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.

 

Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

page: 43
86
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

There are so many contradictions in your post.

So the fact that they felt threatened and had to pull out has nothing to do with this?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Sigh.

Would you please bother to read the statement I linked from the college about why this happened. This has been completely turned into something it isn't. And the YAF were the ones to do it.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So basically, they demand the university spend about a million bucks for security so Ann Coulter can speak when and where they want her to. Maybe YAF members should pay for the security out of their own pockets instead.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's the YAF who turned this into something it isn't. But yeah, stand by what they say. Makes perfect sense.

Unless you read what actually happened.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv



So basically, they demand the university spend about a million bucks for security so Ann Coulter can speak when and where they want her to. Maybe YAF members should pay for the security out of their own pockets instead.


They demand their rights be sufficiently protected by those who are paid to do so.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Now you're okay with conditions on rights?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

No - I'm surprised this is so difficult for you to understand. I think it must mean you don't want to understand

Ms. Coulter was never going to be beaten. We both know that

And no - I don't think she should have put herself in that position

I think she should have bowed out of this one, accepted better arrangements that put fewer people at risk - and given her very special, inspirational speech to anyone that was interested in hearing it


Sure she wouldn't have!

And Gavin McCinnes when he spoke at a New York University would have been attacked. Oh wait he was. And Charles Murray wouldn't have been attacked. Oh wait he was.

How do you know what would have happened? I don't know any more than you, but I am guessing if one of these Antifa types would have had a chance to attack her, they probably would have. After all, we have seen them beat innocent women for just wanting to hear conservative speakers.

So what makes you so sure she wouldn't have been attacked?

And again, you think she should have caved in to the threats. So you would have also told civil rights leaders that they should have caved in to threats and spoke at times and places that were more acceptable to the racists opposed to them.




I'm not the one that's spinning things. You do imply that I'm a bad person. I believe this is what you enjoy doing most of all. So, at least be honest about it

Capitulated? This situation is out of control. Perhaps you believe she should have spoken while there were riots in the street, and people were being killed

that would have been very righteous and very brave of her

:-)


No I think we should arrests the rioters and not give in to them, like at the Milo speech at Berkely.

You are suggesting that we should cave in to this violence, and only speak at times and places that they allow the rest of us to.



She is a big target.

I'll post more of my opinion later on.






posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

There have been Many (false) Reports that "RefuseFascism" are Antifa



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

They are free to protest... I agree, but is making violent threats really considered protest? What is the definition of protest? Cause that sounds more like harassment.

Just a gentle reminder to consider what "protest" really ensues.


Some people will defend it until the cows come home as long as they have one foot inside the Constitution, no matter how morally wrong it is.

Because Constitution.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: ketsuko

Do you actually believe this is what I'm trying to say?

Is that you ketsuko - or is it that other guy?


That's what it seemed you were implying.

If they don't sacrifice to your satisfaction in order to speak, then they aren't serious and deserve to not speak (have their free speech taken away by threats and intimidation).



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Read ATS here and there but infrequently comment. Had to this time due to Underpants and comrades. More rib-tickling than usual is their performance in this thread. Underpants really puts the "d" in touche.

Even The Bern officially condemned this epidemic and yet Underpants et al. are here dutifully doing their thing. I'd consider it disgraceful if I could stop laughing long enough.

Carry on Underpants! You're either a demented true believer, a useful idiot or both if you have multiple personalities...



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Lab4Us

So you're okay with the violence and more people getting hurt.


No, but I am okay with the Mayor directing his police force to enforce laws and when the Left's ANTIFA crowd shows up, arrest them as soon ad they start their s@#$.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

No K.

That's the way SCOTUS ruled.

By beef is the complete bastardization of the first.

Free speech,

Freedom of Assembly.

Freedom to Petition.

Have been conflated in to utter bullsnip.

They were entirely three separate things.

The freedom of assemble means people get to get a bunch of others and talk about the snip that bugs them without interference from the STATE.

Ann Coulter is not a state.

Fregging 'nazis' is not the state.

What people do with those rights is a total bastardization of the intentions that created them.
edit on 27-4-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Kali74
Free speech she hasn't even been denied.


And there we disagree.


You see it as Berkeley should move other speakers and do whatever they have to do to give Coulter the safest place they can on the day that she wants otherwise they are censoring her free speech.

I'm sorry but that's idiotic. And my opinion that it's idiotic doesn't make me a hater of free speech.



hahahahahaha

Bernie, Warren, Bill Mahr, the ACLU thinks it's a violation of free speech.

But you don't, so you can feel justified in supporting censorship.


They are saying the violence is unacceptable and antithetical to free speech, which I've agreed with a thousand times.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

That's not ALL they're saying.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

There are so many contradictions in your post.

So the fact that they felt threatened and had to pull out has nothing to do with this?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Sigh.

Would you please bother to read the statement I linked from the college about why this happened. This has been completely turned into something it isn't. And the YAF were the ones to do it.


TL DR;

But I read it anyway, this isn't new information. Pretty sure we were all aware of this. How does this change anything? If there were no threats of violence to begin with, would a change of date be necessary?

Again, what came first, the chicken or the egg?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Apples and oranges.
MLK stood up for what is right. And he expected opposition and violence.
edit on 4/27/2017 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So they will force Berkeley P.D. to put their whole force in place, which leaves other parts of the area unprotected... or, they will have to pay an inordinate amount of money (which I'm sure they don't have in the budget) on private security.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



And you say


Indeed. Can you quote where I said what you claimed?

No. You cannot.



So you don't feel Coulter going through this was her rights getting stepped on. In fact, you never suggested you had a problem with any of this at all. Instead you commented that her rights weren't stepped on.


Exactly. I did not say what you claimed. You projected all of that nonsense on to me.

I do not see any violation of the first amendment in this case.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kali74

That's not ALL they're saying.


Right... they said Berkeley was wrong to cancel and if Berkeley had cancelled, Berkeley would be wrong. That turned out not to be the case though, didn't it? Or are you going to keep ignoring that fact?
edit on 4/27/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So basically, they demand the university spend about a million bucks for security so Ann Coulter can speak when and where they want her to. Maybe YAF members should pay for the security out of their own pockets instead.


Where did you get that estimate from? Why would it cost so much?



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join