Second Civil War Turning Violent?

[Correll]

Blocking traffic and attacking people is not "Assembly".

Did you watch the video?

Attacking people is not assembly. It is violence. Blocking traffic is not violence. Stop conflating the two. I don't have to watch the video to know what violence is.

The act of blocking is powerless if the people will give way to traffic.

The response EVER TIME I have seen when drivers have refused to sit there like sheep is for the mob of "protesters" to attack the car/driver.

As demonstrated in the video. The car comes forward, the "protesters" swarm the car and attack.

Blocking traffic is a threat to those that need to use the road. The road is blocked, not by the bodies of the "protesters" but by their threat of violence.

Easy solution would be to turn the car around. There is no excuse to commit violence with your car.

Your pretense of never having been in traffic is noted and dismissed.

My point stands.



The act of blocking is powerless if the people will give way to traffic.

The response EVER TIME I have seen when drivers have refused to sit there like sheep is for the mob of "protesters" to attack the car/driver.

As demonstrated in the video. The car comes forward, the "protesters" swarm the car and attack.

Blocking traffic is a threat to those that need to use the road. The road is blocked, not by the bodies of the "protesters" but by their threat of violence.

And I will note that your preferred response to inconvenience is vehicular assault.

Slowly advancing your car to try to get though is not vehicular assault


Swarming a car and trying to break the glass to get to the people inside, is a violent attack.

 

[ricechickie]

Attacking people is not assembly. It is violence. Blocking traffic is not violence. Stop conflating the two. I don't have to watch the video to know what violence is.

The act of blocking is powerless if the people will give way to traffic.

The response EVER TIME I have seen when drivers have refused to sit there like sheep is for the mob of "protesters" to attack the car/driver.

As demonstrated in the video. The car comes forward, the "protesters" swarm the car and attack.

Blocking traffic is a threat to those that need to use the road. The road is blocked, not by the bodies of the "protesters" but by their threat of violence.

Easy solution would be to turn the car around. There is no excuse to commit violence with your car.

Your pretense of never having been in traffic is noted and dismissed.

My point stands.



The act of blocking is powerless if the people will give way to traffic.

The response EVER TIME I have seen when drivers have refused to sit there like sheep is for the mob of "protesters" to attack the car/driver.

As demonstrated in the video. The car comes forward, the "protesters" swarm the car and attack.

Blocking traffic is a threat to those that need to use the road. The road is blocked, not by the bodies of the "protesters" but by their threat of violence.

And I will note that your preferred response to inconvenience is vehicular assault.

Slowly advancing your car to try to get though is not vehicular assault


Swarming a car and trying to break the glass to get to the people inside, is a violent attack.

Car vs. people. Which is more likely to get hurt?

 

[SYTFE]

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Stopped reading this pile of shit right there.

New Alt-Right “Fight Club” Ready for Street Violence

 

[Correll]

The act of blocking is powerless if the people will give way to traffic.

The response EVER TIME I have seen when drivers have refused to sit there like sheep is for the mob of "protesters" to attack the car/driver.

As demonstrated in the video. The car comes forward, the "protesters" swarm the car and attack.

Blocking traffic is a threat to those that need to use the road. The road is blocked, not by the bodies of the "protesters" but by their threat of violence.

Easy solution would be to turn the car around. There is no excuse to commit violence with your car.

Your pretense of never having been in traffic is noted and dismissed.

My point stands.



The act of blocking is powerless if the people will give way to traffic.

The response EVER TIME I have seen when drivers have refused to sit there like sheep is for the mob of "protesters" to attack the car/driver.

As demonstrated in the video. The car comes forward, the "protesters" swarm the car and attack.

Blocking traffic is a threat to those that need to use the road. The road is blocked, not by the bodies of the "protesters" but by their threat of violence.

And I will note that your preferred response to inconvenience is vehicular assault.

Slowly advancing your car to try to get though is not vehicular assault


Swarming a car and trying to break the glass to get to the people inside, is a violent attack.

Car vs. people. Which is more likely to get hurt?

I said that you people were violent. I didn't say you were good at it.

 

[ricechickie]

Easy solution would be to turn the car around. There is no excuse to commit violence with your car.

