CDZ America Held Hostage by Radical Left?

[jwoodie]

Nothing was stolen. If they wanted to have a private party they should have had a members only meeting.

So it's OK for the KKK to disrupt an NAACP meeting?

 

[forkup]

The country was built by violent revolution. You protest peacefully at a Trump rally, and get punched.

So it's OK if I "peacefully" deprive you of free speech?

How do you peacefully deprive free speech? Isn't that practicaly speaking impossible. If I yell really loud and you speak, sound still comes out right. And secondly unless you are claiming that there's so many protesters that you can't hear Trump at all anymore his speech isnt impaired. And thirdly if a protester speaks doesn't his opinion fall under free speech? If you dont physicly assault anybody , everybody, you but also the protester can say what he or she wants.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, all the other candidates (Democrat and Republican), have had protesters at some of their events, and none of those were violent.

Trump seems to relish throwing red meat to his base and in some of his words, he can be quite inflammatory by saying things like they should be punched in the mouth, he wants to punch people in the mouth, and my favorite, in the old days people like that (protesters) would have been carried out on a stretcher.

None of the other candidates us inflammatory language like that at their rallies, only Trump.

And, exactly HOW is America "being held hostage by the radical left"?

 

[alpine]

He who sow the wind,
reap the whirlwind...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nothing was stolen. If they wanted to have a private party they should have had a members only meeting.

So it's OK for the KKK to disrupt an NAACP meeting?

That depends on what constitutes 'disrupt.'

If the protest is done in a manner that allows the event to proceed, then there's no reason for the Klan to be compelled to end their 'protest.'

Once the event is unable to proceed, however, then the Klan needs to leave – either on their own or compelled to do so by private security or law enforcement.

But members of the NAACP shouldn't engage in verbal and physical assault of the Klan members as they go, which is what many Trump supporters have done.

 

[Holos]

This may sound like a partisan title, but there is no other way to describe the assault on our First Amendment rights. As demonstrated almost daily, there is a sizable and growing segment of our population who seek to silence, by disruption and intimidation, those with whom they disagree. This is happening, more and more often, at educational and political events throughout the country.

The common denominator for these "protests" is the predominance of left-wing activists at these events. Since when does the First Amendment confer the right of one group to deny the same right to another group? Ironically, this group of activists is the first to accuse the other groups they are trying to silence as "brown shirts" when in fact they are the ones employing the same tactics as the Nazis in the 1930s.

Equally repugnant to our Constitutional rights are those on the sidelines who makes excuses for this wretched behavior, usually in concert with pushing their own political agendas. Can they not see that we are moving towards a South American-style political system where the ignorant masses are beguiled into thinking that they can vote themselves into prosperity, while the elite live behind high walls with armed guards?

Does anyone here not believe that silencing others will lead to silencing everyone?

I understand perfectly what you are expressing. I do not think that has anything to do with the First Ammendment, however.

I've experienced the same throughout my political life. I saw a lot of that happen within my college life up until and including when I was accepted into UC Berkeley, but I never really condenmed any of it or attempted to demoralize it. I do not believe that sort of behavior to be a just exhertion of political power and I think the Constitution and its First Ammendment remains intact regardless of how distant from the Constitution and its Ammendments those actions may be proceeded forth from.

I left UC Berkeley after my first semester, and I believe we can agree that move of mine was of the "extreme left", not because I had to flee or fight the people who would rather make a lot of noise to keep others silent (which was a largely prevalent happenstance when I was there), but because the only other alternative was to be of the conservative "extreme right" and take over the entire campus by whatever means I could and get my degree of being "a proud institutional member (er...an alumni as they say it...)".


I recognized the same you still recognize, the whole "South American politics", as you yourself has put it, but I took no hostages and still take none.

Take care of your words and behaviors, will you? Because if you happen to not be able to distinguish them in yourself you might keep living the terrible delusion that the Constitution or any part of it is really under attack. Only speech and the press require freedom, according to the First Ammendment, and I am sure we would both agree the entirery of your behavior is much more than just press or speech.

 

[BULLDOG]

The country was built by violent revolution. You protest peacefully at a Trump rally, and get punched.

So it's OK if I "peacefully" deprive you of free speech?

Free speech laws prevent the government from denying your speech. There is nothing stopping me, or any other citizen from shouting down your stupid statements.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If you say something, and I think it's stupid, free speech allows me to tell you that I think what you just said is stupid.

You have the right under free speech to tell me why you think I'm stupid, or tell me why you think what you said is intelligent.

And then, we can continually talk back and forth, even if we don't agree.

THAT is how free speech works.

 

[320 Years of History]

This may sound like a partisan title, but there is no other way to describe the assault on our First Amendment rights.

Red:
Not only might it sound that way, it does. It does so much I almost opted not to read the OP.

Blue:
There are. You simply elected not to use any of them.

Does anyone here not believe that silencing others will lead to silencing everyone?

What I believe, or want to, is often very different from what I know to be rationally un-/supportable. That said, I'm certainly not willing to assert that I believe that "silencing [some] will lead to silencing everyone."

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

[jwoodie]

You know, all the other candidates (Democrat and Republican), have had protesters at some of their events, and none of those were violent.

Trump seems to relish throwing red meat to his base and in some of his words, he can be quite inflammatory by saying things like they should be punched in the mouth, he wants to punch people in the mouth, and my favorite, in the old days people like that (protesters) would have been carried out on a stretcher.

None of the other candidates us inflammatory language like that at their rallies, only Trump.

And, exactly HOW is America "being held hostage by the radical left"?

So you justify the physical prevention or disruption of free speech by others if you judge it to be inflammatory? Good Lord, you have proven my point beyond any question.

You are paving the way to Hell and don't even know it.

 

[forkup]

You know, all the other candidates (Democrat and Republican), have had protesters at some of their events, and none of those were violent.

Trump seems to relish throwing red meat to his base and in some of his words, he can be quite inflammatory by saying things like they should be punched in the mouth, he wants to punch people in the mouth, and my favorite, in the old days people like that (protesters) would have been carried out on a stretcher.

None of the other candidates us inflammatory language like that at their rallies, only Trump.

And, exactly HOW is America "being held hostage by the radical left"?

So you justify the physical prevention or disruption of free speech by others if you judge it to be inflammatory? Good Lord, you have proven my point beyond any question.

You are paving the way to Hell and don't even know it.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/you-are-very-rud=Te-hillary-clinton-to-heckler-2016-1?r=US&IR
Bernie Sanders shuts down pro-Trump heckler in epic fashion during rally
These ppl where preventing free speech like you like to call it.In all honesty they didn't prevent nothing of course but still. And before you point out that they didn't have to shut there rally down I'll respond neither did Trump, he choose to cancel. The police made it clear they had enough men to keep it under control. Donald Trump cancels UIC rally amid security concerns

 

[jwoodie]

Take care of your words and behaviors, will you? Because if you happen to not be able to distinguish them in yourself you might keep living the terrible delusion that the Constitution or any part of it is really under attack. Only speech and the press require freedom, according to the First Ammendment, and I am sure we would both agree the entirery of your behavior is much more than just press or speech.

MY behavior? What are you talking about?

 

[jwoodie]

How do you peacefully deprive free speech? Isn't that practicaly speaking impossible. If I yell really loud and you speak, sound still comes out right.

So if I "jam" your radio broadcast, it's OK as long as some sound still comes out?

Are you serious, comrade?

 

[Holos]

Take care of your words and behaviors, will you? Because if you happen to not be able to distinguish them in yourself you might keep living the terrible delusion that the Constitution or any part of it is really under attack. Only speech and the press require freedom, according to the First Ammendment, and I am sure we would both agree the entirery of your behavior is much more than just press or speech.

MY behavior? What are you talking about?

Are you surprised?

Perhaps you don't really know yourself that well...

Perhaps you really are just press and speech...

Perhaps I should be going my way now...

Or should I actually voluntarily CONTRIBUTE to your experience?

I still don't know what I am talking about...even after you have boldened it for me...

 

[forkup]

How do you peacefully deprive free speech? Isn't that practicaly speaking impossible. If I yell really loud and you speak, sound still comes out right.

So if I "jam" your radio broadcast, it's OK as long as some sound still comes out?

Are you serious, comrade?

What prevents you from yelling over his protest? See the whole premise is that your message is more important then his. If you speak your mind he has to shut up because he's preventing free speech. But he can claim the same.He's just yelling his opinion.This is of course hypothetical but I'm just saying free if both parties assert their rights why is 1 asserting and the other preventing free speech?

 

[jwoodie]

What is this, the abnormal psychology forum?

 

[Holos]

What is this, the abnormal psychology forum?

 

[daws101]

You know, all the other candidates (Democrat and Republican), have had protesters at some of their events, and none of those were violent.

Trump seems to relish throwing red meat to his base and in some of his words, he can be quite inflammatory by saying things like they should be punched in the mouth, he wants to punch people in the mouth, and my favorite, in the old days people like that (protesters) would have been carried out on a stretcher.

None of the other candidates us inflammatory language like that at their rallies, only Trump.

And, exactly HOW is America "being held hostage by the radical left"?

So you justify the physical prevention or disruption of free speech by others if you judge it to be inflammatory? Good Lord, you have proven my point beyond any question.

You are paving the way to Hell and don't even know it.

Ohhhh no not the hell ploy again!

 

[jwoodie]

Ohhhh no not the hell ploy again!

It was a reference to the proverb that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Sorry to have exceeded your literary limitations.

 

[daws101]

Ohhhh no not the hell ploy again!

It was a reference to the proverb that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Sorry to have exceeded your literary limitations.

False as always.
Besides being misrepresented.