College Republicans suspended by UC Irvine after hosting Milo

a reply to: windword

It's funny how whenever a liberal speaker holds an event on college campuses, you don't see conservatives spitting on people, blocking entrances and calling in bomb threats.

But whenever a conservative speaker shows up all hell breaks loose and the liberals start rioting and threatening violence.

It's a real eye opener.

a reply to: Konduit

It's funny how whenever a liberal speaker holds an event on college campuses, you don't see conservatives spitting on people, blocking entrances and calling in bomb threats.

You did during the civil rights era. But, you did see it from both sides even then. Certainly in the '60s and the '70s you did see a lot of "liberal hippies" protesting. I guess that's because protests usually come about because of oppression, and liberals, rather than conservatives, lead the fight against oppression.

And...Trump's perfect VP just reared a coiffed head.

a reply to: windword

or maybe it's because the demographic that votes left is utterly intolerant of even the slightest bit of dissonace from people who normally vote for them.

Not only that but you have to be shockingly short sighted and have neandrathal-Esc retardation to call in a bomb threat and assault people because they might say stuff that you don't agree with.

No doubt these leftists are the definition of low information voters.

How far does free speech go before consequences occur?

Are we all judged by the same standard?

I'm not. I'm not from the U.S.A., but I can see the internal turmoil that is happening.
It's horrible, witnessing a state internally combust.

a reply to: windword

So basically the leftist totalitarians cause riots and protests against speech they don't like, then the university can ban the political opposition claiming that they're causing riots. What an underhanded and transparent tactic. I wonder if it would work against to you guys? I think we all know your opinion would do a 180 if these tactics were used against speech YOU agree with.

a reply to: DBCowboy

This seems to be their strategy. They blame the victims of Islamic Terror, they blame the victims of crime, they're always casting blame to the wrong party. It's intentional I think.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Konduit

It's funny how whenever a liberal speaker holds an event on college campuses, you don't see conservatives spitting on people, blocking entrances and calling in bomb threats.

You did during the civil rights era. But, you did see it from both sides even then. Certainly in the '60s and the '70s you did see a lot of "liberal hippies" protesting. I guess that's because protests usually come about because of oppression, and liberals, rather than conservatives, lead the fight against oppression.

See now opinions you don't like are oppression. You guys are straight-up dangerous.

It's people like this that are the reason i no longer consider myself left wing.

I believe in traditional left wing ideas, the modern left does not. It's an authoritarian, racist, sexist movement that seeks to silence all opposition. I find it quite terrifying to tell the truth.

I guess the extreme wealth inequality and the increasingly difficult struggle the poor have to deal with doesn't matter to these people. That can all take a back seat to their racial and gender ideology.

I believe all people are equal, regardless of race or sex, that makes me a racist bigot to these people I guess because I don't think people should have an advantage based on ridiculous things beyond their control like whatever skin colour they are or if they have a vagina or penis.

Everyone has the right to speak their mind. I don't care what they advocate. Anyone, from a Neo-Nazi to a Communist, Free Market Capitalist, Socialist, Islamic Extremist, whatever. I believe they have the freedom to say whatever they want.

Those who seek to silence others have a failed ideology. Their ideas cannot stand up to criticism and open discussion. That is why the modern "left" for want of a better term is so keen on censorship.

a reply to: xuenchen

There's a lot of stuff that is really making me shaking my head lately in regards to censoring, strange days, keep your head low.

a reply to: xuenchen

So who exactly is this Milo guy?

a reply to: TheBulk

No. I think given the fact that this man tends to rile people up, and has a history of leaving protests and violence in his wake, the "College Republicans" should have gotten the insurance the campus required.

I've been on boards of many, many non-profit groups that put on all kinds of public events, and all them always required insurance!

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Konduit

It's funny how whenever a liberal speaker holds an event on college campuses, you don't see conservatives spitting on people, blocking entrances and calling in bomb threats.

You did during the civil rights era. But, you did see it from both sides even then. Certainly in the '60s and the '70s you did see a lot of "liberal hippies" protesting. I guess that's because protests usually come about because of oppression, and liberals, rather than conservatives, lead the fight against oppression.

See now opinions you don't like are oppression. You guys are straight-up dangerous.

I'll thank you to keep your personal accusations about "ME" to yourself. I simply commented on a public forum. I'm not out there attending rallies and protesting.

Who is really trying to oppress free speech, me or you?

Take your vitriol down a notch, would ya?

originally posted by: Konduit
On a side note... Milo announced today on The Rubin Report that next month he will be going to Sweden to lead a gay pride march through the Muslim ghettos in Malmo. Honestly I hope he has proper security, I don't want to see him become a martyr.

Dis gun be gud

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Konduit

It's funny how whenever a liberal speaker holds an event on college campuses, you don't see conservatives spitting on people, blocking entrances and calling in bomb threats.

You did during the civil rights era. But, you did see it from both sides even then. Certainly in the '60s and the '70s you did see a lot of "liberal hippies" protesting. I guess that's because protests usually come about because of oppression, and liberals, rather than conservatives, lead the fight against oppression.

Basically, you see the violence and threats of violence by the culturally reactionary rear-guard. People only resort to violence when other methods of control have failed.

Just like the British Empire didn't shoot many Indians until Gandhi started uniting them with non-violence. That's when the Brits got out the machine-guns.

Just like in the 1960s, when blacks were protesting and the Bull Connors of America had to get out the dogs and water cannons.

So today, the beleaguered rear-guard of the liberal left have to use violence to shut down dissent, and maintain their own power structures---liberal universities...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TheBulk

No. I think given the fact that this man tends to rile people up, and has a history of leaving protests and violence in his wake, the "College Republicans" should have gotten the insurance the campus required.

I've been on boards of many, many non-profit groups that put on all kinds of public events, and all them always required insurance!

HEres a question. even with security those 50 people still would had caused trouble. So even with the required papers(SS much?) they still would had been brought up on this kangaroo court charge.

a reply to: xuenchen

Sounds more like some kind of retaliation and petty nit-picking to me.

Hardly.

This University also took action against Muslim students that interrupted an Israeli ambassador's speech at UC, on behalf of one of the schools Muslim groups.

The University has been fairly consistent, but it appears that people are going to use this case to once again play the victim.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I can't get the link in the OP to work.

Does this mean that the CR organize public events on campus for one year?

Or does it mean that are banned from even meeting on campus, or posting information on bulletin boards, etc?



Because the "one year into the future" part of this sounds like punishment, rather than a requirement to limit liability. Have other groups without proper insurance been banned proactively for a year? Or were they merely required to produce insurance paperwork when they booked the venue.

a reply to: introvert

But THAT was a criminal case.

a reply to: xuenchen

It became a legal issue after the University had already taken action.

What this shows is that the University is not biased to one side of the political spectrum.