Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Merrick Garland (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The General
- Start date
dawgtrails
Footballguy
I know this is shocking to you, but people, and organizations, make mistakes. And instead of insisting that everyone else is wrong, solid people and organizations admit when mistakes are made.
whoknew
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
But, hey! Organizations make mistakes and we should forgive them. Well, all the organization's I like anyways.
Never mind all of the people that's spread the original story and never bothered to follow up or check their facts.
Last edited by a moderator:
dawgtrails
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
Do you support the use of threats, harassment and intimidation against school administrators?
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Max Power
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
I support school boards making decisions without the threat from the public or politicians. That is how it should work. Let the districts decide.
-fish-
Footballguy
That's unrelated to anything Garland's letter said. Your sources have spun you again.
-fish-
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
But it is related to the AG making it a point to protect school board members etc that are facing threats from CRT. Don’t be obtuse in saying this is not about CRT and/or vaccines.
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
Some nasty actions by our local school board, mailing items/dropping items off, to parents that did nothing except reading, at school board meetings, passages of some of the books being used on the district. The one board member supporting the parents had to resign due to harassment of his family and death threats. The items delivered were nasty and is showing the school board it's lack of maturity or willing to hear constructive discussion of parent's concerns.
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew
Footballguy
I don't see anything in the links in those articles that says Panorama teaches critical race theory. It seems the one quote they had to allegedly support their claim is:
"By asking students to reflect on their experiences of equity and inclusion in school, education leaders can gather actionable data to understand and improve the racial and cultural climate on campus."
Is that what we think CRT is?
sho nuff
Footballguy
the rover
Footballguy
wait, now it's about vaccines? is Garland's son selling vaccines? get your conspiracies straight.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Never let an opportunity to troll a poster go to waste? If you follow the news most of these school dust ups are related to CRT and COVID mandates. Since it appears the Garland family personally profits from CRT expansion there may be ulterior motives behind his letter. And please be better.
The Commish
Footballguy
Can I get a list of the things we should be allowing school board members to be threatened over? Or is the list shorter if we go the list of things they shouldn't be allowed to threaten school board members over?
whoknew
Footballguy
Never let an opportunity to troll a poster go to waste? If you follow the news most of these school dust ups are related to CRT and COVID mandates. Since it appears the Garland family personally profits from CRT expansion there may be ulterior motives behind his letter. And please be better.
Where does that appear?
sho nuff
Footballguy
In the super non-biased Conservative Treehouse.
Meanwhile...the same people complaining about Garland...ignore stuff like this.
https://www.businessinsider.com/pennsylvania-gop-candidate-strong-men-remove-school-boards-mask-mandates-2021-8
How about we just try to agree that harassing senators...or schoolboard members...and threats of violence are just bad. No matter which side they come from. No matter what the school board is doing.
Last edited by a moderator:
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
The President says it happens and is part of the process. He’s been in the game longer than many of us have been alive. I think it’s terrible but The President seems to feel these folks signed up for it.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Sure...it does happen. But that wasn't his whole quote. And even then he should have been even stronger with the condemnation.
And no...none of that is normal. Trying to rally people to show up and strong arm people is not normal.
The Commish
Footballguy
pull yourself up by your bootstraps you nancys!!!!!! don't let the man get you down!!!!! 
Politicians complaining about people harassing them ranks right up there with actors/singers/celebs complaining about the same things.
Politicians complaining about people harassing them ranks right up there with actors/singers/celebs complaining about the same things.
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish-
Footballguy
You just claimed that Garland was acting out of a conflict of interest. Then you turned around and said it was vaccines. How is that trolling? You just proved yourself wrong. Take the L and move on to the next one. I'm sure the Pundit has something about AOC you can try next.
Never let an opportunity to troll a poster go to waste? If you follow the news most of these school dust ups are related to CRT and COVID mandates. Since it appears the Garland family personally profits from CRT expansion there may be ulterior motives behind his letter. And please be better.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Stop it. It was not a pivot. I used the word “and.” Please be better as well. Stop trying so hard to play the gotcha, discredit and namecalling game. Partake in discourse. Stay on topic. Quit trying to mine for likes from your side. That is supposed to be the purpose of this forum? This type of posting is why this forum is dying. TIA.
His trolling motor has been on the fritz for a while. Roger Sterling
Footballguy
Max Power
Footballguy
So why is the FBI getting involved in school board complaints? It isn't domestic terrorism.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don’t get it, the guy got dragged out of the school board meeting after scuffling with a bunch of cops. Whether or not you think he had a good reason to be upset doesn’t change that his behavior was threatening.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Pennsylvania is withdrawing from the National School Board Association.
https://www.mystateline.com/news/national/school-district-quits-national-school-board-after-letter-asks-biden-to-label-parents-as-domestic-terrorists/#:~:text=(WTVO) — The Pennsylvania School,be considered “domestic terrorists.”&text=PSBA abhors the fact that,met with threats and violence…
If the claims in this letter are correct, the Biden Administration and DOJ have some explaining to do. Collusion with the NSBA to give the DOJ jurisdiction over a State matter to chill parents 1st Amendment rights. Not a good look.
https://wordpress.aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Garland-Memo-DOJ-IG-Request-10072021.pdf
Max Power
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don’t think being upset is a legitimate excuse for his behavior at the school or the school board meeting. Same way I think Black Lives Matters protesters are justifiably upset but it’s not an excuse for engaging in violent or threatening behavior.
