@newtboy
Do you honestly believe a BLM sign holder at a clan March would be treated better? What about at a Trump rally? If you claim to think either case wouldn't end in hospitalization, you're not being honest.

Not only did I never claim that, I have trouble figuring why you think I would? My second sentence again:"My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies."

I oppose meeting speech with force excepting when that speech is being used to promote violence or harm, I'm also willing to allow that 'speech' can also amount to being disruptive or harassment like your notion of bringing inappropriate material to a kids park, or using a megaphone inches from someone's face.

I kind of thought on that point we'd find agreement, or at least understanding and agree to disagree?

Opening a new point from you're statement:He was the instigator. His sign amounts to "you will not silence our Nazi voice" at a rally pushing to silence their Nazi voice in their neighborhood.

I've read a few of the links you provided, and looked up a few articles on the gallery and I'm having troubles with the characterization. Do you have a good specific link that more clearly focuses on the nazi support from the gallery? The reading I've done seems to describe an art gallery, that allowed exhibits and talks from far-right and at least arguably fascist speakers on possibly a few occasions. You seem to talk like it was operating openly as a neo-nazi HQ.

So, what I've looked up so far, it does look an awful lot like a gallery pulled in speakers that people disliked, so they rallied to shut down the gallery as punishment for allowing wrong-think to be spoken. Then when guys like the one in the video came to defend free-speech, they too were classed as nazi's and lumped in as enemies too. Last article I found by the guy in video, so maybe he's lying, but other articles I've found also suggest that the gallery operated more generally rather than being an explicitly alt-right hub:
https://medium.com/@dctvbot/i-regret-nothing-c05401636032

Do you honestly believe a BLM sign holder at a clan March would be treated better? What about at a Trump rally? If you claim to think either case wouldn't end in hospitalization, you're not being honest.

I'm just guessing, but I bet his chosen spot was right behind the speakers who were on camera...so would be stealing their soapbox. He could have been inside the gate, 3 ft away, and held his sign just as visibly....but nope, he had to be in the middle of the protest against Nazis telling them they're wrong, you just need to give those poor Nazis and white power organizations more of a platform and more time to espouse their hatred, and ignore the real violence and murders they commit.

Ok, you see a violent attack, mob violence, I see an older woman gently walking him out and others yelling, not touching.
You see a violent robbery of his sign, I see his tool for disruption being removed.
You act like his treatment was SO far over the line and 100% unacceptable. I see him treated with kid gloves in a way that his group wouldn't even fathom, because they use ACTUAL violence to do ACTUAL harm, not slow tender shoving without hands or feet out of the middle of their event, punches, kicks, machetes, torches, nooses, etc. This wasn't even turnabout, and turnabout is always fair play.

If this crosses your line, and this group needs some repercussions, what does his actually violent hate group need? More than a protest.

So, when is your child's next birthday party? I guess I can come and advocate for more incest pornography, and you would just let me be? Bullshit.
As you saw, the police were there and not getting involved. It's not honest to say "it's the police and court system you want to pull in" when the police were there.

Again, what park do your children have parties in, I'll be there with my sign before the party starts so I won't be "invading" your party and I expect you to protect me from all the angry parents....yeah right. That's asinine. If I intentionally provoke them to violence, that's on me.

He was the instigator. His sign amounts to "you will not silence our Nazi voice" at a rally pushing to silence their Nazi voice in their neighborhood. He is (in part) exactly what they are protesting. It's almost a certainty that before his heavily edited video starts he was being loud and disruptive, then acted reasonable and meek after instigating violence with his typical hate speech. Provocation actually is a legal defense to violence.

Can you at least admit the title and description are total lies? They called him a Nazi for being one, not for supporting free speech.
The liberals removed him from their event for being a well known Nazi, not the sentiment on his sign.
The way this is portrayed is absolutely bullshit. He's not a victim he's an instigator, he wasn't hurt, he's absolutely not interested in freedom of speech for everyone.

Lol. Yeah, right, more liberal (my liberal friends think I'm pretty conservative, I say I'm old school republican... socially liberal and fiscally responsible, definitely not a neocon)...but do you feel the same about BLM activists disrupting other events, they should be allowed to stay and speak, holding their anti police violence signs high even at anti BLM rallies? Would they be allowed?

