Trump/Milo supporters being beaten at Berkley last night

[LittleLebowski]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Protesters-storm-Milo-Yiannopoulos-event-at-UC-10901829.php


https://youtu.be/GSMKGRyWKas


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=83&v=w-V4iJhnHhA

[voodoo_man]

"Tolerance"

[BaiHu]

As I said to a few friends last night:
Only in progressive America can college students protest a gay immigrant while simultaneously protesting a straight president over enforcing existing immigration law.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[CCT125US]

I am a Milo fan, dude has a way with words.

[blues]

The Constitution: You're either for it or against it. I've run out of time, patience and sympathy for those who advocate only for the rights of those who march in lockstep with themselves.

Such an attitude, in my humble opinion, undermines everything we have accomplished as a nation through times of war and peace...and if allowed to prevail will be our undoing.

13611

I believe in the Constitution. I have sworn to uphold, preserve and protect it. That promise has no expiration date.

[Eastex]

Sooner or later I'm afraid they're gonna corner the wrong cat.


Hell bent on being intentionally anachronistic

[Zincwarrior]

It should be noted, San Fran papers and IHE are saying the group that got violent and rioty was actually an Oakland group (for reference Oakland is a nearby fun filled location known having monthly riots and one of the hotbeds for the old Black Panther Party).

Police seem to have acted well. While dodging firework rockets and the occasional molotov cocktail they got the speaker out without harm.

[blues]

It should be noted, San Fran papers and IHE are saying the group that got violent and rioty was actually an Oakland group (for reference Oakland is a nearby fun filled location known having monthly riots and one of the hotbeds for the old Black Panther Party).

In the end, (except for law enforcement being able to track individuals responsible), I think it's less important to brand the individual groups and sub-groups than it is to oppose all those who oppose freedom under the guise of their (progressive?) agenda. I don't really care what they call themselves. If they ain't for us, they're agin us.

[Zincwarrior]

In the end, (except for law enforcement being able to track individuals responsible), I think it's less important to brand the individual groups and sub-groups than it is to oppose all those who oppose freedom under the guise of their (progressive?) agenda. I don't really care what they call themselves. If they ain't for us, they're agin us.

Who's us and them? There's no monoblocs here. I find the speaker an outrageous attention getter (this feeds right into his agenda) and a loathsome troll but he has the right to free speech, just as protesters have the same rights to peacefully assemble and peacefully protest outside. In the US only cat people should have no rights, because cats are evil and first against the wall when the canine revolution comes. :rolleyes:

[JAD]

It should be noted, San Fran papers and IHE are saying the group that got violent and rioty was actually an Oakland group (for reference Oakland is a nearby fun filled location known having monthly riots and one of the hotbeds for the old Black Panther Party).

I think that's a dogwhistle for the racism that is inherent in secular liberalism. All those oppressed brown people, poor savages who are closer to their animal instincts, who can blame them for expressing themselves in the language of violence that they've been taught by The Man?

[blues]

Who's us and them? There's no monoblocs here. I find the speaker an outrageous attention getter (this feeds right into his agenda) and a loathsome troll but he has the right to free speech, just as protesters have the same rights to peacefully assemble and peacefully protest outside. In the US only cat people should have no rights, because cats are evil and first against the wall when the canine revolution comes. :rolleyes:

I use the term "us" as we who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. (In other words, most of my brethren here who might read my post.)

I don't disagree with a single thing you say...well, except for the cat thing. Even as a dog guy for the most part, I've known a few cats I've enjoyed spending time around.

Our resolve is tested when we stand up for the rights of those we loathe. But we can't say we support the Constitution if we only support the parts we like.

P.S. Be careful, the cat people have their agents everywhere. Word to the wise.

[peterb]

Chancellor's statement before the event:
http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-on-yiannopoulos/

And after:
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/02/01/uc-berkeley-milo-cancellation-condemn-violence-overshadowed-lawful-protest/

[1slow]

Typical leftist behavior is: voter fraud in elections, protest and riot when they lose the election.

When they cannot convince you, they throw a tantrum and try to win by violence and intimidation.

When they criminally attack someone and they get hurt or killed THEN they talk about their victim's violence being evil.

Then they riot about the victim defending against criminal attack.

[Zincwarrior]

I think that's a dogwhistle for the racism that is inherent in secular liberalism. All those oppressed brown people, poor savages who are closer to their animal instincts, who can blame them for expressing themselves in the language of violence that they've been taught by The Man?

Its more that is a group known for rioting. Just like if BLM had a march and some white supremacists started attacking. You can't blame all the protesters for the acts of a specific few-especially when that specific few if throwing molotov cocktails (you get the heck out of the way).

[Zincwarrior]

Our resolve is tested when we stand up for the rights of those we loathe. But we can't say we support the Constitution if we only support the parts we like.
Exactly.


P.S. Be careful, the cat people have their agents everywhere. Word to the wise.

I have a brace of full auto wiener dogs at all times.

[blues]

Typical leftist behavior is: voter fraud in elections, protest and riot when they lose the election.

When they cannot convince you, they throw a tantrum and try to win by violence and intimidation.

When they criminally attack someone and they get hurt or killed THEN they talk about their victim's violence being evil.

Then they riot about the victim defending against criminal attack.

I don't know that it's typical...but it's certainly the portion of that group (if they can be considered a group) that grabs attention.

[fishing]

As I said to a few friends last night:
Only in progressive America can college students protest a gay immigrant while simultaneously protesting a straight president over enforcing existing immigration law.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I think your point about Milo being a "gay immigrant" is reinforcing the subconscious victim card that he has been strongly playing as he realizes that his 15 minutes of fame is nearly up..
He also realizes that staying in the headlines is critical to his livelihood (future book deals etc), and is resorting to increasingly divisive tactics to accomplish this goal.

(note, I generally find myself agreeing with what he says, so I consider myself unbiased in that regard)

[fishing]

It should be noted, San Fran papers and IHE are saying the group that got violent and rioty was actually an Oakland group (for reference Oakland is a nearby fun filled location known having monthly riots and one of the hotbeds for the old Black Panther Party).

Police seem to have acted well. While dodging firework rockets and the occasional molotov cocktail they got the speaker out without harm.


In the end, (except for law enforcement being able to track individuals responsible), I think it's less important to brand the individual groups and sub-groups than it is to oppose all those who oppose freedom under the guise of their (progressive?) agenda. I don't really care what they call themselves. If they ain't for us, they're agin us.

it has been somewhat addressed in replies in this thread, but it is the suspicion of many that the main actors committing the true chaos/violence/crime/agitation during this set of events are extremists from established ANTIFA/Anarchist groups not only in berkeley but also oakland.

I have seen the results of such a specific group going unchecked first hand (have lived in and still love the berkeley area, even with it's many faults).

[BaiHu]

I think your point about Milo being a "gay immigrant" is reinforcing the subconscious victim card that he has been strongly playing as he realizes that his 15 minutes of fame is nearly up..
He also realizes that staying in the headlines is critical to his livelihood (future book deals etc), and is resorting to increasingly divisive tactics to accomplish this goal.

(note, I generally find myself agreeing with what he says, so I consider myself unbiased in that regard)
You are one obtuse FNG. For real or for theater; either way I could GAF.

i·ro·ny1

ˈīrənē/

noun

the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

"“Don't go overboard with the gratitude,” he rejoined with heavy irony"



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[fishing]

You are one obtuse FNG. For real or for theater; either way I could GAF.

i·ro·ny1

ˈīrənē/

noun

the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

"“Don't go overboard with the gratitude,” he rejoined with heavy irony"



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

your personal attacks do not affect me.

[BaiHu]

your personal attacks do not affect me.
They would if they were personal and attacks. I just traffic in honesty and humor while you seem to traffic in parselmouth and faux outrage.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[fishing]

...Our resolve is tested when we stand up for the rights of those we loathe. But we can't say we support the Constitution if we only support the parts we like...

Purely philosophically, I have a question for you.

You are retired LEO and seem quite level-headed/knowledgeable about the law.

Would you suggest a public figure alter or perhaps tone down their plans, if it created predictable public security risks, for both themselves, potential crowds and bystanders as well as LEO under your command?

[Peally]

They would if they were personal and attacks. I just traffic in honesty and humor while you seem to traffic in parselmouth and faux outrage.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

The ignore list is my friend.

[BaiHu]

Purely philosophically, I have a question for you.

You are retired LEO and seem quite level-headed/knowledgeable about the law.

Would you suggest a public figure alter or perhaps tone down their plans, if it created predictable public security risks, for both themselves, potential crowds and bystanders as well as LEO under your command?
I'm not blues, but isn't that exactly how fascists want people to react to their rhetoric?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[fishing]

I'm not blues, but isn't that exactly how fascists want people to react to their rhetoric?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I asked blues due to his LEO experience likely offering an informed perspective that would help me understand the broader issue of balance between free speech and public safety.
I don't really care to distinguish between agitator groups such as extreme racists, fascists, anti-fascists, extreme leftists/rightists etc for this question as constitutionally i believe all are allowed free speech.

[NEPAKevin]

https://twitter.com/DebraMessing/status/827017775256309760




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BZvhYkB4xo

[blues]

Purely philosophically, I have a question for you.

You are retired LEO and seem quite level-headed/knowledgeable about the law.

Would you suggest a public figure alter or perhaps tone down their plans, if it created predictable public security risks, for both themselves, potential crowds and bystanders as well as LEO under your command?

I don't know what "tone down their plans" means. One can alter plans and tone down rhetoric but I'm not going to presume to know what you're trying to describe.

Also, I was not a manager though I have acted in supervisory capacity on a temporary basis or as a team leader.

