Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

First amendment boycott movement and neonazi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • First amendment boycott movement and neonazi

    Since I still have not heard any counterpoint from people who support the inclusion of certain groups in the army recruitment process, I open tanks thread to see if they believe the same with the groups fhat seek contracts from the governmemt.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

  • #2
    It'll be quiet in this thread because RW media hasn't informed their viewership as to what to respond with.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
      It'll be quiet in this thread because RW media hasn't informed their viewership as to what to respond with.

      Trolling?

      I look forward to you sharing your expertise on the 1st Amendment.
      Please educate us.


      The point of the OP was unclear. The RW media told me to say that.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #4
        Contracts to do what for the government?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Contracts to do what for the government?
          No need to specify it. If one accepts the logic of the people I am addressing, all types of such attempts to secure government contracts should be protected based on the 1A right and if. a potential contractor wants to boycott Israel, such view should not disqualify him from the process.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #6
            Which has nothing to do with the 1 A.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pamak View Post

              No need to specify it. If one accepts the logic of the people I am addressing, all types of such attempts to secure government contracts should be protected based on the 1A right and if. a potential contractor wants to boycott Israel, such view should not disqualify him from the process.
              Sorry, you are going to have to provide details.
              You keep trying to pretend that situations that are different from the army barring people for mere membership in legal organizations is the same thing as whatever pops into your head.
              If you want a response, you will have to be less cryptic about what you mean. I know you are hoping that I will make an overly broad statement, but the fact remains, that quailification for a government contract is very different from "mere membership" in a legal organization.

              I am sure that there are government rules that prohibit doing business with entities that engage in discriminatory policies.
              There is a difference between engaging in practices that the government deems discriminatory and "mere membership" in a legal organzation.
              One is active, the other is passive.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                Which has nothing to do with the 1 A.
                So, Based on what you have said so far, the 1A cannot protect a neonazi group if the army decides tomorrow to exclude it from the recruitment process. Correct?
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                  Sorry, you are going to have to provide details.
                  You keep trying to pretend that situations that are different from the army barring people for mere membership in legal organizations is the same thing as whatever pops into your head.
                  If you want a response, you will have to be less cryptic about what you mean. I know you are hoping that I will make an overly broad statement, but the fact remains, that quailification for a government contract is very different from "mere membership" in a legal organization.

                  I am sure that there are government rules that prohibit doing business with entities that engage in discriminatory policies.
                  There is a difference between engaging in practices that the government deems thethediscriminatory and "mere membership" in a legal organzation.
                  One is active, the other is passive.
                  And I am saying that there is no difference between engaging in discriminatory policies and having a membership in. a group which is engaged in such policies. And while it is perfectly legal to do it, it still does not mea that such thing cannot exclude you from government contracts. What is active and passive in the social media and why does it matter when boycotting and discrimination in a private setting is legal?

                  Also, you seem to imply that the simple promotion of the idea of boycotting Israel should not be enough to disqualify someone from a government contract. Correct?
                  Last edited by pamak; 24 Feb 20, 10:17.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post

                    And I am saying that there is no difference between engaging in discriminatory policies and having a membership in. a group which is engaged in such policies. And while it is perfectly legal to do it, it still does not mean that such thing cannot exclude you from government contracts.
                    well, if you say so......


                    I also noted that you are trying to change my position from "mere membership in a legal organization" to: membership in a group that is engaged in discriminatory policies.
                    They aren't the same thing. But you knew that.
                    Last edited by Cambronnne; 24 Feb 20, 12:11.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                      Trolling?:
                      Yes!
                      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                      Comment


                      • #12

                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                        well, if you say so......


                        I also noted that you are trying to change my poistion from "mere membership in a legal organization" to: membership in a group that is engaged in discriminatory policies.
                        They aren't the same thing. But you knew that.




                        I do not try to change anything. I just probe your beliefs and try to see their boundaries. I do not think I deviated from the context of the conversation since obviously, we try to see the rights of legal and controversial racist groups and not some random legal organization.

                        Again, are you saying that the simple promotion of the idea of boycotting Israel should not disqualify an organization from a contract? Of what about a university that seeks federal money or research projects while it permits events which promote the boycotting of Israel? If Trump tomorrow decides that the DOD should not award research contracts to such university, would it be unconstitutional or not?
                        Last edited by pamak; 24 Feb 20, 11:00.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post






                          I do not try to change anything. I just probe your beliefs and try to see their boundaries. I do not think I deviated from the context of the conversation since obviously, we try to see the rights of legal and controversial racist groups and not some random legal organization.

                          Again, are you saying that the simple promotion of the idea of boycotting Israel should not disqualify an organization from a contract? Of what about a university that seeks federal money or research projects while it permits events which promote the boycotting of Israel? If Trump tomorrow decides that the DOD should not award research contracts to such university, would it be unconstitutional or not?
                          Have you ever read any of the regulations that apply to those seeking contracts with the federal government.
                          I have read, but do not know, that there are more than 16,000 of them.

                          So tell me which one you want me to opine on.

                          And my personal beliefs and my opinions on the law are 2 different things.

                          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            So, Based on what you have said so far, the 1A cannot protect a neonazi group if the army decides tomorrow to exclude it from the recruitment process. Correct?
                            You must take a realistic exemple and not invent an IF which has not happened til today . The army selects individuals, not members of a group .The Army does not exclude people because they are members of a group .Even not of a neonazi group . If the army wants to prevent a neonazi to become a soldier, it will use other means .

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Someone who is openly supporting Trump will not have contracts from the Californian administration . A staffer of Sanders who criticizes his boss,will be fired . Someone who works for Ford and makes publicity for GM ,will not last long .
                              Someone who said that the military are only a bunch of fascists ,will not be accepted by the military .

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X