Quite aside from the mind-crushingly unAmerican idea of banning free speech about free speech, why is the federal government involved?
The federal government controls permitting for the plaza where both rallies are set to take place. The city of Portland will not issue any of its own permits allowing organizers to hold the events elsewhere, [Mayor Ted] Wheeler said.The organizer of what is called the “Trump Free Speech Rally,” Joey Gibson, said: “There’s going to be more intensity, there’s going to be more threats. They’re using the deaths of these two people and Jeremy Christian — they’re using it to get Portland all rowdy about our June 4 rally and it’s absolutely disgusting.”
The ACLU — it's still true! — supports free speech:
“It may be tempting to shut down speech we disagree with, but once we allow the government to decide what we can say, see, or hear, or who we can gather with, history shows us that the most marginalized will be disproportionately censored and punished for unpopular speech. If we allow the government to shut down speech for some, we all will pay the price down the line.”WaPo found a Portland State University professor, a "longtime activist" named Tom Hastings to reject the ACLU position: “I know these lines are perceived as pretty fuzzy when we’re dealing with constitutional First Amendment rights. But there’s no long fuse anymore. Everybody’s fuse seems to be quite short.” What?! Things are "fuzzy" and "fuses" are deemed short, and that's enough to throw out the free-speech tradition?!
WaPo tells us that Portland has a problem with "anarchists" getting violent at "peaceful anti-Trump demonstrations."
In April, Portland’s typically family-friendly rose parade was canceled after antifa activists threatened to shut down roads if a Republican group wasn’t barred from the event. And earlier this month, dozens of “black bloc” anarchists destroyed property at May Day protests.So violence gets its way? What a twisted response to the horrible murders!
Posts
189 comments:
What a twisted response to the horrible murders!
You misspelled "completely predictable".
I guess these left-wing types haven't heard of the fallacy of the Heckler's Veto.
The Left position: We believe in free speech, except for hate speech. And we define hate speech as stuff we really, really don't like.
So antifa/lefties get their way through the heckler's veto, again? Nice to know what the new rules are so we all can "play fair". Welcome to the new normal. You lefties will be sorry you blazed this trail (again).
Bay Area Guy said...
I guess these left-wing types haven't heard of the fallacy of the Heckler's Veto.
The Left position: We believe in free speech, except for hate speech. And we define hate speech as stuff we really, really don't like.
5/30/17, 10:33 AM
I guess I owe you a Coke...
Speech painted into a corner is the standard tyranny operating procedure. In London the King only permitted free speech in a small area 100x100 at the edge of Hyde Park around the Marble Arches.
Community Organizing is Soros paid riots and beat downs. You got to spend the Obama hidden slush money on something.
The Prog jurisprudence on the First Amendment is elegant in its simplicity. Five words only.
"Shut up! Because shut UP!"
Imagine the optics when the bus pulls into the bus depot, and armed thugs start beating the riders and setting their bus on fire.
The Berkeley Daily Californian says that hate speech is not protected under the 1st amendment, and also its okay to use violence to stop said speech. Seriously, go to their online site and read their editorials from last month. Oh, and as noted above, they get to decide what constitutes hate speech. But they better be careful. At some point, the warriors will declare the Daily Californian to be hate speech.
Dave from Minnesota said...
The Berkeley Daily Californian says that hate speech is not protected under the 1st amendment, and also its okay to use violence to stop said speech.
They'll also be very upset when their violence is met with violence. It seems at least some of them are shocked that we're starting to hate them right back.
I've been engrossed in the A&E Leah Remini series about the church of Scientology, and I have been struck by the similarities between their aggressive intimidation policies and those very same policies of the lefties as this business in Portland shows us. Antifa has no other purpose than to shut down their opponents.
Of course, I would happily put this viscous thug on the train down like the rabid dog he is, but the predominant brownshirt threat we face as a nation is virtually any random collection of libruls. Scratch a leftie and there is a tyrant screaming to get out.
- Krumhorn
"Hence the basic question which confronts the world's oppressed is: How is the struggle against the forces of injustice to be waged? There are two possible answers. One is resort to the all too prevalent method of physical violence and corroding hatred. The danger of this method is its futility. Violence solves no social problems; it merely creates new and more complicated ones. through the vistas of time a voice still cries to every potential Peter, "Put up your sword!" The shores of history are white with the bleached bones of nations and communities that failed to follow this command. If the American Negro and other victims of oppression succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle for justice, unborn generations will live in a desolate night of bitterness, and their chief legacy will be an endless reign of chaos."
Martin Luther King, Jr. "Nonviolence and Racial Justice"
This was the inevitable endgame when the left started pushing to ban "hate speech". They really hate a lot of speech.
And as I've said before, Antifa and Black Blog are really just socialist fellow travelers. They do what the respectable democrats won't. (Although there is less and less that the respectables wont do.)
Bernie Bro Jeremy Joseph Christian got a little stabby, so no more free speech for anyone!
If anybody needs his throat slit, it's Portland mayor Ted Wheeler.
Portland is not to be taken seriously on any level.
Ah, the ends justifies the means. Thank you lefties for teaching us this lesson. Everything from lies to violence is justified if it's for a good cause.
Time to go punch a Marxist in the face. They shouldnt be allowed to live.
The ACLU — it's still true! — supports free speech
This comment shows how far the ACLU has fallen.
It's probably not a good idea to escalate violence against a very well-armed opponent.
There are sleeping dogs that it would be better to let lie.
Just goes to show that deep down -- well, not even all that deep -- Marxists and fascists are really the same.
As a resident of about an hour south of said city, I've been trying to figure out what, exactly, to say about this. Mockturtle @1048am sums it up perfectly.
Still... What a shame.
In April, Portland’s typically family-friendly rose parade was canceled after antifa activists threatened to shut down roads if a Republican group wasn’t barred from the event.
I love how dishonest WaPo is. The threat was to charge the parade and physically remove the Republicans. WaPo soft sells it to close down streets to protect their fellow travelers. More Fake News in service if their political agenda.
It's telling that the ACLU's purported justification for its long-standing support of free expression is that ultimately the most marginalized will suffer. Happily the First Amendment protects not only the most marginalized but everybody--even the half of American voters who elected for Donald Trump.
Bill....if you go to their Facebook pages, that group shows images of Republicans getting their throats slit. And other implied death threats against Republicans.
Portland is a progressive ghetto.
So, are there any bloody shirts the left won't raise as a flag against the right?
Unless I misread the WaPo seems to assume the killer was some sort of rationale person aligned with the right. He was a crazy lunatic whose prior postings suggest (i) he liked Bernie (he argued for "death to HRC and all her supporters... to be carried out" by Bernie supporters), (ii) could not bring himself to vote for Trump, (iii) hated the pipelines and the military industrial complex, and (iv) called people who believed in circumcision "worthless cumbucket whores" (he really does not like circumcision or those who cut foreskins).
I lived a year in Oregon and its full of crazy people on drugs (or at least more so than Nebraska). But let's quit pretending that this guy belonged to the left or the right. He was a fucking whacko.
""Portland mayor asks feds to bar free-speech and anti-sharia rallies after stabbings.""
Democrats can't stand it when you denounce FGM, the killing of infidels, and treating women as property.
Progressivism and Sharia Law, two peas in a pod.
It’s gonna take an express Supreme Court ruling holding that hate speech, so-called, is NOT an exception to the 1st Amendment. The left has hung its hat on this mantra so frequently that many have come to believe it. The only boundary on speech is speech that expressly calls for imminent physical harm to others.