All that said, I think anyone in law enforcement who was charged with protecting a member of government or the public at large would want to analyze all the variables and make them known to those with a need to know.

Protecting both the official and the public is of paramount importance. So is protecting the truth and the right to express it privately or publicly.

[fishing]

I don't know what "tone down their plans" means. One can alter plans and tone down rhetoric but I'm not going to presume to know what you're trying to describe.

Also, I was not a manager though I have acted in supervisory capacity on a temporary basis or as a team leader.

All that said, I think anyone in law enforcement who was charged with protecting a member of government or the public at large would want to analyze all the variables and make them known to those with a need to know.

Protecting both the official and the public is of paramount importance. So is protecting the truth and the right to express it privately or publicly.

very interesting - thanks.


Is Milo speaking the truth 100%? Is this more fact or personal opinion?
Is LE/Public Safety duty limited to informing about risks, or actively stepping in/taking action when deemed necessary?
If you were in a command/influence position, would you allow for 100% free speech by all public knowing that it would place life/property/leo at risk?

[peterb]

very interesting - thanks.


Is Milo speaking the truth 100%? Is this more fact or personal opinion?
Is LE/Public Safety duty limited to informing about risks, or actively stepping in/taking action when deemed necessary?
If you were in a command/influence position, would you allow for 100% free speech by all public knowing that it would place life/property/leo at risk?


I'm no lawyer, but a quick search shows Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 1969:
The court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

[fishing]

I'm no lawyer, but a quick search shows Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 1969:
The court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

I'm no lawyer either... :)

so given that standard, I wonder -


"punish" is specifically defined as?
would Milo's presence/actions at the berkeley event produce imminent lawless action (in this case, moreso a predictable lawless and violent reaction from anarchists/antifa)

[CCT125US]

I think your point about Milo being a "gay immigrant" is reinforcing the subconscious victim card that he has been strongly playing as he realizes that his 15 minutes of fame is nearly up..
He also realizes that staying in the headlines is critical to his livelihood (future book deals etc), and is resorting to increasingly divisive tactics to accomplish this goal.

(note, I generally find myself agreeing with what he says, so I consider myself unbiased in that regard)

You do know Milo has the Dangerous Faggot Tour? http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/06/milo-yiannopoulos-dangerous-faggot-tour-returns-campuses-fall/

Calling Milo a gay immigrant is about as subconscious as informing water it's wet.

[fishing]

You do know Milo has the Dangerous Faggot Tour? http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/06/milo-yiannopoulos-dangerous-faggot-tour-returns-campuses-fall/

Calling Milo a gay immigrant is about as subconscious as informing water it's wet.

I am aware - have been to one of the earlier events he put on. (no, not as a protester :))

[blues]

very interesting - thanks.


Is Milo speaking the truth 100%? Is this more fact or personal opinion?
Is LE/Public Safety duty limited to informing about risks, or actively stepping in/taking action when deemed necessary?
If you were in a command/influence position, would you allow for 100% free speech by all public knowing that it would place life/property/leo at risk?


1. I haven't a clue what Milo said. I've never listened to his speeches or read anything he's written. He's only a name I have heard of.

2. I think the answer would be obvious to your second question in the absence of having been ordered to stand down. But I can only speak to what comes to my mind at the present time and from my personal experience.

3. Very broad question. I will say that my personal belief is that everyone has the right to free speech publicly or privately. (Absent "Fire!" in the theater and other such exclusions.) However, I am sure that each situation may call for its own "abundance of caution" where life and limb may be imperiled. You don't want to take risk of life lightly...at the same time, muzzling free and lawful speech is not without its own consequences, legal or otherwise. I decline to answer with a broad brush. I would choose to prepare as best as I could and make further decisions on the ground in the face of events. LEOs know that they will face risk. They signed up for that possibility. A good commander does not put those in their charge in danger lightly.

Hypothetical situations rarely encompass all the facts. Just as no good plan goes unaltered.

[ssb]

I'm no lawyer either... :)

so given that standard, I wonder -


"punish" is specifically defined as?
would Milo's presence/actions at the berkeley event produce imminent lawless action (in this case, moreso a predictable lawless and violent reaction from anarchists/antifa)


Milo isn't responsible because a group of children believe that, since they're fighting #literallyfascists, it's acceptable to use violence to #resist. A speaker does not bear responsibility for the reactions of a crowd simply because they make a choice to react inappropriately. There must be speech calculated to achieve that inappropriate result. An example, arguably, would be the statement of Michael Brown's father after the grand jury no-bill'd Darren Wilson ("burn this bitch down"). The protest later escalated into a mob whose members then burnt that bitch down.

[fishing]

Milo isn't responsible because a group of children believe that, since they're fighting #literallyfascists, it's acceptable to use violence to #resist. A speaker does not bear responsibility for the reactions of a crowd simply because they make a choice to react inappropriately. There must be speech calculated to achieve that inappropriate result. An example, arguably, would be the statement of Michael Brown's father after the grand jury no-bill'd Darren Wilson ("burn this bitch down"). The protest later escalated into a mob whose members then burnt that bitch down.

interesting.

I think the violent, destructive and chaotic response to Milo's actions/words/presence is beyond predictable at this point and puts life/limb/property at risk (of those who may be misguided to participate in it, of those who are forced by mandate/duty (leo) and of those who may truly be innocent bystanders/passers through).

but that does not necessarily meet your interpretation of calculated speech.

[David S.]

would Milo's presence/actions at the berkeley event produce imminent lawless action (in this case, moreso a predictable lawless and violent reaction from anarchists/antifa)

So guy-who-pisses-you-off is responsible for your violent response? :rolleyes:

[blues]

One man's "truth" may be perceived as "incendiary" to the next. It doesn't have to be calculated to be so.

If I were foolish enough to walk into certain taverns in my area and "correct" someone on their perception of the War of Northern Aggression, what might be considered as truthful and factual to me might be considered inflammatory and "fighting words" to others, leading to me getting an ass whupping.

Sentiments aside, I don't think the law would say "that Yankee had it coming" even if those charged with its enforcement and prosecution felt it in their heart of hearts. Would a person having such a conversation in a tavern be considered to be a provocateur if a beat down was the end result? I would think not. The battery is not justified (legally).

(Disclaimer: I am an ardent fan of the late, ("unapologetic Mississippian"), Shelby Foote and use his three volumes on the subject of the Civil War as my guide...so no need to tar and feather me. ;))

[fishing]

So guy-who-pisses-you-off is responsible for your violent response? :rolleyes:

it is strange that you are answering an honest question with a question when it seems like you do have an answer in your mind already.

vastly different context between standards and ideals one may choose to uphold in rather personal, one-on-one interactions and broader situations that would pull in others, exposing them to risk/consequence etc by no choosing of their own.

[Peally]

fishing I know you've gotten this advice before and promptly ignored it, but bro, post less for a while.

[ssb]

interesting.

I think the violent, destructive and chaotic response to Milo's actions/words/presence is beyond predictable at this point and puts life/limb/property at risk (of those who may be misguided to participate in it, of those who are forced by mandate/duty (leo) and of those who may truly be innocent bystanders/passers through).

but that does not necessarily meet your interpretation of calculated speech.

That's not my interpretation. It's the Supreme Court's interpretation -- as set forth in Brandenburg. Perhaps you ought to read it -- it's relatively short for a court case.

Under Brandenburg, a speaker can be Ted Nugent's "black jew at a nazi klan rally" -- conditions arguably ripe for violent action -- and still not speak "direct[ing] to inciting . . . imminent lawless action." Similarly, a klansman could speak outside the local NAACP headquarters and argue for the "moral necessity" of the genocide of black citizens and still not meet that test.

What you seem to be confusing with incitement is the hostile audience reaction doctrine (speaker says things the crowd doesn't like; mayhem ensues; cease and desist order then issued). While that doctrine has never been overruled, the Court has consistently held that the role of the State is to protect speech (something that, according to them, necessarily brings a clash of ideas) rather than suppress it, and has required extraordinary circumstances in order to apply the doctrine.

[fishing]

That's not my interpretation. It's the Supreme Court's interpretation -- as set forth in Brandenburg. Perhaps you ought to read it -- it's relatively short for a court case.

Under Brandenburg, a speaker can be Ted Nugent's "black jew at a nazi klan rally" -- conditions arguably ripe for violent action -- and still not speak "direct[ing] to inciting . . . imminent lawless action." Similarly, a klansman could speak outside the local NAACP headquarters and argue for the "moral necessity" of the genocide of black citizens to Africa and still not meet that test.

What you seem to be confusing with incitement is the hostile audience reaction doctrine (speaker says things the crowd doesn't like; mayhem ensues; cease and desist order then issued).

ah good point. what would the hostile audience reaction doctrine hold in this circumstance?

[ssb]

ah good point. what would the hostile audience reaction doctrine hold in this circumstance?

They would hold, "The purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage discussion, and it is intended to protect the expression of unpopular as well as popular ideas. Accordingly, hostile public reaction does not cause the forfeiture of the constitutional protection afforded a speaker's message so long as the speaker does not go beyond mere persuasion and advocacy of ideas and attempts to incite to riot."

Today the doctrine would almost certainly not be applied, as the trend since the initial 1951 case upholding the constitutionality of this course of action (mayhem ensues; police issue cease and desist; speaker arrested for not ceasing and desisting) is to demand that the State protect speech rather than suppress it with a cease and desist order. "A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute." The doctrine is arguably dead today in light of Brandenburg's requirement that the speaker intend to cause the mayhem, though some (mostly on the left -- typically discussed in an article about hate speech) really wish it weren't.

Private citizens don't have a right to eliminate public speech if it's controversial, mean-spirited, or otherwise not to their liking, and neither does the government. The appropriate reactions in our system are things like a counter-protest or, better yet, ignoring the speaker.

