Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sure sure
it's everyone else's fault EXCEPT the the actual perps.
Are you denying that the police stood by and did nothing other than disband the rally before it even took place, and herded the right wing guys into the angry mob?
Why are you blaming everyone but the Nazis and White Supremacists?
I think we all know the answer to that mr.Trash
you pointed it out in a very specific scenario designed to purely get the reply you are fishing for.if you couldn't understand what i was saying, more detail wouldn't help. likely only sidetrack you somewhere else away from the topic.Your lack of comprehension isn't my issue.May I have a bit more dressing for this ^^^ word salad?
Have a great Friday.
Your lack of detail was the basis of my question/comment. "A better reason to hate is still hate" is enigmatic, it is tautological and no more enlightening than 2 is 2.
"Hate" is an emotion as strong as love, though (thankfully) more rare. It is mostly used as a pejorative on political message boards and does not do justice to the actual hate inherent in racism and descriptive of a motivator in the words of despotic demagogues.
hate is hate. using your own moral compass as to what justifies hate it pretty pointless.
In short, you can't respond to my question. I pointed out "hate" in terms of racism and its use by Trump in his stump speech. In your comment you claimed hate is hate, that is no different than stating it will rain today or it will not rain today, neither is enlightening.
Do you deny that the infamous "Torch March" was not hate on display?
To use the concept of a "moral compass" when discussing hate seems unseemly. Like porn, you know it when you see it. I saw it, and so did more than half of our countrymen on display at Charlottesville . In that specific case, those who defend the marchers are part of the problem.
if you think for a moment the *hate* was only held to one side, you are part of the problem.
not much else i can tell you.
Why are you blaming everyone but the Nazis and White Supremacists?
I think we all know the answer to that mr.Trash
Why is it so difficult for you to admit the two groups should have been kept separate..?
Why are you blaming everyone but the Nazis and White Supremacists?
I think we all know the answer to that mr.Trash
Why is it so difficult for you to admit the two groups should have been kept separate..?
How? Have you been schooled in crowd control?
then not sure why we are arguing. i'm not talking the specifics of this incident but human nature in general. we tend to "feed the hate" whether it's fake news or not and that is a large part of the problem.you pointed it out in a very specific scenario designed to purely get the reply you are fishing for.if you couldn't understand what i was saying, more detail wouldn't help. likely only sidetrack you somewhere else away from the topic.Your lack of comprehension isn't my issue.
Have a great Friday.
Your lack of detail was the basis of my question/comment. "A better reason to hate is still hate" is enigmatic, it is tautological and no more enlightening than 2 is 2.
"Hate" is an emotion as strong as love, though (thankfully) more rare. It is mostly used as a pejorative on political message boards and does not do justice to the actual hate inherent in racism and descriptive of a motivator in the words of despotic demagogues.
hate is hate. using your own moral compass as to what justifies hate it pretty pointless.
In short, you can't respond to my question. I pointed out "hate" in terms of racism and its use by Trump in his stump speech. In your comment you claimed hate is hate, that is no different than stating it will rain today or it will not rain today, neither is enlightening.
Do you deny that the infamous "Torch March" was not hate on display?
To use the concept of a "moral compass" when discussing hate seems unseemly. Like porn, you know it when you see it. I saw it, and so did more than half of our countrymen on display at Charlottesville . In that specific case, those who defend the marchers are part of the problem.
if you think for a moment the *hate* was only held to one side, you are part of the problem.
not much else i can tell you.
Actually that's clear, but what you describe as hate by the legitimate protesters is misguided. The vast majority of those who march are peaceful, and that includes the protests From MLK as Selma to those protests against the Vietnam War and the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. Every peaceful protest movement attracts both anarchists and agent provocateurs.
What he said is probably true.Thank you for proving your idocracy yet again! You make this too easyCan you march down the hallway of an elementary school yelling "Fuck the Jews"?
