Leftists Riot Because Of "Speech" - Again

[Sparko]

Interesting to note that the University of California at Berkeley's student newspaper (The Daily Californian) just published five op-eds in support of violent rioting.

Dang those outside agitators [ATTACH=CONFIG]20818[/ATTACH]

Link: http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/v...-self-defense/

[rogue06]

Link: http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/v...-self-defense/

Kinda odd that they would defend it after Robert Reich (Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and currently Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California Berkeley) proclaimed it was in fact part of a secret plot carried out by undercover right-wing infiltrators working with Breitbart (a claim repeated by UC Berkeley's official alumni website).

[Mountain Man]

Kinda odd that they would defend it after Robert Reich (Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and currently Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California Berkeley) proclaimed it was in fact part of a secret plot carried out by undercover right-wing infiltrators working with Breitbart (a claim repeated by UC Berkeley's official alumni website).

Because if liberals are known for anything, it's their resolute consistency...

[JimL]

Kinda odd that they would defend it after Robert Reich (Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and currently Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California Berkeley) proclaimed it was in fact part of a secret plot carried out by undercover right-wing infiltrators working with Breitbart (a claim repeated by UC Berkeley's official alumni website).

Is that an out right lie rogue, or did Reich not actually proclaim that to be a fact?

[Mountain Man]

Robert "The Third" Reich was very weaselly about it, but, yes, he very strongly implied on CNN that it was fact.

Source: Breitbart

[Reich said,] "I saw these people. They all looked almost paramilitary, not from the campus. And I’ve heard — again I don’t want to say factually — but heard there’s some relationship there between these people and the right wing. And the movement that is affiliated with Breitbart news.”

Despite admitting explicitly that the claim was not based on facts, Reich charged ahead in claiming that Breitbart News had an affiliation with the violent rioters that lit fires around campus and beat and pepper sprayed the MILO supporters who were waiting to get into the venue.

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/0...erkeley-riots/

© Copyright Original Source

He then doubled-down on his conspiracy-mongering with an article on his own website:

Source: RobertReich.org

According to a promotional Breitbart story that ran before the event, Yiannopoulos was going to “call for the withdrawal of federal grants and the prosecution of university officials who endanger their students with their policies.”

Which is exactly what Trump did via tweet early the next morning: “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view — NO FEDERAL FUNDS?”

Thursday night, Yiannopoulos had a friendly interview on Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” – a show that, according to the Washington Post, has ridden anger at left-wing activism into best-in-class prime time ratings.

The conversation focused on how Berkeley proved the point that the Left was ceding its right to federal grants by cracking down on free speech.

Which raises the possibility that Yiannopoulos and Brietbart were in cahoots with the agitators, in order to lay the groundwork for a Trump crackdown on universities and their federal funding.

http://robertreich.org/post/156777888615

© Copyright Original Source

He then invites readers to "connect the dots" with a detailed, six-point conspiracy theory before concluding, "I wouldn’t bet against it."

So, again, he very strongly implied that it was a fact.

[RumTumTugger]

Another op ed piece in that paper

Notice the title of this op ed piece "Violence Helped Ensure Safety of Students.

Putting students. in danger with your violent actions ensures the safety of said students? can you spell connotative dissonance.

several students were hurt in violent protest just because they were there to hear what Milo had to say. One person sprayed whit pepper spray to silence her.

What danger are you trying to save the students from? Speech you don't agree with? how un American can you snowflakes be?

[Mountain Man]

Liberals are so delusional, they think a contrary opinion is more harmful than a punch to the face.

[TheWall]

Another op ed piece in that paper

Notice the title of this op ed piece "Violence Helped Ensure Safety of Students.

Putting students. in danger with your violent actions ensures the safety of said students? can you spell connotative dissonance.

several students were hurt in violent protest just because they were there to hear what Milo had to say. One person sprayed whit pepper spray to silence her.

What danger are you trying to save the students from? Speech you don't agree with? how un American can you snowflakes be?

That's is dumb. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumb.

[Jedidiah]

Liberals are so delusional, they think a contrary opinion is more harmful than a punch to the face.

It is pure delusion. I do not believe those idiots want to destroy our society and our nation. They just can not seem to see the harm their foolish actions and policies are having and have had on the USA.

[rogue06]

Another op ed piece in that paper

Notice the title of this op ed piece "Violence Helped Ensure Safety of Students.

Putting students. in danger with your violent actions ensures the safety of said students? can you spell connotative dissonance.

several students were hurt in violent protest just because they were there to hear what Milo had to say. One person sprayed whit pepper spray to silence her.

What danger are you trying to save the students from? Speech you don't agree with? how un American can you snowflakes be?

In another one entitled "Black bloc did what campus should have" by a former columnist at The Daily Californian, Neil Lawrence not only calls out the claim as false that the violence was perpetrated by outsiders

We were not, as the news, the chancellor and concerned progressives have alleged, “unaffiliated white anarchists.” Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students, of women, of people of color, of queer and trans people.

He also proclaims that:

These were not acts of violence.

They were acts of self defense.

Obviously they don't teach basic vocabulary at Berkeley and dictionaries must be scarce in the university's library.

[MaxVel]

There is some evidence to suggest that at least one of the 'outside agitators' was a university employee. Acting unbeknownst to the university administration, no doubt, not a student, but also not a right-wing plant.

[Tassman]

That still doesn't answer my question. Do you believe the power of government should be used to force its citizens to violate their core values? No more tap dancing. A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient.

If those “core values” impinge upon the civil rights of other law abiding citizens the answer is yes. And the Civil Rights Act makes this clear. Nobody is entitled to special treatment.

[JimL]

Robert "The Third" Reich was very weaselly about it, but, yes, he very strongly implied on CNN that it was fact.

Source: Breitbart

[Reich said,] "I saw these people. They all looked almost paramilitary, not from the campus. And I’ve heard — again I don’t want to say factually — but heard there’s some relationship there between these people and the right wing. And the movement that is affiliated with Breitbart news.”

Despite admitting explicitly that the claim was not based on facts, Reich charged ahead in claiming that Breitbart News had an affiliation with the violent rioters that lit fires around campus and beat and pepper sprayed the MILO supporters who were waiting to get into the venue.

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/0...erkeley-riots/

© Copyright Original Source

He then doubled-down on his conspiracy-mongering with an article on his own website:

Source: RobertReich.org

According to a promotional Breitbart story that ran before the event, Yiannopoulos was going to “call for the withdrawal of federal grants and the prosecution of university officials who endanger their students with their policies.”

Which is exactly what Trump did via tweet early the next morning: “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view — NO FEDERAL FUNDS?”

Thursday night, Yiannopoulos had a friendly interview on Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” – a show that, according to the Washington Post, has ridden anger at left-wing activism into best-in-class prime time ratings.

The conversation focused on how Berkeley proved the point that the Left was ceding its right to federal grants by cracking down on free speech.

Which raises the possibility that Yiannopoulos and Brietbart were in cahoots with the agitators, in order to lay the groundwork for a Trump crackdown on universities and their federal funding.

http://robertreich.org/post/156777888615

© Copyright Original Source

He then invites readers to "connect the dots" with a detailed, six-point conspiracy theory before concluding, "I wouldn’t bet against it."

So, again, he very strongly implied that it was a fact.

Right, so with all your word spinning, Reich did not state it as fact, he stated it as his belief. So what? Therefore rogue's comment that Reich stated that it was in fact a part of a right wing plot was untrue.

[Mountain Man]

Right, so with all your word spinning, Reich did not state it as fact, he stated it as his belief. So what? Therefore rogue's comment that Reich stated that it was in fact a part of a right wing plot was untrue.

My word spinning? Those are direct quotes from Reich himself.

[Mountain Man]

If those “core values” impinge upon the civil rights of other law abiding citizens the answer is yes. And the Civil Rights Act makes this clear. Nobody is entitled to special treatment.

So you're an authoritarian who is fine with an overreaching government so long as it's not your liberties that are being trampled on.

In other words, you're a hypocrite.