RepubliCants' SpiN On Violence while Resorting To Bullshit because, well, they're brain dead. MoveOn: Trump's Attempt to Scapegoat Progressive Activists Profoundly Dishonest

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2016 1:31 AM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    http://front.moveon.org/trump-chicago-dishonest/#.VuTBEo-cFZU
    “Like so much of what Donald Trump says, his attempt to scapegoat progressive activists and MoveOn.org for violence at his cancelled rally in Chicago is profoundly dishonest and untrue.

    “MoveOn proudly supported University of Illinois at Chicago students and local organizers in their courageous nonviolent protest outside the event. We helped student leaders by printing signs and recruiting MoveOn members to attend the student-led protest.

    “But let’s be clear about one thing, the protest Friday night was a direct result of the violence that has occurred at Trump rallies and that has been repeatedly encouraged by Trump himself from the stage. There is only one person to blame for the chaotic and often violent nature of Trump rallies: Donald J. Trump. This sort of violence does not happen at Sanders, Cruz, Clinton, Rubio, or Kasich events, despite the fact that there are often protests at their events.

    “Unlike Republican leaders, we will not back down or be cowed in the face of a fascist bully like Donald Trump. For as long as Donald Trump is a presidential candidate, MoveOn members will continue to call out and nonviolently protest his racist, bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic, and violent behavior. While such vitriol may help him win a plurality of votes in a Republican primary, our country is better than the shameful, dangerous, and bigoted rhetoric that has been the hallmark of the Trump campaign. Trump and those who peddle hate and incite violence have no place in our politics and most certainly do not belong in the White House.

    “Love and democracy must prevail over violence and hate.”


    elephant16.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2016 2:25 AM GMT
    gratuitous bump
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2016 12:08 PM GMT
    I detest Trump's incendiary comments and ideas, and the violence that they engender. It's time for Trump to step up and discourage his supporters from engaging in aggressive/combative behavior. To be fair, however, moveon.org doesn't necessarily have clean hands either. Everyone is allowed to protest, but it must done with respect and civility.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14335

    Mar 14, 2016 12:13 PM GMT
    Both left wing and right wing sides are equally to blame in this latest violence.icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2016 3:04 PM GMT
    From when I first noticed them, I expressed issues about #blacklivesmatter tactics regardless of who they disrupted. Though I'm all for protest, generally, I do not find entertaining people being underhanded by infiltrating, which is just what the KKK has done to get onto the Supreme Court, to get into Congress, to get into candidacy for President and then once entrenched to flash mob the mall.

    Even if encouraged by moveon, I doubt that directed by Sanders. He simply does not seem that type, rather, he seems the type that if he was that type, he'd own up to it.

    Trump on the other hand is a conniving flimflam man. So even if moveon didn't move in, he'd have paid them to do so to create theater, what might be a baseless accusation on my part weren't it for his actual history of creating drama, but would anyone here put that past him?

    In large part, this is no longer a campaign as we have come to know them, for more than ever before, this is television. And as people believe that TV is real, this is dangerous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2016 3:19 PM GMT
    Gratuitous bumpf, you mean.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2016 3:27 PM GMT
    People of all political leanings could learn a lesson from this.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 14, 2016 3:45 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidPeople of all political leanings could learn a lesson from this.


    A good lesson in bad journalism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2016 5:57 PM GMT
    Bad journalism??? It was an editorial, not a news story.

    I only listened to the first three minutes and it was an excellent defense of the right to have freedom of speech. Clearly, many people only pay lip service to the concept. To paraphrase the woman in the video "your right to free speech is not more important than mine, and it doesn't mean I can't listen to someone else's free speech because you don't like what they say. Let me make up my own mind."icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2016 6:46 PM GMT
    That was only sort of editorializing, however, even at that, not without fault.

    I already posted above my issue with disruption and so of course I agree that generally people should be allowed to speak. But free speech is not without limits or consequences.

    Hadn't she peppered her editorial with bullshit I'd have bought it better but I'd still have this criticism: there's a difference between free speech in your home (by invite only) and free speech in a crowded public theater (yelling fire) and free speech in a convention hall you've rented (a semi-private affair). As well, there are limits to provocations which might lend to extenuating circumstances.

    Surely a husband or wife does not have the right to batter their spouse because they didn't like something he or she said, but does that mean you get to disparage my mother without me punching you in the face? Does southbeach get to continuously bully people (whether by his lame as fuck view count macro-ing of my posts or his harassment of deco et al) without expecting a Grand Ol' Piano to one day fall on his stretched foreskin-recovered pointy little head?

