GOP lawmaker: You can’t call ‘for the eradication of Jews and think everything is going to be just okay’

[Valletta]

“You’re not entitled to make threats against people, and that’s why the president of Columbia needs to resign immediately,” Lawler said on “The Hill.” “She has failed in her obligation — her primary responsibility to ensure the safety and the well-being of students on that campus.”

GOP lawmaker: You can’t call ‘for the eradication of Jews and think everything is going to be just OK’

GOP Rep. Mike Lawler (N.Y.) on Monday emphasized the need for “consequences” against those involved in the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. “I mean there are consequences to actions. That’s what some of these folks don’t seem to understand. You can’t call for the eradication of...

www.yahoo.com

Biden should order federal troops in for the safety of Jewish students.

 

[Belk]

“You’re not entitled to make threats against people, and that’s why the president of Columbia needs to resign immediately,” Lawler said on “The Hill.” “She has failed in her obligation — her primary responsibility to ensure the safety and the well-being of students on that campus.”

GOP lawmaker: You can’t call ‘for the eradication of Jews and think everything is going to be just OK’

GOP Rep. Mike Lawler (N.Y.) on Monday emphasized the need for “consequences” against those involved in the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. “I mean there are consequences to actions. That’s what some of these folks don’t seem to understand. You can’t call for the eradication of...

www.yahoo.com

Biden should order federal troops in for the safety of Jewish students.

I see. So in response to "threats against people" you believe the president should violate the Posse Comitatus Act? I'm seeing a pattern to your suggestions.

 

[rambot]

“You’re not entitled to make threats against people, and that’s why the president of Columbia needs to resign immediately,” Lawler said on “The Hill.” “She has failed in her obligation — her primary responsibility to ensure the safety and the well-being of students on that campus.”

GOP lawmaker: You can’t call ‘for the eradication of Jews and think everything is going to be just OK’

GOP Rep. Mike Lawler (N.Y.) on Monday emphasized the need for “consequences” against those involved in the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. “I mean there are consequences to actions. That’s what some of these folks don’t seem to understand. You can’t call for the eradication of...

www.yahoo.com

Biden should order federal troops in for the safety of Jewish students.

Are you serious? Why not?

White guys in little war Cosplay groups do it all.the.time.

Not only is it "just okay".....but Republicans have supported THEIR right to free speech (albeit grudgingly).

 

[Vambram]

Biden should order federal troops in for the safety of Jewish students.

That would not be a good response at all. Local law enforcement should be more than enough to keep students safe as long as the police are allowed to do their jobs.

 

[Vambram]

I cannot tell if the liberals around here actually support the kinds of protests that are happening against the Jewish students .... or don't support it.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

"...support the kinds of protests that are happening..."

What do you mean by this phrase exactly? Conservatives on this site seem to think that saying someone has the right to peacefully (differences in the interpretation of this word notwithstanding) protest and even say what you might think are disgusting things is the same as agreeing with whatever they are saying. It's like they don't actually understand what "free speech" actually means. They complain about a conservative speaker not being given a platform (not a free speech issue) to say what some people find disgusting and then call for sending in the troops/the arrest of liberal protestors (unambiguously a free speech issue) for saying what some people find to be disgusting things.

 

[Vambram]

What do you mean by this phrase exactly? Conservatives on this site seem to think that saying someone has the right to peacefully (differences in the interpretation of this word notwithstanding) protest and even say what you might think are disgusting things is the same as agreeing with whatever they are saying. It's like they don't actually understand what "free speech" actually means. They complain about a conservative speaker not being given a platform (not a free speech issue) to say what some people find disgusting and then call for sending in the troops/the arrest of liberal protestors (unambiguously a free speech issue) for saying what some people find to be disgusting things.

If you honestly believe that some of the recent protests against the Jewish students are peaceful protests, then it's clear that you and I don't have the same definition about that phrase. By the way, the NYPD appears to agree that some of those protestors were not peaceful when the NYPD arrested some of them.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

If you honestly believe that some of the recent protests against the Jewish students are peaceful protests, then it's clear that you and I don't have the same definition about that phrase. By the way, the NYPD appears to agree that some of those protestors were not peaceful when the NYPD arrested some of them.

So, not all then, right?

See. Nuance. It's important. I certainly don't condone violence from the protestors, and any that are absolutely should be arrested, but that's why I asked my question about "support[ing] the kinds of protests that are happening." I do not "support" violence in those protests. I've now said it explicitly. I doubt any one else does either. So when you say "support the kinds of protests that are happening" what do you mean? Because I do support their right to protest. If that means they get arrested then so be it, as long as it's for actually breaking the law and not just for protesting. Even if they are saying things I think are disgusting as long as they aren't making specific threats against those other students then they have the right to say them. Do you agree with that?

 

[rambot]

I cannot tell if the liberals around here actually support the kinds of protests that are happening against the Jewish students .... or don't support it.

I'm not a free speech absolutists so I DO believe:
1) Direct threats against individual students should be charged.
2) I have NO problem with protests
3) I have no problem with protests against Israel. I would myself. I kind of have problems with protests against Jews but that would be way more "message specific" in terms of me having a problem with it.

When you specifically say these are "protests against Jewish students", I'm wondering exactly what that means? Why would they be protesting Jewish Students? Are they advocating that Jewish students get kicked out of school? I mean, technically that would also be free speech.

 

[Pommer]

“You’re not entitled to make threats against people, and that’s why the president of Columbia needs to resign immediately,” Lawler said on “The Hill.” “She has failed in her obligation — her primary responsibility to ensure the safety and the well-being of students on that campus.”

GOP lawmaker: You can’t call ‘for the eradication of Jews and think everything is going to be just OK’

GOP Rep. Mike Lawler (N.Y.) on Monday emphasized the need for “consequences” against those involved in the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. “I mean there are consequences to actions. That’s what some of these folks don’t seem to understand. You can’t call for the eradication of...

www.yahoo.com

Biden should order federal troops in for the safety of Jewish students.

Is it the Federal Government’s job to police local protests?
Who wants the Federal Government “deciding” which protests are kosher?
What is “conservative” about any of this?

 

[Vambram]

‘Someone is funding’ college protests: Rep. Virginia Foxx

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., says it is difficult to believe students are organizing alone and without external support.

www.newsnationnow.com

 

[Vambram]

I'm not a free speech absolutists so I DO believe:
1) Direct threats against individual students should be charged.
2) I have NO problem with protests
3) I have no problem with protests against Israel. I would myself. I kind of have problems with protests against Jews but that would be way more "message specific" in terms of me having a problem with it.

When you specifically say these are "protests against Jewish students", I'm wondering exactly what that means? Why would they be protesting Jewish Students? Are they advocating that Jewish students get kicked out of school? I mean, technically that would also be free speech.

According to the news videos I have watched, there are examples of Jewish students being targeted by some of the protestors. This has happened more than a few times.

 

[Vambram]

Antisemitism on campus surges as agitators take over

Students at Columbia University have been alerted that all in-person classes will be held virtually through the end of the semester as anti-Israel protesters have taken over the campus. Columbia President Minouche Shafik set a deadline of midnight Tuesday to reach an agreement in negotiations...

www.foxnews.com

 

[rambot]

Antisemitism on campus surges as agitators take over

Students at Columbia University have been alerted that all in-person classes will be held virtually through the end of the semester as anti-Israel protesters have taken over the campus. Columbia President Minouche Shafik set a deadline of midnight Tuesday to reach an agreement in negotiations...

www.foxnews.com

1) I don't like it when "Antisemitism" is equated with "antizionism" or anti-Israel. Of course, leave it to a "news organization" like fox to subtley try to equate the two.

They are not the same. When I clicked on your link, it didn't take me to that story either...just a collection of stories. So I have no comment.

 

[Vambram]

Are the liberals in denial that some of the protestors have been targeting their protests against Jewish students? If you are, then maybe you should take a look at the arrests being done by the NYCPD as well as the condemnation by Democratic leaders of those directing their hateful protests against the Jewish students. The collection of news stories allows a person to read updates of what is happening. It is not difficult to read and comment on them.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Are the liberals in denial that some of the protestors have been targeting their protests against Jewish students? If you are, then maybe you should take a look at the arrests being done by the NYCPD as well as the condemnation by Democratic leaders of those directing their hateful protests against the Jewish students. The collection of news stories allows a person to read updates of what is happening. It is not difficult to read and comment on them.

Okay, now you're just gaslighting.

This has all been covered. I personally stated EXPLICITLY, that I did not condone violent protest. NOONE here is saying that violent protests are acceptable or that violent protestors shouldn't be arrested. Literally NOONE. You've been shown and acknowledge in this very comment that Democratic leaders are condemning antisemitism and violence from the protestors...

But you keep painting this like they don't have a right to protest. That they should be arrested for just saying things that you don't agree with. It doesn't matter how disgusting you think the things they say are. As long as they are not specific threats of violence they still have the right to say them. This is how the 1st Amendment works. I know you guys only care about the 2nd one, but the first one is first for a reason.

 

[Vambram]

But you keep painting this like they don't have a right to protest. That they should be arrested for just saying things that you don't agree with. It doesn't matter how disgusting you think the things they say are. As long as they are not specific threats of violence they still have the right to say them. This is how the 1st Amendment works. I know you guys only care about the 2nd one, but the first one is first for a reason.

Now you are the one who is gaslighting because I never said anything of which you are accusing me.

 

[rambot]

Now you are the one who is gaslighting because I never said anything of which you are accusing me.

You seem to be implying that they should be arrested for what they are saying. Heavily, heavily implying.

For the record, I 1000% support protests against Israel.

 

[Vambram]

You seem to be implying that they should be arrested for what they are saying. Heavily, heavily implying.

For the record, I 1000% support protests against Israel.

I consistently have said and implied that the protests which are illegal are the ones that are directly targeting Jewish students.

 

[rambot]

I consistently have said and implied that the protests which are illegal are the ones that are directly targeting Jewish students.

Do you mean individual students? Like the reporter story you cited?

Because it's not illegal to call for another holocaust in the US, even directly to Jewish students.

I'm worried our discussion is getting lengthenned due only to vague communication.