Berkeley

My Recent Posts

1st. Free speech prevents ONLY the government from punishing someone because of their speech or beliefs. Non-government entities are perfectly within their rights to hear or not to hear anyone they please. Also, peacefully protesting a speaker at a college campus is just as much protected free speech as that of the speaker who is coming to that campus to speak.

 

2nd. Students were peacefully protesting that speaker on campus, which is within their rights. This behavior should be encouraged by citizens and organizations on both sides of the spectrum, because they too are exercising their constitutional rights. People should be applauding these students for what they were doing is more applicable in this situation than the free speech of the speaker.

Free speech protections only protect you from government. Berkeley does not equal government.

 

3rd. Anyway, a riot started when a group of people off campus co-opted the protest to cause a ruckus. This was not the attention of the students who were originally protesting. STOP lumping them into the same group.

 

4th. It sure is rich hearing conservatives talk about liberal snowflakes, especially in this instance. I’d say it takes far more balls to protest, than it does to spout hateful nonsense, even if it’s his right to believe that nonsense.

Comments

Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 8, 2017 - 10:38am
You're just not going to tolerate intolerance are you. 
 
Donna Added Feb 8, 2017 - 11:01am
Robert,
Great one..You are correct you were within all rights, and by all means a peaceful protest is your right. 
It also most certainly does take more balls than spouting hate and doing nothing to encourage or help with today's society. Thanks for the article,peace )0(
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 8, 2017 - 11:19am
Talk shit, get hit! That's the true law of the land.
 
LOL, The reason there are so many assholes today is because there are way to few ass whippin's!
Robert Potter Added Feb 8, 2017 - 1:33pm
Yeah, and is anyone really that sad that Milo's event got canceled? I know I'm not. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 8, 2017 - 1:43pm
It's utterly stupid to prevent people with whom you disagree from speaking to those who do or have an open mind snowflake.
Shane Dean Added Feb 8, 2017 - 2:05pm
Over $100,000 in damage is not peaceful protesting, that is rioting.  And a state funded college is a government entity, so 1st Amendment applies.  Also, by your logic if I prevented you from speaking because I don't like what you think there would be nothing you could do about it.  Additionally, the speaker could reasonably file suit against members of the riot squad for threatening him with physical harm, as rioters causing so much damage may well have been a threat to his person.
 
Why is it liberal minded individuals lose their mind and scream about the Bill of Rights if they feel they are not being heard or properly informed of something, yet will not reciprocate the rights they feel entitled to for those that see things differently.  
 
Not sure which is worse, your hypocritical premise or your ignorance.
Shane Dean Added Feb 8, 2017 - 2:08pm
Also, protesting is one thing, but forcibly occupying a space is NOT protesting.  The exercise of your rights should in no way impede the rights of anyone else, which was the express intent of the "protest" turned riot.
Additionally, insulting someone then following up by claiming they are spreading words of hate only heightens your hypocrisy that much more.
wsucram15 Added Feb 8, 2017 - 2:11pm
Robert..I have been telling people about this and the media for some time now. Isolated incidents are always channeled into the press as the message taken away from a protest because they are sensational and bring in ratings, also selling products for sponsors.
I wasnt at Berkley, but have been at multiple other protests that were reported as riots and were isolated incidents in a protest.  So I understand, many on here will not. I commend your efforts and there is no need to defend them to anyone.
 
I don't agree though, that colleges should limit speakers.If you can present one side, you should be able to present the other as well, attendance is NOT mandatory and protests of the message should be welcome. As much as I dont like people who hate others based on a feeling of superiority for whatever reason, like Milo..he has a right to speak his ideals to those that will listen. Dont give his cause a larger voice by making him a martyr.  Negative press is sometimes better than good press...remember that.
 
As a proponent of speaking freely, I do believe that this sets a precedent on campus's for students to only hear what they choose, which is unrealistic.  In other words to channel the speech heard, which does not fit into our standards as US Citizens.  Also your college is NOT a private college, even though it is a top ranking school, therefore subject to federal funding. 
 
 
Robert Potter Added Feb 8, 2017 - 2:35pm
Okay, a couple things. 

I stand corrected. Berkeley is subject to the 1st Amendment. Berkeley didn't invite Milo though. A student group on campus invited him to speak. I do agree; despite my previous comment, which was a joke; that he should have been allowed to speak on campus; though, I completely understand Berkeley canceling the event after a riot broke out.

That being said, other students have every right to protest him speaking there. 

I will also repeat that the students weren't the ones rioting. A group of off-campus protestors came on to campus and co-opted the protest. 

Finally, it's so funny seeing conservative's flock to Milo's defense. This guy, who makes a living off visibly and publicly insulting people in this "anti-PC" crusade, can't withstand critique or even any insults. 

Why is it that conservatives insult people all the time and pride themselves on being "anti-PC", but when liberals start dishing it back to them they whine and cry? 

What a world! 