[Hambo]

I had no idea who Milo Y. was and had to look him up. After reading his bio, my question is: why does anyone GAF what he says about anything?

[David S.]

................

[fishing]

I had no idea who Milo Y. was and had to look him up. After reading his bio, my question is: why does anyone GAF what he says about anything?

he among other things, is a masterful troll.

[fishing]

Forgive my ignorance, because that statement doesn't jive with my understanding of individual rights and responsibilities. Why would there be a difference?

no need to apologize, I don't think you were being ignorant.

i think individual rights and responsibilities are different in situations where there is more limited/personal risk (a one on one situation for example) versus those in which the possible effects are more far reaching and impact those not directly involved.

[blues]

he among other things, is a masterful troll.

Quoth the pot...


;)

[David S.]

no need to apologize, I don't think you were being ignorant.

i think individual rights and responsibilities are different in situations where there is more limited/personal risk (a one on one situation for example) versus those in which the possible effects are more far reaching and impact those not directly involved.

(I deleted my commented after you hit reply. Oh well.)

I strongly disagree, but roger that.

[jc000]

I had no idea who Milo Y. was and had to look him up. After reading his bio, my question is: why does anyone GAF what he says about anything?

Who fucking cares about Milo or any of these people? It's not about them.

The point is, we now have an organized and funded group of people who are addressing political discourse through physical violence against people and property. This has been going on for a long time, and is dramatically escalating in frequency.

You had groups from DC actually discussing on video (before the inauguration) illegal acts they were going to commit at the inauguration.

How much longer is this going to continue?

As guess as long as we let it.

[okie john]

he among other things, is a masterful troll.

He's also gay, which the left sees a their wholly-owned subsidiary, and that pisses them off no end. They feel betrayed...


Okie John

[RoyGBiv]

He's also gay, which the left sees a their wholly-owned subsidiary, and that pisses them off no end. They feel betrayed...


Okie John

It's awesome to watch them lose their shit over Milo. And The Donald, but, Milo more so.

[BobLoblaw]

He's also gay, which the left sees a their wholly-owned subsidiary, and that pisses them off no end. They feel betrayed...


Okie John


It's awesome to watch them lose their shit over Milo. And The Donald, but, Milo more so.

I agree, it's almost poetic. He's untouchable by their standards, making their go-to arguments and insults invalid. So funny.

[nycnoob]

That's not my interpretation. It's the Supreme Court's interpretation -- as set forth in Brandenburg. Perhaps you ought to read it -- it's relatively short for a court case.

Thanks SSB, I did not know about this: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Brandenburg v. Ohio
No. 492
Argued February 27, 1969
Decided June 9, 1969
395 U.S. 444
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Syllabus

Appellant, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for
"advocat . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform"
and for
"voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions refined the statute's definition of the crime in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action.
[I]
Held: Since the statute, by its words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, it falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/case.html), overruled.

Reversed.

[BaiHu]

no need to apologize, I don't think you were being ignorant.

i think individual rights and responsibilities are different in situations where there is more limited/personal risk (a one on one situation for example) versus those in which the possible effects are more far reaching and impact those not directly involved.

Perhaps it's a bad internet connection, but I feel like your questions/statements (that I happen to find obtuse and leading while chiding others for similar behavior) seem to omit some key details. Willingly? Unwittingly?

It may be due to the nature of naming something already named by the media. In this case, the name being 'protest' when in fact it was a riot. So when you bring up a statement that is akin to making Milo responsible for the crowd's reaction, it comes off as either a) trolling, b) ignorant, c) clickbait/conversation starter or d) all of the above.

Where I do enjoy some of your questions/inquiry, I take issue with the double standard you often present.

[fishing]

I agree, it's almost poetic. He's untouchable by their standards, making their go-to arguments and insults invalid. So funny.

ESQ Loblaw - perhaps I am blurry eyed and misreading (having just blue myself), but are we claiming that milo is untouchable in a thread about him and his activities being attacked by leftist progressives?

[nycnoob]

The case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, references another decision which has this interesting section

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Whitney v. California
No. 3
Argued October 6, 1925
Reargued March 18, 1926
Decided May 16, 1927
274 U.S. 357

This Court has not yet fixed the standard by which to determine when a danger shall be deemed clear; how remote the danger may be and yet be deemed present, and what degree of evil shall be deemed sufficiently substantial to justify resort to abridgement of free speech and assembly as the means of protection. To reach sound conclusions on these matters, we must bear in mind why a State is, ordinarily, denied the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence.


Page 274 U. S. 375
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. [Footnote 2 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/case.html#F2)] They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence
Page 274 U. S. 376
coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. [Footnote 3 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/case.html#F3)] Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of law-breaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger, it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated.
Page 274 U. S. 377
Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. [Footnote 4 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/case.html#F4)] Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.
Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions essential to effective democracy unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be inappropriate as the means for averting a relatively trivial harm to society. A police measure may be unconstitutional merely because the remedy, although effective as means of protection, is unduly harsh or oppressive. Thus, a State might, in the exercise of its police power, make any trespass upon the


Page 274 U. S. 378

land of another a crime, regardless of the results or of the intent or purpose of the trespasser. It might, also, punish an attempt, a conspiracy, or an incitement to commit the trespass. But it is hardly conceivable that this Court would hold constitutional a statute which punished as a felony the mere voluntary assembly with a society formed to teach that pedestrians had the moral right to cross unenclosed, unposted, wastelands and to advocate their doing so, even if there was imminent danger that advocacy would lead to a trespass. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly.

[nycnoob]

ESQ Loblaw - perhaps I am blurry eyed and misreading (having just blue myself), but are we claiming that milo is untouchable in a thread about him and his activities being attacked by leftist progressives?

Please stop with the trolling, you have been doing this in every
thread I have read today.


The people protesting probably have no idea who Milo is, they were
just told "a facist is coming" so they protested.


Milo has a way of being verbally argumentative so that any response
from the left would leave them open to cries of homophobia and racism,
but the left has to enguage his presentation for this to work.


But clearly from your previous comments, you knew all this already.


Go watch some videos of his talks for a few hours and leave us alone
for a while.


https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFRepYxcWGfAZe30ljAe2j5p80wRISlIW

[okie john]

ESQ Loblaw - perhaps I am blurry eyed and misreading (having just blue myself), but are we claiming that milo is untouchable in a thread about him and his activities being attacked by leftist progressives?

We're saying that normally the left would never go after a gay man because they assume that all homosexuals agree with everything they say and do. But this guy has gone rogue and that infuriates them.


Okie John

[nycnoob]

Here is a lecture on the history of the Supreme Court Decision
This lecture is about a book that was recently published.

Book:
Speaking Freely: Whitney v. California and American Speech Law (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)
(https://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Freely-California-American-Landmark/dp/0700621350/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486073487&sr=8-2&keywords=Philippa+Strum)by Philippa Strum (https://www.amazon.com/Philippa-Strum/e/B001IU0DMQ/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2?qid=1486073487&sr=8-2)

Lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvtPv3Z865o

Philippa Strum (The Wilson Center) on Speaking Freely: Whitney v. California and American Speech Law
Published on Nov 23, 2015

[ssb]

In The Current Year, some insist we must ban "hate speech" -- to include speeches like those given by Milo Yiannopoulos -- because people may react violently (see: Garland, TX, as an example touted by the progressive left). Of course, the same people who want to define and legislate against hate speech have diligently spent the past few years casting their political opposition as violent, racist, sexist, xenophobes. But still, some may think that racist speech has no place as a protected category today. What is a racist today? Even somebody who assumes responsibility for the wrongs committed by other people who happen to look like them, considers and accepts the validity of minority viewpoints, and even gives extra opportunity and leeway to minority students "traumatized" by Trump's election (http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/01/james-fisher-privelege-does-not-exist-to-white-penn-professors) -- actions that are, arguably, quite magnanimous for the alleged oppressor -- is, today, seen as perpetuating a system of institutional race-based oppression. Importantly, per the article, that system is at best amorphous -- he doesn't bother to describe the alleged system, but rather insists that people who happen to be white simply accept without question his statement that it exists and that it is harming him. And that's important, by the way: in The Current Year, you cannot question his statements, for he -- a "person of color," as we're now supposed to refer to him -- has the moral authority and validity to speak on this issue, something that you as a white person cannot have. Disagree with with this schema, where a person's authority to speak on a subject is determined largely by their gender and skin color? You are perpetuating institutional racism by silencing minority viewpoints, and thus dehumanizing persons of color. Do you reflexively feel that this idea is, in itself, racist/sexist because it makes judgments purely based upon one's skin color or sex? You are the racist, and you are the sexist, because you haven't accepted a power structure which gives social power and authority to the oppressed (however vague and nebulous that term may be today) rather than the oppressor (that'd be you). Do you feel the need to look up the word "racist" in the dictionary after reading that? Dictionary definitions no longer matter, as they were written in by white people seeking to reinforce their social power. (http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the-white-guy/ask-the-white-guy-is-the-oxford-dictionary-definition-of-racism-too-white-for-you/)

Speaking of disagreement: no longer is a political dispute or disagreement an opportunity for discussion but rather an assault on the person. In The Current Year, the mere presence of disagreement -- or even an idea that runs contrary to one's own -- threatens a person's well-being. For example, a student government resolution (http://media.wix.com/ugd/54d45b_c6b27362fb154ea09ed64c7a46a4ab74.pdf) asking a university to clarify whether its conduct code prohibited sexual jokes generates a response that, "[s]urvivors of assault were feeling unsafe, students of color, queer and trans students, disabled students, students from all different marginalized identities, were feeling unsafe on this campus. (http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/30122/)” If you're white and male and straight, you don't get to disagree, as not only are you cashing in on your original sin (“To be white is to be racist, period. . . . Am I racist? And I say, ‘Yeah.’ I don’t want to be. It’s not like I choose to be racist, but do I do things because of the way I was raised” (http://www.normantranscript.com/news/education/norman-north-teacher-s-race-comments-draw-scrutiny-and-support/article_f862d68d-0cd2-5428-8230-950a78130926.html)) and perpetuating oppression, but you're now threatening the safety of people who outrank you in the new order. If you're of a category that isn't white, male, and straight, you've simply internalized the hatred of the white, straight, male people and, like them, you are perpetuating oppression; the distinction between you and the straight, white male, however, is that it's not your fault, as you're simply naive and were influenced by the Bad Thoughts disseminated by the straight, white males.