I agree, getting slightly physical with him was stooping ever so slightly closer to his ilk's level, although the extent they got physical was pretty minor, wasn't it?
Oh no...they grabbed his cardboard sign equivalent to an all lives matter sign at a BLM march. VIOLENCE!! Pay him one cent in restitution if he sues. It's not a civil rights case, it's what he was hoping for.

When a known white power spokesman shows up at a protest against a white power organization he's associated with it's international provocation. Don't be naive.

Removing him by having an older woman slowly walk into him until he's out of the middle of the protest doesn't bother me one bit. I don't call that violence, I call it the opposite. If they punched him, violently grabbed him (not his sign), kicked him, or actually assaulted him I might think differently, but I saw none of that.

If he wasn't doing this in the middle of a protest against his pro Nazi racist organization in an effort to disrupt and distract from the anti racist crowd, I might feel differently. He has every right to his voice, but not their soapbox. No one stopped him from standing outside the active protest area with any sign.

They grabbed his cardboard, he was so intimidated that he held on and went back into the angry mob with it instead of letting them steal it, then cries for years about how he was attacked violently by an entire mob that didn't touch him. He was poking the bull, got a snort, and cries he got both horns.

What I saw was a person who was identified as a well known racist spokesman intentionally provoking anti racists at an anti racist event and being calmly moved out of the crowd without anyone laying hands on him.

I did not see what the title and description describes at all.

It was his well known public support of Nazism being considered support for Nazism, not free speech.

It was not the disingenuous words on his sign they found unacceptable it was his public support of racist positions that were the unacceptable sentiments. (disingenuous because I assume he doesn't think blacks should have a right to openly join discussions of ideas, but his sign meant Nazi/white supremacist opinions matter and you must let them espouse them whenever and wherever they wish including at anti racist events or you're anti free speech...which I find to be hypocritical nonsense).

@bobknight33

Be honest. If a Republican-led impeachment inquiry into Obama were stormed by Democrats blatantly ignoring security, house rules, and common decency simply so they could delay the inevitable and disrupt a democratic process, how would you feel?

(I expect if he's actually honest, the answer would come out something like Westley when he answered Count Rugen when he asked how having a year of his life sucked away felt)

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

Diatoms, and other phytoplankton, are incredibly sensitive to ocean PH and CO2 levels. This can be another feedback loop already in action.
As fewer diatoms photosynthesize, more CO2 goes unused, raising the concentration, lowering the numbers and health of phytoplankton, allowing more CO2 to go unused, raising the concentration, .....
Every molecule of CO2 added to ocean systems removes one molecule of carbonate, which is necessary for the uptake of iron among other processes. By 2100, surface carbonate is expected to decrease by up to 50%. That may well be below the levels diatoms can tolerate.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/key-biological-mechanism-disrupted-ocean-acidification

If phytoplankton goes, so does the food web. They are the base. If the ocean food web collapses, eventually the bacteria that eat dead sea life will create huge clouds of hydrogen sulfide that cover the land, poisoning any still living organisms there. This has happened before, but on a much longer timescale, with near life ending results for earth.

Hydrogen Sulfide, Not Carbon Dioxide, May Have Caused Largest Mass Extinction. ... "During the end-Permian extinction 95 percent of all species (and >98% of all biomass) on Earth became extinct, compared to only 75 percent during the KT when the dinosaurs disappeared,"

A better title might be "diatoms, the tiny glass shards that support all life on earth, are struggling".

You posted it happily as fact. If you post/repeat someone else's lie, you are a liar.

The teacher knows better why he acted than the ignorant obstinate disruptive kid that won't listen. Derp.

Still lies. You LOVE lies. Grow a pair and stand by them. I get that, in your efforts to support Trump, you have trained yourself to believe any right leaning lies and claim any non right wing fact is fake news, that doesn't mean the rest of us must support your psychosis.

Sure, kid gets to lie, you get to repeat it and claim it's not a lie because you didn't create it, just repeated it. That's pathetic, Bob. Infantile, dumb, and pathetic.

Bob. Learn to read. I'm not going over it again. I answered that question in the previous post. Doubly pathetic.
Do you still have any teeth?