 
Shane Dean Added Feb 8, 2017 - 2:55pm
Robert, Your complaints about conservatives insulting people are followed up by insulting people.  Do you not realize in your self-righteous hypocrisy you are no better than those you decry?  I am not defending the speaker at Berkeley; I have never heard of him.  But your grouping people together as one hate filled group is exactly what you are accusing others of.  You need to check your premises and start looking at people as individuals rather than seeing the whole world as "Us" and "Them".
One final note. Before you make the same mistake others have done and label me as a Trump Troll, I voted for Johnson because he believes in the sanctity of each individual's rights and is a strong opponent of sheeple hivemind entitlement mentality.
George N Romey Added Feb 8, 2017 - 2:57pm
If you don't like what Milo says just don't attend.  Where do you get the idea that you are correct?  Hate to tell you the world is not black and white its all kinds of shades of grey.  I agree with Milo on this social justice warrior run amuck.  Like the boneheads that do not want the phrase "Merry Christmas" being in the public sphere.
 
Anyone with half a brain would understand at lot of what Milo speaks about is simply showboating.  He likes being the Alt Right character that talks about his penchant for anal sex with black men.
 
If he showed up and six students attended he probably would not come back.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Feb 8, 2017 - 3:02pm
Damn this liberal progressive really wishes the neoliberals would stop with the fake news about this riot. How about the truth? 
From a friend on Medium:
“The Berkeley Riots Were A Cowardly Act of Domestic Terrorism”  http://bit.ly/2kDvZIL
Headline says it all about the fascists involved. 
Robert Potter Added Feb 8, 2017 - 3:27pm
It's a double standard again. 

Shane Dean: I believe you that you didn't vote for Trump. I'm sure you didn't. 

But it you did the same thing you accuse me of doing just a couple comments up. 

"Why is it liberal minded individuals lose their mind and scream about the Bill of Rights if they feel they are not being heard or properly informed of something, yet will not reciprocate the rights they feel entitled to for those that see things differently. "

You grouped me in with a bunch of other individuals too. Everyone does it. Now, I am fully aware that not all conservatives voted for Trump. I am also fully aware that not all conservatives even like Trump.  

All I'm saying is that there have always been two sets of rules. I will also premise this by saying I am definitely generalizing here. This won't fit perfectly, but I think it's a norm. 

The Right: All about being "anti-PC", saying what you mean, being up front and honest, pointing out hypocrisy in everyone who tries to be better (I think you guys call it virtue signaling?), taking on this cynical realistic viewpoint of the world

The Left: feel good, everyone is perfect, PC to the max, group group group, trying to live up to these virtues (and a lot of times failing), taking on this idealistic point-of-view, glass-half-full types,
 
Now, for decades the Right has pointed out the hypocrisy of the Left for trying to live up to these ideals, but failing from time to time, and the Left has tried to take the "high road" scoffing at the Right for not being as good as them. Very holier-than-thou-esque.

Back and forth this goes, until some on the Left realize that this is bullshit. We want to do what the Right has been doing for decades. That's what wins elections. 

So some of us start to do that thinking maybe the Right will finally stop calling us hypocrites. We're doing the same thing now. We're slowly becoming "anti-PC". We're telling the world what we really think of people. We stop trying to be so "good" and start playing politics. 

An amazing thing happens. The Right still calls us hypocrites, but this time for not striving to hit these "ideals" for which we've talked about for generations. They now all of a sudden try to "take the high road". This time though the Left is just like, "Fuck you. We're the same now." 
Billy Roper Added Feb 8, 2017 - 3:28pm
What's funny is that when one group of faggots went to protest a Jewish faggot, they ended up beating up a Syrian refugee. Now THAT is good TV! But the UC Berkeley employee who is being investigated for his role in the attack should have fun in jail.
 
Please, PLEASE, keep normalizing political violence. ;->
Robert Potter Added Feb 8, 2017 - 3:44pm
No quite sure how I'm doing that, but okayyyyyy.....lol
Mike Haluska Added Feb 8, 2017 - 3:49pm
Robert - you spoiled Snowflakes can't "tolerate" FREE SPEECH!  If you don't like or approve of someone invited to speak - stay the hell away and let those who are "tolerant" hear the speaker.  You can't cite A SINGLE INSTANCE where a liberal speaker ever got the same ABUSIVE treatment that conservative speakers are GUARANTEED TO GET!!!
Robert Potter Added Feb 8, 2017 - 3:55pm
Again, not really sure where you got that from. I said further up that he should be allowed to speak. The people peacefully protesting didn't cause the riot. 
Mike Haluska Added Feb 8, 2017 - 3:56pm
Robert - your statement:
 
"Free speech prevents ONLY the government from punishing someone because of their speech or beliefs."
 
would probably piss off whoever is paying your tuition because if that's the understanding of the First Amendment that is taught at Berkley then you kids are getting ripped off.
 
