Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

originally posted by: RickinVa
Protesting is fine.

lighting cars on fire and breaking windows, throwing rocks at the police is not.

That is vandalism.

According to some, we have no right to protest.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SBMcG

All they can do is hate everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Oh yeah! I started out in life as a Republican.

It's "Agree with me, or agree with me, I'm right, and you're not".

Better than the leftist viewpoint which is "agree with me or I'll beat you with a stick after throwing M-80's at you".

a reply to: Kali74

True or False,

Her backers backed out because of threats of violence?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

It appears you are failing to understand the most basic concept behind the right. Read this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

What is a redress of grievances?

It's a complaint. A protest.

Oh, I c.

And Ann Coulter is now the government to be petitioned?

Read my edit.

Are you guys really trying to say that we do not have the right to assemble or speak freely in protest of certain causes?

If free speech rights can only be violated by the government, then yes.

That does not make much sense.

But ok.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Violence is bad, mmmkay? We want to prevent violence, right? Berkeley wants to prevent violence. Berkeley's not evil for wanting to prevent violence, are they? What's the best way to prevent violence when you don't have access to a whole police force and you don't have a million bucks for private security? You have your public event at a venue that allows what security you do have a better chance at controlling it.

You debate with Logic?

Something's going to explode.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SBMcG

All they can do is hate everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Oh yeah! I started out in life as a Republican.

It's "Agree with me, or agree with me, I'm right, and you're not".

Republicans are out shutting down free speech, beating people up, and throwing their sh*t on people they hate.

That would be your fellow leftists.

a reply to: introvert

Why would extra security be needed for a peaceful assembly protest?

I suppose the normal amount of security would do for a "peaceful" protest. Which would be easier on the budget since people are talking about money.

Honestly I admit I just dived in here but I'm just gently reminding people to consider things with a little more depth? There are holes in the logic dag nabit!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

In rough order of your presentation:

You know as well as I do that the "denial of service" argument only goes one way when "conservatives" are involved.

Repeat after me, Berkley is not a private company.

Is Ann a California citizen?

What does that have to do with anything?

Nope. Did she have a contract with the University to perform a service? Nope.

She accepted an invite from a University group to speak.

OP's source states clearly that Coulter decided not to go. Take up your quibble with that source.

As we have learned, that was not the case.

Trump supporters have stated clearly that they felt he was directing them to do violence from the podium.

Citation? How many supporters stated this?

Most of us who aren't blind sycophants and apologists heard him do so time after time.

And we anti-Obama folks heard the former President (not candidate... PRESIDENT) use violent rhetoric, and we recognized it for what it was. Rhetoric. Just like CANDIDATE Trump's words were rhetoric.

And there you go, you want to justify incitement as long as it's a private venue? LOL. True colors.

Exactly where did I advocate that? Where? Be precise.

Violence for political purposes is wrong. So is blatant hypocrisy and dishonesty.

We can agree on that part at least. That's why leftists are wrong so often, they are guilty of all three.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

It appears you are failing to understand the most basic concept behind the right. Read this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

What is a redress of grievances?

It's a complaint. A protest.

Oh, I c.

And Ann Coulter is now the government to be petitioned?

Read my edit.

Are you guys really trying to say that we do not have the right to assemble or speak freely in protest of certain causes?

Are you really suggesting smashing people in the head with bike locks and throwing M-80's into the crowd qualifies as the right to assemble and freely protest?

No. I've said no such thing. In fact, I've said the opposite.

Are people having a hard time reading English today?

Like I've said few times people are seeing things that aren't there. Proof that the far right propaganda is working.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa
Protesting is fine.

lighting cars on fire and breaking windows, throwing rocks at the police is not.

That is vandalism.

According to some, we have no right to protest.

Oh, you have every right to protest, but the 1st Amendment says it's the government you petition for redress of grievances, just like the government can't stop your speech ...



Now, do we all want to back off the silly "only government" angle and admit that free speech is free speech and right to protest is right to protest?

They are both linked to the word "government" in the 1st Amendment text ...

a reply to: introvert

You may call it a waste or improper, but that's because you don't understand the right.

I do.

YOU don't.

As those rights laid out specifically state GOVERNMENT.

Seriously sitting there say that right means 'protesting' OTHER private citizens is absolutely unequivocally WRONG of the firsts meaning,

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SBMcG

All they can do is hate everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Oh yeah! I started out in life as a Republican.

It's "Agree with me, or agree with me, I'm right, and you're not".

Republicans are out shutting down free speech, beating people up, and throwing their sh*t on people they hate.

When I was a Republican they laughed at the Dems. They made fun of them, saying they would never fight back.

When the Dem's had enough and started fighting back, the Reps got pissed off.

I seriously heard this: "How dare they fight back, they're Dems".

Too bad.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kali74

True or False,

Her backers backed out because of threats of violence?

Only the far left can silence others with violence, then turn around and play victim.

Bunch of self-centered, selfish, emotionally inept children.

a reply to: neo96

So you think that Christians protesting against Planned Parenthood are wrong? Is that what you are saying?

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: introvert

Why would extra security be needed for a peaceful assembly protest?

I suppose the normal amount of security would do for a "peaceful" protest. Which would be easier on the budget since people are talking about money.

Honestly I admit I just dived in here but I'm just gently reminding people to consider things with a little more depth? There are holes in the logic dag nabit!

You debate with logic?

Something's going to explode.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Lol.

No, I debate with feelings.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kali74

True or False,

Her backers backed out because of threats of violence?

Irrelevant to the particular convo we are having because I have denounced the violence and stated it threatens her free speech. You moved the goal posts to put the onus on Berkeley and answered a question with a question.

a reply to: Annee

You do realize if the far left simply laughed at and made fun of those they disagree with, we wouldn't be having these problems and a needed full on police presence, right?

Please apply some logic to this, Annee.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

It's a tautology.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kali74

True or False,

Her backers backed out because of threats of violence?

True: the university said they couldn't guarantee security based on the time/venue and offered safer alternatives

True: the student group backed out because they didn't want to change the time/venue and demanded the university guarantee security that it couldn't guarantee.