CDZ America Held Hostage by Radical Left?

[Asclepias]

Nothing was stolen. If they wanted to have a private party they should have had a members only meeting.

So it's OK for the KKK to disrupt an NAACP meeting?

Yes. As long as it isnt private whats the problem?

 

[jwoodie]

Nothing was stolen. If they wanted to have a private party they should have had a members only meeting.

So it's OK for the KKK to disrupt an NAACP meeting?

Yes. As long as it isnt private whats the problem?

Would you then blame the NAACP for any ensuing violence?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, all the other candidates (Democrat and Republican), have had protesters at some of their events, and none of those were violent.

Trump seems to relish throwing red meat to his base and in some of his words, he can be quite inflammatory by saying things like they should be punched in the mouth, he wants to punch people in the mouth, and my favorite, in the old days people like that (protesters) would have been carried out on a stretcher.

None of the other candidates us inflammatory language like that at their rallies, only Trump.

And, exactly HOW is America "being held hostage by the radical left"?

So you justify the physical prevention or disruption of free speech by others if you judge it to be inflammatory? Good Lord, you have proven my point beyond any question.

You are paving the way to Hell and don't even know it.

I didn't "justify" anything. I simply pointed out the difference between Trump and the other candidates. He uses inflammatory language, the others don't. He has violent outbursts at his rallies, the others don't.

And I never said anything about preventing free speech, or even that he should change the way he does stuff. Simply pointed out he's got problems because of the way he encourages his supporters.

Reading comprehension dude.

 

[HenryBHough]

Consider "Stockholm Syndrome" and you'll understand why liberal elements have kept America so willingly in captivity for seven (7) plus years.

 

[daws101]

Nothing was stolen. If they wanted to have a private party they should have had a members only meeting.

So it's OK for the KKK to disrupt an NAACP meeting?

Yes. As long as it isnt private whats the problem?

Would you then blame the NAACP for any ensuing violence?

Only if they were the ones who were advocating it .
Like Trump does.
The difference is the NAACP would not fein ignorance.

 

[daws101]

Consider "Stockholm Syndrome" and you'll understand why liberal elements have kept America so willingly in captivity for seven (7) plus years.

Right! Lol!

 

[320 Years of History]

Nothing was stolen. If they wanted to have a private party they should have had a members only meeting.

So it's OK for the KKK to disrupt an NAACP meeting?

Yes. As long as it isnt private whats the problem?

Acting on one's intent to disrupt is just ethically wrong. It flies in the face of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Really it comes down to stated intent more so that it does merely with regard to an act itself.

 

[Asclepias]

Nothing was stolen. If they wanted to have a private party they should have had a members only meeting.

So it's OK for the KKK to disrupt an NAACP meeting?

Yes. As long as it isnt private whats the problem?

Would you then blame the NAACP for any ensuing violence?

Depends. If the president of the NAACP said to punch someone like Trump did then yes.

 

[Asclepias]

Nothing was stolen. If they wanted to have a private party they should have had a members only meeting.

So it's OK for the KKK to disrupt an NAACP meeting?

Yes. As long as it isnt private whats the problem?

Acting on one's intent to disrupt is just ethically wrong. It flies in the face of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Really it comes down to stated intent more so that it does merely with regard to an act itself.

I dont think so. There is nothing ethical about Trumps coded messaging and outright racist remarks. If he chooses to send such divisive messaging he should be content to deal with the blow back and people disrupting his rallies. (I think he is doing this on purpose.) You cant start out with no ethical higher ground and then bring ethics into the conversation.

 

[320 Years of History]

Nothing was stolen. If they wanted to have a private party they should have had a members only meeting.

So it's OK for the KKK to disrupt an NAACP meeting?

Yes. As long as it isnt private whats the problem?

Acting on one's intent to disrupt is just ethically wrong. It flies in the face of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Really it comes down to stated intent more so that it does merely with regard to an act itself.