You, me or anyone else are not allowed to "punish" anyone else for expressing themselves - period.  And don't hide behind your rich Mommy's apron and say those "bad off campus kids caused all the violence".  Come to Purdue University and try and burn a Flag or bust up a bookstore and the students there won't stand around waiting for the cops to show up. 
Mike Haluska Added Feb 8, 2017 - 3:59pm
Robert - your statement:
 
"This guy, who makes a living off visibly and publicly insulting people in this "anti-PC" crusade, can't withstand critique or even any insults."
 
you must be including "comics" like Rosie O'Donnell, Samantha Bee, and the entire cast of SNL???  
Donna Added Feb 8, 2017 - 4:47pm
Slade,
What the hell is Cultural appropriation? Another one from the PC crowd?
Shane Dean Added Feb 8, 2017 - 5:12pm
Robert, the very intent of the people "peacefully" protesting was the same as during many events during the Presidential campaign trail: to PREVENT someone from speaking.  That flies in the face of the First Amendment.  The First Amendment is not only to keep the government from preventing people to speak, but to protect EVERYTHING individual's right to speak.  What you have been advocating is a mob mentality employed heavily by the fascists of Italy and German.  The idea that the government has no role in protecting its citizens from each other is patently ridiculous.  Do you have any idea what people risked just to be able to march peacefully for equal rights in the 60s?  Or to have Gay Pride parades?  
This is the hypocrisy I am calling out.  You and those of similar philosophy  (I will not label you even though by your conduct my perception would be correct) demand the government protect someone's right to speak when you are in agreement with them and their struggle, but then turn around and say the government has no tole when you dislike what someone is speaking about.  This is your hypocrisy.  You can't have it both ways.
As a veteran who comes from a long line of veterans going back to the War of 1812, let me explain very clearly that literal millions have died defending the right to be protected in what you say in public whether someone agrees with it or not.  Please go back and read some history, especially just prior to the Revolutionary War and things Britain did to inspire the Founders to include the things they did in the Bill of Rights.  When you have actually done some research and thought hard about what the Constitution and subsequent Amendments are about, maybe then you can make an educated judgement and actually write from a place of reason rather than one of professional offense taking.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Feb 8, 2017 - 6:20pm
Hypocrisy and denial of free speech is not free speech. Violence and domestic terrorism is not free speech. As my friend Trent says in the article of his I linked to above: "at UC Berkeley we witnessed a signficant blow to civil liberties in America.
These were not acts of protest, but acts of cowardice, hatred, and bigotry. These were not liberal, or progressive values, and this radical left-wing Antifa group are not protesters. I do not use the term “terrorist” lightly, and personally believe the war on terror is mostly bullshit. However, domestic terrorism is no joke, and should not be tolerated by any American regardless of your political beliefs.
Much to my surprise, our civil liberties are being threatened not at the hands of a corporatist government, but instead at the hands of ignorant and violent radical left-wing domestic terrorists with suspected ties to target="_blank">George Soros"
wsucram15 Added Feb 8, 2017 - 8:37pm
Robert;
I agree with your right to protest and think you should continue to do so whenever possible absolutely whenever you cannot resolve things in a civil manner or in a large group of like minded people.
I wasnt giving you a hard time, but I knew you were going to get hammered on here for being a forward thinking person so there it is...
Just fight for your right to object to something you dont believe in...others have and will.  You have the right to do so, this is America even if your school is federally funded.  My sister got shot at on a college campus so I support in every way your right of protest w/o riot. 
You know what I say about this..for years and years now over wins and losses in so many fights on issues through many presidencies..Tough S**T if they dont like it, as long as I did the right thing, Im good. 
Robert Potter Added Feb 8, 2017 - 9:02pm
Wsucram15: Thank you. Much appreciated, and same to you!

Shane Dean: I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

The 1st Amendment only bounds the government into not infringing on anyone else's free speech rights. No other group, organization, company, or person has any obligation to listen or give anyone a platform to speak. People are also very much within their rights to protest someone's free speech. 

For example, the government would technically be forced to allow a nazi to speak, but no one is bound to listen. In fact, I don't think anyone could argue that people would be well within their rights to voice their opposition to that nazi. 

All those marches you cited were against the government. They were directly marching against the government for infringing their rights, not anyone else. 


You cite all these people who died for others like me and everyone else to exercise their rights. Well, I think they'd be proud that people are protesting. That's integral to our democracy. That's literally what birthed our nation.  

I'd be worried about your own condemnation of protests. Where was your condemnation of all the protests during Barack Obama's years, or Bush's years? 

William Stockton Added Feb 8, 2017 - 9:29pm
@Robert, "This was not the attention of the students who were originally protesting."
 
First, you are in college for god's sake.  It is INTENTION, not attention.
Geez, how much are you paying for that degree?  Oh, that's right, it should be free according to you.  But from what I am seeing by your penmanship, it SHOULD be free.
 
