• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

dudalb said:
The 82nd Airborne Division continues its tradition of fighting Nazis...particularly when a Nazi is wearing an 82nd Airborne cap:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...lle-82nd-division_uk_5992f820e4b090964299e7d0

I love the photo of the Paratroopers displaying the Nazi flag as it should be displayed:As a trophy of war.
Click to expand...

From your link, and which supports what you were saying elsewhere


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...cist-sympathisers_uk_599185a6e4b09071f69af978

The hard-left is on a new mission to paint UK centrists as terrorist sympathisers in the wake of the Charlottesville violence, according to a senior Labour campaigner.

Blogging for HuffPost UK, Richard Angell, director of Progress - a group on the New Labour wing of the Labour Party - said “a concerted effort” is underway to discredit the centre ground of British politics.
Click to expand...
 
varwoche said:
Don't worry, you in no way implied otherwise.

Although if I follow the trend here, I might jump to the conclusion that you consider accidentally running over a pedestrian as a good thing.
Click to expand...

Well, some.


Oh, hell, most. Privileged bastards, walking on or near or not too far from the road. It's just a shame that in Boston, we can't reach fatal (or injurious) speeds.[1]

I haven't seen you repudiate Rasputin. Sketchy.
Click to expand...

He's standing right behind me. I can't talk.

[1] I'll admit that the above might be insensitive this week and I apologize for anyone offended by this flippantry.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Only if you ignore reality and go with "should". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Only if one demands logical consistency. Either the nazi's with semi auto rifles and swat armor are threatening or the police are not threatening. Why are police more threatening than nazi's in the same equipment?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I can't even stand that "fighting words" defense actually exists.

Nobody 'forces' you to punch them short of being a physical danger to you (themselves, others, etc). Saying they are going to do violence imminently is a communicated threat, illegal, and you can defend yourself. But the idea that "their school-ground taunting just made me so mad I snapped!" argument is a joke. Even further is a mob of people chanting and baying for violence claiming they were "baited."

But in this atmosphere of mutual reactionism, they have to posture. So "you baited us! Unfair!" is retorted with "Damn right we did, you suckers fell for it! Neener-neener!" and again with the total lack of messaging control on the left.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. Surely, "fighting words" would be charged against the Nazis more readily than the counterprotesters. And this assumes that the jurisdiction in question has laws against fighting words.

I'm not arguing that a fighting words laws are a good thing. Just trying to understand your point.
 
phiwum said:
The distinction isn't the degree here, but the fact that you intended to commit a violent act and tacked on some political speech. This is indefensible. However, political speech which tends to be associated with (but does not incite) violence is a different matter.
Click to expand...

In what way exactly does nazi political speech not incite violence? Do you think that those concentration camps and all were just a coincidental happenstance to nazism as political ideology?

I make no judgment whether you are correct about most Nazi rallies, but I don't defend any event in which violence is intended prior to the event. Duh.
Click to expand...

Maybe not in your abstract "ought" world, but if you support neo-nazi rallies, and neo-nazis at rallies tend to have violent intentions, then you are in the actual "is" world. Duh.
 
Argumemnon said:
Yes, how silly of us to take Trump at his word. We should disbelieve the stuff he says... but only when it's inconvenient to his supporters.
Click to expand...


I'm gonna agree with Sir-drinks-a-lot that the article listing Trumps history of racism is pretty weak. Did anybody actually read it?

example:
defended two supporters who assaulted a homeless Latino man as “very passionate” people “who love this country”;
Click to expand...

That's not a very accurate description of what happened. Follow the writers own link and read it in context. He was not familiar with the story when asked about it. And does this automatically mean it's racist?

There are a few iffy quotes, and many accusations that if true are pretty damning. But there's no evidence for most of it.

I won't say Donald isn't prejudice or even racist. He may very well be. I really have no way of knowing his true feelings. Just saying that the article makes a weak case. It does make a case, just not enough for me to label him a racist.

Go ahead, call me a Trump supporter. I'm not, I just don't like progressives and am annoyed by a lot of liberals. This article may be enough to paint him an absolute racist to some people, it just isn't for me.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
ETA: I actually consider Chicago's proper. After the veterans left and asked all participants to respect their call for peace and leave without incident, a black bloc formed up front and center and ripped up the barricades. I should pause to mention that a fence about 50 yards past that was the "no further" perimeter of a zone of protection around a place where world heads of state were meeting.