I dont think so. There is nothing ethical about Trumps coded messaging and outright racist remarks. If he chooses to send such divisive messaging he should be content to deal with the blow back and people disrupting his rallies. (I think he is doing this on purpose.) You cant start out with no ethical higher ground and then bring ethics into the conversation.

Red:
I agree with that, but even in agreeing with your statement, the man still has the right to utter those remarks and not be deliberately denied the opportunity to do so.

Blue:
He absolutely should be prepared to deal with the "blow back." The set of legitimate "blow back" actions, however, should under no circumstances include willful acts that constrain Mr. Trump's ability to make whatever remarks he wants to, at his own campaign rallies no less.

While I don't agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I do believe everyone is entitled to express whatever opinion it be they have.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison
​

Pink:
It's not a matter of whether Mr. Trump or any other public speaker starts or ends on high or low ethical principles. It's a matter that it's unethical -- using any means -- to deny one the right to articulate whatever ground it be upon which they stand.

It's also illegal to do so in the U.S.; therefore whether it's ethical or not isn't really a legitimate factor right now. What can be raised as a legit factor is whether the right to free expression is ethically right or wrong.

While I would not like to see freedom of expression deemed unethical, I realize our nation's legal system provides means for the country to do so. If that be the decision the nation agrees to, I have a decision to make: (1) live with it, (2) find somewhere else to live that does guarantee freedom of expression, or (3) form/join an effort to reverse decision that prohibited freedom of expression.

 

[Asclepias]

Nothing was stolen. If they wanted to have a private party they should have had a members only meeting.

So it's OK for the KKK to disrupt an NAACP meeting?

Yes. As long as it isnt private whats the problem?

Acting on one's intent to disrupt is just ethically wrong. It flies in the face of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Really it comes down to stated intent more so that it does merely with regard to an act itself.

I dont think so. There is nothing ethical about Trumps coded messaging and outright racist remarks. If he chooses to send such divisive messaging he should be content to deal with the blow back and people disrupting his rallies. (I think he is doing this on purpose.) You cant start out with no ethical higher ground and then bring ethics into the conversation.

Red:
I agree with that, but even in agreeing with your statement, the man still has the right to utter those remarks and not be deliberately denied the opportunity to do so.

Blue:
He absolutely should be prepared to deal with the "blow back." The set of legitimate "blow back" actions, however, should under no circumstances include willful acts that constrain Mr. Trump's ability to make whatever remarks he wants to, at his own campaign rallies no less.

While I don't agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I do believe everyone is entitled to express whatever opinion it be they have.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison
​

Pink:
It's not a matter of whether Mr. Trump or any other public speaker starts or ends on high or low ethical principles. It's a matter that it's unethical -- using any means -- to deny one the right to articulate whatever ground it be upon which they stand.

It's also illegal to do so in the U.S.; therefore whether it's ethical or not isn't really a legitimate factor right now. What can be raised as a legit factor is whether the right to free expression is ethically right or wrong.

While I would not like to see freedom of expression deemed unethical, I realize our nation's legal system provides means for the country to do so. If that be the decision the nation agrees to, I have a decision to make: (1) live with it, (2) find somewhere else to live that does guarantee freedom of expression, or (3) form/join an effort to reverse decision that prohibited freedom of expression.

Of course he has the right to express his opinion. I disagree that he has any rights to do so unhindered as long as the obstacles he faces are not illegally. He has many avenues he can use to express his opinion be it private rallies, TV documentaries, sign language, and written propaganda.

I disagree that Trump even has an ethical foundation to his message and therefore feel zero need to afford him any civility in expressing his message. Just like I would shout down a KKK wizard making a speech I would do the same to Trump. Why? His message is coming from a place hate and divisiveness and unworthy of the normal respect one would give a speaker.

 

[320 Years of History]

So it's OK for the KKK to disrupt an NAACP meeting?

Yes. As long as it isnt private whats the problem?

Acting on one's intent to disrupt is just ethically wrong. It flies in the face of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Really it comes down to stated intent more so that it does merely with regard to an act itself.

