Calling out Hypocrites

[Gunny46]

Exactly. The former is subject matter discrimination, which is acceptable in many circumstances. The latter is viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited.

I try to keep it simple so everyone can understand. If you work for the Government. Locally, State, or Federal you can't be rooting for death of anyone. Especially when you are using your real Personal Information. That's going to get you fired. Hence why I have asked people on all sides here to tone it down with that. It's also why I don't give specifics on tactics here. I'm not trying to educate future terrorists.

I hope Biden lives many more years. In Delaware with his family. Who all should probably be in jail.

 

[Gunny46]

 

[SoCo]

It does have to do with employment as the benefits were part of the employment's package deal, i.e. do that and receive this.

Oh, the government can do it. Would it stand up in court? Not likely (hopefully). But, that wouldn't stop them from trying.

I disagree with you on both of your scenarios - simply based on timing.

For example, an officer today who gets on social media and claims Hinkley should have used a bigger gun. Would he be fired for that statement today? No... a reprimand maybe, but not fired.

Would the second (Floyd) officer be fired today? Yes, likely so. But not because of the timing or even the content, but rather a PD that doesn't want to go through a public relations scandal. As proof, suppose instead of Floyd it was Emmitt Till on that card. Would the results be the same even though the events in question are almost 70 years apart?

Yes.

And BTW. The benefits in your scenario were already earned by the employee during his employment prior to retiring. It is legally theirs as a result of the employment contract. The government can't go back and take things a former employee already earned for comments made 2 years after the employment terminated.

The government can say we don't want you working here any longer because your comments are disruptive to our mission and distance themselves from you then stop all payments and benefits you haven't already earned. That teacher will get paid her proper compensation through yesterday when she was canned but she won't earn anything more.

That is the difference.

 

[Gunny46]

 

[Gunny46]

There’s some controversy about this because it’s unpleasant. But here’s the thing. We’re betraying our own powerless people if we don’t use the power we have to protect them by making the side that imposed these new rules feel the costs.We have tried reason. We have tried appeals to simple justice. They have failed. Now we need to apply punishment. They need to know there is a cost to this. If we fail to impose a cost on them for doing this because doing so is unpleasant, we have betrayed our own people and left them exposed. The left will not stop unless it has reason to. This is reason to.Sometimes you have to be stern.

 

[Gunny46]

 

[spartansstink]

Actually until Obama was elected you couldn't join the military if you had every been affiliated with a Communist Organization. You also can't yell fire crowded theater or threaten to harm someone. So nice attempt to defend treasonous punks but you stop playing dumb now.

I'm going to try to put this with kindness and all humility. I sincerely hope it comes off this way.

To you, everyone that doesn't agree with you is the enemy. You see Communists everywhere - seemingly hiding behind every tree. Everything that happens that goes against your view of the world is a plot by these enemies who must be destroyed. So, like Don Quixote, you're constantly setting up strawmen windmills to fight.

It could be they are just as patriotic as you but see the world a little differently. As you've stated, you have the right to say whatever you want. Nobody should ever be taking that away from you and nobody will hopefully. But, the person who disagrees with you has the same rights and nobody should be taking it away from them either.

 

[spartansstink]

That is wrong. You don't have to like it or agree with that principle, but the Courts are clear in this regard. And this has nothing to do with the clear and present danger doctrine.

The only thing that varies is the nature of the restriction(s) imposed by a government employer.

I never claimed it did have anything to do with the clear and present limitation.

If you look up the limitations found in the freedom of speech, none of them apply to a person's point of view over a certain event, i.e. wishing death upon someone. As I mentioned above, the only one that MIGHT come close is Time, Place, and Manner but that is iffy.

If you can find case law that supports your belief, as you claim the courts have clearly done, I'd like to see them.

 

[spartansstink]

And BTW. The benefits in your scenario were already earned by the employee during his employment prior to retiring. It is legally theirs as a result of the employment contract. The government can't go back and take things a former employee already earned for comments made 2 years after the employment terminated.

The government can say we don't want you working here any longer because your comments are disruptive to our mission and distance themselves from you then stop all payments and benefits you haven't already earned. That teacher will get paid her proper compensation through yesterday when she was canned but she won't earn anything more.

That is the difference.

Wait, I see the problem here.

That's the problem with written communication versus oral - the context gets mixed up.

The context I was going after wasn't that it would literally happen, it was going after the feeling one would have if the government had done something that went against YOUR personal views and rights. That everyone, whether they agree with you politically or not, deserves equal treatment under the law.

That's what I was going after - trying to make the context more personal towards HIM versus trying to use a scenario that is to be generally applied to everyone.

 

[spartansstink]

Timing shouldn't have anything to do with it in this case. If an officer openly cheers for murder or any other serious crime, I can guarantee s/he will have violated their terms of employment. That is not viewpoint discrimination, which the government is prohibiting from doing, it is the subject that is the problem.