Stay classy, ****ers :9
Click to expand...

Man, the Black Bloc ***** in Chicago that week were brutal. They flat out stole water and food from the environmentalists who were protesting outside the Canadian consulate/Obama campaign headquarters. Everyone wanted to kick their asses
 
dudalb said:
The 82nd Airborne Division continues its tradition of fighting Nazis...particularly when a Nazi is wearing an 82nd Airborne cap:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...lle-82nd-division_uk_5992f820e4b090964299e7d0

I love the photo of the Paratroopers displaying the Nazi flag as it should be displayed:As a trophy of war.
Click to expand...

I love the "who cares" comment.
When one person tweeted to ask who the Nazi-saluting man was, the division tweeted “Who cares?” and shared a picture of a Second World War veteran, saying: “THIS is what an All American Paratrooper looks like”.
Click to expand...
 
trustbutverify said:
Theoretically, they could be more powerful, if the boycott is phenomenally successful and the organizers decide to blacklist the owners no matter what other businesses they engage in.

Maybe important clients should be prohibited from changing vendors based on finding out the owner makes speeches supporting rape as a political expression.
Click to expand...
False equivalence, but whatever.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Only if one demands logical consistency. Either the nazi's with semi auto rifles and swat armor are threatening or the police are not threatening. Why are police more threatening than nazi's in the same equipment?
Click to expand...
How does this follow what I said? :boggled:

Of course the open-carry nazis are intimidating.
 
caveman1917 said:
In what way exactly does nazi political speech not incite violence? Do you think that those concentration camps and all were just a coincidental happenstance to nazism as political ideology?
Click to expand...

How hard is this to follow?

Any Nazi speech which incites violence should not be protected speech. If, as you claim, all of it incites violence, then none of it should be protected.

It is not obvious to me that all Nazi speech incites violence, so I will stick with the prior claim: political speech, Nazi or otherwise, which does not incite violence or fall afoul of other exceptions (like "fire" in the theater) ought to be protected.


Maybe not in your abstract "ought" world, but if you support neo-nazi rallies, and neo-nazis at rallies tend to have violent intentions, then you are in the actual "is" world. Duh.
Click to expand...

Sorry, am I now supporting their rallies? Saying that they have and ought to have free speech rights is not the same as supporting their rallies, is it?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Trump just doubled down on his Saturday statement, blamed the left for the violence, and called the right wing demonstrators "good people".
 
phiwum said:
How hard is this to follow?
Click to expand...

Pretty hard if you keep changing your argument. A couple of posts ago some political violence was acceptable as a price for having neo-nazi rallies, now

Any Nazi speech which incites violence should not be protected speech. If, as you claim, all of it incites violence, then none of it should be protected.
Click to expand...

political violence is not an acceptable price?

Sorry, am I now supporting their rallies? Saying that they have and ought to have free speech rights is not the same as supporting their rallies, is it?
Click to expand...

I meant supporting in the sense of supporting their "right" to take place. My point stands.
 
It's probably been said before, but the decision to move the Lee-statue was made by the proper democratic body - the local city council (or whatever that's called there). These are the people who get to decide what to put on their own public places and what not.

For Nazis and other scum to travel in from places like California and Nevada, to protest a local, democratic decision, is rich in and of itself.

For 45 to insinuate that removing blobs of bronze (or whatever that material is) following a proper democrating decision somehow is already on a slippery slope to mayhem ("today it's Lee, torrow Washington or Jefferson - where will it end??") is, at best, stupid, at worst anti-democracy and anti-American.


Dear Donald: Statues do not enjoy civil rights! Neither General Lee nor General Washington enjoy civil rights, on account of their being dead! There exists no right anywhere in America to having statues in the public sphere preserved!
 
caveman1917 said:
Pretty hard if you keep changing your argument. A couple of posts ago some political violence was acceptable as a price for having neo-nazi rallies, now



political violence is not an acceptable price?
Click to expand...

I think you're missing a distinction.

It may be the case that Nazi speech tends to be associated with violence without inciting violence. There is no First Amendment right to incite violence.


I meant supporting in the sense of supporting their "right" to take place. My point stands.
Click to expand...

I certainly support the right for Nazis to make their abhorrent speeches. I think it's misleading in the extreme to say that I support Nazi rallies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom