I generally try to stay out of these threads as we all need to do some soul searching and figure out how the fuck we get through this "interesting" time in our nations history.
That being said, as it pertains to this site, dinging a guys reputation for posting political views is the most un-American thing I have ever fucking seen!!! You cannot in one breath preach freedom of speech, then ding a guy for expressing their own freedoms. These are generally the same folks who rail against censorship, then turn around and downvote the shit out of you for the same thing they are complaining about. If someone gives consistently shit advice, ding em, but not for exercising ones freedoms. Grow the fuck up !
We have forgotten the good ole days of Paul the manual troll. The classic splendor of a zaza post !
We can come together, for the most part, to fix and maintain 20+ year old copiers beat to hell by our customers but we cannot come together to fix our beat to hell country.
Rant over
Failing to plan is planning to fail!!!
And AGAIN Biden tries to trample on FREE SPEECH by requesting that the SCOTUS get involved to censor STUDENTS free speech online.
Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court to Allow Schools to Censor Student Expression Online
The Biden administration and a Pennsylvania school district urged a skeptical Supreme Court this morning to let school districts suppress free speech by students on social media if they deem it potentially disruptive to school operations.
The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., court file 20-255, was heard April 28.
The Biden administration was represented in the 112-minute telephonic hearing by Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart.
The petitioner, the school district in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, was represented by Lisa S. Blatt. The student involved in the case, known in court documents as B.L., was represented by David D. Cole, who is the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. B.L., or Brandi Levy, was a minor at the time the lawsuit was initiated and legal files reduced her name to initials to protect her identity.
In 2017, when Levy was 14 and a freshman, she made the Mahanoy Area High School junior varsity cheerleading team, but as a sophomore she failed to advance to the varsity squad, remaining junior varsity, according to the district’s petition.
On a Saturday when she was not present at the school she visited Snapchat where messages automatically disappear after 24 hours. She posted a photograph of herself and a friend, middle fingers extended, alongside the caption, “F— school f— softball f— cheer f— everything.”
A screenshot of the message made it to students and teachers. Levy’s coaches suspended her from the cheerleading team for a year.
The legal issue is whether the Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District applies to student speech occurring off-campus. Long before the Internet became part of Americans’ everyday lives, the court held that public school officials may “prescribe and control conduct in the schools” and discipline primary- and secondary-school students for speech that “would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.”
Levy sued and both the U.S. District Court and a majority of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held the suspension violated the First Amendment. The 3rd Circuit found that “Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech—that is, speech that is outside school-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels and that is not reasonably interpreted as bearing the school’s imprimatur.”
But during oral arguments, Blatt said the Tinker ruling should apply off-campus because “speech can cause on-campus disruption.”
“Tinker applies off-campus only when the student targets both a school audience and a school topic, and more broadly, this court can clarify Tinker’s reach both on-and off-campus.”
Chief Justice John Roberts asked what happens if a student is carrying a sign off-campus that says don’t approve a school bond funding referendum.
Blatt said such speech could not be regulated by the school because it is not directed to a school audience and it’s not a school topic.
Justice Stephen Breyer said B.L. used “unattractive swear words off-campus. Did that cause a material and substantial disruption? I don’t see much evidence it did. And if swearing off-campus did, I mean my goodness, every school in the country would be doing nothing but punishing.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Blatt B.L.’s punishment did not seem “tailored to the offense.”
“A year suspension from the team just seems excessive to me,” the justice said.
Stewart criticized the 3rd Circuit’s ruling, saying it would allow B.L. to send out messages on social media “from her home every evening disparaging the coaches, her teammates, and the enterprise of cheerleading. Such messages from a member of the squad would have an evident tendency to disrupt the functioning of a school program that depends on and is intended to instill values of team-building and mutual support.”
Cole argued the reach of the Tinker ruling should not be expanded.
“At its core the First Amendment prohibits content discrimination. Its bedrock principle is that a speaker can’t be published because listeners object to his message.”
The Tinker decision “is limited to school-sanctioned settings,” Cole said. “This court’s ‘school speech’ cases are called that for a reason. The authority they recognize is justified by and limited to the special characteristics of the school environment.”
“Expanding Tinker would transform a limited exception into a 24/7 rule that would upend the First Amendment’s bedrock principle and would require students to effectively carry the schoolhouse on their backs in terms of speech rights everywhere they go.”
“It would also directly interfere with parents’ fundamental rights to raise their children.”
So almost 5 trillion in spending isn't enough for the Biden admin, now he wants to pay sanctuary cities.. even though they got money through the Covid relief bill. Most of the debt these states have built up NOT due to Covid but poor management practices in prior years.
Biden Admin Quietly Paves the Way for Sending Big Money to Sanctuary Cities, Reverses Trump Policy
The Biden administration has affirmed its support for cities that shelter illegal immigrants by reversing Trump administration rules that sought to penalize sanctuary cities.
The Justice Department has officially walked away from a Trump-era policy that sought to give federal grants only to cities that would cooperate with federal immigration authorities, according to Reuters.
Although federal law requires police who interact with individuals targeted for deportation to turn them over to immigration authorities, sanctuary cities refuse to do that.
During his tenure in office, former President Donald Trump sought to punish cities that refused to cooperate by employing various tactics to force compliance, including revising grant language so that anyone getting the hundreds of millions of dollars doled out in grants by the Justice Department would have to commit to collaborating with immigration authorities.
In a memo obtained by Reuters, acting head of the Office of Justice Programs Maureen Henneberg said grant recipients will not need to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a condition of funding.
Existing calls for grant applications that include that requirement are to be taken down and re-posted without the Trump-era language, she wrote.
The Biden administration in March asked the Supreme Court to drop cases it agreed to hear concerning the Trump administration’s efforts to require grant recipients to cooperate with immigration authorities. The court later dismissed those cases.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department dropped efforts to force two Rhode Island cities to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, according to ABC News.
The rationale for not collaborating was stated by Chris Magnus, the Tucson, Arizona, police chief who has been picked to run Customs and Border Protection.
“Entangling local policing with additional immigration enforcement responsibilities would seriously compromise our ability to maintain the trust and support of our diverse community,” Magnus told the Arizona Republic in 2017.
“If any of our residents believe that by reporting a crime, seeking assistance, or working with the police to make their neighborhoods safer will cause them to be unconstitutionally detained for an extended time or deported, our community becomes less secure.”
But some say the law is the law. Among them is Republican Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, who last month signed a law banning sanctuary cities in his state.
“We are a nation of laws, and immigration laws will be enforced in Montana,” Gianforte said in a statement, according to the Associated Press.
The majority of the RED cards given reports given on the political threads have been done by the liberals. As for bsm2, the RED he was showing was due to insulting remarks he made on a technical thread. That is one of the expressed issues for giving RED cards and for reporting the post. It seems he does not like it if someone who is not working as an IT gives better IT advice than he gives, and he very seldom gives any advice let alone quality advice on technical forums. All he does is troll the political posts.
As for Just Manuals, Paul Gelsman was both a Contributor and an Advertiser, not a troll.
i never saw Paul to be a troll.... always gave advice when he could and of course offered manuals. From what I gathered he was a decent type guy.
I may be wrong on that.
as far as BSM2 he is like that annoying horse fly that bugs the fuck out of you when working in the yard.... always circling your head and tried to bite you when he can. Little (if any help) and his childish comments lend nothing to the discussion.
Just a PIA. But that's how liberals behave .. nothing valuable to say, just talks outta his ass constantly.
Debs1964 and I as well as at least one other member here were Facebook friends of his. He used to be a frequent contributor to the Joke of the Day thread and also had a created the Jokes & Funnys group on Facebook. Debs knew him better than I did and had the sad task of reporting when he first went into the hospital with his heart condition. I had the even sadder task of reporting his departing.
Agreed. With that being said, I believe Phil summed it up pretty well with the horsefly comparison, I was thinking more like a mosquito in your tent buzzing around you when your trying to fall asleep. I for the most part find Bradley amusing as he reminds me of a child with his behavior, it's comparable to a 10 year old most of the time, lacking intellectual thoughts or comments about subjects that are brought up for discussion, but I understand that about Bradley and find most of his posts comical, I'd say I feel a little sorry for the guy, but he seems to bring it upon himself. But, are those annoying posts, that are devoid of any intuitiveness or lack of perspicacious matter a reason to red flag anyone, absolutely not.
Bookmarks