222 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
DC Goodman's avatar

a visitor to your home for dinner that stands on your dining table and screams at you is a terrible guest. Most likely you would call the cops to drag the offender from your home. Rubio is correct. These people are visitors and should demonstrate their admiration for our political rights rather than assuming they currently possess them.

Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

"a visitor to your home for dinner that stands on your dining table and screams at you AS YOU MURDER THEIR FAMILY TO STEAL THEIR LAND is a terrible guest."

Fixed it for you.

Man, I hate it when people aren't polite.

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

Two Brix for brains. We'll put you down as flacking for baby killers and murderers and rapists of innocents.

Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

Yes, the IDF sure has killed a lot of babies, murdered a lot of civilians, and raped a lot of men and women.

Expand full comment
Mick's avatar

I'm calling BS unless you can come up with sources other than "my friend knows a friend in the propaganda wing of Hamas..."

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

https://www.savethechildren.net/news/stripped-beaten-and-blindfolded-new-research-reveals-ongoing-violence-and-abuse-palestinian

https://beeley.substack.com/p/israels-culture-of-rape-and-child?publication_id=716517&post_id=143376576&isFreemail=true&r=mzsp6&triedRedirect=true

https://www.democracynow.org/2024/8/8/welcome_to_hell_btselem_israel_torture

https://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/publications/202408_welcome_to_hell_eng.pdf

https://www.democracynow.org/2024/7/12/israel

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-07-30/ty-article/.premium/doctor-who-saw-abused-gazan-detainee-i-couldnt-believe-an-israeli-jailer-could-do-this/00000191-0436-df85-a399-ed36f4800000?gift=b36cbf327d214b7a876e52f60987b0ca

https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/death-and-destruction-in-gaza

https://accuracy.org/release/israel-atrocities-fabrications-and-complicities/

https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-army-sets-fire-to-north-gazas-last-functioning-hospital

https://www.btselem.org/video/20180424_soldiers_cheer_after_shooting_protester_madama

https://www.sott.net/article/284427-IDF-snipers-caught-on-camera-shooting-at-Gaza-children-and-celebrating-a-hit

https://www.haaretz.com/2013-06-20/ty-article/.premium/israel-tortured-palestinian-children/0000017f-f6d7-d5bd-a17f-f6ff33910000

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/video-shows-israeli-troop-shooting-palestinian-in-cold-blood/1113213

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/concentrate-and-exterminate-israel-parliament-deputy-speakers-gaza-genocide-plan

https://www.globalresearch.ca/un-report-on-palestine-military-occupation-apartheid-torture-israeli-violations-are-deliberate-organised-and-institutionalised/5372212

https://www.counterpunch.org/2009/08/28/israeli-organ-harvesting/

https://truthout.org/articles/1-year-ago-israel-killed-shireen-abu-akleh-we-wont-forget-her-or-the-nakba/

https://news.antiwar.com/2025/03/24/israeli-military-kills-two-more-journalists-in-separate-attacks-in-gaza/

https://www.972mag.com/gaza-israel-unlawful-air-strikes/

Expand full comment
Mick's avatar

I asked for sources other than second-hand info. These are all biased sources of info. In fact, save the children's methodology was debunked because they were just taking random people and asking if they'd been "victims" while at the same time giving out cash and, of course, people feel like they need to give something for the money so they embellish. NONE of the "stories" were ever verified. Furthermore, Save the Children has given millions to lobbyists and politicians - face it, they're grifters. As for the rest, they're all leftwing/pro-palestinian sources, so of course they're going to spew disinformation. Which of these publications actually documented killings of Israeli children by Hamas and the other terrorists? None.

Expand full comment
Bradley Lacke's avatar

I asked for *approved* sources *that don't disagree with me* and thusly I must reject your evidence!!

You guys are looking more and more just like shitlibs all the time.

Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

"Anyone that disagrees with me is fake news, " wept Karen, shivering in her silo. "I called for the manager hours ago! Where is he?!?"

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Many of your sources have a hatred bias. I'm sorry if this is the first you're hearing of it. I wonder how many of these had much to say on 10/7. I bet very few. I bet most haven't commented about the hostages. I bet only 1 or 2 commented about the recent Palestinian protests against Hamas and how those that participated are being killed by Hamas as we speak.

You do know that Hamas' goal is to establish a caliphate, right? Well, that and murdering anyone they see as an infidel (kafir). Which is likely you. And definitely me. Also, gay people. And a lot of Arabs.

But I'm sure you know all this. Because you're so well read and researched.

Expand full comment
jim's avatar

What does one have to do with the other??? Hamas is not every Arab person on earth. Calling out IsraeliтАЩs handling of this situation as a vile act, or as a genocide, does not automatically mean you approve of Hamas. You can put me in this camp firmly. Issues arenтАЩt always so black and white. Just calling everything Hamas doesnтАЩt make it so, or give justification for a slaughter. And giving government goons this much power is always a bad thing, every single time.

Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

Does that make killing a deliberate campaign of murdering children ok?

You obviously think so. Are you surprised that Hamas shares your completely depraved indifference to human rights?

You guys have a lot in common.

Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

What, do you, like, read the news or something?

