YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (AP) — Posters promoting a “straight pride” week at a northeast Ohio university were removed this week after student leaders determined that the message went beyond free speech.

Youngstown State University student government leaders told WKBN-TV they decided to remove the posters after consulting with university officials.

The posters were hung around campus earlier this week. They included profanity and promoted the event as a time to not highlight sexual orientation or differences among students. They encouraged students to “go about your day without telling everyone about how ‘different’ you are.”

Campus leaders said that while they believe the posters were meant as satire, the message was inappropriate.

“If you actually read through it, it seemed like it went way further than a free speech issue,” said Student Government President Michael Slavens. “There were swear words and took it a little further than the average free speech should go.”

The posters counter the school’s mission to create a diverse campus, university spokesman Ron Cole told WFMJ-TV. Officials are investigating possible student code violations, and disciplinary action may follow.

A statement from the student government said while it respects free speech of all students, the posters weren’t authorized, contained vulgar language and missed the point of activism.

The posters were hung around campus earlier this week. They included profanity and promoted the event as a time to not highlight sexual orientation or differences among students. They encouraged students to “go about your day without telling everyone about how ‘different’ you are.”

The posters counter the school’s mission to create a diverse campus, university spokesman Ron Cole told WFMJ-TV. Officials are investigating possible student code violations, and disciplinary action may follow.

So,being straight is no longer acceptable? What. The. Fuck. ?

The campus leader think it was satire? Did they ever stop to consider that maybe not all kids were indoctrinated with this bullshit their entire lives,and are sick of it?

Just more leftist nonsense promoting groups of special snowflakes who were given a trophy just for showing up at sporting events,and spent their entire childhood being told how “special” they are as a protected class of people.

“1) My training business is my livelihood, so if people don’t show up to train, I will have to get a real job, which will put paid  to my attempt to make myself available to train people full time. There is a need for this training, right?

*Warning – Rant Ahead*

2) Seeing a lot of comments on recent posts about the unwillingness of people to train, suffer hardship, receive instruction, or even get gently yelled at, I am very worried for the future. There is a post over at Kerodin’s place linking back to a post of mine (HERE), and looking down in comments everyone is pretty much saying they are too old and need to either die in place, or be in the auxiliary. So, basically, everyone will be in the auxiliary, or just die. Great. So, given there will be a huge auxiliary, I’ll just put in an order for bacon sandwiches now, and if I survive fighting some battle against Chinese robots on my own, I’ll come back and hang out on the porch being served hand and foot. Right? no? The fuckers will probably shoot me from the porch with their .308 ‘sniper rifle’ because they see me heading up the driveway with a rifle, and they are trying to protect their bacon sandwiches. Auxiliary? My arse: mountain houses golems more like. At least I may have the pleasure of hearing the ground shake as the .308 brass falls to earth, one last time.

3) I wonder if the free stuff I put out is just too much, and people are sitting at home jacking off to porn and flicking over to here to read about tactics, figuring that they have a handle on that, brushing the Cheetos crumbs off their massive bellies, and getting back to Debbie Does Dallas. Yes?

Because I tell you what, I don’t have that many spaces on my classes available in any given year. Classes are maxed at 12 students. Granted we are a nation of about 315 million people, which means that by my estimation there are about 314 million useless oxygen thieving assholes out there, judging by what I see day to day and on the news.  But if we ‘Patriots’ can’t fill up a few class spaces, get out and work hard and get a sweat on, you know, a bit of intestinal fortitude and all that, then we are truly fucked. And what makes it worse, is I even have a steady stream of alumni coming back to train, which means the number of new trainees is even further reduced.

We are truly fucked. And given that I refuse to fight with anyone who doesn’t have a Rifleman patch, an equivalent level of training and competence, or who is least trained to a decent standard, I’ll be fighting on my own. Which just makes me a dead man walking. Why? Because I am an elitist professional and according to Diomedes, an asshole as well. I would rather die of enemy fire than feel the frustration of trying to lead a few fat fuck ‘gun guys’ to victory, who have no idea what they are doing because they didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to ruck the fuck up and get some training and do some PT.

America, you do not deserve the freedom that better men won for you. Enjoy the tyranny. I won’t see much more of it, because I am not stepping back from the line, so when my number comes up I’m not backing down to tyranny.

In the meantime., I’m off to try and get one of those highly paid minimum wage jobs at McDonalds. No, wait. I’m an old white guy, so I won’t get through the screening.

Oh the joy.

*Rant Over*

Max Out.”

