fickman wrote:WFAA keeps labeling it an "anti-Islam" event, not a free speech event.
I saw a CNN interview where the anchor was clearly insinuating that the free speechers "asked for it and had it coming".
Sad. Very sad.
I think I was in 7th grade when I saw the stupidity of guys goaded into a fight because the other guy "was talking about my mom." The fight always ended up in a suspension and sometimes in a ticket from the campus officer. I asked a few of them, "Does he even know your mom?" "No." "Then why do you care what he says?"
It seems pretty ignorant and immature to give somebody else so much power that their words unilaterally compel your actions. Counterintuitively, it puts you at their mercy, not them at yours.
The proper response is to have ten of these events next week, 100 the week after that, and 1,000 the week after that.
That's what you get for watching CNN. Who does that?
Hahaha, well, not me. I kicked all cable/satellite to the curb years ago. I do have a bad habit of visiting their website, but I found this specific interview from a Facebook link to a conservative website that was calling out the CNN anchor and included the clips as a point of disgust.
I was having fun flipping channels last night catching the biases that the 24 hour news channels were pimping:
Fox News: 'Murica!!
MSNBC: Free speech is good but don't pick on Muslims
CNN: After an initial issue with not finding Texas, they decided that everyone at the event deserved it.
philip964 wrote:Michael Berry was saying on the radio that the two terrorists were armed with AK47s and had body armor. The brave police officer took them down with his service revolver per Michael. He was promoting the officer as a hero.
I hope the officer gets the recognition he deserves. We here in Texas are all very proud of what he did. He is a true hero.
I'm sure for a second, we all wish we could have helped him.
No surprise that a revolver shooter could pull that off since revolver shooters tend to be a bit more sparing with their ammo than autoloader folks...
Sorry, he could have said service pistol. I'm driving, I'm getting old. It's radio, not something I can reread.
Abraham wrote:TAM noted: Not only that, but I just saw an Garland PD presser about an hour ago, and the officer said that they were going to rethink allowing these kinds of events in the future.
Rethink = Cave In to the their non-American demands for what they might do?
Oh yeah, cave in while the radicals chortle at our weak kneed response to their evil.
Appeasement doesn't work...
Their latest attempt at squelching free speech got two of them smoked!
As to the Garland PD presser (I'm unfamiliar with the word "presser, I guess it's the same as a PR type/spokesman) stating they may rethink allowing these kinds of events. (I'd love to read a definition of "these kind of events"
As I don't know Garland city ordinances, I guess they have that power, but they may also simply assume it if no one complains.
Anyone know if they can legally disallow "these kinds of events"?
Abraham, for the record, I agree with you. I was just the messenger.
Can they legally disallow certain kinds of events? Sure they can. It's not the cops who will disallow it, it will be the owner of the venue, acting on suggestions from the police and other authorities, who will disallow it. They can pretty much decide to refuse any more rentals for events that have anything to do for or against any religious or spiritual matters, for any purpose whatsoever. As long as they exclude all religions including atheism equally, I don't see that the Constitution OR the law would prevent it.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Abraham wrote:TAM noted: Not only that, but I just saw an Garland PD presser about an hour ago, and the officer said that they were going to rethink allowing these kinds of events in the future.
Rethink = Cave In to the their non-American demands for what they might do?
Oh yeah, cave in while the radicals chortle at our weak kneed response to their evil.
Appeasement doesn't work...
Their latest attempt at squelching free speech got two of them smoked!
As to the Garland PD presser (I'm unfamiliar with the word "presser, I guess it's the same as a PR type/spokesman) stating they may rethink allowing these kinds of events. (I'd love to read a definition of "these kind of events"
As I don't know Garland city ordinances, I guess they have that power, but they may also simply assume it if no one complains.
Anyone know if they can legally disallow "these kinds of events"?
Abraham, for the record, I agree with you. I was just the messenger.
Can they legally disallow certain kinds of events? Sure they can. It's not the cops who will disallow it, it will be the owner of the venue, acting on suggestions from the police and other authorities, who will disallow it. They can pretty much decide to refuse any more rentals for events that have anything to do for or against any religious or spiritual matters, for any purpose whatsoever. As long as they exclude all religions including atheism equally, I don't see that the Constitution OR the law would prevent it.
A spokesman for GISD (owners of the venue) was interviewed yesterday and said because it was built with bond monies, local, state and federal, that they could not pick and choose who they rent to or not. But, he also said they are going to meet with the attorney to see if they could find a "loophole" for in the future. My biggest issue is the center in posted 30.06, but that is a whole other rabbit hole I'm not going down.