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

What's funny is that I knew the responses from the pro-zionists would be the exact disingenuous dismissals and rationalizations bereft of any intellectual honesty as we are seeing. Kinda wish I'd bet money on it. ;)

Expand full comment
Bradley Lacke's avatar

they're unironically doing the exact same thing we *all* bitched together about liberals doing for the past few years. HOW ARE THEY NOT SEEING THIS! Well, back to soul-crushing cynicism for me then.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Right?! The hasbara has so many people under its spell, it's mind-boggling.

Expand full comment
Bradley Lacke's avatar

hasbara on the right, neoliberal empire on the left(ish), it's getting pretty hard to talk to anyone about any things that are actually happening

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

Right. Stanley.

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

He's two brix shy of a load.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

Thanks for the laugh this morning!!

Expand full comment
Noam Deplume, Jr. (look,at,me)'s avatar

Wow, I could be this clever if only . . . I got a frontal lobotomy.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Is the jooooo in the room with you right now?

Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

Yes, actually.

How about you?

I'm guessing not.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Don't take your eyes off of him!

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 1Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

"Free speech is for people I agree with!" wept Titania McGrath as she sat down to a big bowl of KarenFlakes gently moistened with her melted snowflake tears.

"People should be free to say what they want, as long as I agree with it!" she thought, as the ghost of Stalin smiled approvingly.

Expand full comment
DemonHunter's avatar

The deportation is based on behavior not speech. But I understand your legacy media over-lords wonтАЩt allow you to think.

Expand full comment
Bradley Lacke's avatar

Man when did the right become a bunch of whiny bitches?

January 2025, apparently

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Sorry that you find facts objectionable.

Expand full comment
Thunder Road's avatar

Or just too plain stupid to consider that such a flimsy and ridiculous standard could be used against their favorite green card holder, visa holder, or just any foreign visitor after the next regime change in Washington.

Expand full comment
Shaun's avatar

Saw how well it had been working for the left, maybe?

Expand full comment
DemonHunter's avatar

Do you have a magic eight-ball full of nastiness that you rely n for your posts? You make no sense.

And do recall, Hamas killed babies, cooked them in microwaves, let them die as hostages, raped women, killed women, killed women while raping them, etc. Israel retaliated to an extremely violent provocation by Hamas. Hamas is to blame.

WeтАЩll put you down as a cheerleader for terrorists.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

Every human is descended from those whose land was "stolen". Every human is descended from someone who stole land. At some point you have to decide if the "struggle" is going to pay off and worth the cost (both to you and to your enemy). We romanticize the struggle because it is shown in movies and in order to get people to like those movies, the struggle pays off in the end. Human history shows that this is more often NOT the case. Most of us are completely unaware of these decisions by our ancestors.

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

So you are going to argue that, because in ancient societies lands were "stolen" by or from our ancestors, that somehow "justifies" the wanton violation of international law in 2025, agreed to by the US and all the countries that are UN members? In other words, ancient "law" supersedes and "justifies" the wanton violation of modern law? You want to erase the past 10,000 years of the development of human civilization to justify the utterly unjustifiable genocide of the Palestinian people by Israel? Is that really your argument?

Expand full comment
Peacelady's avatar

ItтАЩs so interesting to watch the Trumpers on here argue for Israel the same way the blue MAGAs argue for Ukraine. The victims of both are officially unworthy and so not human.

TheyтАЩre both impossible to try to reach with factual evidence. They donтАЩt have any use for it. TheyтАЩve internalized their side of the debate and theyтАЩre sticking to it no matter what. They mirror each other.

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

I agree with the first paragraph of your statement but not the second. Many people тАЬrightтАЭ and тАЬleftтАЭ are being drawn by the intensity of real-world events into political debate for the first time in their lives and are trying to quickly get up to speed with those of us who have been political animals for decades. ItтАЩs our duty as socialists to try to educate our fellow workers who find themselves initially bogged down in the Republicrat swamp and are struggling against the lies being told to them by the US capitalist classтАЩ bought-and-paid-for Democrat and Republican politicians.

Expand full comment
Peacelady's avatar

Trust me. I continue to attempt to come up with different approaches to break through the wall of resistance to new information. Cognitive dissonance is a tough nut to crack.

Expand full comment
Han's avatar

You are free to believe what you like however you need to know that your view on this is delusional.

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

I do not believe that any honest worker - who is temporarily confused by the endless lies of the US capitalist class, their news media and their lying Republicrats - is тАЬimpossible to reachтАЭ. ItтАЩs our duty to тАЬreachтАЭ them and help them understand whatтАЩs really going on.

Expand full comment
Han's avatar

Laws are useful only if they are obeyed.

In this particular situation, Islam has been committing genocide against all other people and taking their cities and lands, for fifteen centuries. The atrocities in Syria, Gaza, and across Africa show they are still following their law, not some recent, arbitrary law which you prefer.

The Jewish people are doing the same thing theyтАЩve been doing since David & Goliath & the Philistines. They are still following their law, not some recent, arbitrary law which you prefer.

It is not different among other nations, Russia for example, America for example, Mexico for example, China for example.

Expand full comment
Peacelady's avatar

ThatтАЩs a very naive Eurocentric assertion on Islam. Exactly the issue I am referring to.

Expand full comment
Han's avatar

Not in the least.

Ask the Chinese, the Africans, the Indian subcontinent what they think about Islamic expansion. Like bangladesh, pakistan and much of afghanistan all of which were Indian lands from time immemorial. Ask them about the Hindu Kush mountains and what that name actually means.

Where does the word SLAVE come from?

