the assasination of duke ferdinand. the marxist and leninist revolts. Pohl pot. Hitler. if you want to burn down the world by setting it on fire by all means go ahead. just don't expect everyone to see it as a good thing.
I said credible link. Here's what wikipedia has to say about the Daily Mail - "The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticized for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for copyright violations."
My next door neighbors have relatives who live in Salem up here visiting. The relatives told my neighbors about an orange sky and heavy smoke.
Republicans have long had the mantra of carry a big stick and speak loudly. I remember way back when they were beating the shit out of peaceful hippie anti Vietnam war protestors in the PSU area park blocks.
I didn't use them as any kind of proof. I asked for a link backing up his assertion. I made no assertion other than to provide my opinion on his source. Let's see a credible link backing up an assertion, Debate 101.
lanny you called someone elses link not credible, the Proceeded to post a wiki link. If you agree wiki is not credible then how can you call someone out for not using a Credible link but then use one yourself?
1. I don't agree that Wikipedia is not credible but I can see a stonewall so I'm not going to pursue that one; 2. I made no assertion other than to provide some helpful information that you are free to accept or reject. I'm still waiting on my request for a credible link.
the common theme were that thos sure, but nationally the election buzz included the very recent memory of the violence and rioting in detroit, and there it was LBJ sending in the guard, not a republican, sent in TANKS. these riots i am sure you remember were about racial i9njustice too.
remember the 1968 DNC police riots? those were peaceful protesters, 10,000 strong marching to protest those same issues. chicago mayor richard daley, democratic king maker was in charge of the response.
When was Lyndon Johnson last President? January of 1968? Over half a century ago? Weren't Liberals protesting his Presidency?
you referenced peaceful protesters, and inferred it was republicans that were responsible for the beatings handed out to the protesters. i only acknowledged that democrats had done it first and to equal extreme. 43 died in detroit, when it was 4 white kids killed at kent state, 1970, the approach became viewed as too heavy handed. my summary has been that violent protests lose the support of the majority of the electorate. the racial protests around the country after dr. king's assasination, and the anti war protests were responsible for getting nixon elected, and that violent protests today may backfire and do the same to re-elect the incumbent. not an outcome i advocate.
Suit yourself, but it's Trump that's urging people to be more violent to Left wingers. So, are you saying that there are instances where it's okay to pay back with more and worse beatings?
OK, well, Daily Mail is what @SlyPokerDog uses just about every day. I guess that's what I get for piggybacking on his trusted sites. Yeesh.
my point through out has never been to take a position on appropriate response, but that violent protests lose the sympathy and empathy that may have been garnered by peaceful messaging. self defeating in making lasting change.
