If they're going to exclude a group of people from a public assembly based solely upon how they are dressed or whom they are affiliated with, then there had better be a MIGHTY TALL excuse for them to have done so.
I totally agree.?
It's very hard for me to imagine that these young people were up to something so sinister and threatening as to warrant this, yet some nosy reporter couldn't uncover ANYTHING to substantiate that notion.?
Not that hard for me to believe that a reporter who wants to tell a certain story wouldn't try very hard. This is, after all, a paper whose tagline is "Your Daily Dose of Right-Minded Campus News." - emphasis theirs.?
The fact that they couldn't even definitively say that there WAS a bona fide security threat
Don't mistake didn't for couldn't.
Imagine if this had been YOU, and no explanation was given other than your political affiliation.
I would certainly be upset. And would certainly like more of an explanation. I don't expect it though. Not from a presidential security detail. We also don't know that no explanation was given. We just know that no explanation was reported in this story.
Deciding that this may have been acceptable based on unknowns looks an awful lot like blind, unquestioning trust
I'm not saying it was or was not acceptable. I would like more details before making a call on it. It may have been reasonable, it may not have been. I'm not blindly trusting anything here, I'm waiting for evidence before condemning their decision. With that said, I would like that evidence, one way or the other. I just don't expect it - at least not from this news source.?
Source: http://community.artofmanliness.com/xn/detail/2357106%3AComment%3A1480881?xg_source=activity
cirque du freak pope joan pope joan strawberry festival strikeforce tate vs rousey ciaa the monkees
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.