    There's such a thing as pushing someone too far and then the person who was "merely exercising free speech" has instigated his own demise. Courts do recognize mental duress caused by outside persons. In fact, you can even get away with murder by that so called "temporary insanity"--ooops, was that you I dropped some logic on--were it justified (aka understandable) and verified (by whatever means). So she's full of shit on that.

    Another aspect of free speech limits, which I personally treat very liberally but at a point it becomes threatening:

    I was one of the few Jewish people I knew back in the 70s who argued for the Nazi's rights to march in Skokie though that of course disgusted me. Had I lived there, I might have considered it more threatening. But in my youth, I felt the freedom of speech was more important and I didn't consider a march threatening. But lets look at another freedom to illustrate the point.

    Say you set up a shooting range in your backyard and after work you like to fire off a few rounds. You don't find a law against it. You are within your freedoms and so you target practice after work.

    Now lets say you are a Nazi and you live next to a gay man who you've made verbal attacks upon. And now every time you notice the gay man outside his home. On his way home. Leaving his car to enter his house. Out in his yard enjoying his pool. Every time you notice him, you go outside your house and shoot off your loud and threatening weapon.

    Is this now your freedom to enjoy your property, or--never mind that the noise of your gun prevents your neighbors from enjoying their property--are you now being intimidating towards your neighbor and is that your freedom too? Or do they have rights to peace of mind?

    So our freedoms are not absolute. They are, in the least, contextual. And they are balanced against other freedoms and the freedoms of others.

    So what if instead of just removing their hoods, they removed entirely their sheets. What if the Trumpettes outright declared racial war. No freedom to disrupt? Certainly not in a home. Maybe not in a convention hall which they rented. But what about on a campus. Do students not have a right to feel protected on their own campus? Your so-called champion of freedoms is arguing no. She's saying that they don't have the freedom to defend against their victimizer on their own ground utilizing their own freedom of speech while she's arguing that they are preventing their tormentor from bringing them harm by his.

    And so there she is egregiously full of shit. In exaggerating her point--which is not editorializing but caricaturizing--she lost her argument. She looks great for a woman in her 60s, though, very photogenic. Someone should drop a house on her too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2016 10:04 PM GMT
    theantijock saidThat was only sort of editorializing, however, even at that, not without fault.

    I already posted above my issue with disruption and so of course I agree that generally people should be allowed to speak. But free speech is not without limits or consequences. Absolutely, when the "free speech" is likely to lead to direct harm such as yelling "Fire!" at a crowded theatre or "You should beat that guy up!"

    Hadn't she peppered her editorial with bullshit I'd have bought it better but I'd still have this criticism: there's a difference between free speech in your home (by invite only) and free speech in a crowded public theater (yelling fire) and free speech in a convention hall you've rented (a semi-private affair). As well, there are limits to provocations which might lend to extenuating circumstances.No. You can't say "It wasn't libelous (or a threat) because I only told my friends in the privacy of my home".

    Surely a husband or wife does not have the right to batter their spouse because they didn't like something he or she said, but does that mean you get to disparage my mother without me punching you in the face? What, are you a child? You don't get to hit someone because they insulted you! It would be assault in the eyes of the law. icon_rolleyes.gifDoes southbeach get to continuously bully people (whether by his lame as fuck view count macro-ing of my posts or his harassment of deco et al) without expecting a Grand Ol' Piano to one day fall on his stretched foreskin-recovered pointy little head? Who cares if he macro-reads your posts? Don't post here if you don't want people to read them. It's a public forum. Send private messages to people instead. If he harasses people here the victims can ask Admin to ban him. Just because he might be a noodge doesn't mean you get to drop a piano on him.

    There's such a thing as pushing someone too far and then the person who was "merely exercising free speech" has instigated his own demise. Sure. Just be prepared for the punishment. Temporary insanity pleas will still get you locked up. In Canada, at least, a guy was convicted of murder after the courts decided the temporary insanity was over and he was now competent to stand trial....

    [long example of conflicting rights follows and a statement that Rights, such as freedom of speech, are not absolute]. True. There are limits to free speech and we must respect each other's right. In your example, you alluded to students protecting their rights on "their" property (campus). One obvious fallacy is that the university, and more explicitly a hall rented to out to someone else, is not "their" property. The fallacy is the presumption that offensive or hurtful comments are threatening and therefore not subject to the protection of free speech. A lot of college students seem to be confusing this nowadays. Some of these bleeding hearts need to grow a thicker skin or they can just keep bleeding (to paraphrase Pierre Elliott Trudeau).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2016 2:56 PM GMT
    YVRguy said
    theantijock saidThat was only sort of editorializing, however, even at that, not without fault.

    I already posted above my issue with disruption and so of course I agree that generally people should be allowed to speak. But free speech is not without limits or consequences. Absolutely, when the "free speech" is likely to lead to direct harm such as yelling "Fire!" at a crowded theatre or "You should beat that guy up!"

    Hadn't she peppered her editorial with bullshit I'd have bought it better but I'd still have this criticism: there's a difference between free speech in your home (by invite only) and free speech in a crowded public theater (yelling fire) and free speech in a convention hall you've rented (a semi-private affair). As well, there are limits to provocations which might lend to extenuating circumstances.No. You can't say "It wasn't libelous (or a threat) because I only told my friends in the privacy of my home".

    I did not say as you just suggested I said that anything was libelous nor in that moment a threat. All I did was to delineate various venues which with regard to free speech might be further examined under differing criteria by the nature of each venue. So you had nothing to say "No" about except for your own projections of your own internal conversation from within your own mind, for how you just responded has not to do with anything I'd just said.

    Surely a husband or wife does not have the right to batter their spouse because they didn't like something he or she said, but does that mean you get to disparage my mother without me punching you in the face? What, are you a child? You don't get to hit someone because they insulted you! It would be assault in the eyes of the law. icon_rolleyes.gif

    So you've just declared childish the person defending his mother's honor and not called childish the person berating another person's mother? lol You might wanna rethink that.

    Does southbeach get to continuously bully people (whether by his lame as fuck view count macro-ing of my posts or his harassment of deco et al) without expecting a Grand Ol' Piano to one day fall on his stretched foreskin-recovered pointy little head? Who cares if he macro-reads your posts? Don't post here if you don't want people to read them. It's a public forum. Send private messages to people instead. If he harasses people here the victims can ask Admin to ban him. Just because he might be a noodge doesn't mean you get to drop a piano on him.

    Perhaps you've misunderstood. I wasn't dropping an actual piano on anyone. It's a metaphorical piano. It means that if he comes after me with his typically faulty thinking, I'm gonna show him to be the fool he is, that's the piano. Wile E. Coyote falling off the cliff. That's southbeach, that's the piano. Thanks for letting us know this is a public forum, by the way. Glad to finally have that cleared up.

    There's such a thing as pushing someone too far and then the person who was "merely exercising free speech" has instigated his own demise. Sure. Just be prepared for the punishment. Temporary insanity pleas will still get you locked up. In Canada, at least, a guy was convicted of murder after the courts decided the temporary insanity was over and he was now competent to stand trial....

    I've already stated that free speech (expressing oneself) has consequences.

    [long example of conflicting rights follows and a statement that Rights, such as freedom of speech, are not absolute]. True. There are limits to free speech and we must respect each other's right. In your example, you alluded to students protecting their rights on "their" property (campus). One obvious fallacy is that the university, and more explicitly a hall rented to out to someone else, is not "their" property. The fallacy is the presumption that offensive or hurtful comments are threatening and therefore not subject to the protection of free speech. A lot of college students seem to be confusing this nowadays. Some of these bleeding hearts need to grow a thicker skin or they can just keep bleeding (to paraphrase Pierre Elliott Trudeau).


    You are incorrect. A campus is most certainly a student's home even more so than Skokie was home to the Jewish people who objected to the Nazi request for a march there. And certainly, had they marched (if I recall, it was cancelled, I could double check that) no one would have said a word about counter protests. And that's really all students would be doing on their own campus. That would be a counter protest.

    A college campus is not just where students work (schoolwork) but where they live (dorms or nearby off-campus), where they are protected by their own police force, where they dine, where they recreate in school spirit in support of their teams, etc. You think they are not going to defend that?

    Or are you saying that these students singing of love to drown out a homophobic preacher legally "trespassing" their campus are wrong...



    So not only is that campus theirs, and not just by their paid tuitions, not just by our endowments of that, but in the very nature of it; but it bears repeating that...

    ..."Your so-called champion of freedoms is arguing...that they don't have the freedom to defend against their victimizer on their own ground utilizing their own freedom of speech while she's arguing that they are preventing their tormentor from bringing them harm by his.

    (In THAT, she) is egregiously full of shit."

    And I don't care if a house or a piano drops on her but certainly it should be one or the other.