I dont think so. There is nothing ethical about Trumps coded messaging and outright racist remarks. If he chooses to send such divisive messaging he should be content to deal with the blow back and people disrupting his rallies. (I think he is doing this on purpose.) You cant start out with no ethical higher ground and then bring ethics into the conversation.

Red:
I agree with that, but even in agreeing with your statement, the man still has the right to utter those remarks and not be deliberately denied the opportunity to do so.

Blue:
He absolutely should be prepared to deal with the "blow back." The set of legitimate "blow back" actions, however, should under no circumstances include willful acts that constrain Mr. Trump's ability to make whatever remarks he wants to, at his own campaign rallies no less.

While I don't agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I do believe everyone is entitled to express whatever opinion it be they have.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison
​

Pink:
It's not a matter of whether Mr. Trump or any other public speaker starts or ends on high or low ethical principles. It's a matter that it's unethical -- using any means -- to deny one the right to articulate whatever ground it be upon which they stand.

It's also illegal to do so in the U.S.; therefore whether it's ethical or not isn't really a legitimate factor right now. What can be raised as a legit factor is whether the right to free expression is ethically right or wrong.

While I would not like to see freedom of expression deemed unethical, I realize our nation's legal system provides means for the country to do so. If that be the decision the nation agrees to, I have a decision to make: (1) live with it, (2) find somewhere else to live that does guarantee freedom of expression, or (3) form/join an effort to reverse decision that prohibited freedom of expression.

Of course he has the right to express his opinion. I disagree that he has any rights to do so unhindered as long as the obstacles he faces are not illegally. He has many avenues he can use to express his opinion be it private rallies, TV documentaries, sign language, and written propaganda.

I disagree that Trump even has an ethical foundation to his message and therefore feel zero need to afford him any civility in expressing his message. Just like I would shout down a KKK wizard making a speech I would do the same to Trump. Why? His message is coming from a place hate and divisiveness and unworthy of the normal respect one would give a speaker.

Pink:
My approach to dealing with that is to refuse to be a willing member of his/her audience. If "the wizard" wants to talk to the air, he can, but I don't have to listen, and I certainly don't have to give him the satisfaction of knowing he actually has an audience, or that whatever audience he has includes me.

Purple:
Sign language? Say what? I am really mortified you even wrote that. You really should be more embarrassed for having done so than I am for you. And you shouldn't be ashamed because the remark may be seen by some folks as insensitive. You should be because it's just on multiple levels an ignorant thing to say. (That's not to imply you haven't the right to say it.)

What makes sign language substantively different from spoken language? The mere facts that only people who can interpret it can understand what is communicated that way and that most people aren't deaf? Expression is expression regardless of the language (mode of communication) one uses.

FWIW, Mr. Trump (or his campaign) ensures that signers are present to convey his rally remarks to deaf people.

• Ray on Twitter
  
• Sign-language interpreter says Donald Trump easier than many pols | www.palmbeachpost.com
  
• Did You Notice the Over-the-Top Sign Language Interpreters During the Blizzard Coverage? Jon Stewart Did

Blue:
To the best of my knowledge, he uses all those means of expression, except perhaps the TV documentary one. I know his events are private.

I know there are several documentaries about Mr. Trump, but I don't know what his role was in producing or contributing to them. You can watch them if you want to.

The first one, You've Been Trumped is below and here: You've Been Trumped | Bemoviez

You've Been Trumped



Director's Q&A for You've Been Trumped


​

Here's a documentary about Mr. Trump's plane. I presume he at least authorized this one.

​

Here's another one:

​

Lastly, here is another that seems to have some degree of Mr. Trump's participation in its creation.

​

Red:
I suspect given that remark and others in your most recently quoted post above that you and I are best off agreeing to disagree.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes. As long as it isnt private whats the problem?

Acting on one's intent to disrupt is just ethically wrong. It flies in the face of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Really it comes down to stated intent more so that it does merely with regard to an act itself.

