Melissa Click charged with assault will do community service

Post Reply New Topic

in response to my request for a source, you give me naturalnews.com and it doesn't even link to any sources besides itself.

and here you are, handwaving racism away because it's easier to daydream about false flags and how you're Michael Westen in real life or something.

I do not need to do research for you, that was the first google result so if you want something more then do it yourself. It's such BS debate tactic, a deflection, I do not care if you believe me or not because it is true.

handwaving imaginary "racism" away from their ivory towers, oh the humanity

I do not care about the idiot students, these idiot professors tho have to go

Making the campus a "safe space" was explicitly part of the protest.

They basically created a situation, which couldn't be satisfied at all, becuase it wasn't something tangibly possible to implement, then they wanted the president resign becuase of it. Guess what he did, and they haven't achieved anything becuase there was no actual objective other than to take out their frustrations on him.

This protest started becuase someone was abused by someone in a passing truck. Somehow this was the university's fault. No other information was given, nobody knows who this person was.

I will give the guy the benefit of the doubt it happened. However the way he perused the issue was totally mad.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20532/

here's a nice list from before any of the Missouri garbage even started

the campus hoax is much more common than campus racism

I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt to play devil advocate. His actions were still stupid.

it's okay, I forgive Fugu

I think the "right" is definitely more sane these days, largely because it's becoming more libertarian -- fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Broad categories of course encompass all sorts of strange people, but I think this is a definite trend, especially among younger people in the US.

The left, however, is becoming more and more extreme. Even if the right were not becoming more libertarian, I'd always take conservatives, even Christian conservatives, over Marxists any day.

Try "the world's smallest political quiz" in the first post here, and take the poll:
viewtopic.php?t=303548

you're the one making the claim, the burden of proof lies with you.
that's a blog site, and it's not even about UM.

shouldn't the burden of proof be made on those making these accusations of racist incidents?

A couple guys supposedly yelling something maybe at you is not a reason to get the university president fired

There are many many stories of this, I don't care what standard you're setting here that's just to illustrate to other people who might enter this thread what I was talking about but it's out there for you to find if you want it.

For assault? Why is it that we so commonly see women get off so easily for offenses that men would never get a chance with escaping?

Cheaters never win! Winners never cheat! So says the Green Lantern!

I find many people calling themselves libertarian are just trying to say they are not socially conservative. In any case quite of them are only libertarian up to the point it suits. They are quite happy to support protectionism where it suits, they just tell themselves it isn't protectionism to justify it.

This is why I reluctant call myself a libertarian. I treat it like any political ideal. I do have libertarian leanings especially socially. So that translates as non-interference in private life, based on the harm principle. I don't support legal marriage for instance. I don't think that is the role of government, to place a status on relationships. It is up the individual involved what cultural practices they follow.

Economically I'm Competionist and trade Liberal. Capitalism is not a complete economic policy it is only a component of one, people forget that. Competition is not guaranteed by it in any market, often the contrary. However we have so much protectionism that is anti-competition. I'm for radical patent reform, removal of artificial barriers to entry, reform of company law including removal of limited liability. I would go far as getting rid of the legal concept of incorporation. Legally incorporation means a business treated as a person, not a citizen but a person. Of course it has other rights a person does not, and lacks responsibilities a person does. This is a nonsense.

Anti-trust is retrospective token BS. The point is not to single out so called bad eggs, it is to allow competition to exist in the first place.

The extremes come full circle. Left and right are such vague terms that can mean so many contradictory things. Also term like "Old Right" are revisionist nonsense. I can't get my head round why certain group claim to be aligned.

The joke is Mussolini could have only dreamt of the level of collusion between government and cooperate entities. This was is ideal of his fascism and we have achieved it.

Thank you so much for explaining this to me.

Fiscal conservatism is fine and good, as long as it's based in reality. Cutting taxes on the wealthy so that you can cut services for everyone leads to a crashed economy, not a healthy one; the situation in Flint is just an extreme example of that. Even if the state had never been caught in the poisoning of the population, the long term consequences in terms of lead poisoning would cost the state more than it saved on cheaper water.
Cutting taxes on the wealthy does not lead to 'trickle-down' benefits.
Cutting taxes on corporations does not lead to more workers being hired.
Skimping on bridge repair does not save money because the bridge eventually collapses.
Skimping on road maintenance does not save money because your citizens have to invest money in cars that fall apart faster, and therefore not in growing the economy.
Etc, etc, etc.
A lot of what is called 'fiscal conservatism' is really just short-term thinking and/or an excuse to redistribute wealth upwards.

motives are taken into account.

The US concept of misdemeanors are a bit alien to me. Could somebody explain?

Would she have to report to a police station? Does she see a proper judge?

We have somethings like that but assault would on your record. We actually abolished a general distinction from felonies in 1969. We rarely hear either word used in that way.

I understand that assault also includes verbal assault such as making threats.