Go Fund Me Takes Down Fundraising Campaign for Litigation Over Vaccine Mandate

We previously discussed how GoFundMe has joined social media sites in censoring opposing viewpoints on subjects from critical race theory to vaccines to election fraud. The site once offered a neutral site for those seeking to support others with similar views or interests. The company now insists that it will only allow people to gather on the site if it believes their views are true and correct. However, it was still surprising to see the site take down a fundraising account for litigation against vaccine mandates. The effort of former nurse Jennifer Bridges was simply to get such matters before the courts, which can be the ultimate authority on what is “misinformation.” GoFundMe however blocked people from contributing to the litigation.

Bridges is a former registered nurse at Houston Methodist hospital who was fired after refusing to comply with the hospital’s vaccine requirement. She raised more than $180,000 for her lawsuit before being shutdown under the company’s “misinformation” policy. Heidi Hagberg, a spokesperson for GoFundMe, said in a statement to Business Insider that “when our team initially reviewed the fundraiser, it was within our terms of service as the funds were for legal fees to fight vaccine mandates. The fundraiser has since been updated to include misinformation which violates our terms of service.”

What is striking about this latest ban is that the courts are the place for such claims to be weighed in a neutral and dispassionate forum. “Misinformation” can be addressed by judges after both sides are allowed to present evidence. Bridges’ lawsuit was dismissed in June, Bridges’ attorneys appealed the decision. We should all favor such reviews. Indeed, if GoFundMe believes that Bridges is wrong, it should invite further judicial review to established a clear record on such issues.

GoFundMe admits to have taken down “hundreds” of fundraisers that included statements of “misinformation related to vaccines.”

I do not agree with the arguments against the vaccine. I and my family are vaccinated. However, I am equally concerned with avoiding the growing virus of censorship. In the last few years, we have seen an increasing call for private censorship from Democratic politicians and liberal commentators. Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. The most chilling aspect of this story is how many on the left applaud such censorship. A new poll shows roughly half of the public supporting not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.”

Free speech can be its own disinfectant for bad speech. GoFundMe is a private company and can impose such rules on users. However, it is an act of censorship and it is a denial of free speech by a corporation. In this case, the company is preventing its site from being used to raise money to allow courts to review the factual and legal basis for these claims — a curious effort for a company that claims to be fighting “misinformation.”

 

 

367 thoughts on “Go Fund Me Takes Down Fundraising Campaign for Litigation Over Vaccine Mandate”

  1. Anyone who think things haven’t gotten out of hand should read this article.

    Virginia dad arrested at school board meeting: Daughter was raped in bathroom by boy in skirt
    The suspect has allegedly committed a repeat offense since being transferred to a different school.

    https://justthenews.com/nation/crime/loudoun-county-dad-arrested-school-board-meeting-daughter-was-raped-bathroom-boy-skirt?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

  2. Anonymous says:

    “Jeff, these comment threads are RIGGED. Turley and Smith have no intention of letting liberals win any arguments here.”

    I’m getting close to my abandoning this blog. I came here originally out of admiration for Turley for taking a stand contrary to the Liberal mainstream view during the Impeachments. I respect a person with that courage.

    But as I read more of Turley’s posts, my respect dissipated as his hypocrisy became too obvious. Especially his contributing to, and appearing with, Fox News’ rage provocateurs despite his denunciation of the “age of rage.” In spite of his selling out to Fox (presumably for financial reasons if not ideological), he does maintain his distance from the Fox prime time hosts by never referring to them, much less praising them, though he should be criticizing them MORE than he rightly criticizes the prime time hosts at CNN and MSNBC.

    I remain interested in following his transition from Trumpist darling to persona non grata (as I have predicted) once Trump and his cohorts finally are tried in civil and criminal courts. I firmly believe that the true Turley will be revealed at that time because he will no longer be able to avoid taking an unambiguous stand. He will back-up the rule of law and due process whereas the Trumpists will expect him to declare that the guilty verdicts and civil judgments were finagled by Deep State prosecutors, ruled over by Leftist judges and decided by Liberal juries. He will have none of that (if I have judged him correctly).

    I will now monitor whether my comments are deleted. If Darren does not wish me here to remain, all he need do is to so inform me rather than delete my comments without warning. As I have said, it’s Turley’s blog, and if he can’t take the criticism, he doesn’t have to. He can continue to promote a Fox News narrative without any pushback.

    Despite the fact that he does not read any of our comments- pro or con- I contribute my criticism if for no other reason than to make a record for future biographers and/or writers who may one day read Res Ipsa Loquitur in order to get better acquainted with the professor’s ideas and motivations.

    Let it be known that Turley could have stood up at great personal risk (like Liz Cheney) to condemn Trump’s Big Lie both resolutely and repeatedly- neither of which he has done. Whether history records him at all, sadly Turley will not be remembered as a *tzadik* who took a stand when it most mattered.

  3. Anonymous says:

    “I emailed Turley about it, but he didn’t respond. I’ve written Turley a number of times since then (e.g., to report comments threatening violence, to let him know about typos and factual errors in his columns). Usually, there is no response, but a few times, he’s responded to thank me. I wrote twice after a bunch of my comments were deleted for no reason that I could tell. I got no response the first time, and the second time he responded, saying that he didn’t know why my comments were being deleted. He did not attempt to put me in touch with Darren, and my attempts to get a response from Darren here went unanswered. I have not written Turley to complain about Darren’s inconsistent moderation.”

    Thanks for your reply about emailing Turley. That was very helpful. I guess the takeaway is- a polite acknowledgment but one without a follow through. Given that Darren’s job is one very few would want to do, I gather Turley does not wish to second guess him lest Darren tells him to take this job and politely shove it.

    It is very disheartening that Darren does not interject here. If he went to the trouble of conscientiously explaining to me on 2 occasions why he deleted a comment of mine because it violated the civility rule, I can’t understand why he would not explain also these recent deletions.

    I don’t want to believe that Darren is censoring fair criticism of Turley. If there is an innocent and justifiable reason, let’s have it. Silence breeds our contempt, for his non-responsiveness implies that Darren could not care less what we think about his conduct.

    I will have to monitor my contributions from now on to see whether they are summarily deleted. If they continue to be, I will send a certified letter to Turley to formally put him on notice of the apparent censorship here.

    I think EVERYONE here would agree that Turley ought to practice what he preaches (well, I can’t speak for S.Meyer).

    1. I may write him again. The level of bullying here is unhealthy. I know that Turley/Darren will delete comments with the N-word, but they allow many racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, religiously bigoted, and/or ethnically bigoted comments, and they allow group harassment, where several different people use a derogatory name for another commenter. It’s childish, and it’s not remedied here by good speech.

      1. Anonymous says:

        “It’s childish, and it’s not remedied here by good speech.”

        As I have often said, good speech works on good people not bad people, e.g., liars and racists. For bad speakers, additional forms of human expression are needed, i.e., shaming, shunning, ostracizing, etc. None of which is censorship.

        The law allows an injured party to collect damages for defamation for false speech. Neither is that tantamount to censorship. The offending party can continue to defame so long as he keeps paying damages.

        Only when the government passes a law or a regulation restricting certain speech, and fines or jails a violator thereof, now THAT is censorship!

        Unless the government is involved, people are perfectly at liberty to discriminate against bad speech because bad speakers are not a Constitutionally protected class.

        1. I should add, just in case anyone gives a cr*p, that I don’t regard banning someone or deleting comments from this blog as censorship. If he is so thin-shinned, Turley is perfectly free to restrict his blog to those contributors who will not criticize him. I am only complaining about his deleting comments because they did not a violate his own “civility rule”- whatever that vague and arbitrary standard means. His house, his rules, but we both must obey them.

          1. “Turley is perfectly free to restrict his blog to those contributors who will not criticize him.”

            It doesn’t seem that Turley restricts the blog based on criticism of him. If he did, don’t you think, based on your non-stop criticism and at times libel, you would have been banned? Do you not note that sometimes a comment is rightfully removed and all comments below that comment end up gone as well? Don’t you know that the program has an automatic censorship provision, mostly having to do with specific words or phrases?

            You and ATS are not important enough for anyone to consider banning you for political or personal reasons. Amazingly, silliness doesn’t permit you to recognize that fact which demonstrates overblown egos.

              1. Hi Cindy, I’m not in my NYC home so I probably won’t. The Hudson Valley is beautiful as the leaves change color. There is a tremendous variation as one heads north alongside the Hudson. The elevation gets higher and some of the sites are spectacular. Historically one can see the location where Washington was almost captured and the same for the fort that was on the other side. There is history everywhere around NYC from Battery Park, all the boroughs, NJ and north into the Hudson Valley.