Observers will note the progressive left's couching of speech in terms of physical violence. That's intentional, because it sets the stage for retaliatory and physical "self-defense." Milo Yiannopoulos practices "hate speech" according to them largely because he questions this structure. He's no angel, mind you -- he takes what could be a brilliant defense of free expression and sabotages it with deliberate race- and religion-based trolling -- but the true reason for the protests is his defiant non-acceptance of intersectional social justice. And, unlike what they've learned and experienced in their sociology classes, Yiannopoulos doesn't back down when they gnash their teeth and tear their garments over his oppressing them; quite the opposite, he feeds off of their demonization, and uses it to reinforce his self-appointed celebrity status. To them, he's causing them pain and he's not stopping after being "warned" (shouted down); their violent reaction at UC Berkeley therefore becomes a just exercise in self-defense. Or at least, that's how they justify it. You saw the same thing with the inauguration protests the other week. And, with an entire generation of college-aged young adults having been indoctrinated into this school of thought, you're only going to see more of it.

[Joe in PNG]

Professor Dutch (https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/dutchrules.htm)once noted the following:

Suppressing discussion is always more dangerous to the suppressor
Stonewalling, shouting down opponents, or outright suppression of criticism is like slapping a Band-aid on gangrene. The wearer may be fooled, but everybody else can still smell the corruption. The problem simply goes underground where you can’t see it. Two words for anyone still inclined to doubt: Soviet Union.

[BobLoblaw]

ESQ Loblaw - perhaps I am blurry eyed and misreading (having just blue myself), but are we claiming that milo is untouchable in a thread about him and his activities being attacked by leftist progressives?

Yes. They didn't touch him because they couldn't. They went after his followers and school property in a rage-filled tantrum.

[blues]

We're saying that normally the left would never go after a gay man because they assume that all homosexuals agree with everything they say and do. But this guy has gone rogue and that infuriates them.


Okie John

Like Peter Thiel did. (Assuming he's still on board. I haven't checked who in the LBGTQ community is still a Trump supporter and my wife frowns on my frequenting such sites. :rolleyes:)

[nycnoob]

Sales of Milo's book have increased 12,740% overnight sending it rocketing from 642nd to 5th ranked best-seller on Amazon.



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-02/berkeley-blowback-milo-book-sales-soar-12740-overnight

[TheNewbie]

The Left is morally sick. How can anyone not see this is the greatest ideological threat to western civilization? Look at Latin America, places like Mexico and Venezuela should be rich and prosperous, but they are riddled with leftism and corruption. It's disgusting and angers me.

[okie john]

The Left is morally sick. How can anyone not see this is the greatest ideological threat to western civilization? Look at Latin America, places like Mexico and Venezuela should be rich and prosperous, but they are riddled with leftism and corruption. It's disgusting and angers me.

Yep.

Hugo Chavez for the win.


Okie John

[peterb]

Right-wing regimes in that part of the world don't exactly have a sterling history. Argentina, for example........

[BaiHu]

Right-wing regimes in that part of the world don't exactly have a sterling history. Argentina, for example........
Fascism left or right is still fascism.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[blues]

Fascism left or right is still fascism.



Generally considered a far right extreme but in common parlance these days it seems to be a descriptor for most any oppressive regime.

[nycnoob]

Generally considered a far right extreme but in common parlance these days it seems to be a descriptor for most any oppressive regime.

Blues, I thought fascism was defined by Mussolini, (basically totalitarianism):

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini

[blues]

Blues, I thought fascism was defined by Mussolini, (basically totalitarianism):

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini

Il Duce was certainly the poster boy for fascism.

Here's a definition I just picked up via google...I'm sure that wikipedia has a ton on the history of fascism...(but I'm watching hockey which trumps fascism.)


fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/Submit
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

[modrecoil]

13614

[Joe in PNG]

I'm of the view that the popular definition of Fascism was set in place by Communist to create a false dichotomy.
Communist, Fascist- all run things pretty much the exact same way.

[nycnoob]

I'm of the view that the popular definition of Fascism was set in place by Communist to create a false dichotomy.
Communist, Fascist- all run things pretty much the exact same way.

Jonah Goldberg's book makes exactly this claim and is fascinating reading.
I was particularly interested to see a panel discussion with him an a group
of left wing history professors, they praised his book so it has some support
from both sides of the isle.

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left,
From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
by Jonah Goldberg



https://www.amazon.com/dp/0767917189/

[nycnoob]

SSB,

People are talking about:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385



18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
[. . . ]


I have always believed, and your previous statements appeared to confirm, that one could 'advocate for the overthrow of government' under our collection of rights. Though actually starting an insurrection would be illegal (treason). This code appears to say that even the advocacy is illegal.

Can you explain this apparent discrepancy in the law in a way I could understand?

and if you could say a word or two about how you know about the law. Is this your profession?

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I honestly have no inherent problem with people who advocate for the overthrow of a government. Sure, it's illegal, but the law is mutable. If you ever NEED to overthrow a government they damn sure won't make it easy for you.

But I have a hard time taking the left seriously on this. I mean come on guys, for decades it's been "gun culture is destroying America" and "repeal the second amendment" and "guns are for insecure losers".

Okay, left, here's your big chance to learn some strategic planning:

Don't spend generations alienating anyone who could help you if the second amendment actually starts to become necessary, because now you want a coup, and it turns out everyone who could carry one out successfully, already did. And since they deposed YOU, in a bloodless coup that was won at the ballot box last November without a shot being fired, your current request for insurrection is...on hold.

Next time, sell your ideas to the guys who fill the ranks of the military and the NRA, because those are the people who can overthrow governments. And if you somehow convince them to do it violently right now, it won't be with the goal of putting Sarah Silverman in charge.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

[peterb]

SSB,

People are talking about:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385



I have always believed, and your previous statements appeared to confirm, that one could 'advocate for the overthrow of government' under our collection of rights. Though actually starting an insurrection would be illegal (treason). This code appears to say that even the advocacy is illegal.

Can you explain this apparent discrepancy in the law in a way I could understand?

and if you could say a word or two about how you know about the law. Is this your profession?

No lawyer, but I read it as saying that advocacy is legal as long is does not involve force or violence.

And advocating the removal of someone from office by any legal means, including impeachment, is not overthrowing the government.

[Zincwarrior]

Right-wing regimes in that part of the world don't exactly have a sterling history. Argentina, for example........

Right wing death squads are a thing. Brazil, El Salvador, etc. Latin America historically has had multiple countries that were not stable.

[fixer]

The American Left has wrapped itself in a cloak of tolerance; convinced themselves they are the messiahs of justice; and self appointed themselves as the Peter Pan of the oppressed masses. The left has no problem acting violently themselves because they can claim justification. This claim is never challenged by anyone or any institution.

It is ALL window dressing for what you see in these videos: real and time tested totalitarian tactics to get the masses in line. Violence, copious amounts of it, are brought to bare, and are awaiting your transgression against their ethos. Its the weakest, most pathetic, mentality ever seen or recorded or parroted in the history of human thought.

It is all collectivism or 'statism'. It is the most dangerous cancer to freedom. You can go into the labyrinth of left vs right, and the historical meanings of those terms vs where they are defined today, and you will find a very, very large difference.

[nycnoob]

No lawyer, but I read it as saying that advocacy is legal as long is does not involve force or violence.

And advocating the removal of someone from office by any legal means, including impeachment, is not overthrowing the government.


But this is precisely the point, my understanding is that the first amendment allows for the advocating of illegal acts.

I think this ruling is clear:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?24134-Trump-Milo-supporters-being-beaten-at-Berkley-last-night&p=559020&viewfull=1#post559020

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Held: Since the statute, by its words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action [the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform], it falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

[ssb]

SSB,

People are talking about:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385



I have always believed, and your previous statements appeared to confirm, that one could 'advocate for the overthrow of government' under our collection of rights. Though actually starting an insurrection would be illegal (treason). This code appears to say that even the advocacy is illegal.

Can you explain this apparent discrepancy in the law in a way I could understand?

and if you could say a word or two about how you know about the law. Is this your profession?

I am an attorney.First Amendment law is not my field of practice, though I did spend more time on the matter in law school than most do (law review, 1A seminar with a fmr clerk for Chief Justice Warren, religious liberty seminar, adv con law course, published article on student speech).

Here's a quick and dirty explanation. You'll have to excuse the form, as this is being done on my phone while I wait on something.

