Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Politics version 7.0 more politics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2017, 10:36 AM   #101
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 69.20.56.132
Posts: 40,821
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafson26 View Post
The kids participating in the violent protests are the ones that need to be removed, not the speaker that is spitting words out of their mouth.
Agreed. That removes the six violent protestors and leaves the thousand non-violent protestors alone.

Someone really needs to watch the terrorist Trumpkins though.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsne...eattle-police/

But anyway, were you thinking the police should remove the hippies or should the Bikers for Trump just wade in there swinging chains and stabbing snowflakes?
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 10:40 AM   #102
chezlaw
Limey Bastard
 
chezlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 31,906
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafson26 View Post
Ok, but wasn't it the conservative right wing students that invited her to speak? The people that would invite her more than likely share some, if not most of the same thoughts with her on the topics at hand. If there is a disagreement on something, that is the place to bring it up and make her answer the tough questions.
Yes they share some thoughts but those thoughts get reinforced and especially so if the speaker is any good. You're correct that if the thoughts are well challenged then it can be a positive thing - it's a common debate whether to invite some objectionable speakers for precisely that reason.

Quote:
I don't see how the people causing her not to speak feel like they won. Because the college doesn't feel she has a safe venue to do so? That will really change the minds of the republican kids that invited her to speak in the first place.
If you accepted that some speakers will reinforce prejudice and spread hatred in a way that make other more likely to act on it then it would simply follow that there's an upside to preventing it. Another reason is to encourage speakers to make their case without reinforcing prejudices etc. I don't think we have anything to fear from legitimate arguments and then, as you point out, they can be countered which is a good thing.

Quote:
They need to just let her speak, just as the right needs to allow people to speak they don't agree with. There needs to be civil debates about subjects, not just shouting down the opposition. That will leave everyone in the same boat we are now, if not farther apart.

The kids participating in the violent protests are the ones that need to be removed, not the speaker that is spitting words out of their mouth.
The divisive side of it is a big problem. We have to strike a balance between stopping the overly harmful stuff and encouraging a civilised debate from all sides. The violence is illegal isn't it - I'm not sure anyone is arguing for that to change.
chezlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 10:52 AM   #103
Gustafson26
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: WNY
Posts: 394
Re: Free speech

@Microbet, nobody is defending the Trump biker clowns either. I'm simply stating that if someone was invited to the college, from a recognized group attending the college, then there shouldn't be a problem with that. But the butt hurt kids that can't accept the thought of conflicting viewpoints are ruining it for the other side and in turn, violating the speakers right to free speech.
Same goes if the left invited someone to speak and the group that invited Ann to speak came out in biker clothes and ass-less chaps preventing that left speaker from being able to do what they were invited to do, from a recognized group of students the college enrolls, due to an unsafe environment.
Neither is right and both should be able to speak, simple as that.

EDIT: News to me, maybe not everyone, but it looks like Coulter is suing the school. And rightfully so, if they don't allow her to speak. And I can't even stand the lady.
Gustafson26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 10:53 AM   #104
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,021
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerodox View Post
No, let's take it the next step. You agree that it's morally wrong to stop her from speaking with violence. Now how is that morally different from the university stopping her based on the violence of the ******* violent protestors?
Would it be morally right to hold the speech if there were a good chance that people would get killed?

The security issue is real and isn't the fault of the university. The university is required to ensure the public is reasonably protected. Essentially some protestors have found a loophole and they know they can get a speech cancelled by threatening violence.

What should the university do? Improve security? That seems reasonable, and that is what they appear to be doing by offering a different venue on a different date.

Of course the college Republicans are no angels. They are inviting speakers that they know will provoke protest, so this isn't a case of people just wanting to hear some ideas. They intentionally invite people who they know will spread bigotry against certain members of the university community. That's immoral too.

Some liberals approve of or look the other way when it comes to the people who are instigating violence. I think that's self-defeating. The focus should be on the terrible, terrible views of the people Republicans are desperate to hear. Making Ann Coulter appear as some sort of free speech hero is a far worse result than having her give her dumb speech.
13ball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 10:54 AM   #105
Lapidator
LLSNL Frequent Flyer
 
Lapidator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Station keeping
Posts: 9,467
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
Agreed. That removes the six violent protestors and leaves the thousand non-violent protestors alone.

