It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll for Left Leaners

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Am not opposed to violent resistance on principle. If all other avenues of protest have been exhausted or are ineffective then it's a viable recourse as a last resort. I don't agree with it in this instance for the simple fact that the alternatives haven't even been considered before people started smashing stuff. Do they have a valid complaint? Maybe.. it's not for me to judge.




posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

You just said security pulled him off the stage. Why? Did they feel that his presence was inciting the violence, which could've violated a contract? Did they feel that he was in danger, and thus, were doing their agreed upon jobs of keeping him safe? Were they specifically ordered to pull him off stage because they wanted to violate his free speech, thought he was engaging in hate speech, etc? It's all speculation unless we see the terms they agreed upon (aka a contract) for him to be able to speak there.

You seem to be forgetting the question that was asked to me. I wasn't asked it I thought it was right or wrong; I was asked if I thought it violated free speech. Right or wrong, I don't think it violated free speech. If he really thinks if does, then he should take that issue to court. And if you think it violated his free speech, then you should contact him and tell him to take it to court. On the other hand, depending on the terms of their agreement, all of this may have already been considered beforehand.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant


Holy hell..

HIS SECURITY REMOVED HIM ....because threat of violence

No offense but did you read up on the story?

Because you keep countering w situations that COULD have happened but didn't happen.

You said you weren't for quashing of free speech through violence, and then stated this wasn't the case in this situation

The culmination of all my responses , repeatedly, is that this is EXACTLY what happened in this case

You seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth here, saying that you aren't for violence stopping free speech but then making excuses as to why it happened at UC. Coming up w long winded posts about what MAY have been in his contract and hypotheticals , that directly contradict what ACTUALLY happened



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Just following your parties leed buddy



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yout are about as enlightened as a 10 watt lightbulb



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
ETA: Actually screw it, there's no point.

I'm against the violence but I don't think him being unable to finish his speech is a free speech issue. I think him being unable to finish his speech is possibly a contractual issue, which has nothing to do with free speech. You're the ones who can't seem to differentiate between the 2, even though I've explained it and re-explained it multiple times. To each their own.


edit on 3-2-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask




Rioting and destroying in no way creates stability ...and is the anti-thesis of what the ones causing the problems actually want

I know which is why I said I don't condone it but when people feel they have no voice base instinct comes into play , we are a violent species.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

The peaceful demonstrations are a good thing. The violent agitators need to be arrested, and their true nature exposed: they are alt-right agents provocateurs, and Milo Yiannopoulos needs to be held accountable.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I disagree with the violence.

Same pattern happened in the 60's from what I've studied - vast majority of peaceful protestors and then some hot headed folks who are at war.

Violence simply gets unwanted attention, like riot police and people dead. (ETA: Obviously I disagree with this part too - not being callous here)
Sometimes I wonder who is whipping up these folks - themselves or are they being helped by infiltrators?

Honestly, I don't know.

Another ETA: Milo's a very inflammatory individual who, while I agree with his having first amendment rights, stirs up negative passions by his outrageous opinions and arrogance. Some people consider his words to be "fighting words" and believe he represents the new right wing faction that is now in the White House (Bannon). Thus people don't like him - they want to scream at him and # him up, like he picked a verbal fight in a bar or someplace where if you threw crap down you could expect to be challenged and possibly hit. So while I don't approve of the opposition to him getting violent, I understand how his attitude says "punchable face." He knew what would happen. He knew there would be protest. Did he know it would turn violent? Interesting question.


edit on 3-2-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: JinMI

The peaceful demonstrations are a good thing. The violent agitators need to be arrested, and their true nature exposed: they are alt-right agents provocateurs, and Milo Yiannopoulos needs to be held accountable.


Interesting theory. Is there proof?



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I seem to remember something about how America was founded on violent protests...



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

More of a revolution I would say. I don't think this is that.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: gortex
How understanding would you be if it was your car that was lit on fire or your home that had its windows broken?
Just curious.

What? What's that you say? Am I still beating my wife?
Great "poll".



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Hmmm. . ...

Ummm....hmmm.....

Umm... what!?



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Painterz

More of a revolution I would say. I don't think this is that.



I don't know enough about American history, but wasn't there a wave of violent protests against British rule leading up to the revolution?

The Tea Party and all that jazz?



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I disagree with rioting, but I also disagree with the narrative that the left is solely rioting. It seems this riot issue is being used as a wedge issue to suppress the left's right to protest which the right is finding very inconvenient currently.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI
As I suspected this isn't a 'Poll' or even a discussion, made clear by your going after every dissenting view. It's just another in the litany of Trump-rah-rah-circle-jerks.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Oh, please, I've not gone after anyone. In fact those that I've responded to, I've had a few good discussions with.

It was mentioned in another thread that no left folks were denouncing the violence. Here is a whole thread as testament to the opposite.
edit on 3-2-2017 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Disagree, along with just about everybody else I know (left, right, center) If you want to ruin you home zip, whatever, "don't come bitching to me about the aftereffects, dumbass" is my baseline take. If it's not your home zip, think twice. Hard.

Though the uptick in lashing out violently has been getting my Spidey senses a-tingling lately. I used to think "professional agitators" were a BS excuse. Now I'm wondering just how much truth to the notion there is, because if the tinfoil-iest are to be believed, it's damn easy to insert a violent few into a protest to turn the public opinion sour.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: JinMI
As I suspected this isn't a 'Poll' or even a discussion, made clear by your going after every dissenting view. It's just another in the litany of Trump-rah-rah-circle-jerks.



You haven't paid much attention to Jin's posts lately.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join