Whether a law enforcement agency would take action against the officer or not is not my focus. I am simply stating that officers can be fired for openly cheering or advocating serious crimes. This has been tested through the Courts. Repeatedly.

Trying to respond to all of these...

I agree timing shouldn't have to do with anything, but it does. An officer, teacher, mayor, etc. from Jackson Mississippi who posted (assuming social media existed in 1955) wouldn't have been fired for wishing death upon Emmitt Till. An officer who posted the same in 2025 would most certainly be.

Why? The viewpoint and subject are both the same.

The time, place and manner have though. Generally, the courts determine not what was said, but rather if the person has the means to do it. The officer who wrote in 2025 would have no way of making Till any more dead than he is right now. But he would be fired because of the chaos it would create for everyone directly and indirectly involved.

But, the question remains - should he be?

I would argue no. But, I would argue no also for the officer or teacher who was fired for expressing his support of cross-dressing and homosexuality even though I disagree with his viewpoints.

It can't be just selectively applied is what I'm arguing against, which many on here seem to be wanting.

 

[SoCo]

I never claimed it did have anything to do with the clear and present limitation.

If you look up the limitations found in the freedom of speech, none of them apply to a person's point of view over a certain event, i.e. wishing death upon someone. As I mentioned above, the only one that MIGHT come close is Time, Place, and Manner but that is iffy.

If you can find case law that supports your belief, as you claim the courts have clearly done, I'd like to see them.

You are flat out wrong. I didn't invent the term "viewpoint discrimination". It is literally at the core of many free speech analyses. I'm not wasting my time citing you cases. Nothing against you, but that is what my clients pay me to do. There are literally treatises written about the viewpoint discrimination. I know this because way back in law school I was the editor and one of the writers of the Constitutional Law Review on this very topic.

What the school can't do is fire someone for saying they hope Trump is killed while allowing others to say they hope Biden is killed. That is viewpoint discrimination. But the school is perfectly allowed to fire any teacher who hopes any politician is killed. That is the subject matter which they can, and should, prohibit in schools.

That teacher and the cop f'd up and have no one but themselves to blame. The price of being a partisan idiot.

 

[spartansstink]

I'm retired and you have no idea who I am. Because I don't put personal information on here. So I can say whatever the fvck I want. More importantly I'm not calling for the death of any politician. Matter of fact I've done the opposite. So you seem to be missing the point. If you are Cop or Teacher saying that after you have signed an acknowledge form that you can't say shit like. Then the Superintendent, Chief of Police, or Sheriff has the right to fire you if they choose.

The clauses for "moral turpitude" are ambiguous on most contracts. The bureaucracy can and does fire teachers, cops, and the like all the time. For most though, the cost of fighting the battle must be weighed against the benefits of winning. The bureaucracy has far more money and resources than the individual can bring to bear.

The need for teachers and officers makes fighting it useless anyway as one can go a short distance away and get hired again anyway at the cost of possibly only having to wait a certain period of time.

 

[SoCo]

Trying to respond to all of these...

I agree timing shouldn't have to do with anything, but it does. An officer, teacher, mayor, etc. from Jackson Mississippi who posted (assuming social media existed in 1955) wouldn't have been fired for wishing death upon Emmitt Till. An officer who posted the same in 2025 would most certainly be.

Why? The viewpoint and subject are both the same.

The time, place and manner have though. Generally, the courts determine not what was said, but rather if the person has the means to do it. The officer who wrote in 2025 would have no way of making Till any more dead than he is right now. But he would be fired because of the chaos it would create for everyone directly and indirectly involved.

But, the question remains - should he be?

I would argue no. But, I would argue no also for the officer or teacher who was fired for expressing his support of cross-dressing and homosexuality even though I disagree with his viewpoints.

It can't be just selectively applied is what I'm arguing against, which many on here seem to be wanting.

Right. Selectively applied = viewpoint discrimination. Prohibited.

Prohibit all views on a topic = Subject matter discrimination. Typically permissible depending on the subject.

That's the way it should be. If teachers and cops don't like the terms of employment and not being able to cheer on the murder of a United States President, work elsewhere. That is their right.

 

[Gunny46]

I'm going to try to put this with kindness and all humility. I sincerely hope it comes off this way.

To you, everyone that doesn't agree with you is the enemy. You see Communists everywhere - seemingly hiding behind every tree. Everything that happens that goes against your view of the world is a plot by these enemies who must be destroyed. So, like Don Quixote, you're constantly setting up strawmen windmills to fight.

It could be they are just as patriotic as you but see the world a little differently. As you've stated, you have the right to say whatever you want. Nobody should ever be taking that away from you and nobody will hopefully. But, the person who disagrees with you has the same rights and nobody should be taking it away from them either.