If you march down a school hall and yell FUCK WHITE PEOPLE you get cheered and rewarded by the leftist bigots in charge of the school.
Obstructing someone is a crime. blocking the street is a crime. Everything you listed is a crime.I've already defended their right to free speech in that situation. I was talking about situations when speech can be considered an offense if taken too far
"when speech can be considered an offense if taken too far" >> As in the case of the Charlottesville counterprotestors who blocked the street, blocked the protestors legal march, attacked protestors, incited a riot, rioted, causing a disturbance, assault, battery, etc etc.
They didn't start the rioting, asshole. ANTIFA and BLM did.Sure sure
it's everyone else's fault EXCEPT the the actual perps.
Are you denying that the police stood by and did nothing other than disband the rally before it even took place, and herded the right wing guys into the angry mob?
Why are you blaming everyone but the Nazis and White Supremacists?
I think we all know the answer to that mr.Trash
It interferes with their narrative that the left can do no wrong.Why are you blaming everyone but the Nazis and White Supremacists?
I think we all know the answer to that mr.Trash
Why is it so difficult for you to admit the two groups should have been kept separate..?
What he said is probably true.Thank you for proving your idocracy yet again! You make this too easyCan you march down the hallway of an elementary school yelling "Fuck the Jews"?
If you march down a school hall and yell FUCK WHITE PEOPLE you get cheered and rewarded by the leftist bigots in charge of the school.
Bullshit. The Vietnam protestors threw bricks at police and the National Guard. They also occupied buildings on campus. You're lumping your thugs and criminals in with decent people who did protest non-violently.you pointed it out in a very specific scenario designed to purely get the reply you are fishing for.if you couldn't understand what i was saying, more detail wouldn't help. likely only sidetrack you somewhere else away from the topic.Your lack of comprehension isn't my issue.
Have a great Friday.
Your lack of detail was the basis of my question/comment. "A better reason to hate is still hate" is enigmatic, it is tautological and no more enlightening than 2 is 2.
"Hate" is an emotion as strong as love, though (thankfully) more rare. It is mostly used as a pejorative on political message boards and does not do justice to the actual hate inherent in racism and descriptive of a motivator in the words of despotic demagogues.
hate is hate. using your own moral compass as to what justifies hate it pretty pointless.
In short, you can't respond to my question. I pointed out "hate" in terms of racism and its use by Trump in his stump speech. In your comment you claimed hate is hate, that is no different than stating it will rain today or it will not rain today, neither is enlightening.
Do you deny that the infamous "Torch March" was not hate on display?
To use the concept of a "moral compass" when discussing hate seems unseemly. Like porn, you know it when you see it. I saw it, and so did more than half of our countrymen on display at Charlottesville . In that specific case, those who defend the marchers are part of the problem.
if you think for a moment the *hate* was only held to one side, you are part of the problem.
not much else i can tell you.
Actually that's clear, but what you describe as hate by the legitimate protesters is misguided. The vast majority of those who march are peaceful, and that includes the protests From MLK as Selma to those protests against the Vietnam War and the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. Every peaceful protest movement attracts both anarchists and agent provocateurs.
you pointed it out in a very specific scenario designed to purely get the reply you are fishing for.if you couldn't understand what i was saying, more detail wouldn't help. likely only sidetrack you somewhere else away from the topic.Your lack of detail was the basis of my question/comment. "A better reason to hate is still hate" is enigmatic, it is tautological and no more enlightening than 2 is 2.
"Hate" is an emotion as strong as love, though (thankfully) more rare. It is mostly used as a pejorative on political message boards and does not do justice to the actual hate inherent in racism and descriptive of a motivator in the words of despotic demagogues.
hate is hate. using your own moral compass as to what justifies hate it pretty pointless.
In short, you can't respond to my question. I pointed out "hate" in terms of racism and its use by Trump in his stump speech. In your comment you claimed hate is hate, that is no different than stating it will rain today or it will not rain today, neither is enlightening.
Do you deny that the infamous "Torch March" was not hate on display?
To use the concept of a "moral compass" when discussing hate seems unseemly. Like porn, you know it when you see it. I saw it, and so did more than half of our countrymen on display at Charlottesville . In that specific case, those who defend the marchers are part of the problem.
if you think for a moment the *hate* was only held to one side, you are part of the problem.
not much else i can tell you.
Actually that's clear, but what you describe as hate by the legitimate protesters is misguided. The vast majority of those who march are peaceful, and that includes the protests From MLK as Selma to those protests against the Vietnam War and the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. Every peaceful protest movement attracts both anarchists and agent provocateurs.
Bullshit. The Vietnam protestors threw bricks at police and the National Guard. They also occupied buildings on campus. You're lumping your thugs and criminals in with decent people who did protest non-violently.
while true - i also saw (keep in mind i was 5 in 1970) a bunch of "hippies" more or less screaming things like DOWN WITH THE MAN and WE WANT PEACE AND WE'LL KICK YOUR ASS TO GET IT.you pointed it out in a very specific scenario designed to purely get the reply you are fishing for.if you couldn't understand what i was saying, more detail wouldn't help. likely only sidetrack you somewhere else away from the topic.
hate is hate. using your own moral compass as to what justifies hate it pretty pointless.
In short, you can't respond to my question. I pointed out "hate" in terms of racism and its use by Trump in his stump speech. In your comment you claimed hate is hate, that is no different than stating it will rain today or it will not rain today, neither is enlightening.
Do you deny that the infamous "Torch March" was not hate on display?
To use the concept of a "moral compass" when discussing hate seems unseemly. Like porn, you know it when you see it. I saw it, and so did more than half of our countrymen on display at Charlottesville . In that specific case, those who defend the marchers are part of the problem.
if you think for a moment the *hate* was only held to one side, you are part of the problem.
not much else i can tell you.
Actually that's clear, but what you describe as hate by the legitimate protesters is misguided. The vast majority of those who march are peaceful, and that includes the protests From MLK as Selma to those protests against the Vietnam War and the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. Every peaceful protest movement attracts both anarchists and agent provocateurs.
Bullshit. The Vietnam protestors threw bricks at police and the National Guard. They also occupied buildings on campus. You're lumping your thugs and criminals in with decent people who did protest non-violently.
How old are you. I was at CAL from the fall of 1965 - fall of 1967; and the spring of 1970 until I graduated in 1971; then I attended San Francisco St. U. and in both of those experiences I saw mostly peaceful protesters, and when the police (especially the Berkeley PD) began to use tear gas to break up the demonstrations; only then did a few toss them back at the police, most moved on or stood bye and watched. Of course there were agent provocateurs and street thugs who engaged in violent behavior, something which occurs in all urban crowds, even celebrations of a professional or U. team victory.
In other words, violent protesters threw rocks, bottles and bricks at the police.you pointed it out in a very specific scenario designed to purely get the reply you are fishing for.if you couldn't understand what i was saying, more detail wouldn't help. likely only sidetrack you somewhere else away from the topic.
hate is hate. using your own moral compass as to what justifies hate it pretty pointless.
In short, you can't respond to my question. I pointed out "hate" in terms of racism and its use by Trump in his stump speech. In your comment you claimed hate is hate, that is no different than stating it will rain today or it will not rain today, neither is enlightening.
Do you deny that the infamous "Torch March" was not hate on display?
To use the concept of a "moral compass" when discussing hate seems unseemly. Like porn, you know it when you see it. I saw it, and so did more than half of our countrymen on display at Charlottesville . In that specific case, those who defend the marchers are part of the problem.
if you think for a moment the *hate* was only held to one side, you are part of the problem.
not much else i can tell you.
Actually that's clear, but what you describe as hate by the legitimate protesters is misguided. The vast majority of those who march are peaceful, and that includes the protests From MLK as Selma to those protests against the Vietnam War and the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. Every peaceful protest movement attracts both anarchists and agent provocateurs.
Bullshit. The Vietnam protestors threw bricks at police and the National Guard. They also occupied buildings on campus. You're lumping your thugs and criminals in with decent people who did protest non-violently.
How old are you?
I was at CAL from the fall of 1965 - fall of 1967; and the spring of 1970 until I graduated in 1971; then I attended San Francisco St. U. and in both of those experiences I saw mostly peaceful protesters, and when the police (especially the Berkeley PD) began to use tear gas to break up the demonstrations; only then did a few toss them back at the police, most moved on or stood bye and watched. Of course there were agent provocateurs and street thugs who engaged in violent behavior, something which occurs in all urban crowds, even celebrations of a professional or U. team victory.
Postscript: You don't have any personal experience, obvious by your ignorance.
you pointed it out in a very specific scenario designed to purely get the reply you are fishing for.if you couldn't understand what i was saying, more detail wouldn't help. likely only sidetrack you somewhere else away from the topic.
hate is hate. using your own moral compass as to what justifies hate it pretty pointless.
In short, you can't respond to my question. I pointed out "hate" in terms of racism and its use by Trump in his stump speech. In your comment you claimed hate is hate, that is no different than stating it will rain today or it will not rain today, neither is enlightening.
Do you deny that the infamous "Torch March" was not hate on display?
To use the concept of a "moral compass" when discussing hate seems unseemly. Like porn, you know it when you see it. I saw it, and so did more than half of our countrymen on display at Charlottesville . In that specific case, those who defend the marchers are part of the problem.
if you think for a moment the *hate* was only held to one side, you are part of the problem.
not much else i can tell you.
Actually that's clear, but what you describe as hate by the legitimate protesters is misguided. The vast majority of those who march are peaceful, and that includes the protests From MLK as Selma to those protests against the Vietnam War and the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. Every peaceful protest movement attracts both anarchists and agent provocateurs.
Bullshit. The Vietnam protestors threw bricks at police and the National Guard. They also occupied buildings on campus. You're lumping your thugs and criminals in with decent people who did protest non-violently.
How old are you?
I was at CAL from the fall of 1965 - fall of 1967; and the spring of 1970 until I graduated in 1971; then I attended San Francisco St. U. and in both of those experiences I saw mostly peaceful protesters, and when the police (especially the Berkeley PD) began to use tear gas to break up the demonstrations; only then did a few toss them back at the police, most moved on or stood bye and watched. Of course there were agent provocateurs and street thugs who engaged in violent behavior, something which occurs in all urban crowds, even celebrations of a professional or U. team victory.
Postscript: You don't have any personal experience, obvious by your ignorance.
you pointed it out in a very specific scenario designed to purely get the reply you are fishing for.In short, you can't respond to my question. I pointed out "hate" in terms of racism and its use by Trump in his stump speech. In your comment you claimed hate is hate, that is no different than stating it will rain today or it will not rain today, neither is enlightening.
Do you deny that the infamous "Torch March" was not hate on display?
To use the concept of a "moral compass" when discussing hate seems unseemly. Like porn, you know it when you see it. I saw it, and so did more than half of our countrymen on display at Charlottesville . In that specific case, those who defend the marchers are part of the problem.
if you think for a moment the *hate* was only held to one side, you are part of the problem.
not much else i can tell you.
Actually that's clear, but what you describe as hate by the legitimate protesters is misguided. The vast majority of those who march are peaceful, and that includes the protests From MLK as Selma to those protests against the Vietnam War and the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. Every peaceful protest movement attracts both anarchists and agent provocateurs.
Bullshit. The Vietnam protestors threw bricks at police and the National Guard. They also occupied buildings on campus. You're lumping your thugs and criminals in with decent people who did protest non-violently.