Bottom line, the kid is an ignorant obstinate idiot who believes his uninformed opinion outweighs any other, including the school boards, and that he may exercise his right to free speech anywhere at any time with impunity.

Bottom line, kid is a disruptive, ignorant dumbass....and I'm not a bit surprised you're backing him and contradicting rules, laws, authority, the English language (that you seriously need to learn better, Vladimir), logic, civility, and fact to do so.

Guess you've never heard of hermaphrodites or neuters. Not surprising. The words/concepts are only a few thousand years old, created by those Greek libtards to muddy the language and hurt Trump. Your arguments get dumber every day. *facepalm

https://www.etymonline.com/word/hermaphrodite

I did not write the title -- still not lies.
Kid say kicked out for gender questioning. Teacher indicates kicked out for being disruptive.

Its the kids video - he get to title it.


On big issues like this ( ie debating on school lunch) , if one believes that school policy is wrong , is not acceptable to speak up?

Granted a better forum would be a school board meeting.

Bottom line the teacher is afraid of loosing his job and hence pushes the position of national policy.

Dishonest stating it in a way that strongly implies he was kicked out for his opinion, and hides from the fact it was for speaking out repeatedly, disruptively.
That's a lie by obfuscation.

Did you even watch it?
The teacher was clear, he was kicked out for continuing to argue after being allowed to state his opinion...a right he did not have but a privilege he was granted. That is disruptive, as is requiring individual attention a second time to discuss the same thing.

He was kicked out for repeating his opinion, disrupting class and the teacher.

The issue is being disruptive in class, thinking his uninformed opinion should shout down an informed one from the teacher, an opinion held by the school board and codified in the rules of conduct.

Regardless of what the douchebag kid thinks on this matter, he has no right to disrupt the class by debating policy.
The kid is free to think, but not to disrupt class. He may express his thoughts....at home or in open public forums, not class.

If you defy school policy, expect to reap the rewards of being removed from school and all that comes with that. Duh. Challenge, sure, appropriately, in appropriate venues and times, like a school board or PTA meeting, not during class. If you wish to challenge it inappropriately and disruptively, don't think standing on the right to speak gives you immunity from other rules or repercussions. That's not how it works. It's not an absolute right....I'll prove it, go argue gender in a federal court that's in session, see how long you remain standing and unincarcerated. Better yet, go argue something not insanely pro Trump at a Trump rally, see how many teeth you have in the morning...If you see morning.

Dishonest about what????????? I just presented an video of disagreement of thought. - I did not take any sides yet you say I'm dishonest.


The kid spoke up in opposition to what the teacher said that is not necessary disruptive. Kid got kicked out for having a different opinion and would not accept that of the teacher.

All in all that is not the issue. It is that is there only 2 sexes or more?

Regardless of what the teacher actually thinks on this matter the teacher is boxed in to accept the policy of his employer/ system. He can't speak against this policy for fear of loosing his job or getting in trouble.

The kid is free to think and express his thoughts.


Defying school policy, -- So its not right to defy school policy, or policy for that matter. Don't challenge? You don't want a world that does not challenge thought, do you?

Bullshit totally dishonest title Bob....as usual.
Kicked out of class for being disruptive, interrupting, not shutting up after stating his opinion, arguing in class, denying and defying school policy, and being a douchebag. His time is worthless, not the teacher's, not the rest of the class. He wasted THEIR time by insisting they agree with his ill informed opinion and not shutting up. I hope he has fun in Summer school.
*lies for the misleading title

Math Teachers Clever April Fools Video Prank has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

April Fools 2011: Complex Numbers in Math Class has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

April Fools: Unruly Shadow Disrupts Class has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Very-Clever-April-Fools-Video-Prank-in-Math-Class
*related=https://videosift.com/video/April-Fools-2011-Complex-Numbers-in-Math-Class
*related=https://videosift.com/video/April-Fools-Unruly-Shadow-Disrupts-Class
And probably others.

Congratulations! Your video, 'Was that disruptive?': congressman "blasts" Trump official, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 131 Badge!

Your video, 'Was that disruptive?': congressman "blasts" Trump official, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.