Woman punches man in Broadway bar over MAGA-style birthday hat

Sorry, when you decry my sympathy as Justification, and try to paint me as a morally bad person because I don't simply roll over and bow to YOUR beliefs and morals, I take offense to that.

And when I am using 'you' , I am not referring to you individually. I am referring to everyone that behaves and acts like you have been.

I don't have really strong feelings about the woman or man in the article one way or another.

But the people that want to treat me like a monster for having a little sympathy towards other human beings, even if they do bad things? Yeah, those people make me feel really mad.

And I am not going to be their doormat anymore.

So, to all those people whom feel they can say anything they want, consequence free, if you don't have something nice to say, ****.

Because if I think you are attacking me, I will fight back.

 

Seriously! But think more in terms of post counts! I have found for some forum folk in my travels that it can be a very important thing in their lives!

 

Yes i can see you attacking someone over an article of clothing.. And probably claim you were "forced" to as well...

Have a good one.. Try to not run into anyone with view points other then yours though..

 

Also, your own source says that Ellison hadn't actually read the book and that he had a history (unlike Trump) of promoting non-violence. That makes him ignorant and, again, I don't support him being President, but we still have more concrete examples of Trump attacking free speech than we do for Ellison. In the future, when backing up what you say, please read the sources you link to.

 

WOW, that takes brass to attempt spin like that.. I think most people can read a post and then draw an obvious direction or tempo, and sympathy! Well bro, that aint gonna fly LMFAO ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

The claim is he did not read the book.. Key word is... claim..

Now why would a book he did not read "strike fear in Trumps heart"?

I give you credit you tried to spin it but failed either way.

 

Democrats haven't hated a Republican president this much since Lincoln emancipated their slaves.

 

If you think this is the first time in history someone tried to reference something they hadn't actually read . . . I have some hard news to break to you. Particularly when it comes to the guy you are defending.

Again: the fact remains that Trump has made more concrete steps toward actually attacking free speech, and yet you are willing to support him as President. I'm not supporting Ellis as President and never will. Twist the facts all you want, but those facts remain. I give you credit for the attempted spin, but it failed either way.

 

But deflection. I comprehend that clearly.

But Trump!

Disrupting other people's political rallies is EXACTLY what ****ing Nazi brownshirts used to do. I encourage you to educate yourself:

Sturmabteilung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Despite your futile attempt to whitewash an unlawful, deliberate and premeditated violation of other people's civil rights as a lawful exercise of a constitutional right, it's not - it's a crime, and it's gotten the brownshirts who committed that crime charged with disorderly conduct.

Don't be a jackass - Trump isn't my God Emperor - and I'm not the only person who called out your dishonest mischaracterization of a criminal act. It's a joke that you would even try to pass that off as a mere "political disagreement".

Furthermore, I've been to demonstrations and counter-demonstrations myself, and I know for a fact that the authorities didn't allow anyone and everyone to demonstrate wherever the hell they wanted to demonstrate. When you applied for a permit to demonstrate or counter-demonstrate you were assigned a space and you were obligated to demonstrate within the confines of your assigned space.

It's time you rose to the occasion. It's wrong to punch someone AND it's wrong to disrupt other people's rallies/demonstrations AND it's wrong to dishonestly mischaracterize a crime as a lawful act.

 

I don't know. I remember Dems cheering when Reagan got shot. He's been dead for 15 years and they still hate his guts.

 

You are incorrect. My line of thinking is that you are my fellow American no matter what you believe. Wear your pro-life hat, Black Lives Matter, Dont Tread on Me, MAGA etc. I draw the line at forcing beliefs on others. If we allow those who cross that line to control our actions through fear, our rights erode a little every day.

 

They can have different points of view if they want.

But when they start flaunting their views in public, when they take pleasure in hurting others in any way, weather that be physically or emotionally, then I have a problem.

I have already said I wouldn't just hit a person wearing a maga hat. But when I see them smiling at the reaction that hat has on others, I would be tempted at least.

 

All of this adorable, but you might want to come to terms with the fact that I've condemned the punch and I've never defended any of the things you seem to think I've defended.

And, again, try showing some respect for the sacrifices made by our veterans and for the victims of the Holocaust rather than engaging in the whole absurdity of playing make believe that holding up a cardboard sign is the equivalent of Nazism. Might be too much to ask, but thought I'd try. Trivializing the Holocaust and the crimes of the Nazis in order ot make a cheap, dishonest shot at your political opponents is a bad thing. Wish we could agree on that.

 

You said that a school cannot violate ones first amendment rights and a federal court disagrees with you. While I do appreciate the lengths you are willing to reach, the bottom line is that it is absolutely possible for an individual to violate ones first amendment rights even if the wording of that crime does not include "violating first amendment rights" The crime in this case was assault and battery.

If the ideology of the left is superior, why would they feel the need to silence others?

 

Reference please
or 21st Century Truth.

How I "feel" about it is Truth in the 21st Century.

 

Yet you've defended the disruption of political rallies as a lawful act.

Wow, that was truly desperate. Now you're defending the people who disrupt other people's political rallies like Hitler's sturmabteilung used to do by claiming the people who won't defend their attacks on other people's civil rights are "disrespecting the sacrifices made by our veterans" and "trivializing the Holocaust and crimes of the Nazis". Ironically, when you do that, you disrespect the sacrifices of our veterans and what they fought for, which includes the right to peaceably assemble. Way to go.

 

Where in the article does it state he provoked anything by smiling or doing anything at all? HE WAS MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS!

It's a freaking HAT! Something is incredibly wrong with society if a hat supporting the President of the country provokes a violent reaction.

 

He is going to come back with you are trying to FORCE your hate on that poor lady and who are you to judge her reaction? Dont you have morals and feelings?

/facepalm

 

Oh I know LOL Having sympathy for someone who victimized an innocent party is incredibly moral! I wonder if it happened to him/her personally or a loved one if the tone would be the same. Everyone is quick to stand on their moral soapbox, till it happens to them or a loved one...

I have morals, but no feelings. I thought I had feelings once, turned out I just needed a Snickers as I am not myself when I am hungry...*sarcasm note*

 

I agree. However, the question was for Red Lily who was debating an irrelevant emotive point about it.

 

For the last time, I am not referring specifically to the article at this point. I am responding to the poster and the broader subject.

If you want to avoid actual discussion about the broader subject by hiding behind this ONE example as an excuse, then fine. Don't reply.

If you want actual discussion, then reply.

Simple.

 

No, he is going to explain, again, that he is trying to have a meaningful, serious discussion over a broad topic, while you use this ONE example to hide from discussion and paint yourself as a saint and him as a sinner.

If all you want to do is troll. Then bow out now. You won't stop me from defending myself or scare or shame me away.

 

Public FORUM, might want to keep that in mind

 

They have exactly as much chance to express themselves via hats and words as anyone else does.

I'm assuming that's what you mean by 'give them a chance'. Because surely you don't mean that their violence is special violence, and must be catered to and coddled. Surely.

 

We peaked about 1998. Did you blink? Because you will have missed it if you had.