PonyFans.com

NewAgeMustange wrote:honestly I think of any threads this one needs to be 86'd..

Would not be a bad idea to nuke this thread.

East Coast Mustang wrote:

Rebel10 wrote:I am not judging either way on the matter (granted I don't feel you have to be poor to help or stand up for the poor) and I am not trying to convince you of anything so take me out of your equation but going to an SMU board asking for a bunch of opinions different than yours seems kind of useless. Now if you are looking for support for your opinion you have come to the right place. We have people calling our own students thugs even though they are not wearing baggy pants drooping to the floor so you know you will get support here for that opinion. But whatever floats your boat.

I never once called the SMU students "thugs," but beginning your protest by issuing a list of demands isn't the best way to be taken seriously

Obama used the word "thugs" on at least one occasion.
And I called them "thug anarchists," referring to their political activity.
BTW - check this out:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/georg ... itch-hunt/

East Coast Mustang wrote:12 pages, 171 replies, and yet no one has been able to provide a reasonable explanation as to why the Missouri president needed to resign, other than the fact he's white

There IS no other explanation.

I read on rivals and scout that June Jones supports this thread.

Rebel10 wrote:

mr. pony wrote:He didn't get "choked to death."
Died much later.
Another lie.
Black Lies Matter though harps mostly on Michael Brown.

What caused the death according to your conservative sources? I guess the corners report was wrong. What about the South Carolina shooting? I would agree that the large majority of police are good but would you agree that there are some that are not?

What's a corners report?

mr. pony wrote:Obama used the word "thugs" on at least one occasion.
And I called them "thug anarchists," referring to their political activity.
BTW - check this out:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/georg ... itch-hunt/

President Obama used the word thugs talking about those people that were vandalizing stuff in Baltimore. Why were you refereeing to the SMU students as thug anarchists as opposed to anarchists?

IPFs are neat.

East Coast Mustang wrote:

Rebel10 wrote:

East Coast Mustang wrote:Because I already know what happened...the Grievance Industry went into full throttle mode and every media member decided it would be easier to sacrifice a guy's career than to investigate any of the ridiculous claims being made by the protesters for fear of being labeled racist.

I just find it funny that no one in this thread has even been able to come up with a reason why he needed to step down...this "movement" at Mizzou is intellectually dishonest (and I'm being generous) and Jonathan Butler is a lying race pimp...does anyone dispute that at this point?

This is an SMU board so you are not going to find hardly anyone to differ from our opinion.

Again, you provide no reason why the President stepped down or defense of the "movement" at Mizzou which has been revealed to be a farce. If I've changed your mind, I've done some good here. Pony Up

I touched on this several pages (and days) back, but I'm not sure you're actually looking for an answer. I can't speak to the exact motivations of the protesters or the president (none of us can -- our only window into the situation is distorted through the selective facts that are made public via the media). What I can speak to is a plausible (hypothetical) reason for pushing for the president's resignation.

If after a year or two where multiple similar concerns about racial issues (warranted, in your opinion, or not) were dismissed by the president, I do not blame the students for calling for his ouster. Whether he agreed with the issues raised by the students or not, leaders have an obligation to hear the concerns of their constituents. In many cases, just hearing someone out and opening a dialogue smooths the tension whereas dismissing them ratchets it up.

In a hypothetical situation like this, students have very limited leverage to get the president to even come to the table. If after multiple incidents he refuses to even talk to these students, I fully understand why they would want someone more receptive to at least talking about the racial issues that concern them. That's the point of protesting -- to be collectively heard when you feel that your voice has been dismissed.

Again, it's damn near impossible to reconstruct the situation to understand who was right. In many ways which interpretation a person believe reveals more about that person's prior held beliefs than anything about the events unfolding. We don't know the dynamic between the students and president prior to the events made public, we're not privy to the communication between them, and it's impossible to parse the effect of outside forces shoehorning their beliefs into the situation as it filters through media. But there is at least one hypothetical situation which, in my opinion, justifies protesting for a president's removal.

Rebel10 wrote:

mr. pony wrote:Obama used the word "thugs" on at least one occasion.
And I called them "thug anarchists," referring to their political activity.
BTW - check this out:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/georg ... itch-hunt/

President Obama used the word thugs talking about those people that were vandalizing stuff in Baltimore. Why were you refereeing to the SMU students as thug anarchists as opposed to anarchists?

Anarchists ARE thugs, Mr. PC Police Officer.
May I just have a "warning" this time?
(How 'bout fascists? Like that better?)

The kids at SMU said they supported what happened at Mizzou.
That's a problem IMHO.
Deal.

Odd, but the PC cops on this board tend to ignore that there are plenty of WHITE thug anarchists involved with BLM.

mr. pony wrote:

Rebel10 wrote:

mr. pony wrote:Obama used the word "thugs" on at least one occasion.
And I called them "thug anarchists," referring to their political activity.
BTW - check this out:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/georg ... itch-hunt/

President Obama used the word thugs talking about those people that were vandalizing stuff in Baltimore. Why were you refereeing to the SMU students as thug anarchists as opposed to anarchists?

Anarchists ARE thugs, Mr. PC Police Officer.
May I just have a "warning" this time?
(How 'bout fascists? Like that better?)

The kids at SMU said they supported what happened at Mizzou.
That's a problem IMHO.
Deal.

I asked a legit question and now you are calling me names. You seemed to go PC police when the word demand was used by the students. I was just trying to have a civilized dialogue with you about why you would call our SMU students thug anarchists. None of them had baggy pants drooping to the floor on regardless of what color they were. If you define all anarchists as thugs then what was the need say what type of anarchists they were by calling them thug anarchists? Anyway you are definitely entitled to your opinion of the SMU students. 2 basketball players, MK and B. Moore tweeted their support for the students at Mizzou are they in that category well?

mr. pony wrote:Odd, but the PC cops on this board tend to ignore that there are plenty of WHITE thug anarchists involved with BLM.

The Gunslinger?

The Bureau of Land Management?

Bacon Lettuce and Mayo?