I see you trying to defend people who are self admitted radicals. I also see you using this account trying to sound reasonable whenever the left really shows their ass.

 

[Gunny46]

The clauses for "moral turpitude" are ambiguous on most contracts. The bureaucracy can and does fire teachers, cops, and the like all the time. For most though, the cost of fighting the battle must be weighed against the benefits of winning. The bureaucracy has far more money and resources than the individual can bring to bear.

The need for teachers and officers makes fighting it useless anyway as one can go a short distance away and get hired again anyway at the cost of possibly only having to wait a certain period of time.

You acting like you never heard of work references and back ground checks is getting funny. Mentally ill people wishing death on a political rival shouldn't be hired or retained by the Government. Go start landscaping business.

 

[atlkvb]

I see you trying to defend people who are self admitted radicals. I also see you using this account trying to sound reasonable whenever the left really shows their ass.

I'm reading this thread and enjoying the back and fourth (it's an interesting argument) and while I think @spartansstink is one of the more thoughtful posters on here, I don't think he's a Leftist.

 

[spartansstink]

You are flat out wrong. I didn't invent the term "viewpoint discrimination". It is literally at the core of many free speech analyses. I'm not wasting my time citing you cases. Nothing against you, but that is what my clients pay me to do. There are literally treatises written about the viewpoint discrimination. I know this because way back in law school I was the editor and one of the writers of the Constitutional Law Review on this very topic.

What the school can't do is fire someone for saying they hope Trump is killed while allowing others to say they hope Biden is killed. That is viewpoint discrimination. But the school is perfectly allowed to fire any teacher who hopes any politician is killed. That is the subject matter which they can, and should, prohibit in schools.

That teacher and the cop f'd up and have no one but themselves to blame. The price of being a partisan idiot.

As I stated in the post above, the question isn't can they - they can and have. The question is SHOULD they?

In my view, this gives the government far too much power and reach. It's essentially my argument that its a form of prior restraint that prohibits someone from being that "partisan hack" just because one works for the government. The right of the individual has been superseded by the government. Clearly, not everyone shares that opinion and that's fine. But, everyone should have the right to express their views no matter the disdain for them.

 

[spartansstink]

I see you trying to defend people who are self admitted radicals. I also see you using this account trying to sound reasonable whenever the left really shows their ass.

You're right. I am.

Just as I would defend you or anyone else who has radical views.

I'm just saying it has to go both ways.

 

[Gunny46]

You're right. I am.

Just as I would defend you or anyone else who has radical views.

I'm just saying it has to go both ways.

What part of wishing people dead violates terms of employment do you not understand?

 

[spartansstink]

You acting like you never heard of work references and back ground checks is getting funny. Mentally ill people wishing death on a political rival shouldn't be hired or retained by the Government. Go start landscaping business.

I'm typing way too fast trying to answer all these posts. Sorry if I'm getting some of the content on them confused with others.

Those references and checks would catch someone BEFORE they are hired. The government has the same rights to hire or not hire someone based on what they find on those. The fact they DID hire some of the people they have is cause enough for all of us to be weary of public schools.

But, after a person was hired, they shouldn't be punished for saying something stupid without the means to act on it. An opinion is just that - an opinion. And that's mine and people are free to agree or disagree with it.

 

[ThePunish-EER]

What part of wishing people dead violates terms of employment do you not understand?

Only an idiot would be ok with making death threats. It deserves arrest and prosecution

 

[spartansstink]

What part of wishing people dead violates terms of employment do you not understand?

I understand it. I just don't agree with it.

Means and intent matter also. If I say I wish my ex-wife was dead and I'm going to cut her head off is one thing because I have both intent and the means.

Saying I wish the Pope would die so my buddy Cardinal XYZ could become the pope is another.

 

[spartansstink]

Only an idiot would be ok with making death threats. It deserves arrest and prosecution

I agree it makes them an idiot. I also agree that this country is full of them and few of them are special.

 

[spartansstink]

I'm reading this thread and enjoying the back and fourth (it's an interesting argument) and while I think @spartansstink is one of the more thoughtful posters on here, I don't think he's a Leftist.

I like taking the opposite side just to argue and debate. Sometimes its harder than it would seem.

 

[atlkvb]

I like taking the opposite side just to argue and debate. Sometimes its harder than it would seem.

Well no matter what side you take, you always present your arguments with well thought out opinion, and respectfully (absent childish name calling or arrogant insults). I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[atlkvb]

I'm typing way too fast trying to answer all these posts. Sorry if I'm getting some of the content on them confused with others.

Those references and checks would catch someone BEFORE they are hired. The government has the same rights to hire or not hire someone based on what they find on those. The fact they DID hire some of the people they have is cause enough for all of us to be weary of public schools.

