Second Civil War Turning Violent?

[pwjohn]

Second Civil War Turning Violent?

I certainly hope so. Let's get this thing started.

What are you waiting for?

 

[Iceweasel]

What are you waiting for?

Probably you. You're a member of the disgruntled party, correct? The right is always willing to yield to democracy.

 

[ricechickie]

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.

In order to understand why more violence may be coming, it is essential to understand that left-wing mobs are almost never stopped, arrested or punished. Colleges do nothing to stop them, and civil authorities do nothing to stop them on campuses or anywhere else. Police are reduced to spectators as they watch left-wing gangs loot stores, smash business and car windows, and even take over state capitals (as in Madison, Wisconsin).

It's beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.

Consequently, given the abdication by all these authorities of their role to protect the public, some members of the public will inevitably decide that they will protect themselves and others.

This ability of the left to get away with violence is one of the gravest threats to American society in its modern history. Since the Civil War, I can think of only two comparable eruptions of mob violence that authorities allowed. One was when white mobs lynched blacks. The other was the rioting by blacks, such as the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago, and the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland.

Today, authorities in what we once proudly proclaimed the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" are intimidated to the point of paralysis.

And exactly what do they fear? Not violence -- they have made peace with left-wing violence. What they fear is the left-wing media. If the Black Lives Matter movement is forcefully prevented from blocking tens of thousands of cars from entering or leaving San Francisco, the police and local authorities will be labeled racist by black leaders, a smear that will then be echoed by The New York Times and rest of the left-wing media.

Likewise, if a college president requests enough police to come to a college campus so that a Heather Mac Donald, a Charles Murray or an Ann Coulter can deliver a lecture, some of the student-gangsters engaged in violence might be injured -- and that college president will then be pilloried by the mainstream media.

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

 

[Iceweasel]

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

I'm always amused when liberals try to think. They can't. Shouting down someone and/or blocking their freedom to travel is a violation of their rights. Liberals think just they have rights.

 

[Correll]

Bernie's Bolsheviks and Trump's Brown Shirts have been rioting against each other.

But these two fringe groups on the far extremes of the left and right are not indicative of the Nation as a whole.

As a whole the Nation can still agree to disagree and go with the majority rule at least for the next 2 years.

No worries then.

The Far Left has been attacking anyone that dissents from the liberal agenda.

YOur smearing of the good people who have A. been attacked, and B, are finally fighting back, reveals you to be a vile person.

 

[ricechickie]

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

I'm always amused when liberals try to think. They can't. Shouting down someone and/or blocking their freedom to travel is a violation of their rights. Liberals think just they have rights.

Shouting down is not violence. Shutting down streets is still considered non-violent resistance. Where is the "freedom to travel" clause in the Constitution?

 

[Correll]

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.

In order to understand why more violence may be coming, it is essential to understand that left-wing mobs are almost never stopped, arrested or punished. Colleges do nothing to stop them, and civil authorities do nothing to stop them on campuses or anywhere else. Police are reduced to spectators as they watch left-wing gangs loot stores, smash business and car windows, and even take over state capitals (as in Madison, Wisconsin).

It's beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.

Consequently, given the abdication by all these authorities of their role to protect the public, some members of the public will inevitably decide that they will protect themselves and others.

This ability of the left to get away with violence is one of the gravest threats to American society in its modern history. Since the Civil War, I can think of only two comparable eruptions of mob violence that authorities allowed. One was when white mobs lynched blacks. The other was the rioting by blacks, such as the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago, and the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland.

Today, authorities in what we once proudly proclaimed the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" are intimidated to the point of paralysis.

And exactly what do they fear? Not violence -- they have made peace with left-wing violence. What they fear is the left-wing media. If the Black Lives Matter movement is forcefully prevented from blocking tens of thousands of cars from entering or leaving San Francisco, the police and local authorities will be labeled racist by black leaders, a smear that will then be echoed by The New York Times and rest of the left-wing media.

Likewise, if a college president requests enough police to come to a college campus so that a Heather Mac Donald, a Charles Murray or an Ann Coulter can deliver a lecture, some of the student-gangsters engaged in violence might be injured -- and that college president will then be pilloried by the mainstream media.

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

 

[ricechickie]

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.

In order to understand why more violence may be coming, it is essential to understand that left-wing mobs are almost never stopped, arrested or punished. Colleges do nothing to stop them, and civil authorities do nothing to stop them on campuses or anywhere else. Police are reduced to spectators as they watch left-wing gangs loot stores, smash business and car windows, and even take over state capitals (as in Madison, Wisconsin).

It's beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.

Consequently, given the abdication by all these authorities of their role to protect the public, some members of the public will inevitably decide that they will protect themselves and others.

This ability of the left to get away with violence is one of the gravest threats to American society in its modern history. Since the Civil War, I can think of only two comparable eruptions of mob violence that authorities allowed. One was when white mobs lynched blacks. The other was the rioting by blacks, such as the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago, and the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland.

Today, authorities in what we once proudly proclaimed the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" are intimidated to the point of paralysis.

And exactly what do they fear? Not violence -- they have made peace with left-wing violence. What they fear is the left-wing media. If the Black Lives Matter movement is forcefully prevented from blocking tens of thousands of cars from entering or leaving San Francisco, the police and local authorities will be labeled racist by black leaders, a smear that will then be echoed by The New York Times and rest of the left-wing media.

Likewise, if a college president requests enough police to come to a college campus so that a Heather Mac Donald, a Charles Murray or an Ann Coulter can deliver a lecture, some of the student-gangsters engaged in violence might be injured -- and that college president will then be pilloried by the mainstream media.

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

View attachment 125104


View attachment 125105

Yes, those show actual acts of violence. But to lump in "blocking streets" and "shouting down speakers" with those acts of violence is ludicrous.

Face it, you don't like protest.

 

[Correll]

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.

In order to understand why more violence may be coming, it is essential to understand that left-wing mobs are almost never stopped, arrested or punished. Colleges do nothing to stop them, and civil authorities do nothing to stop them on campuses or anywhere else. Police are reduced to spectators as they watch left-wing gangs loot stores, smash business and car windows, and even take over state capitals (as in Madison, Wisconsin).

It's beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.

Consequently, given the abdication by all these authorities of their role to protect the public, some members of the public will inevitably decide that they will protect themselves and others.

This ability of the left to get away with violence is one of the gravest threats to American society in its modern history. Since the Civil War, I can think of only two comparable eruptions of mob violence that authorities allowed. One was when white mobs lynched blacks. The other was the rioting by blacks, such as the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago, and the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland.

Today, authorities in what we once proudly proclaimed the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" are intimidated to the point of paralysis.

And exactly what do they fear? Not violence -- they have made peace with left-wing violence. What they fear is the left-wing media. If the Black Lives Matter movement is forcefully prevented from blocking tens of thousands of cars from entering or leaving San Francisco, the police and local authorities will be labeled racist by black leaders, a smear that will then be echoed by The New York Times and rest of the left-wing media.

Likewise, if a college president requests enough police to come to a college campus so that a Heather Mac Donald, a Charles Murray or an Ann Coulter can deliver a lecture, some of the student-gangsters engaged in violence might be injured -- and that college president will then be pilloried by the mainstream media.

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

View attachment 125104


View attachment 125105

Yes, those show actual acts of violence. But to lump in "blocking streets" and "shouting down speakers" with those acts of violence is ludicrous.

Face it, you don't like protest.

I don't mind protests.

Every time someone tries to drive around or edge though a blocked street, the mob descends on the car. There is a strong implied threat to the people that are prevented from moving on.

That isn't "speech".


And the "shouted down"?

That isn't speech. That's preventing some one else from speaking. And there is often an implied threat of violence.

And those riots and attacks? Generally the local lib mayors or college administrators, are there, refusing to do their jobs and maintain order and safety.


This is on you and yours.

 

[ricechickie]

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.

In order to understand why more violence may be coming, it is essential to understand that left-wing mobs are almost never stopped, arrested or punished. Colleges do nothing to stop them, and civil authorities do nothing to stop them on campuses or anywhere else. Police are reduced to spectators as they watch left-wing gangs loot stores, smash business and car windows, and even take over state capitals (as in Madison, Wisconsin).

It's beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.

Consequently, given the abdication by all these authorities of their role to protect the public, some members of the public will inevitably decide that they will protect themselves and others.

This ability of the left to get away with violence is one of the gravest threats to American society in its modern history. Since the Civil War, I can think of only two comparable eruptions of mob violence that authorities allowed. One was when white mobs lynched blacks. The other was the rioting by blacks, such as the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago, and the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland.

Today, authorities in what we once proudly proclaimed the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" are intimidated to the point of paralysis.

And exactly what do they fear? Not violence -- they have made peace with left-wing violence. What they fear is the left-wing media. If the Black Lives Matter movement is forcefully prevented from blocking tens of thousands of cars from entering or leaving San Francisco, the police and local authorities will be labeled racist by black leaders, a smear that will then be echoed by The New York Times and rest of the left-wing media.

Likewise, if a college president requests enough police to come to a college campus so that a Heather Mac Donald, a Charles Murray or an Ann Coulter can deliver a lecture, some of the student-gangsters engaged in violence might be injured -- and that college president will then be pilloried by the mainstream media.

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

View attachment 125104


View attachment 125105

Yes, those show actual acts of violence. But to lump in "blocking streets" and "shouting down speakers" with those acts of violence is ludicrous.

Face it, you don't like protest.

I don't mind protests.

Every time someone tries to drive around or edge though a blocked street, the mob descends on the car. There is a strong implied threat to the people that are prevented from moving on.

That isn't "speech".


And the "shouted down"?

That isn't speech. That's preventing some one else from speaking. And there is often an implied threat of violence.

And those riots and attacks? Generally the local lib mayors or college administrators, are there, refusing to do their jobs and maintain order and safety.


This is on you and yours.

"Implied threat"? Get thee to a safe space. Democracy is about confrontation.

 

[Mac1958]

The only reason a person would do anything to stop someone else from speaking or being heard, is that they are afraid of what will be said.

We can choose to allow cowardice to have priority over our most important right, or we can choose not to.

If you're afraid of what someone is going to say, maybe you should do a better job of presenting your OWN case.
.

 

[ricechickie]

The only reason a person would do anything to stop someone else from speaking or being heard, is that they are afraid of what will be said.

We can choose to allow cowardice to have priority over our most important right, or we can choose not to.

If you're afraid of what someone is going to say, maybe you should do a better job of presenting your OWN case.
.

Agreed. But being louder is not "violence."

 

[Iceweasel]

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

I'm always amused when liberals try to think. They can't. Shouting down someone and/or blocking their freedom to travel is a violation of their rights. Liberals think just they have rights.

Shouting down is not violence. Shutting down streets is still considered non-violent resistance. Where is the "freedom to travel" clause in the Constitution?

I didn't say it was an act of violence but blocking paths is restraining someone. What happens if they try to push through?

The Privileges and Immunities clause gives people the right to move freely across state lines. How do you interpret that to mean you can lawfully stop them where your want? You may be one of those that can learn only the hard way.

 

[ricechickie]

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

I'm always amused when liberals try to think. They can't. Shouting down someone and/or blocking their freedom to travel is a violation of their rights. Liberals think just they have rights.

Shouting down is not violence. Shutting down streets is still considered non-violent resistance. Where is the "freedom to travel" clause in the Constitution?

I didn't say it was an act of violence but blocking paths is restraining someone. What happens if they try to push through?

The Privileges and Immunities clause gives people the right to move freely across state lines. How do you interpret that to mean you can lawfully stop them where your want? You may be one of those that can learn only the hard way.

Unless you block them in on all sides, you're not restraining someone.

Most of my lessons are hard ones. That's why I know that a blocked road isn't a violent act. I know that shouting isn't "threat," implied or otherwise.

 

[Mac1958]

The only reason a person would do anything to stop someone else from speaking or being heard, is that they are afraid of what will be said.

We can choose to allow cowardice to have priority over our most important right, or we can choose not to.

If you're afraid of what someone is going to say, maybe you should do a better job of presenting your OWN case.
.

Agreed. But being louder is not "violence."

If being louder means purposely drowning out what someone else is saying, especially when that person is scheduled to speak, then I'd put that in the same category.
.

 

[ricechickie]

The only reason a person would do anything to stop someone else from speaking or being heard, is that they are afraid of what will be said.

We can choose to allow cowardice to have priority over our most important right, or we can choose not to.

If you're afraid of what someone is going to say, maybe you should do a better job of presenting your OWN case.
.

Agreed. But being louder is not "violence."

If being louder means purposely drowning out what someone else is saying, especially when that person is scheduled to speak, then I'd put that in the same category.
.

Weak.

 

[Mac1958]

The only reason a person would do anything to stop someone else from speaking or being heard, is that they are afraid of what will be said.

We can choose to allow cowardice to have priority over our most important right, or we can choose not to.

If you're afraid of what someone is going to say, maybe you should do a better job of presenting your OWN case.
.

Agreed. But being louder is not "violence."

If being louder means purposely drowning out what someone else is saying, especially when that person is scheduled to speak, then I'd put that in the same category.
.

Weak.

I think it's weak to be afraid of words.

All that energy put into screaming someone down would be put to better use having a civil conversation with them, exchanging ideas, and looking for areas of agreement on which to build. That takes courage in your beliefs, and even more courage to bend.

Just standing there with those you agree, screaming at the top of your lungs, is weak.
.

