Are some of you really comparing heckling aimed at Hillary Clinton to violence committed by people on the left to stop conservative speakers? Heckling ≠ violence :crazy2:
There are arguments that can be made for violence when it comes to self-defense in a few rare extreme cases, but NOT to stop someone from speaking. That is ridiculous and I will continue to condemn it, and I will not buy the "both sides" argument because it is not both sides.
I can guarantee the next front-running Democratic candidate for president in 2020 will condemn the acts of violence committed by those on the left if they are serious about being president. Anyone attempting to ignore what's happening on various college campuses and other places will not be viable as a candidate. That means Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Julián or Joaquín Castro, and any other Democrat who remains silent on this issue will not be viable presidential candidates in 2020 NO MATTER WHAT #45 DOES. Democrats cannot continue to be silent on this issue because it is getting worse and for the umpteenth time, it is one-sided. If the mainstream media actually showed these incidents then many of you would see how bad it has gotten. Go to a speech given by a liberal and I promise you there will be absolutely no violence on the behalf of conservative protesters. I was in undergrad a handful of years ago and it simply wasn't like this at all. This is current and it is getting worse.
So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?
Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.
So let me get this right, you want people to have to go out of their way and bring in lawyers (spend lots of money) to create a contract to become someone's "caretaker" instead of being able to get married and automatically having the right to be your spouse's caretaker without spending high amounts of money on lawyers and courtroom costs to become the caretaker of someone you love? Your argument is wholly irrational. When I got married in late 2015, I didn't have to hire lawyers to draw up a contract that made me in control of my husband's medical decisions if he were to somehow be unable to make those decisions. By the law of my state, I automatically have that right–-and not his family members---since I am his spouse. Had gay marriage not been legalized, I would have to go through hell to get that right. The same would go for his social security and insurance benefits if something were to happen to him, they come to me and not his parents. And the government has been determining which marriages are legitimate because there have been serious legal concerns related to caretaking, social security, etc. prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015.
What you are IGNORING is the basic concepts. You are basically promoting the idea that we should be placed on a plantation of slavery where we have to beg for permission instead of acting out our free will and promoting our human rights. It's pathetic. You never needed any of that socialist security to begin with. The only reason you THINK you would have to go through hell is because you have no understanding of individual rights and instead think on the level of group rights and group think, hive mind, borg, and sheepfulness. You have no idea how the Constitution works and instead discard it in the trash when it comes to individual rights. I DO NOT NEED PERMISSION TO DO WHAT IS ALREADY LAWFUL TO DO. Period. You want to promote the idea that we all need to get on our knees and beg for permission for a LICENSE to marry. It's sickening how far off you guys are. You want us all to get on our knees and beg for permission because you don't understand what legal words ACTUALLY mean. Get an education and quit trying to make the free people follow your fascist cake baking crap and lead us into slavery where we literally have to beg for permission for our birthright freedoms.
Um… :crazy2:
So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?
Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.
So let me get this right, you want people to have to go out of their way and bring in lawyers (spend lots of money) to create a contract to become someone's "caretaker" instead of being able to get married and automatically having the right to be your spouse's caretaker without spending high amounts of money on lawyers and courtroom costs to become the caretaker of someone you love? Your argument is wholly irrational. When I got married in late 2015, I didn't have to hire lawyers to draw up a contract that made me in control of my husband's medical decisions if he were to somehow be unable to make those decisions. By the law of my state, I automatically have that right–-and not his family members---since I am his spouse. Had gay marriage not been legalized, I would have to go through hell to get that right. The same would go for his social security and insurance benefits if something were to happen to him, they come to me and not his parents. And the government has been determining which marriages are legitimate because there have been serious legal concerns related to caretaking, social security, etc. prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015.
This has really gotten to a disgusting level of corruption and cover-up. Just when it seemed like the Russian cloud was going away, a new storm is developing. This is about to get very interesting and very ugly. I see a Nixon repeat on the horizon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-fired-fbi.html
Did you not READ Trump's letter to Comey? Thanking Comey for exonerating him THREE times saying there was no case and no evidence and no investigation into the Russia collusion claims because it was RIDICULOUS!? Get over it! DAMN. I'm so tired of hearing about Russia when there is no evidence. What there is evidence of is bleach bit and you guys voted for that witch when she literally sent classified information to people who were not authorized to have it. DAMN. How fucking stupid are you? I'm so sick of this shit. He said she was GUILTY, but not recommending charges. He was playing both sides because he KNEW Trump was going to win. Trump gave him some time, and then he went before Congress and lied. Get a life and quit being a dumb bitch.
I do not care what our incompetent president wrote in that letter, he has no credibility left (barely had any to begin with); therefore, what he wrote in that letter does nothing to hide this level of corruption. Jeff Sessions is supposed to stay out of anything related to the 2016 election and instead of staying out of it, he recommends the FBI Director be fired because of how he handled an investigation involving a part of the 2016 election? Also, I just reported you for the "dumb bitch" insult. Do not personally attack me when I'm simply stating the way I see the corruption in this situation.
This has really gotten to a disgusting level of corruption and cover-up. Just when it seemed like the Russian cloud was going away, a new storm is developing. This is about to get very interesting and very ugly. I see a Nixon repeat on the horizon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-fired-fbi.html
Get a grip.. just last week.. 7 days ago.. Hillary was blaming Comey for losing the election. Then when Trump fires Comey.. Trump gets the blame! You libtards are unbelievable. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/02/hillary-clinton-blames-comey-wikileaks-2016-election-loss/101203972/
Jeff Sessions, who is supposed to recuse himself from anything involving the 2016 election and the Russian investigation recommended Comey's firing. That in of itself is highly problematic. This has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, they are blatantly lying about that being the reason for Comey being fired and a leaked report will prove it's a lie. Just waiting on that leak. Knowing this administration, the leak is right around the corner.
This has really gotten to a disgusting level of corruption and cover-up. Just when it seemed like the Russian cloud was going away, a new storm is developing. This is about to get very interesting and very ugly. I see a Nixon repeat on the horizon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-fired-fbi.html
Lots of right wing groups have routinely called out and protested at speaking events of left leaning people. The heritage foundation even pays people to do it. The focus on the family organization has events scheduled in advance to protest speakers that they don't agree with and they and others like to gang up and try and force speakers down.
It pretty much the same from both sides, unfortunately. Look at many of Hillary Clintons campaign stops. She had people try and disrupt as much as Trump did, probably more.
Whoa, whoa :crap:
I'm sorry but there is a HUGE difference between protesting at a Clinton campaign stop and setting fire to buildings and cars to stop someone from speaking. I went to some Clinton campaign stops and no one ever shouted over her or Bill or anyone else who was speaking and this was in South Carolina. This is a red state and no one did anything disrespectful or harmful to stop anyone on the left from speaking. Agent Orange did call for his supporters to commit acts of violence at his rallies and there were a few incidents, but nothing on the level of what we've been seeing on the left. Are you aware that death threats (illegal btw) and acts of violence stopped Ann Coulter from giving a speech? Name a time in the past year where death threats kept a liberal from giving a speech. Once again, not even a left-wing psycho like Cornel West has been stopped from speaking. I am liberal and I am in no way trying to support conservatives, but they have a legitimate argument right now.
Edit: There was one dumb young black millenial pro-Bernie girl who disrupted Hillary in my state at a private event bringing up a political statement that Hillary made back in the 90s, but she was quickly thrown out and Hillary was able to finish what she was saying. That was pretty much as close Hillary got to being disrupted, and no one was hurt. Compare that to the destruction caused on college campuses to keep right-wing speakers from speaking. You simply cannot make the both sides arguments. I mean damn, look at what's happening in New Orleans right now. Are the pro-slavery and pro-confederacy supporters of those monuments rioting and burning down the city to keep those disgusting monuments up? There's been a few shoving but they have been protesting relatively peaceful compared to those idiots on the college campuses.
While I don't agree that we "love" violence, it is time for more of us on the left to condemn what has been happening on college campuses and other places lately. How come it's perfectly fine for a psycho like Dr. Cornel West to preach his craziness on college campuses across this country, including in some of the most conservative places, but it's not okay for Ann Coulter to give a speech about our country's broken immigration system? I do not agree with anything Ann Coulter says but at least she's talking about a real issue in this country. Why is she being silenced? No one has posted any response as to why people like her are being silenced with VIOLENCE. There have been acts of violence committed to stop people like her and Milo from speaking. I am liberal and I am against forced censorship. And I will keep saying this: IT IS ONE-SIDED. :google:
Good for you for condemning the violence.
Of course, by doing so and truly admitting that there is a problem, that more and more liberals have become violent and left-wing extremism has grown tremendously, this puts you at odds with the establishment dogma, which flat out denies this.
You sound like me three or so years ago, about when I became conservative myself. I saw our "side" being incredibly shitty, our side denying it and covering it up and accusing people who disagreed with all the usual -isms and -phobias. This gave me pause, and I started to question some of my previously held beliefs. Good luck on your journey.
No, this doesn't put me at odds with the left. I can denounce this awful behavior without turning my back on what I believe in. I could never be a conservative because I would have to hate certain parts of my identity to become a conservative. I am a proud black gay man and I could never knowingly support legislation or ideas that will hurt myself or the people I care about in my life. I do believe some conservatism is needed when it comes to balancing both the federal and state budgets, but other than that it is the complete opposite of what I believe in. I'd become independent before I ever become a conservative. I grew up and live in South Carolina. It would be a cold day in Hell before I align myself with someone as disgusting as Strom Thurmond or Joe Wilson. No amount of violence from the left would ever push me to support blatant racists.
So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?
While I don't agree that we "love" violence, it is time for more of us on the left to condemn what has been happening on college campuses and other places lately. How come it's perfectly fine for a psycho like Dr. Cornel West to preach his craziness on college campuses across this country, including in some of the most conservative places, but it's not okay for Ann Coulter to give a speech about our country's broken immigration system? I do not agree with anything Ann Coulter says but at least she's talking about a real issue in this country. Why is she being silenced? No one has posted any response as to why people like her are being silenced with VIOLENCE. There have been acts of violence committed to stop people like her and Milo from speaking. I am liberal and I am against forced censorship. And I will keep saying this: IT IS ONE-SIDED. :google:
This kind of behavior needs to be called out, not ignored and not falsely equated to what conservatives do because conservatives do not currently behave this way. Barack Obama participated in a forum at a college and NO conservatives caused a riot to stop him, not one person did anything to stop him from coming. Bill Clinton spoke at my old high school last year while Hillary was running for president and once again, not one conservative person said a single word to stop him and the county I grew up in has always been a deep red Republican county. This truly is a problem only on the left and more people on the left need to start condemning it. You guys can down vote me all you want but you can't hide from the reality that the left is losing control when it comes to this. You can't say conservatives are the same as they were back in the 1950s and 1960s when in reality they aren't the ones blocking people from doing things. If it were both sides, where are the instances where conservatives are blocking Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Dr. Cornel West, Melissa Harris-Perry, Cory Booker or anyone else on the left and far-left??? Show me proof or admit that the false equivalence argument is :crazy2:
This is a serious problem on the left and very few want to call it out. Bill Maher, who I also don't always agree with, speaks about it all the time. Only one side is committing very real acts of VIOLENCE to stop people from speaking. I do not care if a speaker is literally making the argument that all black people are subhuman or that all gays will go to hell, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY IT. Why not make arguments against what they are saying instead of setting fires and randomly punching people who have not committed any acts of physical violence against you? Is it because this new wave of liberals do not know how to frame arguments? This literally is no different than Muslims wanting to physically harm people who make fun of Muhammad or draw pictures of him.
The impeachment is going to be so sweet to watch. Gonna have my wine ready :cheers:
Yay! President Obama endorsed Macron and Macron won :cheers:
The left actually has lost control over its messaging and may lose its purpose because what's happening to people like Milo and Ann Coulter is WRONG, you cannot deny that. There should not be riots to stop people from speaking, that's crazy. And it's really only happening on the left because I've been to speeches given by left-wing lunatics like Dr. Cornel West and NO conservatives attempted to block him, no one even objected to it and he is a real left-wing psycho. As much as I would love to tell Cornel West to shut up, I believe in free speech. If this was both sides, where are the conservatives blocking people like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or even Barack Obama? I can't believe some of you are truly making the both sides argument on this. If you condone this kind of behavior then we're going to go down a slippery slope into a place where no one will be able to say anything. Then we'll all be :crazy2:
Not too worried until they make an attempt to roll back hate crime laws. If Republicans pass legislation revoking the Matthew Shepard Act or any other protection that is in place to deter homophobes from killing people like us, then it would be time to worry. They're busy trying to get their tax cuts right now so no, there's no need to worry as an LGBT individual at this time. To be honest, I can't see them coming after us anymore given that the country has pretty much moved on.
The backlash is going to be so brutal. I can't wait to sit back with my popcorn and watch from afar.
Some are you are trying to bring science into a thread started by mhorndisk. People like him simply do not live in our reality; therefore, XX and XY are the ONLY chromosomes that determine someone's sex. In his reality, you can't have an extra Y chromosome or have any other chromosomal abnormalities because there's only XX and XY. There's only one way you can honestly reply to any of his posts: :crazy2:
There are some conservatives on here that aren't hateful and aren't trolling, they truly believe in what they say they believe in. If they aren't making attempts to deflect when you engage with them, then they most likely aren't trolling. People who truly believe in what they say defend their arguments and will not deflect when you engage with them. That's one of the best ways you can separate the trolls from the actual conservatives on here. And yes, it's best sometimes to just avoid them because often times they're extremely :crazy2: