Catholic high school students Mock Native American elder

You disagree, but you haven't put forward a plan that lowers income disparity and effects faster economic growth.

 

No, perhaps not on this thread. But I have mentioned basic principles many time before. Like getting back to what our founders set up, that created the nation that won ww2 and created the largest middle class in world history. And we did not do that by making our people compete against the poor of the world that will work for cents on the dollar. If you break this principle, and we have, the upper class benefits greatly while most americans who have to work, which is most of us, get hurt, and suffer the consequences of making only the maximization of profits important, at any and all costs to this nation and american society.

We employed more workers and our own people did much better in wages when we used them to make our consumption, the majority of it, instead of competing with basically what looks like slave wages. The reasons and principles behind what our founders set up have not changed and are just as valid and intelligence based today as they were when they were instituted.

 

We may not like competing with "the poor of the world," but we're vying with them for natural resources worldwide and selling into foreign markets in competition with them. How can we compete where the end result is higher incomes for lower- and middle-income Americans?

So, how do we get from where we are to where we want to go?

There is no going back to that world. If we try, we'll end up with much lower economic output.

How...?

 

Seen as a symbol of intolerance and hate, akin to Klan hoods:

 

That quote is great.

At least people wearing White Hoods weren't showing their faces.

it boggles the mind to think that people exist who would actually wear a MAGA Hat in public.

Just asking for trouble.:smfh:

 

Violent people often look for reasons to commit violence.

 

Who do you blame? Those who hope for a better America, or terroristic goons who fight for a totalitarian state?

 

If you don't think that he can be "fairly labeled a racist" then how the hell can you say "racist? Yes?" That makes ZERO sense!

 

They Lie About Everything:

 

That should be Trump's re-election poster.

 

Seems that way, but what I don't understand is why. Unless one is certain the cap means the wearer is a racist, having one on shouldn't cause this reaction. On what basis is the assumption made that MAGA = racism? MAGA was Trump's campaign slogan, and he campaigned against unfettered immigration, to build a wall and ban arrivals from terrorist-prone countries, but there were other issues on his platform; he also campaigned against unfair trade deals, the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, excessive environmental restrictions, burdensome bureaucratic regulation and for a generally more unilateralist foreign policy. All of this is what MAGA means to me and I know the critical left repudiates all of it too.

The focus on the racist element can only sensibly be premised on Trump's position on immigration, his calls for a wall and what was described as a "Muslim ban" were denounced as racist, but there are sensible reasons to support his position that have nothing to do with racism; there really are tens of millions of impoverished illegal aliens in the US depressing wages for low-end workers and it costs a lot to provide them with the assistance they need, Europe has endured numerous terrorist attacks and a surge of violent crime by a flood of Muslim immigrants from terrorist-prone countries. It would be beneficial to address these concerns, restrict immigration, prevent illegal border crossing, more carefully check the backgrounds of applicants, saying so shouldn't subject one to denunciations of racism.

If a MAGA cap is an expression of support for Trump's political views, it shouldn't trigger the reaction we've seen since tolerating differing political views is a good thing in a democracy.

 

They slandered this young man.

Covington Catholic kid starts suing

What do Elizabeth Warren, Jim Carrey, and the Catholic Church have in common?

They all maybe chipping in for Nick Sandmann's first car.

 

I'm not so sure the kids would prevail in a lawsuit. They were defamed and their reputation harmed, but the journalists were reporting facts in the news, only those who continued reporting with defamatory language after certain contradictory facts became news could be liable. Celebrities and politicians are in a different situation, they are not presumed to report facts, their views are opinions and these cannot premise claims of defamation or libel. Additionally there have been many cases where people have lost claims of defamation and libel because the courts have found accusations of racism are expressions of opinion. I think this is why the accusation is so common.

 

The, so-called "journalists", were not reporting facts. They relayed other people's hopelessly biased viewpoints. That constitutes negligence. Negligence is the standard for liability regarding private citizens.

 

THAT’S DIFFERENT BECAUSE SHUT UP:

“Comedian Bill Maher was accused of racism after making a fried chicken joke to a Black Republican during an interview on Friday’s HBO show of ‘Real Time with Bill Maher.'”

 

Yes, the accused newscasters are not journalists, their qualifications are presumably good diction and physical appearance. One should bear in mind this is generally the case, that people who read the news for broadcasters are not journalists, the journalists are the ones who gave them the news to read and what they read is approved by editors who are supposed to seek confirmation what is reported is factually correct.

Nonetheless, a sensible legal argument would sustain the notion a reasonable person would view reported news as facts rather than opinion. Often when broadcasters report opinion they say so, it is described as an "editorial opinion" or specifically framed as a discussion of views on the matter, their audience is made aware that "the views expressed don't necessarily reflect those of the broadcaster", the public knows it is getting an opinion, this is often done interviewing "experts", professors and attorneys accredited in the subject, their credentials and expertise are highlighted.

This is why I noted the distinction in the liability of "journalists" and "celebrities or politicians", because the "journalists" (often both celebrities and politicians too) are presumed to be reporting facts. This is why their liability would only arise after it became known to them that certain facts (the Indian's actual military credentials, racist and homophobic slurs from the Black Hebrews and the conduct of all parties beyond the initial few seconds of video reported) called into question their earlier reporting. No "journalist" would be liable for describing the kids as they did based only on the initial viral online video, it did look like some "white privileged" kid who was confirmed to have been there for an anti-abortion march from a Catholic school in "redneck country" and was shown to be "smirking" standing in the path of someone who claimed to be a Native American who served in Vietnam there to protest for "Indigenous rights". These were the "facts" known when the viral video was first reported. Continued reporting of just these facts once greater context became known to these "journalists" could expose them to liability.

However, if the actionable liability arises from describing the kid as a racist, no liability is likely to be found since there is ample precedent to such a defamatory statement being found one of opinion. Even tangible discrimination based on race is viewed primarily as an attitude that has to do with the views and mentality of the accused, which perforce cannot be known to the accuser. One surmises another is a racist by his conduct, things he does or says, we don't have racist conduct or utterances by the kid in the video.

 

One racist comment or action doesn't mean the person is a racist.

 

Whether this is true is a matter of opinion, if you hear someone mutter "f@cking ni@@ers" upon observing "African Americans", you may sensibly form the opinion the mutterer is a racist.

 

Lawmakers should act against bogus piety and stolen piety which the smirking Covington mob of fascist Trump youth used to disguise their acts of bigotry and hooliganism.

 

You defend those in whom you see yourself.

 

And, just like clockwork, another Idiotic RW Meme is Spammed.

Great contribution to the topic.

At this point, this whole moronic story has been more than played out.

Bottom line:

Anybody wearing a MAGA Hat in public is asking for trouble.

 

Because of the hysterical and violent left. Y’all need to get a grip.

 

Another clear threat from a terrorist leftist

 

spoken like a true fascist
next do you want to round them all up and put them in concentration camps?
I'm sure you have your oven fired up waiting for the first Trump supporter you can throw in

 

"Bottom line:

Anybody wearing a MAGA Hat in public is asking for trouble."

Who is to blame for that?