 

[Correll]

By Dennis Prager -

In a recent column, I made the case that Americans are fighting the Second Civil War. The deep chasm that has opened up between the left -- not liberals, the left -- and the rest of the country is so wide and so unbridgeable that there is no other way to describe what is happening. But I noted that at least thus far, unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.

Unfortunately, there is now reason to believe that violence is coming. In fact, it's already here. But as of now, it's only coming from one direction.

Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.

In order to understand why more violence may be coming, it is essential to understand that left-wing mobs are almost never stopped, arrested or punished. Colleges do nothing to stop them, and civil authorities do nothing to stop them on campuses or anywhere else. Police are reduced to spectators as they watch left-wing gangs loot stores, smash business and car windows, and even take over state capitals (as in Madison, Wisconsin).

It's beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.

Consequently, given the abdication by all these authorities of their role to protect the public, some members of the public will inevitably decide that they will protect themselves and others.

This ability of the left to get away with violence is one of the gravest threats to American society in its modern history. Since the Civil War, I can think of only two comparable eruptions of mob violence that authorities allowed. One was when white mobs lynched blacks. The other was the rioting by blacks, such as the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago, and the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland.

Today, authorities in what we once proudly proclaimed the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" are intimidated to the point of paralysis.

And exactly what do they fear? Not violence -- they have made peace with left-wing violence. What they fear is the left-wing media. If the Black Lives Matter movement is forcefully prevented from blocking tens of thousands of cars from entering or leaving San Francisco, the police and local authorities will be labeled racist by black leaders, a smear that will then be echoed by The New York Times and rest of the left-wing media.

Likewise, if a college president requests enough police to come to a college campus so that a Heather Mac Donald, a Charles Murray or an Ann Coulter can deliver a lecture, some of the student-gangsters engaged in violence might be injured -- and that college president will then be pilloried by the mainstream media.

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

View attachment 125104


View attachment 125105

Yes, those show actual acts of violence. But to lump in "blocking streets" and "shouting down speakers" with those acts of violence is ludicrous.

Face it, you don't like protest.

I don't mind protests.

Every time someone tries to drive around or edge though a blocked street, the mob descends on the car. There is a strong implied threat to the people that are prevented from moving on.

That isn't "speech".


And the "shouted down"?

That isn't speech. That's preventing some one else from speaking. And there is often an implied threat of violence.

And those riots and attacks? Generally the local lib mayors or college administrators, are there, refusing to do their jobs and maintain order and safety.


This is on you and yours.

"Implied threat"? Get thee to a safe space. Democracy is about confrontation.

The Contest of Ideas does not require physical confrontation.


That is you making an excuse for the dangerous actions of those on your side.

 

[ricechickie]

The only reason a person would do anything to stop someone else from speaking or being heard, is that they are afraid of what will be said.

We can choose to allow cowardice to have priority over our most important right, or we can choose not to.

If you're afraid of what someone is going to say, maybe you should do a better job of presenting your OWN case.
.

Agreed. But being louder is not "violence."

If being louder means purposely drowning out what someone else is saying, especially when that person is scheduled to speak, then I'd put that in the same category.
.

Weak.

I think it's weak to be afraid of words.

All that energy put into screaming someone down would be put to better use having a civil conversation with them, exchanging ideas, and looking for areas of agreement on which to build. That takes courage in your beliefs, and even more courage to bend.

Just standing there with those you agree, screaming at the top of your lungs, is weak.
.

Again, doesn't make the shouters "violent." To define them as such is weak.

 

[ricechickie]

Blocking highways, protesting at airports and capitol buildings and college campuses are not examples of violence. Protesting speakers is not violence. I'm amused when people call things like blocking highways and occupying public buildings "violence." But then again, if you kept to actual acts of violence, it would be a shorter list.

View attachment 125104


View attachment 125105

Yes, those show actual acts of violence. But to lump in "blocking streets" and "shouting down speakers" with those acts of violence is ludicrous.

Face it, you don't like protest.

I don't mind protests.

Every time someone tries to drive around or edge though a blocked street, the mob descends on the car. There is a strong implied threat to the people that are prevented from moving on.

That isn't "speech".


And the "shouted down"?

That isn't speech. That's preventing some one else from speaking. And there is often an implied threat of violence.

And those riots and attacks? Generally the local lib mayors or college administrators, are there, refusing to do their jobs and maintain order and safety.


This is on you and yours.

"Implied threat"? Get thee to a safe space. Democracy is about confrontation.

The Contest of Ideas does not require physical confrontation.


That is you making an excuse for the dangerous actions of those on your side.

Tell that to MLK. He took to the streets.

I am not making excuses for violence. On the contrary, those who commit violence should be arrested and tried. But the First Amendment not only gives us freedom of speech, but freedom of assembly.