Page 17 of 22 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 510 of 646

Thread: Anti-free speech protesters shutdown Trump rally

  1. #481
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #482
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Bill Kristol WILL NEVER GET IT!


  4. #483
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    That's too bad then. He shouldn't have cancelled his speech then. He had every right to speak but then CHOSE not to. He allowed people into the venue. Maybe next time, he should speak to an empty room. His free speech wasn't violated and even HE didn't make that claim despite the many cries of his idiotic supporters who clearly don't know the meaning of free speech.
    I don't support Trump, and I say freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly was disrespected and infringed upon in a shameful manner.

    Yes, he chose to postpone the rally. That was his choice. He claims he made it under advisement of others, but it was his choice. He could have gone ahead with the rally, and perhaps contributed more volatility to an already toxic set of circumstances, but in any case, he chose to postpone. But that isn't the point--context is missing. "Protest" organizers numbering in the thousands, from a number of different groups deliberately planned, forewarned, and executed this. The intent was clear: to shut down the rally--to prevent Trump from speaking, and to prevent constituents from listening to what he has to say. This is not even in dispute, as it has been widely affirmed. This is silencing. This is censorship. This is obstructing someone, and an entire group of people from voluntary activity through intimidation, force, and/or the threat thereof. So, the choice he made was made as a consequence of the interference of others whose purpose was to make him make that choice. To ignore all of this context makes you look like the idiot, not Trump's supporters for crying foul. They may be idiotic in a lot of other ways, but not when it comes to this. And, it is you who is failing to understand the nature of free speech.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  5. #484
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    The hooligan left cannot win like it has in the past. The whole chessboard has been altered.

    Last edited by AuH20; 03-12-2016 at 11:06 PM.

  6. #485
    To no one's surprise, the blowback is already in full swing.

    Last edited by Cabal; 03-12-2016 at 11:18 PM.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  7. #486
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  8. #487
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    The Trump song


  9. #488
    I don't know that that's "backlash."

    It's just N. Tyson saying something that he thinks is clever but is actually just inane.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #489
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    I don't support Trump, and I say freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly was disrespected and infringed upon in a shameful manner.

    Yes, he chose to postpone the rally. That was his choice. He claims he made it under advisement of others, but it was his choice. He could have gone ahead with the rally, and perhaps contributed more volatility to an already toxic set of circumstances, but in any case, he chose to postpone. But that isn't the point--context is missing. "Protest" organizers numbering in the thousands, from a number of different groups deliberately planned, forewarned, and executed this. The intent was clear: to shut down the rally--to prevent Trump from speaking, and to prevent constituents from listening to what he has to say. This is not even in dispute, as it has been widely affirmed. This is silencing. This is censorship. This is obstructing someone, and an entire group of people from voluntary activity through intimidation, force, and/or the threat thereof. So, the choice he made was made as a consequence of the interference of others whose purpose was to make him make that choice. To ignore all of this context makes you look like the idiot, not Trump's supporters for crying foul. They may be idiotic in a lot of other ways, but not when it comes to this. And, it is you who is failing to understand the nature of free speech.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    https://mises.org/library/human-rights-property-rights
    In short, a person does not have a "right to freedom of speech"; what he does have is the right to hire a hall and address the people who enter the premises.
    The rally in Chicago was to take place on state owned property (University of Illinois at Chicago) in a Democratic hotbed. His choice.

  12. #490
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    https://mises.org/library/human-rights-property-rights


    The rally in Chicago was to take place on state owned property (University of Illinois at Chicago) in a Democratic hotbed. His choice.
    Free speech simply means freedom from coercion that would prevent you from voluntarily speaking, or assembling, or expression.

    Every legitimate "right" is a freedom from coercion and aggression against otherwise voluntary activity.

    That Chicago is a so-called "democratic hotbed" is entirely irrelevant. Organized coercion was expressly and successfully used to interfere with a voluntary activity involving speech, assembly, and expression.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  13. #491
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Free speech simply means freedom from coercion that would prevent you from voluntarily speaking, or assembling, or expression.

    Every legitimate "right" is a freedom from coercion and aggression against otherwise voluntary activity.

    That Chicago is a so-called "democratic hotbed" is entirely irrelevant. Organized coercion was expressly and successfully used to interfere with a voluntary activity involving speech, assembly, and expression.
    No one has a right of 'free speech' anywhere they want in a libertarian sense.

