|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 19 2017 09:27 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 09:07 LegalLord wrote:
I dunno, I mention it just about every other time something like this comes out. You're lack of attentiveness is not a fault on my part. Well, pardon me for not having clear recall on almost 9,000 pages of posts. But in response, I felt compelled to do a brief search on your position, and I'll rank how hard you come out against leaks on a 1 - 5, with 3 being neutral, 1 being anti leak and 5 being pro leak. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/search.php?q=leak&t=c&f=-1&u=legallord&gb=date&d=Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 23:43 LegalLord wrote:
Watts' testimony is hilarious in how freely it mixes actual Russian work (the leaks being by far the most significant), straight up bullshit like the Eichenwald narrative, and domestic fake news like birtherism.
The reason anything "worked" is because the environment was utterly toxic to begin with, such that an actual leak of moderately incriminating emails was able to start a chain reaction in public opinion. But it was less so a thorough and complete influence campaign as much as seeing a growing fire and just quietly pouring a canister of gas on the top, then letting the flames do the work for you. A leak happened. it was effective. No real suggestion if good/bad, I give it a 3. Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 12:55 LegalLord wrote:
I personally take the "wait for official results" approach to investigations like these. In the court of public opinion Trump is guilty and sentenced to death already, based on leaks that may or may not be from real people of worth - and many are not despite the "but anonymous sources are the foundation of journalism" folk. Leaks are bad. Very bad. 1. But worth pointing out, most of the leaks have been pretty legit and not fake news. Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 14:12 LegalLord wrote:On June 16 2017 14:07 ChristianS wrote:On June 16 2017 13:37 LegalLord wrote:On June 16 2017 13:34 ChristianS wrote:On June 16 2017 13:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 16 2017 13:10 ChristianS wrote:
Doesn't everyone here probably take a "wait for official results" philosophy with regards to criminal investigations? It seems like LL and xDaunt are trying to say "the difference between me and those damn liberals is that I believe in innocent until proven guilty, due process, habeas corpus, etc." I think most liberals do too? That doesn't mean we can't look at the evidence at hand and form our own opinions about what is or isn't likely. "Wait for official results" isn't a position of legal opinion. It's a "shut the fuck up about speculation until there's something concrete to pin on people" position. I've seen enough public "trials" in my life to know that speculation based on partial evidence is more feels-driven than logical and creates more shit than the situation itself. The "better than those damn liberals" point is a laughable non-sequitur. So if news came out that a hypothetical president had recorded tapes of everyone in the white house, but then destroyed them when they got subpoenaed, it is inappropriate to speculate on whether that makes them look guilty? We should just say "I await the justice system's decision regarding this individual's innocence or guilt"? Edit: or if you're just saying we need to wait until there's solid evidence, presumably the debate is how solid the evidence currently is. Well do we have anything of the sort? Or just a bunch of vaguely suspicious looking stuff from a shitty president? I'm just trying to pin down what this ethic you've expressed actually means. I mostly don't think there's anything public yet to the collusion charge, and don't know enough about the legal requirements of obstruction of justice. But it seems like your ethic is basically that you speculate if you think there's something there and don't if you don't, which is the same thing everyone else does but you've managed to feel superior about it. The short version is that you should keep your head about it all. Most people don't like Trump and will believe any Billy or Bobby that says any mean thing about how much of a crook he is and how much he licks Putin's boot. This is how public trials always go. God knows this thread has too many people who positively lose their minds at the slightest hint of a possibility of a not sure if credible leak that says that Trump did something potentially bad. That has a lot to do with simply how strongly he is disliked rather than how guilty he is. I suppose if you want fairness then you could say that the same could be said about Hillary Clinton. 1. Leaks are bad. A brief acknowledgement about how leaks have impacted Clinton as well. Show nested quote +On June 22 2017 23:21 LegalLord wrote:On June 22 2017 23:15 Doodsmack wrote:On June 22 2017 22:58 LegalLord wrote:On June 22 2017 22:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I will say this much: Obama deserves plenty of shit for helping to create the DNC under DWS that was so incompetent that the Russia matter not only happened but also was so consequential, and he deserves even more shit for allowing it to happen under his watch. The way he shilled for Hillary and her surrogates throughout the campaign season was frankly quite deplorable. He lost a lot of my respect in the final stretch of his tenure. How do you propose Obama should have prevented the DNC hack? Build a better organization in the DNC with more competent IT. But the hacking part isn't really the most consequential. Shit does get hacked and both the US and Russia have hacked enough of each other's shit over the decades to have something to show for it. The leak was what really matters, and more specifically how much of an effect it had. That was solely due to the highly human factor of DWS having all the charisma of a damp rag and the DNC making it clear that the Sandernistas could go fuck themselves if they didn't agree - which the leak did a fantastic job of putting directly into words. That would not have had such an effect if Obama and his administration did not pave the way for the hack to be so effective. Kinda neutral. I give it a 3. Show nested quote +On July 15 2017 13:00 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2017 11:49 Kickstart wrote:
Though to me it still seems that one side is arguing that the meddling is problematic and that we need to properly deal with what took place while the other side has argued first that no such thing ever happened, then that if it did happen nothing of real consequence happened, to now saying well it did happen but everyone would have done the same thing so what does it matter. That's not really a fair depiction of things. For one, the "Russia did nothing wrong" side consists of a lot of people who take a "let the investigation deal with this and stop the media leaks" approach to it all. God knows the media is more interested in headlines than quality reporting, especially gutter tier news organizations like Fox and CNN. They're not any good at being honest and reliable, that's for sure. And on the "let's deal with this Russia issue" side, don't lose track of the reality that there is a second goal here: to get rid of a president they don't like. Do you seriously think that a more well-liked president would have people grasping at every possible opportunity to try to impeach him? Yes, the reasons here are better justified than, say, for Bill Clinton, but the underlying "find a reason to get rid of Trump" sentiment is not just about Russia either. The reality is more so that of a fractured consensus, one that can't properly deal with a situation like this. It's almost like a macrocosm of everything that made BW vs SC2 an endless bitch fight. I'll give this guy a 2.5. It doesn't call out leaking as a bad thing explicitly, though does make a point (which I agree with) about leaks tending to be small pieces of info which may lack context. Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:34 LegalLord wrote:
Those transcripts just don't give much to work with, they're pretty much the equivalent of Maddow's tax return leaks. If they get a Putin transcript that would be a different story. This one's in reference to the transcripts b/w Trump and Australia and Mexico. No real anti-leaking sentiment though, so I give this a 3. Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 15:44 LegalLord wrote:
I have no doubt that politicized leaks will continue to play a prominent role in the political process for years to come. Hacking is but a means, and not a new one, to that end; the leaking is what is really of interest here. This election has showed the political potency of leaking truthful information in the midst of a troubled environment to influence results, and there is no indication that we are going to see that happen less often in the future. Using a foreign non-ally for such ill-gotten gains starts to look like it isn't even much of a deviation from the norm in the context of what is already happening. This describes the weaponization of leaks and use in political agendas. It seems to say leaks are effective, but doesn't endorse them. I give it a 3. Show nested quote +On August 05 2017 12:10 LegalLord wrote:
So, I'm a wee bit curious: are the rumors surrounding the Mueller probe supposed to be public, or are these leaks just for fun? This one's a bit of a leading question which implies leaking is bad. I'll give it a 1.5, but I could give it a slightly less negative rating as well. But whatevs. Show nested quote +On August 24 2017 14:09 LegalLord wrote:On August 24 2017 14:03 Mohdoo wrote:On August 24 2017 13:29 LegalLord wrote:On August 24 2017 13:11 Mohdoo wrote:On August 24 2017 13:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 24 2017 12:55 Mohdoo wrote:On August 24 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote:
Man, a lot of people in Trumps camp write a lot of emails about meeting Russians. Can't help but wonder: Why Russia? Why not Germany? Sweden? England? Korea? Japan? Canada? Which ones of those are not going to instantly hate him? What would make Russia not hate the US? Well that's a bit of a more complex topic than the one of why Trump might be inclined to have some nice friendly backroom talks with Russia. Incidentally one of the few talks that he apparently feels are actually friendly in the political arena. So you think it was Russia basically figuring they may as well give it a shot, then realizing "holy shit lol they're actually going for it"? I mean, why not? There's always sleazy shitbags willing to betray their country given the right incentive. And you can't deny the first impulse of the Trump team to something like the DNC leaks would be "I like their style." This one is a 3, as it doesn't really condemn leaks but just makes mention of it as a political tactic. Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 03:32 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly I really wonder how all these government agencies are allowing themselves to leak like a sieve. Comey's testimony makes me suspect that the leakage is very much top-down. This one is anti leak it seems. I give it a 1. So, my conclusion about leaks is that you fall probably mixed to negative on them. However, a noticeable pattern most of the points where you're negative seem to be when it's related to the Russia investigation while general leak comments are a little more towards neutral, ie "shit happen". Possible error is that I only went a dozen or so posts back, which may not have covered a sufficient time period to pick up comments about other things.
For true value you would have to go back and evaluate opinions on the DNC leaks
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 19 2017 09:27 ticklishmusic wrote:
So, my conclusion about leaks is that you fall probably mixed to negative on them. However, a noticeable pattern most of the points where you're negative seem to be when it's related to the Russia investigation while general leak comments are a little more towards neutral, ie "shit happen".
Ok, so definitely got a "leans negative." That's progress.
Not sure how you could look at that and take a "related to the Russia investigation = anti-leak" approach unless that's what you were looking to find a priori. Looks more to me like the "Trump's shit being leaked, Russia is an important part of that, so some of them are related to it."
Regarding the DNC, my thoughts were probably something along the lines of "the leak is bad, but the docs contained inside are juicy and since we have em I will use em."
|
Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story.
In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine.
|
negative mostly due to leaks are bad mkay circa russia investigation.
eh, i flipped through pretty much every single post in US pol in the search i linked (i'm downloading a vidya game rn, so not much to do). i'm not seeing too much overt anti leaking prior to the russia thing, tbh. there is a little "it's unfortunate leaks happen" and "the world might be a better place", but most of it seems to be "well protect your info" or "don't write down dumb shit".
of course, if you can dig up a couple examples i would be (i) appreciative and (ii) willing to acknowledge i was wrong. but it does look like you became increasingly anti leak only relatively lately, and i'm not particularly convinced by your assertion of being vocally and definitely anti leak for a long time.
|
On September 19 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story. In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine.
You could have found a better example. That was in bad taste in my opinion.
|
On September 19 2017 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
People always want to know of course. But who leaks and to what extent is that ok?
I think this is an extraordinary, first of its kind investigation and the people involved probably can't contain themselves. It's no ordinary matter.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 19 2017 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
negative mostly due to leaks are bad mkay circa russia investigation.
eh, i flipped through pretty much every single post in US pol in the search i linked (i'm downloading a vidya game rn, so not much to do). i'm not seeing too much overt anti leaking prior to the russia thing, tbh. there is a little "it's unfortunate leaks happen" and "the world might be a better place", but most of it seems to be "well protect your info" or "don't write down dumb shit".
of course, if you can dig up a couple examples i would be (i) appreciative and (ii) willing to acknowledge i was wrong. but it does look like you became increasingly anti leak only relatively lately, and i'm not particularly convinced by your assertion of being vocally and definitely anti leak for a long time.
Perhaps part of the difference is in perception of hacks and leaks. People hacking your shit is generally your fault. Individuals with privileged knowledge telling the press is a different story. Untrusted sources getting the data by dubious means and leaking is a hugely different ballpark.
I feel like I started talking about it after the first few leaks into Trump's presidency. I would be fairly surprised if there was anything substantial before the Flynn takedown. Not that I personally have any sympathy for opportunists of low moral fiber who talked to Russia, but both occurrences seem to be tied to one more general event: Trump winning.
|
On September 19 2017 09:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story. In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine. You could have found a better example. That was in bad taste in my opinion.
Large police protest keeps a rowdy mob at bay successfully so a group can excercise its civil rights?
Politically incorrect victims.
|
Fox is dealing with another accusation of sexual misconduct (rape in this case)
“In July of 2013, I was raped by Charles Payne,” Ms. Hughes said in an interview, referring to the allegations in her lawsuit. “In July of 2017, I was raped again by Fox News. Since then, I have been living an absolute hell.”
www.nytimes.com
|
On September 19 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 09:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story. In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine. You could have found a better example. That was in bad taste in my opinion. Large police protest keeps a rowdy mob at bay successfully so a group can excercise its civil rights? https://twitter.com/jpanzar/status/908480692891160576Politically incorrect victims.
Equating 9 little black girls fearing for their life to attend school to whatever this was. Civil rights =/= constitutional rights. There are countless other examples you could have used and you know it. That is all I'm saying.
|
I don't know the merits of these particular claims, but I will say that it is very rare for represented plaintiffs to falsify stuff in complaints.
|
|
|
On September 19 2017 10:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 09:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story. In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine. You could have found a better example. That was in bad taste in my opinion. Large police protest keeps a rowdy mob at bay successfully so a group can excercise its civil rights? https://twitter.com/jpanzar/status/908480692891160576Politically incorrect victims. Equating 9 little black girls fearing for their life to attend school to whatever this was. Civil rights =/= constitutional rights. There are countless other examples you could have used and you know it. That is all I'm saying.
A history of conservative speakers fearing for their life as a vicious mob acted violently outside? A professor sent to the hospital? I see I chose my parallel well. Some people just can't afford rights to all victims of violence.
|
On September 19 2017 10:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 10:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 09:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story. In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine. You could have found a better example. That was in bad taste in my opinion. Large police protest keeps a rowdy mob at bay successfully so a group can excercise its civil rights? https://twitter.com/jpanzar/status/908480692891160576Politically incorrect victims. Equating 9 little black girls fearing for their life to attend school to whatever this was. Civil rights =/= constitutional rights. There are countless other examples you could have used and you know it. That is all I'm saying. A history of conservative speakers fearing for their life as a vicious mob acted violently outside? A professor sent to the hospital? I see I chose my parallel well. Some people just can't afford rights to all victims of violence.
Your parallel, using conservative speakers known for...questionable philosophies, does not stand up to the little rock nine. And, for the record, I don't approve of the violence at the event. But yes, draw a parallel of black children being spit on and verbally attacked by white adults to grown white men talking about questionable philosophies suffering verbal abuse. It's funny how all groups like to co-opt black civil rights moments for their own use when it suits them. I'm done with this conversation. Moving on.
|
On September 19 2017 10:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 10:42 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 10:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 09:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story. In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine. You could have found a better example. That was in bad taste in my opinion. Large police protest keeps a rowdy mob at bay successfully so a group can excercise its civil rights? https://twitter.com/jpanzar/status/908480692891160576Politically incorrect victims. Equating 9 little black girls fearing for their life to attend school to whatever this was. Civil rights =/= constitutional rights. There are countless other examples you could have used and you know it. That is all I'm saying. A history of conservative speakers fearing for their life as a vicious mob acted violently outside? A professor sent to the hospital? I see I chose my parallel well. Some people just can't afford rights to all victims of violence. Your parallel, using conservative speakers known for...questionable philosophies, does not stand up to the little rock nine. And, for the record, I don't approve of the violence at the event. But yes, draw a parallel of black children being spit on and verbally attacked by white adults to grown white men talking about questionable philosophies suffering verbal abuse. It's funny how all groups like to co-opt black civil rights moments for their own use when it suits them. I'm done with this conversation. Moving on.
Physical abuse and threats of violence. Fears for their life. Being shuttled out of back entrances and dark corridors to shelter them from the mob. You should really pay more attention to violence against the right. This is like #4 or #5 for Berkeley, and a success story from the perspective of the response and safety of the speaker.
I hope you pay more attention to white and Jewish victims next time around, or I might gather that blacks are the only people you want protected. Or will pay any attention to.
|
On September 19 2017 10:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 10:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 10:42 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 10:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 09:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story. In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine. You could have found a better example. That was in bad taste in my opinion. Large police protest keeps a rowdy mob at bay successfully so a group can excercise its civil rights? https://twitter.com/jpanzar/status/908480692891160576Politically incorrect victims. Equating 9 little black girls fearing for their life to attend school to whatever this was. Civil rights =/= constitutional rights. There are countless other examples you could have used and you know it. That is all I'm saying. A history of conservative speakers fearing for their life as a vicious mob acted violently outside? A professor sent to the hospital? I see I chose my parallel well. Some people just can't afford rights to all victims of violence. Your parallel, using conservative speakers known for...questionable philosophies, does not stand up to the little rock nine. And, for the record, I don't approve of the violence at the event. But yes, draw a parallel of black children being spit on and verbally attacked by white adults to grown white men talking about questionable philosophies suffering verbal abuse. It's funny how all groups like to co-opt black civil rights moments for their own use when it suits them. I'm done with this conversation. Moving on. Physical abuse and threats of violence. Fears for their life. Being shuttled out of back entrances and dark corridors to shelter them from the mob. You should really pay more attention to violence against the right. This is like #4 or #5 for Berkeley, and a success story from the perspective of the response and safety of the speaker. I hope you pay more attention to white and Jewish victims next time around, or I might gather that blacks are the only people you want protected. Or will pay any attention to.
You really don't see the absurdity of your Little Rock Nine comparison? Or was it just to draw out this type of interaction?
|
On September 19 2017 10:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 10:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 10:42 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 10:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 09:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story. In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine. You could have found a better example. That was in bad taste in my opinion. Large police protest keeps a rowdy mob at bay successfully so a group can excercise its civil rights? https://twitter.com/jpanzar/status/908480692891160576Politically incorrect victims. Equating 9 little black girls fearing for their life to attend school to whatever this was. Civil rights =/= constitutional rights. There are countless other examples you could have used and you know it. That is all I'm saying. A history of conservative speakers fearing for their life as a vicious mob acted violently outside? A professor sent to the hospital? I see I chose my parallel well. Some people just can't afford rights to all victims of violence. Your parallel, using conservative speakers known for...questionable philosophies, does not stand up to the little rock nine. And, for the record, I don't approve of the violence at the event. But yes, draw a parallel of black children being spit on and verbally attacked by white adults to grown white men talking about questionable philosophies suffering verbal abuse. It's funny how all groups like to co-opt black civil rights moments for their own use when it suits them. I'm done with this conversation. Moving on. Physical abuse and threats of violence. Fears for their life. Being shuttled out of back entrances and dark corridors to shelter them from the mob. You should really pay more attention to violence against the right. This is like #4 or #5 for Berkeley, and a success story from the perspective of the response and safety of the speaker. I hope you pay more attention to white and Jewish victims next time around, or I might gather that blacks are the only people you want protected. Or will pay any attention to.
When the people who are in danger of violence against them are not trying to purposefully incite crowds by the rhetoric they preach, then yes, I will. And if this is number 4 or 5, then maybe stop going to Berkeley? There are other places that they can speak without this violence, right? So why continue to antagonize these people? They know what they're getting into, right? I have no sympathy for them. I'd say the same for athletes that can't stop doing drugs or celebs getting DUIs etc.
Stop being stupid.
|
On September 19 2017 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 10:53 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 10:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 10:42 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 10:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 09:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story. In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine. You could have found a better example. That was in bad taste in my opinion. Large police protest keeps a rowdy mob at bay successfully so a group can excercise its civil rights? https://twitter.com/jpanzar/status/908480692891160576Politically incorrect victims. Equating 9 little black girls fearing for their life to attend school to whatever this was. Civil rights =/= constitutional rights. There are countless other examples you could have used and you know it. That is all I'm saying. A history of conservative speakers fearing for their life as a vicious mob acted violently outside? A professor sent to the hospital? I see I chose my parallel well. Some people just can't afford rights to all victims of violence. Your parallel, using conservative speakers known for...questionable philosophies, does not stand up to the little rock nine. And, for the record, I don't approve of the violence at the event. But yes, draw a parallel of black children being spit on and verbally attacked by white adults to grown white men talking about questionable philosophies suffering verbal abuse. It's funny how all groups like to co-opt black civil rights moments for their own use when it suits them. I'm done with this conversation. Moving on. Physical abuse and threats of violence. Fears for their life. Being shuttled out of back entrances and dark corridors to shelter them from the mob. You should really pay more attention to violence against the right. This is like #4 or #5 for Berkeley, and a success story from the perspective of the response and safety of the speaker. I hope you pay more attention to white and Jewish victims next time around, or I might gather that blacks are the only people you want protected. Or will pay any attention to. You really don't see the absurdity of your Little Rock Nine comparison? Or was it just to draw out this type of interaction?
In the little rock nine case, the state government employed the national guard to block the students from entering the school. And this is why I keep saying that the rightist arguments are bad faith arguments. Danglars knows that the little rock nine were up against a hostile state government and were only able to get to school via intervention by the President and nationalization of the state level national guard.
Several segregationist councils threatened to hold protests at Central High and physically block the black students from entering the school. Governor Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists on September 4, 1957. The sight of a line of soldiers blocking out the students made national headlines and polarized the nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
In Shapiro's case .. Shapiro faced protests (by non state actors), but he was able to speak without disruption. That is how democracy and free speech work. If people think Shapiro sucks, then they have a right to yell in the street about it. That is how free speech works. And sometimes it is expensive.
|
On September 19 2017 11:19 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 10:53 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 10:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 10:42 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 10:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 09:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story. In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine. You could have found a better example. That was in bad taste in my opinion. Large police protest keeps a rowdy mob at bay successfully so a group can excercise its civil rights? https://twitter.com/jpanzar/status/908480692891160576Politically incorrect victims. Equating 9 little black girls fearing for their life to attend school to whatever this was. Civil rights =/= constitutional rights. There are countless other examples you could have used and you know it. That is all I'm saying. A history of conservative speakers fearing for their life as a vicious mob acted violently outside? A professor sent to the hospital? I see I chose my parallel well. Some people just can't afford rights to all victims of violence. Your parallel, using conservative speakers known for...questionable philosophies, does not stand up to the little rock nine. And, for the record, I don't approve of the violence at the event. But yes, draw a parallel of black children being spit on and verbally attacked by white adults to grown white men talking about questionable philosophies suffering verbal abuse. It's funny how all groups like to co-opt black civil rights moments for their own use when it suits them. I'm done with this conversation. Moving on. Physical abuse and threats of violence. Fears for their life. Being shuttled out of back entrances and dark corridors to shelter them from the mob. You should really pay more attention to violence against the right. This is like #4 or #5 for Berkeley, and a success story from the perspective of the response and safety of the speaker. I hope you pay more attention to white and Jewish victims next time around, or I might gather that blacks are the only people you want protected. Or will pay any attention to. You really don't see the absurdity of your Little Rock Nine comparison? Or was it just to draw out this type of interaction? In the little rock nine case, the state government employed the national guard to block the students from entering the school. And this is why I keep saying that the rightist arguments are bad faith arguments. Danglars knows that the little rock nine were up against a hostile state government and were only able to get to school via intervention by the President and nationalization of the state level national guard. Show nested quote +Several segregationist councils threatened to hold protests at Central High and physically block the black students from entering the school. Governor Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists on September 4, 1957. The sight of a line of soldiers blocking out the students made national headlines and polarized the nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine In Shapiro's case .. Shapiro faced protests (by non state actors), but he was able to speak without disruption. That is how democracy and free speech work. If people think Shapiro sucks, then they have a right to yell in the street about it. That is how free speech works. And sometimes it is expensive.
In Shapiro's case, the CHP, and local law enforcement were called out at extreme cost to physically protect the conservative speaker from past violence that reckless endangered speaker's lives. Their early assembly was made to physically block the speaker's access to his venue and discourage students from attending the speech with threats of violence. The sight of a line of well-armored CHP should have made national headlines, but the national news is in a bit of a bad state right now.
https://twitter.com/jpanzar/status/908480692891160576
An absolutely incredible figure of $600,000 dollars is cited as being required for security, given the recent and highly publicized failings of the Berkeley police department and mayoral actions to safeguard speakers on a public campus.
Thankfully, and three cheers, both security actions successfully allowed the threatened citizens to enter the school.
Regrettably, there are still some that choose to forget the violence that sent a professor to the hospital. Or how a black-clad mob smashed windows and threw fireworks. They are more ideologically possessed to discount right-of-center speakers, as if their ideology is so provocative that they were asking for it. Not unlike a regressive attitude towards women that dress a certain way, because these conservatives think a certain way, they're asking for it.
I'm in a very good move and hope other college campuses take note about how not to cave to dyscivic pressure and show that campus venues are open to the invited speakers of student groups. Three cheers for the latest actions and all involved in this showing. This beer's for you!
|
The free speech rights of paid political provocateurs and Nazis must be vehemently defended; but the free speech rights of others to put a towel on a statue must be vehemently condemned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