                If you are ever there during this time of year (though it sounds like you have already made the trip) it is worthwhile going all the way to Storm King. That is an outside sculpture garden over acres of rolling hills with the largest sculptures I have ever seen that have been placed in a museum (outdoor). Prepare to walk and lounge for hours. Fabulous.

                One year I caught the trees at the perfect time when we arrived and parked. When we left half the leaves were already blown off.

                I am going to miss that because I am not excited about returning to NYC. I never stayed there for more than three weeks at a time and now I want to stay away.

                1. S. Meyer….Thank you so much for the info!.No we never got to visit NYC ( to visit our daughter) in autumn, unfortunately.
                  It is indeed beyond sad about NYC these days!. And it’s so unnecessary! We loved NYC back in the Rudy days and because I was terrified of the subways and the kamikaze cab rides, we walked everywhere. But that was a great way to see Manhattan.
                  I miss those trips. Good to hear from you!

                  1. “we walked everywhere.”

                    When I was young, I didn’t have money for the bus, so I learned to walk. Until I got a lot older, I almost never used a bus, cab and only rarely used a subway. My wife and I would start walking in the morning to Manhattan’s tip and then to the north, going out for breakfast, lunch, and dinner when we rested. We frequently walked 20+ miles a day. At night we would walk back home from the theater, opera or nightclub.

                    If you walk in certain sections and look carefully, you will see the small pocket parks I mentioned at another time. One day I decided to look within a few blocks of my home and found pocket parks that I never knew existed, having walked by them without noticing, dozens of times. Fabulous waterfalls are seen in some. If one walks and pays attention, one will see movies being made, strange things occurring etc. Once, I saw a gathering in China Town and noted that the police weren’t in their positions. I told my wife something strange was happening several blocks away, so we walked over. and watched as the crowd gathered and the police disappeared.

                    The next thing we saw was a line of black limousines headed by a hearse with a gold casket followed by huge limousines of flowers that followed. Then the longest procession of black limousines since Al Capone, perhaps bigger. Those in the cars that one could see looked like people one would not tangle with. The police were totally out of sight, and Chinese people took over their job. The procession seemed to last forever.

                    Go to NYC when the leaves change and drive up to Storm King. Make a reservation long in advance at the culinary institute picking out the type of food you wish to eat before returning to Manhattan. The culinary institute has multiple restaurants generally with fantastic food. To get what you want on the day you want to go, you might have to call months in advance. Top-notch students do everything, whether cooking or serving, and the professors are there because this is a part of their training.

                    1. S. Meyer…….Your “walking days” memories in NY sound absolutely wonderful. and represent a big reason why de Blasio’s and the Democrats’ calculated tearing down of, among other things, NYC physical attributes, is so unforgivable! How dare they cause the destruction of that grand, vibrant and gorgeous city! Not to mention, lost lives!
                      I miss those NYC walking experiences, (which, by design, usually ended at Caffe Reggio on MacDougal!) …….I’m now in a wheelchair, so they will never be replicated. But remembering is such a gift, for which I am grateful.
                      Thank you for the tip about Storm King and about CIA in Hyde Park…… yum!

                    2. “How dare they cause the destruction of that grand, vibrant and gorgeous city! “

                      They do so because they want to make believe they are making the rich pay and have to be like the poor. I actually don’t spend that much in NYC so my activities can be closer to those who are not affluent. One of our best days involved eating in our special expensive bagel and lox place, followed by walking and looking. Lunch in China Town followed by walking and dinner in one of our favorite restaurants that at the time was well known. Dinner included a bottle of wine. Then we saw a fantastic play at the Neil Simon theater, bought two inexpensive presents and went home.

                      The total bill over a decade ago was less than one-hundred dollars for the day. Manhattan can be quite inexpensive for those that aren’t looking for tourist traps and the like. The expensive part of Manhattan is paying for one’s home.

                    3. S Meyer…..your description of one of your “best days” sounded divine….esp bagels and lox and broadway!

        2. “bad speakers are not a Constitutionally protected class.”

          What do you mean “Constitutionally protected class”? All of us are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law and Lady Justice. Other than “mankind”, or, perhaps too narrowly “citizen of the US”, there is no “protected class”. ‘All men are created equal and we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights…”

          Yes, people need to discriminate between what constitutes good and bad speech, otherwise everything is just a fog.

          1. Protected classes: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability.

            You say: “Yes, people need to discriminate between what constitutes good and bad speech, otherwise everything is just a fog.”

            I agree. Turley never underscores this point. He simply encourages more speech where we know it will be useless without additional forms of rightful and legal discrimination.

            1. There shouldn’t be protected classes because that means some pigs are more equal than others.

              1. Rose says:

                “There shouldn’t be protected classes because that means some pigs are more equal than others.”

                Pigs are noble creatures, I’ll have you know.

                Employers are not permitted to do- against these protected classes- what humans normally and rationally do, that is, discriminate because these human traits are not ones chosen- with the exception of religion which is ingrained from birth more than likely. Religious beliefs are not sacrosanct, however. While you can’t discriminate against the individual, but you can discriminate against his beliefs.

  4. “Given what happened when the first round of guest bloggers left JT’s blog, in protest, it’s just not worth the effort. Gotta pick your battles.”

    What in the Sam Hill are you talking about “the first round of guest bloggers left JT’s blog in protest”?

    When was this?

    “Bottom line, Jonathan Turley should be paying attention (and he clearly isn’t) — and fix this problem.”

    I repeat, has anyone ever reported trying to reach out to Turley to determine what is the problem/policy? I don’t want to email him if there is no prospect of a reply. Perhaps, I should stand outside the door of one of his classrooms at GW, but I suspect nowadays one must have an GW ID to gain access to the building!

    1. When I first started commenting here, I was surprised by the level of incivility, especially the group bullying — much of it homophobic — towards a commenter who was posting at the time under the name Seth Warner. I emailed Turley about it, but he didn’t respond. I’ve written Turley a number of times since then (e.g., to report comments threatening violence, to let him know about typos and factual errors in his columns). Usually, there is no response, but a few times, he’s responded to thank me. I wrote twice after a bunch of my comments were deleted for no reason that I could tell. I got no response the first time, and the second time he responded, saying that he didn’t know why my comments were being deleted. He did not attempt to put me in touch with Darren, and my attempts to get a response from Darren here went unanswered. I have not written Turley to complain about Darren’s inconsistent moderation.

      So you may get a brief response. Even if you don’t, it might still be worthwhile for him to hear about the issue. Up to you, of course, whether you want to take the time.

      1. Girls, the ones you talk about, have lives and know how to live them. They don’t waste so much time considering your feelings that are base and ridiculous. Centering your lives on this blog has made the two of you smaller than when you arrived.

        One can only laugh at you two girls talking a lot and saying next to nothing.

  5. Anonymous,

    My initial post which referred to Eastman was NOT in reply to someone else’s comment. So, I don’t believe that your theory holds that my comment was deleted as a result of Darren banning someone else (if I have understood you correctly).

    As far as your suggestion to email Turley, I don’t want to follow him into the bathroom as it were! He knows that his silence is deafening since the ostracizing of Eastman is a repudiation of everything that Turley chants on this blog.

    I have argued that shaming, shunning and ostracizing are Constitutionally protected and necessary reactions to bad speech (in addition to good speech). My complaint is that Turley thinks good speech is sufficient and shaming and shunning are akin to censorship. They are not. People should discriminate against bad speakers; otherwise, how do we reform Neo-Nazis, etc.

    If Turley does not defend Eastman, it could be that he thinks Eastman deserves being made persona non grata. You may recall that I noted that Turley did not come to the defense of Giuliani and Powell when they were found to have perpetrated a fraud in a Michigan district court and accordingly sanctioned. It would appear that Turley is not willing to defend the indefensible unlike a Trumpist.

    1. Jeff,

      In that case, I don’t know why your comment was removed, as it was civil.

      I agree with you that people should discriminate against bad speakers and that Turley isn’t a Trumpist.

      1. Why doesn’t Darren step up to the plate and clarify what is going on?

        The deleting of civil comments is blatant censorship. Have either of you Anonymous people ever emailed Turley to complain about Darren censoring civil comments? If so, did he reply?

        Some of the rightful criticism of Turley still appears, so it would seem that there is no effort to whitewash the record of all criticism. I am perplexed by it all.