Your pretense of never having been in traffic is noted and dismissed.

My point stands.



The act of blocking is powerless if the people will give way to traffic.

The response EVER TIME I have seen when drivers have refused to sit there like sheep is for the mob of "protesters" to attack the car/driver.

As demonstrated in the video. The car comes forward, the "protesters" swarm the car and attack.

Blocking traffic is a threat to those that need to use the road. The road is blocked, not by the bodies of the "protesters" but by their threat of violence.

And I will note that your preferred response to inconvenience is vehicular assault.

Slowly advancing your car to try to get though is not vehicular assault


Swarming a car and trying to break the glass to get to the people inside, is a violent attack.

Car vs. people. Which is more likely to get hurt?

I said that you people were violent. I didn't say you were good at it.

Because there is an attempt to block the street, and because there is little "threat" of violence from unarmed people against those in a car, especially if that car driver isn't trying to run anyone down.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Stopped reading this pile of shit right there.

New Alt-Right “Fight Club” Ready for Street Violence

Yeah, can't pollute your mind with reality.

 

[Correll]

Your pretense of never having been in traffic is noted and dismissed.

My point stands.



The act of blocking is powerless if the people will give way to traffic.

The response EVER TIME I have seen when drivers have refused to sit there like sheep is for the mob of "protesters" to attack the car/driver.

As demonstrated in the video. The car comes forward, the "protesters" swarm the car and attack.

Blocking traffic is a threat to those that need to use the road. The road is blocked, not by the bodies of the "protesters" but by their threat of violence.

And I will note that your preferred response to inconvenience is vehicular assault.

Slowly advancing your car to try to get though is not vehicular assault


Swarming a car and trying to break the glass to get to the people inside, is a violent attack.

Car vs. people. Which is more likely to get hurt?

I said that you people were violent. I didn't say you were good at it.

Because there is an attempt to block the street, and because there is little "threat" of violence from unarmed people against those in a car, especially if that car driver isn't trying to run anyone down.

There is massive threat of violence from an angry mob, as you see in the video link I provided.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm always amused when liberals try to think. They can't. Shouting down someone and/or blocking their freedom to travel is a violation of their rights. Liberals think just they have rights.

Shouting down is not violence. Shutting down streets is still considered non-violent resistance. Where is the "freedom to travel" clause in the Constitution?

I didn't say it was an act of violence but blocking paths is restraining someone. What happens if they try to push through?

The Privileges and Immunities clause gives people the right to move freely across state lines. How do you interpret that to mean you can lawfully stop them where your want? You may be one of those that can learn only the hard way.

Unless you block them in on all sides, you're not restraining someone.

Most of my lessons are hard ones. That's why I know that a blocked road isn't a violent act. I know that shouting isn't "threat," implied or otherwise.

Ludicrous -

But, let me see if I can get this right.

Forcing a person to go another direction isn't an infringement on that person's rights. But, forcing someone to go to a different baker for a gay wedding cake IS???

Cakes aren't important enough. Let the marketplace take care of those situations. So, no....neither situation is an infringement of someone's rights - merely an inconvenience.

So let me present you a straw man in return for yours. If a driver can run over a protestor who blocks a road, can a gay couple assault a baker who refuses to bake their cake?

LOL. What a pathetic side step! That baker's business is mighty important to him. You have no problem striping his rights away to feel good. In fact, whatever suits you is the law of the land in your mind.

 

[Iceweasel]

I didn't say it was an act of violence but blocking paths is restraining someone. What happens if they try to push through?

The Privileges and Immunities clause gives people the right to move freely across state lines. How do you interpret that to mean you can lawfully stop them where your want? You may be one of those that can learn only the hard way.

Unless you block them in on all sides, you're not restraining someone.

Most of my lessons are hard ones. That's why I know that a blocked road isn't a violent act. I know that shouting isn't "threat," implied or otherwise.

Ludicrous -

But, let me see if I can get this right.

Forcing a person to go another direction isn't an infringement on that person's rights. But, forcing someone to go to a different baker for a gay wedding cake IS???

Cakes aren't important enough. Let the marketplace take care of those situations. So, no....neither situation is an infringement of someone's rights - merely an inconvenience.

So let me present you a straw man in return for yours. If a driver can run over a protestor who blocks a road, can a gay couple assault a baker who refuses to bake their cake?

Is the street a public thoroughfare? Is a bakery?

Just because a street is a public thoroughfare doesn't mean you can commit vehicular assault when another member of the public is in your way. Or would you see jaywalkers mowed down as well?

Jaywalkers are just people going across the road. Some will do so without looking but the fact you think that's the same as holding up traffic for your pet cause when someone may be losing a job, a life or saying goodbye to a dying mother says all we need to know. You think the universe revolves around you.

 

[xyz]

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.

In order to understand why more violence may be coming, it is essential to understand that left-wing mobs are almost never stopped, arrested or punished. Colleges do nothing to stop them, and civil authorities do nothing to stop them on campuses or anywhere else. Police are reduced to spectators as they watch left-wing gangs loot stores, smash business and car windows, and even take over state capitals (as in Madison, Wisconsin).

It's beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.

Consequently, given the abdication by all these authorities of their role to protect the public, some members of the public will inevitably decide that they will protect themselves and others.

This ability of the left to get away with violence is one of the gravest threats to American society in its modern history. Since the Civil War, I can think of only two comparable eruptions of mob violence that authorities allowed. One was when white mobs lynched blacks. The other was the rioting by blacks, such as the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago, and the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland.

Today, authorities in what we once proudly proclaimed the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" are intimidated to the point of paralysis.

And exactly what do they fear? Not violence -- they have made peace with left-wing violence. What they fear is the left-wing media. If the Black Lives Matter movement is forcefully prevented from blocking tens of thousands of cars from entering or leaving San Francisco, the police and local authorities will be labeled racist by black leaders, a smear that will then be echoed by The New York Times and rest of the left-wing media.

Likewise, if a college president requests enough police to come to a college campus so that a Heather Mac Donald, a Charles Murray or an Ann Coulter can deliver a lecture, some of the student-gangsters engaged in violence might be injured -- and that college president will then be pilloried by the mainstream media.

Absolute bullshit. There is nothing in that post to prove that it's a civil war.

On the other hand, it's total cyberwar, with the Russian side having a very large number of people writing bullshit for them.

 

[toobfreak]

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.

In order to understand why more violence may be coming, it is essential to understand that left-wing mobs are almost never stopped, arrested or punished. Colleges do nothing to stop them, and civil authorities do nothing to stop them on campuses or anywhere else. Police are reduced to spectators as they watch left-wing gangs loot stores, smash business and car windows, and even take over state capitals (as in Madison, Wisconsin).

It's beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.

Consequently, given the abdication by all these authorities of their role to protect the public, some members of the public will inevitably decide that they will protect themselves and others.

This ability of the left to get away with violence is one of the gravest threats to American society in its modern history. Since the Civil War, I can think of only two comparable eruptions of mob violence that authorities allowed. One was when white mobs lynched blacks. The other was the rioting by blacks, such as the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago, and the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland.

Today, authorities in what we once proudly proclaimed the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" are intimidated to the point of paralysis.

And exactly what do they fear? Not violence -- they have made peace with left-wing violence. What they fear is the left-wing media. If the Black Lives Matter movement is forcefully prevented from blocking tens of thousands of cars from entering or leaving San Francisco, the police and local authorities will be labeled racist by black leaders, a smear that will then be echoed by The New York Times and rest of the left-wing media.

Likewise, if a college president requests enough police to come to a college campus so that a Heather Mac Donald, a Charles Murray or an Ann Coulter can deliver a lecture, some of the student-gangsters engaged in violence might be injured -- and that college president will then be pilloried by the mainstream media.

Brilliant dissertation. Of course the solution is really simple. We have to stop treating these children with kid gloves. Their bluff has to be called. They have to get the smackdown, shutdown, start getting arrested, thrown out of universities. Screw the liberal media. Stand up to them as well. Let them call Trump a fascist. Stop being afraid of names. The stuff has to end now. Break the paralysis of political correctness and start calling out these groups and media for what they really are. Trump has already said that he is looking into the possibility of holding media accountable/liable for printing fake news.

 

[toobfreak]

Absolute bullshit. There is nothing in that post to prove that it's a civil war.