Someone really needs to watch the terrorist Trumpkins though.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsne...eattle-police/

But anyway, were you thinking the police should remove the hippies or should the Bikers for Trump just wade in there swinging chains and stabbing snowflakes?
Where are the terrorist Trumpkins in the story you cited?

I read about anti-Trump protestors assaulting police officers. (This is not free speech, btw.)

I read about anti-Trump protestors wearing masks and rioting. (This is not free speech, btw.)

I read about anti-Trump protestors using accelerant to light flags on fire and then nearly burning themselves. (This is free speech, and also, LOL Darwinism. Hopefully these guys will avoid turning their free speech rights into felony arson charges if their flag burning party gets out of hand.)

I read about anti-Trump protestors carrying hammers, sticks and clubs. (Unclear whether the carrying of hammers, sticks and clubs is a 1st amendment issue or a 2nd amendment issue...)

And I read about an a guy who turned himself into police in connection to one of the anti-Trump protestors who was shot. No further details were given. Was this guy later identified as a Biker for Trump terrorist? Perhaps he brought a gun to a hammer, stick and club fight? Maybe he was an anti-Trump protestor and he had a negligent discharge when trying to clean his gun and shot somebody by mistake?

Quote:
Some businesses in Portland’s downtown announced they would close early because of the anticipated crowds. Owners of some establishments boarded up windows to prevent damage.

Portland protests after Mr. Trump’s election last November turned violent when a small group of demonstrators smashed windows, spray-painted buildings and started small fires. The demonstration caused about $1 million in damage, police have said.
No Trumpkin terrorists are responsible for this, AFAIK.

Last edited by Lapidator; 04-26-2017 at 11:00 AM.
Lapidator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 11:00 AM   #106
Gustafson26
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: WNY
Posts: 394
Re: Free speech

@chezlaw
Quote:
If you accepted that some speakers will reinforce prejudice and spread hatred in a way that make other more likely to act on it then it would simply follow that there's an upside to preventing it.
So because sounds are flowing out of her mouth it is ok to violate her 1st amendment? It's one thing if she was telling the people to act violently and go outside and attack the people out there with conflicting viewpoints, but if she is simply stating her opinion and how she feels, no need to prevent her talking to a group of people who invited her to speak.
Opinions are like @ssholess, we all have one and they all stink to everyone else. Well, unless of course you're into that kind of thing.
Gustafson26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 11:09 AM   #107
Lapidator
LLSNL Frequent Flyer
 
Lapidator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Station keeping
Posts: 9,467
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball View Post
Would it be morally right to hold the speech if there were a good chance that people would get killed?

The security issue is real and isn't the fault of the university. The university is required to ensure the public is reasonably protected. Essentially some protestors have found a loophole and they know they can get a speech cancelled by threatening violence.

What should the university do? Improve security? That seems reasonable, and that is what they appear to be doing by offering a different venue on a different date.

Of course the college Republicans are no angels. They are inviting speakers that they know will provoke protest, so this isn't a case of people just wanting to hear some ideas. They intentionally invite people who they know will spread bigotry against certain members of the university community. That's immoral too.

Some liberals approve of or look the other way when it comes to the people who are instigating violence. I think that's self-defeating. The focus should be on the terrible, terrible views of the people Republicans are desperate to hear. Making Ann Coulter appear as some sort of free speech hero is a far worse result than having her give her dumb speech.
I think what you are saying is we have to protect the political speech rights of those who agree with us. With everyone else... Anyone who disagrees with us, we'll just call them "terrible, terrible..." and then we can threaten violent protest in order to shut them up.

If you are not willing to protect the political speech rights of someone who you disagree with, what are you really protecting? Political echo chamber?
Lapidator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 11:14 AM   #108
Gustafson26
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: WNY
Posts: 394
Re: Free speech

Quoted from Dan Mogulof going back to the Milo episode there.

'His (Milo Yiannopoulos) speech had to be canceled after the university was, in the words of spokesman Dan Mogulof, “invaded by more than 100 individuals clad in ninja-like uniforms who were armed and engaged in paramilitary tactics.” They threw objects, set fires and left about $100,000 in damage in their wake. The area has seen other recent violent political clashes as well.'

Is the left blind to the fact that this is exactly what happened in 1930s Germany to shut down their opposition? Send in some brown shirted thugs to break up the other political rallies. I know that present day liberals say it's okay for them because stopping conservatives is a just cause. That's exactly what the Nazis said. Look how that turned out...
Gustafson26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 11:14 AM   #109
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,021
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapidator View Post
This is the worst gaffe you could find?

Did you waste an entire afternoon searching the interwebs to find that gem?

In Coulter's defense, Canada is easily ignored and/or forgotten.

The 57th Great State of America... not so easily forgotten... except, I seem to have forgotten; Which one was it? Maybe the 57th state in America will be the Commonwealth of San Fransisco. The 56th state could be the State of Los Angeles. Perhaps the 55th state will be the Commonwealth of NYC and Long Island?
This post is terrible. Obama misspoke. Coulter insisted she was right again and again when she was wrong.

Coulter loves Joseph McCarthy and hates evolution*. She belongs on a college campus as a janitor or a student--and nothing else.

*A good long debunking of her nonsense exists if anyone is into evolutionary biology and the (hopefully defunct) intelligent design debate.
13ball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 11:16 AM   #110
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,021
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapidator View Post
I think what you are saying is we have to protect the political speech rights of those who agree with us.
Wrong. Did you even read my post?
13ball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 11:30 AM   #111
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,021
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafson26 View Post
Is the left blind to the fact that this is exactly what happened in 1930s Germany to shut down their opposition? Send in some brown shirted thugs to break up the other political rallies. I know that present day liberals say it's okay for them because stopping conservatives is a just cause. That's exactly what the Nazis said. Look how that turned out...
The brown shirts were the security force of the Nazi party (until Hitler betrayed them). There were also 3 million of them. The violent protesters don't seem to have much support at all.
13ball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 11:41 AM   #112
chezlaw
Limey Bastard
 
chezlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 31,906
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafson26 View Post
@chezlaw

So because sounds are flowing out of her mouth it is ok to violate her 1st amendment? It's one thing if she was telling the people to act violently and go outside and attack the people out there with conflicting viewpoints, but if she is simply stating her opinion and how she feels, no need to prevent her talking to a group of people who invited her to speak.
Opinions are like @ssholess, we all have one and they all stink to everyone else. Well, unless of course you're into that kind of thing.
I'm not sure that it's a 1st amendment violation. I'm foreign so don't expect too much of me there but if I'm wrong then I think the 1st amendment is mistaken (or out of date) and yes it's sometimes correct to violate people's 1st amendment rights.

You recognise that some speech shouldn't be allowed so are we disagreeing about anything more than which sort of speech is sufficiently harmful?
chezlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 11:48 AM   #113
Gustafson26
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: WNY
Posts: 394
Re: Free speech

Yea, the fact you don't think it is violating her 1st amendment. Maybe we should both stick to our side of the pond on this one.
Gustafson26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 11:52 AM   #114
chezlaw
Limey Bastard
 
chezlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 31,906
Re: Free speech

I'm not very interested in what the law happens to so it's not a big deal.

The law just dictates whether doing the right thing here is legal or not.
chezlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 12:14 PM   #115
mongidig
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,635
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy View Post
Kellyanne's hotter imo.
I agree.
mongidig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 12:31 PM   #116
mongidig
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,635
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Peter View Post
lmao
I get those of you who are not into women will not find Ann Coulter attractive. The rest of us think she's hot. She looks fantastic at 55 years old. I was shocked she was that old. I thought she was 40.

I think it's all about jealousy. When you see a conservative on tv they are usually extremely good looking. Heck, look no further than the Trump family. However, when you see a leftist on tv.......mmm! Not so much.

I really think this is were the anger and hate comes from. Perhaps I need to be a little more compassionate to your struggles.
mongidig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 12:33 PM   #117
juan valdez
Pooh-Bah
 
juan valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,803
Re: Free speech

its so predictable and sad that the far left are defensive and apologetic for the destruction of free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive View Post
You're basically creating a legion of strawmen up in here. The cancelling of the speech is because Coulter is so toxic she wilts every flower within a mile radius of her person and brings doom and destruction. The university doesn't want to deal with the symptoms of this toxicity. That's totally different than somebody punching Coulter in the face as she opens her mouth.
people are showing up with their faces covered and armed with the intent on creating violence and property destruction. this isn't some escalating situation that gets out of hand. its a group carrying out their intentions. if coulter is left to speak then there is no violence. she has been plastered all over mainstream media and she hasn't said or spawned anything radical. people think shes a moron and others think she makes sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw View Post
Yes they share some thoughts but those thoughts get reinforced and especially so if the speaker is any good. You're correct that if the thoughts are well challenged then it can be a positive thing - it's a common debate whether to invite some objectionable speakers for precisely that reason.


If you accepted that some speakers will reinforce prejudice and spread hatred in a way that make other more likely to act on it then it would simply follow that there's an upside to preventing it. Another reason is to encourage speakers to make their case without reinforcing prejudices etc. I don't think we have anything to fear from legitimate arguments and then, as you point out, they can be countered which is a good thing.


The divisive side of it is a big problem. We have to strike a balance between stopping the overly harmful stuff and encouraging a civilised debate from all sides. The violence is illegal isn't it - I'm not sure anyone is arguing for that to change.
the problem embedded in your whole pov and the far left is the maternal instinct associated with trait agreeableness becoming totally off balance. being empathetic isnt a virtue. like everything else, if it becomes totally off balance it is extremely damaging and toxic. this true on the individual level, in the family structure, and in a society. i think explaining this in detail would probably require its own thread. in direct response to your post here, you don't treat adults like children. thats also a disaster on the individual level as well as in a society. this is the most coddled and "privileged" generation in the history of planet earth. its nice to be safe and comfortable but when a generation is bred to have peter pan syndrome, its going to have consequences
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball View Post
Would it be morally right to hold the speech if there were a good chance that people would get killed?
the answer to this is obvious. nobody wants people killed. what you also don't want is angry mobs of authoritarians growing larger and getting more bold. by framing the situation the way you just have, they get to control speech, dialogue, narrative, etc. who gets to speak and who you get to listen to. extremely dangerous road to head down. i mean why should ann be able to speak if someone could get killed right? you are siding with thugs and bullies and thats just going to get worse if its not dealt with. the line is already ann lol coulter for violence and destruction. if violent and destructive protesters show up, they should be treated like everyone else committing assault, battery and vandalism. perhaps worse if they conspired

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCheese View Post
Wrong. I'm saying you were being disingenuous trying to pretend this was about her views on the role of government, i.e. conservatism, instead of what protesters are actually angry about, which is her views on race, culture, and religion, i.e. white Christian supremacy.
this illustrates the issue. We have seen a large divide and very reasonable topic of debate on immigration during the election. a country has borders and laws. during the obama administration (but not exclusively) the border was neglected along with the fact there were millions of people in the country illegally. visas were also exploited. there was an active move on the left to not enforce laws deporting people who were in the country illegally. they were also apposed to beefing up security along the border as people poured in. i get that people have different views on immigration and the border. thats fine but if you are going to agree to have a country then you need a border and you have to accept there is fair arguments as to how strongly you need to enforce it. people are going to differ, and thats ok. same goes with deporting people who violated the law and are in the country illegally. thats also ok. people can have an opinion ranging from only criminals should be deported to everyone in the country illegally should be deported. thats fine, people are allowed to disagree. but make no mistake about it, if youre going to have a country then you have a border and laws. thats just apart of it

whats not ok is that you get to label people with opposing views a racist or a nazi which then gives you magic powers where you are now justified to silence them with violence. when and where was the trial that declared ann coulter was even what people claim she is? does she agree that she is a racist or spreading hatred? does she not even get the opportunity to explain herself? do people not have the right to listen to her explain herself? can people judge for themselves? why does a mob of people with face masks attacking people and vandalizing property get to decide who i listen to and how i should feel about what ann coulter has to say? who decided their opinion on anything is valid? why not let me decide if i agree with horse face, the violent people with face masks, or neither? the whole concept is absurd

silence her with arguments that devastate her ideas and consequently her audience size and relevance. flat earth people are allowed to exist and im actually glad they are free and safe enough to openly share with me their beliefs. if you believe in a flat earth, i want to know that about you. i dont want you thinking your dumb anti scientific nonsense is undermining a scientific movement to save the planet which then justifies smashing you over the head with a bike lock which then results in you keeping the fact youre a complete bozo to yourself

ann coulter wrote a book on the border and immigration. shes going around and promoting it. don't straw man her, take her position in proper context and destroy it with better ideas. or actually debate her. or leave her alone. you don't just get to call her a racist and decide she doesnt get to speak to others because she has different views on the border, immigration policy, illegal immigrants, religion, etc. you may feel shes a racist and thats fine but shes not out there saying she hates mexicans or that people should be violent towards them. other people dont get to make the call on ann coulter for me

we are now seeing antifa label people attending a free speech rally from a wide variety of groups as racists, nazis, etc, and that justifies shutting it down, or smashing them over the head with a bike lock when theyre standing there being all nazi

the dangerous part about going down this path is the best way to prevent violence between people that disagree is dialogue/debate. its also a mechanism where ideas get exposed and the best ones eventually win. thats how you get social change. otherwise ideas just go underground or there is violence. the bad ideas don't go away.

this antifa movement is just going to expose the size of the far left and their stupidity. anyone paying attention to this stuff should be condemning it. if youre happy ann coulter isnt even allowed to advocate a book, ideas, and policies you dont like (which are mostly enforcing existing laws afaik through interviews) then wait until the situation reverses, and it obviously will. wait until a mob decides anyone in opposition of having an impenetrable wall (or whatever) is so unpatriotic and the downfall of a country that they have decided they are actually terrorists that need to get their heads smashed open when they spread this terrorist propaganda. you would correctly call it a disgusting alt right movement

labeling people you disagree with and then using that label as an excuse to violently shut down their ideas is a recipe for disaster. its important people understand this. it should be common knowledge

here is a school teacher in antifa sneaking out of crowd to smash some guys skull open with a bike lock.



here is some more detailed info about what antifa and bamn actually are


Last edited by juan valdez; 04-26-2017 at 12:40 PM.
juan valdez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 12:45 PM   #118
batair
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
batair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: fore the rain starts
Posts: 13,884
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapidator View Post
I read about anti-Trump protestors using accelerant to light flags on fire and then nearly burning themselves. (This is free speech, and also, LOL Darwinism. Hopefully these guys will avoid turning their free speech rights into felony arson charges if their flag burning party gets out of hand.)
I read about our president wanting to make the free speech act of burning the flag a crime punished by losing your citizenship. No protest or cares about oppression form the right wingers there though.
batair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 01:36 PM   #119
batair
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
batair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: fore the rain starts
Posts: 13,884
Re: Free speech

Should of known. Ann does not like free speech either when it come to flag burning. Give the man who shuts it down a raise!!

Quote:
Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 27, 2017

@FedEx good on your driver stopping the flag burning. Give that man a raise and an extra weeks paid vacation!

Kind of weak but i wonder what other anti free speech gems of hers could be found.
batair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 01:40 PM   #120
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,021
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by juan valdez View Post
the answer to this is obvious. nobody wants people killed. what you also don't want is angry mobs of authoritarians growing larger and getting more bold. by framing the situation the way you just have, they get to control speech, dialogue, narrative, etc. who gets to speak and who you get to listen to. extremely dangerous road to head down. i mean why should ann be able to speak if someone could get killed right?
That's always true of violent crowds and has nothing to do with the university's actions. The problem here is that Ann Coulter and others feel slighted and feel like Berkeley is lying about security threats (which seems at odds with how much they complain about violence from the left being a widespread problem.) Coulter was offered a place to speak a few days later, but that wasn't good enough for some reason.

So now she is coming anyway because she can't wait a few days and she is making the security problems even worse. It's stupid and irresponsible.

Quote:
you are siding with thugs and bullies and thats just going to get worse if its not dealt with. the line is already ann lol coulter for violence and destruction. if violent and destructive protesters show up, they should be treated like everyone else committing assault, battery and vandalism. perhaps worse if they conspired
I'm not siding with anyone. A mature person accepts the May 2nd date and free speech survives.
13ball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 01:44 PM   #121
Victor
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 55,963
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapidator View Post
Where are the terrorist Trumpkins in the story you cited?

I read about anti-Trump protestors assaulting police officers. (This is not free speech, btw.)

I read about anti-Trump protestors wearing masks and rioting. (This is not free speech, btw.)

I read about anti-Trump protestors using accelerant to light flags on fire and then nearly burning themselves. (This is free speech, and also, LOL Darwinism. Hopefully these guys will avoid turning their free speech rights into felony arson charges if their flag burning party gets out of hand.)

I read about anti-Trump protestors carrying hammers, sticks and clubs. (Unclear whether the carrying of hammers, sticks and clubs is a 1st amendment issue or a 2nd amendment issue...)

And I read about an a guy who turned himself into police in connection to one of the anti-Trump protestors who was shot. No further details were given. Was this guy later identified as a Biker for Trump terrorist? Perhaps he brought a gun to a hammer, stick and club fight? Maybe he was an anti-Trump protestor and he had a negligent discharge when trying to clean his gun and shot somebody by mistake?



No Trumpkin terrorists are responsible for this, AFAIK.
your problem is that you dont read too good it seems.

there have been countless incidents of trumpers attacking ppl. they have been well documented. there is still evidence of trumpers organizing their attacks (see all of those tweets from "basedstickman" and "generaldeplorable" with instructions on how to create a weapon that could be snuck in an used.)
Victor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 01:44 PM   #122
batair
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
batair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: fore the rain starts
Posts: 13,884
Re: Free speech

Oh.



Free speech. Sure.
batair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 02:03 PM   #123
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,021
Re: Free speech

Quote:
here is a school teacher in antifa sneaking out of crowd to smash some guys skull open with a bike lock.
People over at 4chan have identified someone?

I mean, they may be right, but lol at trusting people at 4chan to identify someone. Their evidence looks pretty scant too.

In any case, does anyone here think Mr. Bike-Lock, whoever he is, shouldn't be arrested?
13ball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 02:06 PM   #124
superslug
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 622
Re: Free speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
your problem is that you dont read too good it seems.

there have been countless incidents of trumpers attacking ppl. they have been well documented. there is still evidence of trumpers organizing their attacks (see all of those tweets from "basedstickman" and "generaldeplorable" with instructions on how to create a weapon that could be snuck in an used.)
Based stickman was a direct response to the violence created by antifa. Had they not escalated the violence you would not have seen that reaction from the right.

Bringing violence into the equation was not going to solve anything but you had all these people on social media who looked like they couldn't punch their way out a paper bag telling people its ok to punch Nazis. The problem being alot of them think that anyone who voted Trump was a nazi.
Im a Bernie Sanders supporter and im sure many of them would probably label me a Nazi as well.

There are no reports of large numbers of Trump supporters organizing and going out on mass with the single intention of attacking people that dont agree with them.

Sure you might get individuals or very small groups, which is inevitable when your dealing with millions of people, but not a few hundred whose sole intention was to turn up to events where people were assembling peacefully and cause them harm.

Had antifa not started attacking people indiscriminately you would not have had people turning up to rallys with sticks and helmets ready to defend themselves.
superslug is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 02:09 PM   #125
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,021
Re: Free speech

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/u...ey-speech.html

Quote:
Ann Coulter said Wednesday that she is canceling her planned speech at the University of California, Berkeley, because she had lost the backing of conservative groups that had initially sponsored her appearance.
...
Late on Tuesday, the conservative group that was helping Ms. Coulter in her legal efforts to force Berkeley to host her, Young America’s Foundation, said it could no longer participate. “Young America’s Foundation will not jeopardize the safety of its staff or students,” the group said.
13ball is online now   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online