Second Civil War Turning Violent?

[toobfreak]

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

You are seeing very clearly. It is all a one way street in liberal-land. They are high tolerant of opinion--- so long as you agree with their view. The Left protects diversity---- so long as it doesn't include whites, Christians, Pro-Life or Pro-Gun. They are highly protective of individual liberty, so long as it is THEIR liberty. If you disagree with them, you are obviously intolerant, racist, wrong and an idiot. If they disagree with you, it is because you are intolerant, racist, wrong and an idiot.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

That's the position YOU are taking .... you see no problem with force.

 

[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.

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.

That's the position YOU are taking .... you see no problem with force.

That's not true.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

That's the position YOU are taking .... you see no problem with force.

That's not true.

No - it IS true. You advocate violence in the streets, breaking windows, looting stores, burning garbage cans, blocking access, denying people their given right to free speech.

Just because it doesn't include a gun or a car doesn't mean it isn't violence.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

That's the position YOU are taking .... you see no problem with force.

That's not true.

No - it IS true. You advocate violence in the streets, breaking windows, looting stores, burning garbage cans, blocking access, denying people their given right to free speech.

Just because it doesn't include a gun or a car doesn't mean it isn't violence.

Bullshit. Learn to read. I simply object to blocking streets and shouting being considered "violence."

 

[Spare_change]

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.

That's the position YOU are taking .... you see no problem with force.

That's not true.

No - it IS true. You advocate violence in the streets, breaking windows, looting stores, burning garbage cans, blocking access, denying people their given right to free speech.

Just because it doesn't include a gun or a car doesn't mean it isn't violence.

Bullshit. Learn to read. I simply object to blocking streets and shouting being considered "violence."

That is a mighty fine hair you try to split ... but, hey, whatever enables you to sleep at night.

 

[Clementine]

Pot stirrers won't last and there are not as many as some would like the people to believe.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of media people and Dems who sympathize with those pot stirrers. The actual numbers of these radicals is fairly small but the forces behind them are huge.

 

[Spare_change]

Many people have called for changes on college campuses. To a certain extent this has been treated with humor-based dismissal. The branding of these children acting in a petulant manner is referred to as "snowflakes." But now we have reached a dangerous tipping point that threatens to destroy the freedoms we all savor as part of our heritage.

This occurred when Ann Coulter was stopped from speaking at U.C. Berkeley. It was really terrible when others were stopped from speaking because of obnoxious behavior or actual physical violence. For example, a speech by Milos Yiannopoulos was stopped because of protests that turned violent.

Now speech is being stopped simply with the threat of violent behavior. Here is how the conversation would go. “Hey, Chancellor Dirks, we don’t like that speaker. If you have her speak we are going to riot.” Dirks replies: “Well, I can understand that and we don’t want any violence, and we want to keep you happy, so we are just going to cancel that speech.” Nice, easy, slick and a complete dismantling of the First Amendment. Someone sits in his or her living room, hitting their bong, calls the U and that ends free speech as we know it. And they thought McCarthy was a threat.

The left has begun to take notice. The Los Angeles Times called for Coulter to be able to speak. It even wrote a fairly even-handed editorial. It invoked Bernie Sanders by quoting him as saying “Ann Coulter’s outrageous ? to my mind, off the wall. But, you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.”

Senator Sanders, many of us think you are outrageous and off the wall, but we don’t go to your rallies and heckle you or your misguided legions. Thank you for realizing that and supporting the First Amendment.

Conversely, The New York Times ran an April 24th column by Ulrich Baer defending the idea that the snowflakes might be right. Let us get this straight: The Times whines and cries like babies having their rattle taken from them when Trump says anything about the press being irresponsible. But when someone else’s free speech is being limited that might be OK. Maybe Trump is right if the Times cannot defend the First Amendment at any and all costs.

We need to get to the root cause of the problem. Here are some reasons I can cite:

1. Bad parenting: Getting up and interrupting a speaker during a speech is just downright rude and childish -- no matter your age. If you don’t want to hear what the speaker says either don’t show up or just quietly walk out. You have no right – let me repeat that, you have no right – to infringe upon others' rights to free speech. And it is just bad manners.

2. Imaginary rights: Because of this bad parenting, over an extended period of time many people think they have rights that don’t exist. They think they can go to an elected official’s home and disrupt the neighborhood and protest. Sorry; you don’t. We live in a civilized society and civilized people don’t do things like that. I could go on with a laundry list of imaginary rights, but that would be another 10,000 words so let’s leave it at that prime example.

3. Stupid people who work at colleges: The Left has ruined colleges. Is that a shock? They basically ruin anything they touch (think Venezuela). There appears to be only one group of grownups running a university today – The University of Chicago. Most colleges have a laundry list of imaginary rights people supposedly have and ways not to offend people of race, color, sex or sexual orientation.

They need to start with the first right (free speech) and tell students that they will be expelled (no refund of their outrageous fees) if you disrupt a speaker who is a guest in our home (the campus). If you do any physical damage, we will have you arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They need to know they have no right to do either.

If reinforcing to the children (and they are children) who go to these colleges basic laws of civility is not the first responsibility of the college, then what is? As many would say, the problem is the people running colleges are children themselves who have never experienced the harsh realities of life and/or have been protected for so long they forgot what those realities are and are ill-prepared to educate their students to those realities.

The Left has caused this problem and they have to cure it or it will be the death of the university system in the U.S. Parents need to start demanding that schools enforce free speech and not in restricted areas. The federal government needs to assert the power of the purse to withhold funds from universities that abuse the First Amendment and do not protect the free speech of all people on campus. Almost all parents are hogtied by the Left’s control over the educational system. They are afraid their little darlings will not get into the right school and get the right degree. They are not considering what their children will become after they spend their $100,000 to $200,000.

This dangerous behavior is spreading outside college campuses as a parade was cancelled in Portland when someone called and threatened violence against Republicans marching in a civic parade about roses.

“Dean Wormer, we are going to riot if you let that person speak. He makes us feel icky.” There is no more important issue in America. Once we lose free speech, we lose the First Amendment and we lose America. We have reached a tipping point.

 

[RodISHI]

Pot stirrers won't last and there are not as many as some would like the people to believe.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of media people and Dems who sympathize with those pot stirrers. The actual numbers of these radicals is fairly small but the forces behind them are huge.

I could say we were warned of this through prophecy and give the many of those accounts both ancient and even more recently but then the anti's would come along and try to dissuade any such talk as nonsense and fairy tales.

Sparechange is going in the right direction to a degree to untangle it all but if the churches and leadership throughout are not standing in the right place the chaotic appearances will continue for awhile longer. A lot of people have given themselves over, they have either lied themselves or willingly accepted lies for their own convenience without considering what the outcome would ultimately be.

 

[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?

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?

Don't blame me for your shortcomings. You said cakes aren't important enough so I said it is to him. The bigger point was your dumb ass doesn't have the right to shout people down or block their travel. Go ahead and get your face slammed into the pavement if that's what it takes.

 

[rightwinger]

Many people have called for changes on college campuses. To a certain extent this has been treated with humor-based dismissal. The branding of these children acting in a petulant manner is referred to as "snowflakes." But now we have reached a dangerous tipping point that threatens to destroy the freedoms we all savor as part of our heritage.

This occurred when Ann Coulter was stopped from speaking at U.C. Berkeley. It was really terrible when others were stopped from speaking because of obnoxious behavior or actual physical violence. For example, a speech by Milos Yiannopoulos was stopped because of protests that turned violent.

Now speech is being stopped simply with the threat of violent behavior. Here is how the conversation would go. “Hey, Chancellor Dirks, we don’t like that speaker. If you have her speak we are going to riot.” Dirks replies: “Well, I can understand that and we don’t want any violence, and we want to keep you happy, so we are just going to cancel that speech.” Nice, easy, slick and a complete dismantling of the First Amendment. Someone sits in his or her living room, hitting their bong, calls the U and that ends free speech as we know it. And they thought McCarthy was a threat.

The left has begun to take notice. The Los Angeles Times called for Coulter to be able to speak. It even wrote a fairly even-handed editorial. It invoked Bernie Sanders by quoting him as saying “Ann Coulter’s outrageous ? to my mind, off the wall. But, you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.”

Senator Sanders, many of us think you are outrageous and off the wall, but we don’t go to your rallies and heckle you or your misguided legions. Thank you for realizing that and supporting the First Amendment.

Conversely, The New York Times ran an April 24th column by Ulrich Baer defending the idea that the snowflakes might be right. Let us get this straight: The Times whines and cries like babies having their rattle taken from them when Trump says anything about the press being irresponsible. But when someone else’s free speech is being limited that might be OK. Maybe Trump is right if the Times cannot defend the First Amendment at any and all costs.

We need to get to the root cause of the problem. Here are some reasons I can cite:

1. Bad parenting: Getting up and interrupting a speaker during a speech is just downright rude and childish -- no matter your age. If you don’t want to hear what the speaker says either don’t show up or just quietly walk out. You have no right – let me repeat that, you have no right – to infringe upon others' rights to free speech. And it is just bad manners.

2. Imaginary rights: Because of this bad parenting, over an extended period of time many people think they have rights that don’t exist. They think they can go to an elected official’s home and disrupt the neighborhood and protest. Sorry; you don’t. We live in a civilized society and civilized people don’t do things like that. I could go on with a laundry list of imaginary rights, but that would be another 10,000 words so let’s leave it at that prime example.

3. Stupid people who work at colleges: The Left has ruined colleges. Is that a shock? They basically ruin anything they touch (think Venezuela). There appears to be only one group of grownups running a university today – The University of Chicago. Most colleges have a laundry list of imaginary rights people supposedly have and ways not to offend people of race, color, sex or sexual orientation.

They need to start with the first right (free speech) and tell students that they will be expelled (no refund of their outrageous fees) if you disrupt a speaker who is a guest in our home (the campus). If you do any physical damage, we will have you arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They need to know they have no right to do either.

If reinforcing to the children (and they are children) who go to these colleges basic laws of civility is not the first responsibility of the college, then what is? As many would say, the problem is the people running colleges are children themselves who have never experienced the harsh realities of life and/or have been protected for so long they forgot what those realities are and are ill-prepared to educate their students to those realities.

The Left has caused this problem and they have to cure it or it will be the death of the university system in the U.S. Parents need to start demanding that schools enforce free speech and not in restricted areas. The federal government needs to assert the power of the purse to withhold funds from universities that abuse the First Amendment and do not protect the free speech of all people on campus. Almost all parents are hogtied by the Left’s control over the educational system. They are afraid their little darlings will not get into the right school and get the right degree. They are not considering what their children will become after they spend their $100,000 to $200,000.

This dangerous behavior is spreading outside college campuses as a parade was cancelled in Portland when someone called and threatened violence against Republicans marching in a civic parade about roses.

“Dean Wormer, we are going to riot if you let that person speak. He makes us feel icky.” There is no more important issue in America. Once we lose free speech, we lose the First Amendment and we lose America. We have reached a tipping point.

Reminds me of the 60s

Bring back Kent State....only way to teach them youngsters

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Many people have called for changes on college campuses. To a certain extent this has been treated with humor-based dismissal. The branding of these children acting in a petulant manner is referred to as "snowflakes." But now we have reached a dangerous tipping point that threatens to destroy the freedoms we all savor as part of our heritage.

This occurred when Ann Coulter was stopped from speaking at U.C. Berkeley. It was really terrible when others were stopped from speaking because of obnoxious behavior or actual physical violence. For example, a speech by Milos Yiannopoulos was stopped because of protests that turned violent.

Now speech is being stopped simply with the threat of violent behavior. Here is how the conversation would go. “Hey, Chancellor Dirks, we don’t like that speaker. If you have her speak we are going to riot.” Dirks replies: “Well, I can understand that and we don’t want any violence, and we want to keep you happy, so we are just going to cancel that speech.” Nice, easy, slick and a complete dismantling of the First Amendment. Someone sits in his or her living room, hitting their bong, calls the U and that ends free speech as we know it. And they thought McCarthy was a threat.

The left has begun to take notice. The Los Angeles Times called for Coulter to be able to speak. It even wrote a fairly even-handed editorial. It invoked Bernie Sanders by quoting him as saying “Ann Coulter’s outrageous ? to my mind, off the wall. But, you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.”

Senator Sanders, many of us think you are outrageous and off the wall, but we don’t go to your rallies and heckle you or your misguided legions. Thank you for realizing that and supporting the First Amendment.

Conversely, The New York Times ran an April 24th column by Ulrich Baer defending the idea that the snowflakes might be right. Let us get this straight: The Times whines and cries like babies having their rattle taken from them when Trump says anything about the press being irresponsible. But when someone else’s free speech is being limited that might be OK. Maybe Trump is right if the Times cannot defend the First Amendment at any and all costs.

We need to get to the root cause of the problem. Here are some reasons I can cite:

1. Bad parenting: Getting up and interrupting a speaker during a speech is just downright rude and childish -- no matter your age. If you don’t want to hear what the speaker says either don’t show up or just quietly walk out. You have no right – let me repeat that, you have no right – to infringe upon others' rights to free speech. And it is just bad manners.

2. Imaginary rights: Because of this bad parenting, over an extended period of time many people think they have rights that don’t exist. They think they can go to an elected official’s home and disrupt the neighborhood and protest. Sorry; you don’t. We live in a civilized society and civilized people don’t do things like that. I could go on with a laundry list of imaginary rights, but that would be another 10,000 words so let’s leave it at that prime example.

3. Stupid people who work at colleges: The Left has ruined colleges. Is that a shock? They basically ruin anything they touch (think Venezuela). There appears to be only one group of grownups running a university today – The University of Chicago. Most colleges have a laundry list of imaginary rights people supposedly have and ways not to offend people of race, color, sex or sexual orientation.

