Aren't liberals supposed to be pro-gay? Terrorists at Milo event...

cottagesteeze

MayDay10 said:

If the shoe was currently on the other foot... Im sure the protests and rhetoric that would exist would represent a kumbaya jamboree. There was a close race, for a hotly contested presidency... Trump won.... but not a huge mandate to light the world on fire. He put Steve Bannon at the helm, who makes Dick Cheney look like JFK. I cant even imagine what the opposite of that is? Ben Affleck winning the POTUS and empowering Michael Moore behind the scenes.... with no resistance or checks/balances? I think people are rightfully freaked out right now... and I also think there are people actively searching to cause trouble/anarchy no matter the cause.


Violence and sillyness such as destruction and pepper-spraying a human for no reason are not cool, and hurts whatever cause

This.

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

So protest the government then.

Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.

Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.

Interesting. Two years ago this kind of talk would get you called a racist around these parts. Oh, and tin foil hats, can't forget the tin foil hats.

That makes no sense.

What is so hard to understand?

There was nothing racist or anything that could have been construed as such at any point by anyone in what I said.
FYI, just to clarify for you, nobody here calls someone racist unless they are making racist comments or expressing racist views, or support racists.

dignin

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

So protest the government then.

Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.

Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.

I would call that rebelling, not "turning anarchist". Anarchy is a lack of govt, lack of possessions, lack of anything. I don't think that's what liberals want. Liberals have been protesting, do you remember the women's march? That was liberal. It was also safe and free of rioting..

True, good point. Although in that case, I don't think someone protesting who decides to get destructive is necessarily an anarchist either. They're just pissed off and not controlling their emotions very well.

They went there dressed in black, faces hidden and carrying weapons. They were not there to protest peacefully.

Go Beavers

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

So protest the government then.

Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.

Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.

Interesting. Two years ago this kind of talk would get you called a racist around these parts. Oh, and tin foil hats, can't forget the tin foil hats.

False parallel. Foil hat refers to a conspiracy. There's no conspiracy at work here, our president is putting it all out there in tweets.

PJ_Soul

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

So protest the government then.

Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.

Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.

Interesting. Two years ago this kind of talk would get you called a racist around these parts. Oh, and tin foil hats, can't forget the tin foil hats.

False parallel. Foil hat refers to a conspiracy. There's no conspiracy at work here, our president is putting it all out there in tweets.

Yeah, that too.

PJPOWER

Well well well, it seems everyone here agrees on one thing; These people that are going around beating the shit out of everyone are collectively a bunch of asshats.

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

JC29856 said:

Im getting the sense these protestors dont think too highly of women. Is this love trumping hate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSMKGRyWKas

"Were not the enemy, were not the enemy"

These are not protesters, these are violent terrorist hate groups and should be treated as such...

So the definition of terrorism is now people in a group destroying property and assaulting others? I need to know the correct label to use on the fans of the next team that wins the championship.

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Seems fitting to me...

What if the fans are demanding a new stadium be built?

I don't even know wtf you are talking about? Aren't you one of the ones around here that cries when I point out double standards though?

I'm talking about how people define terrorism. It seems like the word is often used if there's a group of people doing something that oerson doesn't like.

I am not for rioting or violent protesting in any manner or form...but the definition of terrorism includes violence with the motive of influencing a political outcome. The people in some of these riots in the videos above meet that definition, do they not?

I'm uncomfortable with a broad definition of terrorism, which is what the patriot act has done. I also don't have to accept the definition for my own use, because as you can see, my dumb example of rioting fans demanding a new stadium fits the definition:
" A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. "

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

JC29856 said:

Im getting the sense these protestors dont think too highly of women. Is this love trumping hate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSMKGRyWKas

"Were not the enemy, were not the enemy"

These are not protesters, these are violent terrorist hate groups and should be treated as such...

So the definition of terrorism is now people in a group destroying property and assaulting others? I need to know the correct label to use on the fans of the next team that wins the championship.

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Seems fitting to me...

What if the fans are demanding a new stadium be built?

I don't even know wtf you are talking about? Aren't you one of the ones around here that cries when I point out double standards though?

I'm talking about how people define terrorism. It seems like the word is often used if there's a group of people doing something that oerson doesn't like.

I am not for rioting or violent protesting in any manner or form...but the definition of terrorism includes violence with the motive of influencing a political outcome. The people in some of these riots in the videos above meet that definition, do they not?

I'm uncomfortable with a broad definition of terrorism, which is what the patriot act has done. I also don't have to accept the definition for my own use, because as you can see, my dumb example of rioting fans demanding a new stadium fits the definition:
" A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. "

I agree with you, the way that is stated, both groups fit into the definition.

josevolution

PJPOWER said:

Well well well, it seems everyone here agrees on one thing; These people that are going around beating the shit out of everyone are collectively a bunch of asshats.

Totally I'm all for protesting in peace violence should not be acceptable !

PJ_Soul

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

Well well well, it seems everyone here agrees on one thing; These people that are going around beating the shit out of everyone are collectively a bunch of asshats.

Totally I'm all for protesting in peace violence should not be acceptable !

Definitely not. All it does is create a target for their opponents, hurting their own cause. It's fucking stupid as well as evil..... in almost all cases. I can't say I was upset when that neo-nazi got punched TBH.

rgambs

This is just ignorant.

You have idiotically reduced the man to his sexuality alone and then idiotically twisted that into being the reason some dumb shits got violent.
I understand you were trying for sarcasm, but it was a sophomoric attempt at best, and trolling would be a much more appropriate description.

gimmesometruth27

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

So protest the government then.

Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.

Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.

Interesting. Two years ago this kind of talk would get you called a racist around these parts. Oh, and tin foil hats, can't forget the tin foil hats.

That makes no sense.

What is so hard to understand?

Thoughts_Arrive

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

unsung said:

Why hate the gay guy? Is it because he likes interracial relationships?

http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Protesters-storm-Milo-Yiannopoulos-event-at-UC-10901829.php&s=1&f=1&ts=1486008756&sig=AJsQQ1AMUstik4UGaLsprzPNbY5tKfYwag

I'm vegetarian and are pro-veg. Hitler was a vegetarian. I don't need to like Hitler.

That explains a lot about your Hitleresque temper tantrums. I'm going to eat a ribeye steak in your name tonight!

That comment made me laugh hard it hurt.

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

Why hate the gay guy? Is it because he likes interracial relationships?

http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Protesters-storm-Milo-Yiannopoulos-event-at-UC-10901829.php&s=1&f=1&ts=1486008756&sig=AJsQQ1AMUstik4UGaLsprzPNbY5tKfYwag

the gay guy hates gay guys.

While Yiannopoulos is gay, he has stated that gay rights are detrimental to humanity, and that gay men should "get back in the closet".[100] He has described being gay as "aberrant" and "a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring [gay people] pain and unhappiness".[101] He has said that he would love to experiment with conversion therapy, but not because he thinks it will work.[102]

In September 2015, Yiannopoulos guest-starred on Joe Rogan's YouTube show, The Joe Rogan Experience. During the show, Yiannopoulos claimed to have lost his virginity at age 13 "in an interracial fivesome with a drag queen".[103] Some have accused Yiannopoulos of exaggerating his homosexuality for comic effect, and falling back on homophobic tropes in doing so.[18]

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

JC29856

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

someone described it this way, they are first and foremost Pssys 99% of the time, but when they get in a group, large group, mob mentality overcomes them and they turn into raging women hating, sucker punching, skull cracking anarchists.

HughFreakingDillon

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

someone described it this way, they are first and foremost Pssys 99% of the time, but when they get in a group, mob mentality overcomes them and they turn into raging women hating, sucker punching, skull cracking anarchists.

women hating? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Degeneratefk

Comments like the thread title is one of the reasons it's impossible to have a civil discussion with conservatives. Just because a dude is gay and just because a dude likes black guys doesn't mean he's not a complete tool. This milo fuck incites more bull shit and hate rhetoric than any BLM march.

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

Not a slip. I hear conservatives use that word all the time when referring to liberals.