        1. Jeff, I responded twice to your comments of Oct 13 7 :45 and 7 :50. they never appeared. And the comments I made were not controversial or vulgar. Here we are 3 days later and still no thread. I am terrible at technology. And I thought maybe I had posted in some form non compliance. . I am not saying that I have proof that this blog is not censored .But in some cases it could be a technical error.
          Although there are some here that I will not respond to because I do not respect them, and their replies are more ideological rants, than rebuttals, you are not one of them.
          Please think twice before leaving the blog. Some might celebrate that. I would not. And we are obviously on different sides of the aisle. But I think the whole reason for this blog is to initiate
          interaction between those who view the same set of circumstances through a different lens.

          1. Paul, comments do sometimes fail to post. This can occur because of tech glitches, WordPress word filters, or a person having been blocked by Darren. That’s distinct from the issue that Jeff is discussing, where comments appear and are later deleted by Darren.

            1. Ok thanks. I am deeply disappointed if anyone is censoring legitimate arguments. I hope that is not the case. I will attribute my problems to tech glitches. I don’t know what the criteria is for censoring here. I would hope that it is not biased. If it is it would be the death knell for my participation.

              1. Paul says:

                “I am deeply disappointed if anyone is censoring legitimate arguments. I hope that is not the case.”

                It seems there are different opinions on that point. I doubt that is the case, but civil comments definitely have been deleted. Darren’s silence doesn’t help clarify matters. You would think he would have something to add but sadly no.

              2. Paul, I am not a Liberal. I have had some of my comments deleted for multiple reasons based on glitches, copyright (apparently copied too much of an article), responding to a thread where another name is removed, etc. I have also had problems entering my name and address for automatic management by WordPress.

                I don’t believe for a second that any of this is political. I don’t think Darren is intentionally doing things to aid one group or any individual persons. The problem, based on what I have seen, is due to WordPress or human error. It seems that when Liberals don’t get their way, they always have to blame someone else. Professor Turley has been criticized, insulted and IMO libeled by Jeff, yet his comments seem to flow without difficulty. Anonymous can’t complain because he is anonymous, and I think the blog had problems with some people that later used the anonymous icon.

                I provide a signature and a distinct icon so that you can see that both sides of the aisle are functioning under the same rules. Rule of Law is important to Turley and those considered conservatives on this blog.

              3. Paul,

                As you may know, I won’t engage with S.Meyer, but I would like to inform you that I have indicated that I am skeptical that Turley has instructed Darren to censor unflattering comments. Others here have made that express charge, not I.

                My complaint is that there has been no innocent explanation shared by Darren to account for these deletions. I have stated that I was gratified that he had explained to me in the past why a couple of my comments were removed on account of my violation of the admittedly capricious and arbitrary “civility rule.”

                It would be swell if Darren felt it behooved him to do so again to quell suspicious minds.

          2. I concur with Anonymous. Sometimes WordPress eats comments. Sometimes there are weird delays (I accidentally double-crossed because of this). I try to copy my replies before I post them in case WordPress is hungry. Sometimes I type my responses elsewhere and copy/paste because glitches have gobbled up what I write.

          3. If I don’t leave, Paul, I would stick around on your account and a couple of others here. I must say that I am getting tired of the fact that Turley is embarrassingly silent about more pressing free speech matters in the news, e.g. John Eastman, while dredging up trivial criminal incidents for our attention. He needs to comment and take a stand on news which is unflattering to Trumpists instead of selectively looking for issues which appeal to them. I have noted several matters which Turley has evaded discussing. Disappointing.

            1. Jeff, I am going to take that as a “yes” that you are staying. But unless you feel that Turley/ Darrin are censoring statements that seem to be unfavorable to their position, and I have stated this before ,it is Turley’s blog. He gets to determine the subjects chosen and have the ” first word”. That is never going to change. I am not on any other blog. Is it common for the ” blog owner” to engage with those who contribute to the blog? In other words Turley never intends to have the ” last word”. This is not like Twitter where there is sometimes a back and forth with the ” author”. My understanding is that Turley chooses a subject matter, rooted in law, states how he would interpret possible legal implications, and allows others to voice their OPINIONS. No one else gets to choose the subject matter. If you think that constitutes some form of hypocrisy, we have a very different interpretation of that word. The same principle that you use to defend ” little brother” ( Big Tech for instance ) applies here. Like Twitter, Facebook etc., Turley gets to set the parameters. And as I have said many times before, sometimes those ” rules” are not applied equally. But the retort of yourself and many others has always been, ” they are private entities, the 1st Amendment does not apply, if you don’t like the rules, don’t use the platform”.
              I want you to stay. But if the fact that Turley gets to set the rules, choose the subject matter ON HIS BLOG, is a daily frustration to you, maybe it is not for the best.
              Be well

              1. Paul says:

                “is Turley’s blog. He gets to determine the subjects chosen and have the ” first word”. That is never going to change.”

                Right. Turley can censor who he wants. It’s his blog. No problem except that he claims to be a free speech advocate.

                You say:

                “My understanding is that Turley chooses a subject matter, rooted in law, states how he would interpret possible legal implications, and allows others to voice their OPINIONS. No one else gets to choose the subject matter. If you think that constitutes some form of hypocrisy.”

                No problem again. Turley is free to choose what topics to post. It is not necessarily hypocritical for Turley to ignore stories which are right down his “free speech alley,” e.g., the banning of Giuliani and Powell on Fox News and the termination and ostracizing of Trumpist Professor John Eastman. It would be hypocritical to ignore these stories IF and ONLY IF if he thought that these lawyers weren’t being “cancelled” or censored. BUT it could be that Turley thinks these lawyers SHOULD BE ignored on account of their Trumpist lies in which case he should SAY so. Because of his silence, we can’t know what Turley thinks which is deplorable.

                I am inclined to stay just to deprive the Trumpists here the smug satisfaction of driving me off with their gratuitous attacks.

                    1. You reactively respond to comments by the multiple people you address as “ATS.” If you find reactive responses objectionable, then control your own.

                    2. “You reactively respond to comments by the multiple people you address as “ATS.” If you find reactive responses objectionable, then control your own.”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, yes, I react to your Stupidity, lies, deception, and the continuous blame game you play. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid. You have worked hard to earn that title, so I don’t think you will ever lose it.

                    3. No, Allan, you regularly address more than one person as “ATS.” You use it in response to me and also in response to many comments that I didn’t write.

                      As always, your insults are projection.

                    4. “more than one person as “ATS.”

                      While errors can occasionally be made, the bulk of the postings are spot on. I don’t think it adds or subtracts anything when someone is acting exactly like you or your pretend friends.

                      What I say about you is true. Anyone interested can verify it by reading a few older posts.

                      Your Stupidity is a choice.

                      It is yours. Live with it.

                    5. I’m more intelligent than you are Allan, though that’s not a very high bar. Your errors are frequent, and you continue to describe yourself.

                    6. “I’m more intelligent than you”

                      You deceive and are a trickster as explained just a short while ago. I am confident of my intelligence because I do not rely on tricks or deception. You are not. That is why you keep announcing to the world that you are smarter than me.

                      If that were true, then you would be super smart and not need tricks. Relying on tricks reduces your intellectual capacity. When I taught my children who have all become very successful experts in their fields, I did not let them rely on tricks, and I made them use a losing hand to make them work harder.

                    7. Allan, the only reason I periodically point out that I’m smarter than you are is because you falsely claim almost daily that I’m “stupid.” Count up the number of times that you’ve called me “stupid” versus the number of times I’ve pointed out that I’m smart than you, and you’ll find that the former is a MUCH larger number than the latter.

                      I don’t rely on “tricks,” despite your false claim that I do. Your biased opinions are not fact.

                    8. “Allan, the only reason I periodically point out that I’m smarter than you are is because”

                      Your reasons are better portrayed by what I have said. You have a problem. That is obvious. You want to prove yourself but you can’t do it with trickery and lying. Long ago you took the wrong fork in the road and instead of turning back to use the right one, you continued ahead full steam.

                1. Jeff, nobody can ” drive you off” . You can only leave of your own accord.
                  I am not going to reiterate my two posts relating to your statements of Oct. 13th at 7:45 and 7:50 that did not appear in their entirety. Just want to give you a snippet.
                  You say ” If parents don’t like the curriculum, they should pull their children out of that school”. That would only leave them with the choices of private school. Which many cannot afford. And homeschooling which many are not able to do. Sounds like a great argument for school choice/ vouchers.
                  Are you in favor of that?