Here’s a really scary prospect (which is playing out right now on Trump’s travel ban EOs). If eight federal judges – one in a district court, two in an appeals court panel (en banc being automatically denied), and five in SCOTUS – approve X, you can do anything.
The Article VI oath to "this Constitution?" Hey, mister, nobody believes in them oaths anymore.
tcrosse said...
It's probably not a good idea to escalate violence against a very well-armed opponent.
Did anyone know he was armed? I'm of the impression they did not but I don't recall is said specifically. I may have presumed it because I also presume they would have acted differently if they had known.
At some point, and we are not there yet, authorities (governments, university administrations) will either decide to enforce laws and rules against disturbing the peace, mob action, and assault, or will their spaces to fascists, starting with Antifa and left-organized mob actions against speakers and others trying to peacably assemble and express themselves, but no doubt quickly encompassing other and opposed groups.
You're either for peaceful free expression or against it. So far, a very large sample of local governments and universities are against it. Using the threat of violence to stop such people, rather than protecting them from those threats, is lower than a snake's belly and doesn't fool anyone.
It's you woman and your news shows doing it.
"So violence gets its way? What a twisted response to the horrible murders!" When the left rules, violence gets its way. Celebrating the martyrdom of the great Muslim defenders by justifying the prog hecklers' veto and stirring up hatred against free speech advocates while declaring hate speech unconstitutional is a big win-win-win in the People's Republic of Portland. Not "twisted": logical.
It’s gonna take an express Supreme Court ruling holding that hate speech, so-called, is NOT an exception to the 1st Amendment.
Are there five justices who would so rule? Even if the NYT editorialized the other way?
The other day while helping a friend, she brought out her boom box so we could listen to some music. Only her boom box was tuned to NPR, and there was some supposedly humorous talk show that was on. She assured me it was entertaining, so we left it tuned to NPR.
She had to make a run to the hardware store, leaving me there to listen to this NPR program where the show's host joked about how Jeff Sessions was a member of the KKK, and how the recent outbreak of Ebola was probably making Donald Trump very happy.
And all the while the host's sidekick laughed her ass off, as did the studio audience.
When she returned, I told her this program was nothing but state-subsidized hate speech, lies, and innuendos and should be defunded.
There's a reason why lefties don't know about Islamic terrorism, why they think "Syrian refugees" are women and children from Syria, why they think all of the violence committed at Trump rallies is because of violent right-wing terrorists, why they get upset when Israel invades Gaza after enduring hundreds of rockets per day for weeks on end, and why they associate the KKK and Nazis with Republicans.
It's because they listen to bullshit all day long, and at taxpayer's expense.
Apparently some Democrat Texas State representative assaulted and threatened the life of a fellow Republican representative when he dared called ICE on a group of protesting illegal aliens.
As Fred Thompson said in the Hunt for Red October, This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
Did anyone know he was armed? I'm of the impression they did not but I don't recall is said specifically. I may have presumed it because I also presume they would have acted differently if they had known.
I was thinking of the general case of Lefties bringing on the roughhouse, rather than the specific case of the stabbing. But even then, it's not safe to assume that anyone is not armed in one way or another.
I thank them for showing us what their future will look like so very clearly.
Is it that they don't know any better, or are they far too arrogant and convinced of their moral superiority to care? This is starting to taste a bit too much like Munich in the Twenties. Let's hope our Twenties aren't a replay.
Are there five justices who would so rule? that hate speech is not an exception to the 1st Amendment.
We don't know but we do know there are four judges who will vote in lockstep with the current accepted progressive wisdom.
And if that accepted wisdom shifts the same four will vote the new prog line without a hint of shame. For instance Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a progressive reaction to Scalia decision. Now it's hate speech.
And the stabbings were by an anti-Trump supporter of Bernie who voted for Jill Stein in the general election, so he wants to speech by people who opposed candidates like Bernie and Jill because their speech is dangerous and could cause violence. The logic is impeccable.
The fact the stabber also seemed to be completely wacko doesn't seem to occur to him. It does lead one to wonder, though. Why are wackos attracted to Bernie in such great numbers?
" What?! Things are "fuzzy" and "fuses" are deemed short, and that's enough to throw out the free-speech tradition?!"
It's enough for Tom Hastings and people who think like him. There are a lot of them out there, and some of our supposedly best universities have been educating cohort after cohort of censors who aspire to power, and have the means to reach it. Some already have, and how high up they are is going to be revealed over time.
I still remember the Good Old Days, when the Right Wing was the threat to freedom and the Constitution.
I'm always confused by "We can't have Christian Law!" My first question is, "What, exactly, is Christian Law?" Why would that be bad?
Since the Constitution was enacted, we've had one "Christian Theocracy" in this land: Utah, middle of the 1800's. So clearly it was "The Handmaiden's tale" right? No: women got the vote there first. Until the Feds took it away. Instead of the "Wild wild" west of folklore, Utah was pretty calm, organized, and peaceful (when the US Government wasn't sending armies to attack its own citizens). Other religious beliefs were tolerated and indeed, the Mormon church actually helped build the local Catholic church/cathedral. It was an exemplary period.
What is there to fear from so-called "Christian law?" It seems to me that all of that fear mongering is by people who imagine that Christians will turn women into chattel, forbid XYZ and so on. These same people are the same ones telling you how Islam is the greatest and forbidding marches against Sharia law.
--Vance
Apparently, the train stabber is a big Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein supporter. If you listen to the MSM, he was wearing a red hat when he was harassing those two young girls. The Portland mayor made clear that he blames the red–hatted alt right. Turns out, it was the pussy-hatted alt left.
- Krumhorn
I'm beginning to think that the only solution to this divide is to redistrict states so that all the red counties will have more political clout and isolate the blue ones.
Wait until these Progressives learn about mandatory curfews....
Ah Portland. I used to travel there a good bit in the 80s and 90s The food is/was good, but the intellectual atmosphere was foul. Precious progressives are so proud of their self perceived moral superiority. Other than that, there's not much to recommend Portland as a place for a free thinking person to live. It's got the Berkeley problem with worse weather.
Here’s a really scary prospect (which is playing out right now on Trump’s travel ban EOs). If eight federal judges – one in a district court, two in an appeals court panel (en banc being automatically denied), and five in SCOTUS – approve X, you can do anything.
I've talked to liberals who do realize this and are open about their desire to use the courts to make or overturn laws that they can't do via the state and national legislatures. Example is the 2nd amendment. They say they want to use liberal judges to effectively do away with the 2nd amendment. It would still be there in the constitution, but would be so neutered it could just as well be repealed. Same with the 1st. Hillary wanted to make it illegal for a group of people to pool their money and make a movie critical of Hillary.
Through in a justice department that can find discrimination anywhere and you have a democracy that is rather limited.
"....if you go to their Facebook pages, that group shows images of Republicans getting their throats slit. And other implied death threats against Republicans."
"Time to go punch a Marxist in the face. They shouldnt be allowed to live."
---------------------------
One didn't have to get to Facebook to see death threats, all one had to do was read this thread. I say let them speak. The more vile, the better. Let the people see who they are and what they stand for.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/30/media/reince-priebus-libel-laws/
"Reince Priebus, the president's chief of staff, said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that the White House has discussed potential changes to laws that are intended to safeguard free speech.
"How it gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story," Priebus said. But he added that he thinks "newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news."
Changing the laws wouldn't be easy. Libel laws vary by state, and there's no federal libel law. And weakening press freedoms would likely take a constitutional amendment.
Trump and his administration have made attacks on the media a recurring part of his platform. Changing libel laws was even part of Trump's campaign trail rhetoric.
In February 2016, Trump said if he won the presidency he would "open up our libel laws so when (media) write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.""
[class] diversitists and Pro-Choice/abortionists projecting.
"I'm beginning to think that the only solution to this divide is to redistrict states so that all the red counties will have more political clout and isolate the blue ones."
This reflects democracy?
Inga: The administration noodling over how to hold the press more accountable is... perfectly fine, especially compared to how the previous administration compromised the press by illegally wire tapping them.
Like, once they actually propose a law, I'll care. Right now? Who cares?
I'm always confused by "We can't have Christian Law!" My first question is, "What, exactly, is Christian Law?" Why would that be bad?
What is there to fear from so-called "Christian law?" It seems to me that all of that fear mongering is by people who imagine that Christians will turn women into chattel, forbid XYZ and so on. These same people are the same ones telling you how Islam is the greatest and forbidding marches against Sharia law."
"The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another."
Jeremy Christian's pro Trump Facebook comments.
Christian was an equal opportunity hater. He hated Christians, Jews and Muslims. He vacillated from supporting Bernie to Trump. He made death threats toward Clinton.
Ok, Inga. Tell me a specific law that would be a "Christian Law" that is actually proposed by any major Christian sect.
I note that you didn't exactly deny that you support Sharia law though.
--Vance
Another ruling from the twilight fringe. We need a separation of Pro-Choice Cult and State.
It's telling that the transgender pride parade was held in downtown Salt Lake City to celebrate a transgender judge overriding black and Hispanic Democratic voters in California without the challenges faced in Berkley, Portland, and other left-wing havens.
Hate Loves Abortion... of unworthy human life, national Muslims, left-wing gym memberships, and First Amendment rights, too.
"I'm beginning to think that the only solution to this divide is to redistrict states so that all the red counties will have more political clout and isolate the blue ones."
This already happens through redistributive change (e.g. welfare industry), [class] diversity policies, and immigration reform forced by Obama's elective wars that targeted principally national Muslims (perhaps Libya for its oil) but also Christians (e.g. Egypt, Ukraine).
Inga said...
"....if you go to their Facebook pages, that group shows images of Republicans getting their throats slit. And other implied death threats against Republicans."
"Time to go punch a Marxist in the face. They shouldnt be allowed to live."
---------------------------
One didn't have to get to Facebook to see death threats, all one had to do was read this thread. I say let them speak. The more vile, the better. Let the people see who they are and what they stand for.
Yes indeed. You, for instance, applauding the Berkley Antifa crowd for beating up Trump supporters.
You decry violence unless it is against people you don't agree with.
Speech is speech. If it enrages you to the point where you commit a vilent act, well, that's on you.
Why doesn't the Portland government see this as an opportunity to bust these antifa goons?
Get them out in the open, with few civilians at risk. Once they go beyond bullhorns to bricks and sticks, arrest them. (Fully documented with body cameras.) It's not entrapment, since the PPD isn't setting up the rallies.
"I note that you didn't exactly deny that you support Sharia law though."
Seriously dude? It has to be denied, like taking some oath? What American woman of sound mind supports Sharia Law? We have the Constitution and any religious based law that would usurp it is anathema (so to speak) to modern women. This notion that leftists be it women, or men support Sharia Law is probably one of the more stupid things that has been promulgated by the right. Get a grip.
Note that Ann is outraged (as she should be) by this mayor's misguided over-reaction to the terrorism that happened in his city. But Ann has not once been critical of Trump's repeated calls for curbs on free speech because he does not like the press criticism of him.
but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another."
Unduly: adverb form of undue
Undue: unwarranted or inappropriate because excessive or disproportionate:
I think you can easily make a case for restricting or banning Islam or Muslims that is neither unwarranted or inappropriate because it is excessive or disproportionate.
Why doesn't the Portland government see this as an opportunity to bust these antifa goons?
Because they, like the Berkeley mayor, support the antifa goons.
"You, for instance, applauding the Berkley Antifa crowd for beating up Trump supporters.
You decry violence unless it is against people you don't agree with.
Speech is speech. If it enrages you to the point where you commit a vilent act, well, that's on you."
Really? Well that's news to me. Where and when did I supposedly do this? You sound as if you've been huffing gasoline.
This reflects democracy?
Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Portland is entirely run by anarchist-communists. Anyone who spends more than a few days here will realize that.
The US constitution simply doesn't apply in independent left-aligned city-states like Portland.
What American woman of sound mind supports Sharia Law?
Hence, his comment to you
You sound as if you've been huffing gasoline.
Useless endeavor since removal of lead.
Unknown said...
I'm always confused by "We can't have Christian Law!" My first question is, "What, exactly, is Christian Law?" Why would that be bad?
Since the Constitution was enacted, we've had one "Christian Theocracy" in this land: Utah, middle of the 1800's
Ummm, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may have his name in the church's name, but most other Christian denominations don't recognize the Mormons as Christian. As an individual familiar with history, I certainly don't. So calling Utah a "Christian Theocracy" is inaccurate.
Inga said...
"I'm beginning to think that the only solution to this divide is to redistrict states so that all the red counties will have more political clout and isolate the blue ones."
This reflects democracy?
It reflects local control. In eastern Washington near where I grew up there is a massive shortage of housing. The rental vacancy rate is below 1% and housing prices are way above what the average salary in the area supports. This is because of "Growth Management Act" policy pushed by Seattle/Olympia.
We lived hundreds of miles away from people who live in packed suburbs and massive multi-unit buildings telling us we could only build a new house on a 5 acre lot.
Inga, let me ask you what conclusion we on the right are supposed to draw from these undisputed facts:
1) you (generically liberal) condemn Christianity of all sorts; and when pressed vaguely support Christian sects that are pretty much meaningless--social clubs with a religious name, basically.
2) you stridently press for importing as refugees or other immigrants millions of Muslims. Not just the "reformed" ones either, but the ones from the deepest hearts of ISIS and other Wahhabists.
3) Any attempt to curb Islamic tendencies in western society is attacked vehemently as "racist" or "bigoted." Much like this story, where you are attacking the very idea of opposing Sharia. Meanwhile, vicious Islamic abuses such as Rotheringham and female genital mutilation is either praised or defended by you leftists. Even calling for an investigation is decried as bigotry and hatred.
4) You leftists are always silent about abuses in Islamic countries; such as women beaten and chained to a wall in Iran; while at the same time lighting your hair on fire and screeching if some lady says she wants to stay home and take care of her kids and raise them the right way.
Given all of the above undeniable facts, one can easily say that you leftists do not care at all about Sharia law and in fact prefer it over women being an actual believing Christian. It's easy to see that you Progressives prefer Islam and all its barbarities over Christianity. You promote Islam and defend it at every single turn; and you never, ever fail to have hysterics over "Christian law!" that you cannot even name. In fact, you do scream about Sharia law: so-called "Christian Sharia!" It's evil and horrendous and yet actual Islamic Sharia law is met with a "Meh, who cares?" by your side.
--Vance
So calling Utah a "Christian Theocracy" is inaccurate.
Not really. Christianity is religion based on the person and teachings of Christ. The LDS is based on the person and teachings of Christ. You just disagree with them.
Vance your entire comment was one broad brush stroke after another, hence any points you think you made, you didn't. Your "facts" are very much in dispute by rational Americans. Extremism is the biggest foe to democracy and freedom, I suggest being cognizant of that fact.
I support:
A representative Democracy
Due process when it comes to administering justice
Not taking someone’s life with maybe the exception of the worst criminal, and even then only after due process
Respecting people’s religious beliefs, even if they are different than mine
An economic safety net to help those in time of need, but not a hammock with unending support
Equal opportunity for everyone, but not equal outcomes
My God, I support a Christian theocracy!