Really xyz? It's not the post that matters, all it takes is looking out the window and watching the news everyday. You'd have to have your head buried up to the shoulders to miss it. The war is on. Now even CBS and Stephen Colbert have unveiled the nakedness of their radicalism. They pay and send troupes of radicals to Trump rallies to disrupt and start violence then the media accuses Trump and his supporters of inciting violence. Despite the fact that the majority of people in this country hold conservative values, liberals have worked their way into key positions of heads of media, heads of news organizations, heads of education, key positions throughout government, all well organized and funded by the likes of Soros. They are absolutely flipping out that despite all of this control, money and influence (including Hollywood), that they failed to put their gal into the White House to continue working their deeds. They lost the House. They lost the Senate. They lost the executive branch and now they've lost the Supreme Court.

They are in absolute panic mode and are enlisting the young, the gullible and naive in an all-out war of attack for their very survival. When they accuse Trump of being the end of the world, they literally mean it! He is for them! The gloves are off and you've seen nothing yet. The Left is about to go nuclear in trying every means possible of turning things around for themselves. No civil war? Just wait and watch. The only difference between ISIS and the radical Left is ISIS uses bullets and bombs; up till now, the Left has mainly kept it to words.

 

[ricechickie]

Unless you block them in on all sides, you're not restraining someone.

Most of my lessons are hard ones. That's why I know that a blocked road isn't a violent act. I know that shouting isn't "threat," implied or otherwise.

Ludicrous -

But, let me see if I can get this right.

Forcing a person to go another direction isn't an infringement on that person's rights. But, forcing someone to go to a different baker for a gay wedding cake IS???

Cakes aren't important enough. Let the marketplace take care of those situations. So, no....neither situation is an infringement of someone's rights - merely an inconvenience.

So let me present you a straw man in return for yours. If a driver can run over a protestor who blocks a road, can a gay couple assault a baker who refuses to bake their cake?

Is the street a public thoroughfare? Is a bakery?

Just because a street is a public thoroughfare doesn't mean you can commit vehicular assault when another member of the public is in your way. Or would you see jaywalkers mowed down as well?

Jaywalkers are just people going across the road. Some will do so without looking but the fact you think that's the same as holding up traffic for your pet cause when someone may be losing a job, a life or saying goodbye to a dying mother says all we need to know. You think the universe revolves around you.

Really? I don't think the world revolves around me enough to think that I get to mow down someone in the way of my car.

Funny, that.

 

[Marion Morrison]

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.

In order to understand why more violence may be coming, it is essential to understand that left-wing mobs are almost never stopped, arrested or punished. Colleges do nothing to stop them, and civil authorities do nothing to stop them on campuses or anywhere else. Police are reduced to spectators as they watch left-wing gangs loot stores, smash business and car windows, and even take over state capitals (as in Madison, Wisconsin).

It's beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.

Consequently, given the abdication by all these authorities of their role to protect the public, some members of the public will inevitably decide that they will protect themselves and others.

This ability of the left to get away with violence is one of the gravest threats to American society in its modern history. Since the Civil War, I can think of only two comparable eruptions of mob violence that authorities allowed. One was when white mobs lynched blacks. The other was the rioting by blacks, such as the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago, and the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland.

Today, authorities in what we once proudly proclaimed the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" are intimidated to the point of paralysis.

And exactly what do they fear? Not violence -- they have made peace with left-wing violence. What they fear is the left-wing media. If the Black Lives Matter movement is forcefully prevented from blocking tens of thousands of cars from entering or leaving San Francisco, the police and local authorities will be labeled racist by black leaders, a smear that will then be echoed by The New York Times and rest of the left-wing media.

Likewise, if a college president requests enough police to come to a college campus so that a Heather Mac Donald, a Charles Murray or an Ann Coulter can deliver a lecture, some of the student-gangsters engaged in violence might be injured -- and that college president will then be pilloried by the mainstream media.

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.

In order to understand why more violence may be coming, it is essential to understand that left-wing mobs are almost never stopped, arrested or punished. Colleges do nothing to stop them, and civil authorities do nothing to stop them on campuses or anywhere else. Police are reduced to spectators as they watch left-wing gangs loot stores, smash business and car windows, and even take over state capitals (as in Madison, Wisconsin).

