Gordon Shumway
Banned
This is very nasty stuff..Good. Fuck this no-protest/free speech zone bullshit.
This is very nasty stuff..Good. Fuck this no-protest/free speech zone bullshit.
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?
BasicallyBlack people PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR PERMITS ON YOU, YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROTEST THE KILLING AND BEATING OF YOUR PEOPLE IF YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR PERMITS ON HAND AND READY TO BE CHECKED.
No, pushing back against hate is not the same thing as spewing hate. Stop this "both sides" bullshit.It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?
I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
There is a difference between the People coming together to protest and preserve their liberties and lives and a Hitlerite demagogue inciting hatred and violence to facilitate the rise of fascism.It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?
I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
I am okay with laws that prohibit forms of protests that are likely to erupt in violence or destruction of property.
Protestors calling racists as they really are, racist and some choice words, is not the same as a racist calling a black person the n-word or a hispanic a wetback and such. They are not equivalent. Trump has emboldened these fools. That's why there was a protest against him and his rally.It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?
I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
We're done with racism.It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?
I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?
I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?
I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
It's pretty nasty the stuff being shown on Fox News right now. Protestors bullying Trump supporters, not letting them talk, yelling cuss words, walking by with signs that say fuck Trump on them, and protestors throwing first punches. I'm sure that Trump supporters probably did some of the same to the protestors, but all I'm seeing is the protestors being antagonists on Fox.
but all I'm seeing is the protestors being antagonists on Fox.
The only nasty stuff I"m seeing fox news is the shit coming out of megyn kelly and ben carson's mouths.
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?
I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
To be fair, the protesters shown were being very nasty to the nerdy dude with glasses. I almost felt bad for him.The only nasty stuff I"m seeing fox news is the shit coming out of megyn kelly and ben carson's mouths.
You do realize this "moral justification" you speak of comes after protesters have already been assaulted by trump supporters.
It seems like you just glossed over my previous response.
It's pretty nasty the stuff being shown on Fox News right now. Protestors bullying Trump supporters, not letting them talk, yelling cuss words, walking by with signs that say fuck Trump on them, and protestors throwing first punches. I'm sure that Trump supporters probably did some of the same to the protestors, but all I'm seeing is the protestors being antagonists on Fox.
Well what do you expect from the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda?It's pretty nasty the stuff being shown on Fox News right now. Protestors bullying Trump supporters, not letting them talk, yelling cuss words, walking by with signs that say fuck Trump on them, and protestors throwing first punches. I'm sure that Trump supporters probably did some of the same to the protestors, but all I'm seeing is the protestors being antagonists on Fox.
Some people find food. Other people loot. That's the world we live in..It's pretty nasty the stuff being shown on Fox News right now. Protestors bullying Trump supporters, not letting them talk, yelling cuss words, walking by with signs that say fuck Trump on them, and protestors throwing first punches. I'm sure that Trump supporters probably did some of the same to the protestors, but all I'm seeing is the protestors being antagonists on Fox.
These Trump protests are effective because it isn't the protesters sucker punching people on camera. If that situation reverses then I'm not sure that they'll be effective at calling the moderates to action.This is a very ridiculous statements. your the kind of person who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom.
I am sorry I did not have time to reply to your previous post. However on rereading it, I am not sure I understood it either -- the onus is on Trump supporters because googling should show he's not a candidate worth supporting? Sorry I am on the phone so I don't have the full post in front of me.
Yes, protestors have been attacked at Trump rallies, which is incorrigible to say the least. And I believe was effective in winning over moderates who do not want to see their country explode in president endorsed violence against minorities.
But to my knowledge, those protestors followed the rules we have developed as a society regarding protest (perhaps not?). Once protestors are attacking the ones they protest, it is no longer peaceful freedom of speech. Part of that is giving physical space to individuals who share an opposing viewpoint -- enough space to minimize the risks of violence.
Just because Trump supporters attacked protestors at previous events does not make it justified to then attack back. It only lowers protestors to their level of engaging in violence for personal beliefs, which I believe is unnecessary to do under our current society. If a bully attacks me one day, it is no longer self defense to come another day and pre-emptively engage in violence. We might feel on an emotional level that the bully got his just desserts, but when there are other recourses of action available, I do not believe the violence is morally justified.
Wonder what you thought of the man knocking the shit out of a black man in the face at a rally. But you're so appalled things got a little testy at this rally.
Trump has been leading up to this.
What violence?I am sorry I did not have time to reply to your previous post. However on rereading it, I am not sure I understood it either -- the onus is on Trump supporters because googling should show he's not a candidate worth supporting? Sorry I am on the phone so I don't have the full post in front of me.
Yes, protestors have been attacked at Trump rallies, which is incorrigible to say the least. And I believe was effective in winning over moderates who do not want to see their country explode in president endorsed violence against minorities.
But to my knowledge, those protestors followed the rules we have developed as a society regarding protest (perhaps not?). Once protestors are attacking the ones they protest, it is no longer peaceful freedom of speech. Part of that is giving physical space to individuals who share an opposing viewpoint -- enough space to minimize the risks of violence.
Just because Trump supporters attacked protestors at previous events does not make it justified to then attack back. It only lowers protestors to their level of engaging in violence for personal beliefs, which I believe is unnecessary to do under our current society. If a bully attacks me one day, it is no longer self defense to come another day and pre-emptively engage in violence. We might feel on an emotional level that the bully got his just desserts, but when there are other recourses of action available, I do not believe the violence is morally justified.
Do you make all of your decisions based on not upsetting assholes?What's the goal of these protestors? Of course this is just going to make people vote more for Trump and stir up his supporters more as they see him being denied to talk to people that want to hear him.
I am sorry I did not have time to reply to your previous post. However on rereading it, I am not sure I understood it either -- the onus is on Trump supporters because googling should show he's not a candidate worth supporting? Sorry I am on the phone so I don't have the full post in front of me.
Yes, protestors have been attacked at Trump rallies, which is incorrigible to say the least. And I believe was effective in winning over moderates who do not want to see their country explode in president endorsed violence against minorities.
But to my knowledge, those protestors followed the rules we have developed as a society regarding protest (perhaps not?). Once protestors are attacking the ones they protest, it is no longer peaceful freedom of speech. Part of that is giving physical space to individuals who share an opposing viewpoint -- enough space to minimize the risks of violence.
Just because Trump supporters attacked protestors at previous events does not make it justified to then attack back. It only lowers protestors to their level of engaging in violence for personal beliefs, which I believe is unnecessary to do under our current society. If a bully attacks me one day, it is no longer self defense to come another day and pre-emptively engage in violence. We might feel on an emotional level that the bully got his just desserts, but when there are other recourses of action available, I do not believe the violence is morally justified.
Just because I have not protested does not mean I don't have an equal say in what sorts of protest I would like to see in the country.
That was also wrong. Just because one person does something doesn't mean violence should be taken out on others who share nothing in common other than supporting a person for president.
That was also wrong. Just because one person does something doesn't mean violence should be taken out on others who share nothing in common other than supporting a person for president.
Little Marco: "People are being paid to protest"
Just because I have not protested does not mean I don't have an equal say in what sorts of protest I would like to see in the country. I have engaged in numerous dialogues in person and online on a variety of channels, because I see that as an effective method of communicating values. I am fine with people who want to stand on a street raising awareness. But yes, I do not support thinly veiled protests that attempt violence for the purpose of raising awareness. Let the opposition's aggression and inequality destroy their own message, do not need to fight back physically or invade personal space.
This is a very ridiculous statements. your the kind of person who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom.
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?
I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
This is a very ridiculous statements. your the kind of person who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom.
You should only protest here. Or You should only protest there. How about you only protest in this chair? Or why not wait to protest at the 2018 county fair? You should only protest with a permit. Maybe you should protest with better verbiage. You should protest only in this box. Actually you should try protesting with a fox. Have you tried protesting only on the Internet? Aren't you tired of all this protesting yet? Stop telling me how to fucking protest Sam I Am...How about I protest where I stand.
isn't this what many hillary supporters say to bernie supporters
wait your turn
Yes, I believe in disrupting injustice in a peaceful way and letting an injust opponent be the one to make it disorderly, if they choose to. I do not believe in a "positive peace" that exists solely via ongoing violence, because I believe violence has a way of escalating out of control until one is no longer at peace. I believe there are direct actions which are both more effective and also peaceful in nature. I also do not believe in setting the timetable for another man's freedom -- I am not saying they should not protest. Only that it be done in accordance to rules which have been established to prevent the violence which historically otherwise ensues. If there is injustice, it can be demonstrated without protestors attacking -- and often us demonstrated by protestors being attacked. As a side note, I am surprised you are quoting MLK when it feels your guiding philosophy is more motivated by Malcom X.
This is lame
What violence?
Do you make all of your decisions based on not upsetting assholes?
What would this country be if that was our national behavior?
That was also wrong. Just because one person does something doesn't mean violence should be taken out on others who share nothing in common other than supporting a person for president.
You're making it obvious you don't know any actual history.Yes, I believe in disrupting injustice in a peaceful way and letting an injust opponent be the one to make it disorderly, if they choose to. I do not believe in a "positive peace" that exists solely via ongoing violence, because I believe violence has a way of escalating out of control until one is no longer at peace. I believe there are direct actions which are both more effective and also peaceful in nature. I also do not believe in setting the timetable for another man's freedom -- I am not saying they should not protest. Only that it be done in accordance to rules which have been established to prevent the violence which historically otherwise ensues. If there is injustice, it can be demonstrated without protestors attacking -- and often us demonstrated by protestors being attacked. As a side note, I am surprised you are quoting MLK when it feels your guiding philosophy is more motivated by Malcom X.