I dont think so. There is nothing ethical about Trumps coded messaging and outright racist remarks. If he chooses to send such divisive messaging he should be content to deal with the blow back and people disrupting his rallies. (I think he is doing this on purpose.) You cant start out with no ethical higher ground and then bring ethics into the conversation.

Red:
I agree with that, but even in agreeing with your statement, the man still has the right to utter those remarks and not be deliberately denied the opportunity to do so.

Blue:
He absolutely should be prepared to deal with the "blow back." The set of legitimate "blow back" actions, however, should under no circumstances include willful acts that constrain Mr. Trump's ability to make whatever remarks he wants to, at his own campaign rallies no less.

While I don't agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I do believe everyone is entitled to express whatever opinion it be they have.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison
​

Pink:
It's not a matter of whether Mr. Trump or any other public speaker starts or ends on high or low ethical principles. It's a matter that it's unethical -- using any means -- to deny one the right to articulate whatever ground it be upon which they stand.

It's also illegal to do so in the U.S.; therefore whether it's ethical or not isn't really a legitimate factor right now. What can be raised as a legit factor is whether the right to free expression is ethically right or wrong.

While I would not like to see freedom of expression deemed unethical, I realize our nation's legal system provides means for the country to do so. If that be the decision the nation agrees to, I have a decision to make: (1) live with it, (2) find somewhere else to live that does guarantee freedom of expression, or (3) form/join an effort to reverse decision that prohibited freedom of expression.

Of course he has the right to express his opinion. I disagree that he has any rights to do so unhindered as long as the obstacles he faces are not illegally. He has many avenues he can use to express his opinion be it private rallies, TV documentaries, sign language, and written propaganda.

I disagree that Trump even has an ethical foundation to his message and therefore feel zero need to afford him any civility in expressing his message. Just like I would shout down a KKK wizard making a speech I would do the same to Trump. Why? His message is coming from a place hate and divisiveness and unworthy of the normal respect one would give a speaker.

Pink:
My approach to dealing with that is to refuse to be a willing member of his/her audience. If "the wizard" wants to talk to the air, he can, but I don't have to listen, and I certainly don't have to give him the satisfaction of knowing he actually has an audience, or that whatever audience he has includes me.

Purple:
Sign language? Say what? I am really mortified you even wrote that. You really should be more embarrassed for having done so than I am for you. And you shouldn't be ashamed because the remark may be seen by some folks as insensitive. You should be because it's just on multiple levels an ignorant thing to say. (That's not to imply you haven't the right to say it.)

What makes sign language substantively different from spoken language? The mere facts that only people who can interpret it can understand what is communicated that way and that most people aren't deaf? Expression is expression regardless of the language (mode of communication) one uses.

FWIW, Mr. Trump (or his campaign) ensures that signers are present to convey his rally remarks to deaf people.

• Ray on Twitter
  
• Sign-language interpreter says Donald Trump easier than many pols | www.palmbeachpost.com
  
• Did You Notice the Over-the-Top Sign Language Interpreters During the Blizzard Coverage? Jon Stewart Did

Blue:
To the best of my knowledge, he uses all those means of expression, except perhaps the TV documentary one. I know his events are private.

I know there are several documentaries about Mr. Trump, but I don't know what his role was in producing or contributing to them. You can watch them if you want to.

The first one, You've Been Trumped is below and here: You've Been Trumped | Bemoviez

You've Been Trumped



Director's Q&A for You've Been Trumped


​

Here's a documentary about Mr. Trump's plane. I presume he at least authorized this one.

​

Here's another one:

​

Lastly, here is another that seems to have some degree of Mr. Trump's participation in its creation.

​

Red:
I suspect given that remark and others in your most recently quoted post above that you and I are best off agreeing to disagree.

I only mentioned sign language because he could use that no matter how much noise someone made and still be understood. I agree we should just agree to disagree if you think someone has the right to speak without someone attempting to shout him down.

 

[320 Years of History]

Acting on one's intent to disrupt is just ethically wrong. It flies in the face of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Really it comes down to stated intent more so that it does merely with regard to an act itself.

I dont think so. There is nothing ethical about Trumps coded messaging and outright racist remarks. If he chooses to send such divisive messaging he should be content to deal with the blow back and people disrupting his rallies. (I think he is doing this on purpose.) You cant start out with no ethical higher ground and then bring ethics into the conversation.

Red:
I agree with that, but even in agreeing with your statement, the man still has the right to utter those remarks and not be deliberately denied the opportunity to do so.

Blue:
He absolutely should be prepared to deal with the "blow back." The set of legitimate "blow back" actions, however, should under no circumstances include willful acts that constrain Mr. Trump's ability to make whatever remarks he wants to, at his own campaign rallies no less.

While I don't agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I do believe everyone is entitled to express whatever opinion it be they have.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison
​

Pink:
It's not a matter of whether Mr. Trump or any other public speaker starts or ends on high or low ethical principles. It's a matter that it's unethical -- using any means -- to deny one the right to articulate whatever ground it be upon which they stand.

It's also illegal to do so in the U.S.; therefore whether it's ethical or not isn't really a legitimate factor right now. What can be raised as a legit factor is whether the right to free expression is ethically right or wrong.

While I would not like to see freedom of expression deemed unethical, I realize our nation's legal system provides means for the country to do so. If that be the decision the nation agrees to, I have a decision to make: (1) live with it, (2) find somewhere else to live that does guarantee freedom of expression, or (3) form/join an effort to reverse decision that prohibited freedom of expression.

Of course he has the right to express his opinion. I disagree that he has any rights to do so unhindered as long as the obstacles he faces are not illegally. He has many avenues he can use to express his opinion be it private rallies, TV documentaries, sign language, and written propaganda.

I disagree that Trump even has an ethical foundation to his message and therefore feel zero need to afford him any civility in expressing his message. Just like I would shout down a KKK wizard making a speech I would do the same to Trump. Why? His message is coming from a place hate and divisiveness and unworthy of the normal respect one would give a speaker.

Pink:
My approach to dealing with that is to refuse to be a willing member of his/her audience. If "the wizard" wants to talk to the air, he can, but I don't have to listen, and I certainly don't have to give him the satisfaction of knowing he actually has an audience, or that whatever audience he has includes me.

Purple:
Sign language? Say what? I am really mortified you even wrote that. You really should be more embarrassed for having done so than I am for you. And you shouldn't be ashamed because the remark may be seen by some folks as insensitive. You should be because it's just on multiple levels an ignorant thing to say. (That's not to imply you haven't the right to say it.)

What makes sign language substantively different from spoken language? The mere facts that only people who can interpret it can understand what is communicated that way and that most people aren't deaf? Expression is expression regardless of the language (mode of communication) one uses.

FWIW, Mr. Trump (or his campaign) ensures that signers are present to convey his rally remarks to deaf people.

• Ray on Twitter
  
• Sign-language interpreter says Donald Trump easier than many pols | www.palmbeachpost.com
  
• Did You Notice the Over-the-Top Sign Language Interpreters During the Blizzard Coverage? Jon Stewart Did

Blue:
To the best of my knowledge, he uses all those means of expression, except perhaps the TV documentary one. I know his events are private.

I know there are several documentaries about Mr. Trump, but I don't know what his role was in producing or contributing to them. You can watch them if you want to.

The first one, You've Been Trumped is below and here: You've Been Trumped | Bemoviez

You've Been Trumped



Director's Q&A for You've Been Trumped


​

Here's a documentary about Mr. Trump's plane. I presume he at least authorized this one.

​

Here's another one:

​

Lastly, here is another that seems to have some degree of Mr. Trump's participation in its creation.

​

Red:
I suspect given that remark and others in your most recently quoted post above that you and I are best off agreeing to disagree.

I only mentioned sign language because he could use that no matter how much noise someone made and still be understood. I agree we should just agree to disagree if you think someone has the right to speak without someone attempting to shout him down.

So it is and shall remain, for I do.

 

[oldsoul]

Attempting to blame 'the left' for for the violence and unrest at Trump's events is partisan idiocy – as the blame clearly belongs to Trump who instigates the violence with his rhetoric of bigotry and hate, and his thuggish supporters to carry it out.

So, if I express an idea (hate filled or not) and you hit me, it's my fault? I am guilty of a crime?

 

[oldsoul]

This may sound like a partisan title, but there is no other way to describe the assault on our First Amendment rights. As demonstrated almost daily, there is a sizable and growing segment of our population who seek to silence, by disruption and intimidation, those with whom they disagree. This is happening, more and more often, at educational and political events throughout the country.

The common denominator for these "protests" is the predominance of left-wing activists at these events. Since when does the First Amendment confer the right of one group to deny the same right to another group? Ironically, this group of activists is the first to accuse the other groups they are trying to silence as "brown shirts" when in fact they are the ones employing the same tactics as the Nazis in the 1930s.

Equally repugnant to our Constitutional rights are those on the sidelines who makes excuses for this wretched behavior, usually in concert with pushing their own political agendas. Can they not see that we are moving towards a South American-style political system where the ignorant masses are beguiled into thinking that they can vote themselves into prosperity, while the elite live behind high walls with armed guards?

Does anyone here not believe that silencing others will lead to silencing everyone?

While I agree with your sentiments, how is your title and OP any different from the left claiming "racist" without substantiating it? They are both inflammitory and meant to "silence" the opposition, by putting them on the defensive, rather that debating the real issues of the day.
I do beleive there are people that would like to "silence" their opposition, and I beleive these people are on the left as well as the right. Your blanket statement about the left is, IMHO, too broad. If you where to list specific people/groups and substantiate your claims, I would be much more inclided to side with you.

 

[daws101]

Attempting to blame 'the left' for for the violence and unrest at Trump's events is partisan idiocy – as the blame clearly belongs to Trump who instigates the violence with his rhetoric of bigotry and hate, and his thuggish supporters to carry it out.

So, if I express an idea (hate filled or not) and you hit me, it's my fault? I am guilty of a crime?

yes it's called incitement
2917.01 Inciting to violence.



(A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:
(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;

(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.



(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.

Effective Date: 07-01-1996

 

[jwoodie]

While I agree with your sentiments, how is your title and OP any different from the left claiming "racist" without substantiating it? They are both inflammitory and meant to "silence" the opposition, by putting them on the defensive, rather that debating the real issues of the day.
I do beleive there are people that would like to "silence" their opposition, and I beleive these people are on the left as well as the right. Your blanket statement about the left is, IMHO, too broad. If you where to list specific people/groups and substantiate your claims, I would be much more inclided to side with you.

When 90% of explicit attempts to deny free speech are committed by Left Wing activists, the generalization becomes a reality. Can you name a single college campus where a liberal was prevented from speaking by conservative activists? The reverse is so common that it barely merits any attention.

 

[daws101]

While I agree with your sentiments, how is your title and OP any different from the left claiming "racist" without substantiating it? They are both inflammitory and meant to "silence" the opposition, by putting them on the defensive, rather that debating the real issues of the day.
I do beleive there are people that would like to "silence" their opposition, and I beleive these people are on the left as well as the right. Your blanket statement about the left is, IMHO, too broad. If you where to list specific people/groups and substantiate your claims, I would be much more inclided to side with you.

When 90% of explicit attempts to deny free speech are committed by Left Wing activists, the generalization becomes a reality. Can you name a single college campus where a liberal was prevented from speaking by conservative activists? The reverse is so common that it barely merits any attention.

more fake percentages ?
link ?

 

[jwoodie]

yes it's called incitement
2917.01 Inciting to violence.

Hate speech and inciting to violence are not the same thing, so your faux legal research fails. As do most of your posts.