                  1. Paul says:

                    “You say ” If parents don’t like the curriculum, they should pull their children out of that school”. That would only leave them with the choices of private school. Which many cannot afford. And homeschooling which many are not able to do. Sounds like a great argument for school choice/ vouchers.
                    Are you in favor of that?”

                    Honestly, I don’t know the pros and cons. My understanding is that vouchers divert funds from underfunded public schools, but I confess I have not studied the issue.

                    1. Jeff, the pros would be that like in anything from sports to basic capitalism, competition in almost all cases promotes a higher level of success. The cons are that failing schools and teacher’s unions would not be able to continue to waste vast amounts of taxpayer money to produce inferior results. ( sarcasm intentional).

                    2. Paul says sarcastically:

                      “the pros would be that like in anything from sports to basic capitalism, competition in almost all cases promotes a higher level of success. The cons are that failing schools and teacher’s unions would not be able to continue to waste vast amounts of taxpayer money to produce inferior results. ( sarcasm intentional).”

                      You certainly have swallowed the Conservative narratives hook, line and sinker. The question is whether these propositions are factual or mere propaganda. No doubt, you still buy the Conservative narrative of the “Trickle Down” economic theory or its insistence that man-made global warming is a Liberal scientific conspiracy theory or that Intelligent Design is responsible for complex life as opposed to pure Evolution.

                      I’m not convinced that our school system should be subject to the inexorable “sink or swim” rules of Capitalism nor do I share the Conservative’s antipathy for unions in general and teachers’ unions in particular. So, I must demur accepting your conclusions until I have considered the arguments from both sides. As a lawyer, it is incumbent to suspend judgment until I have investigated the matter fully, but at the moment I am pre-occupied.

                    3. They interfere with self-governance because the people paying the taxes have no real representation when it comes to how the money is spent.

                      Parents/community members can work to fix the curriculum at their public school. Those are their schools.

                    4. Prairie, that sounds good, but is a far cry from representing the reality that we face.

                    5. Rose says:

                      “Parents/community members can work to fix the curriculum at their public school. Those are their schools.”

                      No one is depriving parents the opportunity to voice their opinion, but there is a right way and a wrong way. Some of these parents are far too aggressive and threatening. If the school board does not heed their advice, vote them out.

                    6. Rose says:

                      “Parents are starting to come together.”

                      Who would not have become so agitated but for the rage provocateurs on Fox News, Newsmax, Infowars and Rightwing Talk Radio. It’s not unlike the Astroturfing which led to the Tea Party movement. Ginning up irrational fear by talk show hosts in a bid to boost their ratings. Fear sells.

                    7. If parents are starting to come together after all this time, then we will all be dead before we see any significant movement.

                    8. Jeff,
                      Those folks make for good media, though, perhaps such things are a problem in their districts. Those aren’t the only things that have parents upset–weak curriculum, excess focus on standardized tests, data mining are three that come to mind.

                    9. Rose says:

                      “Those aren’t the only things that have parents upset–weak curriculum, excess focus on standardized tests, data mining are three that come to mind.”

                      You left out parents’ irrational histrionic school board demonstrations about the fear of CRT brainwashing! I’m sure there are good faith arguments on both sides of all these issues. What I am concerned about are the abject lies by the Rightwing Rage provocateur Mark Levin and the Fox News Prime Time hosts who claim that CRT is Communism. Parents are being deliberately misinformed by these Trumpists who are intent upon fomenting rage among their listeners in order to sell their books and increase their audience share.

                      Facebook is being taken to task for amplifying hateful speech on its platform because it works to keep consumers more engaged, Hate Radio figured that out a long time ago. Hate and fear sells.

                    10. “What I am concerned about are the abject lies by the Rightwing Rage provocateur Mark Levin”

                      What are his lies?

                      You make accusations and are never able to back them up. You are an empty shell who learned how to use the English language to make you think you are intelligent, but based on your answers, you are not.

                    11. Jeff,
                      Most of the parents around here are furious over the mask mandates. We’ve had a few older people come speak about CRT, but mostly it’s the edict by the state (right after the district decided to leave the choice of making up to the individual).

                      People should be against CRT and other such nonsense in schools. However, if that isn’t the problem where they live, then they need to notice what is. The mask mandate around here is, but, there are plenty of other problems. They should be more upset with the excess focus on tests, the creeping reductionist view of education, and the data-mining.

                    12. Rose says:

                      “People should be against CRT and other such nonsense in schools.”

                      CRT is not communism. That’s a false narrative not unlike the claim that Natural Selection cannot explain human anatomical complexity which produced this anti-science theory of Intelligent Design which a lot of Evangelical parents wanted taught in the classroom. So you will forgive me if I am cynical about what Conservative and MAGA parents want to be taught in school.

                      You may recall that Turley stated not too long ago in the midst of the Rightwing manufactured hysteria over CRT that he thought CRT valuable to be taught even if he did not agree entirely with all its teachings.

                    13. Jeff S.,
                      “there is a right way and a wrong way. Some of these parents are far too aggressive and threatening.”

                      I agree. Civil discussion and lots of questions would be best. However, there is a right way and a wrong way for school boards to respond. I think some school board members and administrators out there could do with treating the parents and community members with more respect, too. It is a two-way street.

                    14. You say:

                      “I agree. Civil discussion and lots of questions would be best. However, there is a right way and a wrong way for school boards to respond. I think some school board members and administrators out there could do with treating the parents and community members with more respect, too. It is a two-way street.”

                      Absolutely, I agree. I wish more individuals on this forum were as fair-minded and agreeable as you are. With you, I am able to engage in civil and profitable discussions!

                    15. Thank you for the kind words, Jeff. I enjoy such conversations with you and so many others, too!

                    16. Jeff,
                      “this anti-science theory of Intelligent Design which a lot of Evangelical parents wanted taught in the classroom. So you will forgive me if I am cynical about what Conservative and MAGA parents want to be taught in school.”

                      You are conflating things. Not all conservatives or Trump supporters are Evangelical, nor are they all young-Earthers, nor do they all want Intelligent Design taught in the classroom. Some do, but a subset does not equal the whole.

                    17. Rose says:

                      “You are conflating things. Not all conservatives or Trump supporters are Evangelical, nor are they all young-Earthers, nor do they all want Intelligent Design taught in the classroom. Some do, but a subset does not equal the whole.”

                      Of course. I am speaking generally. I have been hearing that much of the rumpus going on at school board meetings has been drummed up by activists well-funded by Dark Money groups. This is not a conspiracy theory because it is perfectly legal and legitimate for PAC’s to promote certain causes. But it is worth noting that this movement is part of the larger culture war which is designed to steer people to vote for Republican candidates who are being supported by these same Dark Money groups. Democrats also have Dark Money too. All I’m saying is that it is no coincidence that these protests fed by false narratives have sprung up suddenly all over this country!

                  2. Paul, re: your claim that “like in anything from sports to basic capitalism, competition in almost all cases promotes a higher level of success,” it’s only true that it promotes higher success at the top. Does competition in sports, for example, improve the sports ability of, say, the 50% of the population who are not as good at sports? If you have data on that, I’d love to see it, as I doubt it. Because this is the key difference between sports and K-12 education: the goal is for all of our kids (except perhaps some of those at the low end in special education) to be proficient or better in standard subjects and for all of them to develop what educators sometimes call a “self-extending system” for learning (meaning that they’re able to continue learning on their own — that they have the necessary baseline skills, they have dispositions such as perseverance, they have the desire to learn more). If wealthier parents segregate their kids out via private schools and more education-engaged parents segregate their kids out via charter schools, then it becomes less likely that the remaining schools will provide well for all of their students, as a lot of the parents who are more likely to push for improvement no longer care what happens in those schools, since their own kids are elsewhere.

                    1. My short answer is this. Most wealthier parents already segregate their children out of public schools. See hypocrites Newsom and McAuliffe for example. And like most things run by tax payer dollars, take any governmental agency as opposed to the private sector, those entities never perform as well as those in the private sector. Why? Because there is no profit motive or in many cases no case for dismissal due to lack of expertise, effort or efficiently. The test scores and G.P.A of the private schools have far outpaced those of the public schools forever, I am not saying that their is no need for public schools. But with the possible exception of charter schools, no parent with an I.Q above room temperature would CHOOSE to send their child to a public school over a private one
                      With vouchers there would be competition and more accountability. That cannot be a bad thing..

                    2. Paul, instead of arguing for “competition and more accountability” via vouchers, I think we’d be better off if people invested that energy in improving accountability in all public schools and also in improving teacher preparation and professional development.

                      I don’t believe that if you “take any governmental agency as opposed to the private sector, those entities never perform as well as those in the private sector.” I think that’s a facile overgeneralization. Which has done better in space exploration: NASA and public universities or private companies? Which would you prefer: a public justice/court system or a private one (where the wealthy could buy their way out even more than they do now)? Do you think private industry would create a better road system than was built publicly? How would you break up a business monopoly without the government? Do you want to privatize the military? Which does better at protecting the environment: the government or the private sector? …

                      Even focusing on education, are you going to claim that the best private universities in the US are better than the best public ones? (For example, is Harvard better than UC Berkeley?) Are the best private high schools better than the best public ones?

                    3. Anonymous,

                      Whoever you are, I’m glad you have my back against Paul. I’d like to thank you personally. Now, go get ‘im!

                      Paul, it’s 2 against 1 just to even the odds!

                    4. “Paul, re: your claim that “like in anything from sports to basic capitalism, competition in almost all cases promotes a higher level of success,” it’s only true that it promotes higher success at the top.”

                      ATS this fits in with a similar statement of yours that you later denied. At that time you said fascism is good for the little people. Here you are indicating capitalism is only good for the top people, not good for the little people, but according to your prior statement, fascism is good for the little people.

                      Read Thomas Sowell’s autobiography.

                    5. Allan / S. Meyer, only an ignorant and/or dishonest person would read “Paul, re: your claim that “like in anything from sports to basic capitalism, competition in almost all cases promotes a higher level of success,” it’s only true that it promotes higher success at the top” and equate it with “capitalism is only good for the top people, not good for the little people.”

                      This is one of your trolling strategies: distort what someone argued and attack them for your distortion rather than what they actually said.

                      Another of your trolling strategies in evidence here is: Make up claims about what someone did in the past without ever linking to any evidence for your claim.

                    6. Anonymous the Stupid, why don’t you let us know what the distortion is?

                      You once said fascism is good for the little people. Here you are indicating capitalism is only good for the top people, not good for the little people, but according to your prior statement, fascism is good for the little people.

                      I brought that comment up on several occasions and I believe provided it and the linkage. At that time you tried to deny it was yours, but the arguments linked it to you.

                      You are always trying to blame another Anonymous figure, frequently your pretend friends. However, anyone can look at the similarities of the present comment you admit to, and your comment about fascism that occurred at a much earlier date.

                    7. Anonymous, Site will not let me reply to your comment of Oct 16, 2:52.
                      In my opinion the ” investment of improving accountability, teacher preparation and professional development” would be much better served by the use of vouchers rather than the current failing system of public schools.
                      And I don’t get the space exploration comparison. Until very recently there has not been any private entities involved in space exploration and to my knowledge no universities public or private have put a rocket into space. So I guess NASA. But even then, the space vehicles were built by private companies. Not the government. And I am sure those companies had to past muster. And were probably the result of competitive bidding. Competition.
                      And our roads, bridges, legitimate infrastructure back to the Hoover Dam were all built by private companies. Not governmental agencies. Privatize the military? Probably not .But after seeing the Afghanistan debacle I might want to give it some thought. Can’t imagine that a privately held company could have done worse. And here I am speaking about the leadership. Not the men and women who put their lives on the line for their country.
                      Court systems, no way. that involves taking away someone’s liberty. But would I rather have my lawyer be a Harvard grad than from some public university. Absolutely!! You would pick the UC Berkeley guy/ girl over the Harvard guy/girl assuming for example both people graduated at the top of their respective classes?
                      Nothing is fool proof, but there must be a reason that the Harvard guy would most likely be more sought after by the top law firms over the Berkeley guy or don’t you think that is true?
                      And as far as high schools are concerned, I will restate. I find it hard to believe that given the CHOICE very many parents would choose public over private. If that were true, who would choose to pay for something inferior or equal as opposed to getting something equal or superior, for free? NOBODY!!
                      I am not saying that we don’t need the government to do certain things. I am not an anarchist. I totally agree in things like the environment, Anti trust laws, things of that nature. But as far as education, I simply think in this case, competition would make things better.

                    8. Anonymous,

                      Paul says, “But as far as education, I simply think in this case, competition would make things better.”

                      I’ll let you take this since you are, I hate to say it, more schooled than I on this subject matter. Odds are that PAUL is wrong; that’s what’s so Right about him!

                      I don’t want to get between the two of you duking this out. I’ll sit wide-eyed on the sidelines.

                    9. Thanks whoever you are for coming to my aid. I knew there was another side to this debate. I suspected that the reason Liberals objected to vouchers was on account of the fact that it would worsen the already deplorable state of too many urban public schools and the indifference of the wealthier parents to the plight of those schools once abandoned.

                    10. Paul,

                      Re: “Anonymous, Site will not let me reply to your comment of Oct 16, 2:52.” yes, the commenting system here indents a reply, then double-indents a reply to a reply, etc., and the system only allows a certain number of indentations before it stops including reply links, though it’s still possible to reply via emails. What you did works fine for me.

                      Re: “In my opinion the ” investment of improving accountability, teacher preparation and professional development” would be much better served by the use of vouchers rather than the current failing system of public schools,” I certainly understand that choice, but I reject that those are the only two possibilities. What I prefer and believe is possible is a good system of public schools for all. We already have good public schools for some.

                      “I don’t get the space exploration comparison.”

                      I wasn’t thinking solely of putting ships into space, but also carrying out research. My impression is that most astronomy research is carried out by governments and public and private universities, not other private businesses.

                      “even then, the space vehicles were built by private companies. Not the government.”

                      And our public schools use many curricular materials published by for-profit companies. So maybe what we’re debating is public-private partnerships versus private alone.

                      “You would pick the UC Berkeley guy/ girl over the Harvard guy/girl assuming for example both people graduated at the top of their respective classes? Nothing is fool proof, but there must be a reason that the Harvard guy would most likely be more sought after by the top law firms over the Berkeley guy or don’t you think that is true?”

                      I don’t know who is more sought after by top law firms, though we could try to look it up. Personally, I would be equally happy with either, other things being equal. I went to a different Ivy League as an undergrad (not a legacy admit, I was the first in my family to graduate from college) and got one of my grad degrees from UCB, and I consider both excellent universities. Also, for me, the quality of a university isn’t solely in how competitive its graduates are, but the quality of the research that the faculty produce. I also realized that there are really 3 kinds of schools here: public, non-profit private and for-profit private. I would absolutely choose a Berkeley grad over a grad from the best for-profit law school.

                      Would you agree that there are lots of mediocre private colleges? My guess is that the flagship public university in each state is better than the majority of the private universities in that state.

                    11. Anonymous says:

                      “Personally, I would be equally happy with either, other things being equal. I went to a different Ivy League as an undergrad (not a legacy admit, I was the first in my family to graduate from college) and got one of my grad degrees from UCB, and I consider both excellent universities.”

                      I also was not a legacy admission at an Ivy League school. The University of California School of law, Boalt Hall, ranks in the top 10 consistently. I couldn’t get in; but I managed to be accepted at the UCLA School of Law which ranks in the top 20! But I opted to go to my State’s public law school because I wanted to practice law in my home State. If you graduate near the top of your class in most law schools, you will have little problem getting a good job offer though your Supreme Court aspirations are dashed unless you go to Yale or Harvard!

                    12. “You once said fascism is good for the little people.”

                      No, Allan / S. Meyer, I didn’t. This is just another of your lies. You assert this, but provide evidence — no link to any comment of mine.

                      “Here you are indicating capitalism is only good for the top people,”

                      No, Allan, learn to pay attention to details. What I said was “Paul, re: your claim that “like in anything from sports to basic capitalism, competition in almost all cases promotes a higher level of success,” it’s only true that it promotes higher success at the top.”

                      First, it is a claim about the *relative* impact (what is “higher”), not about what is “good” in any broader sense. Second, competition in capitalism is generally between businesses, not between people, so it wasn’t even a comment about people, much less about what is good for people. Third, does competition among businesses lead to a “higher level of success” for “almost all” businesses? No. Many companies go out of business (Lending Tree: “According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 20% of U.S. small businesses fail within the first year. By the end of their fifth year, roughly 50% have faltered. After 10 years, only around a third of businesses have survived.”) I still believe in capitalism, but I disagree that “competition in almost all cases promotes a higher level of success.” But you have such a warped view of me that you twist what I said and meant into something that I didn’t say and don’t believe, because you are looking for reasons to attack me. I truly feel sorry for you.

                    13. “No, Allan / S. Meyer, I didn’t. This is just another of your lies.”

                      We have had this discussion before. If I recall correctly, on one occasion, you admitted that Anonymous made the statement while at the same time blaming it on another Anonymous. There was enough linkage in that discussion that it was doubtful another Anonymous suddenly entered and provided that statement.

                      You have taken the name Anonymous with its benefits and its drawbacks. No one can prove it was you, but you can’t prove it wasn’t you. History tells us that you blame many of your statements on others using pretend friends to lie on your behalf. We know better.

                      Regarding capitalism, you stated: “it’s only true that it promotes higher success at the top.” You can use all the words you want, but we get the meaning right away, and that coincides with the comment on fascism. In other words, fascism is good for the little people, and capitalism is good for the people at the top. I think you have said enough. Your explanations are word games and not to be taken seriously.

                    14. Once again, Allan, you’ve provided NO evidence for your claim about fascism.

                      “Regarding capitalism, you stated: “it’s only true that it promotes higher success at the top.””

                      Geez, work on your reading skills! The word “it” referred to “competition”:

                      “Paul, re: your claim that “like in anything from sports to basic capitalism, competition in almost all cases promotes a higher level of success,” it’s only true that it promotes higher success at the top.”

                      Paul’s claim was “competition in almost all cases promotes a higher level of success.”
                      My claim was “it [i.e., competition] promotes higher success at the top.”

                      Competition among businesses does not promote higher success for almost all businesses. It promotes higher success at the top, and lots of other businesses go out of business. Competition in sports does not promote higher success in sports for almost all people. It promotes higher success at the top, and many other people choose not to play any sports at all or play a bit for fun but not particularly well.

                      You are so astoundingly desperate to condemn me that you will twist anything I say. You truly do project your own faults onto others.

                    15. “Once again, Allan, you’ve provided NO evidence for your claim about fascism.”

                      I provided all the evidence needed. Those with long memories will remember. The others who know you by Anonymous already know about your game and your anonymous friends. They can read behind the lines of your most recent posts involving capitalism (good for the top) and see how that directly relates to fascism (good for the bottom)

                      You can keep arguing from now to whenever, but you can’t prove a thing about past remarks, which is your intention, so you can say all the Anonymous the Stupid comments you wish while blaming someone else.

                      “Geez, work on your reading skills! ”

                      I will not play with your deception of twisting words, biting at the periphery and removing ideas from the context of a discussion. I am taking your statements based on the context of the debate and not dealing with your attempted deception and deflection.

                      “Paul’s claim was “competition in almost all cases promotes a higher level of success.”
                      My claim was “it [i.e., competition] promotes higher success at the top. ”

                      There are many ways one can twist an idea, even if it is counter-productive. Paul dealt with the concept that capitalism provided competition which creates a “higher lever of success” What you like, fascism/socialism, depends on the knowledge and ideas of individuals in government. We can look at the last one-hundred years. Which was more successful, capitalism or socialism/fascism?

                      Our schools are terrible. Why? No competition. We pay for failure. In NYC, charter schools had to compete and prove themselves better. They brought wild success to the inner cities while those of your ilk, seeing that the public schools’ success and failure wish to close the charter schools down.

                      Deal with the subject matter, capitalism vs. socialism.

                      “Competition among businesses does not promote higher success for almost all businesses. ”

                      None of the Soviet “socialist” experiences promoted higher success. Compare its economy to the US. But you will say before you see the results that socialism (or fascism) is good for the little guy. You are a fool. I don’t call you a fool for your ideological position rather a fool for the way you present yourself as a trickster and a liar.

                    16. “CHOOSE to send their child to a public school over a private one”

                      Depends upon where you live. If most of the people in a district are plenty smart and have high expectations for an awesome education, the schools will reflect that.

                    17. “the indifference of the wealthier parents to the plight of those schools once abandoned.”

                      And community members. You’d think they’d want their tax dollars spent in the best possible way to make sure people are well-educated for the future. People have lost sight of what an effective self-governing person ought to know. A classical liberal education used to be the aim. I went to a very good public school that taught this way. That was before NCLB really started destroying education.

                    18. ” You’d think they’d want their tax dollars spent in the best possible way to make sure people are well-educated for the future. “

                      Prairie, it seems you are looking for an answer that makes rational sense to you. I think Charles Krauthammer provides part of the answer to that question in his lecture Decline is a Choice. Many of us heard that years ago when it was first given but another blog member posted the lecture, and I will post it again. There is no need to listen to the introduction except to know more about Krauthammer.

                      It’s a catchy title that says a lot. It is a title that can be remembered long after listening to the lecture.

                    19. Allan / S. Meyer, your hypocrisy is once again on display. When Enigma made a claim about you, you insisted “Enigma, if you think I have made something up, quote it.” But you will not quote or link to the claim you insist I made, but that’s a figment of your imagination. You cannot link to it.

                      “you can’t prove a thing about past remarks”

                      Sure I can. For example, I can prove that in a past remark, you posted your comment under the name “S. Meyer” but signed it “Allan”.

                      How can I prove this? By linking to it:
                      https://jonathanturley.org/2021/05/09/happy-mothers-day-8/#comment-2088607

                      It’s quite easy to prove things about past remarks by linking to them. Anyone who wants to can do it. Yet you consistently run away from doing that in your claims about me. Because your claims about me are false.

                      Your insults continue to describe you.

                    20. “Allan / S. Meyer, your hypocrisy is once again on display. When Enigma made a claim about you, you insisted “Enigma, if you think I have made something up, quote it.” But you will not quote or link to the claim you insist I made, but that’s a figment of your imagination. You cannot link to it.”

                      You and Enigma have plenty of time to copy anything I write in the present. I almost always answer, though when the comment has been removed, I might not. My comment about your fascist likings was debated at the time and several times since. You blamed your anonymous comment on another, when one could say your comments very strongly appeared to be coming from you based on the writing style and the discussion. I am not bringing up things that weren’t discussed at the time.

                      Enigma lied because unless his post was deleted, I answered every post he directed against me. More than once, his comments, which now embarrass him, were copied either with a link or in quotes or substance.

                      Like all your arguments, you are trying to create doubt that is very difficult to disprove. You say a few positive on-point things that are mostly false, misleading, or outright lies.

                      “I can prove that in a past remark, you posted your comment under the name “S. Meyer” but signed it “Allan”.”

                      I never denied such a statement. In fact, I explained the change, and when significant confusion occurred amongst the people I favored, I frequently told them that both names were mine and explained the reason for the problem. My sign-in Allan name was used at the same time S. Meyer was used because of issues with WordPress.

                      It would help if you considered that the name might be Allan S. Meyer. Some refer to me as Seth, which others constructed through who knows what the S stands for.

                      In summary, your proof is something admitted to time and time again in writing by me and by the WordPress signature. You stake your claim of being a super sleuth on that issue that a 5-year-old could figure out. Anyone with common sense would realize how this example demonstrates how wrong you are here and elsewhere.

                      (By the way, I signed my name Allan for Mother’s Day to Cindy, wanting to make sure she got the personal message.

                    21. “Allan, none of your response addresses my point: your claim that “you can’t prove a thing about past remarks” is absolutely false; it’s quite easy to prove things about past remarks by linking to them.”

                      Again, you miss the point. I cannot prove that you are the anonymous in question. I can only take an educated guess. You have pretend friends and, at times, even used specific icons.

                      Of course, if I wanted, I could plow through the different topics and find your comment. I can even show where you blamed that comment on another anonymous. I can’t prove that all are the same person, even though my likelihood of being correct is exceptionally high.

                      You thrive being Anonymous, but at the same time, you die being Anonymous because you have no credibility, personhood or anything of use.

                    22. Allan, none of your response addresses my point: your claim that “you can’t prove a thing about past remarks” is absolutely false; it’s quite easy to prove things about past remarks by linking to them.

                      You keep insisting that I made a very specific claim in the past, but you provide no evidence that I said it. It’s just your evidenceless assertion.

                      You don’t link to evidence because I never said what you claim. You simply aren’t honest enough to admit it.

                      “My comment about your fascist likings was debated at the time and several times since.”

                      You keep asserting that. But you never prove it. You cannot prove it, because it’s a figment of your imagination.

                    23. “Allan, none of your response addresses my point: your claim that “you can’t prove a thing about past remarks” is absolutely false; it’s quite easy to prove things about past remarks by linking to them. ”
                      That would be true if your context were correct, but you took the phrase out of context. In other words, you lied and are trying to deceive others—typical of you acting like your namesake, Anonymous the Stupid.

