NIKV69 wrote:

Spare us your false outrage. Watch video of the confrontation. Police did nothing. They let these two groups go at each other. The blood of that girl killed is on the governor's hands. You never let protests get to this point without intervening. Are you kidding?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/13/why-w ... ttesville/


“There was no police presence,” Brittany Caine-Conley, a minister-in-training who protested the alt-right rally, told The New York Times. “We were watching people punch each other; people were bleeding all the while police were inside of barricades at the park, watching. It was essentially just brawling on the street and community members trying to protect each other.”

While you are correct that local PD was not prepared, how is it VA Governor's fault? Unless local PD requests neighboring cities or State Police won't get involved.

For a college town PD, this was way over their head. They should have monitored social media about the prep work. Those uniforms, tactical gear won't show up on its own. Some one organized this event.

If VA Governor wants to play politics, he could have asked for National Guard and put blame on Trump.

I have to say I trust very little of what I'm reading about this stuff. People are labeling each other and so eager to dig into each other's fur.

The reality is, people love a good fight. It is human nature. There isn't a lot more to it. It isn't good vs evil, it is some idiots playing dress up and legitimate society viewing them with much deserved scorn.

Tearing the statues down does dishonor brave and good ancestors of millions of Americans. If a superior country tried to take over your homeland, you would defend your homeland too. Right or wrong. The confederacy were misguided but that doesn't make them evil. Our contemporary morality and sociology/politics DID NOT EXIST THEN.... George Washington was a slave-owner. Should we erase him from the history books? He was also one of history's finest defenders of freedom. I guess we can do without such men? Throw him onto the dung-heap too?

This idiot who ran people over with his car went over the line and he should pay dearly. But people are hysterical, because the news created 90% of the narrative that is playing out. Last week, it was North Korea. Notice how that just disappeared from headlines. I'll bet Kim Jong Eun is confused. How capricious and ultimately meaningless the news media echo chamber, and its audience's resonances are. This too shall pass. Within 96 hours a whole new mass hysteria will ignite on an unrelated subject. We should assess the meaning of any event only 2 years after it happens. Ideally 20 years. The Resist movement was a knee jerk reaction that was childish and will always be seen that way.

dtw2hyd wrote:

how is it VA Governor's fault?

Because it is Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, and a friend of the Clinton's.... and "but but but but Hillary!!!....."

So the fault and blame obviously lies with him. I suggest a deep and ongoing review of all his emails.

Flighty wrote:

But people are hysterical, because the news created 90% of the narrative that is playing out.

Or maybe it is the news fault.... Wait what?



Tugg

Why all of these Confederate statues erected ---50--- years after the end of the Civil War ???

THE LOST CAUSE ICON

After the Civil War, Robert E. Lee (1807-1870) resisted efforts to build Confederate monuments in his honor and instead wanted the nation to move on from the Civil War.

After his death, Southerners adopted “The Lost Cause” revisionist narrative about the Civil War and placed Lee as its central figure. The Lost Cause argued the South knew it was fighting a losing war and decided to fight it anyway on principle. It also tried to argue that the war was not about slavery but high constitutional ideals.

As The Lost Cause narrative grew in popularity, proponents pushed to memorialize Lee, ignoring his deficiencies as a general and his role as a slave owner. Lee monuments went up in the 1920s just as the Ku Klux Klan was experiencing a resurgence and new Jim Crow segregation laws were adopted.

The Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville, Virginia, went up in 1924.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... b359ed3c23

Tugger wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

how is it VA Governor's fault?

Because it is Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, and a friend of the Clinton's.... and "but but but but Hillary!!!....."

So the fault and blame obviously lies with him. I suggest a deep and ongoing review of all his emails.

Flighty wrote:

But people are hysterical, because the news created 90% of the narrative that is playing out.

Or maybe it is the news fault.... Wait what?



Tugg

Yes, I think the news was the primary agent of the North Korea thing last week and is the primary agent of the Charlottesville thing this week. They were delighted that people were killed. That allows the news media to sell a lot of arthritis medicine! Good news indeed for them. The fact a dumb boy killed someone is now a new battle of Berlin part II, hopes our media, cravenly.

A lot of this was laid out by the NYT before it happened. A gathering was "nationalists" referred to by, really, by a racial slur. NYT was eagerly hoping for a sturdy platform from which to grandstand and hopefully reassert their paternal power over the nation. They hope Hitler does come - that's basically what I am saying. They'll do whatever they can to make a dime from it.

And yes - next week it will be a new topic.

Flighty wrote:

A lot of this was laid out by the NYT before it happened. A gathering was "nationalists" referred to by, really, by a racial slur. NYT was eagerly hoping for a sturdy platform from which to grandstand and hopefully reassert their paternal power over the nation. They hope Hitler does come - that's basically what I am saying. They'll do whatever they can to make a dime from it.

And yes - next week it will be a new topic.

Wow. What would you consider responsible reporting?

So you go from this

pvjin wrote:

It's no more difficult for blacks to vote than for any other group in the US. Admittedly your entire voting system does suck big time though.

to

pvjin wrote:

Probably because blacks commit a disproportionately high amount of crimes.

So you can disregard statistics prove that certain laws make voting a hardship for African-Americans, yet wholeheartedly adopt this statistic and insinuate that black people have a higher propensity to commit crime? You've got to be kidding me. Do you think a black man who makes $100k per year is more likely to commit crime than a white man earning $100k per year? POOR PEOPLE commit a disproportionately high amount of crimes.

pvjin wrote:

Probably they are afraid that some day black supremacists will just go and start a genocide of white people. In South Africa that's actually a very real possibility in near future, there whites face extreme discrimination and nobody gives a damn.

Yeah, white people in the U.S. are definitely at risk any day now of genocide. I don't doubt that people (probably including you) believe that absolute nonsense and use it as a justification to do any number of despicable things, but you'd be best served to keep your nutso persecution complex to yourself. Sounds like a severe psychological disorder.

Mir wrote:

And they should grow the hell up and stop whining. The ideal of this country - the desire to continually be building a more perfect union - is far too important to be set aside in order to appease some peoples' feels.

pvjin wrote:

Very true, except it's those black lives matter people who should do that. They should start improving their communities and start working for a better future instead of whining all the time.

Uninformed reductivism at its finest.

pvjin wrote:

If they did that soon whatever discrimination there's left would start to disappear, generalizing stereotypes typically don't just come out of nowhere, nor do they last long if there's no truth behind them.

Er, and weren't you saying a couple points above that you fear white genocide?!

pvjin wrote:

The double standards of self loathing liberal leftists are truly sickening. If these people were Muslims calling for Sharia law and stoning of homosexuals, or black lives matter protestors calling for murder of white people, then none of them would dare to say a word.

Yeah sure. Anyone who believes in equality must hate white people and loves the Taliban. Whatever floats your demented boat. Go get some psychological help for your lunatic fantasies.

Are we just going to ignore the fact that it was a neo Nazi MAGA man who ran down the group of counter protesters, killing one? Or was he a "violent left-wing plant?" I mean, Alex Jones said the whole thing was staged by Jews, so it must be true, right?

Flighty wrote:

Yes, I think the news was the primary agent

I must admit that I just do not understand the absolute level that it appears some go to dismiss things they either do not like or disagree with. "The news" has always been what it is, we all know the phrases "if it bleeds, it leads" and "fear sells" because that has been going on for a loong time. I think the news has always lived off of and fed on news stories and has always sensationalized in some manner. And for a couple decades now talk radio has been doing this as well, phrasing things to stir up an issue or to reframe it.

This is not new.
And when these points have been brought up the the past, it has been noted that truth this is just a reflection on the public and what it wants. Nowadays however I have noticed I have noticed what appears to be almost an industrial process to make things separate from the public. Groups state "the government" now as if it were separate from citizens, the public, and now the same with "the media" or "mainstream media". Again separating something that is completely integral with the public. And the funniest thing over teh past years has been watching conservative talk radio or TV work like crazy to deny that it is very much "the media" and as "mainstream". And people for some reason fall for it sometimes, I guess being easily deluded. I have had conversations with family and they ultimately cannot deny that it is "all media".

And media has always worked to sell something so it can pay for itself. It must.

Tugg

DocLightning wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

No he was a Trump voter, and he hasn't a single racist bone in his body.

100.00%, every single Trump voter, without exception, knowingly voted for a man who had said horribly racist things and who had openly courted Neo-Nazis.

That means that every single Trump voter is a racist. No exceptions. #YesAllTrumpers

Sorry if that hurts your feelings (no I'm not), but I just don't care about your feelings.

Now Doc, these statements are no different than what real racists say. By painting in a broad brush, you are no better. Doesn't matter if you are generalizing about Muslims, conservatives or liberals. It still makes you look like a racist, isn't what you did the definition of stereotyping? I know a large number of Trump voters (they actually preferred another Republican candidate in most cases but could never vote for Hillary) all of them with advanced and many of them are Ivy League PhDs in science, economics or are MDs and not one of them could be thought of as racist. They all thought these nut case Nazis were vile excuses for human beings.

When the so called Anti-FAS use the same fascist tactics (violence, like stabbing police horses in PA) as real racists, the left and the right are both to blame, doesn't matter who started it. Ignoring the nuts would have taken away their platform without taking away their free speech and not made them martyrs to like minded nuts. So mishandled it was, in spite of the tragedy that resulted, none of this would have happened if their speech was given the value it was worth, a big fat zero!

Ed

jetero wrote:

So you can disregard statistics prove that certain laws make voting a hardship for African-Americans

Yeah, I admit I have no clue about the hardships African Americans perhaps face when it comes to voting. In any case it shouldn't be so goddamn hard to fix the election system. Just open enough places everywhere where people can vote as long as they have a valid ID with them, that's what we do in my country and it works just perfectly for all demographic groups.

jetero wrote:

POOR PEOPLE commit a disproportionately high amount of crimes.

No shit. And why are Blacks poor? Because of historical reasons and slavery, not because of present white people, children of poor parents tend to stay poor. If you want to get more blacks out of poverty add some progressive taxation and get rid of tuition fees in universities to increase social mobility. Again, works just perfectly here.

jetero wrote:

Er, and weren't you saying a couple points above that you fear white genocide?!

Actually I don't fear white genocide, I would rather call it white suicide as it's entirely self inflicted. The main driving forces behind today's degeneracy and the sunset of Western civilization are almost entirely white liberals, not African Americans, Jews, Muslims or whatever.

jetero wrote:

I don't doubt that people (probably including you) believe that absolute nonsense and use it as a justification to do any number of despicable things,

I don't condone any violent action other than self-defense. Stupid retards like that guy who drove his car into the crowd do a lot of harm to the alt-right movement. The only real way to fight the SJW movement is through politics and reason, not through violence.

The entire US society is a giant pile of garbage, instead of blaming white people for everything you should consider trying to fix the real reasons what make your society such a failure as far as wealth distribution and equality go. Taxation and state funded services are the key, not some stupid nonsense like positive discrimination.

NLCFFX wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

No he was a Trump voter, and he hasn't a single racist bone in his body.

100.00%, every single Trump voter, without exception, knowingly voted for a man who had said horribly racist things and who had openly courted Neo-Nazis.

That means that every single Trump voter is a racist. No exceptions. #YesAllTrumpers

Sorry if that hurts your feelings (no I'm not), but I just don't care about your feelings.

Now Doc, these statements are no different than what real racists say. By painting in a broad brush, you are no better. Doesn't matter if you are generalizing about Muslims, conservatives or liberals. It still makes you look like a racist, isn't what you did the definition of stereotyping? I know a large number of Trump voters (they actually preferred another Republican candidate in most cases but could never vote for Hillary) all of them with advanced and many of them are Ivy League PhDs in science, economics or are MDs and not one of them could be thought of as racist. They all thought these nut case Nazis were vile excuses for human beings.

When the so called Anti-FAS use the same fascist tactics (violence, like stabbing police horses in PA) as real racists, the left and the right are both to blame, doesn't matter who started it. Ignoring the nuts would have taken away their platform without taking away their free speech and not made them martyrs to like minded nuts. So mishandled it was, in spite of the tragedy that resulted, none of this would have happened if their speech was given the value it was worth, a big fat zero!

Ed

And, as the orange menace said, all sides are to blame. Even when only one side does it. A neo Nazi killed a woman. Both sides are to blame. That he got in his car and drove into a crowd, injured 19 and killed one. That is both sides who did that. Sure. Anything you say....

This is typical MAGA, right wing talk. The same group who DEMANDS everyone take personal responsibility. Unless one of their own does it. Then the blame goes to everyone.

I think this list fits here

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

One more thought about the phrase "both sides do it":

Stop normalizing violence. By saying "Both sides do it" when your side does it, that just says it is okay. To mow down people in a car, to blow up a mosque, to torture someone and leave them for dead because "both sides do it" is not normal. Do not normalize this. This is not normal. We should not accept this as normal. This is not a cage match. This is not Hunger Games. This is not normal.

Some protesters just tore down a Confederate Soldiers statute in front of a courthouse in Durham, NC that had been there since the 1920's. No arrests were apparently made by the Sheriffs. http://time.com/4900779/durham-north-ca ... rotesters/

seb146 wrote:

One more thought about the phrase "both sides do it":

Stop normalizing violence. By saying "Both sides do it" when your side does it, that just says it is okay. To mow down people in a car, to blow up a mosque, to torture someone and leave them for dead because "both sides do it" is not normal. Do not normalize this. This is not normal. We should not accept this as normal. This is not a cage match. This is not Hunger Games. This is not normal.

If London mayour Saqid Khan is to be believed terror attacks are normal and an unavoidable part of life in large cities.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 22846.html

But maybe whether terrorist attacks are normal and acceptable part of the reality depends from the religion and skin colour of the attacker.

pvjin wrote:

Yeah, I admit I have no clue about the hardships African Americans perhaps face when it comes to voting.

Then why spew out such a conclusive opinion?

pvjin"In any case it shouldn't be so goddamn hard to fix the election system. Just open enough places everywhere where people can vote as long as they have a valid ID with them, that's what we do in my country and it works just perfectly for all demographic groups.[/quote]

Well it's a problem here, pvjin, as states--exclusively those with Republican legislatures and governors--are taking steps to make it more difficult and cases are going to the Supreme Court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... aa6339f7c6

[quote="pvjin wrote:

jetero wrote:

POOR PEOPLE commit a disproportionately high amount of crimes.

No shit.

Then why not say THAT, Mr. "No Shit" instead of "black people disproportionately commits crimes.

pvjin wrote:

And why are Blacks poor? Because of historical reasons and slavery, not because of present white people, children of poor parents tend to stay poor.

WHO IS SAYING THAT THAT'S THE CASE?! You decided for yourself that we all think this way.

pvjin wrote:

If you want to get more blacks out of poverty add some progressive taxation and get rid of tuition fees in universities to increase social mobility. Again, works just perfectly here.

In other words, a perfectly LIBERAL policy approach.

pvjin wrote:

Actually I don't fear white genocide, I would rather call it white suicide as it's entirely self inflicted. The main driving forces behind today's degeneracy and the sunset of Western civilization are almost entirely white liberals, not African Americans, Jews, Muslims or whatever.

What "degeneracy," degenerate?

pvjin wrote:

I don't condone any violent action other than self-defense. Stupid retards like that guy who drove his car into the crowd do a lot of harm to the alt-right movement.

And I assume you think the "real" alt-right movement wants to lift blacks out of poverty by adding more progressive taxation and tuition-free secondary education?!

pvjin wrote:

The only real way to fight the SJW movement is through politics and reason, not through violence.

HA! You mean by saying things like:

pvjin wrote:

The entire US society is a giant pile of garbage,

pvjin wrote:

instead of blaming white people for everything

Again, you're putting words in all of our mouths because I DON'T SEE A SINGLE EXAMPLE ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD OF SOMEONE TAKING THAT POSITION.

pvjin wrote:

If London mayour Saqid Khan is to be believed terror attacks are normal and an unavoidable part of life in large cities.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 22846.html

But maybe whether terrorist attacks are normal and acceptable part of the reality depends from the religion and skin colour of the attacker.

Um yeah, that's what he said. Reading comprehension isn't your song suit, is it?

pvjin wrote:

Yeah, I admit I have no clue about the hardships African Americans perhaps face when it comes to voting. In any case it shouldn't be so goddamn hard to fix the election system. Just open enough places everywhere where people can vote as long as they have a valid ID with them, that's what we do in my country and it works just perfectly for all demographic groups.

We agree - it shouldn't be so damn hard. And it's not. But there's one party that's trying to make it hard, to close polling places, to restrict voting hours, to remove voters from the voting rolls unnecessarily, etc. And it happens to be the party that enjoys the support of white supremacists (and, now more than ever, seems content to have that support).

I'd suggest you read a bit about the current efforts to skew the vote in the US. It's a very eye-opening story, and I think it would inform your arguments on the subject.

pvjin wrote:

And why are Blacks poor? Because of historical reasons and slavery, not because of present white people, children of poor parents tend to stay poor.

There are certainly social components to it. However, it would be a grave mistake to overlook the fact that resumes with names that sound black are less likely to get interviews than those with white-sounding names, even if the qualifications on those resumes are identical. Inability to get good-paying jobs impedes someone's social mobility. It would be a grave mistake to overlook the fact that the unequal way in which people are sentenced from crimes has an impact on the ability of blacks to get jobs - while a white person might have to explain their six months of community service in an interview, a black person might have to explain away a year in prison, with a greater charge, even though the crime they committed was the same. That, too, affects social mobility. And it would be a grave mistake to overlook the fact that white people are primarily the ones who make the decisions in those systems.

Sure, there's a lot of historical factors involved. I'm not responsible for those. But I am responsible for not helping to right an injustice if I see one, even if the creation of that injustice was not of my own doing. Sure, other people should have addressed it long ago, but they didn't, and it's better late than never. This is especially true if I, whether I want to admit it or not, benefit from the injustice.

Flighty wrote:

Tearing the statues down does dishonor brave and good ancestors of millions of Americans.

Be careful. Those words will get you labeled as a racist/nazi by most of the people around here.

George Washington was a slave-owner. Should we erase him from the history books? He was also one of history's finest defenders of freedom. I guess we can do without such men? Throw him onto the dung-heap too?

It'll eventually come to that. Right now, it'll be open season on various statues of the Confederates, then probably their grave sites. Once that is done, it'll be time to turn their attention to the slave owners and any of their statues. After that, who knows... people in this very thread have stated that EVERYONE that voted for Trump is racist. It's not much of a jump to also label them nazi or fascist. And, when your slogan is "it's always right to punch a nazi" and, well, now everyone that disagrees with you, politically, is a nazi... you can see the direction in which this is headed.

NoTime wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Tearing the statues down does dishonor brave and good ancestors of millions of Americans.

Be careful. Those words will get you labeled as a racist/nazi by most of the people around here.

George Washington was a slave-owner. Should we erase him from the history books? He was also one of history's finest defenders of freedom. I guess we can do without such men? Throw him onto the dung-heap too?

It'll eventually come to that. Right now, it'll be open season on various statues of the Confederates, then probably their grave sites. Once that is done, it'll be time to turn their attention to the slave owners and any of their statues. After that, who knows... people in this very thread have stated that EVERYONE that voted for Trump is racist. It's not much of a jump to also label them nazi or fascist. And, when your slogan is "it's always right to punch a nazi" and, well, now everyone that disagrees with you, politically, is a nazi... you can see the direction in which this is headed.

That's your wet dream, you put-upon, self-important rightie. Would make it easier for you to justify your whack-o persecution fantasies.

jetero wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Tearing the statues down does dishonor brave and good ancestors of millions of Americans.

Be careful. Those words will get you labeled as a racist/nazi by most of the people around here.

George Washington was a slave-owner. Should we erase him from the history books? He was also one of history's finest defenders of freedom. I guess we can do without such men? Throw him onto the dung-heap too?

It'll eventually come to that. Right now, it'll be open season on various statues of the Confederates, then probably their grave sites. Once that is done, it'll be time to turn their attention to the slave owners and any of their statues. After that, who knows... people in this very thread have stated that EVERYONE that voted for Trump is racist. It's not much of a jump to also label them nazi or fascist. And, when your slogan is "it's always right to punch a nazi" and, well, now everyone that disagrees with you, politically, is a nazi... you can see the direction in which this is headed.

That's your wet dream, you put-upon, self-important rightie. Would make it easier for you to justify your whack-o persecution fantasies.

Not at all. But, judging from the actions of antifa and the far-left over the last few months, it's their wet dream.

[quote="pvjin"]

Yeah, I admit I have no clue

I agree with you, you don't have any clue period.

seb146 wrote:

NLCFFX wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

100.00%, every single Trump voter, without exception, knowingly voted for a man who had said horribly racist things and who had openly courted Neo-Nazis.

That means that every single Trump voter is a racist. No exceptions. #YesAllTrumpers

Sorry if that hurts your feelings (no I'm not), but I just don't care about your feelings.

Now Doc, these statements are no different than what real racists say. By painting in a broad brush, you are no better. Doesn't matter if you are generalizing about Muslims, conservatives or liberals. It still makes you look like a racist, isn't what you did the definition of stereotyping? I know a large number of Trump voters (they actually preferred another Republican candidate in most cases but could never vote for Hillary) all of them with advanced and many of them are Ivy League PhDs in science, economics or are MDs and not one of them could be thought of as racist. They all thought these nut case Nazis were vile excuses for human beings. .

When the so called Anti-FAS use the same fascist tactics (violence, like stabbing police horses in PA) as real racists, the left and the right are both to blame, doesn't matter who started it. Ignoring the nuts would have taken away their platform without taking away their free speech and not made them martyrs to like minded nuts. So mishandled it was, in spite of the tragedy that resulted, none of this would have happened if their speech was given the value it was worth, a big fat zero!

Ed

And, as the orange menace said, all sides are to blame. Even when only one side does it. A neo Nazi killed a woman. Both sides are to blame. That he got in his car and drove into a crowd, injured 19 and killed one. That is both sides who did that. Sure. Anything you say....

This is typical MAGA, right wing talk. The same group who DEMANDS everyone take personal responsibility. Unless one of their own does it. Then the blame goes to everyone.

If you really want to compare levels of violence on the left and right, we can. I think Maoist agitators on the Left are just super excited that a (failed) Right Wing "person" actually was involved in a violent crime. Now it's like an epidemic of violence from the Right, according to "our media." My facebook is lit up like a tree tonight. The lefty bullies are crowing their superiority and accosting the people they once saw as friends because of their "silence against the Nazis." Really so I am being called a Nazi sympathizer because I won't pledge allegiance to their party tonight. No, I am not gonna chat about that in open social media. This stuff is poisonous and will further marginalize the left. People need therapy.

Absent that, let's look at Wikipedia. It is a godsend in these days of journalistic farce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Unit ... ight_rally
"Hundreds of protesters and counterprotesters were in attendance."

Okay, wow. Hundreds. So basically enough people to fill a large lunchroom.

There were four (4) arrests, including the loser who killed a woman and critically injured 5 people.

I think the media wanted this to be an important big event, because it forwards their agenda in two ways: (1) increases ratings (2) it forwards a narrative that the "good" people all support one organization, the Democratic National Committee, and its associated journalists, attorneys, government employees, academics, financiers, tech industry and others. In other words, basically the most powerful people in our country, who are currently exiled from our government. They are really mad. This girl dying is something they can use to regain power. I wish I saw a deeper meaning, and if somebody does please let me know.

NoTime wrote:

jetero wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Be careful. Those words will get you labeled as a racist/nazi by most of the people around here.



It'll eventually come to that. Right now, it'll be open season on various statues of the Confederates, then probably their grave sites. Once that is done, it'll be time to turn their attention to the slave owners and any of their statues. After that, who knows... people in this very thread have stated that EVERYONE that voted for Trump is racist. It's not much of a jump to also label them nazi or fascist. And, when your slogan is "it's always right to punch a nazi" and, well, now everyone that disagrees with you, politically, is a nazi... you can see the direction in which this is headed.

That's your wet dream, you put-upon, self-important rightie. Would make it easier for you to justify your whack-o persecution fantasies.

Not at all. But, judging from the actions of antifa and the far-left over the last few months, it's their wet dream.

My wet dream is for all of you to just go away. Find some island in the South Pacific that will soon be under water (not that you guys believe it), start whatever pseudo-America you want, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

But unfortunately that's not going to happen, so we have to listen to you guys spew out nonsense over and over and feel persecuted when most people vastly and vehemently disagree with you over what is blatantly obvious antisocial behavior with no endgame whatsoever (at least not one that you'll ever truly admit to).

Totally not surprised to see people on here defending the Nazis. Won't somebody think of the poor oppressed Nazis and respect their right to commit acts of violence against "degenerates"?

Y'all really need to get your head out of your butts. Somebody was killed during this.

lebda wrote:

Totally not surprised to see people on here defending the Nazis. Won't somebody think of the poor oppressed Nazis and respect their right to commit acts of violence against "degenerates"?

Y'all really need to get your head out of your butts. Somebody was killed during this.

It's the liberal governor and mayor's faults.

einsteinboricua wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

James Damore, the author of the Google "manifesto", doesn't particularly strike me as a white nationalist radical, but he was all but portrayed as one in the media this past week, and was subsequently fired. If even honest attempts to debate are met with the intent to destroy one's livelihood, is it really a surprise that this would breed hostility, anger, and radicalism?

There are ways to express opinions as to why Silicon Valley is still too slanted towards men. Saying that women are genetically inferior to men (as far as Silicon Valley jobs go) is a sure way to show your colors against women.

I've actually read all 10 pages of the manifesto - it's not long, you can do the same yourself - and to suggest that's what he actually said is complete and utter nonsense. It's very clear you didn't bother to read it.

einsteinboricua wrote:

But fine, let's say science backs it up (even though it doesn't). Why do you have to say that your company is encouraging a "left-wing agenda"? You know, I've always been told that if I don't like my job, its culture or its people, just leave. If this guy is SO upset about how "left-wing" Google is, there are various jobs elsewhere.

Google deliberately set up avenues, message boards and channels for employees to debate controversial ideas or employee policies. Damore was using one of those channels. The "manifesto" wasn't intended for public consumption and was written a week before it leaked and went public. Damore indicated Google is pursuing a left wing agenda because....get this....Google was pursuing a left wing agenda.

And yet, despite all the media hysteria, when polled, a large majority of Damore's colleagues at Google (not exactly a right-wing think tank), did not think he should have been fired for the manifesto. Apparently his views were not really all that controversial amongst a large majority of his peers.

http://www.businessinsider.com/many-goo ... red-2017-8

einsteinboricua wrote:

Unfortunately, freedom of speech applies only from the government (it can't pass laws to silence you). As I recall (from our fellow conservatives), corporations are people AND private entities, meaning they can have views just like Joe Average, and as such they can set their own rules about conduct. When you join any company, you sign a code of conduct. While it was not this man's intent for that memo to go public, the fact is that it put Google in a negative light (how many other male workers think along the same lines?) so that could be a breach of the code of conduct and subject to disciplinary action.

Like I said: there are ways to express opinions. It's not about being politically correct; freedom of speech protects your right to say things, but does not protect you from the consequences of it. Tread water carefully.

This argument is technically correct. But it's also become increasingly tedious and stupid, and used to justify the firing of anyone with even mildly controversial views - even those expressed outside the confines of the workplace. If the only way certain viewpoints can be expressed is when the curtain is closed at the voting booth, then you shouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see those views becoming increasingly extreme. If you wish to continue the silencing tactics, have fun. But if the Left wants to fully push these views underground, then they really shouldn't be shocked when someone like a Donald Trump gets elected. You've made your bed, now you will lay in it.

If the media were an honest broker, it would try to referee some of the excesses of the social media shaming brigades. But the "mainstream" media is now the functional equivalent of left wing blogs like Salon or Vox, so no one outside of those ideological cohorts actually takes it seriously. The credibility of the mainstream media is virtually non-existent at this point, and the public's trust in it is at all time lows.

Let's look at the more recent attempts to get everyone who attended this alt right rally fired from their jobs. Why is this healthy? What is the end game exactly? Rather than try to engage and reform their ways, you've instead just made a cohort of young, naive, and angry young men unemployable and with nothing to lose. Ummm....congrats?? I guess??

In reality, you've just created the next bunch of terrorists. The violence will only continue. But hey, at least you can keep repeating to yourself that "Free speech only applies to the government!!!" the next time someone gets run over by a car.

jetero wrote:

NoTime wrote:

jetero wrote:

That's your wet dream, you put-upon, self-important rightie. Would make it easier for you to justify your whack-o persecution fantasies.

Not at all. But, judging from the actions of antifa and the far-left over the last few months, it's their wet dream.

My wet dream is for all of you to just go away. Find some island in the South Pacific that will soon be under water (not that you guys believe it), start whatever pseudo-America you want, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

But unfortunately that's not going to happen, so we have to listen to you guys spew out nonsense over and over and feel persecuted when most people vastly and vehemently disagree with you over what is blatantly obvious antisocial behavior with no endgame whatsoever (at least not one that you'll ever truly admit to).

More "moderate" talk from our resident "reasonable", "moderate" liberals on the forum. It really isn't that surprising how we've arrived at this particular juncture when you actually take a single solitary second to think about it, is it?

But unfortunately that's not going to happen, so we have to listen to you guys spew out nonsense over and over and feel persecuted when most people vastly and vehemently disagree with you over what is blatantly obvious antisocial behavior with no endgame whatsoever (at least not one that you'll ever truly admit to).

Your problem is that the people who are disagreeing with this that we see on TV are carrying DSA URL posters intertwined with socialist propaganda and some BLM stuff. In a nutshell, people who idolize a way of life that led to the rise of an even bigger mass murderer than Hitler in the 20th century.

What is the end game for those people? Erect a statue of Stalin, or maybe Che Guevara and turn this country into Venezuela?

I'd be with you 100% if these (at least the majority) counter-protestors were common god fearing folk of all walks of life not ones that have wet dreams about Karl Marx and go out and cause destruction themselves.

---

It's the liberal governor and mayor's faults.

Dude we all know that the guy who drove that car is to blame directly for this woman's death but you ever hear of indirect blame? One group got a permit to protest (with the ACLUs help no less!) and the other did not and the police did nothing to prevent the unauthorized group for meeting with the authorized one. You have question the decision making there of people who are supposedly there to keep the peace when these fringe elements meet.

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Not at all. But, judging from the actions of antifa and the far-left over the last few months, it's their wet dream.

My wet dream is for all of you to just go away. Find some island in the South Pacific that will soon be under water (not that you guys believe it), start whatever pseudo-America you want, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

But unfortunately that's not going to happen, so we have to listen to you guys spew out nonsense over and over and feel persecuted when most people vastly and vehemently disagree with you over what is blatantly obvious antisocial behavior with no endgame whatsoever (at least not one that you'll ever truly admit to).

More "moderate" talk from our resident "reasonable", "moderate" liberals on the forum. It really isn't that surprising how we've arrived at this particular juncture when you actually take a single solitary second to think about it, is it?

I don't think he's a liberal (I could be reading him wrong though). But regardless, if that's the most troubling and extreme thing you've read on this topic, then oh dear...

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Not at all. But, judging from the actions of antifa and the far-left over the last few months, it's their wet dream.

My wet dream is for all of you to just go away. Find some island in the South Pacific that will soon be under water (not that you guys believe it), start whatever pseudo-America you want, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

But unfortunately that's not going to happen, so we have to listen to you guys spew out nonsense over and over and feel persecuted when most people vastly and vehemently disagree with you over what is blatantly obvious antisocial behavior with no endgame whatsoever (at least not one that you'll ever truly admit to).

More "moderate" talk from our resident "reasonable", "moderate" liberals on the forum. It really isn't that surprising how we've arrived at this particular juncture when you actually take a single solitary second to think about it, is it?

It ain't meant to be "moderate." Just expressing an opinion, yo. But if you want to blame me, too, feel free!

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

My wet dream is for all of you to just go away. Find some island in the South Pacific that will soon be under water (not that you guys believe it), start whatever pseudo-America you want, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

But unfortunately that's not going to happen, so we have to listen to you guys spew out nonsense over and over and feel persecuted when most people vastly and vehemently disagree with you over what is blatantly obvious antisocial behavior with no endgame whatsoever (at least not one that you'll ever truly admit to).

More "moderate" talk from our resident "reasonable", "moderate" liberals on the forum. It really isn't that surprising how we've arrived at this particular juncture when you actually take a single solitary second to think about it, is it?

It ain't meant to be "moderate." Just expressing an opinion, yo. But if you want to blame me, too, feel free!

I do blame you too and clearly it wasn't meant to be moderate!

Perhaps unbeknownst to you, your opinions are hardly different from someone like alt right leader Richard Spencer, who wants to create his very own "ethno-state" and separate himself from those he deems undesirable.

lebda wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

My wet dream is for all of you to just go away. Find some island in the South Pacific that will soon be under water (not that you guys believe it), start whatever pseudo-America you want, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

But unfortunately that's not going to happen, so we have to listen to you guys spew out nonsense over and over and feel persecuted when most people vastly and vehemently disagree with you over what is blatantly obvious antisocial behavior with no endgame whatsoever (at least not one that you'll ever truly admit to).

More "moderate" talk from our resident "reasonable", "moderate" liberals on the forum. It really isn't that surprising how we've arrived at this particular juncture when you actually take a single solitary second to think about it, is it?

I don't think he's a liberal (I could be reading him wrong though). But regardless, if that's the most troubling and extreme thing you've read on this topic, then oh dear...

There's a whole host of things that are troubling and extreme in this thread. But there are the things which are troubling and extreme that most people acknowledge as such, and then there are the things we just sweep under the rug. I choose not to look away from either, but to understand the implications of each.

FreequentFlier wrote:

I do blame you too and clearly it wasn't meant to be moderate!

Knock yourself out, FF!

FreequentFlier wrote:

Perhaps unbeknownst to you, your opinions are hardly different from someone like alt right leader Richard Spencer, who wants to create his very own "ethno-state" and separate himself from those he deems undesirable.

I'm an equal opportunity guy--send the idiots away and let the rest of us work and live our lives in peace. If anyone of any color wants to join them, fine by me!

FreequentFlier wrote:

There's a whole host of things that are troubling and extreme in this thread. But there are the things which are troubling and extreme that most people acknowledge as such, and then there are the things we just sweep under the rug. I choose not to look away from either, but to understand the implications of each.

Do you get to determine what "are the things we just sweep under the rug"? Like your antisocial Google friend? Would you like to set up some sort of review panel to determine what is "correct" and what isn't? I can send you my messages for your review before I post them, if you like, just to make sure I meet your standards of "equal time," not "troubling," and not "extreme."

The sad thing about identity politics is it has given you guys language to make yourselves feel oppressed and organize as such. Your Google friend can speak all he wants for all I care, but sure as hell shouldn't whine about the obvious fruits of antisocial behavior. I feel like you probably have that view of organizations like BLM, no?

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

I do blame you too and clearly it wasn't meant to be moderate!

Knock yourself out, FF!

FreequentFlier wrote:

Perhaps unbeknownst to you, your opinions are hardly different from someone like alt right leader Richard Spencer, who wants to create his very own "ethno-state" and separate himself from those he deems undesirable.

I'm an equal opportunity guy--send the idiots away and let the rest of us work and live our lives in peace. If anyone of any color wants to join them, fine by me!

Well at least I give you credit for owning your hatred. Most people wouldn't be so enthusiastic when actively embracing policies shown to be similar to those of alt-right white supremacist leaders.

LOT767301ER wrote:

Your problem is that the people who are disagreeing with this that we see on TV are carrying DSA URL posters intertwined with socialist propaganda and some BLM stuff. In a nutshell, people who idolize a way of life that led to the rise of an even bigger mass murderer than Hitler in the 20th century.

What is the end game for those people? Erect a statue of Stalin, or maybe Che Guevara and turn this country into Venezuela?

I'd be with you 100% if these (at least the majority) counter-protestors were common god fearing folk of all walks of life not ones that have wet dreams about Karl Marx and go out and cause destruction themselves.

Dude we all know that the guy who drove that car is to blame directly for this woman's death but you ever hear of indirect blame? One group got a permit to protest (with the ACLUs help no less!) and the other did not and the police did nothing to prevent the unauthorized group for meeting with the authorized one. You have question the decision making there of people who are supposedly there to keep the peace when these fringe elements meet.

Dude! OK, we'll make sure to put on the permit application:

Are the majority of your counter-protesters:

A. "common god [sic] fearing folk of all walks of life"

or

B. "have wet dreams about Karl Marx and go out and cause destruction"?

Because if B, what? They deserve it? Or they're just as bad as the protesters with the permit? Or . . . what exactly? I just don't follow your logic. Dude!

(I also don't know how you've decided that B is the answer for the folk in Charlottesville. Did that come up on your Facebook or Twitter feed?)

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

I do blame you too and clearly it wasn't meant to be moderate!

Knock yourself out, FF!

FreequentFlier wrote:

Perhaps unbeknownst to you, your opinions are hardly different from someone like alt right leader Richard Spencer, who wants to create his very own "ethno-state" and separate himself from those he deems undesirable.

I'm an equal opportunity guy--send the idiots away and let the rest of us work and live our lives in peace. If anyone of any color wants to join them, fine by me!

Well at least I give you credit for owning your hatred. Most people wouldn't be so enthusiastic when actively embracing policies shown to be similar to those of alt-right white supremacist leaders.

God, FrEEquentFlier, you are dense. A wet dream equals a policy?

Get a life.

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

There's a whole host of things that are troubling and extreme in this thread. But there are the things which are troubling and extreme that most people acknowledge as such, and then there are the things we just sweep under the rug. I choose not to look away from either, but to understand the implications of each.

Do you get to determine what "are the things we just sweep under the rug"? Like your antisocial Google friend? Would you like to set up some sort of review panel to determine what is "correct" and what isn't? I can send you my messages for your review before I post them, if you like, just to make sure I meet your standards of "equal time," not "troubling," and not "extreme."

The sad thing about identity politics is it has given you guys language to make yourselves feel oppressed and organize as such. Your Google friend can speak all he wants for all I care, but sure as hell shouldn't whine about the obvious fruits of antisocial behavior. I feel like you probably have that view of organizations like BLM, no?

I think it's been pretty clear that my position on issues related to speech is that more of it is good and that attempts to corral, intimidate, squelch or eliminate it, whether through government force or through corporate blackmail, often backfire.

As for BLM, to the extent it is focused on a better and more equitable policing and justice system, I am supportive of it. To the extent it has veered off the tracks into black identity politics, I'm opposed. I despise identity politics of all kinds. Identity politics is a cancer that has led us to the events of Charlottesville.

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

Knock yourself out, FF!



I'm an equal opportunity guy--send the idiots away and let the rest of us work and live our lives in peace. If anyone of any color wants to join them, fine by me!

Well at least I give you credit for owning your hatred. Most people wouldn't be so enthusiastic when actively embracing policies shown to be similar to those of alt-right white supremacist leaders.

God, FrEEquentFlier, you are dense. A wet dream equals a policy?

Get a life.

You're making distinctions without differences.

You're blabbering like a dog with rabies unable to connect the dots that one side is the exact polar opposite as the other and throughout history has been just as if not more violent than the side they are protesting.

FreequentFlier wrote:

I despise identity politics of all kinds. Identity politics is a cancer that has led us to the events of Charlottesville.

But you like free speech?

Why are you so obsessed? Are you going to speak about despising identity politics for say, what, the next decade and expect it to change people's opinions? I'm not a fan either as I think it's counterproductive, but I'll get on with my life and not let it affect me (because, at the end of the day, it doesn't). I'm able to say whatever I want to say, I know sometimes there are things I shouldn't say, and I can make a choice to say them or not and live with the consequences.