Expand full comment
Peacelady's avatar

YouтАЩre implying that the historical record of Western governments is so much better? The US is reported to be responsible for somewhere around 30 million deaths since the end of WW2. We are great humanitarians no? The Palestinians had nothing to do with the holocaust yet the Brits saw fit to plop another population on their land. Those Zionists kicked 700,000 out of their homes and off their land to make room for the coming European Jews who have no ancestral connection to that land. They committed massive atrocities to chase the Palestinians into the refugee camps.

International law states that 1. Collective punishment is a war crime and 2. People living under occupation have a legal right under international law to armed resistance. This is just racist settler colonialism. Straight up. Same old Euro/US expansionist policy.

Expand full comment
Han's avatar

Not only did I not say that, nor imply that, I specifically mentioned western powers.

You desperately want your preferred laws and customs to overrule other nationтАЩs laws and customs - exactly as I point out to the op - and you canтАЩt understand that neither Islam nor Israel cares in the slightest what you think about a war that has been continuous in that region of the world since 700 A.D.

Expand full comment
Han's avatar

Does it list Syria? Egypt? Lebanon? India? Senegal? Congo? South Africa? Myanmar? Somalia? Libya? Nigeria? Thailand? Philippines? Or Israel? What about the dozens of daily terror attacks waged upon Europe?

No. It doesnтАЩt.

Expand full comment
PostAmerican's avatar

The Israeli theft occurred under the current international order. Unless Israel's existence statehood is dissolved, the current order is dissolved. All Israelis whose families did not live in Palestine before 1900 should be considered for deportation.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

you first. deport yourself and take the hamasniks with you.

Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

That's a pretty long and boring way of saying that you don't believe in human rights.

Expand full comment
SyberPhule's avatar

Land rights and human rights are totally different.

Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

Yes. I think a person who isn't a worthless piece of shit would say that human rights supercede land rights, but this forum seems to be full of stalinists.

Expand full comment
SyberPhule's avatar

Ah, you're a troll. Stalin! as an example of supporting any form of rights is the clue.

Enjoy your day! :)

Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

You need to work on your reading skills, Champ.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Breathe. Is there someone who can get you a brown bag to slowly breathe into?

Expand full comment
Noam Deplume, Jr. (look,at,me)'s avatar

Well, shucks and every human is descended from those who tortured or were tortured. Just one of those things that people do to one another. Electricity has reduced the visible signs so it's even more insidious. Mostly hearsay, he said, she said kind of thing. Time marches on and barbarism is still tolerated and even excused.

Expand full comment
Shane Gericke's avatar

Israel did not murder Gazans. Israel killed Gazans in a war of Gaza's choosing, since Hamas was Gaza's government as well as a terrorist group.

Israel did not steal "Palestinian" land. It won the lands popularly known as Gaza and West Bank legally and fairly after winning two wars--1948 and 1967--waged against it by Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. And in fact it gave Gaza back to Gazans twenty years ago after pulling out every single Jew and relocating every single Jewish grave. Gaza was Jew-free for years, but Hamas decided Jew-free wasn't good enough, Israel had to be Jew-free too. Thus this war.

Genocide? Bullshit. Israel had the capability to kill all 2 million Gazans on the same day if it wanted. It chose instead to slog building by building for almost two years now, putting thousands of its soldiers at risk instead of bombing Gaza with thermobaric weapons, which would have turned all 2 million Gazans into ash for bulldozing into the Med. It did no such thing.

You don't like dead Palestinians. Fine. I don't either. The solution to that is for Hamas to quit murdering Israelis. Without that October pogrom, Israel would not have fired a shot into Gaza.

There, fixed it for you.

Expand full comment
Wendy Lee Hermance's avatar

You are just making shit up to feel smarter than everyone else here, while ignoring history.

Expand full comment
Shane Gericke's avatar

I didn't make anything up to be smarter than you. Get back to me when you learn the history of Palestine, which officially became the State of Israel in 1948, both legally and morally.

Expand full comment
Wendy Lee Hermance's avatar

I'm not getting back to you at all, because you're arrogant and borish, and anyone who mentions what WWII did as "moral" has read like no history.

Expand full comment
Shane Gericke's avatar

Arrogant and "borish"? Geez, lady, you claimed I'm "making shit up to feel smarter than anyone else here." If you can't handle pushback, don't insult me to start with.

I didn't say anything about WWII. I said the founding of Israel was moral as well as legal, because it was.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

I guess with all the Karl Marx reading you're doing at the encampment, there are only so many hours in a day. Enjoy the drum circle and catered dinner!

Expand full comment
Secret Squirrel's avatar

What I like is people outing theme selves for blocking. Bye.

Expand full comment
Marilyn F's avatar

Our country welcomes anyone who comes to America & resides in peace. However, when someone comes here, who hates Jews (or Christians), I am very offended. When foreign Arab students & guest professors are here on a temporary visa, and reside in our universities, there is usually a reason.

The majority have little interest in learning math or science. Frequently, they are focused on our connection with Israel & the Jews. They want to influence our foreign policy through the universities. Meanwhile, they disrupt our own citizens daily lives & make them fearful. They arenтАЩt just expressing their political beliefs. At times, we feel the hate they emanate.

I hate to jump to conclusions but it appears that those who are vigorously defending the pro-Palestinian Arabs тАЬrightsтАЭ are just a wee bit antisemetic. IтАЩd prefer to defend our own Jewish citizens rather than foreigners who disrupt our society.

Expand full comment
Ed Sharrow's avatar

Simply look at what happened when actual Palestinians protest against Iranian-backed Hamas. They were tortured and killed just recently. https://www.nysun.com/article/anti-hamas-protests-at-gaza-subside-after-would-be-leaders-assassinated-as-collaborators

Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

So you think the appropriate response is to murder tens of thousands of children and civilians?

Expand full comment
DemonHunter's avatar

Complete crap. Poor analogy and logically confused.

Even if someone was murdering her family that someone isnтАЩt the US.

Expand full comment
TWC's avatar

Stupid reply.

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar

Under the Constitution, they at least have the right to speak and write op-eds.

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

Yes and no. As Justice Robert Jackson famously observed, "our Constitution is not a suicide pact." Would we have allowed German students espousing Nazi precepts? Or Soviet students demonstrating for communism? A student visa is a privilege, not a right. And Hamas is a terrorist organization that raped and murdered innocents, and held hostage and brutalized Americans.

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar

Do you know that Jackson's quote is from his minority (losing) opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)?

He wanted to uphold a Chicago ordinance that punished speech "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance." Sounds like cancel culture or something the UK uses to arrest people complaining about school administration.

Maybe you should catch up on Constitutional Law before you comment on it.

Your analogies are also ridiculous.

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

Maybe you should read Jackson's intelligent dissent before you spout off.

You minimize the facts and ignore Jackson's wisdom that: "Because a subject is legally arguable, however, does not mean that public sentiment will be patient of its advocacy at all times and in all manners. So it happens that, while peaceful advocacy of communism or fascism is tolerated by the law, both of these doctrines arouse passionate reactions. A great number of people do not agree that introduction to America of communism or fascism is even debatable. Hence many speeches, such as that of Terminiello, may be legally permissible but may nevertheless in some surroundings be a menace to peace and order. When conditions show the speaker that this is the case, as it did here, there certainly comes a point beyond which he cannot indulge in provocations to violence without being answerable to society."

I'm sure most sane people agree that: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar

Ok, you're an authoritarian. We disagree.

You realize that the arguments in favor of "cancel culture" on campus were the same - "we have to cancel this speech because it will cause disorder." It's also used as a justification for the censorship seen in The Twitter Files.

Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.

Expand full comment
Pscheff's avatar

hey, the point is they aren't citizens. Go protest in your own country. We have plenty of protesting to go around without her.

Expand full comment
Kim C McClung's avatar

Right, I would think that it would be more constructive if these folks would go home and work hard/protest for their rights as citizens in their own country and vote to assure that have the rights they think they deserve (in their own country)

Expand full comment
Thorsten Debs's avatar

The Bill of Rights refers to "persons" as having these rights, not just citizens

Expand full comment
Nonurbiz Ness's avatar

The "Bill of Rights" is not a stand alone document. It is the addendum to the Constitution. The people referred to are Citizens of the 13 States which will became the United States of America

Both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have had a profound impact on American society, shaping the rights and responsibilities of citizens for over two centuries. The Constitution has provided a stable framework for the federal government, ensuring that power is divided among the three branches and that the rights of citizens are protected. The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, has served as a bulwark against government overreach, guaranteeing individual freedoms and limiting the power of the state.

Expand full comment
Thorsten Debs's avatar

Logorrhoea. The Amendments are the Constitution

Expand full comment
Nonurbiz Ness's avatar

The Constitution was ratified in 1787, Bill of Rights were added(ratified) in 1791.

Here this might help:

duck://player/aMCDikASE4o

Expand full comment
publius_x's avatar

Person is a very generous word to describe someone outspokenly defending what happened to Kfir Bibas before the IDF even dropped a single bomb in Gaza.

Expand full comment
Shaun's avatar

Any chance we can change that one word in the BoR without screwing up the whole thing? I'd like to see how the Bill would work if it WAS only for citizens- maybe just a trial run for a while?

Expand full comment
Wendy Lee Hermance's avatar

That's a fair point. I'm still bothered by the masks, lack of charges, why Louisiana...

Expand full comment
Shaun's avatar

Yeah, I'm bothered by masks, too. Masks on protesters at Universities, outside Tesla dealerships, people driving alone in their cars, punks on bikes riding my neighborhood in hoodies and masks, etc, etc. How about we outlaw masks now that the fake pandemic is over?

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

Are you this foolish in real life? I am hardly an authoritarian and believe that any American has the right to believe and say whatever he or she wants. But speech has been recognized in extreme cases to cross the line in incite to violence or riot and even you must recognize that as do most state criminal codes. And if foreign students organize campus riots, destruction or deprivation of the rights of American students based solely on their religion, they have no business studying at an American university

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar

Have a nice day. I'm not going to argue further with someone who:

1. doesn't understand the Constitution and agrees with authoritarian dissents to Supreme Court decisions establishing free speech rights and cites them as persuasive.

2. can't keep a consistent position, doesn't even understand what they're saying from comment to comment. How old are you, 85? Is Al Z. Heimer your friend?

Expand full comment
Pscheff's avatar

you sound like a douche

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

I would point out 1. That citing Jackson's common sense statement that "our Constitution is not a suicide pact," is hardly citing the dissent as either persuasive or controlling. 2. That dissent is also not one bit authoritarian, that's simply your opinion. And 3. you fail to cite even one inconsistency to support your claim as supportive of my supposed cognitive failure. Makes me wonder, were you by any chance a JR Biden supporter?