1A Incitement Background

Once upon a time in 1917, there were some people who didn't like the idea of going to war in Europe. They came from various ideological factions -- conscientious objectors, socialists, anarchists, communists, etc. Most of them advocated that young men resist the draft and military service. Problem: the Espionage Act of the time prohibited willfully causing (or attempting to cause) insubordination, disloyalty, refusal of duty, and/or mutiny among servicemembers, as well as willfully obstructing the draft/recruiting services of the military, the sale of war bonds, etc. The speeches made by these objectors advocated precisely that: don't buy war bonds to support an immoral war, don't register for the draft, refuse your service, refuse your orders, don't fight, etc. etc. etc. The Sedition Act came along shortly after and criminalized speech which was "profane, scurrilous, or abusive" and intended to cause contempt or scorn for the U.S. Government. About 2,000 prosecutions occurred under these two acts. This is where the foundations of modern 1A incitement law come from. Those prosecuted were prosecuted specifically for the content of their speech (important: this is presumptively unconstitutional today, unless the speech falls into one of a few categories -- incitement among them): Congress effectively wrote some laws which said that, "thou shall not speak out against the draft or encourage others not to comply."

Some early cases came from the various Courts of Appeals, among them Shaffer v. United States and Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten.. Shaffer came up with what was known as the "Bad Tendency" test, which held that if "the natural and probable tendency and effect of the speech are as such as are calculated to produce the result condemned by the statute," it was sufficient to sustain a prosecution. There was no requirement that anybody be listening, or that a listener be likely to follow through with what was being advocated. Masses came from a different circuit, and came to the conclusion that the speaker must expressly intend to incite some sort of wrongdoing; it wasn't enough that the words had a tendency to stir up bad things. These two decisions (which were written prior to any major Supreme Court precedent on incitement) represent the high water mark of what the government could prosecute as incitement. From here, the Court began slowly chipping away at what could be prosecuted. I'd also note that, apart from the Alien and Sedition Act era, this is about as close as we as a country have come to legit tyranny. People were quite literally being jailed for writing articles in a language of their choosing (typically German), and publically expressing a belief that a war as immoral. Not a good thing, IMO.

Various tests were developed during and shortly after the war by the Supreme Court. Iwon't go into detail of the cases here as it's not really necessary for the purpose of this post and may add a bit of confusion, but a few things you should know: 1) courts were very deferential to the wartime government (seen again later, when during WWII we decided to put people in concentration camps); and 2) after the Russian Revolution, there was a genuine fear of the same sort of thing going on here (lots of cases came from socialist, communist, and anarchist revolutionary-types -- as a general rule their convictions were upheld). Those two factors, among others, seem to inform much of the case law of the time. However, some moderation occurred: we went from merely requiring that the speaker intend to incite some sort of wrongdoing, to some justices (Holmes, later Brandeis) advocating that the speaker's speech reach an audience (i.e. an actual danger of the bad act being carried out). By 1951, the Court had settled upon a test which, roughly stated, required that courts analyze the gravity of the proposed harm and the actual likelihood that it be carried out (i.e. was there somebody being spoken to who would actually carry this out?). This case involved a communist plot to overthrow the U.S. government. The appellants (the communists) lost here.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, which you've already read, came in 1969 and gave us the requirement that the speech be intended to incite imminent lawless action and be likely to cause it. Ifit meets those four requirements (intent, imminence, lawless action, likelihood of success), it is punishable under the Constitution. This test has remained basically unaltered, and represents the current state of the law.

How does he Smith Act (18 U.S.C. § 2385) fit in?

The act, by its text, publishes the content of the speech (it criminalizes merely advocating the violent overthrow of the government, assassination of government agents, etc.). Today, that is presumptively unconstitutional unless it falls within one of the permissible categories for regulation (incitement being the relevant one here). The Act was never itself ruled unconstitutional as far as I can tell; however, under Brandenburg v. Ohio, a prosecution could not be sustained unless it fell within those four elements I outlined earlier (intent to incite, imminence, lawless action, actual danger of harm being carried out). In 1957, several convictions under the act were indeed held to be unconstitutional (pre-Brandenburg era, using the gravity of harm minus likelihood of result test I briefly touched upon); the Court held that merely advocating revolution as a principle (as communists did at the time -- the whole worker's revolution thing) was not enough to sustain a conviction, and required some sort of showing that the advocacy was 1) intended to cause the violent overthrow; and 2) some realistic chance in the near future that the speech would actually incite people to act (as opposed to Dennis v. United States, the earlier case, where the Court seemed to allow for an indefinite timeline on the "likelihood that somebody would actually carry out what was being incited" part of the equation).

I'm not aware of any post-Brandenburg prosecutions under the provision you cite, so I can't say how it has played out historically post-Brandenburg,. However, I'm pretty certain that, in light of that case, there's no way that merely advocating the violent overthrow of the government could sustain a conviction.

[nycnoob]

SSB, Thanks so much for all this info. Been reading some revolutionary history and Supreme Court cases as I find them,
in an effort to understand exactly what our rights are.

This was a big help.

[Trigger]

I'm just saying, for a knuckle-dragging pistol and shooting forum, I am continually amazed at the depth of analysis of some of the content here. The discussion by ssb and others is valuable and informative. I am learning new things everyday. Thank you.

[Soggy]

Jonah Goldberg's book makes exactly this claim and is fascinating reading.
I was particularly interested to see a panel discussion with him an a group
of left wing history professors, they praised his book so it has some support
from both sides of the isle.

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left,
From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
by Jonah Goldberg



https://www.amazon.com/dp/0767917189/

Another fun fact about fascism is the origin of the word. From wikipedia:

"The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces...The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.[20] Similar symbols were developed by different fascist movements; for example, the Falange symbol is five arrows joined together by a yoke."

"Stronger Together", to coin a phrase.

[NEPAKevin]

Violent Protests Break Out on NYU Campus Over Gavin McInnes Seminar (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/03/violent-protests-nyu-new-york-city-gavin-mcinnes-vice-media)

When McInnes guests on Fox's Red Eye, Kennedy, etc. I generally fast forward through his shtick. It's not that I disagree with his opinions, I just think he's annoying. So I find it hard to see where this kind of attention is warranted and have to believe the radical left is not so much protesting as it is playing "Purge."

[blues]

Another fun fact about fascism is the origin of the word. From wikipedia:

"The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces...The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.[20] Similar symbols were developed by different fascist movements; for example, the Falange symbol is five arrows joined together by a yoke."

"Stronger Together", to coin a phrase.

Not necessarily or always to be confused with:


Sometimes called a short faggot, a faggot of sticks equals a bundle of wood sticks or billets that is 3 feet (0.91 m) in length and 2 feet (0.61 m) in circumference. The measurement was standardised in ordinances by 1474. A small short faggot was also called a nicket.
Faggot (unit) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(unit)

...although Mussolini appears to tie the bundles together.

[Wondering Beard]

The fascio goes back to the Roman Republic/empire which Mussolini wanted to recreate.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Violent Protests Break Out on NYU Campus Over Gavin McInnes Seminar (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/03/violent-protests-nyu-new-york-city-gavin-mcinnes-vice-media)

When McInnes guests on Fox's Red Eye, Kennedy, etc. I generally fast forward through his shtick. It's not that I disagree with his opinions, I just think he's annoying. So I find it hard to see where this kind of attention is warranted and have to believe the radical left is not so much protesting as it is playing "Purge."

This is true but also another game they're really counting on being the only ones playing, because that's going to get not-very-fun-for-the-left in a hurry if both sides start playing.

And for the kids playing "purge" I actually have some sympathy. Yes, rioting is bad, but I didn't really think that when I was a kid. When I was eighteen if you asked me if I wanted to do something productive, or flip cars over and set them on fire while having a massive street battle with the police, I probably would have been at the gas station filling bottles and stuffing rags in them before you finished your sentence, because that would have sounded amazing.

The people I have a problem with are actually not the rioters who are just in it for the mayhem, they're the true believers in the rights of the left to dictate what people are allowed to say. And I think most of those aren't in the riots, they're organizers of student protests and people actually trying to work the system to shut down free speech etc. I find that a lot more worrying than riots.

I saw the term Cntrl-Left the other day and that's who I fear, not the street hooligans (who, if I'm being completely honest, look like they're having a lot of fun, even though I know it's bad and adult me has accepted this.)

[Peally]

You had an odd childhood, I still would have been in the "fuck rioters" camp ;)

[blues]

You had an odd childhood, I still would have been in the "fuck rioters" camp ;)

I'm not sure if I should hate to say this or not but back in the 60's I was somewhat akin to those misanthropist has described. It was easy to get caught up back then in the stormy days preceding "turn on, tune in, drop out".

It's sort of like the apocryphal quote often ascribed to Winston Churchill:


“If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.”

[Robinson]

I saw the term Cntrl-Left the other day and that's who I fear, not the street hooligans (who, if I'm being completely honest, look like they're having a lot of fun, even though I know it's bad and adult me has accepted this.)

I agree the true believers are worse, but I don't feel much empathy for either group. Being a worthless miscreant with no respect for other peoples' property or rights ain't exactly cool.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I agree the true believers are worse, but I don't feel much empathy for either group. Being a worthless miscreant with no respect for other peoples' property or rights ain't exactly cool.
Definitely no loss if a few of them get shot; I just don't find them especially insidious. I think they're what a lot of youth could be, depending on their environment.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

[peterb]

Definitely no loss if a few of them get shot; I just don't find them especially insidious. I think they're what a lot of youth could be, depending on their environment.

In most states it is illegal to use deadly force to defend property. So be it. But there's usually an exception for arson, and for good reason.

If "high-spirited youth" are lighting buildings on fire it's time for the authorities to put away the tear gas and break out the shotguns.

[Drang]

The people I have a problem with are actually not the rioters who are just in it for the mayhem, they're the true believers in the rights of the left to dictate what people are allowed to say. And I think most of those aren't in the riots, they're organizers of student protests and people actually trying to work the system to shut down free speech etc. I find that a lot more worrying than riots.
Fuck all those assholes.

Especially fuck Soros and Steyr and the other billionaire commies who finance them and other assaults on our rights, while hiding in their cushy upholstered foxholes.

