Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What alternate reality are you living in? The leftists are responding to alt-righties whose primary motivation is straight hatred/bigotry which is anti-American. You want to pervert what is right and wrong and what wars have been fought to eliminate. The Civil War wasn't good enough for these backward losers and I fear World War II wasn't good enough either.
Some of these A-holes are coming to DC for a hatefest on August 12; God give me the strength to stay home and not beat some loser a$$.
You are using the term "conservative voice" incorrectly. It's giving a soft label for evil frankly. But no, the conservative voice should not be silenced unless it is filled with anti-American hate speech.
Nope, still don't get it.
Our right to free speech is specifically to protect hate speech. Speech that everyone agrees with doesn't need protecting, now does it?
You speak of anti-American actions, and who is doing those actions. When you are afraid to speak, because you may be violently attacked, then you stop speaking. That is what the left is banking on, but it is also what will destroy us as a nation. THAT is the anti-American action. THAT is what is evil.
See "willful ignorance" in my original post. Scalise et. al. were shot by a known Bernie supporter. Fact.
No Democrats congressional reps have been shot by Trump supporters. Fact.
A GOP campaign office in NC was firebombed, with anti GOP slogans painted on adjacent buildings. Fact.
No Democrat campaign offices were firebombed in the 2016 election cycle. Fact.
Zero HRC supporters were physically attacked at her rallies. Fact.
Numerous Trump supporters were attacked at Trump rallies. Fact.
Let me know where the opinion is here.
Still does not show that the left wing is MORE VIOLENT than the right. Need I remind you of the violence perpetrated by far right wing groups like tbe neo nazis and white supremacists?
Still does not show that the left wing is MORE VIOLENT than the right. Need I remind you of the violence perpetrated by far right wing groups like tbe neo nazis and white supremacists?
Ah, the SPLC, the very same agency that has been sued, found guilty, paid fines, and apologized for falsely labeling both individuals and groups incorrectly.
The same organization that provided the motivation for an armed gunman to try enter the Family Research Council, kill staffers, and stuff Chic Fil A sandwiches in their mouths.
Sounds like a reputable source to me.
Don't take my criticism of the SPLC out of context. They have done vital work. They did pioneering civil rights work to both assist victims of hate groups, and simultaneously dismantle those same groups. For that, they are to be commended.
However, since 2010, they've become politicized to the point that their credibility is in shambles.
Ah, the SPLC, the very same agency that has been sued, found guilty, paid fines, and apologized for falsely labeling both individuals and groups incorrectly.
The same organization that provided the motivation for an armed gunman to try enter the Family Research Council, kill staffers, and stuff Chic Fil A sandwiches in their mouths.
Sounds like a reputable source to me.
Don't take my criticism of the SPLC out of context. They have done vital work. They did pioneering civil rights work to both assist victims of hate groups, and simultaneously dismantle those same groups. For that, they are to be commended.
However, since 2010, they've become politicized to the point that their credibility is in shambles.
What isn't politicized these days?
I just hope you understand the point I'm trying to make. There are radicals on both ends of the two ideologies whose only objective is to destroy and cause chaos. I personally condemn both to the same degree. Each side has periods where one is more active and visible than the other. Those type of things always happen in phases. But to say one is greater than the other is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.
Of course it's "fake news" to you. Anything anti-Trump is fake news to you people.
Your goal (with this limited reply) seems to be predicated on deflection from the evidence you asked for being posted. That poster provided plenty of videos that show actual violence, which presumably you didn't think existed.
So while I will entertain you to a small degree since you replied, I also would like a reasoned response to your claim.
I do not see this issue as anything to do with Trump. The reason I referred to the article you posted was because it seemed to not only limit it's focus to one side of the coin, but split a few groups into many. If a group calls itself the ______KKK or the ____Nazi's, I do not see them as a separate group. I don't care if you call yourself "Little Sisters of the Poor KKK", that affiliation says all you need to know.
Thus if some racist group wants some special recognition or adds flare to their name, they are still the KKK or Nazi's.
I would think that is something we both can agree on.
When you see an article that is so biased, it just feeds into the narrative of the term "Fake News". Rest assured that term was around before Trump, so don't get hung up on it's usage. Both Obama and Hillary were using the term before Trump.
CBS among others in the MSM have been on a steady decline, losing credibility because of either shoddy journalism, or flat out fabrication. That is especially true in the political arena. Dan Rather is a perfect example.
When the media starts advocating instead of reporting, they cease to be professional journalists. When they only report good things for one side and only negative things for the other, they cease to objective. When they flat out lie/deceive their viewers to create false narratives, they are justifiably excoriated and are bordering on slander/criminality.
People can lose their businesses or actually die as result, and you need look no further than how the MSM played up the racially charged false narrative of "hands up, dont shoot".
So, now that the other poster took the time to like those videos (you requested) as proof of actual violence by liberal/leftists, what say you?
You are using the term "conservative voice" incorrectly. It's giving a soft label for evil frankly. But no, the conservative voice should not be silenced unless it is filled with anti-American hate speech.
Do you believe that the leftist voices calling Christian conservatives nazis and bigots should be silenced or is that soft label for evil applicable to them as well? Bet not.
Your goal (with this limited reply) seems to be predicated on deflection from the evidence you asked for being posted. That poster provided plenty of videos that show actual violence, which presumably you didn't think existed.
So while I will entertain you to a small degree since you replied, I also would like a reasoned response to your claim.
I do not see this issue as anything to do with Trump. The reason I referred to the article you posted was because it seemed to not only limit it's focus to one side of the coin, but split a few groups into many. If a group calls itself the ______KKK or the ____Nazi's, I do not see them as a separate group. I don't care if you call yourself "Little Sisters of the Poor KKK", that affiliation says all you need to know.
Thus if some racist group wants some special recognition or adds flare to their name, they are still the KKK or Nazi's.
I would think that is something we both can agree on.
When you see an article that is so biased, it just feeds into the narrative of the term "Fake News". Rest assured that term was around before Trump, so don't get hung up on it's usage. Both Obama and Hillary were using the term before Trump.
CBS among others in the MSM have been on a steady decline, losing credibility because of either shoddy journalism, or flat out fabrication. That is especially true in the political arena. Dan Rather is a perfect example.
When the media starts advocating instead of reporting, they cease to be professional journalists. When they only report good things for one side and only negative things for the other, they cease to objective. When they flat out lie/deceive their viewers to create false narratives, they are justifiably excoriated and are bordering on slander/criminality.
People can lose their businesses or actually die as result, and you need look no further than how the MSM played up the racially charged false narrative of "hands up, dont shoot".
So, now that the other poster took the time to like those videos (you requested) as proof of actual violence by liberal/leftists, what say you?
`
Videos are not what I asked for. Perhaps it wasn't clear the first time I posted the request but I clarified later. I want statistical data, not YouTube phone videos. If you read my posts you'll see that I do not deny the existence of violence perpetrated by the left. What I find objectionable is the assertion that violence comes ONLY from the left. That is a lie some wish to propagate.
You're saying Fox News is completely innocent? They've never reported false information? Brietbart or Alex Jones has never dissiminated false information or information that only puts their side in a positive light but not the other? Their reporting is always honest and truthful? Just trying to figure out where you stand.
Videos are not what I asked for. Perhaps it wasn't clear the first time I posted the request but I clarified later. I want statistical data, not YouTube phone videos. If you read my posts you'll see that I do not deny the existence of violence perpetrated by the left. What I find objectionable is the assertion that violence comes ONLY from the left. That is a lie some wish to propagate.
You're saying Fox News is completely innocent? They've never reported false information? Brietbart or Alex Jones has never dissiminated false information or information that only puts their side in a positive light but not the other? Their reporting is always honest and truthful? Just trying to figure out where you stand.
In the interest of clarity, I agree that both sides are guilty. However, since the 2016 election, the left is guilty of a higher percentage of incidents.
In the interest of clarity, I agree that both sides are guilty. However, since the 2016 election, the left is guilty of a higher percentage of incidents.
At this point I have a feeling you're right. I'm very disappointed in antifa and blm because their intentions were noble at the very beginning but not so much anymore. I don't agree with shouting people down who have differing opinions than myself no matter how vile it is. There are some posters here who claim to be on the side of the left who advocate making "hate speech" punishable under the law. Those are people who misunderstand our Constitution. They don't do service to those of us who are left leaning and oppose Trump and the Republican agenda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