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar

You can't understand that Jackson's dissent is authoritarian, cites one of the most authoritarian opinions in the 20th Century, Schenck, and upholds an extremely vague and oppressive rule regarding speech.

The quote you use is Jackson's justification for wanting to suppress speech. So it's bullshit. It means nothing.

Then you say "I'm not an authoritarian." I thought we were reaching an agreement but you've dug in on this Jackson dissent, which was and is wrong.

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

Proving - if nothing else - that you are, in fact, a lawyer. lol. But I enjoy our back and forth. Again, I don't think you actually read the entirety of Jackson's dissent, on which he was not alone. Jackson said clearly "No one will disagree that the fundamental, permanent and overriding policy of police and courts should be to permit and encourage utmost freedom of utterance." Hardly the position of an "authoritarian."

Expand full comment
Minsky's avatar

At what point did Ozturk "organize campus riots, destruction or deprivation of the rights of American students based solely on their religion"?

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

OK, you're a Jew hater. We see that.

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar

You're welcome to your ethnochauvinism. I'm an American, I like American rights to free speech for all people in the USA. Not to be dictated by Israel, which is a foreign country. Move there.

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

I'm not Jewish, dorkbreath. Unlike you I (1) recognize the hatred brought down on Jews for millennia, especially the last 1400 years by believers in Islam and (2) the common sense involved in keeping Mooslim terror and elements of jihad out of the US. Grow a brain idiot

Expand full comment
PostAmerican's avatar

Christians and wackadoo Germans have killed far more Jews in the last 1400 years than Muslims have.

Expand full comment
Bobby's avatar

Muslims have killed more humans in 1400 years than all combined...PERIOD!!

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

Thus, Israel.

Jews founded the place 5,000 years ago and it is their homeland. Germans, Muzzies, Jews haters everywhere, deal with it. Especially Muzzies - adherents to a 7th Century necrophiliac death cult.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 1
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Bobby's avatar

Thx RB Man

Expand full comment
Pscheff's avatar

I think if you're a citizen, have all the free speech you want. As I said plenty to go around. Just do it in your own country, Simple

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

Well then you oppose the past 75+ years of Supreme Court decisions defending the First Amendment rights not only of legal immigrants to the USA but even to tourists visiting the US. In other words your argument doesn't have a legal leg to stand on - as you and the Trump administration will likely soon discover when the pro-Trump US Supreme Court once again upholds the Constitutional rights of ALL PERSONS even temporarily, legally or illegally passing through the US. This extension of Constitutional rights to everyone who comes to the US has been one of the proudest achievements of this country until now - and you want to throw it in the trash and make the US more like most European and even "Third World" countries! And you want to do all this massive damage to the US rule of law in order to defend the morally and legally bankrupt war criminal government of Israel! Unbelievable!

Expand full comment
Pscheff's avatar

Yeah and the last 4 years were something to be soooo proud of in terms of censorship and the first Amendment. Give me a break

Expand full comment
Nonurbiz Ness's avatar

United States was officially founded in 1776. Nation State of Israel was officially founded in 1948. Jewish faith dates back farther than Islam. A simple cursory look at history shows that the palestinian people do not have a historical right to land that has been part of the Jewish people.

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar

The "Palestinian people" are in large part descendants of Jews and other people who lived in the Kingdom of Israel, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Philistia. As you would expect, after the Roman destruction of the Temple, some Jews left, some stayed. Some converted to Christianity, then some later to Islam. Who did the Palestinian Christians descend from? The first Christians - who were Jews and other people converted by Jesus and the Twelve Apostles.

Is someone longer ethnically a Jew if they convert to Christianity? Their DNA does not change, they are still indigenous to the land.

The DNA studies can't lie - the Palestinians are indigenous to the territory.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Are the voices in your head saying the same things to you?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 1
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
PostAmerican's avatar

As Glenn Greenwald has noted, the 1st Amendment explicitly restrains the government. It does not grant rights to citizens.

Expand full comment
Wendy Lee Hermance's avatar

There's a lot of lack of self-awareness on display here.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

I had a guy yesterday tell me that keying a Tesla is guaranteed by the first amendment ..

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

You are aware of the fact that minority opinions in Supreme Court cases carry absolutely zero legal weight, right? What kind of legal point can be made by citing a minority opinion in ANY Supreme Court case?

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

What the heck are you babbling about? Jackson's quote is well known and cited. And minority opinions often later become majority opinions. Chevron, anyone? Not to mention many others.

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

You obviously donтАЩt understand how Supreme Court decisions work. You can тАЬciteтАЭ minority opinions all day but they donтАЩt amount to a hill of beans until the majority adopts them, which still hasnтАЩt happened to JacksonтАЩs opinion sfaik. But keep having fun in your little legal sandbox in the meantime if thatтАЩs what makes you happy.

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

"Would we have allowed German students espousing Nazi precepts? "

Of course we DID. The German Bund, including some students openly supported Hitler and NAZIism up until WWII started. SCOTUS ruled that American NAZIs had Freedom of Speech and could parade through Skokie, Illinois (home to many Holocaust survivors). They never did, but the ruling showed that Hate Speech= Free Speech (as long as the line to imminent violence is not crossed).

The US is not at War with Hamas (may even be selling them weapons); we recently made al-Julani (TERRORIST HEADCHOPPER leader of one of the ISIS offshoots, the CIA's armies) the Head of Syria.

As Taibbi and JD Vance made clear America has different values from Europe (and from Israel). Americans have (or had) essential liberties enshrined in the Constitution. We are (were) not afraid of people speaking up and dissenting from official narratives handed down from the federal government (Covid killed that). If we were officially at war with Hamas, arguably Hamas supporters should be deported. But we are not yet a Police State like Israel, though we seem to be headed that way, a slippery slope, since the Patriot Act.

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

Hamas held Americans citizens captive. And SCOTUS did not ever rule on the rights of foreign nationals to espouse their causes when we were at war with them. The Bund rallies pre-dated the war and Skokie was after it. And btw that war was the last one declared. Not happy with that but doesn't change the facts. Try a bit harder to make your point cogently. Hamas is a terrorist organization. We routinely target terrorists.

Expand full comment
Cara C.'s avatar

Those were citizens, right? Not visitors.

Expand full comment
DC's avatar

Citizens and IDF soldiers.

Expand full comment
Pscheff's avatar

except they aren't US Citizens do it on spring break in Turkey

Expand full comment
DC's avatar

Thank you. A lot of traitors here trying to rewrite American history.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

lol. Traitor - someone that has a different opinion. Go touch grass.

Expand full comment
KLS's avatar

And letтАЩs not forget where all of this has led over the last few years. Taking over public spaces, destruction of school property, extreme harassment of students if they disagree. Is it really that hard to show some humility and gratitude toward a country that has welcomed you? This is a difficult line to draw but when тАЬopinionsтАЭ lead to harassment and bullying and violence - and weтАЩve seen this happening frequently on campuses in recent years - then whatтАЩs to be done?

Expand full comment
Heyjude's avatar

We are supposed to believe that when speech alone is not persuasive enough to get them what they want, they also have the right to harass, intimidate, and demand attention. ItтАЩs all free speech, right?

Expand full comment
DingDongDoodooDaddy's avatar

Sorry, Thomas. This Substack is infested with people desperate to sacrifice their freedoms. IтАЩm hoping they leave soon.

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

Hey, change-my-handle-so-I-can-escape-my-own-foolish-expressions, what this Substack has are a lot of folks with brains and a few vs with their dicks in their hands. You can leave any time. We are sticking around so that truth prevails.

Expand full comment
Marilyn F's avatar

ItтАЩs amazing that some here donтАЩt see that our freedoms were in jeopardy after 12 years of Obama & Biden. Even when they read about the abuses & lies nothing changes in their minds. The civil rights of our own citizens were violated & the abuses were mind-numbing, but the only thing that bothers them is deporting non-citizens, who disrupt our own people.

Expand full comment
DingDongDoodooDaddy's avatar

ItтАЩs amazing how people assume so much with so little information.

Expand full comment
Chilblain Edward Olmos's avatar

Username checks out.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 1
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Greg's avatar
Apr 1Edited

Such unnecessary nastiness. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this case, and the extent to which visitors to our country can and should enjoy (some of) the rights and privileges of citizens, and to what extent. I suggest *you* read and re-read the case law interpreting the Constitution. Start here: Yick Wo v. Hopkins. This case does not limit the governmentтАЩs power to deport, but it does state that non-citizens do enjoy certain rights under the Constitution. Yick Wo does not, on its own, resolve this issue of whether a person on a temporary visa may be deported for mere speechтАФI probably lean toward the negative on that point, but I understand the opposing view, even if it is not a shining example of our valuesтАФbut it rather decisively rebuts your unfounded assertion that the Constitution only protects US citizens.

(P.S. As a lawyer, IтАЩve spent a fair bit of time reading and studying the Constitution, its history, and the law interpreting it. I lean hard libertarian, originalist, and textualist. And I also believe we are the beneficiaries of the greatest political and governmental experiment in history, brought forth by an extraordinary collection of people. I also believe the Constitution is тАЬnot a suicide pact,тАЭ and that there is a significant tension between rights such as free speech and the need to protect the republic from outright subversion; forget about visa visitors for a moment, this is even a problem with actual citizens. (WeтАЩre watching the UK go down that drain right in front of our eyes.) But I donтАЩt think we get to a fair balance on the matter by trying to silence those with whom we disagree.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 1
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Greg's avatar

You just can't help yourself, can you? You apparently cannot have a civil conversation; as to my "rightness," I merely expressed my opinion, and specifically noted that there are other points of view. The irony of you accusing me of being hard-wired to think I am right is pretty rich, wouldn't you say? ;) Try re-reading your post to which I first replied; sounds pretty hard-wired and condescending to me.

Anyway, this discussion isn't about nastiness from other people; there is way too much of that to go around. Why attempt to justify your own by citing that of others not present, when no one here has treated you as disrespectfully as you have them? Do you actually think only Democrats hurl "F bombs"? Please. Why not try setting an example of not being that way?

Anyway, yes, Supreme Court case law [called "SCUSA case law" by whom?] can and does change over time. An excellent example is Roe v. WadeтАФ>Dobbs. There are many others. But for now and the last 125+ years, Yick Wo has remained the law of the land. I noticed you had absolutely ZERO substantive response to the Yick Wo point, especially as it rebuts your categorical assertion that only US citizens have rights under the Constitution; you might want to re-read ┬з1 of the 14A, which specifically uses the terms тАЬcitizenтАЭ and тАЬpersonтАЭ differently. One can read that language to suggest that only due process rights extend to non-citizens, and not other rights such as 1A. I think that's a reasonable interpretation [again, I am not hard-wired to think only my view is correct; that appears to be your shortcoming], but so far we do not have the benefit of a definitive SCOTUS interpretation.

As I said, I understand the point of view that encourages a temporary visa holder to feel free to espouse their own opinions in their home country. I just think this case is a bit more nuanced than merely that point. It is not clear to me to what extent 1A rights might be extended *under the Constitution* to persons who are not citizens. I think honest, patriotic citizens can disagree on that issue.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

I look forward to the courts ruling in favor of these students who've done nothing more than exercise their 1A rights, while all you Islamophobes sit there with egg on your faces.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Forgot about destruction of property, inciting violence and assaulting Columbia employees. Do you have a concussion, or is your memory bad? Or just more inconvenient facts?

Expand full comment
Thunder Road's avatar

Those are crimes for which they can be charged, you know.

Expand full comment
Marilyn F's avatar

Thank you!

Expand full comment
DBagnall's avatar

So long as they haven't kicked the dog, guests in my house have the right to disagree with me without fear of being escorted to the door.

Expand full comment
K.G.'s avatar

How about if they not only disagree with you ..but tell you that you are not allowed to have other guests of a certain background in your home or certain food products made in specific places??? And if you don't comply ...they will break your windows & spray paint your house...perhaps even camp out on your lawn with a bull horn.

Expand full comment
PostAmerican's avatar

So, you are a supporter of South African apartheid and the US's subjugation to the British empire. Got it.

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

You are strange. Are. You also trans?

Expand full comment
MG's avatar
Apr 1Edited

Really? And if they trash your house, threaten your guests, and harrass you? And then make you pay for their attorneys so they can continue to do so?

Expand full comment
Bill's avatar

What or whom did Ozturk trash, threaten or harass? Notwithstanding Rubio's general comments, nothing like that has emerged in the week since the arrest, and protest activities were pretty well covered at the time.

Expand full comment
Pscheff's avatar

Id like to see her protest in her own country. We have enough problems without some student studying for a worthless PHD screeching

Expand full comment
PostAmerican's avatar

While she's here, this is her country.

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

It is not. She is not a citizen. Turkey is her home.

Expand full comment
Chilblain Edward Olmos's avatar

Yeah, right.

ThatтАЩs not how citizenship works dude.

Expand full comment
K.G.'s avatar

WRONG

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Tell us you know nothing about student visas without telling us.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Rubio's comments were quite specific. She's outta here!

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

That's fine with him - he's a sanctimonious, virtue signaling Democrat with no common sense. I think he's just his real name is Tim Walz.

Expand full comment
Safir Ahmed's avatar

The woman simply co-authored a letter to the university president with zero threats in it. Your analogy about screaming atop our dining table is ludicrous.

Expand full comment
Jack Gallagher's avatar

This kind of statement is emblematic of Matt's complaint about the reporting on this "story." You cannot possibly know with certainty that co-authoring a letter is the only offense she has committed, for which her Visa has been revoked. There may be other allegations that the government is asserting, about which you have no detailed information, yet. Just because those allegations have yet to be reported publicly, does not mean that they don't exist.

Expand full comment
Safir Ahmed's avatar

Ask yourself this question: If the government had any evidence that this woman had violated the law, let alone supported terrorism, don't you think they would proudly disseminate it to prove their point?

Expand full comment
TWC's avatar

Yes. And why these cases are of such concern. The overwhelming majority of these comments are not only unintelligent, they are just emotional diatribes. Which is the point of Taibbis recent article.

Expand full comment
Jack Gallagher's avatar

Not necessarily, at all. When lawyers are involved, there could be any number of explanations as to why there is no attempt by the federal government to try her case "in public" in the way in which you may be familiar.

Expand full comment
Thunder Road's avatar

Care to make a wager?

Expand full comment
TWC's avatar

That's the point, man! If there is sonething, there...by all means!

If not, this is unacceptable

Expand full comment
Marilyn F's avatar

ThatтАЩs it? ThatтАЩs all she did? Do you know her background & all of her writing & comments? Her activities?

Expand full comment
Rebecca Lee (maybeitsmercury)'s avatar

There are laws. If people break them then they can be prosecuted. I donтАЩt see that she broke any laws.

Expand full comment
Shane Gericke's avatar

Is there any evidence that Ozturk, the disappeared one, stood on America's dining table and screamed or otherwise did anything wrong? I have seen nothing presented by the government that suggests she did. Do you have information otherwise?

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

"The disappeared one" -- I see you've gotten today's memo....

Expand full comment
Shane Gericke's avatar

Yeah. They delivered it with my cash payment . . .

What else would you call someone grabbed up by masked ICE agents and whisked to an out of state detention center with no charges being filed and held incommunicado? "The disappeared one" is absolutely what she is.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

Yes, you definitely have the script. Every cliche.

ICE agents have to be masked because violent Dem mobs will doxx them and their wives and their children. This is so stupid, if she's 'disappeared' then how do you know where she is?

What's the word for tomorrow?

Expand full comment
Thunder Road's avatar

Yep. So silly to say that she's disappeared when she's only been stuffed in a cell somewhere in Louisiana for contributing to a wrong-think op ed. Louisiana is really nice this time of year too!