"Laugh about everything or cry about nothing."
NRA Life Member & TSRA Member/ Former USAF
philip964 wrote:Michael Berry was saying on the radio that the two terrorists were armed with AK47s and had body armor. The brave police officer took them down with his service revolver per Michael. He was promoting the officer as a hero.
I hope the officer gets the recognition he deserves. We here in Texas are all very proud of what he did. He is a true hero.
I'm sure for a second, we all wish we could have helped him.
No surprise that a revolver shooter could pull that off since revolver shooters tend to be a bit more sparing with their ammo than autoloader folks...
Its my understanding that he wasn't a revolver guy, he was a .45 guy. Granted, it was a Glock but nobody's perfect
My point is that Michael Berry was saying the weapon used was a "service revolver"
My point is that several other sources are indicating otherwise
fickman wrote:WFAA keeps labeling it an "anti-Islam" event, not a free speech event.
I saw a CNN interview where the anchor was clearly insinuating that the free speechers "asked for it and had it coming".
Sad. Very sad.
I think I was in 7th grade when I saw the stupidity of guys goaded into a fight because the other guy "was talking about my mom." The fight always ended up in a suspension and sometimes in a ticket from the campus officer. I asked a few of them, "Does he even know your mom?" "No." "Then why do you care what he says?"
It seems pretty ignorant and immature to give somebody else so much power that their words unilaterally compel your actions. Counterintuitively, it puts you at their mercy, not them at yours.
The proper response is to have ten of these events next week, 100 the week after that, and 1,000 the week after that.
That's what you get for watching CNN. Who does that?
Hahaha, well, not me. I kicked all cable/satellite to the curb years ago. I do have a bad habit of visiting their website, but I found this specific interview from a Facebook link to a conservative website that was calling out the CNN anchor and included the clips as a point of disgust.
I'm sometimes confronted with it at places like doctor office waiting rooms.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
philip964 wrote:Michael Berry was saying on the radio that the two terrorists were armed with AK47s and had body armor. The brave police officer took them down with his service revolver per Michael. He was promoting the officer as a hero.
I hope the officer gets the recognition he deserves. We here in Texas are all very proud of what he did. He is a true hero.
I'm sure for a second, we all wish we could have helped him.
No surprise that a revolver shooter could pull that off since revolver shooters tend to be a bit more sparing with their ammo than autoloader folks...
Its my understanding that he wasn't a revolver guy, he was a .45 guy. Granted, it was a Glock but nobody's perfect
My point is that Michael Berry was saying the weapon used was a "service revolver"
My point is that several other sources are indicating otherwise
Abraham wrote:TAM noted: Not only that, but I just saw an Garland PD presser about an hour ago, and the officer said that they were going to rethink allowing these kinds of events in the future.
Rethink = Cave In to the their non-American demands for what they might do?
Oh yeah, cave in while the radicals chortle at our weak kneed response to their evil.
Appeasement doesn't work...
Their latest attempt at squelching free speech got two of them smoked!
As to the Garland PD presser (I'm unfamiliar with the word "presser, I guess it's the same as a PR type/spokesman) stating they may rethink allowing these kinds of events. (I'd love to read a definition of "these kind of events"
As I don't know Garland city ordinances, I guess they have that power, but they may also simply assume it if no one complains.
Anyone know if they can legally disallow "these kinds of events"?
Abraham, for the record, I agree with you. I was just the messenger.
Can they legally disallow certain kinds of events? Sure they can. It's not the cops who will disallow it, it will be the owner of the venue, acting on suggestions from the police and other authorities, who will disallow it. They can pretty much decide to refuse any more rentals for events that have anything to do for or against any religious or spiritual matters, for any purpose whatsoever. As long as they exclude all religions including atheism equally, I don't see that the Constitution OR the law would prevent it.
A spokesman for GISD (owners of the venue) was interviewed yesterday and said because it was built with bond monies, local, state and federal, that they could not pick and choose who they rent to or not. But, he also said they are going to meet with the attorney to see if they could find a "loophole" for in the future. My biggest issue is the center in posted 30.06, but that is a whole other rabbit hole I'm not going down.
A good and honest attorney will tell them that content-based restrictions on speech violate the First Amendment and they cannot prevent renting to the group again.
That's like the French taking credit for Waterloo!
Chas.
I thought "credit" was given for something that worked out as planned. I doubt the terrorist thugs thought they would get dropped before inflicting any real carnage.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
