Angry Crowd In Minnesota Shouts ‘USA!’ After Council Bans Pledge Of Allegiance Because Of Diversity, Illegal Immigrants

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

100 militant anti-democracy rednecks running wild and making drunken fools of themselves,  in a town of how many tens of thousands of inhabitants..

And this story is newsworthy why,  exactly  ?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Stick those silly self-entitled overgrown brat big-mouthed "patriots" in the military for 3 or 4 years...

Teach those snowflake redneck bastards a few home truths, some good manners and a bit of self-disclipline..

phil wrote:Of course its newsworthy when any idiots from the left invoke PC nonsense

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:Of course its newsworthy when any idiots from the left invoke PC nonsense

Didge, you're whining.  Why should 100 people dictate to the duly elected representatives of the ENTIRE population?  It’s supposed to be democracy, not autocracy.

If you don't like the council members, don't vote for them next time.  Or, start a recall of some or all of them.  Or, put a measure on the ballot and see how the rest of the people feel about the issue.  There are rules to be followed.  There is already a remedy.

In this case, it's the protesters who are carrying on the pc nonsense.  They are in fact bawling for their loss of privileges.  They want something that has been taken away.  If they think the majority of the people agree with them, put it on the ballot.

LW'ers only protest when there is no alternative.  The marches to end racism (Selma), sexism (Women’s March on Washington), and gay rights (NYC-Stonewall) were because the civil rights issues in question had never been considered, or were being intentionally ignored by representatives.  The purpose of a demonstration is not to supplant the system, but to augment it.  When they have a legal or political remedy otherwise, if they just follow it, they have no need to take unnecessary measures.

RW’ers whine when they see some false equivalency.  In reality, they are expecting extraordinary privilege because they have always had privilege.  That’s not equivalency.  Now, as the system rights itself, they whine and moan about their loss of their privilege.  They think that it is an equivalent to denial of their basic human rights.  Not at all the same.

It’s the consequence of not thinking through the problem.  Meh…what else is new with RW'ers?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Stick those silly self-entitled overgrown brat big-mouthed "patriots" in the military for 3 or 4 years...

Teach those snowflake redneck bastards a few home truths, some good manners and a bit of self-disclipline..

phildidge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Stick those silly self-entitled overgrown brat big-mouthed "patriots" in the military for 3 or 4 years...

Teach those snowflake redneck bastards a few home truths, some good manners and a bit of self-disclipline..

I would imagine the vast majority of those in the Military would join and back these patriots.

phil wrote:What you are overlooking is the reason behind this daft policy was a claim to take into consideration the diverse community of non-citizens. Whilst at the same time, clearly not taking into consideration the actual citizens and residents of the Community. Hence it is a complete double standard.

Raggamuffin wrote:How stupid. I presume that immigrants actually want to be in the US, so they feel loyal to it. If they don't, why are they there?

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:How stupid. I presume that immigrants actually want to be in the US, so they feel loyal to it. If they don't, why are they there?

They tend to be more patriotic than alleged lawyers from San Francisco.  

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:How stupid. I presume that immigrants actually want to be in the US, so they feel loyal to it. If they don't, why are they there?

They tend to be more patriotic than alleged lawyers from San Francisco.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They tend to be more patriotic than alleged lawyers from San Francisco.  

It's about ideology, Redneck.  Professions don't matter...but location certainly does.  Minnesota happens to be much less conservative than, say, the south.

Didge was talking about the military.  The National Guard from Minnesota can be expected to be a slice of attitude from Minnesota.

Maddog wrote:Well, the Redneck mayor would like the pledge reinstated.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Well, the Redneck mayor would like the pledge reinstated.

He's probably on the other side.  I don't doubt that there are two sides to a political question.  But, he lost.

Instead of wasting their time bawling like babies, protesters should get a recall petition going, or put the measure on the ballot.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

He's probably on the other side.  I don't doubt that there are two sides to a political question.  But, he lost.

Instead of wasting their time bawling like babies, protesters should get a recall petition going, or put the measure on the ballot.

This doesn't need to go on a ballot. It's simply a procedure for opening a government meeting. Same as what the date and time for the meetings are.  

The council got the message. I'm sure they will go baxk to saying the pledge.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

This doesn't need to go on a ballot. It's simply a procedure for opening a government meeting. Same as what the date and time for the meetings are.  

The council got the message. I'm sure they will go baxk to saying the pledge.  

Well, it's already received a vote of the City Counsel to do away with the ritual.  The question becomes, how to override that?  I'm pretty sure the Counsel is not in a mood to change it's mind.

The only way to override a vote of the Counsel is by the ballot, or in the courts.  I doubt there are legal grounds to get a court to overturn a co-equal branch of government.  So...the ballot is the only thing left.

Maddog wrote:It's how local government business is conducted.

Maddog wrote:In theory anyway, a city government is supposed to listen to those that attend open meetings.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:It's how local government business is conducted.

That's the point.  Once a vote is taken, you need a ballot measure to overturn it.

Maddog wrote:In theory anyway, a city government is supposed to listen to those that attend open meetings.

It's a little more organized than having a bunch of Trumpsters bawling, waving Nazi flags and tearing up the joint.  The decision is made, and the next step is to petition for a ballot measure.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's the point.  Once a vote is taken, you need a ballot measure to overturn it.



It's a little more organized than having a bunch of Trumpsters bawling, waving Nazi flags and tearing up the joint.  The decision is made, and the next step is to petition for a ballot measure.

The council can reinstate the pledge, the same way they removed it.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The council can reinstate the pledge, the same way they removed it.

Why would they want to?  They've made their choice.  Probably knew they had the votes on their side.  People in Minnesota are pretty liberal.

Something you need to know about politics: officials don't cow from a political fight.  You've watched Trump.  So, you see him wringing hands and fretting about a decision he made that drew criticism?  Most politicians know the polls long before they take a vote.  They know how the people feel.  They know they are gonna win.

I would say this is a done deal.  The fact that the opposition could muster only 100 protesters is telling.  They probably are the only 100 people in the state who feel as they do.  What Fox News is doing is whipping up the support of more conservative voters elsewhere in the country by telling a good story...saying, shame, look at those liberals in Minnesota, siding with Kaepernick!

They are playing the long term, playing to Trump's base.  Even Trump doesn’t care.  His libertarian soul is probably praying for freedom to rape 12-year old girls.  Now that’s a cause for conservatives.

Maddog wrote:Mayor Jake Spano said the council’s next step is to talk with residents about what they would like to see before they decide whether to reinstate the pledge. The outline for what that community input could look like will likely be discussed at the council’s study session July 22.

There is no law that council meetings have to start off with the pledge, but if you take a look at two dozen of the largest cities across the state, the majority of them do.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2019/07/09/trump-tweets-outrage-over-st-louis-parks-pledge-of-allegiance-contretemps/

If someone would like actual facts, as opposed to rantings from a "lawyer".

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Well, the Redneck mayor would like the pledge reinstated.

He's probably on the other side.  I don't doubt that there are two sides to a political question.  But, he lost.

Instead of wasting their time bawling like babies, protesters should get a recall petition going, or put the measure on the ballot.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The council can reinstate the pledge, the same way they removed it.

Why would they want to?  They've made their choice.  Probably knew they had the votes on their side.  People in Minnesota are pretty liberal.

Something you need to know about politics: officials don't cow from a political fight.  You've watched Trump.  So, you see him wringing hands and fretting about a decision he made that drew criticism?  Most politicians know the polls long before they take a vote.  They know how the people feel.  They know they are gonna win.

I would say this is a done deal.  The fact that the opposition could muster only 100 protesters is telling.  They probably are the only 100 people in the state who feel as they do.  What Fox News is doing is whipping up the support of more conservative voters elsewhere in the country by telling a good story...saying, shame, look at those liberals in Minnesota, siding with Kaepernick!

They are playing the long term, playing to Trump's base.  Even Trump doesn’t care.  His libertarian soul is probably praying for freedom to rape 12-year old girls.  Now that’s a cause for conservatives.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why would they want to?  They've made their choice.  Probably knew they had the votes on their side.  People in Minnesota are pretty liberal.

Something you need to know about politics: officials don't cow from a political fight.  You've watched Trump.  So, you see him wringing hands and fretting about a decision he made that drew criticism?  Most politicians know the polls long before they take a vote.  They know how the people feel.  They know they are gonna win.

I would say this is a done deal.  The fact that the opposition could muster only 100 protesters is telling.  They probably are the only 100 people in the state who feel as they do.  What Fox News is doing is whipping up the support of more conservative voters elsewhere in the country by telling a good story...saying, shame, look at those liberals in Minnesota, siding with Kaepernick!

They are playing the long term, playing to Trump's base.  Even Trump doesn’t care.  His libertarian soul is probably praying for freedom to rape 12-year old girls.  Now that’s a cause for conservatives.

Wrong.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:



Wrong.

No, I nailed it.  Minnesota is much too liberal.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, I nailed it.  Minnesota is much too liberal.

They reversed their decision.

You nailed nothing.

Daily Caller wrote:California Community College Board Of Trustees President Says Goodbye To The Pledge Of Allegiance Over ‘White Nationalism’ History

NEETU CHANDAK

A California community college board of trustees president is ditching the Pledge of Allegiance in meetings because of its history with “nativism and white nationalism.”

Santa Barbara City College (SBCC) board President Robert Miller said to former adjunct instructor Celeste Barber that he would rather pledge to the Constitution than an object, a Jan. 21 email obtained by Campus Reform said. Miller wrote:

I decided to discontinue use of the Pledge of Allegiance for reasons related to its history and symbolism. Our flag is a powerful symbol of freedom and our system of government, but I prefer to pledge allegiance to our constitution, instead of a physical object. Indeed, when sworn in, each Trustee takes an oath to support and defend the U.S. and California constitutions.

I also object to the phrase “one nation under God.” The First Amendment not only protects freedom of speech and religion, it also expressly prohibits laws that establish a religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has expressly extended those rights to those who express no belief in God. Thus, I disagree with the 1955 act of Congress to add this phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Miller added the pledge’s author, Francis Bellamy, was a Baptist minister who wrote it in the 1890s out of concern of the increasing number of immigrants to America.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They reversed their decision.

You nailed nothing.

It (the pledge) has become a symbol for white nationalism, since Trump made it an issue with Kaepernick.  Several entities around the nation have dropped the practice.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It (the pledge) has become a symbol for white nationalism, since Trump made it an issue with Kaepernick.  Several entities around the nation have dropped the practice.

You were wrong.  

I was right.

But we we are  both used to that aren't we.