They need to start with the first right (free speech) and tell students that they will be expelled (no refund of their outrageous fees) if you disrupt a speaker who is a guest in our home (the campus). If you do any physical damage, we will have you arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They need to know they have no right to do either.

If reinforcing to the children (and they are children) who go to these colleges basic laws of civility is not the first responsibility of the college, then what is? As many would say, the problem is the people running colleges are children themselves who have never experienced the harsh realities of life and/or have been protected for so long they forgot what those realities are and are ill-prepared to educate their students to those realities.

The Left has caused this problem and they have to cure it or it will be the death of the university system in the U.S. Parents need to start demanding that schools enforce free speech and not in restricted areas. The federal government needs to assert the power of the purse to withhold funds from universities that abuse the First Amendment and do not protect the free speech of all people on campus. Almost all parents are hogtied by the Left’s control over the educational system. They are afraid their little darlings will not get into the right school and get the right degree. They are not considering what their children will become after they spend their $100,000 to $200,000.

This dangerous behavior is spreading outside college campuses as a parade was cancelled in Portland when someone called and threatened violence against Republicans marching in a civic parade about roses.

“Dean Wormer, we are going to riot if you let that person speak. He makes us feel icky.” There is no more important issue in America. Once we lose free speech, we lose the First Amendment and we lose America. We have reached a tipping point.

Reminds me of the 60s

Bring back Kent State....only way to teach them youngsters

That's a fact. We're overdue!

 

[JoeB131]

The only reason a person would do anything to stop someone else from speaking or being heard, is that they are afraid of what will be said.

Yes, when you promote hate, we are really afraid people will act on that.

For instance, when Bill O'Reilly kept calling an abortion doctor "Baby Killer Tiller", big surprise, some nut shot him.

All that energy put into screaming someone down would be put to better use having a civil conversation with them, exchanging ideas, and looking for areas of agreement on which to build. That takes courage in your beliefs, and even more courage to bend.

You can't fix stupid... there's no point talking to people who will cut off their own nose to spite their faces.

 

[Kondor3]

Pot stirrers won't last and there are not as many as some would like the people to believe.

Agreed. It would be a very short war consisting of isolated incidents in the Democrat run-cities.

That's why God invented the National Guard.

Throw a ring of steel around any rebellious inner-city region, let the feral riff-riff burn down their own neighborhoods, shoot a few dozen for shits and giggles, then stand down.

 

[whitehall]

Who would refer to relatively calm political times as a "civil war" except maybe wannabe anarchists or historically impaired millenniums? You could say that we were relatively close to civil war during the 60's when people like Jane Fonda and John Kerry tried to unite Black anger with anti-war demonstrators and create complete anarchy and crazy "revolutionary" bombers like Bill Ayers (who would become a political adviser to a democrat president) terrorized Americans with indiscriminate chaos. Even while a losing political party continues to agitate hatred and anger the rule of Constitutional law and political discourse prevails today.

 

[rightwinger]

Who would refer to relatively calm political times as a "civil war" except maybe wannabe anarchists or historically impaired millenniums? You could say that we were relatively close to civil war during the 60's when people like Jane Fonda and John Kerry tried to unite Black anger with anti-war demonstrators and create complete anarchy and crazy "revolutionary" bombers like Bill Ayers (who would become a political adviser to a democrat president) terrorized Americans with indiscriminate chaos. Even while a losing political party continues to agitate hatred and anger the rule of Constitutional law and political discourse prevails today.

If we didn't fall in to a Civil War in the 60s we will not do it now

 

[TheDude]

There won't be any civil war.....Please imagine the following scenario:

Govt. control + police & fire + the military + the practical Vs College students seeking safe spaces + LGBT + feminists + anarchists + excuses for their dispositions + emotional wrecks.

It would more closely resemble an extermination. Course if that's what the libs. seek, they'll require more safe spaces and excuses for their dispositions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

If more people would mow them down in the street, it will give them pause next time they are thinking of it.

Almost every problem has a solution if people have the stomach to exercise that solution.

 

[JoeB131]

That's why God invented the National Guard.

Throw a ring of steel around any rebellious inner-city region, let the feral riff-riff burn down their own neighborhoods, shoot a few dozen for shits and giggles, then stand down.

Hey, dummy, you know who is in the National Guard? A lot of that inner city "riff-raff" you hate so much.

 

[Kondor3]

That's why God invented the National Guard.

Throw a ring of steel around any rebellious inner-city region, let the feral riff-riff burn down their own neighborhoods, shoot a few dozen for shits and giggles, then stand down.

Hey, dummy, you know who is in the National Guard? A lot of that inner city "riff-raff" you hate so much.

It's easy enough to isolate un-reliables at the Armory, before a sortie.