Major violent protest in UC Berkeley

[zinfamous]

You need to cite some examples and say more than that. Currently the left is acting like fascists and the media is covering for the left, by calling violent mobs a "protest", i can show pictures and video of all of this and the mass violence coming from the left. I can back up my points, how about you?

what the ever fuck man. So, you just say something: "liberals are more fascist!" and it just makes sense to you?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Don't clutch too hard. You don't want to hurt your fingers.

A guy that routinely falls for hate crime hoaxes wants to talk pearl-clutching over documented physical assaults on free speech, lmao.

 

[Blackjack200]

Translation - you support violent protests. Typical of many libs - nothing's ever your responsibility; everything is justifiable. Your antifa buddies did more than throw a few punches; some of them beat people with metal poles. In case you didn't know that can classified as assault with a deadly weapon. But hey, that's ok. Some of your buddies nearly beat an autistic guy to death. I guess people with disabilities don't fit into your list of groups that don't deserve special status like all the other politically approved victim groups you recognize. Non libs aren't human so it's all good to people like you. Maybe someone will punch you out at a protest and we'll get to see you squeal like a little bitch and play the victim. You're a sterling example of why I could never be a liberal.

LMAO, looks like this snowflake needs a safe space.

If it makes you feel any better, it's pretty clear to me that with Trump's authoritarian style, his support from police, and the likelihood that protests against his agenda will continue, it seems inevitable to me that it won't be too long before police are beating and gassing peaceful protesters like they did at the BLM protests.

Just so you know, I'm only slightly to the right of center with libertarian leanings. I detest power-hungry statists of either side.

Haha, I like how you spend a dozen poorly written sentences calling me a thug, and then seek my approval for your views. I don't happen to be a liberal, but I don't give a shit what you think.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Based on your posting history, you're certainly a leftist, even if not a liberal.

 

[Victorian Gray]

A guy that routinely falls for hate crime hoaxes wants to talk pearl-clutching over documented physical assaults on free speech, lmao.

I warned you against clutching too tightly. It's apparently starting to affect the flow of blood to your brain.

 

[werepossum]

So the answer is no then. He didn't. He didn't say anything about it on Twitter and he didn't personally disavow the attack by one of his supporters.

I condemn brandishing weapons or shooting protesters, as Milo's supporters have done. Worrying about a few punches (when we don't know what may have provoked them) or broken windows is just clutching pearls. You need to stiffen your upper lip and recognize that this is the result of a hateful messages. You have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

Yeah, it's truly a terrible thing when leftist thugs cannot gang up and beat those who say That Which Must Not Be Heard without worrying about those people defending themselves. How dare there be consequences to you beating someone up! Dumb ass.

If a gang of brownshirts ganging up and beating someone in the face with improvised weapons or "a few punches" is protected free speech, then I maintain that shooting those people dead is also protected free speech. Let loose the pearls and let the conversation begin!

 

[werepossum]

Blackjack is a member of the lowest form of leftism. A violent thug that believes he is entitled to assault free speech and be free from self-defense. Total subhuman.

Please don't condemn him. He used to be a smart, reasonable liberal before succumbing to Trump Derangement Syndrome.

 

[werepossum]

Oh, the horror of it all! Following the actual rules of the senate! How dare they! Obviously every leftist idiot like Warren should be exempt from rules! Rules are only to be used to silence those who disagree with the left.

Kind of a gray area. If a Senator is nominated for a position that requires Senate advice and consent, then I don't see how that rule can legitimately be allowed within his hearing. Technically she's breaking the rule, but without doing so she cannot do her Constitutional duty as she sees it. I have nothing against Sessions, but I think in confirmation hearings, assaulting his character should be acceptable as long as it's in the context of the hearing. Old letters from Coretta Scott King don't really do anything for me either way, but character is THE most important qualification in any position and if Fauxcahontas truly believes that Sessions does not have the requisite character, then she should be free to say so and to introduce evidence to that end.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Kind of a gray area. If a Senator is nominated for a position that requires Senate advice and consent, then I don't see how that rule can legitimately be allowed within his hearing. Technically she's breaking the rule, but without doing so she cannot do her Constitutional duty as she sees it. I have nothing against Sessions, but I think in confirmation hearings, assaulting his character should be acceptable as long as it's in the context of the hearing. Old letters from Coretta Scott King don't really do anything for me either way, but character is THE most important qualification in any position and if Fauxcahontas truly believes that Sessions does not have the requisite character, then she should be free to say so and to introduce evidence to that end.

She knew it was against the rules when she did it, doesn't that speak loudly about HER character? That she tries to slime another member of the Senate knowing full well that these 30 year old writings by the wife of a famous man aren't allowed on the senate floor?

 

[werepossum]

She knew it was against the rules when she did it, doesn't that speak loudly about HER character? That she tries to slime another member of the Senate knowing full well that these 30 year old writings by the wife of a famous man aren't allowed on the senate floor?

Technically that is correct, but if Senators are nominated then I don't see how the Senate can do its Constitutionally-mandated duty of advice and consent without being free to speak against the nominee's character if Senators feel so compelled.

I'm fine with the Senate having its rules, like this and the filibuster. Generally I approve of the Senate's rules, and on duties that are not Constitutionally mandated, I'm fine with them being as esoteric and restricting as the Senators wish. But when those rules interfere with Constitutionally-mandated duties, those rules should give way.

Personally I think Fauxcahontas is merely playing politics here, attacking Sessions' character purely to promote herself as a viable Presidential candidate. But that's my conclusion; my principles say she must be free to do so regardless of whether I suspect she's not doing so in the spirit of service. Here I agree with Warren, and even though King's letters do not sway me in the slightest, I think Warren should be free to question Sessions and point out why she does not believe he should be confirmed.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Technically that is correct, but if Senators are nominated then I don't see how the Senate can do its Constitutionally-mandated duty of advice and consent without being free to speak against the nominee's character if Senators feel so compelled.

I'm fine with the Senate having its rules, like this and the filibuster. Generally I approve of the Senate's rules, and on duties that are not Constitutionally mandated, I'm fine with them being as esoteric and restricting as the Senators wish. But when those rules interfere with Constitutionally-mandated duties, those rules should give way.

Personally I think Fauxcahontas is merely playing politics here, attacking Sessions' character purely to promote herself as a viable Presidential candidate. But that's my conclusion; my principles say she must be free to do so regardless of whether I suspect she's not doing so in the spirit of service. Here I agree with Warren, and even though King's letters do not sway me in the slightest, I think Warren should be free to question Sessions and point out why she does not believe he should be confirmed.

I'd rather her speak her own opinion than trying to pass Mrs. King's opinion off as more important than her own.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...izer-Window-smashing-Cal-protest-10915758.php

"“We are happy with the results,” said UC Berkeley Law School alumnus Ronald Cruz of the group By Any Means Necessary, or BAMN. “We were able to meet Mr. Yiannopoulos’ fascist message with massive resistance.”"

Yep, Berkeley alumnus happy with the massive violence that caused numerous injuries and $100,000 in damages. But, but but it's not Berkeley , because even though he planned it with them, they are not actually "affiliated" with the thugs.

 

[Victorian Gray]

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...izer-Window-smashing-Cal-protest-10915758.php

"“We are happy with the results,” said UC Berkeley Law School alumnus Ronald Cruz of the group By Any Means Necessary, or BAMN. “We were able to meet Mr. Yiannopoulos’ fascist message with massive resistance.”"

Yep, Berkeley alumnus happy with the massive violence that caused numerous injuries and $100,000 in damages. But, but but it's not Berkeley , because even though he planned it with them, they are not actually "affiliated" with the thugs.

And?

 

[werepossum]

And?

And hopefully Milo comes back with armed bodyguards willing and able to meet violence with smarter, more capable violence. After all, the left's own standard is By Any Means Necessary.

 

[WelshBloke]

And hopefully Milo comes back with armed bodyguards willing and able to meet violence with smarter, more capable violence. After all, the left's own standard is By Any Means Necessary.

Ah yes. That'll calm the situation down. Good thinking. Really. Great.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

willing and able to meet violence with smarter, more capable violence.

No, that is what the left wants so they can create anarchy. The right needs to continue to take the high road until Soros is arrested.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Ah yes. That'll calm the situation down. Good thinking. Really. Great.

So you want conservatives to surrender to the threat of violence from the fascists that threaten our right to free speech? The real Nazis in this story are the black-shirted and masked authoritarian thugs on the left.

 

[Svnla]

So much of "peace, love, understanding, inclusion, equality, <insert more feel good empty slogans>" from liberals.

Say something that we don't like? Then you are a racist, xenophobic, dumb redneck, <insert more nasty words/labels> and we will shut your right to speak by any mean necessary.

I can't believe that some of you are ok with violence just because someone says something that you do not like/offensive.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/...eley-support-over-milo-yiannopoulos-protests/

 

[Ancalagon44]

So much of "peace, love, understanding, inclusion, equality, <insert more feel good empty slogans>" from liberals.

Say something that we don't like? Then you are a racist, xenophobic, dumb redneck, <insert more nasty words/labels> and we will shut your right to speak by any mean necessary.

I can't believe that some of you are ok with violence just because someone says something that you do not like/offensive.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/...eley-support-over-milo-yiannopoulos-protests/

Its the new liberal doublethink.

"We demand you be tolerant of us, but we refuse to be tolerant of you."

"We like learning new ideas, as long as we already agree with them."

"Free speech is a fundamental right, but only if you say something I agree with."

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It's funny how a decade ago on this board, Steeplerot was shat on by most for stealing pro-war magnetic ribbons off of people's cars. Today, a sizable amount of P&N is fully on board with allowing violence against people that say offensive things. The left is radicalizing.

Ah yes. That'll calm the situation down. Good thinking. Really. Great.

It will actually. Did you see how quickly the rats scurried away when the guy shot in self-defense at U of W?

 

[FerrelGeek]

I'm hardly a snowflake and I couldn't possibly care less about your approval. I'm not calling you a thug; just calling you out for advocating a certain level of violence at protests. You're the one bending over backwards trying to justify your position. Even some libs are getting tired of the BS from your buddies at these protests. Now call up to your mom and have her whip you up some hot pockets and chocolate milk.

LMAO, looks like this snowflake needs a safe space.

If it makes you feel any better, it's pretty clear to me that with Trump's authoritarian style, his support from police, and the likelihood that protests against his agenda will continue, it seems inevitable to me that it won't be too long before police are beating and gassing peaceful protesters like they did at the BLM protests.



Haha, I like how you spend a dozen poorly written sentences calling me a thug, and then seek my approval for your views. I don't happen to be a liberal, but I don't give a shit what you think.

 

[Blackjack200]

I'm hardly a snowflake and I couldn't possibly care less about your approval. I'm not calling you a thug; just calling you out for advocating a certain level of violence at protests. You're the one bending over backwards trying to justify your position. Even some libs are getting tired of the BS from your buddies at these protests. Now call up to your mom and have her whip you up some hot pockets and chocolate milk.

Quote me where I advocated violence.

Prefer to call your mom TBH.

 

[HomerJS]

She knew it was against the rules when she did it, doesn't that speak loudly about HER character? That she tries to slime another member of the Senate knowing full well that these 30 year old writings by the wife of a famous man aren't allowed on the senate floor?

If it was against the "so-called" rules why were other Senators allowed to read the letter?

 

[brycejones]

If it was against the "so-called" rules why were other Senators allowed to read the letter?

They weren't that mouthy woman.

 

[brandonbull]

If it was against the "so-called" rules why were other Senators allowed to read the letter?

I thought it was Fauxcahontas' repeated comments and not the letter that got her silenced.