But, after a person was hired, they shouldn't be punished for saying something stupid without the means to act on it. An opinion is just that - an opinion. And that's mine and people are free to agree or disagree with it.

I don't disagree with what you're saying...but in some social circles there are certain "unwritten rules" or put another way, certain things you shouldn't say in mixed company. Like calling someone Black a N*gg*er (especially if you're White and surrounded by a bunch of Black folks)

or calling some old person "old" using it in a pejorative sense.

Or asking a woman you just met her age? (especially if you'd like to get in her panties )

Saying some of that while not Constitutionally illegal or forbidden, & certainly is covered under the "free speech" clause of the 1st amendment... still just might get your ass kicked or your face slapped or even get 'ya cursed out by some octogenarian who's not afraid to to tell you exactly what's on their mind!

 

[spartansstink]

Well no matter what side you take, you always present your arguments with well thought out opinion, and respectfully (absent childish name calling or arrogant insults). I enjoy reading your posts.

Thank you.

I think if you ask people on here the question "In one word, how would you describe yourself?" the answers would be republican, conservative, democrat, etc.

My answer is Christian.

That's first and foremost. Hopefully, that's what I want all my posts to reflect. If they don't, then I've failed everyone on here.

 

[atlkvb]

Thank you.

I think if you ask people on here the question "In one word, how would you describe yourself?" the answers would be republican, conservative, democrat, etc.

My answer is Christian.

That's first and foremost. Hopefully, that's what I want all my posts to reflect. If they don't, then I've failed everyone on here.

Well stated.

 

[spartansstink]

I'm going to take a break for a while. If anyone responds, I may be back on later this evening.

Got a little time on my hands since a knee injury. My brain still thinks I'm 30 and overrides my common sense. My body let's me know I'm not.

My mind gets a little foggy so I'm off to give it a rest.

 

[Gunny46]

Children's Literature-bibliographies

Communist Goals
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963​

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

 

[Gunny46]

Former classmate recalls Trump shooter grilling him over support for former POTUS: 'Did not like politicians'

A former classmate of would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks says the 20-year-old gunman once mocked him over his support of former President Donald Trump.

www.foxnews.com

Former classmate recalls Trump shooter grilling him over support for former POTUS: 'Did not like politicians'​

Former Pennsylvania classmate says Thomas Matthew Crooks was vocal about politics and Trump -- until he became quiet​

 

[Gunny46]

Sounds like an Anarchist. His mom is a Democrat and his Dad a Libertarian.

 

[Gunny46]

 

[Gunny46]

 

[Gunny46]

—The shooter visited the rally site a few days in advance to scope it out—62 mins elapsed between the time the shooter was photographed as being suspicious and when he fired the shots—20 mins elapsed between the time he was spotted by snipers & when he fired the shots—FBI Director Wray said there’s no known foreign nexus but no established motive as of now. Shooter used encrypted comms and had little to no social media presence

 

[SoCo]

I understand it. I just don't agree with it.

Means and intent matter also. If I say I wish my ex-wife was dead and I'm going to cut her head off is one thing because I have both intent and the means.

Saying I wish the Pope would die so my buddy Cardinal XYZ could become the pope is another.

Means and intent matter when it comes to criminal prosecution. Not so much when it comes to this area. The government has, at a minimum, a legitimate state interest in maintaining harmony in the office among its workers. My hometown knows this all too well when a municipal employee murdered 11 people in his office in 2019. Celebrating a political attempted assassination can cause problems in the office for obvious reasons. A gov't employee has no First Amendment right to use racial slurs around the office for the same reason (among others).

But, after a person was hired, they shouldn't be punished for saying something stupid without the means to act on it. An opinion is just that - an opinion. And that's mine and people are free to agree or disagree with it.

Really? A government employee should be allowed to say literally anything? How about a 3rd grade teacher who tells her class shit like "George Floyd was black; therefore, he deserved to die" or has posts/tweets/retweets/whatever all over social media depicting the KKK lynching blacks and endlessly ranting how blacks are beneath her? I can't imagine a scenario where she shouldn't be fired.

Or a cop who has racial shit like attributing blacks to crime and that they should die all over his social media. He shouldn't be allowed to be on the force.

Every Bill of Right has limitations.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Thank you.

I think if you ask people on here the question "In one word, how would you describe yourself?" the answers would be republican, conservative, democrat, etc.

My answer is Christian.

That's first and foremost. Hopefully, that's what I want all my posts to reflect. If they don't, then I've failed everyone on here.

Mine would be American.

 

[Gunny46]

Get better soon you have a DHS Secretary and Secret Service Director to fire.

President Joe Biden has COVID-19 for a third time

President Joe Biden was set to speak at the UnidosUS annual conference in Las Vegas but did not come out to the podium as scheduled.

www.usatoday.com

President Joe Biden has COVID-19 for a third time​

 

[Gunny46]

 

[Gunny46]