What are the opinions of Redscapers concerning the college campus demonstrations?

Columbia, Fordham and CUNY in GeoJanes area would be specifically interesting to me.

My opinion?... If you are owing money for your education, you have no right to denigrate the US Government and then expect them to wipe away your debt. Shame. Shame. Shame.

The right of assembly and to be able to petition your government are constitutional rights. There is no right break in and occupy, of course, but I'm not sure why you're against people exercising their constitutional rights.

People can certainly petition their government to change policy, it's a fundamental part of the American system. We aren't subjects being governed, we have a government of, by and for the people. Basically you're saying only some people have the right to petition their government, if they don't have student loans? Is that what you're saying?

The students mostly pushed it too far, they were being effective camping, they didn't need to break into buildings, that provoked the establishment to crush them. The students made a mistake, but the administration was shameful. 95% of the fault is with administrators that completely over-reacted.

You misinterpret.

I am not against the right of peaceful protest. Not much of what happened over the last 12 days was peaceful anyway.

I am against the idea of a student who has government loans bad-mouthing the system and then having the "HUTZPAH" to want their debts forgiven.

As much as I agree that administrators handled it poorly, I don't recall any administrator occupying buildings and screaming anti-semitism rhetoric. Perhaps you know of some. I do not.

Columbia offered many opportunities to reconcile. The protesters refused and escalated. They got a fraction of what they deserve.

Any student who did not evacuate when ordered to by the Administration should be expelled, removed from campus, and incomplete classes failed w/o credit. There should be a list of those who did not evacuate when ordered that is posted online for the world to see.

Again protest, but do it correctly, and with respect to all.

I think we basically agree on the protests, but vary according to degree.

On this point, however, we disagree:

bbauska wrote:I am against the idea of a student who has government loans bad-mouthing the system and then having the "HUTZPAH" to want their debts forgiven.

Most people love free stuff. We have a system that allows all people (which now includes corporations) to petition their government for all kinds of things, and we have government responsive to those interests, which keeps giving stuff away! Usually to the people who need it the least. As we've discussed many times, the wealthiest among us are often paying the least amount into the system. The fact that someone pushed the right buttons to get student debts forgiven, they were exercising a constitutional right. Complaining about govt is a constitutional right. Definitely NOT hutzpah, but a right.

I argue that your complaint (and my compliant) is not with the people who used the system to get free stuff, it's with the morons who took it from you and me and gave it to them. We can, and probably should, rail against the unfairness of it all, but if someone wins the game, it's not their fault they won. If you don't like the rulebook, then we should change the rules! And to be clear, it's not all about students and their loans (gift article below:)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/us/politics/tsmc-taiwan-chips-grants.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pE0.94jB.BL2q_ZSnoLZ_&smid=url-share

Here. Some people are winning the game and others are trying to change the rules

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/03/opinion/global-billionaires-tax.html

Paywall

I believe (from the top part of your graph), you are saying that in the 1960s, more taxes were being paid than today, and that is the reason for protests?

If I got that right, why were there protests in the 1960s?

Are you saying that the protestors are changing the rules?

We have a method of governmental change written into our Constitution. It has been changed many times. We also have our elected official who write laws. It is the public's responsibility to obey the laws, or face consequences.

For the protesters to take matters into their own hands, and force rule of law to their will sound very much like what you say January 6th was all about.

I did not like the January 6th protests either.

I'm sorry, I had intended to paste the gift link. Here it is.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/03/opinion/global-billionaires-tax.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pk0.xpc3.zYgjAgAGpa_v&smid=url-share

And, again, my point was not about the protests, but about your comment about hutzpah.

Thank you. I see your point about economic disparity, but that is not my point about hutzpah.

My point about hutzpah is not how much someone makes, or the economic difference. It is a matter of ingratitude. The government is making loans available and college education possible. The response of denigrating the very government making it possible to better your life is the very definition of hutzpah.

To me it seems much like this. A 6 year old is in the store with mom and dad. The six year old starts throwing a tantrum and knocking over displays because he wants a candy bar. Mom and dad give him the candy bar. Then the fit changes to it being the wrong type of candy bar. They take him out of the store and go next door to Best Buy to give him a new Xbox or Playstation. That course of action creates self entitled brats.

That is what we see today.

I'm not talking about economic differences either. I'm talking about your basic premise. If you have government of, by and for the people the idea of being grateful to your government for such things is not relevant. Everyone from students to corporations have the opportunity to petition their government for policies they want. And they do. They got what they wanted. They won the game.

Your position is like being grateful to the losers for letting you win a game. No, you won and the other lost. The others should do better next time.

Thank you for your explanation. We just don’t agree on that but I’m glad we can peacefully discuss. The reason I don’t think that the students won, is because the rules were changed in the middle of the game.

The game started in 1789 and we're all still playing, thank goodness. Whenever we change the rules, we're changing the rules in the middle of the game.

geojanes wrote:The game started in 1789 and we're all still playing, thank goodness. Whenever we change the rules, we're changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Touché!

Ray Jay wrote:

geojanes wrote:The game started in 1789 and we're all still playing, thank goodness. Whenever we change the rules, we're changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Touché!

Yes, very nice. Let's see if the left agrees to follow the rules when they wish to disband the Electoral college.

I am not arguing whether the government has the right to erase contracted school debt. I am saying it takes a great deal to nerve to denigrate the US government on one hand, and have your hand out to the government with the other.

That is the Hutzpah (Jewish term intended!) I am talking about.

Of course I agree with George, here. I mean, you get stuff from the government you can't object to what they're doing? "So sorry...it appears that we sent you a check back in 1986, you lost your right to protest."

Government of the people, by the people and for the people, right? We have the RIGHT under the First Amendment to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." That is a RIGHT and while Brad has a right to express his opinion that it takes nerve for the protesters to do so here (kind of lumping people together here anyway--we don't exactly know all their backgrounds and views), my opinion is we should not try to shame people for doing so no matter how much stuff they got from the government. That only helps the rich, the powerful, big corporations. We don't give up rights because we got stuff from the government...

You can criticize the protests on the merits or for trespass or any destruction of property. But there should be NO conditions on the right to lawfully protest...

As a matter of fact...we wouldn't have a country if the Founders did not have a lot of chutzpah to challenge the powers that be!

Both of you keep saying that I am against the freedom to peacefully protest. That is patently false.

As for the founders, the did not say to England, "We don't want you ruling and taxing us, but give us glassware and linen from the factories in Britain." The made a clean break. They wanted self-rule.