Bill asks: Why doesn't the Portland government see this as an opportunity to bust these antifa goons?
The Portland government is antifa goons!
To be fair, I don't believe Inga has expressed approval of the Berkeley antifas.
I don't think she's expressed any disapproval. I doubt she's terrifically outraged by them.
But it was Ritmo who applauded Spencer getting punched and ARM who mocked the reaction of conservative readers to antifa violence. Conservatives are asking for it, in ARM's opinion, for daring to show up at places like Berkeley and anybody who gets upset over a guy getting hit over the head with a bike lock is just a snowflake.
I'm all for punching cute puppies in the face.
exlied - has Inga ever shown 1/10th the outrage when non-Muslims were being blown to bits/shot to death in Europe/USA/Israel than these Portland murders? Do you notice a pattern with the left - that non-Muslim lives DO NOT matter?
Inga said...
Vance your entire comment was one broad brush stroke after another, hence any points you think you made, you didn't. Your "facts" are very much in dispute by rational Americans. Extremism is the biggest foe to democracy and freedom, I suggest being cognizant of that fact.
LOL, Inga the 'voice of moderation', yeah right.
Inga - have you EVER voted for a Republican in your life?
I agree that I haven't seen Inga support violence. That said:
When she (eagerly) decries (usually fictional) violence on the right, she mentions specific instances, and regularly holds everyone on the Right responsible for it.
When she (under duress is forced to) decry violence on the Left, it is always, always phrased as "I decry all forms of violence from any side", unerringly fails to actually acknowledge any specific instance of leftist violence, and never, ever, ever actually holds anyone on the Left (even the direct perpetrators) to any sort of accountability or responsibility.
So one can be forgiven, I think, for believing she has a major double standard on the issue.
Now Ritmo and Arm, yep, full blown cheerleaders of fascist thuggery against the Right, and complete histrionic snowflakes over far far lesser transgressions against the Left.
"I'm all for punching cute puppies in the face."
Just stay away from the kittens, or feel the wrath of our resident mad cat lady.
In antipating her response here - surely you can come up with a better insult than nose hair.
It actually all fits in perfectly with the leftist method of rewriting history to suit their purposes:
When bad things happen when Republicans are running things, it's all Republicans' fault.
When bad things happen when leftists are running things, it's all America's fault.
"horrible murders" by a Trumpski. Well, that is progress of sorts for this site.
Three innocent Americans died because of a Trumpski.
So in other words, Inga, you cannot dispute them. The left supports violence against Christians and supports Islam in all forms, and defends violent Islamic actions it would (and has) rioted over if done by others.
I recall the German feminist girl who was gang raped by Islamists... and proceeded to explain how she wouldn't report them because it might cause them to get into trouble.
Or the leftist politician whose daughter was raped and murdered by Islamists... and the very next day he was out there decrying "racism" against Islam.
Or the reaction of people like ARM and Ritmo who blame the Pulse nightclub massacres on Christians--really. I assume you do the same, Inga?
Of course, nothing tops Ritmo recently: "Gianforte demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the Republicans--there is never an excuse for violence for political reasons. By the way, I can watch Nazi's getting hurt all day long, and who's a Nazi? Why, everyone I disagree with! They deserve to be hurt and murdered!"
Did you decry that, Inga? No, you laughed with his calls to punch me in particular in the face, along with others. Just this last week. You defended it. In short, you specifically defend leftist violence against people you disagree with. Not a peep out of you saying violence directed against conservatives was wrong. You support it.
--Vance
This is a fascinating map -- An interactive map of Portland Homicdes 2013-2017. The dogs that didn't bark.
Oh, and other Unknown? This guy was a Bernie Sanders supporter, and had blogged about all the violence he wanted to commit against "Trump supporters." In other words, he was you and your kind. You own him.
--Vance
Never let a crisis go to waste, said the left.
Based on that map above, Portland has had 17 unsolved homicides (some of them double-homicides) since 2014.
After Trump is taken off the stage, the US will have two kinds of citizens: Americans and Trumpski's. Once a Trumpski, always a Trumpski. Will be good for all Americans if Trumpski's immigrated to Russia.
The ACLU — it's still true! — supports free speech
@Althouse, IMHO you're being gullible. Ignore what the ACLU says and focus on what the ACLU and its participants do -- or don't do, when there is a need for someone to stand up and commit themselves -- before you believe that the ACLU still supports civil liberties.
Inga: "Vance your entire comment was one broad brush stroke after another,..."
LOL
No comment necessary.
Hey Inga: Kathy Griffin, leftist reporter, went on the air this morning with a bloody severed head of Donald Trump. Do you or do you not support her call to execute the president? Do you or do you not support the leftist violence currently going on in this country?
Do you or do you not support Portland in this? You have not issued your opinion on the Portland mayor's call to deny freedom of speech for Republicans--you've only attacked Republicans in this thread as "hateful." So do you endorse the Portland Mayor's attempt to strip constitutional rights from citizens that he disagrees with?
--Vance
"Oh, and other Unknown? This guy was a Bernie Sanders supporter, and had blogged about all the violence he wanted to commit against "Trump supporters." In other words, he was you and your kind. You own him."
Jeremy Christian's pro Trump Facebook comments.
Painting with a broad brush once again.
I note you do not deny he was a Bernie supporter, Inga. Just like you were, as I recall. He hated Hillary... maybe he supported Trump because Trump, after all, is a Democrat at heart.
Nevertheless: you still openly support violence against Republicans and Conservatives; and you still openly (for you haven't denied it) support the Portland Mayor in his attempt to strip constitutional rights from people you disagree with.
Even the ACLU hasn't gone as far as you have, Inga.
--Vance
"Hey Inga: Kathy Griffin, leftist reporter, went on the air this morning with a bloody severed head of Donald Trump. Do you or do you not support her call to execute the president? Do you or do you not support the leftist violence currently going on in this country?"
Are you insane? Of course I don't support any violence to any one and most defiantly don't support any calls to assasinate the POTUS. I don't like Kathy Griffin, I think she's an unfunny loudmouth.
"Do you or do you not support Portland in this? You have not issued your opinion on the Portland mayor's call to deny freedom of speech for Republicans--you've only attacked Republicans in this thread as "hateful." So do you endorse the Portland Mayor's attempt to strip constitutional rights from citizens that he disagrees with?"
My 11:56 AM comment:
".....I say let them speak. The more vile, the better. Let the people see who they are and what they stand for."
And Vance, you sound like some crazed questioner in the Salem Witch Trials, which is sort of humorous actually.
Back when I still watched it, I noticed that Law and Order would pretty regularly have some character, usually the DA, tell somebody, while discussing some violent crime motivated by racism, that at the parties he attended he was hearing people say things that you didn't hear 10 years earlier.
Leaving aside the idiocy of a New York DA attending cocktail parties and dinners where the guests are apparently KKK members, seriously. What are they yelling the N word at the help? Wearing blackface? Speaking approvingly of Amos n Andy?
The message being pushed was that speech was going to lead to violence and thus it was perfectly OK, in fact moral, to suppress it. Especially since if it isn't people might discover they aren't as isolated in there views as the PTB would like them to think.
"I note you do not deny he was a Bernie supporter, Inga. Just like you were, as I recall. He hated Hillary... maybe he supported Trump because Trump, after all, is a Democrat at heart."
I said...
"Christian was an equal opportunity hater. He hated Christians, Jews and Muslims. He vacillated from supporting Bernie to Trump. He made death threats toward Clinton.
5/30/17, 12:15 PM"
"Nevertheless: you still openly support violence against Republicans and Conservatives; and you still openly (for you haven't denied it) support the Portland Mayor in his attempt to strip constitutional rights from people you disagree with.