It's beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.

Consequently, given the abdication by all these authorities of their role to protect the public, some members of the public will inevitably decide that they will protect themselves and others.

This ability of the left to get away with violence is one of the gravest threats to American society in its modern history. Since the Civil War, I can think of only two comparable eruptions of mob violence that authorities allowed. One was when white mobs lynched blacks. The other was the rioting by blacks, such as the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago, and the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland.

Today, authorities in what we once proudly proclaimed the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" are intimidated to the point of paralysis.

And exactly what do they fear? Not violence -- they have made peace with left-wing violence. What they fear is the left-wing media. If the Black Lives Matter movement is forcefully prevented from blocking tens of thousands of cars from entering or leaving San Francisco, the police and local authorities will be labeled racist by black leaders, a smear that will then be echoed by The New York Times and rest of the left-wing media.

Likewise, if a college president requests enough police to come to a college campus so that a Heather Mac Donald, a Charles Murray or an Ann Coulter can deliver a lecture, some of the student-gangsters engaged in violence might be injured -- and that college president will then be pilloried by the mainstream media.

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

View attachment 125104


View attachment 125105

Yes, those show actual acts of violence. But to lump in "blocking streets" and "shouting down speakers" with those acts of violence is ludicrous.

Face it, you don't like protest.

I don't mind protests.

Every time someone tries to drive around or edge though a blocked street, the mob descends on the car. There is a strong implied threat to the people that are prevented from moving on.

That isn't "speech".


And the "shouted down"?

That isn't speech. That's preventing some one else from speaking. And there is often an implied threat of violence.

And those riots and attacks? Generally the local lib mayors or college administrators, are there, refusing to do their jobs and maintain order and safety.


This is on you and yours.

"Implied threat"? Get thee to a safe space. Democracy is about confrontation.

Safe space is an elevated enfilade position. 20 Antifa could drop before any intervention.

A squad of 5 with 4 volleys could make it happen within the span of a minute.

They are terrorists.

If those "protestors" stopped my truck and started banging on it, I'm deading them, just as must as when I turned down that back alley in the wrong part of town and blacks swarmed my vehicle and I chambered a round.

I'm shooting and hitting the gas, if you want to be there, that's on you.

 

[Spare_change]

I didn't say it was an act of violence but blocking paths is restraining someone. What happens if they try to push through?

The Privileges and Immunities clause gives people the right to move freely across state lines. How do you interpret that to mean you can lawfully stop them where your want? You may be one of those that can learn only the hard way.

Unless you block them in on all sides, you're not restraining someone.

Most of my lessons are hard ones. That's why I know that a blocked road isn't a violent act. I know that shouting isn't "threat," implied or otherwise.

Ludicrous -

But, let me see if I can get this right.

Forcing a person to go another direction isn't an infringement on that person's rights. But, forcing someone to go to a different baker for a gay wedding cake IS???

Cakes aren't important enough. Let the marketplace take care of those situations. So, no....neither situation is an infringement of someone's rights - merely an inconvenience.

So let me present you a straw man in return for yours. If a driver can run over a protestor who blocks a road, can a gay couple assault a baker who refuses to bake their cake?

Is the street a public thoroughfare? Is a bakery?

Just because a street is a public thoroughfare doesn't mean you can commit vehicular assault when another member of the public is in your way. Or would you see jaywalkers mowed down as well?

Just as a point of information .... jaywalkers do NOT have the same legal protection as a pedestrian (yes, there's a difference legally).

 

[Spare_change]

The Contest of Ideas does not require physical confrontation.


That is you making an excuse for the dangerous actions of those on your side.

Tell that to MLK. He took to the streets.

I am not making excuses for violence. On the contrary, those who commit violence should be arrested and tried. But the First Amendment not only gives us freedom of speech, but freedom of assembly.

Blocking traffic and attacking people is not "Assembly".

Did you watch the video?

Attacking people is not assembly. It is violence. Blocking traffic is not violence. Stop conflating the two. I don't have to watch the video to know what violence is.

The act of blocking is powerless if the people will give way to traffic.

The response EVER TIME I have seen when drivers have refused to sit there like sheep is for the mob of "protesters" to attack the car/driver.

As demonstrated in the video. The car comes forward, the "protesters" swarm the car and attack.

Blocking traffic is a threat to those that need to use the road. The road is blocked, not by the bodies of the "protesters" but by their threat of violence.

Easy solution would be to turn the car around. There is no excuse to commit violence with your car.

So, it's okay for you to infringe on MY rights, but not for me to infringe on yours?

What a twisted sense of propriety you have.

 

[Spare_change]

Your pretense of never having been in traffic is noted and dismissed.

My point stands.



The act of blocking is powerless if the people will give way to traffic.

The response EVER TIME I have seen when drivers have refused to sit there like sheep is for the mob of "protesters" to attack the car/driver.

As demonstrated in the video. The car comes forward, the "protesters" swarm the car and attack.

Blocking traffic is a threat to those that need to use the road. The road is blocked, not by the bodies of the "protesters" but by their threat of violence.

And I will note that your preferred response to inconvenience is vehicular assault.

Slowly advancing your car to try to get though is not vehicular assault


Swarming a car and trying to break the glass to get to the people inside, is a violent attack.

Car vs. people. Which is more likely to get hurt?

I said that you people were violent. I didn't say you were good at it.

Because there is an attempt to block the street, and because there is little "threat" of violence from unarmed people against those in a car, especially if that car driver isn't trying to run anyone down.

i love how you have tried to deflect the attention from the problem - the left's propensity for violence, for denying other people their rights, so that you - supposedly - can exercise yours.

Have you ever heard anything so selfish before?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Second Civil War Turning Violent?

I certainly hope so. Let's get this thing started.

The Black Eyed Peas- "Let's Get it Started"

 

[ricechickie]

Shouting down is not violence. Shutting down streets is still considered non-violent resistance. Where is the "freedom to travel" clause in the Constitution?

I didn't say it was an act of violence but blocking paths is restraining someone. What happens if they try to push through?

The Privileges and Immunities clause gives people the right to move freely across state lines. How do you interpret that to mean you can lawfully stop them where your want? You may be one of those that can learn only the hard way.

Unless you block them in on all sides, you're not restraining someone.

Most of my lessons are hard ones. That's why I know that a blocked road isn't a violent act. I know that shouting isn't "threat," implied or otherwise.

Ludicrous -

But, let me see if I can get this right.

Forcing a person to go another direction isn't an infringement on that person's rights. But, forcing someone to go to a different baker for a gay wedding cake IS???

Cakes aren't important enough. Let the marketplace take care of those situations. So, no....neither situation is an infringement of someone's rights - merely an inconvenience.

So let me present you a straw man in return for yours. If a driver can run over a protestor who blocks a road, can a gay couple assault a baker who refuses to bake their cake?

LOL. What a pathetic side step! That baker's business is mighty important to him. You have no problem striping his rights away to feel good. In fact, whatever suits you is the law of the land in your mind.

You clearly don't read well. Or you dive right in and respond to what you think I'll say.

I don't think Christian bakers should be persecuted for not making a cake for a gay couple. Let the market handle it.

Got it, dim bulb?

 

[ricechickie]

Tell that to MLK. He took to the streets.

I am not making excuses for violence. On the contrary, those who commit violence should be arrested and tried. But the First Amendment not only gives us freedom of speech, but freedom of assembly.

Blocking traffic and attacking people is not "Assembly".

Did you watch the video?

Attacking people is not assembly. It is violence. Blocking traffic is not violence. Stop conflating the two. I don't have to watch the video to know what violence is.

The act of blocking is powerless if the people will give way to traffic.

The response EVER TIME I have seen when drivers have refused to sit there like sheep is for the mob of "protesters" to attack the car/driver.

As demonstrated in the video. The car comes forward, the "protesters" swarm the car and attack.

Blocking traffic is a threat to those that need to use the road. The road is blocked, not by the bodies of the "protesters" but by their threat of violence.

Easy solution would be to turn the car around. There is no excuse to commit violence with your car.

So, it's okay for you to infringe on MY rights, but not for me to infringe on yours?

What a twisted sense of propriety you have.

So every instance of someone violating your rights may be met with deadly force?

It doesn't work that way.