Remember how Reagan handled Berkeley protesters ?

DigitalDrifter

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2013
47,675
26,033
2,605
Oregon
He kicked their fucking asses, that's how!

This of course was when Reagan was governor.

Watch how he dresses down the media.



Here’s How Ronald Reagan Dealt With Protesters




When then-Governor Ronald Reagan was dealing with protesters at the University of California – Berkeley, he didn’t tender his resignation or worry about creating safe spaces.

What he did is considered one of the most controversial acts by a Governor in american history.

Police soon opened fire with buckshot and tear gas. One student was killed, 128 were admitted to local hospitals.

When asked about the order, Reagan responded firmly.

“All of it began the first time some of you who know better, and are old enough to know better, let young people think that they have the right to choose the laws they would obey as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest”

Here's How Ronald Reagan Dealt With Protesters [VIDEO]
 
He kicked their fucking asses, that's how!

This of course was when Reagan was governor.

Watch how he dresses down the media.



Here’s How Ronald Reagan Dealt With Protesters




When then-Governor Ronald Reagan was dealing with protesters at the University of California – Berkeley, he didn’t tender his resignation or worry about creating safe spaces.

What he did is considered one of the most controversial acts by a Governor in american history.

Police soon opened fire with buckshot and tear gas. One student was killed, 128 were admitted to local hospitals.

When asked about the order, Reagan responded firmly.

“All of it began the first time some of you who know better, and are old enough to know better, let young people think that they have the right to choose the laws they would obey as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest”

Here's How Ronald Reagan Dealt With Protesters [VIDEO]

And Reagan was an actor. The best presidents are not politicians!
 
If you boil it all down, it kind of parallel's a situation - say older kids/young teens stealing from their parents. As a parent you either put a stop to it, or you let it continue. If you're a law abiding type, you put a stop to it. If you're not, you make excuses and enable it ("he needs more allowance" "he didn't mean it" "it was a mistake/accident" "its just a phase" "he doesn't understand its wrong" etc.) The choice you make in that parallel has direct impact on that child's life, as well as the behaviors that they engage on later in life. Teaching kids a healthy respect for the law is /always/ a better idea than not. Teaching them to respect those in authority, be them in power rightly or wrongly, also pays off 99% of the time. The idea that teaching rebellion and disobedience of the law is 'good' is inherently flawed. Even if you are a skeptic and don't trust the authorities, you are better of to have skepticism and operate within the law to rectify the problem, rather than to say fuck the law and oppose the system. Especially in America, peaceful protest is far, far more successful in our system than outright rebellion and it always will be.

You cannot overthrow the government of the US, we have measures and protections, short of a global catastrophe, and likely even then, the US will /always/ have someone to continue on the government and nation. That's why these stupid anarchist groups are so stupidly dangerous, it is 100% /impossible/ for their goal to be achieved, ergo, it is a complete waste. The US government will /never/ fall, no matter how many fruit loops sign up, the military will /always/ have government command, there will always be a 'President,' and worse for their stupid goals, there will /always/ be regular old American's who will fight and repel them.
 
The issue is violence, not the fraud Reagan.

You stop it, whether it is from the left or the right.
 
Trump should
1) federalize the national guard in California

2) send it in to clear out the next group of commie protesters as soon as a single window gets busted

3) arrest the ones captured and put them away for maximum time allowable.
 
Today of course we have the California governor who not only wouldn't lift a finger to set the protesters straight, he would join in with them.
 
I don't consider it fascism to protect the public from violent people who want to overthrow the government.

Though admittedly the police got a little out of hand back then it was pretty much in line the ideals of the time so it wasn't /that/ outrageous. Today I'm sure we'd try less lethal means of containment, learning from mistakes is a good trait to have.
 
rectruf2.JPEG


Yay! Dead kids!

Saint Reagan was the best!
 
rectruf2.JPEG


Yay! Dead kids!

Saint Reagan was the best!
Disingenuous isn't it.

If the dead kids had not been rioting, harming true innocent people, and destroying property, they'd still be alive. Darwin awards apply.

The kid who died wasn't "rioting".

He was sitting on a roof, watching.

But don't let that stop your little fascist jerk-off party.
 
rectruf2.JPEG


Yay! Dead kids!

Saint Reagan was the best!
Disingenuous isn't it.

If the dead kids had not been rioting, harming true innocent people, and destroying property, they'd still be alive. Darwin awards apply.

The kid who died wasn't "rioting".

He was sitting on a roof, watching.

But don't let that stop your little fascist jerk-off party.
Don't be an idiot. The rioters were destroying people and attacking cops. When guns are being fired, you DO NOT sit on a roof to watch.

People have a right to peacefully protest. The moment they become violent, they lose the right.

I don't really care if you want to defend them and their stupidity. However, they WERE NOT MURDERED. The word has a very specific meaning.

Get over it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top