Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 btw - Everybody! What a glorious day! I just voted for Donald Trump! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 "Out, out, damned spot!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 13 hours ago, Roger Bissell said: Two questions, William: 1. Does anyone (other than me) watch these videos you post? They should. This one is classic. It shows Trump to be a world-class ignoramus and buffoon. Of course, Uncle Milty could do that to people. His set-to with Phil Donahue on "greed" is classic. 2. I'm still in WTF mode with this blasted chat thing. I used the name I registered and could not recall or figure out my password, so I registered another name and gave it a password, and it seemed to like it, but it still won't display my attempted posts. No further questions, Your Honor. REB I have some questions, Your Honour. Ones that I've asked before but which Roger evaded. Perhaps "Uncle Milty" could help him answer them now? Much earlier on this thread, Roger posted an article from National Review which described the horrific labor conditions in China. In response, I asked the following questions, which Roger didn't answer: On January 22, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Roger Bissell said: What That "Made in China" Label Really Means Josh Gelernter National Review - December 13, 2014 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394565/chinas-slaves-josh-gelernter This isn’t NRO’s dedicated China spot, but I’ve got one last CCP piece to write before moving back to more cheerful subjects. There was big news last week: that China had overtaken the U.S. as the world’s largest economy; the People’s Republic is on track to produce $17.6 trillion of goods and services this year, $200 billion ahead of the U.S. A lot of acrimony has been heaped on Mr. Obama’s economics, which seem to have sludged our growth to a crawl. And a lot of credit has been laid at the feet of Communist China’s march toward capitalism. But there’s an element missing from the discussion. An economy is bound to grow when it’s got one billion, three hundred and fifty-seven million people available for slave labor. A hundred and fifty years ago, the United States finally stamped out its scourge of slavery. Most of the civilized world either had beaten us to the punch or would follow soon after. China has officially abolished slavery several times — in the 14th century, in the 18th, and again in the 20th. But it never really took: China’s Communist dictators operate more than a thousand 1,000 slave-labor camps. The camps are called “laogai,” a contraction of “láodòng gǎizào,” which means “reform through labor.” They were conceived under Mao; unlike Stalin’s gulags, they never closed — though the CCP has tried to abolish the name “laogai.” In the Nineties, it redesignated the camps “prisons.” The conditions, though, don’t seem to have changed. Our picture of life in the laogai is murky, but here’s what has been reported: The prisoners are given uniforms and shoes. They have to purchase their own socks, underwear, and jackets. There are no showers, no baths, and no beds. Prisoners sleep on the floor, in spaces less than a foot wide. They work 15-hour days, followed by two hours of evening indoctrination; at night they’re not allowed to move from their sleeping-spots till 5:30 rolls around, when they’re woken for another day of hard labor. Fleas, bedbugs, and parasites are ubiquitous. The prisoners starve on meager supplies of bread, gruel, and vegetable soup. Once every two weeks they get a meal of pork broth. The camps currently billet between 3 and 5 million convicts — real criminals along with thought criminals guilty of opposing Communism, promoting freedom, or practicing religion — though the process doesn’t wait on conviction; Chinese law permits the police to hold anyone for four years before judicial proceedings. At any given time — according to the Laogai Research Foundation — 500,000 Chinese citizens are in “arbitrary detention.” If a prisoner does get a hearing, he enters a legal system controlled, capriciously, by the Communist Party. The laogai camps are estimated to have held between 40 and 50 million prisoners since they opened in 1949. Which is about the population of South Korea. Between 15 and 20 million of those prisoners died or were killed. Which is two or three times the population of Hong Kong. Or to put it another way: Between 50 and 300 thousand people were murdered during Japan’s rape of Nanking. China’s Communist Party has inflicted between 50 and 400 Nanking massacres on the country it dominates. According to an article published in Human Events by a man named Michael Chapman, a large proportion of Chinese exports originate in the camps — a quarter of China’s tea, tens of thousands of tons of grain; “ . . . prisoners mine asbestos and other toxic chemicals with no protective gear, work with batteries and battery acid with no protection for their hands, tan hides while standing naked in vats filled three feet deep with chemicals used for the softening of animal skins, and work in improperly run mining facilities where explosions and other accidents are a common occurrence.” And that work finds its way into American and European stores. A quick Internet search will yield photos of notes slipped into Chinese products on sale everywhere from Kmart to Saks. Notes begging for help, signed by Chinese slaves. One that turned up in Northern Ireland says, “We work 15 hours every day and eat food that wouldn’t even be fed to pigs and dogs.” It was written in Chinese; one that turned up in Oregon was written in English. “People who work here have to work 15 hours a day without Saturday, Sunday break and any holidays. Otherwise, they will suffer torturement. . . . Many of them are Falun Gong practitioners, who are totally innocent people only because they have different believe to CCPG. They often suffer more punishment than others.” The CCPG is the Chinese Communist Party Government; the writer of that note identifies himself as a worker in the Masanjia labor camp. Former Masanjia inmates have been interviewed by the New York Times. They described “frequent beating, days of sleep deprivation, and prisoners chained up in painful positions for weeks on end.” One told the Times, “Sometime the guards would drag me around by my hair or apply electric batons to my skin for so long the smell of burning flesh would fill the room.” Another said, “I still can’t forget the pleas and howling.” About half of Masanjia’s inmates are in for refusing to renounce their religion — mostly followers of Falun Gong and Christians. Another note from China turned up in Brazil. It was written in English and just four words long: “I slave. Help me.” And remember: The camps’ prisoners are just the formal slaves. In a more general sense, all of China’s one and a third billion people are slaves; without freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion, of movement, of the press, and without a government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed. So, China’s got a leg up in the economy-building race. The same one that Germany had at its camps. So this Christmas season, look out for that “Made in Nazi Germany” sticker. Or maybe this will bring it home: This Christmas, remember that “Made in China” may mean “Made by Chinese Christians.” Happy holidays. — Josh Gelernter writes weekly for NRO and is a regular contributor to The Weekly Standard. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394565/chinas-slaves-josh-gelernter And?!!! What are your Objective solutions to the problem, Roger? In post #2873 I responded to MSK's comments on slave labor, and asked to hear Objectivist/Objectivish solutions, especially from those who are aghast at the idea of using the threat of "protectionist" measures as a bargaining chip. You are such a person. You seem to be pretty worked up about it, and all moralistic and full of self praise about your dedication to voting on principle. But yet you didn't answer MSK's points, or my questions from #2873. ("Let's hear some Objectivist solutions. If retaliatory tariffs are not the answer, what is? Should we ban US citizens from outsourcing slave labor? Should we convict US business people for complicity with slavery when trading with nations who don't respect the rights of their citizens?") You posted an article above which gives details supporting what MSK and I are talking about, but you skipped the act of offering Objective solutions. What policies would a principled candidate propose? What's Cruz's position? What's yours? Put your Objectivish Logic and Principles to work and instruct us on what position a morally principled candidate should take, and why. ----- Any answers yet, Roger? No? Would anyone else like to take a shot at it with your special Objectivist powers? Perhaps the answer is to snicker and sneer at the slave laborers, as Roger does when looking at paintings of their trying to maintain their humanity while being treated like animals, and to express his seething contempt for those who valued the painting? Roger's callous, douchebag response to the condition of the men in the painting was "Sucks to be them - I guess my troubles aren't so bad after all." Is that the rational and Objective position to being on the good end of "free trade" which depends on slave labor? "Sucks to be them!"? J 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Roger Bissell said: 2. I did not say or imply that "words justify violence." But certain words certainly can sanction, condone, and encourage violence. And this feeds into the attitudes and actions of both one's supporters and one's opponents. It helps to nurture and grow a "culture of violence." Obama has been guilty of this, and so is Trump. REB Translation: Roger wants to willfully ignore the difference between initiatory and retaliatory force. Suddenly he has decided to adopt the usage of the term "violence" so as to be able to equivocate between the two types of violence when hating on Trump. He's forgetting (or pretending to forget) that Rand and Objectivism were in favor of violence, under certain conditions, and that his lame attemp at equivocation could apply just as easily and lamely to her and to Objectivism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 MereMortal, Yes, for a brief time Peikoff saw the light, part of it. Trouble is, eventually he more or less caved in to Brook. Here’s a transcript of the end of their debate: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------LP: I’ll concede this much, if my facts are wrong— YB: [laughs] LP: And I don’t, I didn’t get them from first hand sources, I got them presented by [laughter in his voice, self-deprecating] impassioned radio hosts. YB: [laughing gleefully] Yes. LP: If they’re wrong then obviously I agree with you. And you obviously agree with me: we agree on the principles of who should be excluded et cetera. YB: I think we agree on the principles. LP: So there’s really no philosophic disagreement between us, but there is a factual, and I’m prepared to say that on those type of issues you might [laughter in his voice] be right [laughter from YB]. YB: [Laughter and irony in voice] And I might be wrong. AP (moderator): [interrupting] I think we’ve done a lot of good here. YB: [continues mockingly, seemingly good-natured laughter and irony in voice] I’m even willing to concede that I might be wrong. LP: Now, we are over time. I think the issues have been aired. And I’d like to conclude by saying how much I respect and admire, and [laughter in his voice] probably will come even on detail to agree with, Yaron. And I think this is significant because this is about the biggest issue that we have disagreed about for some time, and I was actually apprehensive about talking to him about this issue. Partly because I didn’t control that I was gonna get all upset, and partly because [laughter in voice] he might refute me, so. But I never at any point regarded him as philosophically defective or non-Objectivist. And I assume you felt the same? YB: Oh absolutely, and I mean this just shows that when you agree on the fundamentals philosophically, yeah there’re going to be disputes about how we interpret, or do we have 50 years, or do we have 20 years, I mean those are reasonable disputes given the complexity of applying philosophy to have, and it should, you know, if we came away with a real disagreement about philosophy that would be a problem. LP: What’s interesting is that the disagreement is essentially over facts. What are these people effect do, [sic] and what will affect this party, and what – so it’s not at all over what should immigration policy be. YB: No, I mean we even agreed, which I wasn’t sure you, we agreed on, on the citizenship versus immigration, because I think that’s something we should highlight and fight for. LP: Yeah, that’s really crucial. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- All very chummy. Then they say their good-byes to the audience, and walk away, one might imagine, arm in arm. That was over two years ago and Mr. Peikoff has said nothing about immigration since. Apparently he learned to love open immigration, again. A momentary burst of sanity, then back to business as usual. ARI continues to issue media promoting open immigration today, under the auspices of Mr. Peikoff. There’s much more atLeonard Peikoff on Yaron Brook and Immigration from which the above is excerpted. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Jon wrote, ". . . they met on Sea Island off Georgia . . . ." Since it was Rubio quoted I thought the sea island was Cuba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 I'd enjoy hearing from Thomas Friedman today - concerning China. This clip I see was from the early 90's when the US, Japan, Germany, etc. were the main players in a quite free market. My economics understanding is dismal, but TF seems to say a trade deficit is nothing to be scared of: what goes round, comes round, roughly. But China isn't(?) investing massively back into the US. Is it? Not into golf courses, anyway... You'll be glad to know, and I'm most delighted at the prospect, that it is buying up tracts of land and crony influence with greedy bureaucrats in many parts of Africa to feed its demand for raw minerals and resources, and into State contracts, dams to power stations to railways and harbours. Here and South America is where their big investment is going I think.. In a reverse-complimentary way, China has pragmatically assumed the capitalist-production role as the most workable, but is still totalitarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Ba’al wrote: Shouting down is not per se illegal. But it is Bad Manners. end quote As of March 10, 2012 a “trespass bill” makes it a federal offense to protest government business, functions, people, or places under Secret Service protection. Obama signed it, and Trump should mention it. He can legally keep protesters out of a hall in which he is speaking. At the time the bill was controversial but I think there were only three NAY votes in Congress. Their main grievance was that it violated the first amendment. Let me also mention what is called disturbing the peace which is under a state’s jurisdiction. That is still illegal. Intimidation? Conspiracy to commit a crime? Blocking a door or a highway? Illegal. Any attempt to protest that violates any peaceable assembling laws is illegal. You can’t grab a sign out of someone’s hands and rip it up. You can’t be within a certain distance of a funeral and protest. You can’t shout so loud that a person, play or movie cannot be heard. Obscene chants at a baseball game are illegal. So it isn’t a case of me saying, “There oughta be a law.” It is the law. And it is not sensible to not arrest with increasingly legal severity someone who crosses state lines and does the same thing over again. Fine them. Lock them up. The FBI should give them a night in jail, then a month in jail, then a year in jail. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Jonah Goldberg was quoted by William as saying: Chris Christie was very good at pointing out how Trump can’t explain how he will do anything. Now no one seems to care. end quote I have noticed the same thing. But Trump can explain things in detail, sometimes verbally and definitely in writing. He campaigns at a low information level which is therefor understandable to someone without a high school diploma. I will mention again that people should check out his website. His topic of taxation is well done and its policies are acceptable to a lot of voters. I wish he would stop repeating himself, saying his plan is great, and provide more information. I think he should ready himself for a debate with Hillary who will have both barrels loaded. She will know Trump’s possible rebuttals and trash him with prepared remarks. Zingers are like a picture and speak a thousand words. They sound shallow but they stick in the voters’ minds. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This is part of an email that came today from Tea Party Patriots - definitely the dedicatedly hawkish wing of the Tea Party movement: It is axiomatic that violence has no place in American politics. Yet over the past several weeks, there have been increasingly common reports of violence erupting at rallies and other events in support of presidential candidate Donald Trump. Journalists and political pundits have spent a considerable amount of time opining about the spike in violence and what that means about the current state of political discourse and even the health of our culture. For our purposes, it is worth taking a step back to review the entire context of the violent episodes, and to consider the responses from the Trump campaign and the candidate himself. We have gathered here several articles, as well as a timeline of incidents, with reactions from Donald Trump. If you not already seen it, Jenny Beth Martin’s column this week in the Washington Times addresses this topic. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/15/jenny-beth-martin-message-trump-and-his-protesters/ A quick overview of some of the key violent incidents, along with Donald Trump’s responses: March 11, 2016: (Press conference in Florida) Donald Trump says, “The audience hit back and that's what we need a little bit more of." (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/trump-punching-protesters-is-very-appropriate.html) March 11, 2016: (Rally in St. Louis, Missouri) Trump says there are "consequences" to protesting and says the "country has to toughen up." “You know, part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right?" (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/11/trump-laments-lack-of-consequences-for-protesters/) March 9, 2016: (Fayetteville, North Carolina) A protester in the custody of local law enforcement is sucker-punched by an event attendee while being led out of the arena. Trump’s response: “They used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, they would not do it again so easily,” and then he added, "we've become weak." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/10/trump-protester-sucker-punched-at-north-carolina-rally-videos-show/) March 8, 2016: (Jupiter, Florida) Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is accused of "forcibly" grabbing a female reporter and moving her out of the way of Trump’s entourage when she asks a question of the candidate. She later shows bruises on her arm and files criminal charges. The Trump campaign denies the episode happened, despite video to the contrary. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/03/trump-campaign-manager-breitbart-reporter-220472#ixzz42ROfjpQU) March 4, 2016: (Warren, Michigan) At a rally, Trump says of one protester: "Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it." (http://mashable.com/2016/03/04/donald-trump-protesters-court/#QuXq2kYIfkq3) Feb. 29, 2016: (Radford, Virginia) A Secret Service agent throws a photographer to the ground after the photographer cursed at him. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-to-investigate-incident-with-time-photographer/2016/03/01/1a09a976-dffa-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html) February 22, 2016: (Las Vegas, Nevada) At a rally, as a protester was being removed, Trump declares: "We're not allowed to punch back anymore" and then added that back in the old days, protesters would "be carried out on a stretcher." He concludes by saying, “I’d like to punch him in the face.” (http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/donald-trump-protester-punch-him-in-the-face/#iFTNY32JfaqD)mashable.com/2016/02/23/donald-trump-protester-punch-him-in-the-face/#iFTNY32JfaqD) February 1, 2016: (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) After an earlier event when a protester attempted to throw a tomato at Donald Trump, he tells rally attendees: "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously." And, in typical Trump fashion, he promised to pay for any legal fees arising from such an assault. (http://mashable.com/2016/02/01/donald-trump-tomato-iowa/#CTFhUz85ZSqK) Dec. 14, 2015: (Las Vegas, Nevada) Individuals at a Trump rally yelled "Sieg Heil" (German for “hail victory” and a popular slogan during the Nazi regime) and "light the [expletive] on fire" toward an African-American protester who was being physically removed by security staffers. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/15/supporter_yells_sieg_heil_toward_black_protester_at_trump_rally.html) Dec. 3, 2015: (New York, New York) A security guard hit a protester during an organized protest after a Trump event. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09/04/trump_tower_protest_immigrant_descended_real_estate_tycoon_urged_to_self.html) Nov. 21, 2015: (Birmingham, Alabama) An African-American protester at a Trump rally was punched, kicked, and, according to a report from the Washington Post, briefly choked. Trump’s response: "Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/22/black-activist-punched-at-donald-trump-rally-in-birmingham/) Oct. 23, 2015: (Miami, Florida) A male attendee at a Trump rally knocked down and kicked a protester. (http://time.com/4090437/donald-trump-violence-protests-republican-debate/) Oct. 14, 2015: (Richmond, Virginia) Individuals at a Trump rally shoved a group of immigration activists. One attendee spit in a protester's face. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-supporters-spits-latino-protester-rally-article-1.2398331) So what conclusions can we draw from these incidents and the responses from Donald Trump? We at Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund have reached three conclusions: 1) The culture at political events – whether they are rallies, or speeches, or other types of forums – is most often dictated by the speaker or key political figure. Why are these violent episodes localized within the Trump campaign trail? Why do we not see violent outbursts to this extent at other Republican events? Well, probably because other candidates are not actively encouraging attendees at their events to “rough up” protesters or “knock” people to the ground, and the other candidates are not promising to pay the legal defense fees of any supporters who commit acts of violence against protesters. Those exhortations are unique to the Trump campaign. 2) As Jenny Beth Martin explained in her speech at CPAC (which you can read here), Donald Trump uses the tactics of a bully. He uses the court system and the coercive powers of Big Government to get what he wants. He has even threatened to open up our libel laws, if he becomes president, to make it easier to sue newspapers that say unflattering things about him. Those are the actions of a bully, plain and simple. Is it any wonder, then, that the rhetoric at his events is violent in nature? 3) People are angry and frustrated. This election is about the many justified feelings of angst and frustration that Americans feel. Those feelings are understandable, given that Washington, D.C. has stopped listening to us. We have an ever-growing federal government that takes an ever-increasing share of our income, while ignoring Americans’ real frustrations about the economy and our country’s future. Donald Trump entered the political scene sounding like a lot of frustrated Americans. His angry rhetoric matches the way many people feel today. But voters misplace their trust in him, mistakenly believing that Donald Trump’s anger and repeated calls for violence will somehow translate into a more responsive federal government. There is little evidence from anything in Trump’s past to indicate anything other than a steadfast devotion to self-preservation and self-promotion. However, this list of episodes with Trump does not excuse the organized effort on the left to engage in violence. Two wrongs do not make a right. We condemn the professional left’s attempts to agitate and escalate the political differences to the point of rioting. Seeking to provoke violence is not the answer. To the protesters, we say, knock it off. You may not like Donald Trump, but he has every right to speak to his supporters as he campaigns for the highest office in the land. It’s called the First Amendment, and it applies to him as much as it does to you. Your plans to provoke confrontation are beneath the great traditions of civil disobedience – Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., advocated and practiced nonviolent protest, to ensure themselves the moral high ground. Learn from the past, for goodness’ sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 5 hours ago, Jonathan said: ... willfully ignore the difference between initiatory and retaliatory force. ... ... decided to adopt the usage of the term "violence" so as to be able to equivocate between the two types of violence when hating on Trump. Jonathan, I made your post more universal in this quote because this is an extremely important point that Trump-bashers constantly ignore. They treat the violence of the protestors the same as Trump's call to knock out people initiating violence. For example, they are appalled that Trump would not crucify an unrepentant man who is almost 80 years old. He sucker-punched a protester. Instead, Trump called him someone who loves this country but got carried away and did something stupid. Trump knows the stakes and the nature of the really bad people who demand that crucifixion (the ringleaders, not the sheeple, these last are merely useful idiots). If you cede just a little to them, they eat you alive. For example, ask Paula Deen how appeasing these vicious ringleaders just a little with a correct apology about her use of a bad word 20 years prior worked out for her. She almost lost her entire lifetime of stellar achievements and her reputation to boot. Had someone knocked her out, I have no doubt it would have been covered up. The hand-wringers have no clue about how to combat hostile organized people those who constantly initiate force in our society. They look at the thugs burning down Baltimore or Ferguson and tut-tut-tut that this is a bad thing, but do nothing because it is not in their own backyard. They know words, but don't know actions. They don't realize if you hit these lowlifes back and hit them hard and hit them without feeling a smidgen of guilt, they back off. So Trump's message to them is: "If you want to keep up this crap, bring it on. It's time to settle it. And if anyone is with me, I've got your back." His public loves it and so do I. Then the tut-tut-tutters come out in force and talk about the antiviolence principle, but they don't distinguish between initiatory and retaliatory force. How about the goddam principle of sanction of the victim? Did the tut-tut-tutters forget about that one? If not, why do they sanction the initiators of force all over the goddam place by preaching the moral superiority no action? But I didn't forget sanction of the victim. I'm pretty sure you didn't. either. And to this point, I absolutely love Trump's most recent ad, the longest he has done if I am not mistaken. For people like me who believe in counterpunching hard after a line has been crossed (and I think like you), the ending gives me goosebumps. It deals with a philosophical fundamental, one the tut-tut-tutters refuse to acknowledge. After showing images of the violent protestors at Trump's rallies and the weakness and hypocrisy of the tut-tut-tut establishment politicians, the video asks in big bold letters: Did anyone really think the people destroying America were going to relinquish power peacefully? Dayaamm! That's inspiring. Finally somebody came out and said it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 53 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said: This is part of an email that came today from Tea Party Patriots - definitely the dedicatedly hawkish wing of the Tea Party movement: It is axiomatic that violence has no place in American politics. Yet over the past several weeks, there have been increasingly common reports of violence erupting at rallies and other events in support of presidential candidate Donald Trump. Journalists and political pundits have spent a considerable amount of time opining about the spike in violence and what that means about the current state of political discourse and even the health of our culture. For our purposes, it is worth taking a step back to review the entire context of the violent episodes, and to consider the responses from the Trump campaign and the candidate himself. We have gathered here several articles, as well as a timeline of incidents, with reactions from Donald Trump. If you not already seen it, Jenny Beth Martin’s column this week in the Washington Times addresses this topic. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/15/jenny-beth-martin-message-trump-and-his-protesters/ A quick overview of some of the key violent incidents, along with Donald Trump’s responses: March 11, 2016: (Press conference in Florida) Donald Trump says, “The audience hit back and that's what we need a little bit more of." (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/trump-punching-protesters-is-very-appropriate.html) March 11, 2016: (Rally in St. Louis, Missouri) Trump says there are "consequences" to protesting and says the "country has to toughen up." “You know, part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right?" (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/11/trump-laments-lack-of-consequences-for-protesters/) March 9, 2016: (Fayetteville, North Carolina) A protester in the custody of local law enforcement is sucker-punched by an event attendee while being led out of the arena. Trump’s response: “They used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, they would not do it again so easily,” and then he added, "we've become weak." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/10/trump-protester-sucker-punched-at-north-carolina-rally-videos-show/) March 8, 2016: (Jupiter, Florida) Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is accused of "forcibly" grabbing a female reporter and moving her out of the way of Trump’s entourage when she asks a question of the candidate. She later shows bruises on her arm and files criminal charges. The Trump campaign denies the episode happened, despite video to the contrary. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/03/trump-campaign-manager-breitbart-reporter-220472#ixzz42ROfjpQU) March 4, 2016: (Warren, Michigan) At a rally, Trump says of one protester: "Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it." (http://mashable.com/2016/03/04/donald-trump-protesters-court/#QuXq2kYIfkq3) Feb. 29, 2016: (Radford, Virginia) A Secret Service agent throws a photographer to the ground after the photographer cursed at him. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-to-investigate-incident-with-time-photographer/2016/03/01/1a09a976-dffa-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html) February 22, 2016: (Las Vegas, Nevada) At a rally, as a protester was being removed, Trump declares: "We're not allowed to punch back anymore" and then added that back in the old days, protesters would "be carried out on a stretcher." He concludes by saying, “I’d like to punch him in the face.” (http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/donald-trump-protester-punch-him-in-the-face/#iFTNY32JfaqD)mashable.com/2016/02/23/donald-trump-protester-punch-him-in-the-face/#iFTNY32JfaqD) February 1, 2016: (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) After an earlier event when a protester attempted to throw a tomato at Donald Trump, he tells rally attendees: "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously." And, in typical Trump fashion, he promised to pay for any legal fees arising from such an assault. (http://mashable.com/2016/02/01/donald-trump-tomato-iowa/#CTFhUz85ZSqK) Dec. 14, 2015: (Las Vegas, Nevada) Individuals at a Trump rally yelled "Sieg Heil" (German for “hail victory” and a popular slogan during the Nazi regime) and "light the [expletive] on fire" toward an African-American protester who was being physically removed by security staffers. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/15/supporter_yells_sieg_heil_toward_black_protester_at_trump_rally.html) Dec. 3, 2015: (New York, New York) A security guard hit a protester during an organized protest after a Trump event. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09/04/trump_tower_protest_immigrant_descended_real_estate_tycoon_urged_to_self.html) Nov. 21, 2015: (Birmingham, Alabama) An African-American protester at a Trump rally was punched, kicked, and, according to a report from the Washington Post, briefly choked. Trump’s response: "Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/22/black-activist-punched-at-donald-trump-rally-in-birmingham/) Oct. 23, 2015: (Miami, Florida) A male attendee at a Trump rally knocked down and kicked a protester. (http://time.com/4090437/donald-trump-violence-protests-republican-debate/) Oct. 14, 2015: (Richmond, Virginia) Individuals at a Trump rally shoved a group of immigration activists. One attendee spit in a protester's face. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-supporters-spits-latino-protester-rally-article-1.2398331) So what conclusions can we draw from these incidents and the responses from Donald Trump? We at Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund have reached three conclusions: 1) The culture at political events – whether they are rallies, or speeches, or other types of forums – is most often dictated by the speaker or key political figure. Why are these violent episodes localized within the Trump campaign trail? Why do we not see violent outbursts to this extent at other Republican events? Well, probably because other candidates are not actively encouraging attendees at their events to “rough up” protesters or “knock” people to the ground, and the other candidates are not promising to pay the legal defense fees of any supporters who commit acts of violence against protesters. Those exhortations are unique to the Trump campaign. 2) As Jenny Beth Martin explained in her speech at CPAC (which you can read here), Donald Trump uses the tactics of a bully. He uses the court system and the coercive powers of Big Government to get what he wants. He has even threatened to open up our libel laws, if he becomes president, to make it easier to sue newspapers that say unflattering things about him. Those are the actions of a bully, plain and simple. Is it any wonder, then, that the rhetoric at his events is violent in nature? 3) People are angry and frustrated. This election is about the many justified feelings of angst and frustration that Americans feel. Those feelings are understandable, given that Washington, D.C. has stopped listening to us. We have an ever-growing federal government that takes an ever-increasing share of our income, while ignoring Americans’ real frustrations about the economy and our country’s future. Donald Trump entered the political scene sounding like a lot of frustrated Americans. His angry rhetoric matches the way many people feel today. But voters misplace their trust in him, mistakenly believing that Donald Trump’s anger and repeated calls for violence will somehow translate into a more responsive federal government. There is little evidence from anything in Trump’s past to indicate anything other than a steadfast devotion to self-preservation and self-promotion. However, this list of episodes with Trump does not excuse the organized effort on the left to engage in violence. Two wrongs do not make a right. We condemn the professional left’s attempts to agitate and escalate the political differences to the point of rioting. Seeking to provoke violence is not the answer. To the protesters, we say, knock it off. You may not like Donald Trump, but he has every right to speak to his supporters as he campaigns for the highest office in the land. It’s called the First Amendment, and it applies to him as much as it does to you. Your plans to provoke confrontation are beneath the great traditions of civil disobedience – Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., advocated and practiced nonviolent protest, to ensure themselves the moral high ground. Learn from the past, for goodness’ sake. Hahahaha! Gads, talk about irrational, selective misrepresentations of the facts, and of coming to the conclusions that you were predetermined to come to! My favorite item in the intentionally misleading set of untruths and partial truths that Roger posted is this one: Feb. 29, 2016: (Radford, Virginia) A Secret Service agent throws a photographer to the ground after the photographer cursed at him. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-to-investigate-incident-with-time-photographer/2016/03/01/1a09a976-dffa-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html) Roger, I know you're all emotionally worked up about Trump to the point to believing any hate fantasy that anyone spreads about him or anyone associated with him, but the reality is that the photographer assaulted the agent. I covered it in this previous post: On February 28, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan said: TIME photographer Chris Morris decided that he was special and elite and didn't need to follow the rules, or respect the Secret Service's enforcement of them, at a Trump rally in Virginia. Morris tried to step outside of the designated press area, then, after a Secret Service agent bodily blocked him from going further, Morris shouted "Fuck you!" into the agent's face. The agent attempted to gently guide Morris back to where he was supposed to be, but Morris shoved the agent. Then the agent took him down, hard. Here's vid of Morris's shove and the takedown (notice that, although we don't see Morris's hands shove the agent, we see the physical effect on the agent's body): http://giphy.com/gifs/mashable-ouch-trump-xT9DPC6VftJUgNtYmk (The action happens at bottom right.) Here's the story and more video clips: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/02/29/video-reporter-grabs-neck-of-secret-service-at-trump-rally/ When down, Morris kicked at the agent, and then, after being allowed to get up, Morris grabbed at the agent's throat. And, of course, now he's crying that the agent started it all and went way overboard. But also notice in the clips how calm and cool the agent is. No anger on his face. He stopped with a harmless takedown and refrained from delivering any blows. Proportional response. He quickly allowed the idiot to get to his feet, and then handed him over to other authorities. Heh. It's not a bright idea to try to shove your way past a Secret Service agent, to scream "Fuck you" in his face, and then to shove him when being escorted back to where you belong. What a severely stupid asshole. J Seriously, Roger, pull your head out of your ass. You're making a fool of yourself in blaming people for the actions of others. You should try to practice Objectivism in cases like these. Look with your own eyes, and set aside your emotions. You need to try a lot harder to be rational. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said: This is part of an email that came today from Tea Party Patriots - definitely the dedicatedly hawkish wing of the Tea Party movement: It is axiomatic that violence has no place in American politics. Yet over the past several weeks, there have been increasingly common reports of violence erupting at rallies and other events in support of presidential candidate Donald Trump. Journalists and political pundits have spent a considerable amount of time opining about the spike in violence and what that means about the current state of political discourse and even the health of our culture. For our purposes, it is worth taking a step back to review the entire context of the violent episodes, and to consider the responses from the Trump campaign and the candidate himself. We have gathered here several articles, as well as a timeline of incidents, with reactions from Donald Trump. If you not already seen it, Jenny Beth Martin’s column this week in the Washington Times addresses this topic. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/15/jenny-beth-martin-message-trump-and-his-protesters/ A quick overview of some of the key violent incidents, along with Donald Trump’s responses: March 11, 2016: (Press conference in Florida) Donald Trump says, “The audience hit back and that's what we need a little bit more of." (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/trump-punching-protesters-is-very-appropriate.html) March 11, 2016: (Rally in St. Louis, Missouri) Trump says there are "consequences" to protesting and says the "country has to toughen up." “You know, part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right?" (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/11/trump-laments-lack-of-consequences-for-protesters/) March 9, 2016: (Fayetteville, North Carolina) A protester in the custody of local law enforcement is sucker-punched by an event attendee while being led out of the arena. Trump’s response: “They used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, they would not do it again so easily,” and then he added, "we've become weak." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/10/trump-protester-sucker-punched-at-north-carolina-rally-videos-show/) March 8, 2016: (Jupiter, Florida) Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is accused of "forcibly" grabbing a female reporter and moving her out of the way of Trump’s entourage when she asks a question of the candidate. She later shows bruises on her arm and files criminal charges. The Trump campaign denies the episode happened, despite video to the contrary. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/03/trump-campaign-manager-breitbart-reporter-220472#ixzz42ROfjpQU) March 4, 2016: (Warren, Michigan) At a rally, Trump says of one protester: "Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it." (http://mashable.com/2016/03/04/donald-trump-protesters-court/#QuXq2kYIfkq3) Feb. 29, 2016: (Radford, Virginia) A Secret Service agent throws a photographer to the ground after the photographer cursed at him. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-to-investigate-incident-with-time-photographer/2016/03/01/1a09a976-dffa-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html) February 22, 2016: (Las Vegas, Nevada) At a rally, as a protester was being removed, Trump declares: "We're not allowed to punch back anymore" and then added that back in the old days, protesters would "be carried out on a stretcher." He concludes by saying, “I’d like to punch him in the face.” (http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/donald-trump-protester-punch-him-in-the-face/#iFTNY32JfaqD)mashable.com/2016/02/23/donald-trump-protester-punch-him-in-the-face/#iFTNY32JfaqD) February 1, 2016: (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) After an earlier event when a protester attempted to throw a tomato at Donald Trump, he tells rally attendees: "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously." And, in typical Trump fashion, he promised to pay for any legal fees arising from such an assault. (http://mashable.com/2016/02/01/donald-trump-tomato-iowa/#CTFhUz85ZSqK) Dec. 14, 2015: (Las Vegas, Nevada) Individuals at a Trump rally yelled "Sieg Heil" (German for “hail victory” and a popular slogan during the Nazi regime) and "light the [expletive] on fire" toward an African-American protester who was being physically removed by security staffers. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/15/supporter_yells_sieg_heil_toward_black_protester_at_trump_rally.html) Dec. 3, 2015: (New York, New York) A security guard hit a protester during an organized protest after a Trump event. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09/04/trump_tower_protest_immigrant_descended_real_estate_tycoon_urged_to_self.html) Nov. 21, 2015: (Birmingham, Alabama) An African-American protester at a Trump rally was punched, kicked, and, according to a report from the Washington Post, briefly choked. Trump’s response: "Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/22/black-activist-punched-at-donald-trump-rally-in-birmingham/) Oct. 23, 2015: (Miami, Florida) A male attendee at a Trump rally knocked down and kicked a protester. (http://time.com/4090437/donald-trump-violence-protests-republican-debate/) Oct. 14, 2015: (Richmond, Virginia) Individuals at a Trump rally shoved a group of immigration activists. One attendee spit in a protester's face. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-supporters-spits-latino-protester-rally-article-1.2398331) So what conclusions can we draw from these incidents and the responses from Donald Trump? We at Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund have reached three conclusions: 1) The culture at political events – whether they are rallies, or speeches, or other types of forums – is most often dictated by the speaker or key political figure. Why are these violent episodes localized within the Trump campaign trail? Why do we not see violent outbursts to this extent at other Republican events? Well, probably because other candidates are not actively encouraging attendees at their events to “rough up” protesters or “knock” people to the ground, and the other candidates are not promising to pay the legal defense fees of any supporters who commit acts of violence against protesters. Those exhortations are unique to the Trump campaign. 2) As Jenny Beth Martin explained in her speech at CPAC (which you can read here), Donald Trump uses the tactics of a bully. He uses the court system and the coercive powers of Big Government to get what he wants. He has even threatened to open up our libel laws, if he becomes president, to make it easier to sue newspapers that say unflattering things about him. Those are the actions of a bully, plain and simple. Is it any wonder, then, that the rhetoric at his events is violent in nature? 3) People are angry and frustrated. This election is about the many justified feelings of angst and frustration that Americans feel. Those feelings are understandable, given that Washington, D.C. has stopped listening to us. We have an ever-growing federal government that takes an ever-increasing share of our income, while ignoring Americans’ real frustrations about the economy and our country’s future. Donald Trump entered the political scene sounding like a lot of frustrated Americans. His angry rhetoric matches the way many people feel today. But voters misplace their trust in him, mistakenly believing that Donald Trump’s anger and repeated calls for violence will somehow translate into a more responsive federal government. There is little evidence from anything in Trump’s past to indicate anything other than a steadfast devotion to self-preservation and self-promotion. However, this list of episodes with Trump does not excuse the organized effort on the left to engage in violence. Two wrongs do not make a right. We condemn the professional left’s attempts to agitate and escalate the political differences to the point of rioting. Seeking to provoke violence is not the answer. To the protesters, we say, knock it off. You may not like Donald Trump, but he has every right to speak to his supporters as he campaigns for the highest office in the land. It’s called the First Amendment, and it applies to him as much as it does to you. Your plans to provoke confrontation are beneath the great traditions of civil disobedience – Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., advocated and practiced nonviolent protest, to ensure themselves the moral high ground. Learn from the past, for goodness’ sake. For consistency sake, shouldn't your response to the above reports of violent incidents be "Sucks to be them!"? J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 1 hour ago, anthony said: But China isn't(?) investing massively back into the US. Is it? Not into golf courses, anyway... I don't know about the US in total. I do know that China's sovereign wealth fund owned $1.3 trillion of U.S. Treasuries as of June, 2015. It's likely a little higher now. Anyway, it's at least 1.3/18.1 = 7.2% of all US Treasury debt. As the saying goes, money talks. Suppose a POTUS wants to threaten China with import duties like Trump has done. What will China do? Well, the response could be for China to start selling their US Treasury holdings. Also, to the extent import duties reduce China's exports to the US, it goes hand-in-hand with such selling. They don't need to hold them to conduct trade with the US. Selling, of course, likely means interest rates on US Treasuries rise. The average rate on Treasuries was recently 2.04%. It probably wouldn't quickly affect the overall rate the US has to pay on Treasuries, but each 1% rise would mean an added outflow of 0.01*18.1 = $180 billion annually. Enough 1%'s, and you're talking real money. A 5.55% rise is $1 trillion. Compare it to Federal gov't revenues, spending, and the deficit. In fiscal year 2015 federal government spending was $3.7 trillion, revenue about $3.3 trillion ($438 billion deficit). There's talk, talk, talk, at the bully pulpit and then there's real-politic, which can be an obstacle course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jonathan, I made your post more universal in this quote because this is an extremely important point that Trump-bashers constantly ignore. They treat the violence of the protestors the same as Trump's call to knock out people initiating violence. For example, they are appalled that Trump would not crucify an unrepentant man who is almost 80 years old. He sucker-punched a protester. Instead, Trump called him someone who loves this country but got carried away and did something stupid. Trump knows the stakes and the nature of the really bad people who demand that crucifixion (the ringleaders, not the sheeple, these last are merely useful idiots). If you cede just a little to them, they eat you alive. For example, ask Paula Deen how appeasing these vicious ringleaders just a little with a correct apology about her use of a bad word 20 years prior worked out for her. She almost lost her entire lifetime of stellar achievements and her reputation to boot. Had someone knocked her out, I have no doubt it would have been covered up. Yeah, and the smearing is always practiced with a double standard. Trump is accused of racism and of being practically a member of the KKK for mishearing questions about David Duke, and for being misunderstood in his answers, yet Hillary is given a pass on having expressed her adoration of Margaret Sanger, and the entire democratic party is instantly forgiven for its history of having opposed the rights of blacks, and for having been members and leaders of the KKK. It amazes me how eager Roger is to blindly follow the media template on Trump. Useful idiot, I guess. (And a reminder: Trump isn't my guy. He's not my first choice. I preferred Carly first, and now Cruz. But I'm amazed at the sky-is-falling panicking and irrational fear that some O-ishists display when it comes to Trump.) Quote The hand-wringers have no clue about how to combat hostile organized people those who constantly initiate force in our society. They look at the thugs burning down Baltimore or Ferguson and tut-tut-tut that this is a bad thing, but do nothing because it is not in their own backyard. They know words, but don't know actions. They don't realize if you hit these lowlifes back and hit them hard and hit them without feeling a smidgen of guilt, they back off. So Trump's message to them is: "If you want to keep up this crap, bring it on. It's time to settle it. And if anyone is with me, I've got your back." His public loves it and so do I. Then the tut-tut-tutters come out in force and talk about the antiviolence principle, but they don't distinguish between initiatory and retaliatory force. How about the goddam principle of sanction of the victim? Did the tut-tut-tutters forget about that one? If not, why do they sanction the initiators of force all over the goddam place by preaching the moral superiority no action? But I didn't forget sanction of the victim. I'm pretty sure you didn't. either. And to this point, I absolutely love Trump's most recent ad, the longest he has done if I am not mistaken. For people like me who believe in counterpunching hard after a line has been crossed (and I think like you), the ending gives me goosebumps. It deals with a philosophical fundamental, one the tut-tut-tutters refuse to acknowledge. After showing images of the violent protestors at Trump's rallies and the weakness and hypocrisy of the tut-tut-tut establishment politicians, the video asks in big bold letters: Did anyone really think the people destroying America were going to relinquish power peacefully? Dayaamm! That's inspiring. Finally somebody came out and said it. Michael It's a very American attitude. I think Rand would have loved it! J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 WTF? Why no responses yet to the following?!!! What's the problem? No answers? Rand didn't tell you what to think on this one? 3 hours ago, Jonathan said: I have some questions, Your Honour. Ones that I've asked before but which Roger evaded. Perhaps "Uncle Milty" could help him answer them now? Much earlier on this thread, Roger posted an article from National Review which described the horrific labor conditions in China. In response, I asked the following questions, which Roger didn't answer: And?!!! What are your Objective solutions to the problem, Roger? In post #2873 I responded to MSK's comments on slave labor, and asked to hear Objectivist/Objectivish solutions, especially from those who are aghast at the idea of using the threat of "protectionist" measures as a bargaining chip. You are such a person. You seem to be pretty worked up about it, and all moralistic and full of self praise about your dedication to voting on principle. But yet you didn't answer MSK's points, or my questions from #2873. ("Let's hear some Objectivist solutions. If retaliatory tariffs are not the answer, what is? Should we ban US citizens from outsourcing slave labor? Should we convict US business people for complicity with slavery when trading with nations who don't respect the rights of their citizens?") You posted an article above which gives details supporting what MSK and I are talking about, but you skipped the act of offering Objective solutions. What policies would a principled candidate propose? What's Cruz's position? What's yours? Put your Objectivish Logic and Principles to work and instruct us on what position a morally principled candidate should take, and why. ----- Any answers yet, Roger? No? Would anyone else like to take a shot at it with your special Objectivist powers? Perhaps the answer is to snicker and sneer at the slave laborers, as Roger does when looking at paintings of their trying to maintain their humanity while being treated like animals, and to express his seething contempt for those who valued the painting? Roger's callous, douchebag response to the condition of the men in the painting was "Sucks to be them - I guess my troubles aren't so bad after all." Is that the rational and Objective position to being on the good end of "free trade" which depends on slave labor? "Sucks to be them!"? J 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 1 minute ago, Jonathan said: WTF? Why no responses yet to the following?!!! What's the problem? No answers? Rand didn't tell you what to think on this one? Jonathan, you are setting a very negative tone. You know what could happen next if you keep this up. You know Roger's considered opinion of situations like this. You won't be the victim if you keep this up, knowing as you do what might happen next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Above all, never say, "Come through my door to practice your right to speech in my living room, and I will pay the legal fees of any of my friends who punch you." Dont say anything like that. It's an incitement to violence in some minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 I'm making a sign for my front door right now: It would be immoral of you to come through this door uninvited to scream at me in my living room, but don't worry, I will be the big person, I will not punch you or do anything else to you. I would never violate your right to free speech. Thanks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Dennis Prager: And the truth is that the left-wing attack on Trump's Chicago rally had little, if anything, to do with what the incendiary comments Donald Trump has made about attacking protestors at his events. Leftist mobs attack and shut down events with which they differ as a matter of course. They do so regularly on American college campuses, where conservative speakers -- on the rare occasion they are invited -- are routinely shouted down by left-wing students (and sometimes faculty) or simply disinvited as a result of leftist pressure on the college administration. A couple of weeks ago conservative writer and speaker Ben Shapiro was disinvited from California State University, Los Angeles. When he nevertheless showed up, 150 left-wing demonstrators blocked the entrance to the theater in which he was speaking, and sounded a fire alarm to further disrupt his speech. In just the last year, left-wing students have violently taken over presidents' or deans' offices at Princeton, Virginia Commonwealth University, Dartmouth, Providence College, Harvard, Lewis & Clark College, Temple University and many others. Conservative speakers have either been disinvited or shouted down at Brandeis University, Brown University, the University of Michigan and myriad other campuses. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/15/the_left_may_well_get_trump_nominated_129978.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 "Ends Justify Means" is horrific enough, we are up against people who have long ago switched, explicitly, to: "By any means necessary." Notice that at least Ends Justify Means is a limiting injunction, one may do something wrong, even very wrong, but only if the ends will include enough good to vastly and assuredly overcome the bad means. "By any means necessary" contains no limiting metric. No mention of ends. So it's just, what we want, by any means necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Looks like the Trump thread is pissing someone off big time. OL just suffered an attack on the server. We were shut down for a bit, but now all is well. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: The hand-wringers have no clue about how to combat hostile organized people those who constantly initiate force in our society. I think that the "hand-wringers" know very well to handle this. They oppose mayors tying the hands of police and punishing them for doing their job - and they oppose demagogues encouraging retaliatory violence by emotion-ridden supporters who often are incapable of telling the difference between protest speech they don't like and actual violence by protestors. Taking your licks at protestors once they're being dealt with by police or security is *not* legitimate "retaliatory" force. The politically correct insanity of the Baltimore mayor and the politically incorrect insanity of Donald Trump are just two sides of the same irrational coin. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said: Taking your licks at protestors once they're being dealt with by police or security is *not* legitimate "retaliatory" force. Roger, That only happened with an 80 year old dude. Regardless, if I am at a rally and I see someone getting ready to throw something at Trump, or hitting other people at the rally, I will take that person out. I'm not waiting to see if he hits Trump first, or kills someone first, nor am I waiting for the cops to arrive. Once they arrive, I'll stop. I believe if fighting before you are killed, not after. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now