Expand full comment
Michael Fathoms's avatar

If you remove a non-citizen's right to free expression, then no one has a right to free expression anymore, including citizens. Without due process anyone can be made a "non-citizen".

Expand full comment
Thunder Road's avatar

Yep. You know those "naturalized" citizens? Aren't they kinda guests also? I mean, they do come from foreign countries. And maybe those who were born here might have foreign born parents who have some questionable paperwork on file. Maybe we should start including them in our lists.

Expand full comment
DingDongDoodooDaddy's avatar

Wow what a piece of un-American shit

Expand full comment
Michael Fathoms's avatar

If you did not read Thunder's comment with sarcasm, then I will just say it appears to present sarcastically. If you think the sarcastic read of the comment is un-American, then that is a whole different story.

Expand full comment
DingDongDoodooDaddy's avatar

Oh yeah I didnтАЩt even think to read it sarcastically. IтАЩm afraid my sense of humor is disappearing as of late.

Expand full comment
Michael Fathoms's avatar

Totally feel that. I had that same gut reaction too, at first. Can't let them take our humor though, so stay strong!

Expand full comment
DingDongDoodooDaddy's avatar

Lick that boot

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Just takin out the trash.

Expand full comment
Dennis Barnes's avatar

Interesting how worked up the US establishment gets over criticism of the doings of one (and only one) foreign country. Even criticism of US foreign policy actions are fine, unless they relate ot one (and only one) foreign country.

Expand full comment
The Grand Egress's avatar

You mean Turkey, of course? Invaded and forcibly occupied N Cyprus since 1974 - yet not a peep from "the US establishment". More recently invaded, occupies northern Syria. Still, not a peep. Routinely bombs, slaughters Kurds in their undisputed homeland - not a word of protest. Why not?

Oops, sorry, maybe you mean China? Invaded, destroyed, slaughtered, occupied Tibet for many decades - yet "the US establishment" is silent. Herds millions of Uyghurs into forced labor concentration camps. But not a peep. Obvious evidence of nefarious conspiracy!

Oh, perhaps you mean Pakistan? Forcibly deports millions of Afghan refugees, off-and-on shotting war with India over "occupied territory" of Kashmir? "The US establishment" seems to have no interest. Zionist conspiracy, obviously?

Shalom!

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

It's almost as if that one and only foreign country has MASSIVELY undue influence over the US Establishment, while the supporters of that one and only foreign country scream bloody murder when any OTHER foreign country (allegedly) tries to influence the US Establishment. Hmmm...

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Look out!!! There's a joooooo behind the tree.

Expand full comment
Melissa's avatar

This feels like a bad interpretation of the reality of the situation. She co-authored an op-ed.

A US citizen set himself on fire for the cause of the Palestinian people and whatтАЩs happened to them before and since October 7th.

Deporting those taking advantage of the welfare system and other systems paid by hard working Americans is what Americans thought they were getting. Not people who co-authored a op-ed.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

A mentally ill US citizen lit himself on fire for Hamas. Rioters on college campuses who ransack the place, paint swastikas on library walls and demand to be fed is what people are fed up with. If they're on F1 visas, let's walk them through the exit door.

Expand full comment
Thunder Road's avatar

She rioted, ransacked and painted swastikas on library walls??? Holy moly. Why didn't Marco tell us about this? That's weird. Maybe it just slipped his mind as he was imagining about how she lied on her visa application regarding coming to the US in order to protest against events which were to take place in the future.

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

What does this complete scarecrow of an argument have to do with the Ozturk case - the centerpiece of this article?

Expand full comment
jim's avatar

Except she did none of these things. How is speaking out against another country, Isreal, which is not the US btw, any sort of illegal activity??? Newsflash, itтАЩs not. This heavy handed approach should scare everyone. As was demonstrated with the Jan 6 detainees, government departments should not be trusted, and will bend the law anyway they see fit to punish those they choose to.

Expand full comment
Thunder Road's avatar

*Your* home is *your* property. Who exactly owns the US? Whose property is it exactly? Who gets to say who can come and who has to go? Marco Rubio? What an infantile analogy.

Expand full comment
Melissa's avatar

For Hamas? Not the innocent women and children without food water or somewhere safe to escape the bombings or get medical care when hurt?

When was the last time anybody voted for Hamas?

How many of the Palestinians suffering today were even born the last time an election was had or were able to vote?

What percentage Hamas win by?

I wonder if your defense of the murderous actions of the Israeli government is because of religion?

Expand full comment
Jerry Smith's avatar

You have a right to ask any visitor to leave your house, because it's your house (though you don't have a right to kick them on their way out, if all they've done is say things you disagree with).

But if others who live there don't speak up, they must not really care about ideas being expressed freely in that house, and they're making a foolish bet that they'll always agree with you.

Expand full comment
Jerry Smith's avatar

Oh, and if you're making money from having people visit, you're also being a thin-skinned economically-foolish snowflake for asking them to leave.

Expand full comment
Pscheff's avatar

I see so making money off them is a reason now.

Expand full comment
Cat's avatar

I think she just helped write an article. How is that like standing on your dinner table and screaming? So TrumpтАЩs stance on speech issues are really no different than BidenтАЩs. ItтАЩs just the subjects that they dislike that are different.

Expand full comment
ErrorError