So identity politics have convinced a great group of people (including white supremacists) to feel innately passionate about and identify with something to the point of feeling oppressed, and you think the way to solve it productively is to repudiate it to the point of offending people at their core? Sounds like a winning strategy.

Can't you focus on something else?

FreequentFlier wrote:

You're making distinctions without differences.

LOT767301ER wrote:

You're blabbering like a dog with rabies unable to connect the dots that one side is the exact polar opposite as the other and throughout history has been just as if not more violent than the side they are protesting.

You guys should talk to each other because the above reads like gibberish to me. (But kudos to FF for being able to write a complete, non-run-on sentence.)

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

I despise identity politics of all kinds. Identity politics is a cancer that has led us to the events of Charlottesville.

But you like free speech?

Why are you so obsessed? Are you going to speak about despising identity politics for say, what, the next decade and expect it to change people's opinions? I'm not a fan either as I think it's counterproductive, but I'll get on with my life and not let it affect me (because, at the end of the day, it doesn't). I'm able to say whatever I want to say, I know sometimes there are things I shouldn't say, and I can make a choice to say them or not and live with the consequences.

So identity politics have convinced a great group of people (including white supremacists) to feel innately passionate about and identify with something to the point of feeling oppressed, and you think the way to solve it productively is to repudiate it to the point of offending people at their core? Sounds like a winning strategy.

Can't you focus on something else?

I take it from your comments above that you're not even remotely bothered that Colin Kaepernick has been effectively banished from the NFL.

Similarly, I'd imagine your feelings on free speech might change the moment a social media mob decided to eliminate your ability to make a living because you aired a mildly controversial statement.

As for free speech, yes I am guilty of being "obsessed" with it. It's literally the first foundational principle upon which this country was founded on based on the order of its Amendments.

LOT767301ER wrote:

But unfortunately that's not going to happen, so we have to listen to you guys spew out nonsense over and over and feel persecuted when most people vastly and vehemently disagree with you over what is blatantly obvious antisocial behavior with no endgame whatsoever (at least not one that you'll ever truly admit to).

Your problem is that the people who are disagreeing with this that we see on TV are carrying DSA URL posters intertwined with socialist propaganda and some BLM stuff. In a nutshell, people who idolize a way of life that led to the rise of an even bigger mass murderer than Hitler in the 20th century.

What is the end game for those people? Erect a statue of Stalin, or maybe Che Guevara and turn this country into Venezuela?

I'd be with you 100% if these (at least the majority) counter-protestors were common god fearing folk of all walks of life not ones that have wet dreams about Karl Marx and go out and cause destruction themselves.

You do realize that Antifa are generally anarcho-communists and not Stalinists, yeah? They hate the USSR and do not want a system like that in Venezuela.

pvjin wrote:

If London mayour Saqid Khan is to be believed terror attacks are normal and an unavoidable part of life in large cities.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 22846.html

But maybe whether terrorist attacks are normal and acceptable part of the reality depends from the religion and skin colour of the attacker.

He didn't say they were "normal" and he certainly didn't say they were "acceptable". You're just making shit up.

When are you leaving for your beloved Russia? You need to hurry, Vlad won't be there forever.

pvjin wrote:

seb146 wrote:

One more thought about the phrase "both sides do it":

Stop normalizing violence. By saying "Both sides do it" when your side does it, that just says it is okay. To mow down people in a car, to blow up a mosque, to torture someone and leave them for dead because "both sides do it" is not normal. Do not normalize this. This is not normal. We should not accept this as normal. This is not a cage match. This is not Hunger Games. This is not normal.

If London mayour Saqid Khan is to be believed terror attacks are normal and an unavoidable part of life in large cities.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 22846.html

But maybe whether terrorist attacks are normal and acceptable part of the reality depends from the religion and skin colour of the attacker.

No, Mayor Khan did not say that in the way you try and make out.
It was part of a longer statement in wake of a larger armed police deployment on London streets, after Borough Market. He did not want people to take the wrong message if they noticed, as there was no actual intelligence of a further attack pending, it was a precautionary measure in a country that does not have an armed police, except for specially trained officers.
But you knew that, right? Because is it that Khan is everything you hate, wrong colour, wrong faith, worse, he won big? (Despite a deeply racist, Islamophobic and just untrue campaign against him, that you could have written judging by your nasty ramblings on here).
You are just quoting the idiot President and his idiot son.
The full statement by the Mayor is easy to find, even you might manage to.
I live there, during the IRA bombings, now this bunch of Islamist nutters, not scared. You on the other hand.....

Back to that march, Nazi flags alongside Trump baseball caps, David Duke tweeting how pleased he was that Trump did not identify the real cause of the violence.
I said before about judging Trump by his words and actions in the campaign, that was wrong, 'Birtherism' went back to 2011, with it's not at all hidden agenda, the long standing Trump rent practice, just like the good old South pre 1960's.
How even after the group jailed for raping a jogger in Central Park were exonerated by DNA evidence and freed, he is still accusing them.

scbriml wrote:

pvjin wrote:

If London mayour Saqid Khan is to be believed terror attacks are normal and an unavoidable part of life in large cities.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 22846.html

But maybe whether terrorist attacks are normal and acceptable part of the reality depends from the religion and skin colour of the attacker.

He didn't say they were "normal" and he certainly didn't say they were "acceptable". You're just making shit up.

Not completely made up in the context of this threat though.

The reaction does depend on skin color and religion. If you are a white Nazi terrorist Trump basically has to be forced to speak up against it, if you are a dark skinned muslin terrorist, he is really quick.

best regards
Thomas

In the end this attack just confirmed what the mayor of London said. You will always have the risk of a nutjob attacking civilians for what the attacker sees as higher values.