[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I honestly didnt read his comment but you said he "quietly" went. I believe I heard he tweeted he went.

article about anarchists in todays NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/u...e=sectionfront

I gotta tell you Paul, that was such a well-thought out, and reasonable article. Consider this pearl of wisdom...

"But anarchists and anti-fascists, who often make up a small but disproportionately attention-getting portion of protesters, defend the mayhem they create as a necessary response to an emergency."

So according to the maniac who wrote this crap, the conservative speaker is the fascist, NOT the mob that wants to prevent him from exercising his right to free speech. The mob are the anti-fascists! So their anarchy is justified, supporting a noble cause.

Here's an idea? If you don't like Milo what's-his-face, you can engage him and tell him why, or you can ignore him.

Earth to liberals...the Bill Of Rights ain't easy. Like it or not, the freedom of the press means Rachael Maddow can go on the air and say things I find deeply offensive. Like it or not, the right to assembly means that the Klan can hold a peaceful rally. And like it or not, the right to free speech means that liberals will occasionally have to deal with the fact that some people can say things that they don't happen to like.

From your article, the people who lit fires and smashed buildings in order to prevent an opposing point of view from being discussed, THEY are the anti-fascists.

Mirriam-Webster defines fascism, in part, as "forcible suppression of opposition". And the NYT thinks the rioters are the OPPOSITE of that. So according to the NYT, the rioters are trying to ensure that the opposition can speak? WOW.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

2017: the year in which the Democratic party finally had a total psychotic breakdown.