How old are you?
I was at CAL from the fall of 1965 - fall of 1967; and the spring of 1970 until I graduated in 1971; then I attended San Francisco St. U. and in both of those experiences I saw mostly peaceful protesters, and when the police (especially the Berkeley PD) began to use tear gas to break up the demonstrations; only then did a few toss them back at the police, most moved on or stood bye and watched. Of course there were agent provocateurs and street thugs who engaged in violent behavior, something which occurs in all urban crowds, even celebrations of a professional or U. team victory.
Postscript: You don't have any personal experience, obvious by your ignorance.
The upheaval that enveloped the northeastern Ohio campus actually began three days earlier, in downtown Kent. Stirred to action by President Nixon’s expansion of U.S. military operations in Cambodia, a roving mob of earnest antiwar activists, hard-core radicals, curious students and others smashed 50 bank and store windows, looted a jewelry store and hurled bricks and bottles at police.
Four officers suffered injuries, and the mayor declared a civil emergency. Only tear gas dispersed the mob.
An exhaustive review later concluded that this unrest on the streets — the worst in Kent’s history — was “not an organized riot or a planned protest.”
But the FBI’s investigation swiftly uncovered reliable evidence that suggested otherwise. Among the strongest was a pre-dawn conversation — never before reported — between two unnamed men overheard inside a campus lounge later that night. Their discussion was witnessed by the girlfriend of a Kent State student and conveyed up the FBI chain of command 15 days later.
“We did it,” one man exulted, according to the inquiry. “We got the riot started.”
The second man expressed disappointment at being excluded from the riot’s planning. “Wait until tomorrow night,”
the leader replied excitedly. “We just got the word. We’re going to burn the ROTC building.”
This was 20 hours before the ROTC headquarters on the Kent State campus, an old wooden frame building, was, in fact, burned to the ground.
“What about the flare?” the second man asked before the leader spotted the coed listening to them and abruptly ended the conversation. Dozens of witnesses later told the FBI they saw a flare used to ignite the blaze.
Now largely forgotten, the torching of the ROTC building was the true precursor to the killings at Kent State because it triggered the deployment of the National Guard to the fevered campus.
That deployment climaxed in bloodshed on the afternoon of May 4, 1970, with the guardsmen, clad in gas masks and confronted by angry, rock-throwing students, firing their M-1 rifles 67 times in 13 seconds, killing Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder.
A report submitted to Attorney General John Mitchell in June 1970 stated “there was no sniper” who could have fired at the guardsmen before the killings.
Numerous witnesses corroborated this.
A female freshman provided the FBI with a sworn statement that “there was no shot before [the guardsmen’s] volley, and there were no warning shots fired.” The Justice Department’s internal review cited statements by six guardsmen who “pointedly” told the FBI that their lives were not in danger and that “it was not a shooting situation.”
Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.
I don't notice anyone shutting your fat yap here. All you people do is whine.Especially in the Charlottesville turmoil, it has become routine for liberal city fathers to not permit marches, rallies protests, or other forms of conservative free speech. Alleged fear of violence is being used as the excuse. Nobody (other tahl leftist lunatics) wants violence, especially deaths like Heather Myers, but we all (and our 1st amendment right) is being attacked.
Conservatives, (both rational and radical), are being denied access to public speaking events. Recently, the University of California at Berkeley canceled conservative commentator Ann Coulter’s April 27 speech, amid threats of violence. In February, UC Berkeley also canceled a campus event featuring conservative Milo Yiannopoulos, after protesters threw rocks, broke windows, and set fires outside the school’s student union building to protest his appearance.
Some liberals have openly lent support to this speech stifling. Richard Cohen of Southern Poverty Law Center said that students and universities “should not give racists an audience.” That within the context of his definition of “racists”.
In other eyebrow raising events, Michael Savage has been banned from an entire, very liberal country (England). And in San Francisco, the pro-Trump group Patriot Prayer canceled the “Freedom Rally,” they had planned, due to excpected violence from counterprotesters, and a likely lack of police protection (FOR THEM). Organizers of the “Freedom Rally,” blamed the cancellation of their event on public officials, who they say have falsely portrayed them as violent right-wing extremists intent on bringing hate to San Francisco. Speaking with reporters Saturday afternoon, Joey Gibson, founder of Patriot Prayer, also blamed “antifa,” referring to anti-fascist groups, and BAMN, or By Any Means Necessary, a left-wing group. He said the groups followed them throughout the day and kept them from holding events.
But is it really violence that these pious politicians are worried about ? Or is it the truth they fear ? >> …..and that conservatives could deprogram millions of brainwashed and wrongheaded people ?
There is really no reason to fear violence in the street, on college campuses, or anywhere else. Whatever troublemaker loons begin to cause can be controlled and stopped quickly and effectively, by police, private security, state police, and National Guard if necessary. At worst, federal troops can stop civil disturbances, but rarely would that be necessary.
The only reason violence has been occurring in US streets (Chicago, San Jose, Ferguson, Baltimore, New York, Charlottesville) is because Democrat mayors have been stopping their police from taking action . As in these cities, in Tampa, FL, protestors blocked traffic in a downtown street for about 2 hours. Police made no arrests. Took no action. Why ? Democrat mayor in political sympathy with the traffic blockers (AKA “terrorists”), could be the only reason. No way, this was the decision of police, on their own. It is politics gone wild (and crazy) that is responsible for violence BEING PERMITTED, and coming from mayors’ offices.
Simple solution ? Don’t permit violence. Crack down on it, and hard. When the leftist, anarchist nuts know they will be arrested, and cannot stop free speech of conservatives (or anyone), their whole regimen will cease.
They only show up and cause violence (in cities with Democrat mayors) when they know that mayor will have police stand down, and allow them to block traffic, attack protesters, vandalize monuments or other public items, shout down speakers, etc.
Threat of violence ? Bull! Don’t you believe that. That is a red herring. Violence can easily be stopped (or prevented entirely) as long as there is a WILL to stop it. America’s problem right now is rogue mayors who allow it, by handcuffing their own police, and occasionally Democrat governors (ex. Jay Nixon - Missouri), who called out the National Guard, in response to the Ferguson rioting, and then moved them far away from the violence/rioting.
Pro-Trump group cancels San Francisco rally as hundreds of counterprotesters march on the streets
College students testify: Free speech under assault on campuses
while true - i also saw (keep in mind i was 5 in 1970) a bunch of "hippies" more or less screaming things like DOWN WITH THE MAN and WE WANT PEACE AND WE'LL KICK YOUR ASS TO GET IT.you pointed it out in a very specific scenario designed to purely get the reply you are fishing for.In short, you can't respond to my question. I pointed out "hate" in terms of racism and its use by Trump in his stump speech. In your comment you claimed hate is hate, that is no different than stating it will rain today or it will not rain today, neither is enlightening.
Do you deny that the infamous "Torch March" was not hate on display?
To use the concept of a "moral compass" when discussing hate seems unseemly. Like porn, you know it when you see it. I saw it, and so did more than half of our countrymen on display at Charlottesville . In that specific case, those who defend the marchers are part of the problem.
if you think for a moment the *hate* was only held to one side, you are part of the problem.
not much else i can tell you.
Actually that's clear, but what you describe as hate by the legitimate protesters is misguided. The vast majority of those who march are peaceful, and that includes the protests From MLK as Selma to those protests against the Vietnam War and the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. Every peaceful protest movement attracts both anarchists and agent provocateurs.
Bullshit. The Vietnam protestors threw bricks at police and the National Guard. They also occupied buildings on campus. You're lumping your thugs and criminals in with decent people who did protest non-violently.
How old are you. I was at CAL from the fall of 1965 - fall of 1967; and the spring of 1970 until I graduated in 1971; then I attended San Francisco St. U. and in both of those experiences I saw mostly peaceful protesters, and when the police (especially the Berkeley PD) began to use tear gas to break up the demonstrations; only then did a few toss them back at the police, most moved on or stood bye and watched. Of course there were agent provocateurs and street thugs who engaged in violent behavior, something which occurs in all urban crowds, even celebrations of a professional or U. team victory.
at 5 years old that thought process made no sense to me. at 52, it still doesn't.
i also don't recall too many marches down main streets saying they were going to kill cops and fry them like bacon. which side does this bullshit belong to?
the left? alt-left? my guess would be no one from the left would claim these to be "their" mindset. yet these self-same people usually have zero issue finding a white supremacist and making them the poster boy for the right.
is that fair? accurate? or just emotionally correct to whoever is doing it?
the left seems to have a habit to want violence to those not them, then blame "them" for making them do it. then when someone hits back, go SEE I TOLD YOU!
and that is a problem. usually a problem with people not yet into adulthood, but sometimes the inner child carries well into adult life in these situations.
that's kinda my point. not everything is one or the other. not all "hippies" are out kicking ass for peace. not all hippies are "anti-fa".while true - i also saw (keep in mind i was 5 in 1970) a bunch of "hippies" more or less screaming things like DOWN WITH THE MAN and WE WANT PEACE AND WE'LL KICK YOUR ASS TO GET IT.you pointed it out in a very specific scenario designed to purely get the reply you are fishing for.
if you think for a moment the *hate* was only held to one side, you are part of the problem.
not much else i can tell you.
Actually that's clear, but what you describe as hate by the legitimate protesters is misguided. The vast majority of those who march are peaceful, and that includes the protests From MLK as Selma to those protests against the Vietnam War and the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. Every peaceful protest movement attracts both anarchists and agent provocateurs.
Bullshit. The Vietnam protestors threw bricks at police and the National Guard. They also occupied buildings on campus. You're lumping your thugs and criminals in with decent people who did protest non-violently.
How old are you. I was at CAL from the fall of 1965 - fall of 1967; and the spring of 1970 until I graduated in 1971; then I attended San Francisco St. U. and in both of those experiences I saw mostly peaceful protesters, and when the police (especially the Berkeley PD) began to use tear gas to break up the demonstrations; only then did a few toss them back at the police, most moved on or stood bye and watched. Of course there were agent provocateurs and street thugs who engaged in violent behavior, something which occurs in all urban crowds, even celebrations of a professional or U. team victory.
at 5 years old that thought process made no sense to me. at 52, it still doesn't.
i also don't recall too many marches down main streets saying they were going to kill cops and fry them like bacon. which side does this bullshit belong to?
the left? alt-left? my guess would be no one from the left would claim these to be "their" mindset. yet these self-same people usually have zero issue finding a white supremacist and making them the poster boy for the right.
is that fair? accurate? or just emotionally correct to whoever is doing it?
the left seems to have a habit to want violence to those not them, then blame "them" for making them do it. then when someone hits back, go SEE I TOLD YOU!
and that is a problem. usually a problem with people not yet into adulthood, but sometimes the inner child carries well into adult life in these situations.
I grew up in the Sunset Dist of San Francisco, not far from the Haight-Ashbury (in fact as a child I attend the Boys Club on Page Street, one block to the north of Haight st. and a few blocks from Hippie Hill in GG Park).
During the Summer of Love (1968) I was on active duty, but there were no violent protests and the Peace Symbol (the index and middle finger spread) was a greeting even I received when on leave with my military short haircut.
Remember, Charles Manson and his tribe probably passed for hippies, and they would not have fit in with those who flocked to The City in the late 1960's; listen to the music which brought them to The Fillmore and The Haight and its all about love and peace.