[OlongJohnson]

The question going through my head as I watched those videos was, "Who organized and paid for all those matching black hoodies and dark grey backpacks?"

[Drang]

The question going through my head as I watched those videos was, "Who organized and paid for all those matching black hoodies and dark grey backpacks?"

Soros.

ETA: From the news reports, a lot of them invaded SeaTac Airport last Saturday.

[FNFAN]

Fuck all those assholes.

Especially fuck Soros and Steyr and the other billionaire commies who finance them and other assaults on our rights, while hiding in their cushy upholstered foxholes.

I agree totally. Tom Steyer the San Fran billionaire, gave millions to the Colorado left who want to eliminate fossil fuel use and exploration and as a by-product helped elect the wackjobs who want to make Colorado a "sanctuary state."

It will be interesting to see if anything in the way of sanctions on Soros come to pass given his prior business relationship with Trump.

[UNK]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444596/berkeley-riots-sedition-laws

[Eastex]

I saw a headline where counter protesters showed up at LAX today. That's going to be the next step and then things are going to get sporty.


"Hell bent on being intentionally anachronistic"

[GardoneVT]

Time to invest in Orville Reddenbacher shares.......

[blues]

Time to invest in Orville Reddenbacher shares.......

...or Hillerich & Bradsby.

[base704]

The real irony in this whole thing is that had the "protestors" (and I use that term loosely) let "Milo the Faggot" speak, he would would have said his piece, been heard by maybe a few hundred people and gone on his way.
By acting/reacting the way they did, they made a relative "nobody" damn near a household name causing many to research what he's all about.
The Progressive Left has once again, stepped on their own dicks.

[blues]

The real irony in this whole thing is that had the "protestors" (and I use that term loosely) let "Milo the Faggot" speak, he would would have said his piece, been heard by maybe a few hundred people and gone on his way.
By acting/reacting the way they did, they made a relative "nobody" damn near a household name causing many to research what he's all about.
The Progressive Left has once again, stepped on their own dicks.

And increased his bank account via book sales.

[voodoo_man]

Milo wasn't exactly a nobody, plenty of people used him as the poster, which he wants to be for anti left everything. Here is a gay, immigrant, who not only believes in most conservative values he speaks about it openly and is unapologetic. This is good and bad.

Good because he is speaking the truth in a way the message is seen. Bad because he's an actor, acting a role. Very animated and not exactly the champon of the right.

[Jeep]

The question going through my head as I watched those videos was, "Who organized and paid for all those matching black hoodies and dark grey backpacks?"

Don't be surprised if the US government funded a lot of it. The Obama administration sued a lot of banks and told them that if they didn't settle the administration would try to close them down. In the settlements, most of the money didn't go to the government, where it is supposed to go. Instead, huge amounts of money went to various non-profit groups that were interested in "housing" issues, etc. Those groups then spread the money to other community organizing groups, who in turn passed a portion of it to others.

No one seems to know where most of that money ended up, but it amounted to many billions and it seems to have funded the organized left for years.

So don't be surprised if the "black bloc" anarchists (who now go by the name "Antifa"--ie "anti-fascist") got their share.

I think one of the reasons that the left has gone so nuts about Trump winning is that their gravy train is now stopping and they regard that as intolerable. My guess is that the left's paramilitary wing was fed by some of that money as well.

[Lex Luthier]

I am seeing the dots being connected between "Black Bloc" protesters both here and in Europe. The folks that made such a mess at the G8 protests in Genoa in 2001
were called Black Bloc and AntiFa by the Euro press.
(one of them famously tried to throw a fire extinguisher through a Carabinieri Land Rover rear window and was shot in the brain for his efforts; I don't remeber if that calmed things down or made them worse.)
There was a strong presence of Communist front groups there, too.

It would not surprise me if the money supply line Jeep mentioned is true. Not all that money got siphoned to ACORN, SEIU, Sharpton, & Jackson.

[RJ]

(one of them famously tried to throw a fire extinguisher through a Carabinieri Land Rover rear window and was shot in the brain for his efforts; I don't remeber if that calmed things down or made them worse.)



I'm good with that either way, honestly.

Like I've said, I'm not a violent person, but this shit where "protestors" threaten life and property crosses the line of acceptable behavior. I would like to see some skulls cracked and these black bandanna-heads dragged off to jail.

[jc000]

I am seeing the dots being connected between "Black Bloc" protesters both here and in Europe. The folks that made such a mess at the G8 protests in Genoa in 2001
were called Black Bloc and AntiFa by the Euro press.
(one of them famously tried to throw a fire extinguisher through a Carabinieri Land Rover rear window and was shot in the brain for his efforts; I don't remeber if that calmed things down or made them worse.)
There was a strong presence of Communist front groups there, too.

It would not surprise me if the money supply line Jeep mentioned is true. Not all that money got siphoned to ACORN, SEIU, Sharpton, & Jackson.

Absolutely tied together. No question of it.

At a minimum we better be demanding that law enforcement treat this as the terror threat that it is.

[Drang]

The real irony in this whole thing is that had the "protestors" (and I use that term loosely) let "Milo the Faggot" speak, he would would have said his piece, been heard by maybe a few hundred people and gone on his way.
Which, aside from a sheer lack of even a nodding acquaintance with reality, is why a lot of leftists are claiming this was all a black flag (heh) operation of "the right."

[Jeep]

I dealt with some leftist violence around 45 years ago. I was in ROTC, and the violent left (which was almost indistinguishable with the rest of the left, which protected the violent types and would give them verbal support) didn't like ROTC, or anything about the American military, which it blamed for the Vietnam War. (By then, with the left making major inroads in the Dem party, the left had stopped blaming Kennedy and Johnson for the war. Instead the military--and Nixon--had somehow caused the war. Go figure).

The used to attack us when they got a chance. We got spit on, had rocks and bottles thrown at us, had graffiti on our dorm doors, and they tried to burn down the ROTC building. (The administration, of course, did nothing to stop it-- and was generally hostile to us). When in uniform we were under strict orders not to fight back.

However, when not in uniform we weren't under any such orders, and we discovered that violent leftists were real tough guys when attacking a soft target that couldn't fight back, but broke and ran when the target proved willing and able to fight back.

From what I can see, the "antifas" are following in those footsteps. They are all tough and "punch the Nazis in the face" when they outnumber their targets by 20-1. My bet is they won't be so tough if the odds are a bit more even. And if college administrations won't provide adequate security, maybe getting some guys to help protect free speech would work. Not to start a fight or act as vigilantes, but to stop the punks if they do try to use violence.

[peterb]

And if college administrations won't provide adequate security, maybe getting some guys to help protect free speech would work. Not to start a fight or act as vigilantes, but to stop the punks if they do try to use violence.

Probably unwise. Just think of how it might go in court if things got ugly.....

"So, Mr. Jeep, what brought you and your friends to campus that day? Were you looking for an excuse to get into a fight and hurt someone? Did you decide to take it into your own hands to enforce the law?"

Hanging around when and where you expect a riot to break out -- good luck convincing a jury that those are the actions of a "reasonable person".

[blues]

Probably unwise. Just think of how it might go in court if things got ugly.....

"So, Mr. Jeep, what brought you and your friends to campus that day? Were you looking for an excuse to get into a fight and hurt someone? Did you decide to take it into your own hands to enforce the law?"

Hanging around when and where you expect a riot to break out -- good luck convincing a jury that those are the actions of a "reasonable person".

"Your honor, my friends and I went down to join the protest against the egregious policies of the current administration. However, someone mistook us for their supporters at which time we were viciously set upon and had no recourse but to defend ourselves as we were in fear for our lives."

[peterb]

Yes, but there would probably be evidence of your political views before the event, which would make that defense difficult......

[blues]

Yes, but there would probably be evidence of your political views before the event, which would make that defense difficult......

I was just kidding, Peter. Of course they'd have you by the nuts. You'd be in a hell of your own making for an eternity.

[peterb]

I figured there was a smile and a wink in there ;-)

I do understand the urge to "just go have a look" or "keep an eye on things" or "see if there's anything I can do", but choosing to get involved -- especially if armed -- doesn't have a lot of good outcomes.

[Jeep]

Yep, bringing it outsiders won't work.

But that actually wasn't my idea. Keep in mind, most of these violent arracks are taking place on campuses. Campuses are full of students--including athletes. Many of those students aren't lefties, and in fact dislike the left. If they try to attend an event targeted by the "antifas" on campus, they will have every right to punch back--it's self defense.

Same for guys attending an off-campus event--a Trump rally or whatever. So long as they are attending the event, self defense will be permissible.

And I tend to think if there are enough athletic younger men attending an event, the violent left might decide there are easier targets.

You can't go after the black bloc and the other violent lefties when they are smashing windows downtown. That would be vigilantism. But in every state I know it is acceptable to protect yourself and those around you from violence.

And once the violent left finds that people will fight back when attacked, I think a lot of its members will find that violence isn't fun anymore and will retreat to their Mom's basements to play video games and feel sorry for themselves.

[BaiHu]

@ the lot of you mentioning the funding connection. I believe it and could probably piece together some links I've read over the years, but do you guys have any links that neatly tie it into one package? I'm thinking project veritas and the duck incident as a gateway into this information.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

"Your honor, my friends and I went down to join the protest against the egregious policies of the current administration. However, someone mistook us for their supporters at which time we were viciously set upon and had no recourse but to defend ourselves as we were in fear for our lives."

Um..that happened at a BLM protest. I believe the shooter was charged with murder.

[blues]

Um..that happened at a BLM protest. I believe the shooter was charged with murder.

As stated previously, it was a tongue in cheek reply. See my follow-up post.