Anyway, your comment above is a cop-out.  If the admins of that university really valued free speech they could have stopped those crazy "infiltrators" and "disruptors".  Y'all are culpable by association in my opinion.  Certainly, the admins are communist left and y'all are willful stoops.
 
Good luck with fascism in Cali.
Peter Corey Added Feb 8, 2017 - 10:02pm
>No other group, organization, company, or person has any obligation to listen or give anyone a platform to speak. 
 
And no other group, organization, company, or person has the right to deny some other group's right to exercise their right of free expression, which is what the rioters were doing to the the student group that originally invited Milo. By canceling the invitation, the faculty and administration of Berkeley tacitly supported the rioters.
 
The rioters were simply more honest in their approach.
 
And while the language of the 1st Amendment mentions only a constraint on government restrictions of freedom of speech, like so many other things on the Constitution, there's a "penumbra" cast from that Amendment: any institution or person receiving federal funds must also abstain from stifling a private citizen's freedom of speech. Conversely, if the administrators and faculty at Berkeley reserve the right to uninvite a provocative guest speaker, they should not receive taxpayer revenue.
wsucram15 Added Feb 8, 2017 - 10:04pm
Shane..come on veterans, you are going there seriously? My entire family is also military but Veterans died for Americans to live in a democracy, under the Constitution, period. This was guy was acting under his first Amendment right to free speech as a protestor, he did not riot. Im not sure what you are talking about.
 
Jenifer..there is absolutely no proof of George Soros involvement in the current actions going on..its innuendo at this point and Im involved to a certain degree on the DC side, at one point with fundraising.
But if there is some truth behind it..for the sake of argument..who cares? At this point, its a battle of dark money Soros or the Koch Bros.- Heritage foundation.   Although I can say, only ousted brother William Koch publicly supported Trump.  His cabinet and transitional picks at least some of them are directly correlated to one if not both Koch brothers. Pruitt being a prime example. 
 
I personally think government in general is very corrupt and not representative of the people.   Trump in no way can control or fix it, nor does he want to, he is a business man.  For heavens sake his wife is suing to make money off her first lady branding.  We are pushing back on that one...its too much.  TO them, this is a next step business opportunity and signing a few documents to appear to satisfy a minimalist base is well the very LEAST he can do.  FOr example, he just did an Executive Order to increase mining jobs by 3%...yet in unwinding the PPACA, he is taking away both health and disability benefits to high risk miners and their widows(not just healthcare) as outlined and setup in that law which covers ultimately all of them, not 3%.
 
The Constitution and the United States public offices are public servants, not the next level in marketing your brand.  While they have managed to twist some things..this is going to end badly in every way.   I really hoped he would fix things for all people, but he isnt doing that.  Its to everyones benefit for him to work with ALL people...he isnt doing anything for anyone, not really.
 
Now keep in mind, Im not listening to you guys...I try, I do..but some of the stuff is so hostile, its silly.  I dont like bias So I look for facts and research them on my own.  While I dont like Trump, I am fair..he could do something with Republicans if he took the reins. I could respect that.  But he likes to delegate...not do the work. 
Also I am involved in some of the things that are happening on the opposing side. Not all, just some and I have been for a long time.  ITs not difficult to find out stuff about Trump or anything right now, he likes to be talked about and there is so much conflict, its open fire on both sides which again is silly. Its not going to solve anything in the end, it might stop some things, but in the end, it will be bad for the citizens.
 
Tamara Wilhite Added Feb 8, 2017 - 10:07pm
There is a bad tendency by liberals to say we need to silence voices upon the threat of violence by the left. It is a violation of one's rights to face physical violence for daring to speak, and no, speech that you disagree with is not assault, and just because you label their views as only based on hate, conservative views are not in and of themselves hate speech.
Fascism is the state refusing to protect one group physically assaulted by another on the basis of its views.

Constitutional expert Volokh noted how such policy is divergent from the Supreme Court's condemnation of the "Heckler's Veto":

"Sometimes the government says: 'We need to suppress this guy who's speaking on the street corner because we're afraid somebody will get so upset at him that they'll throw a punch, or worse.'
There, the Court says 'Nope, you can't do that.' You can't allow hecklers to essentially force the suppression of a person's speech by threatening violence. You need to protect the speaker against the violence rather than suppressing the speaker."
Peter Corey Added Feb 8, 2017 - 10:17pm
>Why is it that conservatives insult people all the time and pride themselves on being "anti-PC", but when liberals start dishing it back to them they whine and cry? 
 
I guess because the left doesn't confine its anti-PC activities merely to insults but elevates its provocations to rioting and the destruction of property. I'd say that's a big difference. So it's understandable that some people might "whine" and "cry" when their property has been destroyed or their basic individual rights trampled upon.
 
Here are links to a symposium of former leftists interviewed by Jamie Glazov on FrontPageMag from 2005. FrontPageMag was started by David Horowitz, himself a former leftist and student radical in the 1960s who did an ideological about-face some time later. 
 
Enjoy!
 
Symposium: Leaving the Political Faith
Interviews with former leftists
by Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMag
21 October 2005

Part I:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6871
 
Part 2:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6870
 
Part 3:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6869
 
Part 4:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6868
 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 8, 2017 - 11:17pm
 Veterans died for Americans to live in a democracy 
 
Actually as Gen. Smedley Butler correctly stated they died for the profit of DUHmerican corporations. 
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Feb 8, 2017 - 11:20pm
wsucram, rioting is not protesting. I have absolutely no problems with Democrats or whomever protesting who or whatever, but rioting, violence, destruction of property is not protesting. You should look at the videos at the article I linked above. That was a riot not a protest. To call that a "protest" would be like calling rape, consensual sex. Absolute bullshit.
 
And you say " there is absolutely no proof of George Soros involvement in the current actions going on..its innuendo at this point and Im involved to a certain degree on the DC side, at one point with fundraising.
But if there is some truth behind it..for the sake of argument..who cares? 
 
I care, that's an absurd statement who cares. Reminds me of the Hillary people when confronted with the fact that the primarys were rigged for her and many responded who cares. If you don’t care it means you have no honor, no moral character or ethical integrity. Those things still matter to us progressives. If you use the same dark money and dirty methods as the rats you are as dirty and diseased as they are. In the legal system trying to use evidence obtained by illicit and corrupt methods is called fruit of the poison tree and deemed invalid because of how it was procured. Things like that do matter. Maybe not this riot but a lot of this "protesting" is certainly being funded by questionable sources. If you protest on behalf of corporations, celebrities and billionaires  it's called corporatism and it's not a good thing. 
Here's another article from my friend Trent proving the backing of dark money in many of these "protests." 
“Dear Democrats, Please Stop Protesting on Behalf of Insane Billionaires and Globalist Corporations”  https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-please-stop-protesting-on-behalf-of-insane-billionaires-and-globalist-corporations-b4e7f21651a4 
Robert Potter Added Feb 9, 2017 - 12:38am
Peter Corey: I will check those links out
 
Jennifer Frost: We got to start playing dirtier. I'm of the same opinion. Who really cares if it's true? 
 
Everyone else: there is definitely an established precedent giving schools power to curb rights when the safety of the students is involved. Calling out Berkeley for canceling the event is recklesss at best. 
 
Also, you can't really call this fascism. Fascism is the government deciding who can speak and who can't. The riot forced the event to be canceled. Not the government.
 
This is the people deciding who should speak. This was anti-fascism?
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Feb 9, 2017 - 1:01am
Robert Potter writes "Jennifer Frost: We got to start playing dirtier. I'm of the same opinion. Who really cares if it's true?" 
First off it's Jenifer not Jennifer. Jennifer was my mother. It's traditional for Kemetians to name their first born daughters after their mothers, but my mother changed the spelling a bit. Regardless it's easily visible on my profile and with my avatar when I post. The fact you couldn't see this might explain why you also missed why, as I did explain, it does matter. In case you missed it or can't find it I'll copy and paste it again for you here:
 
I care, that's an absurd statement who cares. Reminds me of the Hillary people when confronted with the fact that the primarys were rigged for her and many responded who cares. If you don’t care it means you have no honor, no moral character or ethical integrity. Those things still matter to us progressives. If you use the same dark money and dirty methods as the rats you are as dirty and diseased as they are. In the legal system trying to use evidence obtained by illicit and corrupt methods is called fruit of the poison tree and deemed invalid because of how it was procured. Things like that do matter. Maybe not this riot but a lot of this "protesting" is certainly being funded by questionable sources. If you protest on behalf of corporations, celebrities and billionaires  it's called corporatism and it's not a good thing. 
 
If you can't understand that I feel sorry for you. But as a Kemetian things like honor and morals are of extreme importance. So is truth. If those things mean nothing to you we have less in common than a human and an ape. So leave me out of your "we". There is no "we" between true progressives and, whatever you claim to be. No deals between lions and men,or rats. If you intend to go over to the dark side you are on your own. Say hi to Darth Cheney. 
Robert Potter Added Feb 9, 2017 - 1:37am
Jenifer Frost: I'm sorry. I did not mean to offend you. I was writing quickly and on my phone. I'll be sure to spell it right in the future.
 
I should explain myself more. 
 
I disagree with you on several things. I think those emails were blown way out of proportion. I was a Bernie supporter at first, but then I realized Hillary was far better qualified. 
 
That leads me me to my next point. We need to ease up in this ridiculous ideological purity test that progressives have started to impose on liberals. People can agree on some things and disagree on others. It's okay. Politicians do things sometimes that we don't necessarily agree with, but that shouldn't mean we automatically write them off. That's one of many reasons Hillary lost. A lot of Bernie voters imposed this ideological purity test on hillary and she didn't match up 100% in their minds in spite of Hillary being actually pretty close on the spectrum to Bernie. 
 
As I've outlined above this ideological purity test is one reason why we lose elections. The Right has big donors. We have big donors. Let's just own it. The Right is backed by corporations. We're backed by corporations. Let's just own that fact. 
 
Now, I think it's unrealistic that George Soros and corporations are literally giving money to thousands upon thousands of people protesting. That doesn't seem reasonable.
 
Anyway, the greater good good is what I believe in. If we get money from google or some other billionaire to share our meesage, I repeat. Who cares?
 
Trying to act better just gets called a hypocrite and snobby. Let's just own who we are and what we're doing. That's how we win elections, and that's how anything gets done.
 
J. Riddle Added Feb 9, 2017 - 2:24am
"It sure is rich hearing conservatives talk about liberal snowflakes, especially in this instance."
 
In response to the incident, snowflake Trump immediately threatened to cut off funding to Berkeley, one of the major research universities in the U.S.
J. Riddle Added Feb 9, 2017 - 2:28am
...for, it's worth noting, an incident in which neither the students nor the university were even involved. The university had already said the protofascist troll could speak; most of those protesting him, who had been there for much of the day without incident, had already left when people in hoods from off campus showed up and started breaking things.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Feb 9, 2017 - 2:44am
I do own who I am. A liberal Progressive Kemetian who is anti-corportist, anti-warmonger, anti-neoliberal. I suggest you click my avatar to get a better idea of who I am and what I stand for and against. I also suggest you read my three Writers Beat article about the Left, Liberals and Neoliberals, especially the most recent third one to really get where I'm coming from. 
 
Try to "act better" is not alignment with corporatists, warmongers and/or neoliberals like Hillary. Hillary was a tool for the establishment, for corporations and Wall Street, for fascism. She was a fake liberal, a neoliberal (you seriously need to look that up if you think it means the same thing, it doesn't) and a dangerous warmonger who was only "qualified" to get us all killed in a genocidal unwinnable suicidal war with Russia, which she was endlessly pushing for, before and even after the election. She was psychotic and insane, should have never been allowed to run for any office, especially president.
 
As a Kemetian and person of honor there is no way on hell I would have ever supported an election cheat like Hillary. And as a woman and mother there is no way I would have ever supported a dangerous and unstable nutjob like her. It's hard to imagine Trump could do any worse. If she had been elected it's highly likely she would have already launched that war with Russia she was so anxious to start and those of us not in bunkers would most likely be dead or dying. She was a bloodthirsty sadistic monster who laughed at the millions her and Obama's policy's killed  Bernie, for his faults and all was nothing like her. He would most likely be president if it wasn't for the corporatist swine in the DNC. Corporatism is fascism. I will no sooner embrace one than the other, they are interchangeable.
 
I am forever done with the Democratic Party and neoliberals. I was a Democratic delegate for Obama when he first ran. Went to the Democratic National Convention, even shook Obama's hand. Bought all the hope and change garbage. Believed he would have the Patriot Act declared Unconstitutional (it is BTW), close the illegal prison camp in Cuba, and end the illegal wars I was wrong. He was a fake, a neoliberal corportist warmonger liar. I gave the Democratic Party a second chance with Bernie Sanders. The DNC was so desperate to keep a genuine liberal that supported the Democratic base (the poor and working people) out that they rigged the primarys for Hillary instead. The proof is available for any to see for free on Wikileaks. That was it for me, I'm out. Done with the fake liberals and their rotten to the core corportist/fascist party of murders and liars. I joined the Green Party and will from now on support whoever is for America and the people, be they whatever party, be they Trump or whoever else. And I will oppose all who are against us. But I will always do so following the rules, ethical, morally, and honorably.
 
You might want to look up honor also. It seems to be a lost concept. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 9, 2017 - 3:12am
Fascism is the government deciding who can speak and who can't 
 
Fascism is the melding of the needs of the government with the needs of the corporation.
 
Whatever mommy and daddy are paying for your education it's wasted money.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Feb 9, 2017 - 3:16am
Jeffrey writes "
Fascism is the melding of the needs of the government with the needs of the corporation." 
 
Exactly! Corporatism is fascism. I'm glad someone gets it. 
Robert Potter Added Feb 9, 2017 - 9:11am
Jeffry Gilbert: No shit! I was just referencing how fascism applies within the context of my post.
 
