Violence from the Left
- Thread starter Bruce1
- Start date
I lean right or left depending on the issue. Personally I am appalled by the violence at Berkeley and in Washington DC. I think universities should be places where people of different beliefs, values, etc should be allowed to speak so I do not have patience with that excuse for violence. In fact I can't think of any excuse except self defense
As with the inauguration, there's two very separate types of protests going on. The (student) protests for that event at Cal were completely peaceful. Then the more anarchist types came in from off-campus (Cal tracked them onto campus). Usually you can tell these apart based on them covering their faces and not wanting their identities to be known (just like the inauguration violent protesters that destroyed a Starbucks - you think liberals are destroying Starbucks!?).
The people at Cal that became violent weren't Cal students, they were anarchists.
I don't think anyone mainstream supports what anarchists do. It's absolutely wrong. But even mainstream Republicans don't lump anarchists in with your typical 'liberal' protesters.
Many universities have become left-wing echo chambers where students and faculty have no desire for "diversity of thought" beyond what they believe in. If you disagree with them, you will be scorned, shouted down, assaulted, protested against without end. It is political correctness run amuck.
Why is it that anarchists feel they can even have a place to protest on Cal-Berkley's campus? The administration should have had them removed immediately - unless they tacitly approve of what's going on.
Yep. Not a single arrest. Unless you're giving approval for the actions you drop the hammer and lock them up. Restitution for damages, fines and jail time are in order. Until we go back to accepting that the law exists for a reason and apply it evenly we will continue to see rioting. What's there to lose when you know you can do it untouched?
You are spot on. We live in a society with little if any consequences for the perpetrators. The victims are the ones who suffer with justice seemingly being absent.
I see George Soros as the king of the liberal left. His money is behind a lot of the violence. This stuff just doesn't happen, it is planned. I didn't say that the problem with the riots was on the students but I do feel strongly that extreme left wing colleges want freedom of speech when they want to demonstrate but want to shut it down when people who have different opinions want to speak. That what started the whole thing. Ditto at NYU
Huh? This was an invited speaker at Cal. Students protested outside - including a "gay dance party" - not exactly violent and extreme. The speaker was there and the event was still on - until anarchists (not Cal students) showed up from off campus and started getting violent. That's when they determined it was best to get the speaker out and the event was canceled.
What did Cal or its students do wrong?
sometimes facts just a liberal bias. If you want to spew things that are demonstrably false or racist/sexist etc. Of course, you shouldn't be surprised some people refuse to give you a platform to spew such rubbish.
Shut the anarchist riot down. Arrest the rioters and lock them up.
Is there a difference between allowing it to continue and supporting it?
I never said it was only the students. It was the liberal left and it did get violent.
Do they have the right to destroy university property and assault and harass people who disagree with them? If so, you are advocating for anarchy.
How many right-wing anarchists have you seen in this country? Libertarians don't assault police, burn cars, smash windows, graffiti buildings....
They're not stupid questions at all. The comment was made about the anarchists. I've seen no right-wing anarchists in the USA.
they just commit acts of terrorism e.g. Timothy McVeigh, the guy that killed 9 in the south carolina church, the dude that just shot up the mosque in Canada 2 weeks ago. Some humans commit violence for reasons best known to them. No sane person defends such actions
Timothy McVeigh was not an anarchist. He was an actual, real-life white supremacist. Same with Dylan Roof. The French Canadian had some ties to a Quebec militia group. These are not anarchists.
my point is not about anarchists. but rather some individual(s) engage in senseless violence to further their cause. Every sane person accross the political spectrum understands condemns their actions. Trying to tie to them to the left or right is pointless. Their acts are just wrong and indefensible.
But most reasonable people do not associate anarchists with the people at the women's march, at the airport marches, etc. that were all completely peaceful.
To try and equate the two is silly.
Inauguration Day in DC? Burning limos, police punched, businesses vandalized...
BTW, I never mentioned the "pussyhat crowd" or the illegals at the airports - never called them anarchists. You did. Some of the illegals have shown anarchistic tendencies in CA, but most are not.
Yes, inauguration day violence were anarchists. Hint: You can tell when its anarchists because they cover their faces.
This is not complicated. Even right wing websites referred to them as anarchists.
Hmmm, I don't remember our x POTUS, or failed candidate calling for peaceful protests now or anytime in recent memory, i.e. Police riots, etc.
really? I am not surprised you don't remember. Your world exists in a narrow chamber of alternative facts and mistruths where you see and hear only what you want to see and hear. Even then, try google search and there are multiple examples. Here is one
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/297368-obama-urges-charlotte-protesters-to-be-peaceful
Good catch. Sept 26, 2016
"The comments are Obama’s first on the police-related killings of black men in Charlotte, N.C., and Tulsa, Okla. The shootings have revived a nationwide debate over racial bias in law enforcement that has hung over his presidency. "
That's funny, I was going to say the same about you but then I realized I don't have X-ray vision. Maybe you can loan me some of yours.
and your point is what?
Those are his first comments on those specific killings that were then generating protests. They were not his first comments denouncing rioting in general. He had done multiple times prior in other protests that turned violent.
Let's get this straight. So the Obama's first comments about questionable police killings of two black men is an "urge for peaceful protest". He didn't say anything about the killings itself. He just urged for peace. And you have a problem with that? When faced with evidence about how wrong your claims were, you twist to something else. There's frankly something wrong with you. It's my fault for engaging you in a debate given your racist antecedents.
Why is it that people feel the need, in this day and age, to term everyone and everything "racist" who disagrees with them on social issues? Do you have some kind of knowledge that Bruce1's ancestors belonged to the KKK or a white supremacist organization?
By continually playing this card you weaken the effect when actual racism occurs.
i don't term everyone I disagree with racist. There are plenty people I disagree with just on this board that I would never call racist. We can debate economic ideologies, politics and disagree at every step and race doesn't factor into it at all.
But a few on this board do have a history of spewing racist shit and Bruce1 is one of them. I don't know about his ancestors, I have never met them or engaged them in a discussion and can therefore make no comments about them. I made a comment about Bruce1's posting history not his ancestors. Are you sure you know what "antecedent" means? It has nothing to do with ancestors!
"It's my fault for engaging you in a debate given your racist antecedents."
antecedents - noun. 1. a thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another.
synonyms: precursors, forerunners, predecessors
So you are saying that Bruce1 has made previous racist comments on this board? I don't remember any, but I don't go out of my way to find them or infer someone is making them either. He may well have, but I don't remember any.
as you posted, the definition correctly explains my use. My intent had nothing to do with his ancestors and that much should be obvious to anybody with any familiarity with the word. Antecedent is best understood as "what happened prior". One can imagine a scenario where you stretch antecedents to pertain to ancestors and it will make sense in a very narrow use, but that's really really pushing it.
Ah, the race card! The ultimate weapon of the left. Disagree with the left and you are by default a racist.
You sir are an absolute liar. I defy you to find one racist post that I have ever made. Show me one!