[Lex Luthier]

I was doing a little research to see if I could find anything public about the various funding streams for groups like Black Bloc etc, and found this book review.
(so interesting that I just ordered the book.)
The fellow's further commentary is awfully compelling.https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/

His take on campus disruptions, styles of political street theater, there's lots of meat here. (we might need to split discussion of the post to another thread.)

[Zincwarrior]

As stated previously, it was a tongue in cheek reply. See my follow-up post.

Sorry, didn't see that.

[blues]

Sorry, didn't see that.

No worries, friend. :cool:

[nycnoob]

@ the lot of you mentioning the funding connection. I believe it and could probably piece together some links I've read over the years, but do you guys have any links that neatly tie it into one package?

I have not seen any one place which shows all the links




However these came up today



https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-06-at-8-33-34-am.png

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/06/records-soros-fund-execs-funded-paul-ryan-marco-rubio-jeb-bush-john-mccain-john-kasich-lindsey-graham-in-2016/

[Eastex]

These "gatherings" aren't totally spontaneous, somewhere there is a email, chat, or text chain telling them to show up in uniform. That's a conspiracy to obstruct freedom of speech and should make a juicy target if the new AG Sessions wants to go after it. Add in all the FBI agents who are still chafed about Hillary getting away with all her email scandals and the prosecution could get vigorous. Liberals call it Lawfare and its high time the right added it to their toolbox. It's hard to protest when you're in court.


"Hell bent on being intentionally anachronistic"

[LittleLebowski]

Jakes Shields, the MMA/UFC fighter stepped in to prevent the mob at Berkley from beating a guy, video of the aftermath.

https://twitter.com/jakeshieldsajj/status/827023984273219584

[blues]

Jakes Shields, the MMA/UFC fighter stepped in to prevent the mob at Berkley from beating a guy, video of the aftermath.

https://twitter.com/jakeshieldsajj/status/827023984273219584

He has my respect for stepping up but as good a fighter as he has been over the years it wouldn't do him much good if he was set upon by a mob.

[JM Campbell]

He has my respect for stepping up but as good a fighter as he has been over the years it wouldn't do him much good if he was set upon by a mob.

Very true(I'm 100% with you).....but standing up is a start.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TAZ]

Jakes Shields, the MMA/UFC fighter stepped in to prevent the mob at Berkley from beating a guy, video of the aftermath.

https://twitter.com/jakeshieldsajj/status/827023984273219584

You got my hopes up that it was video of some Antifa asshat bleeding out of every orifice.

[Drang]

These "gatherings" aren't totally spontaneous, somewhere there is a email, chat, or text chain telling them to show up in uniform. That's a conspiracy to obstruct freedom of speech and should make a juicy target if the new AG Sessions wants to go after it. Have we posted this yet?: Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn Reynolds (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/02/06/time-end-leftist-impunity-glenn-reynolds-column/97521138/)

[BaiHu]

The New Tolerance:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8741


The “Knights for Socialism” group at the University of Central Florida (UCF) held a workshop Sunday to teach left-wing students how to “BASH THE FASH” with a “Leftist Fight Club” open to everyone but Republicans.

[blues]

The New Tolerance:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8741

I'm not really too threatened by a culture that thinks winning a participation trophy means they've actually accomplished something.

Still, mobs are dangerous so watch your six.

[Lex Luthier]

Saw this today and thought it has a fair bit of applicability:

http://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolling-playbook-you-should-stop-playing-right-into-it/

Combine this with infiltrations by communist backed professional street agitators, and some weird stuff seems to be happening.

[Jeep]

The New Tolerance:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8741

"Knights for Socialism" creating a "Leftist Fight Club?" How precious. By guess is that its real purpose is to try to train a local "black bloc" group, though of course the members would have to leave the mother's basements and journey out to the real world.

[Peally]

Saw this today and thought it has a fair bit of applicability:

http://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolling-playbook-you-should-stop-playing-right-into-it/

Combine this with infiltrations by communist backed professional street agitators, and some weird stuff seems to be happening.

My message to the author: too bad bitch, you were a dick and now your enemy is using your tactics :cool:

[okie john]

My message to the author: too bad bitch, you were a dick and now your enemy is using your tactics :cool:

Yep. The Soviets figured all of this out a long time ago. it will be very difficult to stop here because it relies on emotional people flipping out rather than thinking things through, and the American Left has no shortage of those folks.


Okie John

[Eastex]

It appears the FBI is looking into identifying some of the rioters
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/07/fbi-investigating-violent-uc-berkeley-rioters/


Hell bent on being intentionally anachronistic

[okie john]

It appears the FBI is looking into identifying some of the rioters
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/07/fbi-investigating-violent-uc-berkeley-rioters/

Yep. The rule of law is becoming fashionable again, and some of these people are in for a rude awakening.


Okie John

[TAZ]

Till I see folks in federal prison this is all fluff.

[Drang]

These Are the Groups Behind Those ‘Spontaneous’ Anti-Trump-Ban Protests - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/02/these-are-the-groups-behind-those-spontaneous-anti-trump-ban-protests.html)

[Zincwarrior]

The New Tolerance:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8741

If you read it, its a self defense class in case you are attacked actually, geared towards lefties, da wimminz, and GLBTX. Frankly the firearms community should be reaching out to them as natural allies and people who need to 1) know the law for self defense; 2) are at risk; and 3) should avail themselves of their 2nd Amendment rights.

[Zincwarrior]

Till I see folks in federal prison this is all fluff.

Agreed.

[SecondsCount]

Saw this today and thought it has a fair bit of applicability:

http://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolling-playbook-you-should-stop-playing-right-into-it/

Combine this with infiltrations by communist backed professional street agitators, and some weird stuff seems to be happening.

Funny, the concept is not new. The Troll term has been used for years to describe that type of activity. Some of it on a more humorous side, such as Gecko45.

[Peally]

Gecko45 was dead serious

[okie john]

Gecko45 was dead serious

I miss that guy.


Okie John

[cheby]

"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity." G. Carlin

[Peally]

Carlin was funny once in a while, but many of his quotes were also retarded. That's one of them.

[OlongJohnson]

These Are the Community Organizers Behind Those ‘Spontaneous’ Anti-Trump-Ban Protests - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/02/these-are-the-groups-behind-those-spontaneous-anti-trump-ban-protests.html)

FIFY

[11B10]

The Constitution: You're either for it or against it. I've run out of time, patience and sympathy for those who advocate only for the rights of those who march in lockstep with themselves.

Such an attitude, in my humble opinion, undermines everything we have accomplished as a nation through times of war and peace...and if allowed to prevail will be our undoing.

13611

I believe in the Constitution. I have sworn to uphold, preserve and protect it. That promise has no expiration date.,



blues, this ^^^^^, is profound. Extremely well written - words from the heart usually are.

[blues]

,



blues, this ^^^^^, is profound. Extremely well written - words from the heart usually are.


Thanks but you can thank Tom Jones for having recently, (a couple months ago), started a thread which reminded many of us of the oaths we've taken, promises we've made and the privilege of standing tall on behalf of our country.

I'm proud to stand with all those who feel similarly, whether by oath or personal commitment.

[Edster]

Gecko45 was dead serious

"If plan A is for you to take multiple rounds of .308 in your back, I would come up with a plan B. Good luck."

That's still funny to me all these years later.

[11B10]

Thanks but you can thank Tom Jones for having recently, (a couple months ago), started a thread which reminded many of us of the oaths we've taken, promises we've made and the privilege of standing tall on behalf of our country.

I'm proud to stand with all those who feel similarly, whether by oath or personal commitment.



Yes, I'm familiar with that thread - just giving acknowledgement to something that totally resonated with me. Thanks.

[blues]

Yes, I'm familiar with that thread - just giving acknowledgement to something that totally resonated with me. Thanks.

Well, thanks. I'm honored you feel that way.

[BaiHu]

Bad when you start to wonder who the real fascists are, eh?


https://youtu.be/YUMFbYT8wJU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jqS8UbnO18


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ih56pRNMSc

Seems like she has a history of administrative leave, but never quite getting fired...

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/02/07/fbi-investigating-identities-black-clad-uc-berkeley-rioters/

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2016/11/02/yvette-felarca-to-return-to-berkeley-classroom-today/

[RJ]

I'm mystified by the hijacking of the Party of Humphrey by these violent left-wing rioters.

So, per Ms. Velarca, the Berkeley demonstrations are "the model" of future uprisings against free speech?

Do they really think that this will convince some of the 48% of the country that did not vote for Trump to say, "Hey, yeah, firebombing a college Political speech? Sign me up!!"

What a bunch of schmucks. Personally, I think it almost guarantees another +6 or more R Senate gain and a solid R House in 2018, and a landslide Trump win in 2020.

[BaiHu]

File this under "know your enemy"?
I know this is nothing new for most of you, but to see it in writing is breathtaking.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/reverse-oppression-cant-exist/

Some more details in case you're afraid to click on the link:


However, it’s true that reverse oppression – like “reverse racism,” “female privilege,” and (so help me God) “cisphobia” – cannot possibly exist. Because the very nature of oppression won’t allow it to!

If you think of it in the form of a hierarchy, you’ll see that yes, all people can experience stereotyping (assumptions that all people in one group are similar), prejudice (dislike toward a group based on those stereotypes), and discrimination (refusing access to resources based on that prejudice).

However, only oppressed people experience all of that and institutionalized violence and systematic erasure.

See, and that’s why it’s not possible to be sexist against men.

And this little gem that I closed out before I could get a full pop-up picture of it (top bar):
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170211/74586204a2ee79bdb3a31e436be734a3.jpg


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[blues]

Fuck 'em.

[JTQ]

I'm mystified by the hijacking of the Party of Humphrey by these violent left-wing rioters.

Democratic National Convention 1968 - Chicago Seven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven

[RJ]

Democratic National Convention 1968 - Chicago Seven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven

Good point.

[Eastex]

California has basically declared itself the home of the "resistance". That's where I would focus my crack down on this crap if I was Trump. Every time that the state government tried to interfere with the Feds doing their job would just solidify his support in the rest of the country. Plus it's also been proven that these California leftists have been empowered to the point that they have no restraint and will use any means to resist no matter how it looks to the rest of the country. They've set the rules for engagement so I say let the engagement commence.


"Hell bent on being intentionally anachronistic"

[OlongJohnson]

I'm liking this guy more and more:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_KUf_giuZo

[Jeep]

File this under "know your enemy"?
I know this is nothing new for most of you, but to see it in writing is breathtaking.

What these quotes show is that when you assume your own conclusion you will always reach that conclusion. It also says something about the inevitable reasoning, such as it is, of leftists. From the French Revolution to both the Marxists and the National Socialists to today's Berkley, leftists always assume their own conclusions.

Today, the Berkley "antifas" claim that speech with which they disagree is "fascist" and constitutes "violence" and must therefore be met by violence. Neither their premises nor conclusions are logically correct, but logic has nothing to do with it--it's all about emotion and it is deliberately about emotion. They don't want people to think, they want people to be angry to smash those who anger them. It is a deeply cynical methodology and it is inherently totalitarian.

I never heard of "Milo" before now. He appears to me to be mainly a self-promoter, but I see no indication that he is a racist much less a violent fascist (ie--a socialist who believes in using violence to help one particular group of people).

The "antifas," however, have defined a "fascist" as anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Nor does his speech constitute violence. Now speech in which someone was, say urging others to smash people in the head (ie: the type of speech the "antifas" engage in) can be closely linked to violence, but it isn't violence itself. Words have meanings and aren't subject to endless manipulation.

But by insisting that speech they don't like constitutes "violence" the antifas (cheered on, apparently by a significant part of today's left) demonstrate that they are utterly totalitarian. No one but they get to speak. (And if they ever took over--which won't happen--they'd be purging each other immediately). Their misuse of the word "violence" is a classic left wing manipulation that has only one purpose--to gain themselves power.

They, and their fellow travelers are both dangerous and contemptible.

[blues]

The "antifas," however, have defined a "fascist" as anyone who doesn't agree with them.

In much the same way that Fox News defined the term "liberal" over the past many years. It was simply a way of spewing invective against those with whom they did not see eye to eye.

Personally, I find this behavior contemptible on both sides. Actually, by any side. Language is a very powerful weapon and people need to be vigilant rather than lulled into buying into the dogma...any dogma.

[Jeep]

In much the same way that Fox News defined the term "liberal" over the past many years. It was simply a way of spewing invective against those with whom they did not see eye to eye.

Personally, I find this behavior contemptible on both sides. Actually, by any side. Language is a very powerful weapon and people need to be vigilant rather than lulled into buying into the dogma...any dogma.

I agree with you that no one should do it, and I must confess that I don't watch Fox, (or any) news. They all seem to be slanted and simplistic. However, I do think there is a difference. For all their many, many faults, the TV news organizations (as far as I know) don't urge the use of violence against others with whom they disagree. The antifas, and the rest of the hard left, by contrast, really do use words as weapons to justify the use of violence. I think that one of the causes of that (though cause and effect can be difficult to differentiate in things like this) is their rejection of reason and insistence on the primacy of emotion.

[BaiHu]

I agree with you that no one should do it, and I must confess that I don't watch Fox, (or any) news. They all seem to be slanted and simplistic. However, I do think there is a difference. For all their many, many faults, the TV news organizations (as far as I know) don't urge the use of violence against others with whom they disagree. The antifas, and the rest of the hard left, by contrast, really do use words as weapons to justify the use of violence. I think that one of the causes of that (though cause and effect can be difficult to differentiate in things like this) is their rejection of reason and insistence on the primacy of emotion.


In much the same way that Fox News defined the term "liberal" over the past many years. It was simply a way of spewing invective against those with whom they did not see eye to eye.

Personally, I find this behavior contemptible on both sides. Actually, by any side. Language is a very powerful weapon and people need to be vigilant rather than lulled into buying into the dogma...any dogma.
I also think this gives them political cover as they are anti 2nd and "peaceful". Meaning, the hard left neutralizes, or attempts to neutralize "the other" side's language and therefore ideas/thoughts, so a gun or violence becomes an after thought as long as they achieve their ends.

No one needs a gun to defeat their enemy if you can defeat their minds. Failing to propagate another's thoughts is no different than "breeding them out". This is the real danger of PC or "close reading" that the hard left is employing.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[blues]

I agree with you that no one should do it, and I must confess that I don't watch Fox, (or any) news. They all seem to be slanted and simplistic. However, I do think there is a difference. For all their many, many faults, the TV news organizations (as far as I know) don't urge the use of violence against others with whom they disagree. The antifas, and the rest of the hard left, by contrast, really do use words as weapons to justify the use of violence. I think that one of the causes of that (though cause and effect can be difficult to differentiate in things like this) is their rejection of reason and insistence on the primacy of emotion.

I am certainly equating their misuse / abuse of language with a call to use violence. (Though they do occasionally do so jokingly.) I was strictly commenting on the manipulation of language to serve a political agenda. (I'm sure that's clear to you but just putting it on the record in case that isn't or wasn't clear.)

[Drang]

Grassroots? A look at some of the protests and organizations around the U.S. – twitchy.com (http://twitchy.com/wa-37/2017/02/12/grassroots-a-look-at-some-of-the-protests-and-organizations-around-the-u-s/?utm_content=buffer49cfd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Edit it add: Looks like conspiracy to me.

[Jeep]

Organizing protests--which Soros' various groups openly do--is, of course, totally legal.

Organizing riots, equally of course, isn't.

It will be interesting if they can find some "Open Society" fingerprints on the riots. My guess is that the money to pay for the riots was funneled through other organizations several times before going to groups such as the charming BAML ("By Any Means Necessary") or the various "antifa" groups. I'm pretty sure, though, that most lefty riots require funding because many lefties don't riot for free.

[OlongJohnson]

Ass, gas or grass, nobody riots for free.

[blues]

Ass, gas or grass, nobody riots for free.

Man, I haven't heard that one in a while.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

OMF that was great. As a guy who's probably hitch-hiked between 25 and 30 thousand miles...and who's admitted to a bit of riotousness in the past himself...YES.

[Drang]

Instapundit » Blog Archive » THIS IS WHY THEY THOUGHT THE TEA PARTY WAS ASTROTURF. BECAUSE THAT’S HOW THEY OPERATE.… (https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/257268/)

‘Indivisible,’ With Ties to George Soros, Sows Division Against Trump, GOP Lawmakers. (http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/10/indivisible-with-ties-to-george-soros-sows-division-against-trump-gop-lawmakers/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tds-tw) “Democrats who used to work on Capitol Hill are helping to disrupt Republican lawmakers’ town hall meetings across the country through a nationwide effort to oppose and ‘resist’ President Donald Trump’s agenda.”

And nothing says “authentic grassroots movement” like this pedigree:


Ezra Levin, a former staffer for Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, and his wife, Leah Greenberg, are the president and vice president of the Indivisible Guide’s board, respectively.

Levin is also associate director of the Corporation for Enterprise Development, an anti-poverty nonprofit. Melissa Bradley, who sits on that group’s board, previously worked for Green for All, a group founded by liberal commentator and former Obama administration official Van Jones. She was appointed as a Soros Justice Fellow through the Open Society Foundations, which Soros founded.

Greenberg previously worked for Humanity United, which is funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute.

The secretary of Indivisible Guide, Angel Padilla, works for the National Immigration Law Center, which is funded by Soros through his Open Society Foundations. And treasurer Matt Traidi is the research team director for the Service Employees International Union, a major donor to and endorser of Democrat politicians, Capital Research Center notes.

As authentic as the Coffee Party, the Brownbaggers, The Other 95%, A New Way Forward, and the One Nation Movement (https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/232429/).

[Eastex]

It makes perfect sense that people who enjoy Pistol-Forum would also be fans of Instapundit. My kind of people.


Hell bent on being intentionally anachronistic

[Drang]

It's a start. Lawmakers probe US funding for Soros groups, left-wing causes in Europe | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/17/lawmakers-probe-us-funding-for-soros-groups-left-wing-causes-in-europe.html)

Got there from following a tweet that led to the Young Conservatives site, which added some commentary along with a bunch of the click-bait ads that are so common today.

[fishing]

Milo has resigned from Breitbart but in order to not be an unemployed immigrant, he has announced that he will be the new spokesperson for subway.

:)

[Drang]

And yet George Takei, who said substantially the same things on several occasions, still speaks for Pizza Hut.

[Edwin]

And yet George Takei, who said substantially the same things on several occasions, still speaks for Pizza Hut.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png

[voodoo_man]

And yet George Takei, who said substantially the same things on several occasions, still speaks for Pizza Hut.

...and Bill Maher still has a show.

...and Ruth Vader is a sitting SCOTUS judge.

Both said the same thing before Milo was ever born.

[NEPAKevin]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hDSOyuuSi4

[Edwin]

I listened to the whole video but I never heard Takei advocating pedophilia like Milo did. The looping parts at the end where he says no he wasn't molested after Stern asked Takei is wrong though, as it would statutory because of the age difference, right? I guess we could grab the transcripts of both and compare them.

[NEPAKevin]

I listened to the whole video ...

Good on you. I lost interest after Stern asked if the much more experienced camp councilor gave thirteen year old bi-curious George oral sex. I believe that the point is that the very not a minor Tekai is speaking fondly of his memories of being what the law defines as a victim of a Pedophile.