Context, bud! I don't think I'm the only one who needs to brush up on their education! ;)
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 9, 2017 - 9:42am
There is no fucking context snowflake. I gave you the the only definition. You may have jack-boots or thugs in mind when you incorrectly spew fascist. Common mistake for DUHmericans. Off you go now, mind the gap between train and platform. BUH-Bye.
Dino Manalis Added Feb 9, 2017 - 11:20am
Peaceful protests are fine, riots are not, civil discussion and debate should be encouraged on college campuses to learn something new.  Radicalism and extremism shouldn't be tolerated!
Bill H. Added Feb 9, 2017 - 11:26am
Throwing labels at each other such as "Snowflake" or "Coal Lump" (patent pending) only fuels the fire that Trump wants to build.
Since Trump chooses to act like a child, does not give the people who are supposed to be his Boss an example to do the same.
Either Trump gets with the program that the people really want, or we all band together and throw him out of office.
We are supposed to manipulate him, not the opposite.
Shane Dean Added Feb 9, 2017 - 12:15pm
Robert, I never said that anyone should be forced to listen to a speaker.  And you yourself said the government must protect everyone's right to speak.  You flat out ignored that the "protest" at Berkeley was specifically designed to STOP a speaker, not protest what he was going to say.  Just like many "protests" during this years Presidential campaign specifically stated they were trying to prevent someone from speaking at all, and a couple times events were cancelled because of the tactics.  
As for protests during previous administrations, those were just that, protests.  No one tried to prevent any of the people you mentioned from speaking.  When you try to use the force of numbers to intimidate someone, you are impeding their liberty.  You are also breaking the law by communicating a threat through intimidation.
You are lying to yourself to justify your premise.  Even before things got destructive, the "protestors" were specifically targeting this event to shut it down.  That kind of mob rule is one of the things the First Amendment was designed to protect. Montesquieu summed it up when he said "A government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another."  You can't have that without people being allowed to speak freely without fear of a mob with pitchforks trying to stop them.
Go read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and see what happens when the crybullies manage to get all books outlawed so that no one need to be offended.  Then go read the Bill of No Rights by Louis Napper, that spells out quite clearly what the Constitution does NOT protect, no matter how badly self centered people want it to do.
Shane Dean Added Feb 9, 2017 - 12:18pm
Additionally, it takes LESS balls to gather in a mob in protest than it does to be a single voice trying to share an opinion.  A mob feeds itself, a single person must stand alone with no backup whatsoever.  
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Feb 9, 2017 - 3:53pm
The fact that this was a riot is indisputable. Just look at the videos. As for the so called "protests" beforehand, according to the new left/neoliberals, because it tried (and succeeded) to silence free speech, it was an act of violence. Read it for yourselves straight from the neoliberals:
 
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/02/republicans-told-elizabeth-warren-shut-sit-violence/?utm_source=LGBTQ+Nation+Subscribers&utm_campaign=9700495fe1-20170209_LGBTQ_Nation_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c4eab596bd-9700495fe1-429724385
 
"Violence comes in many forms. In addition to how the VAWA defines it, violence also refers to the intentional silencing of women – silencing of anyone – to denying them their voice, their sense of agency, and their subjectivity."
 
Therefore, according to neoliberals, silencing of anyone is an act of violence. Therefore regardless of how else one wants to frame this "protest", because it's intentions are to silence (free speech) it was an act of violence. 
 
As someone else here said, if you don’t believe in the message, protest against it by boycotting it. Don’t attend. An empty auditorium sends a loud message, and it doesn't silence anyone or deny them their right to free speech. The silence of an empty auditorium is the only silence needed. 
Shane Dean Added Feb 9, 2017 - 7:30pm
wsucram, are you saying that, as a veteran myself, I cannot talk about what veterans might think or why they might have served?  What else can I not say?  This article is advocating that only those the mob wants to speak should be allowed to do so.  One of the main tenets of the majority of the Founders' writings about the Bill of Rights is that the government has the duty to protect people's right to speak publicly, even if what they are saying is unpopular.  I can remember several pictures in the news growing up of police being forced to act as security for neo-nazi parades.  The looks on the cops' faves clearly showed they did not want to be there, but the law required that they do.  These "protestors" went in specifically with the goal to keep the speaker from speaking. The university, as an institution recieving federal funding, is required to take provisions to protect those who would speak in their campus.  The city police also should have been there to help control the crowd.  This event was quashed by the mob intending to do just that, making their actions illegal under the First Amendment.  All these things have been paid for by veterans.  Veterans like me, like my family.  You don't get to tell me I can't talk about veterans when I AM ONE.  Especially when I am talking about veterans standing up for the legal right of EVERYONE to speak publicly, even those we may find objectionable, such as the "protestors" who spit on people like my father and uncles coming home from Vietnam.  I am sorry for my heat in this comment, but you crossed a serious line this time.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Feb 11, 2017 - 2:04am
So..... Robert. Hello Robert! Paging Robert! What happened to you? You just stopped replying. Did you fall off the edge of the earth? 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 11, 2017 - 8:59am
Its entirely possible Robert has gone to his safe space. 
Robert Potter Added Feb 11, 2017 - 9:17pm
Jeffry Gilbert: Lol, you're too funny. 

Jenifer Frost: I'm back. We may have to agree to disagree. I think the emails produced by wikileaks were completely overblown. Also, I still think Hillary would have won the primary even if the DNC didn't "help" Hillary out. (I still don't think the DNC really did anything to help Hillary, but moving on.)

