If liberals support free speech, why was an army needed...

[Uncensored2008]

It wasn't because of liberals, but those like blackFlag virulently opposed to liberal ideals.

Yes, it was because of the Communist democrats.

Which ones? The social democrats, christian democrats, the govt. of North Korea is a republic/communist state...There are several more groups that could fall into that category also..

So Che was a Fabian socialist, I never knew that...

Can't find a democrat who doesn't have his picture on their clothes or walls...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then you have denounced them and all they stand for?

Denounced and degraded..

Thank you so much. I do hope there are many more of you. Because these anarchists are destroying our country

What sucks is there are anarchist on both ends of the spectrum.. I never understood why people want to regressively destroy society..These people are in the position they are today because of the society created by a collective of people who worked to progress the conditions of existence..I doubt they would be happy on their own at the mercy of nature and a system that can't help their existence...

I agree with most of this. Where we part ways is that you think there are anarchists on the right side. I am not seeing it I think the difference between us and them is very simple. It is a personality flaw on their part. They give themselves permission to punch people, to riot, to start fires, they also like the attention and many rioters get paid. The right likes to stay within the law. I will defend myself. But I will never throw the first punch. I cannot imagine acting like those people. It is a blight on our society

Many libertarians are anarchist, there is one on the forum that I know of..

Minarchist is one who believes in the least amount of government possible. If one supports a national defense and a system of courts, one is not an anarchist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What sucks is there are anarchist on both ends of the spectrum.. I never understood why people want to regressively destroy society..These people are in the position they are today because of the society created by a collective of people who worked to progress the conditions of existence..I doubt they would be happy on their own at the mercy of nature and a system that can't help their existence...

I agree with most of this. Where we part ways is that you think there are anarchists on the right side. I am not seeing it I think the difference between us and them is very simple. It is a personality flaw on their part. They give themselves permission to punch people, to riot, to start fires, they also like the attention and many rioters get paid. The right likes to stay within the law. I will defend myself. But I will never throw the first punch. I cannot imagine acting like those people. It is a blight on our society

Many libertarians are anarchist, there is one on the forum that I know of..

I honestly never consider libertarians to be enough on the right to technically be right. They are more left because of that

I think being a liberterian sort of means accepting the view that, your right to be you includes my right to be free from you. I think supposedly free people should be able to ingest anything they want. I think they should be able to gamble. I believe they should be able to pay for sex. Why do we waste resources prosecuting people for paying for a blowjob? LOL.

What sucks is there are anarchist on both ends of the spectrum.. I never understood why people want to regressively destroy society..These people are in the position they are today because of the society created by a collective of people who worked to progress the conditions of existence..I doubt they would be happy on their own at the mercy of nature and a system that can't help their existence...

I agree with most of this. Where we part ways is that you think there are anarchists on the right side. I am not seeing it I think the difference between us and them is very simple. It is a personality flaw on their part. They give themselves permission to punch people, to riot, to start fires, they also like the attention and many rioters get paid. The right likes to stay within the law. I will defend myself. But I will never throw the first punch. I cannot imagine acting like those people. It is a blight on our society

Many libertarians are anarchist, there is one on the forum that I know of..

I honestly never consider libertarians to be enough on the right to technically be right. They are more left because of that

I think being a liberterian sort of means accepting the view that, your right to be you includes my right to be free from you. I think supposedly free people should be able to ingest anything they want. I think they should be able to gamble. I believe they should be able to pay for sex. Why do we waste resources prosecuting people for paying for a blowjob? LOL.

I would not like it very much if my daughter looked at me and said, "mommy, I want to become a hooker when I grow up". As a woman I would be horrified, as a mom, I would be off the charts.

This is where the libertarians lose, and that is the difference between them and the alt right. The alt right wants their people to clean up their lives and get to becoming good citizens, and have families

When a child is a child, it is the responsibility of the parent to raise the child. If a child wants to be a whore, a good parent explains why being a democrat is wrong and leads to a life of misery.

BUT, if a grown woman wants to sell sex for money, it simply is not the business of others. Putting her in jail for controlling her own body is immoral. As long as she harms no one else, she has the right, endowed by nature or god to do as she sees fit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, the Regressives are just a lot louder and nastier and more narcissistic.

There are still traditional, curious, decent, America-loving liberals out there. They're just going about their lives.
.

Yes there are Mac, but they call us Libertarians now.The democrats are a Marxist/Fascist party.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Because Shapiro went to Berkeley for no other reason than how liberal the locals are, intending to insult them, their values and their beliefs for the sake of publicity.

Remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism..........hilly tol me so

 

[John Shaw]

I heard Shapiro on Steele and Ungar yesterday commenting on his visit. He is undoubtedly several orders of magnitude more intelligent than the vast majority of posters on here, and at least a fair bit more intelligent than myself. Despite knowing little about him, I developed a respect for him just from listening to that 30 minute interview. If you can find it, I seriously recommend listening. He's truly insightful and fair in his treatment of both sides.

 

[TheDude]

The old liberal are nearly dead. The new liberal are fascists in action, as they declare their opponents as fascists.

 

[GreenBean]

Berkeley protest erupts after Donald Trump wins presidency | The Daily Californian

Trump won the presidency "for no other reason than how liberal the locals are, intending to insult them, their values and their beliefs for the sake of publicity."

Dude - I'm missing your point here. What exactly are you trying to say ?

 

[defcon4]

Berkeley protest erupts after Donald Trump wins presidency | The Daily Californian

Trump won the presidency "for no other reason than how liberal the locals are, intending to insult them, their values and their beliefs for the sake of publicity."

Dude - I'm missing your point here. What exactly are you trying to say ?

Because Shapiro went to Berkeley for no other reason than how liberal the locals are, intending to insult them, their values and their beliefs for the sake of publicity.

My reference was to this idiotic post by BlackFag

 

[GreenBean]

The old liberal are nearly dead. The new liberal are fascists in action, as they declare their opponents as fascists.

Who said liberals support free speech?

They do if they are real liberals, if not, then there is no liberalism at play...

You are using the literal translation of Liberal. The political definition of a Liberal is an oxymoron. They are people that simply do no even closely resemble the moniker they have chosen

 

[GreenBean]

Berkeley protest erupts after Donald Trump wins presidency | The Daily Californian

Trump won the presidency "for no other reason than how liberal the locals are, intending to insult them, their values and their beliefs for the sake of publicity."

Dude - I'm missing your point here. What exactly are you trying to say ?

Because Shapiro went to Berkeley for no other reason than how liberal the locals are, intending to insult them, their values and their beliefs for the sake of publicity.

My reference was to this idiotic post by BlackFag

Thnx.

 

[Tilly]

Because Shapiro went to Berkeley for no other reason than how liberal the locals are, intending to insult them, their values and their beliefs for the sake of publicity.

Even if that were true, that's still free speech right?
And even if that's true, why can't the snowflakes just suck it up? It's only words. Such cry bullies.

 

[Tilly]

Who said liberals support free speech?

They do if they are real liberals, if not, then there is no liberalism at play...

Bullshit. Prominent liberals have been virtually mute regarding the violence of BlM, antifa and occupy. They're outspoken when it comes to white nationalists, but mute when they're on their side. Their silence is their consent.

They may call themselves liberals, but there isn't anything liberal about them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because Shapiro went to Berkeley for no other reason than how liberal the locals are, intending to insult them, their values and their beliefs for the sake of publicity.

Even if that were true, that's still free speech right?
And even if that's true, why can't the snowflakes just suck it up? It's only words. Such cry bullies.

Conservatives hear themselves and their beliefs and values attacked on every side, virtually every day of their lives, from every imaginable venue. We're told constantly to just "ignore it" or "avoid it" or "change the channel". But when leftists hear the unspeakable - the unavoidable fact that people disagree with them, and dare to say so out loud - it's compared to a violent assault, being herded into concentration camps with gas chambers, any and everything that justifies, in their minds, physical attacks and violence to "defend" them against the horror of less-than-universal approbation.

 

[BlindBoo]

Still you can't' be a liberal and do illiberal things.

Just because some pseudo-conservative calls them liberals certainly doesn't make it so.

But it will sell well in pseudo-connned circles.

For Ben and Ann and Milo, it's all about the money.

 

[Dr Grump]

Who said liberals support free speech?

Who said conservatives do?

 

[Dr Grump]

Conservatives hear themselves and their beliefs and values attacked on every side, virtually every day of their lives, from every imaginable venue. We're told constantly to just "ignore it" or "avoid it" or "change the channel". But when leftists hear the unspeakable - the unavoidable fact that people disagree with them, and dare to say so out loud - it's compared to a violent assault, being herded into concentration camps with gas chambers, any and everything that justifies, in their minds, physical attacks and violence to "defend" them against the horror of less-than-universal approbation.

Cry me a river....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Who said liberals support free speech?

Who said conservatives do?

Nobody, but that's not the subject of the thread, is it? Furthermore, I don't see conservatives out there starting riots and committing acts of vandalism in order to stop a left wing speaker from having an assembly on a college campus. That is strictly within your realm, but I'm sure you'll come up with some convoluted way to justify it.

 

[Aletheia4u]

...to protect Ben Shapiro and conservatives at Berkley?

It is because Hillary doesn't care about political parties, and or if they are Libs or Conservatives.

 

[Dr Grump]

Nobody, but that's not the subject of the thread, is it? Furthermore, I don't see conservatives out there starting riots and committing acts of vandalism in order to stop a left wing speaker from having an assembly on a college campus. That is strictly within your realm, but I'm sure you'll come up with some convoluted way to justify it.

You won't find me condoning violence. Conservatives are hardly innocent in that regard.