vs. speech that is SPONSORED. Imagine a group that says that jews exercise outsize control in the world, have sinister motivations, and we must keep our eyes on them. Or, flip that, and make it a group that says the same thing about muslims. That group, the anti-jew or anti-muslim group, intends to have a rally on campus, where they state their views and try to get the university and its students to adopt those views. I am 100% in favor of such speech being ALLOWED, even though I find it abhorrent. Now, imagine those same two groups....except the university INVITES the group's leader to come give a speech on "why the jews/arabs are the world's biggest problem, and my suggestions on how to drive them out of America." It's part of the University of Texas Distinguished Thought Leader Lecture series. I don't want my university SPONSORING such speech, so I don't think we should invite that speaker to our lecture series. ALLOW abhorrent speech -- yes, we must. SPONSOR abhorrent speech -- we should think really, really hard about it, weighing a shitload of factors. But we should lean AGAINST doing so, as a university. That's a big difference. Curious on your thoughts outside this direct discussion - During the Civil Rights Movement there were Clansmen rallies trying to prevent colleges from integrating and trying to intimidate blacks and keep them out of universities. Later, there were racist screams on campus calling blacks names and making them feel unwanted. I assume all that hate speech was stopped. What was done to protect blacks and help the schools integrate and provide a safe and welcoming environment? I can tell you for fact that Jews feel uncomfortable at many colleges including UT. The fraternities and sororities at UT have had to beef up security. Women are told to walk in groups. Most jewish organizations were grateful to Hartzel and Abbott for the protection. You stated: Jewish students shouldn’t be threatened or terrorized. Neither should Arab or Palestinian students. They each should be able to take public positions that make the other side uncomfortable or even angry, so long as they do so peacefully without violence, threats, or intimidation. And people who engage in violence, threats, and intimidation, should be held accountable. I don’t care what your cause is, I stand for that proposition. If we don’t, then we’re worthless as well. Where is the line drawn between uncomfortable and dangerous? From your words, I assume it is okay to make groups feel bad and unwanted and scared or angry but when is the line drawn? Is it when an individual gets hurt or injured? Is it when people bring guns and knives? Can words do it? When should we feel worthless?
April 26, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, Bevo said: Curious on your thoughts outside this direct discussion - During the Civil Rights Movement there were Clansmen rallies trying to prevent colleges from integrating and trying to intimidate blacks and keep them out of universities. Later, there were racist screams on campus calling blacks names and making them feel unwanted. I assume all that hate speech was stopped. What was done to protect blacks and help the schools integrate and provide a safe and welcoming environment? I can tell you for fact that Jews feel uncomfortable at many colleges including UT. The fraternities and sororities at UT have had to beef up security. Women are told to walk in groups. Most jewish organizations were grateful to Hartzel and Abbott for the protection. You stated: Jewish students shouldn’t be threatened or terrorized. Neither should Arab or Palestinian students. They each should be able to take public positions that make the other side uncomfortable or even angry, so long as they do so peacefully without violence, threats, or intimidation. And people who engage in violence, threats, and intimidation, should be held accountable. I don’t care what your cause is, I stand for that proposition. If we don’t, then we’re worthless as well. Where is the line drawn between uncomfortable and dangerous? From your words, I assume it is okay to make groups feel bad and unwanted and scared or angry but when is the line drawn? Is it when an individual gets hurt or injured? Is it when people bring guns and knives? Can words do it? When should we feel worthless? Reminder that the only student hurt or injured on campus in the current unrest is a Muslim student and his companion that were attacked leaving their Mosque. All students need to be protected. It seems like the University is doing a very good job protecting Jewish students.
April 26, 20241 yr I don’t know. I guess maybe don’t suck off on Hamas and cry fowl when the chickens come home to roost? Like this is a very organized protest across college campuses for what purpose? educate all of us on how sad it is? This 1000 year old war. Make us stop what exactly? Protesting the strikes on Gaza for what end? Why now? Especially after an unprecedented attack by Hamas. These fucks protesting need to go the fuck home. Go home. You have to pick a side in this war. Sitting and cover your faces and crying about a thousand plus year old war. I have sympathy for the innocent people in harms way. But this is bullshit and these hired fucks should go the fuck home. if you do what you’ve always done you will get what you’ve always gotten. The Middle East and Russia remind me of this. Still trying to do the same shit and get different results. Maybe I don’t know try new leadership. Find better leadership. I have about as much sympathy overall for the Middle East as I do the Russian people. Time and again they choose poorly. Boo the fuck hoo. if I seem pissed the fuck off I am. I rarely wade into this shit. I’m Lebanese, Jewish and German/english. I studied history. What the fuck do I know? Not much. Go home protesting dumb fucks. Go home. And who paid them to organize like this? And fuck them too.
April 26, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, Bevo said: Curious on your thoughts outside this direct discussion - During the Civil Rights Movement there were Clansmen rallies trying to prevent colleges from integrating and trying to intimidate blacks and keep them out of universities. Later, there were racist screams on campus calling blacks names and making them feel unwanted. I assume all that hate speech was stopped. What was done to protect blacks and help the schools integrate and provide a safe and welcoming environment? I can tell you for fact that Jews feel uncomfortable at many colleges including UT. The fraternities and sororities at UT have had to beef up security. Women are told to walk in groups. Most jewish organizations were grateful to Hartzel and Abbott for the protection. You stated: Jewish students shouldn’t be threatened or terrorized. Neither should Arab or Palestinian students. They each should be able to take public positions that make the other side uncomfortable or even angry, so long as they do so peacefully without violence, threats, or intimidation. And people who engage in violence, threats, and intimidation, should be held accountable. I don’t care what your cause is, I stand for that proposition. If we don’t, then we’re worthless as well. Where is the line drawn between uncomfortable and dangerous? From your words, I assume it is okay to make groups feel bad and unwanted and scared or angry but when is the line drawn? Is it when an individual gets hurt or injured? Is it when people bring guns and knives? Can words do it? When should we feel worthless? You don't stand for shit. You just saw cops attack, threaten and intimidate people for exercising their free speech, and you did......nothing. Sorry that is not fair, you defend the political goon squad who did the intimidating, threatening and violence.
April 26, 20241 yr Where is the line drawn between uncomfortable and dangerous? From your words, I assume it is okay to make groups feel bad and unwanted and scared or angry but when is the line drawn? Is it when an individual gets hurt or injured? Is it when people bring guns and knives? Can words do it? When should we feel worthless?It’s nearly impossible to draw the line in the abstract. The answer is “it depends.”Yes, physically hurting someone is over the line. Brandishing weapons may well be over the line (although our governor and his buddies have so protected that, that about the only time you can deem someone carrying an AR to be a threat is after he starts shooting. Unless he’s black to brown, of course). And yes, words can be over the line, but that’s where it gets tough.Painful speech, speech that makes people feel bad, feel worthless, is not necessarily outside first amendment protection. It sucks. I hate it. But the law allows many things I really don’t like. If those words are directed to terrorize, threaten, and the like, then they may be actionable under the law.I know that’s not the answer you want. It’s not an answer that makes me happy. But in order to protect all speech, essential speech, the law must protect abhorrent speech.
April 26, 20241 yr 8 minutes ago, Nicole44 said: I don’t know. I guess maybe don’t suck off on Hamas and cry fowl when the chickens come home to roost? Like this is a very organized protest across college campuses for what purpose? educate all of us on how sad it is? This 1000 year old war. Make us stop what exactly? Protesting the strikes on Gaza for what end? Why now? Especially after an unprecedented attack by Hamas. These fucks protesting need to go the fuck home. Go home. You have to pick a side in this war. Sitting and cover your faces and crying about a thousand plus year old war. I have sympathy for the innocent people in harms way. But this is bullshit and these hired fucks should go the fuck home. if you do what you’ve always done you will get what you’ve always gotten. The Middle East and Russia remind me of this. Still trying to do the same shit and get different results. Maybe I don’t know try new leadership. Find better leadership. I have about as much sympathy overall for the Middle East as I do the Russian people. Time and again they choose poorly. Boo the fuck hoo. if I seem pissed the fuck off I am. I rarely wade into this shit. I’m Lebanese, Jewish and German/english. I studied history. What the fuck do I know? Not much. Go home protesting dumb fucks. Go home. And who paid them to organize like this? And fuck them too. Right, maybe, I don't know, actually read something about what happened before commenting. Or stick to the lake murdering. Whatever.
April 26, 20241 yr Popular Post 23 minutes ago, Bevo said: Curious on your thoughts outside this direct discussion - During the Civil Rights Movement there were Clansmen rallies trying to prevent colleges from integrating and trying to intimidate blacks and keep them out of universities. Later, there were racist screams on campus calling blacks names and making them feel unwanted. I assume all that hate speech was stopped. What was done to protect blacks and help the schools integrate and provide a safe and welcoming environment? I can tell you for fact that Jews feel uncomfortable at many colleges including UT. The fraternities and sororities at UT have had to beef up security. Women are told to walk in groups. Most jewish organizations were grateful to Hartzel and Abbott for the protection. You stated: Jewish students shouldn’t be threatened or terrorized. Neither should Arab or Palestinian students. They each should be able to take public positions that make the other side uncomfortable or even angry, so long as they do so peacefully without violence, threats, or intimidation. And people who engage in violence, threats, and intimidation, should be held accountable. I don’t care what your cause is, I stand for that proposition. If we don’t, then we’re worthless as well. Where is the line drawn between uncomfortable and dangerous? From your words, I assume it is okay to make groups feel bad and unwanted and scared or angry but when is the line drawn? Is it when an individual gets hurt or injured? Is it when people bring guns and knives? Can words do it? When should we feel worthless? I think that you’re conflating some of the very shitty and real protests that have happened elsewhere with what happened in Austin. It IS unacceptable to block people from going to class, to scream abuse at individuals, to call for illegal violence against a group of people or individuals. But NONE OF THAT happened in Austin and we can’t use pre-crime as an excuse. It’s fine to have LE on standby and in deconflict mode. It’s fine to tell kids “you can’t camp here, pack up your tent and move along.” And if someone does get violent or start trying to block students from attending class, I’m fine with arresting that person. But that has to actually happen, it can’t be wish-casting based on what people did in LA or NYC.
April 26, 20241 yr 27 minutes ago, Bevo said: Curious on your thoughts outside this direct discussion - During the Civil Rights Movement there were Clansmen rallies trying to prevent colleges from integrating and trying to intimidate blacks and keep them out of universities. Later, there were racist screams on campus calling blacks names and making them feel unwanted. I assume all that hate speech was stopped. What was done to protect blacks and help the schools integrate and provide a safe and welcoming environment? I can tell you for fact that Jews feel uncomfortable at many colleges including UT. The fraternities and sororities at UT have had to beef up security. Women are told to walk in groups. Most jewish organizations were grateful to Hartzel and Abbott for the protection. You stated: Jewish students shouldn’t be threatened or terrorized. Neither should Arab or Palestinian students. They each should be able to take public positions that make the other side uncomfortable or even angry, so long as they do so peacefully without violence, threats, or intimidation. And people who engage in violence, threats, and intimidation, should be held accountable. I don’t care what your cause is, I stand for that proposition. If we don’t, then we’re worthless as well. Where is the line drawn between uncomfortable and dangerous? From your words, I assume it is okay to make groups feel bad and unwanted and scared or angry but when is the line drawn? Is it when an individual gets hurt or injured? Is it when people bring guns and knives? Can words do it? When should we feel worthless? I ask again, what does any of this have to do with what happened on the UT campus? Don't talk about other events, other places, other times. Talk about UT.
April 26, 20241 yr Author Just now, 956 Worldwide said: But that has to actually happen, it can’t be wish-casting based on what people did in LA or NYC. No, no let the people who think "anti fascist" is an insult continue to advocate for collective punishment. They don't realize how they look, but at least they're finally saying it out loud.
April 26, 20241 yr Popular Post 12 minutes ago, Nicole44 said: You have to pick a side in this war. you actually don't need to have any opinion at all about the gaza war to understand if this (the topic of this thread that we're talking about here) is ok
April 26, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Sawbonz said: Of course he did The more that comes out, the more this looks like a complete self own by Jay.
April 26, 20241 yr 25 minutes ago, Nicole44 said: You have to pick a side in this war. I pick the side that doesn't arm and fund ethnic cleansing.
April 26, 20241 yr Calling in riot troops on his own student body Edited April 26, 20241 yr by Sawbonz
April 26, 20241 yr 3 hours ago, wood said: In December, the state Republican committee voted 39-32 to continue permitting members to meet with groups “known to espouse or tolerate antisemitism, pro-Nazi sympathies or Holocaust denial,” stripping a clause that would have banned such meetings from a statement of support for Israel, according to The Texas Tribune. Half the board also voted not to keep any record of that vote.
April 26, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Sawbonz said: Calling in riot troops on his own student body He'll argue he called it in on "outside forces".
April 26, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Sawbonz said: Calling in riot troops on his own student body @YGIFS Come on man. He's toast right? For better or for worse.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.