Students have been asked to gather at the NYU Law School’s Vanderbilt Hall on Thursday at 2PM in solidarity against the inclusion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement recruiters in the school’s Public Interest Job Fair. Allowing ICE recruiters on campus is particularly sensitive at this time given President Trump’s recent executive order and NYU’s vague position on Sanctuary Campus status.I don't see an update there. What happened?
Googling, I find "Hundreds attend IYSSE rallies to defend immigrant rights in New York and San Diego" at World Socialist Web Site — "Students and workers at San Diego State University (SDSU) and New York University (NYU) rallied Thursday afternoon" — but that's not the Law School event. Somewhat interesting though:
IYSSE leaders who spoke at the rallies provided an international socialist perspective, emphasizing that Trump’s attack on immigrants is part of an attack on the entire working class supported by both Democrats and Republicans. Speakers reviewed the danger of war, the terrible social conditions facing workers and youth and the need to break with the Democratic Party and build an independent party of the working class.Liberals attacked from the left — now, that is one of my favorite subjects:
Nicole, a student at SDSU, said after the meeting that she was particularly happy to hear about the IYSSE’s affiliation with the SEP, stating that the two-party system was a dead end. “You know, we have never had a poor president,” Nicole explained, adding, “What do they know about the interests of the poor?”
पोस्ट्स
५८ टिप्पण्या:
I assume the Little Red Book and those goofy Mao hats are coming back into fashion in New York.
And it appears that history classes are no longer available at NYU.
We had President Harry S Truman. His 100% integrity was his niche issue, so he remained poor all his life. The silly rabbit would not partake of the mothers milk of politics.
ICE is the new ROTC.
How poor do you have to be to count as poor to these people?
Was Bill Clinton poor?
By the time you're running for President — at least 35 by constitutional requirement — you should have had enough mental power and industriousness to get at least into the middle class or how could you possibly have what it takes to be President?
Harry Truman, like Abe Lincoln, had tried his luck running a store and the store went bankrupt. A shopkeeper is middle class, not poor, but if the business is terrible, he may lose everything and end up with less than nothing. That makes him economically poor, but his social class is not that of poverty.
"ICE is the new ROTC."
I remember the protests in the 1990s here at UW against military recruiters on campus because of the anti-gay policy. The government used spending power bullying to force us to give the military equal access and we fought it in court on free-speech grounds (and lost).
"IYSSE leaders who spoke at the rallies provided an international socialist perspective....."
How's that international socialist perspective workin' out for you these days?
NAZI means --
The Nazi Party's precursor, the Pan-German nationalist and anti-Semitic German Workers' Party, was founded on 5 January 1919. By the early 1920s, Adolf Hitler assumed control of the organisation and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP) to broaden its appeal. [emphasis added]
These people don't seem to know what the word socialist means.
the point of protests is to get into the MSM.
We shall not, we shall not be loved
We shall not, we shall not be loved
Just like a tree that's standing by the water
We shall not be loved
US Grant was poor both before and after the presidency. Lincoln was poor. He grew up in a log cabin. Reagan, Truman, Nixon, Eisenhower, weren't exactly poor, but they were hardly rich.
Apparently high schools are teaching nothing these days. I know, lets set up post-high school education. We could have large institutions to educate young people. Money should be no object. The kids can borrow $100,000 or $200,000 or more. Whatever it takes Then finally, we would be able to teach them a little history and economics.
Oh, wait....
Nixon grew up poor. So impecunious that he couldn't afford the train from CA to take his full ride scholarship ... at Harvard.
Baby, that is broke.
Bill Clinton grew up poor. Maybe poorer than Nixon.
Hoover was a freaking Orphan who lived with four (five?) families before he went to college ... to work his way through Stanford.
Sheesh, are these people in college?
-XC
@BillR - Grant was poor before joining the army, he was broke after becoming president. :-)
The saddest part of his (overall not happy) biography was him writing his memoirs with throat cancer to ensure that his family wouldn't have to live on his pension.
-XC
Nicole doesn't sound very bright. Think of he many things she's never been. I hope she forms no opinions in those matters. That would be an outrage, I guess.
The true irony is that these leftist morons who profess such intense solidarity with the poor, fail to recognize that the one engine of sustained economic growth, which has lifted millions out of poverty into the Middle Class is ....(pause for effect) .....western style Capitalism.
Ronald Reagan as a child was sent to the butcher to ask for scraps for the cat. His family did not have a cat.
Students have been asked to gather at the NYU Law School’s Vanderbilt Hall on Thursday at 2PM in solidarity against the inclusion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement recruiters in the school’s Public Interest Job Fair. Allowing ICE recruiters on campus is particularly sensitive at this time given President Trump’s recent executive order and NYU’s vague position on Sanctuary Campus status. I don't see an update there. What happened?