He’s spot on-so how many guys are gonna get off their asses and train?

How many guys are gonna drop that extra 20-30# ?

How many guys are gonna get serious about PT?

How many guys are gonna get out of the tacticool bullshit and go get some real training in SUT?

Or Max’s CUTT?

As soon as I was up and walking on crutches after 2 1/2 years of this…

.

I was humping a pack in the woods-on crutches.

So…

The war on cash is escalating. Just a week ago, the infamous Willem Buiter, along with Ken Rogoff, voiced their support for a restriction (or ban altogether) on the use of cash (something that was already been implemented in Louisiana in 2011 for used goods). Today, as Mises’ Jo Salerno reports, the war has acquired a powerful new ally in Chase, the largest bank in the U.S., which has enacted a policy restricting the use of cash in selected markets; bans cash payments for credit cards, mortgages, and auto loans; and disallows the storage of “any cash or coins” in safe deposit boxes.

Buiter defended his “controversial” call for a ban on cash, as Bloomberg reports:

“The world’s central banks have a problem. When economic conditions worsen, they react by reducing interest rates in order to stimulate the economy. But, as has happened across the world in recent years, there comes a point where those central banks run out of room to cut — they can bring interest rates to zero, but reducing them further below that is fraught with problems, the biggest of which is cash in the economy.

Read the rest @ http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/largest-bank-in-america-joins-war-on-cash/

One of the inherent rights of owning a vehicle is the ability to get on one’s backside — a wrench in one hand and a grease rag in the other, and just tinker to your little heart’s desire. Since the vehicle was invented, it’s been an important facet within the community of gearheads.

General Motors — the same company responsible for 87 deaths related to faulty ignition switches, FYI — wants to take that right away from you citing safety and security issues. Along with a few other big names.

It’s called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It’s been around since 2000 and started as anti-Internet piracy legislation. But automakers want to use it to try and make working on your own car illegal. Yes, illegal. The general premise is that unlike cars of the past, today’s vehicles are so advanced and use such a large amount of software and coding in their general makeup, altering said code could be dangerous and possibly even malicious.

One of the inherent rights of owning a vehicle is the ability to get on one’s backside — a wrench in one hand and a grease rag in the other, and just tinker to your little heart’s desire. Since the vehicle was invented, it’s been an important facet within the community of gearheads.

General Motors — the same company responsible for 87 deaths related to faulty ignition switches, FYI — wants to take that right away from you citing safety and security issues. Along with a few other big names.

It’s called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It’s been around since 2000 and started as anti-Internet piracy legislation. But automakers want to use it to try and make working on your own car illegal. Yes, illegal. The general premise is that unlike cars of the past, today’s vehicles are so advanced and use such a large amount of software and coding in their general makeup, altering said code could be dangerous and possibly even malicious.

RELATED: See Photos of the Chevrolet Corvette Z06

Listing the vehicle as a “mobile computing device,” the law would hypothetically protect automakers from pesky owners looking to alter any sort of technology in the vehicle that relates to the onboard computer. Flashing your ECU would be a big no no, which could also lead to all sorts of problems for aftermarket shops.

What GM, and even tractor companies like John Deere, argues is that you, as an owner, don’t actually own your car. Rather, you’re sort of just borrowing it for an extended amount of time and paying for the rights to use the technology. If it sounds ridiculous— it is. But it gets even more ludicrous.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, John Deere argued that “letting people modify car computer systems will result in them pirating music through the on-board entertainment system.”

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/gm-ford-others-want-working-own-car-illegal-160000229.html

2. In Edinboro, Pa., in 1998, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun — possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear — when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. It’s not clear whether Wurst was planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not stopped him.

3. In Winnemucca, Nev., in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.

4. In Colorado Springs in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have.

So it appears that civilians armed with guns are sometimes willing to intervene to stop someone who had just committed a mass shooting in public — the Chicago shooting seems to be one example of that.

Of course there’s much we don’t know about civilians and mass shootings: In what fraction of mass shootings would such interventions happen, if gun possession were allowed in the places where the shootings happen? In what fraction would interventions prevent more killings and injuries, as opposed to capturing or killing the murderer after he’s already done? In what fraction would interventions lead to more injuries to bystanders?

Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1% of the U.S. homicide rate, and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). Still, people had asked for examples of some shootings in which a civilian armed with a gun intervened and brought down the shooter, and the Chicago incident made this timely again — so here is what I found.

For an explanation of why I didn’t include the December 2012 Clackamas Mall shooting, see here.

Today’s lies are just getting more unbelievable.