Open-Minded Liberals at it again

[*bfine32*]

(03-17-2017, 09:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: If your group/position holds great power within the structure of the US you are not being persecuted.  The "other" side isn't not being open minded.  You are being disagreed with.  Defend your position and stop crying.

No doubt. The conservatives that have been physically attacked should just take their lumps and move their privileged asses on down the road.

[GMDino]

(03-17-2017, 09:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt. The conservatives that have been physically attacked should just take their lumps and move their privileged asses on down the road.

Or you could quit focusing on what you want to see: a handful, at most, of physical confrontations and look at the sheer amount of whining done about being "persecuted".

Or you even look at your fellow Trump supporters who are "fighting back".

[Benton]

(03-16-2017, 06:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: In addition to that, there's also cultural stereotypes for which sports people play.

When I look at the lacrosse, hockey, baseball, tennis, and wrestling teams at my schools, they're very white. My school is about 31% white and 33% black, so it's not like it's just the make up of the school. Those sports tend to be dominated by white players at the professional.

Are white people naturally better at those sports? No, they're just more likely to grow up watching or playing them, so they are more likely to be the athletes in those sports.

Culturally, black Americans are more likely to grow up playing basketball and football, so they're over represented in those sports.

We have more MLB players than NFL players from Latin America and the Caribbean, some black and some latino. Why? Cause baseball is more popular there. 




I hope it's because we recognize the effect poverty has on educational attainment, but the likely answer is just that people, whether knowingly or not, see the physical attributes as positive and intelligence as being too tied with eugenics. 

I asked a high school coach one time what his plan for the season was. He laughed and said they were down to one black kid, so "I guess we'll just be on the perimeter." For the most part, that's what they stuck with.The only time they even tried layups was when they were looking to draw fouls.

[*bfine32*]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fights-erupt-pro-trump-rally-california-002525160.html

Quote:HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. (Reuters) - Supporters of President Donald Trump holding a rally on a popular southern California beach clashed with counter-protesters on Saturday and four people were arrested, law enforcement said.

Multiple fights broke out and at least one Trump supporter was doused with pepper spray when pro-Trump demonstrators marching along Bolsa Chica State Beach encountered a small group opposed to the Republican president who had gathered to denounce the rally.


Four counter-protesters were arrested, three for illegal use of pepper spray and one for assault and battery, Kevin Pearsall, a spokesman for the California State Parks Police said on Saturday evening.

I know, I know. We have no idea what caused this March to turn violent....

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2017, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fights-erupt-pro-trump-rally-california-002525160.html


I know, I know. We have no idea what caused this March to turn violent....

I've already gotten the story on this.  Some masked Antifa wannabe pepper sprayed a woman in the pro-Trump crowd.  This angered some of the men in the pro-Trump crowd who promptly assaulted the guy.  You have to arrest on site if the aggrieved party chooses to press charges but I would be surprised if the retaliation ends up being formally charged.  Attacking with a chemical irritant is much more severe so I would expect the instigator to face formal charges.

[GMDino]

(03-26-2017, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fights-erupt-pro-trump-rally-california-002525160.html


I know, I know. We have no idea what caused this March to turn violent....

Lone wolf.  One crazy guy.  Nothing to see here.



Crap.  Sorry.  thought it was a shooting.  Must have been a liberal since all liberals are hateful and violent.  Carry on.

[*bfine32*]

(03-26-2017, 01:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Lone wolf.  One crazy guy.  Nothing to see here.



Crap.  Sorry.  thought it was a shooting.  Must have been a liberal since all liberals are hateful and violent.  Carry on.

Aaahh,,,,you must be confusing it with the tragic shooting at Cincy's own Cameo Night Club last night. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/26/us/ohio-nightclub-shooting/index.html

Either that  or you're just talking out of your ass again

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-26-2017, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fights-erupt-pro-trump-rally-california-002525160.html


I know, I know. We have no idea what caused this March to turn violent....

No I think we know what caused it. Someone who doesn't praise dear leader showed up. 

Funny how Open-Minded liberals seem to be the ones assaulted in these videos I have seen. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIKZ_E0QvYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktj-gXssHss

And the lady appears to be pepper sprayed because she was attempting to break up the assault by a fellow Trumpet and was right in the middle of an angry mob going on the attack when pepper spray used as defense. 

Crazy how that one liberal scumbag kept assaulting that Trump flag pole with his head. It was almost like a Trump supporter was trying to bash him in the head with it. But we all no that doesn't fit the narrative and couldn't be true. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2017, 11:36 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: No I think we know what caused it. Someone who doesn't praise dear leader showed up. 

Funny how Open-Minded liberals seem to be the ones assaulted in these videos I have seen. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIKZ_E0QvYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktj-gXssHss

And the lady appears to be pepper sprayed because she was attempting to break up the assault by a fellow Trumpet and was right in the middle of an angry mob going on the attack when pepper spray used as defense. 

Crazy how that one liberal scumbag kept assaulting that Trump flag pole with his head. It was almost like a Trump supporter was trying to bash him in the head with it. But we all no that doesn't fit the narrative and couldn't be true. 

I'll simply make this point and let people marinate in it.  How many violent incidents occurred at a Clinton rally?  Did anyone try and assassinate Hillary they way they did (albeit in completely half assed fashion) Trump?  Were Hillary supporters pelted with eggs?  How many violent attacks occurred at the Women's March?  Did anyone get sucker punched at a Hillary rally (compared to Trump's inauguration) and then have a bunch of people defend said sucker punch?  Did any Trump supporter, famous or otherwise, make a call to blow the White House up?  During the protests against the travel ban did anyone get assaulted?

The simple fact is that the vast majority of violent incidents occurred at Pro-Trump events.  One must then ask why that is the case.  I'm certainly open to arguments.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-26-2017, 11:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll simply make this point and let people marinate in it.  How many violent incidents occurred at a Clinton rally?  Did anyone try and assassinate Hillary they way they did (albeit in completely half assed fashion) Trump?  Were Hillary supporters pelted with eggs?  How many violent attacks occurred at the Women's March?  Did anyone get sucker punched at a Hillary rally (compared to Trump's inauguration) and then have a bunch of people defend said sucker punch?  Did any Trump supporter, famous or otherwise, make a call to blow the White House up?  During the protests against the travel ban did anyone get assaulted?

The simple fact is that the vast majority of violent incidents occurred at Pro-Trump events.  One must then ask why that is the case.  I'm certainly open to arguments.

How much of her platform was hate, fear, division, and carnage?

How many times did she give speeches about how she would like to punch a protester in the face? Or how she would like to see a protester carried out on a stretcher?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMg407gaFro

How many times did she tell her crowds to knock the crap out of somebody and she would pay the legal fees?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzYv5foyAS8

Maybe that old proverb "you reap what you sow" comes into play here. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-27-2017, 01:02 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: How much of her platform was hate, fear, division, and carnage?

How many times did she give speeches about how she would like to punch a protester in the face? Or how she would like to see a protester carried out on a stretcher?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMg407gaFro

How many times did she tell her crowds to knock the crap out of somebody and she would pay the legal fees?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzYv5foyAS8

Maybe that old proverb "you reap what you sow" comes into play here. 

You'll get no argument from me that Hillary's rhetoric was far less aggressive and strident than Trump's.  Still, my point holds true, either you're an adult who is responsible for their own actions or you're not.  In the previous election cycle, and since, the left has proven themselves far more comfortable with the actual use of physical violence than the right.  We're going back to my previous thread, do words ever justify a violent response?  The vast consensus was, no, they do not.  Why then have so many on the left succumbed to this fallacy?

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-27-2017, 01:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll get no argument from me that Hillary's rhetoric was far less aggressive and strident than Trump's.  Still, my point holds true, either you're an adult who is responsible for their own actions or you're not.  In the previous election cycle, and since, the left has proven themselves far more comfortable with the actual use of physical violence than the right.  We're going back to my previous thread, do words ever justify a violent response?  The vast consensus was, no, they do not.  Why then have so many on the left succumbed to this fallacy?

In this Huntington beach skirmish there was mob mentality violence. Dude used his Trump flag to beat a guy in the head and multiple sucker punches thrown by Trumpets.

Most people march because they support something like womens rights , equal rights , equal pay , etc.. 

What is the point of a make America great again march? To me it seems like for one they are saying my country sucks. Its already great. And two they want to remove everybody not like them. Build a wall deport them all. 

Both sides are guilty of violence. That doesnt mean you can label the entirety of both sides as violent. One side does have an elected leader who on multiple occassions has voiced his support for violence and ran on a divisive platform. 

So to your question. Yes words can result in violence when a movement preaching violence from the top is spreading a message of hate. Whether it is people threatened by the movement who choose to act out. Or supporters of the movement doing what dear leader told them to.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-27-2017, 02:41 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: In this Huntington beach skirmish there was mob mentality violence. Dude used his Trump flag to beat a guy in the head and multiple sucker punches thrown by Trumpets.

What I've heard, from close sources, is that the Antifa wannabe started the violence by pepper spraying a woman.  Obviously, I wasn't there to confirm, but, also obviously, neither were you.

Quote:Most people march because they support something like womens rights , equal rights , equal pay , etc.. 

Or any of a multitude of other reasons.  Kind of a throwaway point eh?

Quote:What is the point of a make America great again march? To me it seems like for one they are saying my country sucks. Its already great. And two they want to remove everybody not like them. Build a wall deport them all. 

I suppose you'd have to ask the participants.  My guess, based on statements, is that these particular demonstrators were marching to highlight that the anti-Trump side does not hold a monopoly on public discourse. 

Quote:Both sides are guilty of violence. That doesnt mean you can label the entirety of both sides as violent. One side does have an elected leader who on multiple occassions has voiced his support for violence and ran on a divisive platform. 

You started off well here, then veered off into bullshit land.  Both sides are guilty of violence, to be sure.  However, the violence is not equally distributed of late.  The vast majority of the violence has been directed at pro right wing functions.  You cannot shrug this off as inconsequential and hope to be taken seriously.  Trump's rhetoric is absolutely more aggressive than Hillary's was, that doesn't give adults free reign, or an excuse, to respond with violence.  I'll reiterate, you cannot justify a violent response to words.

Quote:So to your question. Yes words can result in violence when a movement preaching violence from the top is spreading a message of hate. Whether it is people threatened by the movement who choose to act out. Or supporters of the movement doing what dear leader told them to.

Again, pure crap.  We're talking about adults.  You are responsible for your own actions and your violent actions are not justified by the words of others.  You're fallacious logic would exculpate the beating of Rodney King, after all, if words justify a violent response how much more justification is provided by a DUI suspect who flees police, endangering countless others in the process?  Quite simply, you can't have it both ways.  If you want to excuse violent reactions to offensive speech than be prepared for far more violent reactions to behavior that physically endangers others.   I've said it a million times, an inconsistent opinion is a worthless opinion, so what is yours?

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-27-2017, 03:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What I've heard, from close sources, is that the Antifa wannabe started the violence by pepper spraying a woman.  Obviously, I wasn't there to confirm, but, also obviously, neither were you.

I linked a video. It shows a woman being pepper sprayed. After a Trumpet initiated an attack.

Or any of a multitude of other reasons.  Kind of a throwaway point eh?

Not really. Just seems like they are marching to piss people off. Is it normal to have weekly rallies for a guy sworn into office a couple months ago?

I suppose you'd have to ask the participants.  My guess, based on statements, is that these particular demonstrators were marching to highlight that the anti-Trump side does not hold a monopoly on public discourse. 



You started off well here, then veered off into bullshit land.  Both sides are guilty of violence, to be sure.  However, the violence is not equally distributed of late.  The vast majority of the violence has been directed at pro right wing functions.  You cannot shrug this off as inconsequential and hope to be taken seriously.  Trump's rhetoric is absolutely more aggressive than Hillary's was, that doesn't give adults free reign, or an excuse, to respond with violence.  I'll reiterate, you cannot justify a violent response to words.

Yes you can. Many threats come in the form of words. In the two videos I linked early. A Trump supporter initiates contact and tries walking right through a protesters sign. Could have easily walked around. The mob violence in the other is apparent. Ignoring the aggressive nature of Trump supporters with Trump himself praising their nasty and mean and vicious tendencies allows you to over look the reason people feel threatened and lash out. 

Again, pure crap.  We're talking about adults.  You are responsible for your own actions and your violent actions are not justified by the words of others.  You're fallacious logic would exculpate the beating of Rodney King, after all, if words justify a violent response how much more justification is provided by a DUI suspect who flees police, endangering countless others in the process?  Quite simply, you can't have it both ways.  If you want to excuse violent reactions to offensive speech than be prepared for far more violent reactions to behavior that physically endangers others.   I've said it a million times, an inconsistent opinion is a worthless opinion, so what is yours?

You lost me with the big words and Rodney King reference. If you flee from police chances are you catch a beating when caught, to a point it can be excessive, but the cuffs won't be put on gingerly. While I like to base my opinion on fact, the comment of mine you were responding to here was my opinion. To civilized people yes almost every time violence isn't a good answer. There are a lot of uncivilized people out there. Vandalism, hate speech, racism, and intolerance are pouring out of the Trump movement. If they were out there preaching peace, love, and happiness I would react a lot differently if they were continuously confronted. But the marching orders coming from the top have included calls for violence to go along with a large amount of division and fear mongering. They may just be words but the basis of the movement directly effects peoples lives. And a lot of people view them as threats. Just as the man who they elected president says he would like to punch somebody who disagrees with him in the mouth, there are people who disagree with his message that would like to punch his supporters in the mouth. 

[Fan_in_Kettering]

(03-26-2017, 11:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll simply make this point and let people marinate in it.  How many violent incidents occurred at a Clinton rally?  

The simple fact is that the vast majority of violent incidents occurred at Pro-Trump events.  One must then ask why that is the case.  I'm certainly open to arguments.

George Soros and his rent-a-mobs...

[GMDino]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/04/01/judge-rejects-motion-dismiss-protesters-lawsuit-against-trump/99917394/

Quote:Judge rejects motion to dismiss protesters’ lawsuit against Trump




(Photo: CJ file photo)


LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A federal judge said in a ruling that then-candidate Donald Trump incited the use of violence against three protesters when he told supporters at a campaign rally a year ago to "get 'em out of here."

U. S. District Judge David J. Hale of the Western District of Kentucky also wrote in an opinion and order released Friday that because violence had broken out at a prior Trump rally and that known hate group members were in the Louisville crowd, Trump's ordering the removal of an African-American woman was "particularly reckless."

Citing case law from tumultuous 1960s race riots and other student protests, Hale rejected motions to dismiss the pending complaint against Trump and three supporters in the crowd that was filed by three protesters after a March 1, 2016, campaign rally in Louisville. Only a portion of the defendants' motion was granted, but the decision means that the bulk of the claims will proceed.
[url=http://embark.usatoday.com/][/url]
g 
The protesters, Henry Brousseau, Kashiya Nwanguma and Molly Shah, are seeking unspecified monetary damages. They claim they were assaulted by audience members who were riled up by Trump. Besides Trump, the lawsuit names three defendants in attendance — Matthew Heimbach, a leader with the white supremacist group Traditional Youth Network from Paoli, Ind.; Alvin Bamberger, a member of the Korean War Veterans Association from Ohio; and an unknown individual.




Heimbach is founder of Traditionalist Youth Network. Marty Pearl, Special to CJ


The men were caught on video pushing and shoving Nwanguma to usher her out of the Kentucky International Convention Center after Trump's urging from the stage.

Trump's lawyer, R. Kent Westberry of Louisville, had argued that the suit's allegations threaten fundamental constitutional protections by chilling political speech and that those accused of assaulting the three were not acting for or at the direction of Trump or the campaign. Instead, they were acting on their own initiative and for their own purposes, Westberry wrote.

Hale pointed out that, as the protesters had alleged, the violence began as soon as Trump gave a command and an order to get the protesters out of the rally.

The judge dismissed one of the plaintiffs' claims that Trump was vicariously liable for Heimbach and Bamberger's actions. The men weren't employed by Trump or his campaign and therefore weren't under his control during the rally, Hale wrote.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

If Christians were as dedicated to serving God as liberals are to expanding government the churches would be packed.

[Benton]

(04-02-2017, 07:58 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: If Christians were as dedicated to serving God as liberals are to expanding government the churches would be packed.

eh, that goes for both sides any more. Republicans dont want smaller government, they just want different services.

[GMDino]

(04-02-2017, 07:58 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: If Christians were as dedicated to serving God as liberals are to expanding government the churches would be packed.

(04-02-2017, 08:26 AM)Benton Wrote: eh, that goes for both sides any more. Republicans dont want smaller government, they just want different services.

If Republicans were as Christian as they claim to be w wouldn't even be talking about cutting social services.

[THE Bigzoman]

(02-02-2017, 11:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Far more rational ways to protest such a disgusting person being invited to speak at a campus that is suppose to be known for inclusion.

I certainly agree with them trying to prevent someone who preaches such hate, but matching hate with hate is wrong.



Hopefully there were peaceful protests, but I have only seen the news for the violent rioting behavior. 

I'm sure there's some peaceful protesters in the group, but whenever I see them there's a ton of violence.

It's only going to get worse, especially if people start fighting back.

It's nice to see at least some parts of the internet embracing the free exchange of ideas, even if they themselves find certain ideas distasteful.