Ann Coulter says she will not speak at Berkeley: 'It’s a sad day for free speech'

[americanwoman]

What are you waiting on? Show us why you hate Ann Coulter.

Sorry to keep you waiting, I have something called a life.

Now she is smart and has something of a sense of humor, I won't deny that however her whole shtick is dividing us as a people and I firmly disagree with that tactic. I don't think she even believes half the stuff she says, like when she makes comments like "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" to me that discredits her and in my view becomes more of a character than an actual woman with extreme views. She is now playing to her audience to make herself more money.

I have not read her books but from the things I read about them, I am not missing much. People like her love to blame all the woes in life on liberals while completely ignoring their own sides failures. One instance of her not standing up and admitting when someone she likes did something wrong, Trump mocking the disabled reporter and she still defended him when you know if it was a liberal she hated to did that, her stance would be the complete opposite.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-disability-she-cant/?utm_term=.512d12956e01

 

[Ikari]

Sorry to keep you waiting, I have something called a life.

Now she is smart and has something of a sense of humor, I won't deny that however her whole shtick is dividing us as a people and I firmly disagree with that tactic. I don't think she even believes half the stuff she says, like when she makes comments like "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" to me that discredits her and in my view becomes more of a character than an actual woman with extreme views. She is now playing to her audience to make herself more money.

I have not read her books but from the things I read about them, I am not missing much. People like her love to blame all the woes in life on liberals while completely ignoring their own sides failures. One instance of her not standing up and admitting when someone she likes did something wrong, Trump mocking the disabled reporter and she still defended him when you know if it was a liberal she hated to did that, her stance would be the complete opposite.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-disability-she-cant/?utm_term=.512d12956e01

Her whole invented character was invented to sell. Some people say she's dumb, but I say she's smart. She figured out how to make the sale and went with it. I don't know how much of what she says she actually believes. It's all a character act of Political Entertainment. It's WWE style "commentating". Wherein it's all liberals faults and blah blah blah. It's all meant for emotional response. You're going to get some people jump up and down and scream "damned right!" and some people jump up and down and scream "you blathering idiot!" and they all buy her books, or tune into shows she's on, or otherwise play into her game to make money.

It's the divisive, hyperpartisan, non-think style of politics that got us Clinton v Trump. I personally don't play into her game because I don't like to reward that sort of behavior. But there's no stopping the rest of America, we seem to love sensationalized, lowest-common-denominator drama.

 

[j-mac]

Sorry to keep you waiting, I have something called a life.

Now she is smart and has something of a sense of humor, I won't deny that however her whole shtick is dividing us as a people and I firmly disagree with that tactic. I don't think she even believes half the stuff she says, like when she makes comments like "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" to me that discredits her and in my view becomes more of a character than an actual woman with extreme views. She is now playing to her audience to make herself more money.

I have not read her books but from the things I read about them, I am not missing much. People like her love to blame all the woes in life on liberals while completely ignoring their own sides failures. One instance of her not standing up and admitting when someone she likes did something wrong, Trump mocking the disabled reporter and she still defended him when you know if it was a liberal she hated to did that, her stance would be the complete opposite.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-disability-she-cant/?utm_term=.512d12956e01

So, your objection to her is that a) she makes a lot of money from her books, and speeches, and b) she is not a liberal....Is that about right?

Tell me, regardless of what she believes, why on a college campus, a place where ideas are supposed to be aired, and debated, do you think it is acceptable to stifle only one side of the ideological debate? Why not let her speak?

 

[j-mac]

Her whole invented character was invented to sell. Some people say she's dumb, but I say she's smart. She figured out how to make the sale and went with it. I don't know how much of what she says she actually believes. It's all a character act of Political Entertainment. It's WWE style "commentating". Wherein it's all liberals faults and blah blah blah. It's all meant for emotional response. You're going to get some people jump up and down and scream "damned right!" and some people jump up and down and scream "you blathering idiot!" and they all buy her books, or tune into shows she's on, or otherwise play into her game to make money..

So what? You don't like her? Don't go see her or buy her books...But, shut her down? Nah, not American if you ask me....

It's the divisive, hyperpartisan, non-think style of politics that got us Clinton v Trump. I personally don't play into her game because I don't like to reward that sort of behavior. But there's no stopping the rest of America, we seem to love sensationalized, lowest-common-denominator drama.

