quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

Respectfully speaking...its not as black and white as you both want to paint it to be

theres nothing you just said im not in agreement with and ive laid fault at both the protesters, the counter-protesters and the police. exactly how then have I painted Charlottesville as something black and white?

Several speakers criticized the Council members for not having heeded warnings to avoid the protest, and promised to vote them out of office. But city officials stressed that they had tried to deny the white supremacist rally a permit, but that a federal court had ruled in favor of the protest organizers.

Well maybe the fault lies with the appeals court or with the appeals process. The city Council tried to reject the permit for the parade or the March claiming I would guess that it was too dangerous. However the court just went right ahead and, backed up by all the free-speech prior precedent, then had to approve the permit. So it makes you wonder where the balance is between a community that asserts there is a treat of lawlessness and a court that says it must comply with precedent on free-speech.

Your arguments would be very reasonable had the cops not been told to stand down by those same politicians. Had the cops been allowed to do their jobs we might not have had this mess. However, I believe the politicians how another agenda.

On 15 August 2017, the disreputable web site YourNewsWire posted a story purporting to quote an “anonymous” police officer saying that law enforcement in Charlottesville, Virginia had been instructed not only to “stand down” during a violent white supremacist rally, but to instigate violence by purposely bringing rival groups together in order to start a race war.

SOURCE

quote:

He also said police vehicles and vans could have been lining the streets in a show of force. What unfolded on TV, he said, appears to be a "classic case" of officers being told, "Don't go too far unless somebody is directly attacking you." But he said "the ethereal strategy of disengagement doesn't work with radical groups."

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

...and therefore people carrying Nazi flags are not Nazis.

You guys would be a great comedy team if you only had better material.

Actually...they're not.

These punks today wouldn't have the balls to be real Nazi's...they're wanna be Nazis. If they didn't have police protection, they'd go crying home to their Mama's in a heartbeat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Before Trump, name one Republican whose sane, rational policies you defended.

Eisenhower.
Any more pissy little lies wrapped up in character assassination, or are you done with that now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

They don't want any more Ruby incidents.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ruby-ridge-siege-25-years-called-rallying-cry/story?id=49296439

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Before Trump, name one Republican whose sane, rational policies you defended.

Eisenhower.
Any more pissy little lies wrapped up in character assassination, or are you done with that now?

Got any more recent ones...say ANY of the sane ones you're referring to today?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

Respectfully speaking...its not as black and white as you both want to paint it to be

theres nothing you just said im not in agreement with and ive laid fault at both the protesters, the counter-protesters and the police. exactly how then have I painted Charlottesville as something black and white?

Several speakers criticized the Council members for not having heeded warnings to avoid the protest, and promised to vote them out of office. But city officials stressed that they had tried to deny the white supremacist rally a permit, but that a federal court had ruled in favor of the protest organizers.

Well maybe the fault lies with the appeals court or with the appeals process. The city Council tried to reject the permit for the parade or the March claiming I would guess that it was too dangerous. However the court just went right ahead and, backed up by all the free-speech prior precedent, then had to approve the permit. So it makes you wonder where the balance is between a community that asserts there is a treat of lawlessness and a court that says it must comply with precedent on free-speech.

Your arguments would be very reasonable had the cops not been told to stand down by those same politicians. Had the cops been allowed to do their jobs we might not have had this mess. However, I believe the politicians how another agenda.

On 15 August 2017, the disreputable web site YourNewsWire posted a story purporting to quote an “anonymous” police officer saying that law enforcement in Charlottesville, Virginia had been instructed not only to “stand down” during a violent white supremacist rally, but to instigate violence by purposely bringing rival groups together in order to start a race war.

SOURCE

quote:

In the Charlottesville melee, it is now clear that Mayor Michael Signer, a radical Democrat and close associate of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, who early declared his city “a capital of the resistance” (against the constitutionally elected president), intervened for some protesters and against others, ordered the police to facilitate violence at times, and changed his previous support for retention of the contested statue of General Robert E. Lee to a vote for removal. It was obvious to him and to close Clinton insider Governor Terry McAuliffe that they could engineer a showdown between opposing extremes that had nothing to do with the merits of General Lee, but that could escalate the polarization in the country to the embarrassment of the president. It was a cynical exercise in political manipulation by very distasteful means, and has so far been partially successful.

quote:

But on the day, much responsibility rests with Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Antifa advocates a racial preference for DNA-authenticated “people of color,” the use of container ships to bring in scores of millions of non-white foreigners, the reduction of the white population of America to 30 percent and their colonial subjugation, and the nationalization of all major industries for operation at general communally shared benefit. Antifa reserves the right and proclaims the duty to achieve its goals violently and by intimidation of its opponents, as it prevented pro-Trump people from marching peacefully in an annual civic parade in Portland, Ore., in the spring, and an invited speaker from appearing at the University of California, Berkeley, in February. Black Lives Matter is unexceptionable in its championship of African-American pride, but has a faction that is overtly violent and specializes in murdering white policemen, as it has done in several cities in the past year. The president was absolutely correct to condemn these groups also for their conduct at Charlottesville. (I feel a hitherto unsuspected nostalgia for the comparatively gentle Saul Alinsky.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

Respectfully speaking...its not as black and white as you both want to paint it to be

theres nothing you just said im not in agreement with and ive laid fault at both the protesters, the counter-protesters and the police. exactly how then have I painted Charlottesville as something black and white?

Several speakers criticized the Council members for not having heeded warnings to avoid the protest, and promised to vote them out of office. But city officials stressed that they had tried to deny the white supremacist rally a permit, but that a federal court had ruled in favor of the protest organizers.

Well maybe the fault lies with the appeals court or with the appeals process. The city Council tried to reject the permit for the parade or the March claiming I would guess that it was too dangerous. However the court just went right ahead and, backed up by all the free-speech prior precedent, then had to approve the permit. So it makes you wonder where the balance is between a community that asserts there is a treat of lawlessness and a court that says it must comply with precedent on free-speech.

Your arguments would be very reasonable had the cops not been told to stand down by those same politicians. Had the cops been allowed to do their jobs we might not have had this mess. However, I believe the politicians how another agenda.

On 15 August 2017, the disreputable web site YourNewsWire posted a story purporting to quote an “anonymous” police officer saying that law enforcement in Charlottesville, Virginia had been instructed not only to “stand down” during a violent white supremacist rally, but to instigate violence by purposely bringing rival groups together in order to start a race war.

SOURCE

VML, this guy doesn't cite sources for, "it's now clear." But stuff like this is still out there and I think it needs review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450672/donald-trump-charlottesville-aftermath

quote:

In the Charlottesville melee, it is now clear that Mayor Michael Signer, a radical Democrat and close associate of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, who early declared his city “a capital of the resistance” (against the constitutionally elected president), intervened for some protesters and against others, ordered the police to facilitate violence at times, and changed his previous support for retention of the contested statue of General Robert E. Lee to a vote for removal. It was obvious to him and to close Clinton insider Governor Terry McAuliffe that they could engineer a showdown between opposing extremes that had nothing to do with the merits of General Lee, but that could escalate the polarization in the country to the embarrassment of the president. It was a cynical exercise in political manipulation by very distasteful means, and has so far been partially successful.

The article has some other disturbing stuff. I don't know if true but germane to this conversation.

quote:

But on the day, much responsibility rests with Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Antifa advocates a racial preference for DNA-authenticated “people of color,” the use of container ships to bring in scores of millions of non-white foreigners, the reduction of the white population of America to 30 percent and their colonial subjugation, and the nationalization of all major industries for operation at general communally shared benefit. Antifa reserves the right and proclaims the duty to achieve its goals violently and by intimidation of its opponents, as it prevented pro-Trump people from marching peacefully in an annual civic parade in Portland, Ore., in the spring, and an invited speaker from appearing at the University of California, Berkeley, in February. Black Lives Matter is unexceptionable in its championship of African-American pride, but has a faction that is overtly violent and specializes in murdering white policemen, as it has done in several cities in the past year. The president was absolutely correct to condemn these groups also for their conduct at Charlottesville. (I feel a hitherto unsuspected nostalgia for the comparatively gentle Saul Alinsky.)

quote:

These punks today wouldn't have the balls to be real Nazi's...they're wanna be Nazis. If they didn't have police protection, they'd go crying home to their Mama's in a heartbeat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I'll just be blunt that I will continue to oppose Nazis, however folks decide to spin the debate.
And I'll continue to wonder why there's even a debate about Nazis.
A bunch of armed folks carrying Nazi flags show up. Who thought this would go peacefully?
Some very angry people oppose them. Gosh, how strange.
That the president of the US would equate them--that's bizarre. I hope his ass gets kicked repeatedly. FFS.

He equated them only in that they both were part of the violence and hate. And, he was correct in that.

If you think Nazis and people opposing Nazis are the same, you and I are never, ever, going to agree.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So you keep saying. That doesn't make these groups equal.

One group is about hatred, another about opposing the hatred.

Again, you and I are never going to agree on this. It's not spin -- it's flat out reality.

Nazis -- anti-Nazis. Not the same. Cause . . . effect/reaction. Not the same.

And a dead woman run down by a Nazi car.

Not the same. Hold your breath, stomp your feet -- not the same.

That we have a president who thinks "These are good people" is sickening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
And btw MM, what the president said, what he was getting at, was that some of the people there to defend the statue were not Nazis. Many were normal, decent people who simply oppose your book burning cult

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

and youre right back to ann coulter's "when liberals club people they do so with love in their heart."

or its okay because the people they are clubbing are all about hate! (go figure!)

also, the issue isn't whether or not "Nazi's are about hate"---what the %(#&* is wrong with you? they either have a right to protest or they don't and to do so without being assaulted. if you believe they don't, then as ive said before, that makes YOU the enemy of America.

the "spin" is that you keep not understanding what people are saying to you and you twist it to your own devices.

and let me save you some time:

bounty: (anything I say about it...)

maniacalmystery: Nazi!

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
And btw MM, what the president said, what he was getting at, was that some of the people there to defend the statue were not Nazis. Many were normal, decent people who simply oppose your book burning cult

that's how I understood the presidents comments too and was just coming back to say the same thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

and youre right back to ann coulter's "when liberals club people they do so with love in their heart."

or its okay because the people they are clubbing are all about hate! (go figure!)

also, the issue isn't whether or not "Nazi's are about hate"---what the %(#&* is wrong with you? they either have a right to protest or they don't and to do so without being assaulted. if you believe they don't, then as ive said before, that makes YOU the enemy of America.

the "spin" is that you keep not understanding what people are saying to you and you twist it to your own devices.

and let me save you some time:

bounty: (anything I say about it...)

maniacalmystery: Nazi!

Nope. You still can't read. You can only comment when you pretend.

I've already, more than once, shared I'm no fan of "leftist" violence, that proposing to remove the statue was stupid, that the march was stupid, the counter protest was stupid, etc. You just blow by that because it doesn't serve your purpose and preferred narrative (i.e., fiction).

a) there's a hate group carrying firearms and Nazi flags
b) gosh, they attract counter groups. What did you THINK was going to happen?
c) they didn't play nice.

Then we have Trump NOT merely saying both sides were responsible (that much is true), but equating them, noting about the Nazis "these are good people," "these are fine people."

Why call them Nazis? Because they're marching carrying Nazi flags.

Dance, spin, pretend, call names -- but that's still going to be reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
And btw MM, what the president said, what he was getting at, was that some of the people there to defend the statue were not Nazis. Many were normal, decent people who simply oppose your book burning cult

that's how I understood the presidents comments too and was just coming back to say the same thing.

We're book burning now, eh?

You two are a riot. No wonder no one takes either of you seriously.

Except each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Which books have the leftists insisted on burning? I know that the American right has past form for this, but I can't think of any the leftists insisted on burning.