98 replies to this topic

[freedom78]

That's an odd definition of peaceful you have.  I would have assumed peaceful meant non-violent.  You assume peaceful means acting lawfully in every way.  So a protester who jaywalks is no longer peaceful...send in the Guard!

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[freedom78]

By that definition, a group of permit wielding protesters wouldn't be peaceful.  The whole point of protest is to gain attention by causing commotion.

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[freedom78]

 holding hands across roads, chaining themselves to doors and trespassing and screaming inane slogans aren't peaceful, don't have a unified argument or solution and exist solely to cause commotion through disruption.

I guess I'm not pretending protest and disruption are synonymous.

 

So...the Civil Rights movement?

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[Mr. Roboto]

The left's enemy is always Hitler and the left always portrays itself as crusaders marching for civil rights. In reality their enemy is someone far more knowledgeable and experienced than they are doing what's best for America and they're nothing more than spoiled, bored children looking for purpose in a life void of actual hardship or strife.

 

This is ridiculous of course...

[freedom78]

Ignoring the obvious, what are people protesting now that is remotely similar to the civil rights movement?

 

That wasn't the point.  You were condemning the tactics of protest and I noted that those very same tactics have been used across time in protests of a very serious nature.  I'm sure in the 50s you would have been calling for the cracked skulls and police dogs, too.  After all, they're disrupting traffic when the cross that bridge. 

 

This is my point. The left's enemy is always Hitler and the left always portrays itself as crusaders marching for civil rights. In reality their enemy is someone far more knowledgeable and experienced than they are doing what's best for America and they're nothing more than spoiled, bored children looking for purpose in a life void of actual hardship or strife.

 

That is beyond crazy to say.  First, for eight years we heard efforts to tie Obama to Marx/Lenin/Mao/Castro/Stalin, despite the fact that he's a mainstream, market based liberal.  That sort of comparison is nonsense as is any comparison of Trump to Hitler.  Trump isn't Hitler.  The fact that I have to say something so dumb as that to prove the point goes to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your argument.

 

Second, to lump together an entire side of the political spectrum as spoiled children who need to be directed by those who know better is equally ridiculous.  By that logic, an African dictatorship with the world's shittiest healthcare knows better than Canada, with its national healthcare system, simply because you see one as the correct outcome and the other as incorrect.  While I disagree with you quite a lot, I can at least respect the basic fact that most of politics is driven by opinion and belief and, thus, my opinion is not special or superior to yours on its basic merits as an opinion.  Your statement indicates you do not believe the same and that the other side is FACTUALLY wrong (hilarious on its own, given the GOP's general rejection of facts), rather than having a different belief.  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this.  In recent years the GOP has become increasingly ideological and more extreme, believing in its inherent rightness.  One need look only so far as our recent SCOTUS nominee.  One party is so convinced that it is right about everything (despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary in many cases) that it was willing to cast off its basic constitutional duties in order to steal a SCOTUS seat.  This is similarly reflected in the need to win that drives their love of voter ID laws and gerrymandering.  You defined fascism as not respecting the results of elections.  I can think of no better example of this than in the behavior of Republicans from January 20, 2009 - 2017.  They didn't attempt a coup...they just assumed the people were wrong and went about trying to prevent that wrongness from having an impact.  The arrogance of this is an offense to the history of our national discourse. 

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[freedom78]

And you want to talk about having your own facts.  Elections do have consequences.  That's why Obama and the Democrats had 2 years to do whatever they wanted.  They squandered that, taking 2 years to get enough of their own party on board to pass the ACA.  In 2010, another election took place, and the Republicans gained the House.  Elections have consequences.  That meant Obama had to reach across the aisle, he failed to do so.  The shut down that happened when the GOP revolted against Boehner is really the only time you can blame the GOP exclusively. I'm sure you won't dispute this since neither of us are entitled to our own facts.  I just find it funny you and others repeat the obstructionist bullshit when the facts are the Democrats lost complete controls in 2010 and lost all control in 2014.  I wonder if you perceive the antics of the Democrats boycotting committee meetings for Trump's nominees with the same disdain. 

 

I don't support either party being obstructionist in its tactics, though I believe we're headed in that direction and I absolutely believe that if the Congressional Dems are severely obstructionist this presidency, it is in direct response to GOP actions for the last eight years.  Blame Obama all you want.  He took the opposite approach as the Clintons, who were heavy handed in their efforts to guide Congress.  Obama took a more hands off approach.  This was also wrong, in that he lacked the necessary relationships to work with Republicans.  But that's not why they opposed him and you know it.  The fact that they required 60 votes on every piece of legislation is unprecedented in American history. 

 

Otherwise, I'll judge Democrats' obstruction on its merits.  If they obstruct everything, I will be disappointed in their actions.  If they obstruct to prevent a handful of items, then I'll consider the value of those.  Unlike the GOP, I don't think that winning is the only thing that matters. 

 

I'm attacking illegal behavior.  Nothing more.  You don't have a right to stand in the middle of of the interstate, trespass or commit property damage.  The 1st Amendment doesn't say "Laws must be adhered to unless you have an deep belief in the righteousness of your beliefs, then you can ignore whatever law makes your behavior illegal."  if protesters were outside a refugee center throwing rocks, setting fires and trying to break the windows, I don't think you'd be supporting their behavior. 

 

And I have no issue whatsoever with law enforcement addressing illegal behavior.  Sometimes protesters engage in civil disobedience.  I would say that this is markedly different from violence and destruction.  Blocking a street may be illegal.  It isn't worthy of a violent response.  Police responses should be proportional to the illegality of the action.  A sit in shouldn't get you a cracked skull any more than acts of arson should get you a slap on the wrist.  I don't support anyone causing destruction as a means of protest, regardless of who they are or what they're destroying.

 

And I'm not calling all people on the left or who disagree with me spoiled children.  Just the idiots marching against Trump (did you see what Madonna and Ashley Judd said, these were their appointed speakers- they weren't rational or speaking "facts") and protesting college speakers.  

 

You said "the left" in describing their enemy as being portrayed as Hitler, etc.  Perhaps you meant to change the subject of your sentence, but I'm just reacting to what was written. 

 

No, I didn't see what Madonna or Ashley Judd said.  I couldn't care less what they say.  I want thoughtful discourse, not celeb worship.

[PERM BANNED]

y

[freedom78]

She's in, 50-50 with Mike Pray the Gay Away Pence breaking the tie. 

 

For the record, she has more votes against her confirmation than all prior Secretaries of Education combined. 

 

But at least we'll be safer from grizzlies.

[freedom78]

That's fine and I agree with you, but when a movement brings people on as their speakers, those speakers are inherently speaking on behalf of the movement.  Madonna talked about blowing up the White House and Judd talked about how trump was a goose stepping Nazi.  So when a bunch of idiots wear "pussy hats" and have leaders who talk about blowing the white house up and call the President a Nazi, you can understand why I dismiss their entire march as a bunch of bored, spoiled brats with nothing better to do to occupy their time.  

 

I want intelligent, thoughtful discourse too.  Threatening violence and stopping others form attending a speaker with different opinions kind of flies in the face of all of that.  I guess we'll have to disagree that tear gas and a fire hose isn't an appropriate use of force to end what was becoming a violent protest that would cost tens of thousands in damages.  I'm sure you're ok with taking general funds to repair the damages rather than recouping them from the people who caused the damage.  Though if these protesters were peaceful as you want to argue, why couldn't the police detain/stop the few who were smashing glass and setting fires?

 

I'm not one for the red meat, but right wing radio pretty much set the bar on that kind of talk.  Personally, I think our republic is diminished when we engage in that sort of nonsense, rather than meaningful discussion of important issues.  I'm not sure the President is with me on this one, though.

[Mr. Roboto]

Devos gets confirmed. Christ. 

[Timothy]

Christ had nothing to do with that sir.