They don't have an option. They take federal monies and are not permitted to ban federal agencies from recruiting.
These kids are going to become the leaders of this country. We need to shut down colleges NOW and rebuild everything. The faculty has failed by any measure.
“You know, we have never had a poor president,” Nicole explained, adding, “What do they know about the interests of the poor?”
I'd ask the same of her and her family. Because, rest assured, they ain't poor.
I remember the protests in the 1990s here at UW against military recruiters on campus because of the anti-gay policy. The government used spending power bullying to force us to give the military equal access and we fought it in court on free-speech grounds (and lost).
Do you feel that was an unjust decision? Your wording indicates that you still aren't fond of it.
"You know, we have never had a poor president,” Nicole explained, adding, “What do they know about the interests of the poor?”
This reminds me of the old socialists' dilemma of hating the rich while needing income to survive, which usually leads to the realization that they never had a poor man offer them a job. I wonder how Nicole resolves in her own mind how a middle aged person who couldn't, himself, find a path out of poverty is capable of leading a country in prosperity?
we fought it in court on free-speech grounds (and lost).
As you should have. Denying recruiting access is not speech any more than is starting a fire to prevent someone else's speech.
"I remember the protests in the 1990s here at UW against military recruiters on campus because of the anti-gay policy. The government used spending power bullying to force us to give the military equal access and we fought it in court on free-speech grounds (and lost)."
The policy wasn't "anti-gay". It was "no gay." The only "anti" was the UW, "anti-military gay policy"
.
No wonder you lost.
Given that government jobs for social justice warriors are going to be scarce for awhile, there may be some students who would like an interview for a job with a decent paycheck.
Nicole's comment went unchallenged because A. "our reporters" (ain't collectivism grand?), who wrote the article, like what she said and B. "our reporters" are just as ignorant as Nicole. People who don't know what they don't know sure sound like morons to the rest of us.
This young skull full of mush knows nothing of the origins of three very famously poor presidents, although I'm certain she's heard the names Reagan, Clinton and Lincoln before. She has no clue of the grinding poverty all three overcame, and would be very surprised and a great bit wiser if she explored the lives of other presidents. Some day she will regret exposing her ignorance in such a public way.
Wait. She's already enrolled? In college? WTF! Get a clue lady!
Guess how many socialist countries had leaders that were poor.
Incurious minds don't want to know.
Blogger Mike said...
Guess how many socialist countries had leaders that were poor.
Castro and Guevara were upper middle class. Mao's family were well-to-do peasants. Stalin came from dirt, IIRC.
Weren't the Clintons "dead broke" when they left the White House?
Back in the 90s or so, after the failure of the Atlantic City casinos, Donald Trump is reported to have said to Marla Maples, upon seeing a homeless person that he was a billion dollars poorer. That's pretty poor.
"Stalin came from dirt, IIRC."
And ended up in dirt, but in between got pretty wealthy from being in power. Reagan and Lincoln both made something of themselves before going into government. The Clintons made all their riches from being in power, more in the Stalin mold.
What are "immigrant rights"?
Nice to see the commies crawling out from under their blankets. Showing the loony left's true colors.
Lewis, I think Mike's point was that those leaders amassed great wealth while in power, not that they came from great wealth.
"NAZI means --
The Nazi Party's precursor, the Pan-German nationalist and anti-Semitic German Workers' Party, was founded on 5 January 1919. By the early 1920s, Adolf Hitler assumed control of the organisation and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP) to broaden its appeal. [emphasis added]
These people don't seem to know what the word socialist means."
The People's Republic of China.
Those who call Communist China a dictatorship don't seem to know what the word republic means.
(More to the point, many don't seem to understand that words don't always mean what those using them want you to think they mean.)
AJ Lynch said...
What are "immigrant rights"?
Everyone in the world has the right to live in a country that white men made great.
Never a poor president, but quite a few who had been middle class, some barely so. The middle class are always facing the risk of being poor, and they know it. That's why as a rule they are strivers.
I've been able to trace my ancestors on both sides of my family for several centuries. None ever got rich. They moved around a lot. There were no ancestral manors, or even towns. Always moving towards some opportunity or away from some disaster. No safe spaces, except perhaps (for some) a church or a loving family.
What Tank said at 8:09AM!
Mike, even better...shall we go into the pay difference between a socialist/Communist leader and the average income?
I bet Castro did much better than all other Cubans.
"We had President Harry S Truman. His 100% integrity was his niche issue, so he remained poor all his life."
