Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Some of you say you denounce the violence and in the same breath make excuses for the protest. Either they are wrong or they are not. Which is it?


In more important news: hello shiny new border!

You are wrong if you are claiming that every single person protesting is violent.

Statist gonna statist. It's like a disease. Can't seem to help themselves. They'll try to justify anything. Few of them have any integrity at all which is why we see few outright condemnations in this thread but plenty of excuse making, deflection and non-sequitur s.

If I were on the opposite side of this I'd..."Let me first say that this tactic of threatening violence to silence speakers has to end. However, there are a few specifics involved here that we shouldn't overlook, namely..."

Notice how little of that there has been. Instead they prefer intellectual dishonesty and sophistry but the beautiful part is that it reveals their true nature and demonstrates why no sane, forthright person should ever attempt to deal with a statist on the level. They're NEVER on the level.

Me pappy always said never trust a boot-licker. Man has turned out to be right about nearly everything.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Because apparently the protestors are the ones being violent? How do you differentiate between the violent protestors with the peaceful ones when the threat of violence protest stopped it from happening?

If there is no protest, we do not have to differentiate between the two.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Sure, but we are discussing something that didn't happen so watching videos of other events are irrelevant. One side is saying there is no excuse for what happened, and another is finding every excuse for what happened.

So what really happened????:

a reply to: ColonelDax

Maybe your Pappy can help you find the right thread ... because nothing you're saying applies to this one.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Quote where there's any kind of restriction on what people can assemble about.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I suggest stop selectively reading what you want to read, and start at the beginning.

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.

Private citizens are not congress nor do they hold any authority over the union.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

No you are asking how we can tell the difference. It's pretty obvious which one are protesting peacefully and which one are not. And self-defense is pretty obvious too. Don't know why you asked that question. The fact remains that the Antifa group and perhaps the Nazis are the violent ones.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Some of you say you denounce the violence and in the same breath make excuses for the protest. Either they are wrong or they are not. Which is it?


In more important news: hello shiny new border!

You are wrong if you are claiming that every single person protesting is violent.

So, in your view, if a riot contains one peaceful person, it's all OK? The police should just stand back out of respect for that single canary?

I can see it now -- the riot with a designated protester!

a reply to: neo96

At this time I would like to use my daily meme allowance.

I think we can all agree that the threats made to Coulter and her backers infringed on her rights to speak freely.

But, of course, the usual crowd will find a way to even disagree with this.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Some of you say you denounce the violence and in the same breath make excuses for the protest. Either they are wrong or they are not. Which is it?


In more important news: hello shiny new border!

You are wrong if you are claiming that every single person protesting is violent.

So, in your view, if a riot contains one peaceful person, it's all OK? The police should just stand back out of respect for that single canary?

A riot is not a protest; a protest is not a riot. I was just explaining that to knowledgehunter. I don't understand what you are saying. No, I don't think the police should stand back if there is a riot.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think we can all agree that the threats made to Coulter and her backers infringed on her rights to speak freely.

But, of course, the usual crowd will find a way to even disagree with this.

How can threats infringe on her rights?

She could have still spoke at Berkely.

She chose not to.

a reply to: introvert

Sure you wouldn't rather protest this private citizen and imitate Berkeley ?

It actually works for them.

Well sort of.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Sure you wouldn't rather protest this private citizen and imitate Berkeley ?

It actually works for them.

Well sort of.

No. I have better things to do.

We still have the right to protest anything we please and the government can't stop us.

That is what the 1st amendment states.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

It was rhetorical, what I am trying to say is how can we know about something that hasn't happened yet? All we do know is that a violent threat stopped it from happening.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think we can all agree that the threats made to Coulter and her backers infringed on her rights to speak freely.

But, of course, the usual crowd will find a way to even disagree with this.

How can threats infringe on her rights?

She could have still spoke at Berkely.

She chose not to.

When I'm right, I'm right.

And yet, you will sit and state that you are for free speech and against violence.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It was rhetorical, what I am trying to say is how can we know about something that hasn't happened yet? All we do know is that a violent threat stopped it from happening.

Violent threats made from both sides of the political spectrum. Let's make sure that context is provided.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think we can all agree that the threats made to Coulter and her backers infringed on her rights to speak freely.

But, of course, the usual crowd will find a way to even disagree with this.

I think we can also all agree that Berkeley made an offer to accommodate Coulter and her backers while still being able to guarantee everyone's safety, and that her backers refused the offer.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: neo96

What do you call people meeting together holding up signs and talking to each other? Come on man.

Idiotic.

Bad spelling.,

Bad art.

Incoherent

Mumbo jumbo.

With talking points.

And they don't talk to other people.

They talk AT people.

Huge difference.

I don't think the Tea Party is going to be there Neo.

Oh I was talking about Occupy Wall Street,Black lives matter,La Raza,ANTIFA.,

Sounded like you were talking about the Tea Party ... or a Trump rally.

/shrug

Spoken like someone who has never been to either type of event.

Spoken like someone who denies anything that disagrees with their agenda.

Repetition is the finest form of flattery, thanks!

a reply to: neo96

Your comprehension of the 1st is atrocious.