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.

 

UC Berkeley must allow conservatives to speak on campus

page: 11
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Let's imagine for a moment what happened to people that protested the Nazis. If only more had... Why did they wait so long?

Because, like conservative speakers today, they were threatened by the Nazis because the Nazis didn't like what they said.


What are these kids protesting Redneck?

Which ones? The ones who are shouting down speakers?

They're protesting free speech. That's my point.

TheRedneck




posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Its like they dont know their history.

The very tactics being used by these leftists students are the tactics Hitler used with his bronwshirts to help rise rto power.


Brownshirts used physical violence and terror to break up meetings of political opponents and suppress opposition.

Meetings of the Peace Society were frequently broken up by Brownshirts.
They would invade meetings, interrupt the speaker, attempt to physically attack him, and make enough disturbance so that meetings would be forced to cancel.
Sound familiar?
Brownshirts organized to disrupt and “shut down” the political meetings of all non-Nazi groups.
Tactics included interrupting, making noise, and unnerving the speaker. All for the purpose of silencing opposing political views.
Sound familiar?
During elections, Brownshirts would send speakers to physically take over meetings of other political parties.
After taking over, they would forcibly exclude anyone not in sympathy with their views.
Sound familiar?
Brownshirts would even incite riots to shut down meetings of political opponents.
Sound familiar?

The Brownshirts were successful in obtaining “mastery of the streets” and shutting down all dissenting voices. Their efforts helped grind the existing government to a halt, and destabilized Germany into a state of crisis.

Hitler used this crisis to argue that he was the only one who could restore order to the country.


www.thecitizensaudit.com...



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

They clearly don't get the whole Constitutional Rights thing.

“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.

In their wisdom the authors knew it needed boundaries. "Peaceably" was a carefully chosen word.

From the Law Library of Congress.

The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety or order.[13] Statutes that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendment


This is certainly a step in the right direction. Authorities need to stop being political wimps and do their jobs. A school that accepts government funding needs to remember all students have rights and not just those they agree with.

I actually think the tide is turning the other way. The fringe has put on such a freak show, I think they are alienating people from all sides as they should. This is not a partisan thing now, it's a matter of upholding the laws and protecting everyone's rights. The laws are there to stop it and control it, already on the books.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


When I said (earlier in the thread) that sometimes the illegal thing is the moral thing? This is what I'm talking about. Riots in the freaking streets if necessary

If - necessary. It's not necessary. Yet

That insinuates that riots are acceptable to you... when you deem them acceptable. There's that ambiguity of morality over law again. Who decides when it is necessary? You? What if someone else disagrees? That's just their tough luck, right?

If not, then what do we do... hold a town hall and decide by a showing of hands if it's 'necessary' to riot in the streets?

You know that's not how it works... but like so many today, you don't want to admit it. You want to decide for yourself when rioting is necessary, and damn what anyone else says. You're not fooling anyone.


Not for freaking Ann Coulter or Milo or any of these bellyaching attention seeking yahoos. But, I am older - and have some perspective

How magnanimous of you to allow these poor peasants to speak! I wonder when you'll decide someone is worthy of riots and violence. I would bet it won't be when you agree with their platform.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


The very tactics being used by these leftists students are the tactics Hitler used with his bronwshirts to help rise rto power.

You see that, I see that, but it seems some cannot understand which role they are playing. They say they consider themselves Hitler's enemies, when in fact they act more like the Nazi party themselves.

Especially with the "words are actions" statements... that's just plain backwards. Actions are what's important. Words can be misleading, lies, half-truths, deceptions... but actions show true intent clearly. The words Hitler spoke from his podium harmed no one... but his ovens did.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Words are words.


Actions are actions.

To say, "Words are actions" sets up a justification for future censorship because . . . . "words are actions" and if you can get the opposing side to agree to that, then everyone loses except for the censors.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
They ‘riot in the streets’ when the majority of the population does not conform with the hivemind.

“Think how we think or we’ll silence you and attack you”, the very definition of fascism.

I think ‘rioting in the streets’ is necessary to fight fascism. The ‘left’ seem to think it’s necessary to support fascism.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Just because they label ‘speech they don’t agree with’ as ‘hate speech’, certainly doesn’t make it so.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CynConcepts




Why not? You have been participating in this thread and it was frustrating that you were not seemingly being honest or actually have not really considered your own truth to share.

I was never dishonest. You can read back through my posts and decide for yourself



...it is simply rude.


That's how I see it



Peaceful protesting is standing outside a venue and not deterring others, but allowing them to read your concerns on a sign or your voice of discernation thus allowing another to consider your point on their own.

You don't cram your personal opinion nor block another from being able to self-determine their own opinion by hearing both sides of a debate. That is fascism not protesting.


Pretty much what I've been saying. With the exception of potential extenuating circumstances

Fear of fascism kinda creates it's own momentum :-)



Thank you for responding. Obviously, I was not alone in my confusion in your responses, so looking back at prior posts would not be helpful. My past curiosity is appeased at you admitting that hecklers are simply rude.

You have awakened my curiosity again though...what exception of potential extenuating circumstances...for you (hypothetically, of course)...would be okay to silence or override another's freedom of speech?

Personally, I believe that silence, absence, and not giving ear has a more lasting impression and noticeable effect than one calling attention to those you abhor.

Please, Explain why you seem to disagree that this may not be a more effective action, if you disagree with me?



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak

Rioting is a go to solution only because others give in to demands. It would not be the go to action if it didn't provide a 50/50 chance to get their demands met.

Perhaps if the rioters were not appeased so often they would actually try to meet 50/50 in negotiating through honest debate and communication rather than physical action and violence?

Even I am more apt to listen to my young grandchild who honestly debates his request vs simply throws a violent tantrum. Tantrums are self serving and useless...communicating justified truths and wants allows reasonings to be truly considered and weighed.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Well, here's something bizarre!

An old girlfriend of mine from college left to go to CA. We parted ways. She graduated from UC Berkley with a degree in Political Psychology. Her parents were die hard liberals (i mean crazy, dope smoking, tie dye, died in the wool, hippy, liberals...seriously).

She now lives in Wisconsin and is a registered and devout Republican!

In grade school, I loved glazed donuts (just LOVED them). One time in about 6th grade I had to walk to the store for my parents in FL. Dad gave me a bunch of money for stuff, and I bought a whole box of glazed donuts. My plan was to eat the whole box on the way home, and I did. By the time I got home the Florida sun was blazing, and I suddenly felt more sick than I'd ever felt. To this day I've never eaten another glazed donut.

Maybe some of the radical institutions like UC Berkley are like eating glazed donuts.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Well, here's something bizarre!

An old girlfriend of mine from college left to go to CA. We parted ways. She graduated from UC Berkley with a degree in Political Psychology. Her parents were die hard liberals (i mean crazy, dope smoking, tie dye, died in the wool, hippy, liberals...seriously).

She now lives in Wisconsin and is a registered and devout Republican!

In grade school, I loved glazed donuts (just LOVED them). One time in about 6th grade I had to walk to the store for my parents in FL. Dad gave me a bunch of money for stuff, and I bought a whole box of glazed donuts. My plan was to eat the whole box on the way home, and I did. By the time I got home the Florida sun was blazing, and I suddenly felt more sick than I'd ever felt. To this day I've never eaten another glazed donut.

Maybe some of the radical institutions like UC Berkley are like eating glazed donuts.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

The combination of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers (admittedly a series of dry reads) paint an amazingly interesting and coherent portrait of Founders who recognized the fact that the government may need to be overthrown by We the People if that government became tyrannical, but also had the foresight to ensure it would take a significant majority of We the People to agree with and participate in that overthrow or it would be purely an exercise in treason.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Obviously. the far left Marxist Progressive Communistas can not win on a level playing field. This could be devastating for them. Prepare for violence, death threats, and civil disobediance


They have stated this themselves "...the far right have such eloquent and persuasive arguments to justify their viewpoints that it is impossible to provide a counter-argument. These beliefs can become infectious and spread to other people. Therefore they must be banned from speaking..."
edit on 4-12-2018 by stormcell because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2018 by stormcell because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Next stop: their repressive and patently illegal gun laws

I dream of a day where Citizens of California enjoy the same Constitutionally enumerated rights as the rest of us in free America. It is a shame our supposedly unalienable rights vary so much depending on where you are geographically.

I can see our forefathers turning in their graves

They would be so ashamed at what some places and people have become, but especially the far left. And the general malaise/inaction that besets so many of my fellow Republican patriots and especially those in power capable of acting with measure is equally alarming
edit on 12/4/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
Cue the Liberal whining about hate speech Right Wing Fascist homophobic White Male something something something...

For folks who worry so much about Fascists, they sure do their best to limit Free Speech ...and any other Rights they think you shouldn't have.




I remember not so many years ago, that all speech was allowed, even if you held your nose, you realized that in a democracy all voices have the right to be heard. Sadly that seems to be over at least for now.



posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Grambler

You ok with NAMBLA speakers, right?


Nope, no problem with NAMBLA speakers at all. Those sick perverts need to have a bright light shined upon them. We need to know who they are and where they prowl. By all means, book those speakers!




posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Because, like conservative speakers today, they were threatened by the Nazis because the Nazis didn't like what they said.


Maybe you don't like what the protesters are saying?

They aren't protesting free speech - they're protesting the speakers. If you want to pretend you don't understand why - that's up to you

:-)



posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



...but like so many today, you don't want to admit it. You want to decide for yourself when rioting is necessary, and damn what anyone else says. You're not fooling anyone.


Seems to me that you're the one that wants to determine when rioting is necessary

So, you like Coulter - Milo? Fine - support them. I do not

I have said all along that they deserve to speak. I also said that protesting these guys isn't worth it

When I entered this thread I was supporting free speech - for everyone. I think it's interesting how you need so badly to turn this into something else



posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts


Thank you for responding. Obviously, I was not alone in my confusion in your responses, so looking back at prior posts would not be helpful. My past curiosity is appeased at you admitting that hecklers are simply rude.

It might not have been easy - but it would have been helpful. It's interesting to me that you accept other people's confusion as fact


You have awakened my curiosity again though...what exception of potential extenuating circumstances...for you (hypothetically, of course)...would be okay to silence or override another's freedom of speech?


I think you're confused again. I don't believe in silencing people. We should all be willing to tolerate speech that we consider ugly. This includes tolerating protests - peaceful protest

I can't support Antifa in the way they've chosen to go about things now

I wonder. If you knew people were being loaded onto trains and shipped off to camps to be killed - would you protest? Or would you remain silent - and polite?

Extenuating circumstances. Riots - in the streets

Fear of fascism kinda creates it's own momentum



posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Maybe you don't like what the protesters are saying?

I don't go by what they are saying... that's irrelevant. I'm going by what they are doing. You don't seem to be able to grasp that.


They aren't protesting free speech - they're protesting the speakers.

Is that anything like supporting free speech as long as you agree with the message? it certainly sounds like it.


Seems to me that you're the one that wants to determine when rioting is necessary

How are you getting that? When have I ever said that sometimes rioting is necessary if speech becomes unbearable? You have said that at least twice now, and hinted at it more.


So, you like Coulter - Milo? Fine - support them. I do not

Coulter, a little... sometimes. Not one of my favorite personalities.

Milo? Not really.

Whether I like them or not is again, irrelevant. I despise Al Gore, but if he wants to speak... let him. Just keep the protests outside and allow unhindered access.


I have said all along that they deserve to speak. I also said that protesting these guys isn't worth it

The last part of that is where I take exception. What happens when someone is "worth it"? According to your previous posts, that means rioting then is OK. I disagree, completely. Rioting is never OK.


When I entered this thread I was supporting free speech - for everyone.

Then why did you keep adding that qualifier to your support: "unless rioting becomes necessary"?

That is where I disagree.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join