Lucky for him, his wife's family's farm turned into shopping center development site.
“You know, we have never had a poor president,”
Most of 'em seem to be somewhere between poor and mediocre, but then you have some really horrific presidents like Lincoln and FDR.
"I'm certain she's heard the names Reagan, Clinton and Lincoln before."
It would be interesting to ask her.
I wouldn't bet my life on her being to explain who they were.
Jefferson was poor by the time he became President - he just lived way beyond his means.
“You know, we have never had a poor president,” Nicole explained, adding, “What do they know about the interests of the poor?”
Of course we've had plenty who were born and grew up poor: Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, etc.. all the way back to Lincoln and Jackson. Nicole needs to read a little more history.
How long before the NYU students are protesting the robber baron Vanderbilt and demanding the university change the name?
I'd also argue it is fundamentally unfair for professors and faculty --- who have jobs --- to limit the job options that graduates can choose from.
Also, and this is not small, if you limit certain firms/agencies because you disapprove of what they do, it puts your school on the line to verify that EVERY other firm/agency is clean as the wind-driven snow. You've already shown that you will block groups that are unpleasant from recruiting and that means that any group recruiting was APPROVED by your school.
It'd be a massive headache, if you ask me. But colleges also don't teach their students critical thinking and the mobs certainly don't use it, so you'd get away with it.
The People's Republic of China.
Those who call Communist China a dictatorship don't seem to know what the word republic means.
How many times did Mao stand in an open and free election?
The only difference between Mao (or Stalin) and Hitler is that they worse than Hitler.
Of course we've had plenty who were born and grew up poor: Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, etc.. all the way back to Lincoln and Jackson. Nicole needs to read a little more history.
Umm, in what way was Obama born or grew up poor? He most certainly did not.
John Adams wasn't exactly a rich man, even if he wasn't poor. I'd not trade my poor upbringing in the mid 1900s with the senior Adams' life in the mid 1700s.
It all depends how you measure wealth.
Robert Cook said...
The People's Republic of China.
Those who call Communist China a dictatorship don't seem to know what the word republic means.
It's revealing to see Cook claim labels must be truthful, but only when such pretense helps the left. You'd think he'd be wary of revealing his support for a murderous dictatorship but sometimes the truth slips out. It's hard to hide your beliefs every second.
Robert Cook is an evil man. He is perfectly happy to watch the enslavement of people so long as his view of the world is confirmed.
It's revealing to see Cook claim labels must be truthful...."
Really????
My point is that exact opposite, dude: labels are often purposely false.
Cook gets to redefine any word he wants. He isn't burdened with intellectual honesty.
She may not be aware, but her condescending attitude denies individual dignity, and contributes to the progress of class conflict.
The first person not entirely of European descent to be elected to national office in the US spent some of his childhood on an Indian reservation.
"Cook gets to redefine any word he wants. He isn't burdened with intellectual honesty."
Hahaha!
Wrong again.
As always.
After reading this article and Nicole's comments, I'm wondering why this Blog and AA give so much space to someone who has yet to accomplish anything in life. Get back to me when she really contributes some value to our society's future. At this point in her life, Nicole is what we used to call a real "bubble head".
Why would you want someone who is still poor at that age?
The People's Republic of China.
(More to the point, many don't seem to understand that words don't always mean what those using them want you to think they mean.)
That's the case for official country names everywhere, I think. The more freedomy-individualistic words in the name (democratic, worker's, people's, republic, etc), the more brutal the dictatorship. The more commanding-conformist words in the name (Kingdom, Union, Commonwealth), the freer the country.
Compare: "United" States of America, "Kingdom" of Denmark, "Commonwealth" of Australia... these relatively free places. The "Democratic" "People's" "Republic" of Korea... has a "Supreme Leader" who's a hereditary dictator-monarch, and who can't be the "president" because his dad is the "Eternal President"... as written in the constitution.
First they came for ROTC, but I was not ROTC...
I don't recall that Harry Truman was exactly rolling in dough.
mikeski said...
"That's the case for official country names everywhere, I think. The more freedomy-individualistic words in the name (democratic, worker's, people's, republic, etc), the more brutal the dictatorship."
I would say... the more pretentious the name, the worse the regime. E.g. "People's Republic of China" vs. "Republic of China"; "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" vs. "Republic of Korea"; "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" vs "Deutsche Demokratische Republik". The "República de Venezuela" has gone to hell since becoming the "República Bolivariana de Venezuela".
"United" simply signifies a federal structure, which may or may not be oppressive. The "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", the "United Arab Emirates", and the "Estados Unidos de Mexico" are or were not better or worse because of federalism.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा