Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In any case, Nazis are innocent. They are right about everything, and superior to everyone else.
We get it
One side is the Nazis, and the other side is Soviet. Equally deplorable. I'm a Southerner who stands with the Confederate and we do not want the Nazis appropriating our cause. I'm just someone who wants my country back, and I'm the son of LEGAL Asian immigrants in the Deep South.
Black Lives Matter and Colin Kaepernick and those in the media who fawn over them are also very disgusting. They are also responsible for stirring up trouble when there is no evidence for police racism. All the cases they mentioned have been debunked yet they refuse to accept the facts. THey're still saying hands up don't shoot when it was clear Mike Brown attacked the cop and left him no choice but to shoot him. We also now know that Trayvon was indeed a thug who attacked George Zimmerman and tried to kill him.
You mean, those "normal folk" that came armed with clubs, bats, improvised flame throwers and balloons filled with urine, covering their faces in masks?
Yeah those normal folk....liberals have no problem with their terrorists like the DC shooter and the leftists with violence in Charlottesville....they only care when a member of a disfavored group commits violence.
To answer the original query, I don't think there would have been any violence if the liberal terrorists had not come to fight the white racists.
In general, whenever the Klan and the likes are doing public demonstration, they're going to attract a lot of strong opposition - open racism is generally quite inflammatory for America, even in a society premised on freedom of expression. These gatherings have often ended up in violence, which is why in my neck of the woods the cops used to turn out big time for any such activity and even force protesters and counter-protesters to stay on opposite sides of the street. Not sure why they don't do that here.
Sure, some of the counter-protesters may have instigated the fighting; frankly hard to tell when in all likelihood both sides were pissed off and worked up for a rumble.
What remains true to me is: (1) these white supremacists protesters are scum - dangerous scum; and (2) violence other than true self defense is unacceptable from either side.
You could argue that the kind of speech at that rally was just marginally protected. First amendment doesn't protect against speech that incites riots or is directly threatening.
I think some of it was borderline, really.
This is how it goes. Truth told, I've never understood why these groups are given permits to spew hate speech on city streets.
I don't really care what sort of group it is. Why can't they just hold a rally in a building somewhere and run their mouths to their hearts' content?
They march like this to intimidate. It's what Nazis and Klan have always done.
Yes, I agree that the alt-left tactics aren't at all appropriate and I don't think attacking people or property is okay, either.
But, come on... what's more alarming to the populace? Is it some heavily armed men in the streets chanting about white supremacy and denigrating Jews or is it some guys holding a rally at the local convention center and talking about this crap in private?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I hope they didn't act as reprehensible towards reporters as, say this...
Depends whether you consider running people over in a car 'reprehensible' or as the guy says at the end of the video "more than justified",
and "a lot more people are going to die before we are done here".
and "we will ****ing kill these people if we have to".
Amazing people coming to the defense of nazi murderers.
This is probably energizing the movement more than ever.
No good person marches with nazis and racists.
Let's reduce it to just people. Do good people march with others who are intent on violence?
I'm sure there were decent people who came out to simply protest the removal of landmark statues.
I know there were decent people who came out to simply protest the statues.
BOTH were hijacked by violent extremists.
Can we at least agree on that? Is anything I said not true?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
The non-aggression principle is paramount. I only support defensive use of force. It is the only moral and logical way to respect the rights of others.
I agree... so, if both sides came to be violent, then both sides were forced to defended themselves. The definition of a conundrum. One had a permit to protest, one came to disrupt them through any means. Who is more at fault?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
I have a similar question-hope you don't mind me adding it to your thread.If the "counter-protesters" hadn't shown up, would the rally have turned violent? I mean, it's possible. Look at all the leftist demonstrations where property is destroyed, businesses looted, neighborhoods burned, highways and emergency services blocked. All when no counter-protesters showed up. So you can't say it isn't possible. The question is-is it likely that it would have happened? And is it likely that innocent people, with nothing to do with the protest that happened to be at the wrong place, would have been dragged out of their cars and beaten, simply due to their race? These thing did happened at BLM protests.
All true, and I don't mind a bit.
I do not believe so. I've said if reactionaries and extremists hadn't shown up and faced them down with weapons, and broadcast it on their websites that they intended to become violent... nobody would have died, nobody would have been hurt.
It's arguable that the actions of the left incited the other side to resort to such an escalation.
In any violent clash both sides believe themselves to be right. So, in the end both sides suffer because of their own intolerance and arrogance. Both suffer from the exact same disease of ideological hypocrisy.
How did Gandhi take back an entire country without raising a fist or firing a shot? Why the obsession with the KKK and neo-nazis who until that very obsession were all but gone from any thoughts?
No, something is amiss. I believe this is a convenient steering of those who are easily steered - IMHO
One side is the Nazis, and the other side is Soviet. Equally deplorable. I'm a Southerner who stands with the Confederate and we do not want the Nazis appropriating our cause. I'm just someone who wants my country back, and I'm the son of LEGAL Asian immigrants in the Deep South.
Black Lives Matter and Colin Kaepernick and those in the media who fawn over them are also very disgusting. They are also responsible for stirring up trouble when there is no evidence for police racism. All the cases they mentioned have been debunked yet they refuse to accept the facts. THey're still saying hands up don't shoot when it was clear Mike Brown attacked the cop and left him no choice but to shoot him. We also now know that Trayvon was indeed a thug who attacked George Zimmerman and tried to kill him.
The Confederate what, exactly?
You know the Confederacy lost the war, right? I mean, it was only over 150 years ago.
I don't have any problem with athletes not standing for the anthem. If it's not part of their contract, they can do whatever they like during the anthem. Big deal.
The leadership of BLM has publicly stated that it is not tied to Antifa, nor does it want to be.
They've been a lot more open about not wanting to be associated with Antifa than Trump has with his alleged disinterest in being disassociated with Nazis and Klan members, that's for sure.
Trayvon Martin fought George Zimmerman because George Zimmerman tried to attack him.
If George Zimmerman wasn't a fat, wannabe cop perhaps he could've taken Trayvon in a fist fight and the young man would have lived to adulthood.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Please try to refrain from loading up on a diatribe, deflection and rationalization.
I have a very simple question:
Do you support the violence of the anti-supremacists?
Now, keep in mind they showed up from as far away as Berkeley and NYC armed with weapons and tactical gear, so hundreds of them came intent on fighting.
I'm more of a pacifist Libertarian, so I don't support intentional violence of any sort.
So, do you?
Nope.
I'm not cool with people showing up at a protest that they know they'll be offended by and becoming violent without something else at play (like self defense or the like).
Nope. Not okay. Counter protests are fine, but stay away from the opposition and make your point.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Depends whether you consider running people over in a car 'reprehensible' or as the guy says at the end of the video "more than justified",
and "a lot more people are going to die before we are done here".
and "we will ****ing kill these people if we have to".
I'll be interested to hear your conclusions.
You realize of course that the conversation was about the interaction between the individuals the reporters were interviewing, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