Ah, but there IS, it seems, stopping her, and others....It is not up to you, or AntiFa, or Black Bloc, or any of the liberal professors at the PUBLICLY funded University, to curtail 1st Amendment free speech rights of anyone because you have a visceral hatred for her brand of messaging....

And, don't give yourself so much credit Ikari, for looking down your nose at those American's tuning in to see what's happening in Berkeley, and other campuses across the nation, as you proudly tout the ready to clash police with protesters in your sig line....

The fact that there are calls now coming out of our supposed institutions of higher learning, for "qualifying" who should be allowed to speak is the epitome of fascism.

 

[Ikari]

So what? You don't like her? Don't go see her or buy her books...But, shut her down? Nah, not American if you ask me....



Ah, but there IS, it seems, stopping her, and others....It is not up to you, or AntiFa, or Black Bloc, or any of the liberal professors at the PUBLICLY funded University, to curtail 1st Amendment free speech rights of anyone because you have a visceral hatred for her brand of messaging....

And, don't give yourself so much credit Ikari, for looking down your nose at those American's tuning in to see what's happening in Berkeley, and other campuses across the nation, as you proudly tout the ready to clash police with protesters in your sig line....

The fact that there are calls now coming out of our supposed institutions of higher learning, for "qualifying" who should be allowed to speak is the epitome of fascism.

...OK.

There are free speech areas in University, but no one is guaranteed a venue. There's just no government law against speaking your mind. You don't get thrown in jail for merely running your mouth (typically, I guess there are instances where one advocates crime or incites to riot that are illegal). Berkeley isn't the government, it's not making law, it's not throwing anyone in jail. In fact, they typically allow conservative speakers. The problem is the uptick in violence and the fact that the University must respond to that and take it into consideration. They are responsible for the safety of their student population and campus.

Y'all want to turn this into some fascist regime where Berkeley is stamping out free speech, but it's not. They need to work with police to get those engaging in the violence arrested and thrown into jail, but they have a duty to the safety of their campus and in this case, that's what they are doing.

 

[americanwoman]

So, your objection to her is that a) she makes a lot of money from her books, and speeches, and b) she is not a liberal....Is that about right?

Tell me, regardless of what she believes, why on a college campus, a place where ideas are supposed to be aired, and debated, do you think it is acceptable to stifle only one side of the ideological debate? Why not let her speak?

It's not acceptable and I believe she has any right to speak anywhere, I fully support that and have no idea why you think otherwise except because I don't worship her?

My objection to her is not that she makes money or hates liberals, it's the way she goes about doing it, which if you had read what I actually post you might understand better.

You are the same way as her and that's the only reason you like her. If she did the exact same books but said conservative instead of liberal, you would be quick to dismiss her. Me, it doesn't matter that she hates liberals or if she hated conservatives - I don't like extreme partisanship.



To add, if you actually believe she goes home at night and believes half the stuff she says, you're pretty much delusional. She is selling something to you and some of you fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[TheGoverness]

It's not acceptable and I believe she has any right to speak anywhere, I fully support that and have no idea why you think otherwise except because I don't worship her?

My objection to her is not that she makes money or hates liberals, it's the way she goes about doing it, which if you had read what I actually post you might understand better.

You are the same way as her and that's the only reason you like her. If she did the exact same books but said conservative instead of liberal, you would be quick to dismiss her. Me, it doesn't matter that she hates liberals or if she hated conservatives - I don't like extreme partisanship.



To add, if you actually believe she goes home at night and believes half the stuff she says, you're pretty much delusional. She is selling something to you and some of you fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

The stuff that she says is simply to get attention directed at her. It's all about the green for her.

 

[j-mac]

...OK.

There are free speech areas in University, but no one is guaranteed a venue. There's just no government law against speaking your mind. You don't get thrown in jail for merely running your mouth (typically, I guess there are instances where one advocates crime or incites to riot that are illegal). Berkeley isn't the government, it's not making law, it's not throwing anyone in jail. In fact, they typically allow conservative speakers. The problem is the uptick in violence and the fact that the University must respond to that and take it into consideration. They are responsible for the safety of their student population and campus.

No one said that they are a law making authority. That is a straw argument. See, you set up a catch 22 here. First, you say that she could speak anywhere on campus that is deemed a "free speech" area...Now let's think about that one for a second....1) I am sure that as you know Berkeley said that they could not guarantee the safety of either Coulter, or the students showing up to see her, so while I am sure that you and others would have loved to see her) speak anyway and get injured or killed, that is just not smart. 2) And just why is it that they came to the conclusion that they couldn't/wouldn't provide security? Well, IMHO, it is because the Reno, and the liberal administration at Berkeley feel much the same as you do, and do not care for her even though it is really not up to them either to censor opinion they don't approve of....And be clear, that IS what they are doing. Not by proclaiming that someone can't speak, but by saying that they do so without any protection from the fascist thugs that are active in shutting that speech down, and threatening violence...3) You say that they "typically allow conservative speakers" and while that may have been true in the past, I want you to tell me that Since Jan 20th, how many conservative speakers have successfully spoken at Berkeley? I'll give you a hint....0.

As far as an "uptick in violence that the University must address", the fact is that they are NOT addressing it....They are standing down in the face of it, and some of their faculty are promoting it through their radical views in the classroom....

Y'all want to turn this into some fascist regime where Berkeley is stamping out free speech, but it's not. They need to work with police to get those engaging in the violence arrested and thrown into jail, but they have a duty to the safety of their campus and in this case, that's what they are doing.

No, they are not...They are using the violence of fascist thugs to give them cover for their anti American squelching of the 1st amendment, by not providing security that is meaningful to allow ideologically opposing views on campus...

 

[Ikari]

No one said that they are a law making authority. That is a straw argument.

It's not a "straw argument", that's actually the meaning of freedom of speech. The government will make no law against it.

As far as an "uptick in violence that the University must address", the fact is that they are NOT addressing it....They are standing down in the face of it, and some of their faculty are promoting it through their radical views in the classroom....

The people at fault need to be found and arrested. But Berkeley is in fact addressing it. It's why they needed to move the date in the first place, so they could secure the proper security and police protection for the event.

No, they are not...They are using the violence of fascist thugs to give them cover for their anti American squelching of the 1st amendment, by not providing security that is meaningful to allow ideologically opposing views on campus...

No, they're not. It's just a University that is caught between some ridiculous, partisan portrayal of things because that's what partisans do. But since they have a responsibility for the safety of their student body and campus, and there has been a surge in violence, they have to respond to that and ensure that they can provide adequate security at these events. That's really all that happened here.

But partisans will see only that which partisans want to see.

 

[j-mac]

It's not acceptable and I believe she has any right to speak anywhere, I fully support that and have no idea why you think otherwise except because I don't worship her?

I don't care who you "worship".... I myself only worship God, certainly NOT any human on this earth...Your strategy to label me as some kind of right wing zealot, is misguided.

My objection to her is not that she makes money or hates liberals, it's the way she goes about doing it, which if you had read what I actually post you might understand better.

Why do you care about the manner someone makes their money, as long as it is legal? And I understand just fine thanks...

You are the same way as her and that's the only reason you like her.

I don't believe that I said anywhere that "I liked her".... If you can show me that, then maybe you'd have a case, but since I didn't you only display your hatred for those of opposing viewpoints to yourself here.

If she did the exact same books but said conservative instead of liberal, you would be quick to dismiss her.

I personally may well oppose viewpoints that I don't agree with, but I wouldn't dress in all black, put a bandanna over my face, and show up to incite violence, and destroy property over it....I might well attend and hopefully get a question off that challenges what the speaker says....Ah, novel eh?

Me, it doesn't matter that she hates liberals or if she hated conservatives - I don't like extreme partisanship.

Except that don't seem to be bothered that a conservative speakers 1st Amendment was curtailed by fascist thugs....Hmmmm...Interesting.

To add, if you actually believe she goes home at night and believes half the stuff she says, you're pretty much delusional. She is selling something to you and some of you fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

How very independent minded of you....Calling people names, and implying that they are stupid is no way to win an argument, or make yourself look very independent....

 

[Mac77]

The professors do not. The best you have is that the administration has some leeway in setting policy, but only so much as it relates to campus police. They have no say over city police. So again, we are left at the fact that those responsible for the violence are those who have decided to engage in it.

As I explained to the other liberal a few posts back the term "professors" should not be taken literally in this case

Its jst a metaphore for the bedwetting liberal educators who adminster the university

 

[j-mac]

The stuff that she says is simply to get attention directed at her. It's all about the green for her.

So what? She has views you don't agree with, why not go to her speech, and during the Q&A period, challenge her views? What's wrong with that?

 

[Mac77]

Sorry to keep you waiting, I have something called a life.

Now she is smart and has something of a sense of humor, I won't deny that however


her whole shtick is dividing us as a people and I firmly disagree with that tactic.

I don't think she even believes half the stuff she says, like when she makes comments like "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" to me that discredits her and in my view becomes more of a character than an actual woman with extreme views. She is now playing to her audience to make herself more money.

I have not read her books but from the things I read about them, I am not missing much. People like her love to blame all the woes in life on liberals while completely ignoring their own sides failures. One instance of her not standing up and admitting when someone she likes did something wrong, Trump mocking the disabled reporter and she still defended him when you know if it was a liberal she hated to did that, her stance would be the complete opposite.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-disability-she-cant/?utm_term=.512d12956e01

Liberals seek to divide us all the time

Black against white, rich against poor, athiests against Christians

You just don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot

 

[americanwoman]

Liberals seek to divide us all the time

Black against white, rich against poor, athiests against Christians

You just don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot

Yes, there are also some liberals that try to divide.

There are also some that don't.

Just like there are conservatives like Coulter who does that. But not all do that.

I don't divide anyone. We all put our pants on one leg at a time and no one is better than anyone. Just live and let live is my motto.

 

[americanwoman]

So what? She has views you don't agree with, why not go to her speech, and during the Q&A period, challenge her views? What's wrong with that?

I think that's a great idea, I would if I could.

For instance, I invite Jehovah Witnesses in when they stop by. I love having discussions and debates with people. Probably explains why the forum I visit most is a political debate one.

 

[Ikari]

As I explained to the other liberal a few posts back the term "professors" should not be taken literally in this case

Its jst a metaphore for the bedwetting liberal educators who adminster the university

Administrators are not educators, they are bureaucrats. Pointless, worthless bureaucrats. If you use professors or educators, you are not talking just of the administration. So if you just mean the administrators, it's best to use the proper English to properly convey that thought.

Regardless, it does not distract from the fact that those responsible for the violence are those engaging in the violence.

 

[TheGoverness]

So what? She has views you don't agree with, why not go to her speech, and during the Q&A period, challenge her views? What's wrong with that?

The point is, she's a troll.

I don't give a **** about Ann Coulter. And I certainly wouldn't bother wasting my time attending one of her speeches. She can do what she wants; it's of no concern to me.

 

[Mac77]

Yes, there are also some liberals that try to divide.

There are also some that don't.

Just like there are conservatives like Coulter who does that. But not all do that.

I don't divide anyone. We all put our pants on one leg at a time and no one is better than anyone. Just live and let live is my motto.

I think its good to divide people who obey our laws from people who don't

Sop does ann coulter

 

[j-mac]

It's not a "straw argument", that's actually the meaning of freedom of speech. The government will make no law against it.

Ok, show me then where I said that the Berkeley administration "was a lawmaking authority"?

Berkeley is a PUBLICLY funded University. Therefore they MUST abide by the constitution of the United States...No?

The people at fault need to be found and arrested.

How many rioters at the Milo riot were arrested? 0....Give me a break...:roll:

But Berkeley is in fact addressing it. It's why they needed to move the date in the first place, so they could secure the proper security and police protection for the event.

No, they first tried to place all kinds of ridiculous restrictions on where, what time, who could attend, etc on the engagement so as to force her to cancel herself. When, she kept agreeing to their stupid demands, then they tried to move the date. Then when she said that she would keep the date anyway, and show up, they held a press conference to say that they "couldn't" assure her personal safety, (an implied threat IMHO), then one of the groups inviting her got cold feet and backed out of the invite....In the face of that, she would have been a fool to carry forward.

Great day for America eh? 1st Amendment dead on a public University.

No, they're not. It's just a University that is caught between some ridiculous, partisan portrayal of things because that's what partisans do. But since they have a responsibility for the safety of their student body and campus, and there has been a surge in violence, they have to respond to that and ensure that they can provide adequate security at these events. That's really all that happened here.

But partisans will see only that which partisans want to see.

Oh please spare me the, 'everyone who doesn't agree with my POV, is a hyper partisan' crap....Face it, for all the blather about fascism liberals do, they are now embracing the tactics, instead of intellectual opposition to stifle it....What makes libs any better than the fictitious armed police in your sig line?

 

[americanwoman]

I don't care who you "worship".... I myself only worship God, certainly NOT any human on this earth...Your strategy to label me as some kind of right wing zealot, is misguided.

Well by most of your posts, you seem to be more right than left, right?

Why do you care about the manner someone makes their money, as long as it is legal? And I understand just fine thanks...

She can make money however she wants and I can oppose how she goes about it all I want.

I don't believe that I said anywhere that "I liked her".... If you can show me that, then maybe you'd have a case, but since I didn't you only display your hatred for those of opposing viewpoints to yourself here.

I don't hate opposing views, I don't like when people use hate to sell things that I don't think they even truly believe themselves.

I personally may well oppose viewpoints that I don't agree with, but I wouldn't dress in all black, put a bandanna over my face, and show up to incite violence, and destroy property over it....I might well attend and hopefully get a question off that challenges what the speaker says....Ah, novel eh?

okay? I agree with you and most people don't dress in all black and incite violence. :shrug:

Except that don't seem to be bothered that a conservative speakers 1st Amendment was curtailed by fascist thugs....Hmmmm...Interesting.

Not really - she has cancelled in the end, right? She could still go so no right has been lost.

How very independent minded of you....Calling people names, and implying that they are stupid is no way to win an argument, or make yourself look very independent....

I just think it's delusional of people to think someone like Ann Coulter really truly believes the stuff she peddles. If it was a liberal who said the same things like her, I would still think the people who bought into it were delusional. Like my own mother, a liberal who follows crazy liberals and I tell her the same things. But whatever, I am not an independent because I don't like extremely partisan people - on either side. :lol:

 

[Mac77]

Administrators are not educators, they are bureaucrats. Pointless, worthless bureaucrats. If you use professors or educators, you are not talking just of the administration. So if you just mean the administrators, it's best to use the proper English to properly convey that thought.

Regardless, it does not distract from the fact that those responsible for the violence are those engaging in the violence.

Adminstrators certainly are educators

Their job is different from the professors but it is all part of the education process

I agree that we should arrest the fascist snowflakes who are breaking windows rather than the liberal educators who stand idly by and let it happen.

Maybe just fire the adminstrators/educators

But the ultimate responsibility for what happens on campus belolngs with the adminstration

 

[americanwoman]

I think its good to divide people who obey our laws from people who don't

Sop does ann coulter

Um, yeah but criminals are not lefties or righties.

 

[Mac77]

Ok, show me then where I said that the Berkeley administration "was a lawmaking authority"?

Berkeley is a PUBLICLY funded University. Therefore they MUST abide by the constitution of the United States...No?



How many rioters at the Milo riot were arrested? 0....Give me a break...:roll:



No, they first tried to place all kinds of ridiculous restrictions on where, what time, who could attend, etc on the engagement so as to force her to cancel herself. When, she kept agreeing to their stupid demands, then they tried to move the date. Then when she said that she would keep the date anyway, and show up, they held a press conference to say that they "couldn't" assure her personal safety, (an implied threat IMHO), then one of the groups inviting her got cold feet and backed out of the invite....In the face of that, she would have been a fool to carry forward.

Great day for America eh? 1st Amendment dead on a public University.



Oh please spare me the, 'everyone who doesn't agree with my POV, is a hyper partisan' crap....Face it, for all the blather about fascism liberals do, they are now embracing the tactics, instead of intellectual opposition to stifle it....What makes libs any better than the fictitious armed police in your sig line?

Is ikari equating freedom of speech with setting fires and breaking windows?

 

[j-mac]

The point is, she's a troll.

Again, who cares? Don't like her, you are not forced to listen, or read her....It's a free country....There are lot's of people in the public eye, that I think are no better than trolls, but you don't see me advocating for silencing them through violence.

I don't give a **** about Ann Coulter.

That's not true or you wouldn't bother to post....

And I certainly wouldn't bother wasting my time attending one of her speeches.

Why not? Do opposing views frighten you? Is your belief system so fragile that you can't stand to hear someone speak the opposing viewpoint?

She can do what she wants

Apparently not, but that's ok, right?

it's of no concern to me.

Again, why post in a thread about it then?

 

[Mac77]

Um, yeah but criminals are not lefties or righties.

Yes they are.

In this case illegal aliens who break our laws go wimpering to the democrats for protection and amnesty for their misdeeds