Max Power
Footballguy
Do you know the story behind why he is upset?
Maybe he could have handled it better, but that's asking a lot from someone during an emotional issue.
Instead this father was used as a justification to get the DOJ involved in school board matters. But apparently Garland didn't even know about the case.
The police handled the situation, but the DOJ and school board association don't get to play it both ways. If it's a state issue, leave it there.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I have read multiple articles about it that were posted in the thread about this case. I can't say that I know the full story but nobody really does because most of the information we know about it just comes from the dad. As far as I know information from the Loudon County schools is limited to a very short press release.
I don't think it's "asking a lot" from anyone to not act the way he did on those two occasions.
This guy was used as one example of threatening behavior at school board meetings that justifies a federal response. There have been a number of other incidents that I suspect also led to the DOJ involvement, it wasn't just this one guy.
The alleged rape of a student is a state issue governed by state law. Threatening behavior towards public officials is something that DOJ is much more likely to get involved in. Nobody is "playing it both ways."
Max Power
Footballguy
I'm just going to firmly disagree with your first point, but your last paragraph makes sense. Even though I disagree with the DOJ involvement. I see it as politicizing the DOJ.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
What exactly has DOJ done? I saw that Garland issued a memo saying that the FBI and local law enforcement should have communications about effective strategies to prevent harassment and violence against public officials. Is that what you guys are talking about?
As what frequently happens when talking points are argued, facts get thrown by the wayside.
The Loudoun County case has been resolved, subject to appeal (unlikely to be successful) - Smith was charged with, and found guilty of, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest - both misdemeanors, and both handled by the state, not federal officials. He was sentenced to 10 days in jail, all of it suspended, subject to good behavior for 1-year.
The incident - as most are aware - was actually a dispute between two parents, and not a direct threat against school board members, albeit Mr. Smith was undoubtedly angry with the school board for how it handled his daughters assault allegations.
Compare that to the actual DOJ Memo:
"In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation's public schools. While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views."
"In the coming days, the Department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel."
"Coordination and partnership with local law enforcement is critical to implementing these measures for the benefit of our nation's nearly 14,000 public school districts. To this end, I am directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days ofthe issuance ofthis memorandum. These meetings will facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response."
So the DOJ is instructing its staff to coordinate with local officials to: "facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response."
There is nothing here about preventing anyone from protesting any school policy in any school district by federal, or local, officials. The DOJ, rightfully, wants to draw the distinction between protesting, and unlawfully (i.e. criminally) threatening school board members, teachers and staff.
The Loudoun County case has been resolved, subject to appeal (unlikely to be successful) - Smith was charged with, and found guilty of, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest - both misdemeanors, and both handled by the state, not federal officials. He was sentenced to 10 days in jail, all of it suspended, subject to good behavior for 1-year.
The incident - as most are aware - was actually a dispute between two parents, and not a direct threat against school board members, albeit Mr. Smith was undoubtedly angry with the school board for how it handled his daughters assault allegations.
Compare that to the actual DOJ Memo:
"In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation's public schools. While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views."
"In the coming days, the Department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel."
"Coordination and partnership with local law enforcement is critical to implementing these measures for the benefit of our nation's nearly 14,000 public school districts. To this end, I am directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days ofthe issuance ofthis memorandum. These meetings will facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response."
So the DOJ is instructing its staff to coordinate with local officials to: "facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response."
There is nothing here about preventing anyone from protesting any school policy in any school district by federal, or local, officials. The DOJ, rightfully, wants to draw the distinction between protesting, and unlawfully (i.e. criminally) threatening school board members, teachers and staff.
The Commish
Footballguy
They "talked big" about what they were "going to do". Apparently talk carries much more weight than action for some.....well, when it's fits their agenda anyway. Likely a reason this country's in the position it is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
The threat of being labeled a domestic terrorist is enough of a deterrent to chill parents 1st Amendment rights. Do you know what would happen if a parent at a school board meeting was actually labeled a domestic terrorist by the DOJ? For starters, their assets would be frozen until a proper investigations was done.
Seizure of assets - Sec. 806: Section 806 amended the civil asset forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit: all assets, foreign or domestic (i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization or (ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States or their property or (iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property.
Then I'm sure that individuals employer would be ok with the DOJ going through that persons employment records. Interviews with friends, family, neighbors. Legal fees to defend the charge. You seem like a smart guy in your posts. But you are being willfully obtuse here. Nobody wants to put themselves through that.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
(see, Texas abortion law). The simple threat of a fine was enough to deter clinics from performing abortions even though "[t]he State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly." The respondent also said they had no intention to enforce the law.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
So we have a law that nobody is going to enforce that is enough of a deterrent to prevent people from acting.
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
If you want to classify what is going on in Texas as a "simple threat of a fine" then we really don't have a place to start the discussion. I won't even get into how the absurdity of attempting the comparison in the first place (and that's giving benefit of the doubt that I'd agree to start with the framing you attempt here of "simple threat of a fine".)
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
You're right, we probably can't have a conversation because you don't really have a strong position and you know it.
Similar threads
