MAGA teen bused in from a Catholic school harasses Indigenous People's marcher. Vile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Believe your eyes. Look at page 1.

Nothing changed-except that a spoiled and nasty kid learned he could act badly and be babied for it after the fact.

The entire original narrative was a fabricated lie.

Based on the facts that are co.ing out, along with Phillips behavior since, he created this moment to get to the Catholic church. Shame on him for ruining these kids lives.

What lie? The kids were acting like douches.

The kids did not act like douches. Given the circumstances, they showed incredible reserve, particularly the main kid.

If they had not been wearing MAGA hats, every liberal on DCUM and twitter would be applauding them for trying to drown out the racists shouting about sodomy and calling them f*ggots.

Agree. I'm actually impressed with the main kid. He showed a lot of maturity to just stand there. He also signaled his friend to "cut" the insult - which is quite mature considering black guys just called him a cracker.

I'll remember his name. I hope he gets a fine education and becomes a successful professional with a rewarding life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still, the kid was smirking. He doesn't have First Amendment rights being a minor. And everyone knows that smirking isn't protected speech.

Yes. It was a face crime. And he should be imprisoned for it.

Please tell me that pp is joking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still, the kid was smirking. He doesn't have First Amendment rights being a minor. And everyone knows that smirking isn't protected speech.

Yes. It was a face crime. And he should be imprisoned for it.

Please tell me that pp is joking.

It's a reference to Orwell's 1984 and "face crime". https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/covington-catholic-maga-hatcrime-facecrime/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still, the kid was smirking. He doesn't have First Amendment rights being a minor. And everyone knows that smirking isn't protected speech.

Yes. It was a face crime. And he should be imprisoned for it.

Please tell me that pp is joking.

It's a reference to Orwell's 1984 and "face crime". https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/covington-catholic-maga-hatcrime-facecrime/

I mean the person who said minors aren’t constitutionally protected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still, the kid was smirking. He doesn't have First Amendment rights being a minor. And everyone knows that smirking isn't protected speech.

Yes. It was a face crime. And he should be imprisoned for it.

Please tell me that pp is joking.

It's a reference to Orwell's 1984 and "face crime". https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/covington-catholic-maga-hatcrime-facecrime/

I mean the person who said minors aren’t constitutionally protected

I am the pp who mentioned face crime. I assume the first pp here was being sarcastic.
After all, this has been a nearly week-long debate about a smile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best and most fair article I've read yet describing what happened:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/media-must-learn-covington-catholic-story/581035/

Good piece. Thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Believe your eyes. Look at page 1.

Nothing changed-except that a spoiled and nasty kid learned he could act badly and be babied for it after the fact.

The entire original narrative was a fabricated lie.

Based on the facts that are co.ing out, along with Phillips behavior since, he created this moment to get to the Catholic church. Shame on him for ruining these kids lives.

What lie? The kids were acting like douches.

The kids did not act like douches. Given the circumstances, they showed incredible reserve, particularly the main kid.

If they had not been wearing MAGA hats, every liberal on DCUM and twitter would be applauding them for trying to drown out the racists shouting about sodomy and calling them f*ggots.

If you've ever wondered what the demographic is on DCUM, just take a look at the comments by black people on social media about this incident. Most I've seen have said, basically, "If anyone got up in my kid's face like that, they'd wish they hadn't."

[Anonymous]

Some commentary from those who know the culture these covington kids are from: http://www.bluejersey.com/2019/01/covington-catholic-it-could-have-been-me/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So you think it is okay to wear black face.

Well there you go.

It's not OK.

But we're dealing with a private institution that's not funded by tax money and obviously supported by wealthy "people of faith." So unless you go all 21 Jump Street on Covington, how will you fight against the school's claim that this was a non-racist tradition?

This is no different from the anger at Pence's wife b/c she accepted a position teaching art at a Christian school that's anti-LGBT. If people are willing to find other "like-minded" individuals in an effort to create a group, you can't stop them unless they're out murdering people.

You are all trying to fight against people who are comfortable in their niche. They have each other. They have money to support and insulate themselves. What you're trying to fight is a way of life that's been around since the beginning of "civilized" time. In this case, they have money and God on their side.

Do they still do that “tradition”?

Times change. People are becoming more respectful of others. And fewer people are religious. These dinosaurs’ dats are numbered.

I don't know if this practice still exists. But neither I don't trust news "sources" to provide me with an accurate answer. They (right and left sources) are manipulating us - all in the name of the Almighty Dollar.

Covington kids were in TV yesterday defending the practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best and most fair article I've read yet describing what happened:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/media-must-learn-covington-catholic-story/581035/

Great article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So you think it is okay to wear black face.

Well there you go.

It's not OK.

But we're dealing with a private institution that's not funded by tax money and obviously supported by wealthy "people of faith." So unless you go all 21 Jump Street on Covington, how will you fight against the school's claim that this was a non-racist tradition?

This is no different from the anger at Pence's wife b/c she accepted a position teaching art at a Christian school that's anti-LGBT. If people are willing to find other "like-minded" individuals in an effort to create a group, you can't stop them unless they're out murdering people.

You are all trying to fight against people who are comfortable in their niche. They have each other. They have money to support and insulate themselves. What you're trying to fight is a way of life that's been around since the beginning of "civilized" time. In this case, they have money and God on their side.

I am Catholic and no it is not okay for Catholics to perform/dress up in blackface. Is it legal? yes. is it racist? yes. Is it in line with the teachings of Jesus? No.

Btw, they do receive federal tax breaks so they are.subsidized by the federal government and they are not allowed to make a hostile environment for black students.

It is my community with so yes I can and will speak out against all the atrocities in the Catholic church.

[Anonymous]

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself – anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called." -- George Orwell, 1984 (1949)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some commentary from those who know the culture these covington kids are from: http://www.bluejersey.com/2019/01/covington-catholic-it-could-have-been-me/

Mic drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making it my personal mission and setting a calendar item, to find that young man every year for the rest of my life, and to send a message to his school, his employer, and his acquintenances, to let them know what an asshole he is. He never gets to bury this.

Oh, please do.
He will sue a crap out of you. When he grows up.
He is a kid, remember?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So you think it is okay to wear black face.

Well there you go.

It's not OK.

But we're dealing with a private institution that's not funded by tax money and obviously supported by wealthy "people of faith." So unless you go all 21 Jump Street on Covington, how will you fight against the school's claim that this was a non-racist tradition?

This is no different from the anger at Pence's wife b/c she accepted a position teaching art at a Christian school that's anti-LGBT. If people are willing to find other "like-minded" individuals in an effort to create a group, you can't stop them unless they're out murdering people.

You are all trying to fight against people who are comfortable in their niche. They have each other. They have money to support and insulate themselves. What you're trying to fight is a way of life that's been around since the beginning of "civilized" time. In this case, they have money and God on their side.

Do they still do that “tradition”?

Times change. People are becoming more respectful of others. And fewer people are religious. These dinosaurs’ dats are numbered.

Fewer people are religious? Is that a good thing? Oh, I forgot.....libs also hate religious people.

But how much religious observance is "too much" according to liberals? I don't eat pork or shellfish. Is that acceptable to you? I also fast on Yom Kippur. Is that OK? I don't eat grain products during Passover? Am I overdoing it?

Please tell me. I know the "tolerant" liberals have a very defined notion of how one should beleive and act, and it's hard to keep up with the parameters they set.

I’m just saying things are changing. I didn’t say if it’s good or bad. Just antiquated.