Shane Dean: Please stop being condescending. I've read Fahrenheit 451. And from the link you posted, Lewis Napper sounds like my angry drunk racist uncle who spouts conspiracy bull-shit about sharia law in California during Thanksgiving. Not really sure what you were trying to prove with referencing this guy.   

Secondly, the government is not in the business of forcing private citizens, private businesses, or private organizations into giving anyone a platform to speak. The only requirement the government has is for they themselves not to impede anyone's free speech. In Berkeley's case, that means they can't stop the speaker from coming to talk, even if they disagree with his beliefs. 

You can't be arrested for impeding someone else's free speech. That doesn't exist. Now, if in trying to impede someone's free speech, you commit arson or assault or battery. That's a different story, but those are separate crimes that technically have nothing to do with impeding free speech. 

If we start punishing people for only trying to impede someone's free speech, then that is a very slippery slope that could suppress protests entirely. 

What I'm trying to say is the reason these protesters were there is irrelevant when it comes to the law. You and I may disagree on their motives, but it's largely irrelevant. It should be at least. These students were peacefully exercising their right to protest before the riot started. 

Also, while Berkely is bound by the 1st Amendment, the Supreme Court has given schools leeway in limiting free speech when it comes to the protection of the students. I'd say a riot covers that requirement thoroughly.  

Mike Haluska Added Feb 13, 2017 - 10:03am
Robert - your assertion:
 
"If we start punishing people for only trying to impede someone's free speech, then that is a very slippery slope that could suppress protests entirely."
 
contradicts itself.  Either someone is allowed to express himself in a lawful, safe manner or he isn't.  Saying that "impeding" someone's free speech isn't illegal is pure sophistry.  Suppose my definition of "impeding" is throwing firebombs like your buddies at Berkely?  You can protest peacefully without disrupting someone with a different viewpoint.  When you try and silence them it shows your own arguments can't stand scrutiny and must be "enforced" - not accepted! 
Robert Potter Added Feb 13, 2017 - 10:20am
Mike: Missed my point entirely.
 
What I am saying is you can't be arrested based on the motive of trying to stop someone from speaking. Now, if you act on that motive by throwing a firebomb and; thereby, commit arson. You can obviously be arrested for that. Technically, that's a crime separate of your motive that's not related. 
 
All im saying is if we start arresting people based off the sole premise of trying to stop someone from being able to speak, then that is a slippery slope.
Mike Haluska Added Feb 13, 2017 - 11:16am
Robert -
 
So you are saying that "trying" is the same as "thinking about it"???  If I get a gun and "try" to shoot someone but miss - that's OK????  So "attempted murder" isn't a crime????
 
How about if the left just practices what they preach and leave someone unharrassed while they're exercising their rights?
Mike Haluska Added Feb 13, 2017 - 11:21am
Robert - you and your liberal classmates think you're being cool and influencing others to join your side . . . you're wrong.  This crap only plays well to people who already agree with you.  Outside of LA, SF, NYC - the "Flyover States" where Hillary Clinton LOST 3,100 out of 3,140 counties - NOBODY'S BUYING IT!
Robert Potter Added Feb 13, 2017 - 11:34am
Mike: I'm not sure why you are getting angry. No need to get angry and defensive, man. I'm trying to have a conversation with you. 
 
What I'm saying that wanting to shut down someone's free speech isn't a crime. I don't think it should be. 

Your gun comparison is a false equivalency. 

Wanting to shoot someone isn't a crime by itself. Attempting to shoot someone with a gun is a crime. Just like attempting any other illegal activity in the name of shutting down free speech is a crime. 

You can't arrest people on motives alone; nor, should anyone necessarily be looked down upon for having those motives. Keyword is necessarily. 

Mike Haluska Added Feb 13, 2017 - 2:24pm
Robert - I wasn't sure from the way you phrased your sentence that you made the distinction between "thinking about doing something" and actually committing the act - or trying to.  This is my problem with "Hate Crimes" - who gives a crap whether the perpetrator "hated" his victim?  I can "hate" anyone I wish as long as I don't ACT ON IT in any fashion.
Robert Potter Added Feb 13, 2017 - 2:40pm
Mike - Exactly! There's really no need for
it, and I don't think it necessarily does anything to protect the minorities it tries to protect. It just muddies the water. We already have the crime of murder, vandalism, etc. If we start banning motives, we're in trouble. 
Ryan Messano Added Feb 17, 2017 - 1:41am
The Berkeley riots were typical of the left.  You are the only ones shutting down speech you disagree with.  I was just at a school board meeting last night, and I got up to speak.  Keep in mind none of the liberals lies were interrupted.  But as soon as I went into the history fo our nation and of Islam, I was interrupted multiple times by the children.  then they tried to pull their standard, "But that's off topic", even though they had no issue with a clueless teacher getting up and naming Islamic "achievements" while leaving out Muhammad was a bloody butcher who bedded a nine year old.  IN today's world, he'd be in prison, getting some serious attention, as a level five sex addict pedophile.

Recent Articles by Writers Robert Potter follows.