                      The context had to do with the origination of the remark. As I clearly stated: “I cannot prove that you are the anonymous in question. I can only take an educated guess.”

                      Earlier in response to “Once again, Allan, you’ve provided NO evidence for your claim about fascism.” My claim was you originated the statement that fascism was good for the little guy.
                      I provided all the evidence needed. Those with long memories will remember. The others who know you by Anonymous already know about your game and your anonymous friends. They can read behind the lines of your most recent posts involving capitalism (good for the top) and see how that directly relates to fascism (good for the bottom)
                      You can keep arguing from now to whenever, but you can’t prove a thing about past remarks, which is your intention, so you can say all the Anonymous the Stupid comments you wish while blaming someone else.

                      Now it is back in context and you remain Stupid.

                    24. “Again, you miss the point. I cannot prove that you are the anonymous in question. I can only take an educated guess.”

                      I agree.

                      The thing is: you haven’t proved that **anyone** said something like “fascism is good for the little people.” Frankly, I can imagine Elvis Bug or perhaps someone else saying something like that as a joke, but it’s hard for me to imagine anyone here saying that seriously. I’m curious to see the exchange in which someone said that.

                      “Of course, if I wanted, I could plow through the different topics and find your comment. I can even show where you blamed that comment on another anonymous.”

                      So do it. Prove that those comments actually exist instead of simply alleging them over and over.

                    25. The thing is: you haven’t proved that **anyone** said something like “fascism is good for the little people.”

                      I did that after the comment was made, but you forget. You want to run away from the Stupid things you say so you use the name, Anonymous, and then complain.

                    26. “Allan, none of your response addresses my point: your claim that “you can’t prove a thing about past remarks” is absolutely false; it’s quite easy to prove things about past remarks by linking to them. ”
                      That would be true if your context were correct, but you took the phrase out of context. In other words, you lied and are trying to deceive others—typical of you acting like your namesake, Anonymous the Stupid.

                      The context had to do with the origination of the remark. As I clearly stated: “I cannot prove that you are the anonymous in question. I can only take an educated guess.”

                      Earlier in response to “Once again, Allan, you’ve provided NO evidence for your claim about fascism.” My claim was you originated the statement that fascism was good for the little guy.
                      I provided all the evidence needed.

                      Allan, you said “you can’t prove a thing about past remarks” at 10:10 AM. You said “I cannot prove that you are the anonymous in question. I can only take an educated guess.” at 4:21 PM. If by the former you meant the latter, then you should have said the latter from the get-go, because the former isn’t nearly as clear, and I didn’t understand when I read the former that you meant the latter. I already said that I agree with you about the latter.

                      The fact remains: one can prove a great many things about past remarks, including that they were made. One can do this by linking to an actual comment.

                      So far, you have not provided evidence that ANYONE said “fascism is good for the little people”/”fascism was good for the little guy.” All you’ve done is allege that someone said it. Your allegation is not evidence.

                      You claim “if I wanted, I could plow through the different topics and find your comment. I can even show where you blamed that comment on another anonymous.”

                      So do it!

                      Find the comment where someone other than you is saying “fascism is good for the little people.”

                      Prove that those comments actually exist instead of simply alleging them over and over.

                      It’s not that hard to find comments that include the word “fascism.” Here’s an example:
                      https://jonathanturley.org/2021/06/25/blow-up-republicans-unc-wilmington-professor-triggers-firestorm-with/comment-page-2/#comment-2101895
                      But clearly that’s not the exchange you’re alleging. So present the one you ARE alleging.

                    27. “Allan, you said, “you can’t…”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, you are repeating yourself and clouding the issue with former, latter, former, latter. I provided the quotes in sequence and told what was provable and what I believed. You prefer ‘former’ or ‘latter.’ You don’t know what you are talking about.

                      I cannot provide absolute proof that you made the dumb remark, but I could prove it as a substantial likelihood. You showed how easy it is to find the word fascism, so you should be able to find that word concerning the anonymous person in question, which so happens to be you.

                      You said fascism is good for the little people and even denied saying so in a later discussion. To my recollection, that quote was referenced three times or more, so that should make it easier for you to find.

                      I don’t have to look for it. Your comment on capitalism further demonstrates that your statement that fascism is good for the little people is even more likely. All one has to do is listen to you and your nonsense to see that you will lie, cheat or steal to get what you want. Keep it up because every response you make proves my contentions.

                      SM

                    28. “I cannot provide absolute proof that you made the dumb remark, but I could prove it as a substantial likelihood.”

                      Then do it!

                      All I’m asking you to prove right now is that an anonymous commenter said “fascism is good for the little people”/”fascism was good for the little guy” — prove it by linking to the comment. All you’ve done is allege that an anonymous commenter said it. Stop d*cking around and link to it already.

                      “you should be able to find that word concerning the anonymous person in question”

                      I looked, and I didn’t find anyone except you saying anything like “fascism is good for the little people”/”fascism was good for the little guy.” I doubt that anyone except you said it. I think it’s a figment of your imagination. But if you show me that it exists — by linking to it — then I’ll believe that someone other than you said it.

                      “You said fascism is good for the little people and even denied saying so in a later discussion. To my recollection, that quote was referenced three times or more, so that should make it easier for you to find.”

                      It’s not my job to search for it on your behalf. YOU are the one making the claim. Sh*t or get off the pot.

                      Unless you link to it, I’m going to conclude that it’s a figment of your imagination. I can be convinced with evidence (a link to a comment from someone other than you that says “fascism is good for the little people”/”fascism was good for the little guy”), but your allegation is absolutely worthless without a link.

                    29. “Then do it!”

                      I did.

                      As far as the phrase is concerned, you argued about it in the past, so at least you could find that argument from the past that will be close to the original discussion.

                      Why do you expect me to find it? You should have corrected the record when it occurred. You didn’t. You could have corrected the record a short time later when the question reappeared. You didn’t. You created the whole problem by using the name and icon, anonymous, to hide such Stupidities.

                      All of that means the proof is on you, no one else. Anonymous creatures have zero credibility.

                    30. Allan, I said “Then do it! All I’m asking you to prove right now is that an anonymous commenter said “fascism is good for the little people”/”fascism was good for the little guy” — prove it by linking to the comment. All you’ve done is allege that an anonymous commenter said it. Stop d*cking around and link to it already.”

                      You respond “I did,” but no, you haven’t done it. All you’ve ever done is make an allegation. You have NEVER provided a link.

                      “Why do you expect me to find it?”

                      Because it’s your allegation.

                      It’s clearly a figment of your imagination that someone other than you ever said “fascism is good for the little people”/”fascism was good for the little guy.” If you could find it, you would have already presented a link to it.

                    31. “You respond “I did,” but no, you haven’t done it. All you’ve ever done is make an allegation. You have NEVER provided a link.”

                      How many times do I have to do it? That discussion about your comment took place a long time ago. The only legitimate question is not whether or not an anonymous person said it, but was that anonymous person, Anonymous the Stupid.

                      You lie all the time and you use a non-credible alias, anonymous, so there isn’t much value in your word. I strongly believe it was you based on my prior explanations. You say no, but you do not have a record of honesty, and it is well known you use the anonymous icon to deceive.

                      SM

                    32. “‘You respond “I did,” but no, you haven’t done it. All you’ve ever done is make an allegation. You have NEVER provided a link.’
                      “How many times do I have to do it?

                      You have to do it once in this thread. One and only one time in this thread, provide link to the comment that so far only exists in your imagination (a link: you know, a URL that starts off https://jonathanturley.org… and ends with /#comment- plus a 7 digit number)

                      As long as you run away from doing that, I will conclude that just it’s a figment of your imagination, and you also imagine that you’ve done it before, and you’re too cowardly to admit that you can’t actually show with a link that this imaginary comment exists.

                    33. “As long as you run away from doing that, I will conclude that just it’s a figment of your imagination”

                      You can think whatever you want, but you are anonymous. Therefore, you do not exist as an individual. I did what you asked the last time, months and months ago. I think we went through this same dispute two or three other times. The first time, I think, the debate was over who made the dumb comment. NowI think your claims include that the comment was never made.

                      Make up your mind. Are you dumb or dumber?

                      SM

  6. Yep, I know what it says, but it was written years ago, and I suspect that it is no longer accurate. I could be wrong, of course.

    1. Yep, just like Amy Coney Barrett could only remember 4 of the 5 rights protected by the First Amendment, it was a clear sign of either bad education or senility.

      1. I wondered why the Democrats were willing to let her slide so easily into the Court. They are the party of senility and destruction.

        1. All of the Democrats voted against her confirmation. Perhaps you have memory problems of your own.

          1. ATS-

            Makes no difference. They knew she would get in and they could make a mere demonstration vote for the plebs.

            What they didn’t do was bring on the Gorsuch Treatment and that was surprising to me. Made me think that maybe we don’t want her after all.

            Do you sometimes switch between right and left when sticking a foot in your mouth or do you just leave the same one in all of the time?

        1. 6 clauses. But people often group the establishment and exercise clauses as freedom of religion. She was asked “What are the five freedoms in the First Amendment?,” which should have been a softball question, and she couldn’t remember the right to petition.

          1. ATS: “she couldn’t remember the right to petition.”

            +++

            Since Jan 6 that right might be in doubt.

              1. ATS, you have no imagination. That is why you try to copy others and why you have to rely on left-wing blogs for you primary responses. When it comes to more complex replies you generally fail.

    2. I think mincing words or events is kind of moot at this point, and it has been since at least 2012: the DNC is a fascist regime that will do literally anything to attain power. Period. This will mean nothing to the younger folks amongst us. Combined, we are still a majority against them. STOP VOTING DEMOCRAT. PERIOD. YOU ARE NO LONGER VOTING FOR JFK OR THE DEM PARY OF THE 60s. You, who should know better are voting for Sovietism in our United States of America.

      1. Sadly, people who vote in Leftists truly believe they’re enlightened by doing so. History has proven them wrong times a hundred million dead in the 20th century alone but ‘meh’, they say.

  7. “‘Global Predators’ Fauci, Gates, and Schwab Behind the COVID ‘Reign of Terror’” (by Dr. Peter Breggin, known as the “conscience of psychiatry”)

    “Don’t get scared, get angry. Don’t get demoralized. They want that. There’s a whole school of public health that talks about how to intimidate and engender fear to get people to do what you want. It’s called ‘fear appeal.’ So we have to know that there’s a war against us. They have a stealth war against us. So be proud. Be an American, be a patriot, stand up for liberty.”

    “It’s extremely important to get over what essentially is an attempt to make us all feel helpless and obedient and docile. We have to know who are the masters driving this. We also need to understand the mechanisms of what is essentially a rein of terror. We’re looking at a revolution against us that wants to make us feel helpless like children again.”

    amgreatness.com/2021/10/06/world-renowned-psychiatrist-global-predators-fauci-gates-and-schwab-behind-the-covid-reign-of-terror/

    This is *not* about Covid or the vaccines. This is about power-lusters using a virus as a means to an evil end: To spread terror and herd sheep.

  8. Jonathan: You have opined endlessly about how conservative opinions are being “cancelled” or “censored”. Right-wing pundits complain all the time about the “cancel culture”. But except for the few anecdotal cases you have mentioned in columns the evidence is paper thin that conservatives are being cancelled en masse. In fact, right-wing commentary is all over the mass media–from Fox to a host of right-wing blogs. It’s ubiquitous. Jon Stewart recently remarked: “”People that talk about cancel culture never seem to shut the f— up about it…Like, there’s more speech now than ever before”. So now you take up the case of Jennifer Bridges who claims she was “censored” by gofundme when they cancelled her fundraising account because she promotes false theories about Covid vaccine mandates. You say gofundme is guilty of “censorship” and violating Bridges’ “free speech” rights and the courts should decide. Well, one court, the Supreme Court this week did decide in a similar case.

    Back in 2017 the California Republican Club (CRC) wanted to host an event at the Maxwell House in Pasadena, a venue leased from the city by the Western Justice Center(WJC). The CRC event was to feature John Eastman as speaker. You remember John Eastman. He’s the former law professor at Chapman University Law School who supported Trump’s false claims of massive voter fraud in last year’s election, riled up the crowd at the Jan. rally/insurrection and urged VP Pence to cancel the Constitution by refusing to certify the electoral vote. Eastman has also long opposed same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights. Based on Eastman’s clear record the WJC cancelled the CRC event. The CRC sued claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights because the WJC was an arm of the government through its lease of city property. The 9th Circuit ruled against the CRC. The CRC appealed to the Supreme Court that on Tuesday declined to hear the case. Wow!
    If the Supreme Court has refused to hear the CRC appeal what makes you think Jennifer Bridges will have better luck in the courts?

    1. It’s striking that Turley hasn’t discussed the Eastman memo and responses to it.

      “A bipartisan group of former public officials and lawyers are urging the California bar association to investigate a conservative lawyer who reportedly tried to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence that he could overturn the election results on January 6. In a letter sent Monday by more than two dozen people — including a former president of the State Bar of California, two former federal judges and a host of other former state officials and experts from across the US — to George Cardona, who oversees disciplinary matters for the SBC, the group said that “serious evidence of professional misconduct” by pro-Trump attorney John Eastman should be investigated. …”
      https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/05/politics/john-eastman-california-bar-complaint/index.html

      Rick Hasen (UC Irvine law prof, also runs the election law blog cited here):
      “Claremont Institute, Lying About What John Eastman Proposed to Do In the 2020 Election (Have the VP Stage a Coup), Complains About Federalist Society Shutting Eastman Out of Annual Conference”
      https://electionlawblog.org/?p=125160

      As JeffSilberman noted yesterday, Turley has written many columns about “cancel culture,” but is silent about the Federalist Society’s cancelling of Eastman and about lawyers encouraging the CA Bar to investigate Eastman.

      See also:
      “John Eastman’s Big Lie,” by George Thomas, the Wohlford Professor of American Political Institutions and Director of the Salvatori Center at Claremont McKenna College.
      theconstitutionalist.org/2021/10/13/john-eastmans-big-lie/

      1. Anonymous says:

        “ As JeffSilberman noted yesterday, Turley has written many columns about “cancel culture…”

        Unless I am mistaken, I can’t find my comment yesterday bringing to this blog’s attention the fact that Turley is ignoring Eastman’s so-called “cancellation.”

        I believe you replied to my comment as yesterday, but I don’t see that comment as well. I don’t want to accuse Darren of censorship if I am mistaken, but I can’t find these comments.

        Can you check? Thanks.

        Someone said that entirely *civil* comments have been censored without the contributor being notified. I replied that I was unaware of it. Now, maybe, I am not.

        1. Jeff,

          Yes, your comment and my replies disappeared.

          The commenting system here has the following flaw: if the mod deletes a comment, then all replies to that comment + any replies to those replies get deleted as well.

          IIRR, you posted your comment about Eastman as a reply to someone else, and I’m pretty sure that that other person’s comment was deleted, so your reply and my replies to you went away with it. My guess is that the top-level comment was deleted because it was posted by someone Darren has tried to ban for previous behavior.

          There are other reasons that civil comments will be deleted, besides being posted by a banned person. For example, S. Meyer sometimes copies too much copyrighted text from articles elsewhere, in excess of fair use, and comments will be deleted for that reason too, even if they’re civil. In his 12:04 PM comment, Meyer alludes to one that he posted last night which was removed for exceeding fair use.

          Hope that helps.

          FWIW, back to the topic: you might try emailing Turley with an enticing subject line (e.g., along the lines “another great example of an academic being cancelled”) and tell him you’d love to see him respond to the Federalist Soc. having cancelled Eastman.

        2. Jeff,

          As you’ll see, a bunch of new comments were just deleted — comments posted by a different anonymous commenter plus replies to him/her from you and me. I don’t know why that person’s comments are being deleted, but assume that it has something to do with info that a moderator can see and we cannot.

          You asked about IIRR. That’s “if I remember right.” A useful resource when one encounters unknown acronyms: https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com

  9. Yesterday I outlined voter fraud in wisconsin where nearly 25,000 people skipped voter ID requirements along with other voting irregularities that are not allowed.

    I bring these things up, because earlier such charges were dismissed by bloggers and some could only counter with voter suppression.
    ——
    Michigan charges three women with election fraud during 2020 election
    One of the women is accused of fraudulently filling out ballots in the names of nursing home residents without their permission.

    “Investigators determined Nancy Juanita Williams, 55, planned to control absentee ballots for legally incapacitated persons under her care by fraudulently submitting 26 absentee ballot applications to nine identified city and township clerks. Williams sought to have absentee ballots for those individuals mailed directly to her. She also submitted separate voter registration applications for each person – all without knowledge, consent, or understanding of the person under her care. MSP ultimately referred the case to DAG in May 2021 for charges.”…

    Continued:

    https://justthenews.com/nation/states/three-charged-alleged-election-fraud-2020-election?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

Leave a Reply