Even the ACLU hasn't gone as far as you have, Inga.
--Vance"
Inga said...
".....I say let them speak. The more vile, the better. Let the people see who they are and what they stand for."
Get a grip
Unknown said...
"horrible murders" by a Trumpski. Well, that is progress of sorts for this site."
One idiotic and bigoted comment by you. Unfortunately we can not call that progress, because those are the only sort of comments you are capable of.
Keep trying. Perhaps some day you will say something intelligent.
Any more accusations you want to make against me oh mighty Inquisitor Vance?
It is ridiculous in the extreme to ascribe any sort of coherent political philosophy to a lunatic.
Nothing to do with left, right or sideways here. Scapegoating Trump and the GOP for this looks increasingly foolish.
Not that the prospect of looking foolish has ever daunted the Left.
Qwinn said...
"I agree that I haven't seen Inga support violence. That said:
When she (eagerly) decries (usually fictional) violence on the right, she mentions specific instances, and regularly holds everyone on the Right responsible for it.
When she (under duress is forced to) decry violence on the Left, it is always, always phrased as "I decry all forms of violence from any side", unerringly fails to actually acknowledge any specific instance of leftist violence, and never, ever, ever actually holds anyone on the Left (even the direct perpetrators) to any sort of accountability or responsibility."
Yeah, I'd say that's accurate.
So you expect me to simply ignore violence from the right?
Wrong.
Unknown said...
After Trump is taken off the stage, the US will have two kinds of citizens: Americans and Trumpski's. Once a Trumpski, always a Trumpski. Will be good for all Americans if Trumpski's immigrated to Russia.
5/30/17, 1:55 PM
Go for yours, pal.
I note that Inga completely ignored her support of Ritmo (in his Toothless Revolutionary persona) and his direct physical threats against me in specific and a few other posters.
I do know she was laughing it up with him after those threats, though. Fully endorsing it, I might say. Not a problem with attacking conservatives because, as Ritmo said, we are all Nazi's anyway. We disagree with him, thus we must be Nazi's and do Nazi's have rights?
Well, Inga, do they?
As for ignoring violence from the right: why not, you always ignore it from the left. And there is far, far more of it from them.
--Vance
I notice that Oh Mighty Inquisitor Vance completely ignored and possibly even supports (!) this comment, as he does not decry it.
"Blogger Fen said...
Ah, the ends justifies the means. Thank you lefties for teaching us this lesson. Everything from lies to violence is justified if it's for a good cause.
Time to go punch a Marxist in the face. They shouldnt be allowed to live.
5/30/17, 10:48 AM"
"Will be good for all Americans if Trumpski's immigrated to Russia."
You'll have to make us, Unknown. Try it.
Hahahahaha!
Well, Inga: That's the standard you leftists are promoting. Tell me, please, what exactly is wrong with Fen's statement? Oh noes, it is supporting violence against the left for political reasons! Well, you are a-ok with violence for political reasons when it comes from the left. So why is what Fen said wrong?
Besides: do you identify with Marxists? They are responsible for 100's of millions of deaths in the last 150 years. Untold misery and waste of human life. Is there anyone more appropriate to punch in the face than a Marxist?
See, unlike you I don't identify all leftists as Marxist. You apparently agree with Ritmo that everyone who voted for Trump is a Nazi and therefore an unperson, devoid of any rights. If you aren't a Marxist, why do you care if one is punched in the face? The policy of the United States of America for decades was to kill Marxists; I hardly think punching one is a bad thing. Do you? Marxism is an objectively evil political philosophy; far worse than the slaveholders of Confederate America justifying slavery.
I suppose you have no problems with punching a Confederate slaveholder. But why do you defend Islamic slaveholders?
--Vance
The Portland Rose Festival is now underway. The June 4 Trump Free Speech rally would be at the federal park Terry Schrunk Plaza across from City Hall, the same day as a city fair at the waterfront just 3 blocks away. That might work if it were a small rally, but it's on President Trump if it goes ahead.
The proposed June 10 anti-sharia march would be the same day as the Rise Festival's Grand Floral Parade, and Terry Schrunk Plaza is just two blocks from the parade route. President Trump would be a fool to let a federal permit be granted for that day and location. I wonder what the organizers have in mind for the march, perhaps they just mean to march around the little plaza.
Some first amendment legal questions here: Can the government invoke a time, place, and manner restriction after a permit is granted? Is it a protester veto if you count the size of the expected crowd, including counter-protesters, in considering proximity to another event? Or is that just good common sense?
"Tell me, please, what exactly is wrong with Fen's statement? Oh noes, it is supporting violence against the left for political reasons! Well, you are a-ok with violence for political reasons when it comes from the left. So why is what Fen said wrong?"
Do you hear voices from God, Oh Grand Inquisitor Vance? You don't know what is wrong with what Fen said? Ask God on your knees before accusing any "leftist" of any wrong doing henceforth.Get a grip, because it has become increasingly evident that you have a loose grip on reality. You come across an an extremist and it is extremism that is the biggest threat to democracy.
Inga, it is quite appropriate to accuse "leftists" of wrong doing, since leftists murdered over 100 million people during the 20th century.
Inga, you know very well that if Hannity had ever appeared on TV holding the severed head of Obama you would have been here denouncing all of us and holding every Trump voter in the country responsible.
Hannity would have been canned immediately if he had done such a thing. That idiot Griffin will probably get by when she issues a *wink wink* apology.
CNN knows that most of their viewers would cheer if Trump was decapitated.
Inga, I have a loose grasp on reality? You are the one who has to be forced to issue perfunctory "it might be wrong on a Tuesday in may" whenever a leftist or Islamist does something horrible, while at the same time you always, always attack conservatives.
Well, guess what: You and your leftists freaks are probably going to be horrified a lot more because all of this "Law doesn't apply to leftists, only to people we don't like" isn't going to last much longer.
You support the judges who literally said "This is only a problem because Trump did it; any other President it would be legal!" You support, no doubt, the state of Illinois that just made it illegal for Christians to be foster parents (at least, unless said "Christian" is fully on board with forcing their foster kids to be transgendered). You decry "Violence from the right!" while you laugh it up with explicitly violent leftists. Remember that poor rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask during his performance? You leftists ended his career and banned him for life from being a clown. Your response to Kathy Griffen's decapitation of Trump? "I don't like violence and don't support assassination calls." Are you going to call for her to be banned for life from TV? Of course not. Leftists never do anything worthy of being punished, do they?
What was your response to the leftist hitting people over the head with bike locks? Or setting Trump supporter's hair on fire? "I don't like violence." How.... noncommittal.
Do you know what is more horrible than violence, Inga? How about the left's determination to remove all Constitutional rights from the people they don't like... which is everyone? You seem strangely not worked up about losing your constitutional rights, Inga. After all, at some point you yourself are going to be on the wrong side of the liberal Jihad, and find out you don't have rights either. Will you expect sympathy from us? After all, you can point to hardly anything where you support rights for Republicans or Conservatives. It's all "Evil Rethuglicans are evil and shouldn't do X, Y, Or Z! They are fascist monsters! Oh, they might technically be allowed to exist, but they shouldn't!"
And as far as the "Grand Inquisitor" Isn't that you, Inga? Trying to force everyone to bow to the great gods of Progressivism, like Moloch, Baal, and the new one: Allah? How dare anyone ever, ever speak against the leftist Abortion gods!
I'm no extremist, Inga. Well, I suppose from your point of view, which says that supporting Washington or Jefferson in their fight against an overpowering State is extremist, I guess I am. Sorry, I don't want a King. You do.
--Vance
A "hard to believe" headline at the WaPo? I disagree, finding it MOST believable.
"I'm no extremist, Inga".
You most certainly are.
I don`t really know anything about the groups targeted in Portland, so I don`t intend this to be directed at any specific group. I just intend it as an almost certainly unpopular general point. Living freely is a concrete state of existence that that does not require hateful, racist, bigoted etc. speech to thrive. When the principle of free expression becomes as dogmatic as it can be in America nobody stops to count the cost of the garbage dumped into the culture. Other countries manage to restrict hate speech without compromising the fundamental experience of freedom for its citizens, because they`re willing to draw a line and risk making a few mistakes that may have to be appealed or reexamined. In insisting on making no mistakes, and hanging everything on the always logically fallacious slippery slope argument, America pays in cumulative ways I don`t think are always counted.
Leftists/Marxists have killed hundreds of millions of people once they have taken power in more than 20 situations all around the world. They used well documented methods to gain power that include violence against political opponents. Leftists/Marxists are doing those exact things here in the US right now on numerous college campuses and in many cities. Portland is just the latest.
Their intentions are bad. Their actions are bad. The Nazi's were just one example of socialists/leftists taking power and causing harm. The left is acting exactly the same way now. The new page in their playbook is open borders and importing poor/violent people to help them destabilize the current system. There is no reason to ignore their violence. When they turn violent they should be thrown in jail and so should people associating with them.
This becomes a problem when the state/police turn a blind eye to their activities and allow their injustice to continue.
Snark, you need to move to Europe. Just go.
Snark: Here's the problem with "Hate speech." Inga wants to ban "Hate speech." The question they always, always ask is "How can you support hate speech? Why shouldn't we ban it? It's not nice!"
The question they don't want you asking is "What is hate speech?" Because the answer to that question is "Hate speech is speech I hate."
I'm all for banning hate speech... if I get to define what is hate and what is not hate. Think Inga would like it if we banned whatever I considered Hate speech? Of course not!
Since the left defines "hate speech" as "Speech we hate!" it behooves all of us to resist their attempts to ban it. These are the same people who claim that saying "heterosexual marriage is a good thing" is hateful and bigoted and must banned. These are the same people who say that "Jesus loves you" is hateful and "Allah Akbar" is the most beautiful sound in the world (see Obama, Barack).
--Vance
Portland is a progessive liberal enclave. Its residents are unapologetically Pro-Choice, which informs both their moral and legal philosophy. With their overwhelming approval of Obama, they were backers of elective wars that targeted national Muslims and Ukrainians. Ironically, they are the bigots (i.e. sanctimonious hypocrites) that forced mass emigration to escape Obama opening abortion fields from Africa to the Middle East to Eastern Europe, where the survivors were summarily redistributed by Democratic socialists for leverage and profit.
"Inga wants to ban "Hate speech"."
My 11:56 AM comment:
".....I say let them speak. The more vile, the better. Let the people see who they are and what they stand for."
To be fair, left-wing ideologues range from Pro-Choice/diversity (i.e. classify individuals by the "color of their skin" or classes) to Pro-Choice/abortionists (i.e. deny life unworthy) to Pro-Choice/social justice warriors including elective wars that force catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises), which ironically targeted national Muslims, and Ukrainians, too.
Still, the left denying civil rights pales in comparison to denying science and human rights, which are both exacerbated by their liberal fiscal policies (e.g. progressive debt), elective wars, extrajudicial trials, and forced immigration reform to disenfranchise Americans in gerrymandered districts.
The ACLU's defense of free speech is quite disturbing, being based not on any concept of inalienable rights but rather on a consequentialist analysis that holds the prospective effects of speech restrictions on "marginalized" people to be the sole basis for opposing them. Since it's not at all clear that the ACLU's analysis is factually correct, it has actually provided a justification for its future abandonment of free speech as something it will defend.
Inga: "I say, let them speak. The more vile, the better!"
The vile speech in question? How women shouldn't be slaves to Islamic whims. You call that platform vile, Inga. Then you wonder why people say you support Sharia law?
Well, leftists all over are doing just what you did: calling speech against Islamic Sharia law "bigoted". "Hateful" "Vile."
If speech against forcing women to be slaves to Islam is vile, bigoted and hateful, then doesn't that mean you, well, support sharia?
I also note that you didn't say that people have a right to speak: you just think that people will be horrified at opposing Islamic enslaving of women. From what I can tell, most leftist are horrified by any opposition to Islamic enslaving of women. They never fight against it, after all.
--Vance
"Three innocent Americans died because of a Trumpski."
Well, other than the inconvenient fact he was a Sanders/Stein supporter, you're completely correct.
I'm sure Inga will object to me saying leftists are ok with Sharia. I'm sure she will then point out the massive outrage from the left over the Rotheringham, England Islamic rape/enslavement of thousands of young girls.
Right? Surely there was a massive outcry from the left?
No, wait: only the right had a problem with the leftist government and the local Imam's working hand in hand to turn Rotheringham's young girls into Islamic sex slaves. The left was pretty much a-ok with it.
In fact, Rotheringham just got busted again because the local leftist government, after having been caught the first time, did precisely nothing to change or stop it. Yawns from the left, once again.
This is your side, Inga. I hope you are proud of it.
--Vance
@Not Sure
The ACLU did a 180 on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it claimed that the Act was meant to provide protection to marginalized religions and was never meant to protect a majority religion.
That's ridiculous on its face. The legislation was supported by all mainstream Christian denominations who recognized that religious freedom had to apply to everyone or eventually it would apply to no one. In addition, its logically incoherent. If something is a right, its a right, even if the majority seek to exercise it.
The ACLU's equally sophistic in its approach to the 2nd Amendment. Their stated stance is that restrictions on the right to bear arms are fine because the courts have said so. So they see no need to litigate when restrictions are imposed. They certainly do not apply that same standard to the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments. Though I expect as this 'hate speech is not free speech' nonsense continues that their position on the 1st Amendment will 'evolve.'
This is the left. This is your movement Inga.
The left clearly defines hate speech as speech it disagrees with. They clearly validate intimidation and violence.
There is no reason to treat them as if they were good decent people. If the police don't throw people that do this in jail then it is quite right to view this as injustice and react accordingly.
If it was up to the right there would be peace and we would be going about our lives. If it was up to the left they act like violent tyrants.
The left just gets mad when we fight back.
Note that Ann is outraged (as she should be) by this mayor's misguided over-reaction to the terrorism that happened in his city. But Ann has not once been critical of Trump's repeated calls for curbs on free speech because he does not like the press criticism of him.
And as usual, "Once" has no idea what he/she is talking about.
A sitting president who suggests that libel laws be revisited because of media lies, is NOT the same as asking the U.S. government to flat-out stop free speech. Your comparison has zero merit.
Ummm, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may have his name in the church's name, but most other Christian denominations don't recognize the Mormons as Christian. As an individual familiar with history, I certainly don't. So calling Utah a "Christian Theocracy" is inaccurate.
I'm Catholic, but I absolutely hate this argument. Mormons consider themselves Christians, and worship Jesus Christ like EVERY OTHER Christian religion. That works for me, and should work for everyone else. The other denominations don't have any special trademark on deciding who is called a Christian and who is not.
"I also note that you didn't say that people have a right to speak"
I spoke of the Constitution. I made a point of saying that any religious laws that would attempt to usurp it would be unConstitutional. As a modern American woman I treasure the protections I receive under the Constitution. I see you continue to atttempt to elicit some sort of "confession" from me. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? How extremist you sound? How positively medieval you sound? You will henceforth be Grand Inquisitor Vance as far as I'm concerned.
Your continued demands for confessions have become boring. I no sooner answer one of your unhinged accusations and questions and then you repeat in other words. Get a grip. You don't help your side by your unhinged repetitive comments.
Ignore what the ACLU says and focus on what the ACLU and its participants do -- or don't do, when there is a need for someone to stand up and commit themselves -- before you believe that the ACLU still supports civil liberties.
Big Mike,
Note the very soft bit of boilerplate the ACLU put out, even beginning with "It may be tempting to shut down speech we disagree with". Can they try any harder to not actually denounce it?
Here is what they said about Trump's EO on Religious Freedom:
"The ACLU fights every day to defend religious freedom, but religious freedom does not mean the right to discriminate against or harm others. If President Trump signs an executive order that attempts to provide a license to discriminate against women or LGBT people, we will see him in court."
Note the difference in tone...
@Ann Althouse wrote, "WaPo tells us that Portland has a problem with 'anarchists' getting violent at 'peaceful anti-Trump demonstrations.'"
Well, when I clicked on the link to the WaPo article I hit a paywall (I thought if Ann linked to a WaPo article in her post, we wouldn't get "docked" on our monthly allotment if we clicked the WaPo link; alas, this is not the case). So I don't know what the entire article says -- all I can read are the excerpts Ann provided.
But what Ann (I assume she wasn't quoting WaPo) wrote is completely backwards. Portland has a problem with "anarchists" getting violent at "peaceful PRO-Trump demonstrations."
This is the same Portland that only last week shut down a "mom & pop" taco stand founded by two women because the women learned some things about how to make authentic tacos while visiting Mexico. And here I thought the left was all about embracing multi-culturalism -- including celebrating various ethnic foods -- and assimilation. Now, with their "Day of Absence" at Evergreen College (white people are to leave campus) and other separatist demands, backlash and fury towards transgendered women who "appropriate" oppression suffered by woman but still enjoy "male privilege," and their internal debates re whether gender is a social construct whereas race is not, etc., etc., I can't keep up with their "ideologies" any more. There's no pleasing these people.
Painting with a broad brush once again.
Jesus, Inga, have you not a shred of self-awareness? Every single time Trump has done anything, you paint all Republicans (or right wingers, or whatever) with a broad brush. Yet in this instance, you bend over backward to make sure that anyone else doesn't.
Read Qwinn's post, then read it again. Then take an honest look in the mirror. Because that's you to a tee.
So you expect me to simply ignore violence from the right?
No. What is expected from any decent human being is to decry all violence when it happens, and to NOT paint with a broad brush just because the person doing the violence happens to be on the right. IN other words - consistency.
And don't complain how the right is inconsistent - if we are, be an adult and show us how to do it. That's how to be a big person.
Living freely is a concrete state of existence that that does not require hateful, racist, bigoted etc. speech to thrive.
Could you define hateful? Racist? Bigoted? Is having right wing views automatically hateful or bigoted or racist? Once you define them, can you promise me those definitions will stay set in stone?
Allow me to be blunt: we are better than Europe. Europe is falling apart because people CAN'T express how angry they are because of how their lives are being changed. The fact that ANYONE can't see this is infuriating.
Once you lose a freedom, not only do you never get it back, you continue to lose more freedom. This is a BAD thing. Every time.
The ACLU — it's still true! — supports free speech.
The ACLU only takes a weak position on the government's restriction of speech. It takes no position on black masked thugs beating up speakers while the police stand back so not as to inflame the rioters.
What is expected from any decent human being is to decry all violence when it happens.
If you truly decry violence, the political affiliation of the perpetrator is of no interest to you. It would be like decrying their birthdate or eye color.
Of course the political affiliation is generally the most important feature of those who purport to be decrying the violence.
I'm Catholic, but I absolutely hate this argument. Mormons consider themselves Christians, and worship Jesus Christ like EVERY OTHER Christian religion. That works for me, and should work for everyone else.
I live near Mormons and would agree that they share the faith, religion, and many or most traditions, of other Christian groups. If anything, they are more Christian in that they do not adopt a "living" or interpreted faith and religion that is common among some other groups and subsets.
I decry elective abortion of lives deemed unworthy. I decry elective wars that open abortion fields and force catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform. I decry exploiting the refugees of elective wars, and native people, for democratic leverage.
"So you expect me to simply ignore violence from the right?"
"No. What is expected from any decent human being is to decry all violence when it happens,and to NOT paint with a broad brush just because the person doing the violence happens to be on the right. IN other words - consistency.
And don't complain how the right is inconsistent"
--------------------------------
"I agree that I haven't seen Inga support violence. That said:
When she (under duress is forced to) decry violence on the Left, it is always, always phrased as "I decry all forms of violence from any side.
5/30/17, 1:36 PM
---------------------
You are nothing if not inconsistent. I decry ALL violence and Qwinn doesn't like it. You demand me to decry ALL violence, which I do, yet you ignore it.
LOL at you people. Let the Inquisition continue! You may yet get your confession.
Sounding more like 2 antifa faggots decided to punch a Nazi in the face for hate speech and got stabbed in self defense.
Inga, you can't be this stupid, here is a simplification of everyone's complaint about you:
Republican kicks puppy
Inga: Republicans are evil
Democrat kicks puppy
Inga/ people are evil
....can you tell us what is missing here.....?
Onsie brings in the violins. Appeal to emotion.
Nickolas Kristof has a moving piece today about the Portland terrorist attack and its three heroes.
Kristof is virtue signaling. Half his article is a repetition of facts you could read in any paper. The other half was blaming Trump.
I would look to see Kristof's column on the Dallas police shootings and his tying of Obama's rhetoric to the actions of the shooter, but I don't need to waste my time, do I?
Althouse, however, created a forum to discuss the tragedy in a different way than anything else playing out in the news cycle.
Ann Althouse > Nicholas Kristof. And twice on Sunday.
If you find Ann's posts "morally repugnant", you're free to spend your time elsewhere. In fact, if you feel that way and stay it only serves to undercut your claim.
"Republican kicks puppy
Inga: Republicans are evil
Democrat kicks puppy
Inga/ people are evil "
The conversation is above your poor sad violent head. Stick to what you know best, making death threats against others. You're a base sort of fellow, no one can expect more from you.
Inga said...
Jeremy Christian's pro Trump Facebook comments.
5/30/17, 2:02 PM
Jeremy Christian's "pro Trump" statements: "Trump is Hitler"..."Trump is the anti-Christ"...
Yeah, real pro-Trump statements from the Bernie-bro there. That must be the democrat party media messaging that democrat party politicians fret just isn't working like it used to, except with brain-dead progressives and democrat party members.
Republican kicks puppy
Inga: Republicans are evil
Democrat kicks puppy
Inga/ people are evil
....can you tell us what is missing here.....?
Is it that Republicans aren't people?
Fen said...
Inga, you can't be this stupid, here is a simplification of everyone's complaint about you:
Republican kicks puppy
Inga: Republicans are evil
Democrat kicks puppy
Inga/ people are evil
....can you tell us what is missing here.....?
Fen breaks out the crayons. It wont work. A lack of critical thinking ability is an issue but not the problem. The problem is not that they don't understand, it is that morals don't matter to them. For the left it is all Will to Power. I think you know this though and are just trying to be nice.
If leftists attack Trump supporters the Trump supporters deserved it and are racists. If a Stein/Bernie supporter stabs someone he was a Trump supporter really. If Trump supporters fight back violence is bad. No it doesn't make sense but if they beat up everyone that disagrees they don't need to make sense.
Inga said...
The conversation is above your poor sad violent head. Stick to what you know best, making death threats against others. You're a base sort of fellow, no one can expect more from you.
Perfect leftist.
Onsie: "Ann's post morally repugnant"
Is it hate speech, Onsie? Are you going to punch her in the face?
But what if Althouse is right? What if the evidence proves that our "heroes" iniated violence in response to political speech they didn't approve of, and got stabbed in self-defense?
Will you and Inga and Brooke denounce them? Or will you Jack each other off like you did in the last fake news thread?
Will those commenting here on this thread denounce Fen for making death threats?
It's ironic that the bullies, the abortionist, and the targets are all victims of left-wing ideology: [class] diversity, elective abortion, and elective wars. The unholy trinity of the Pro-Choice Cult. The would be victims may also be the collateral damage (a.k.a. refugees) of Obama's elective wars, and subsequent coverup by left-aligned regimes, human and civil rights corporations, and "reform" churches and synagogues, to be exploited for democratic leverage (e.g. gerrymandered districts to disenfranchise native people) and welfare profits.
Achilles, you consider Fen one of your own? My observation of Fen, relates to Fen alone.
Funny that Inga can't answer such a simple queztion. It really speaks to how intellectual dishonest she is.
And I didn't make death threats, you traitorous cunt. I advised Ritmo to commit suicide, as an act of Mercy. He's not the man he once was, and the pinnacle of his existence has become trolling the comments at Althouse. It's sad, like a struck deer frantically hobbling along the side of the road.
Fen said...
"Time to go punch a Marxist in the face. They shouldnt be allowed to live."
5/30/17, 10:48 AM
-------------
To Althousians,
Rise above the Fens among you, if you can. I encourage my fellow liberals to also denounce and reject violence. We are walking down a mine filled path.
Unknown said...
... only the right had a problem with the leftist government and the local Imam's working hand in hand to turn Rotheringham's young girls into Islamic sex slaves. The left was pretty much a-ok with it.
--Vance
5/30/17, 4:02 PM
This is happening in America now... "The Denver City Council agreed Monday to change to local sentencing guidelines in order to shield legal immigrants convicted of domestic violence from deportation proceedings."
Inga, how would you describe your financial situation? Do you have alot of assets? Own your own house? What state do you reside in?
Inga, if you think I'm making death threats, you should call the police. That's what honest people would do.
So go ahead, I'll wait right here....
In fact, if you really want to accuse me of making death threats, you should contact Althouse and lodge a complaint. If you are being honest..
Do it in writing too, so there is a record for the court.
No American women support Sharia?
Please google Linda Sarsour.
Please note she is being given prominent spots leading the kinds of protests you cheer (w/pussy hats, etc) and even honored with giving the commencement address at a NY university! Let's deal with reality.
"....you should contact Althouse and lodge a complaint."
No, I believe in your 1st Amendment right to say any vile thing you please. When you do this, you expose what you are.
"Do it in writing too, so there is a record for the court."
LOL, Fen. Just stop digging sweetie.
"They shouldn't be allowed to live"
Inga, that quite doesn't sound at all familiar to you? Georgetown professor getting Nazi jackass banned from her gym?
Funny how you supported the staement when a liberal said it, and then hop on an anti-violence soapbox when I repeat it verbatim.
EXACTLY what everyone else has pointed out.
I really wish you were smart, this isn't even sporting.
Oh so now you're backtracking. You want us to believe you actually care about violent rhetoric, you accuse me of making death threats, but you wont contact police because you think death threats are protected by the 1st Amendment. ..?
Are you taking prescription medication?
Inga: "stop digging sweetie"
No really. Give me your attorney's phone number. Mine would like to have a little chat.
"Inga, that quite doesn't sound at all familiar to you? Georgetown professor getting Nazi jackass banned from her gym?
Funny how you supported the staement when a liberal said it, and then hop on an anti-violence soapbox when I repeat it verbatim."
Funny how I didn't read or even comment on any blogpost regarding a Georgetown professor "getting a Nazi jackass booted from her gym". I did try to find what you might be referring to, is this it?
Washington Post writes an ambiguous headline.
"No really. Give me your attorney's phone number. Mine would like to have a little chat."
Stop embarrassing yourself. I'm trying to be kind here.
Inga said...
To Althousians,
Rise above the Fens among you, if you can. I encourage my fellow liberals to also denounce and reject violence. We are walking down a mine filled path.
The left is pushing this.
Fuck you people. You had your chance to be reasonable and decent. You sat silently and continue to sit silently as violent leftists run around campuses and cities every day attacking people they disagreed with.
You have participated. You constantly call us racists. You support the obvious coup of a legitimately elected president. Your double standards are the only standards you have. Your fellow leftists do not reject violence and never have. Once Written is trolling on the other thread calling all Trump supporters all sort of names.
If you act like decent human beings for a few years we will respect you again. But right now you are a violent unlawful movement trying to destroy the foundations of this country.
No, you are not being kind and you are the one embarrassing yourself. You accused me of making death threats on the internet. But you refuse to file a formal complaint to the owner of this site and you refuse to call police.
And now you claim death threats are protected by the 1st Amendment.
Fen,
If I thought you were going to act on your big mouthed online death threats, I certainly would contact he authorities.
Inga said...
Fen,
If I thought you were going to act on your big mouthed online death threats, I certainly would contact he authorities.
But you are happy when the authorities look the other way when your friends are violent and threatening. Double standards are your only standards.
Will those commenting here on this thread denounce Fen for making death threats?
Do you mean in general, or do you consider yourself an actual Marxist?
Fen, please stop threatening the Marxists. It hasn't been a good century for them and there is no need to pile on.
Abby Someone wrote: You most certainly are.
Othering Vance. A typically fascistic move. The next step is exclusion, followed by extermination.
Mute prayer.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, etc."
Geez, Char Char, just hold up an effigy of Ted Wheeler's head drenched in blood, why doncha?
Inga said...
Achilles, you consider Fen one of your own? My observation of Fen, relates to Fen alone.
Fen said...
Ah, the ends justifies the means. Thank you lefties for teaching us this lesson. Everything from lies to violence is justified if it's for a good cause.
Time to go punch a Marxist in the face. They shouldn't be allowed to live.
Marxists are the greatest murderers in recent history. They are uniformly tyrannical and amoral. I see nothing wrong with what Fen said. It is a disgusting ideology and should only be taught in schools for historical and philosophical value. The second they start organizing and turn violent as they have and always do they need to be defeated. I would gladly fight in order to prevent another mass murder event here.
These people in Portland that threaten violence to shut down opposing viewpoints should be arrested. If the police and the elected officials in Portland refuse to arrest them the politicians should be investigated by the feds for conspiracy and racketeering and thrown in jail with their fellow leftists.
If the government completely refuses to protect the civil rights of citizens who wish to speak then it is time for the government to go. The primary job of our government is to protect the liberty of it's citizens.
Achilles wrote:
Marxists are the greatest murderers in recent history. They are uniformly tyrannical and amoral.
The great mistake of the fascists was that they didn't claim absolute power. Fascist governments claimed to serve the race or the nation or whatever.
Commies claimed to serve History, an abstract narrative. Nations and races are made of meat and bone -- blood and soil. Narratives are not.
Commies serve, and are, power itself.
Luke tells us this story:
Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
What should be obvious (I hope) is that the value of the penny lies in the image and superscription. The coin is Caesar's because it bears his image and his words. Coins are created by persons, they are not persons. The point of the story is not to tell you what you owe Caesar, but what you owe God.
Fascists are happy with being the image and the words and the image on the coin. Commies want to be the coin itself.
Inga: you just all-lives-mattered libtard political violence.
Post a Comment