  14. #492
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    No one has a right of 'free speech' anywhere they want in a libertarian sense.
    What do you mean, "in a libertarian sense?"

    According to you, no one has rights on public property, is that it? In what "libertarian sense" does that make sense?

    Even when those who manage and operate said public venues have clearly reached some kind of voluntary agreement to permit use of said venue for the purposes of a candidate's rally? In what "libertarian sense" does that make sense?

    In any case, that would also then mean the "protesters" certainly had no right to protest, anyway, wouldn't it?
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  15. #493
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    ...
    Now CPUd is posting Rachel Maddow videos. LOL.

    As if she would not be bashing Rand if he was the front-runner over CRA, his fathers newsletters or whatever other bogus false accusations of racism she could make up.
    * See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
    * Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.

  16. #494
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    I don't support Trump, and I say freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly was disrespected and infringed upon in a shameful manner.

    Yes, he chose to postpone the rally. That was his choice. He claims he made it under advisement of others, but it was his choice. He could have gone ahead with the rally, and perhaps contributed more volatility to an already toxic set of circumstances, but in any case, he chose to postpone. But that isn't the point--context is missing. "Protest" organizers numbering in the thousands, from a number of different groups deliberately planned, forewarned, and executed this. The intent was clear: to shut down the rally--to prevent Trump from speaking, and to prevent constituents from listening to what he has to say. This is not even in dispute, as it has been widely affirmed. This is silencing. This is censorship. This is obstructing someone, and an entire group of people from voluntary activity through intimidation, force, and/or the threat thereof. So, the choice he made was made as a consequence of the interference of others whose purpose was to make him make that choice. To ignore all of this context makes you look like the idiot, not Trump's supporters for crying foul. They may be idiotic in a lot of other ways, but not when it comes to this. And, it is you who is failing to understand the nature of free speech.
    Blah, blah, blah, you gigantic wall of text saying the same thing everyone else said. The protestors don't get to speak. Only Trump gets to speak. What would you like to see happen next time? Maybe have the cops spray water on them? Arrest anyone who disagrees with Trump? After all, they are breaking the law and violating his 1st ammendment rights correct? They should all be arrested and only Trump should be allowed to talk!!
    A sense of danger gives birth to fear. And fear is the time-honored cross for the crucifixion of liberty.

  17. #495
    Quote Originally Posted by silverhandorder View Post
    They don't need to hold a gun to his head. They crashed the rally. Everyone deserves free speech. So when people violate free speech they no longer deserve it. Like the thugs who crashed his rally.



    I don't agree with everything he wants. And I am not very afraid for Snowden's safety. He got out.
    His rally was opened to everyone genius. Why didn't the cops arrest the protesters for tresspassing then? Maybe the cops should mace anyone who dares speak out against Trump. Only Trump is allowed free speech right?

    As for Edward Snowden. He maybe safe for now but under your President Trump, the next Edward Snowden will not be. He will be executed and I'm sure you will cheer it on. Trump supporters have lost their minds. Supporting a candidate who's policies resemble the policies of politicians they hate.
    A sense of danger gives birth to fear. And fear is the time-honored cross for the crucifixion of liberty.

  18. #496
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    Blah, blah, blah, you gigantic wall of text saying the same thing everyone else said. The protestors don't get to speak. Only Trump gets to speak. What would you like to see happen next time? Maybe have the cops spray water on them? Arrest anyone who disagrees with Trump? After all, they are breaking the law and violating his 1st ammendment rights correct? They should all be arrested and only Trump should be allowed to talk!!
    Protestors should not be allowed to talk and disrupt a private event on private property. Protesting outside on public property is a different story.

    If they cross over onto private property, are disruptive and refuse to leave then yes put a hose on them and arrest them for trespass.
    * See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
    * Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #497
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    His rally was opened to everyone genius. Why didn't the cops arrest the protesters for tresspassing then? Maybe the cops should mace anyone who dares speak out against Trump. Only Trump is allowed free speech right?

    As for Edward Snowden. He maybe safe for now but under your President Trump, the next Edward Snowden will not be. He will be executed and I'm sure you will cheer it on. Trump supporters have lost their minds. Supporting a candidate who's policies resemble the policies of politicians they hate.
    Your sophism is working overtime. If I did not like Trump I would not go to his rally to attack him or shut down his speech. Kinda why you don't see me at rallies of (place any politician here).

    It might get to the point where cops are macing anti Trump people and arresting them. All it takes is for these geniouses to try and pull the $#@! they pulled one more time or maybe two more times.

    As far as Trump having stances I don't like, you can't agree on everything. Any current politician is anti whistleblower. How far they take it hardly matters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

  21. #498
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    The Trump song

    I'm thinking the main point of this song is lost on you. Because it's not lost on me, I couldn't agree more....it fits the situation perfectly between Trump and his supporters.

  22. #499
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    I don't support Trump, and I say freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly was disrespected and infringed upon in a shameful manner.

    Yes, he chose to postpone the rally. That was his choice. He claims he made it under advisement of others, but it was his choice. He could have gone ahead with the rally, and perhaps contributed more volatility to an already toxic set of circumstances, but in any case, he chose to postpone. But that isn't the point--context is missing. "Protest" organizers numbering in the thousands, from a number of different groups deliberately planned, forewarned, and executed this. The intent was clear: to shut down the rally--to prevent Trump from speaking, and to prevent constituents from listening to what he has to say. This is not even in dispute, as it has been widely affirmed. This is silencing. This is censorship. This is obstructing someone, and an entire group of people from voluntary activity through intimidation, force, and/or the threat thereof. So, the choice he made was made as a consequence of the interference of others whose purpose was to make him make that choice. To ignore all of this context makes you look like the idiot, not Trump's supporters for crying foul. They may be idiotic in a lot of other ways, but not when it comes to this. And, it is you who is failing to understand the nature of free speech.
    Do you consider anti-abortion activists who block the entrances to abortion clinics to be exercising their right to free speech? Court precedent protects them.

    I'm also not getting why one activity is judged to be coercive and the other is not. In fact, I could see a case being made that blocking Trump's rally is an exercise in self-defense and free expression to stop someone who would be ruling over all of us. (I'm not saying I would necessarily agree with all aspects of that argument.) Trump supporters (not Trump himself) are in fact the only ones hiding behind the "free speech" flap, which only serves to show how confused they are. He has already demonstrated he doesn't have any respect for the principle of free speech himself, which is why you don't hear him whining about what happened more.
    Last edited by Rothbardian Girl; 03-13-2016 at 09:37 AM.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  23. #500
    Standard MO for these people. I remember a few rallies that talked about feminazis or how there is no rape culture.... protesters of those events pull the fire alarm or call a bomb threat. This in turn canceled the event short.

    These people are a number one threat to freedom of speech, probably second to those that wnt to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

  24. #501
    Trump back in IL


  25. #502
    Personally, I think the protesters are terrorists and should be shipped to guantanimo

  26. #503
    Quote Originally Posted by squirl22 View Post
    Personally, I think the protesters are terrorists and should be shipped to guantanimo
    Does that included peaceful protesters?

  27. #504

    Martin Niemoller moment

    Great Martin Niemoller Tweet from Justin Raimondo:
    First they came for the Trump supporters, but I was not a Trump supporter, so I said nothing....
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #505
    https://www.facebook.com/uic.edu/pos...53615941013305



    It's not clear anyone tried to prevent Trump from speaking, as I said. What it sounds like is that Trump heard there were going to be large protests and called the whole thing off. There was no security threat. e: so Alex Jones is lying as usual.
    Last edited by Rothbardian Girl; 03-13-2016 at 10:38 AM.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  30. #506
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last edited by AuH20; 03-13-2016 at 10:41 AM.

  31. #507
    Quote Originally Posted by squirl22 View Post
    Personally, I think the protesters are terrorists and should be shipped to guantanimo
    However did you end up on Ron Paul Forums?

  32. #508
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009

  33. #509
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulGeorge&Ringo View Post
    I don't know that that's "backlash."

    It's just N. Tyson saying something that he thinks is clever but is actually just inane.
    Yeah, I didn't even understand what he was trying to say.

  34. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    Do you consider anti-abortion activists who block the entrances to abortion clinics to be exercising their right to free speech? Court precedent protects them. .
    It actually doesn't. They're not allowed to block the entrances.

Page 17 of 22 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •