White Nationalists rally - State of Emergency in Virginia

[peace_]

Good, you are aware that the rally was legal even though the attendees were racist. Have you found any Nazis here in our forum yet or in support of racism? I have not.

What is your point? I don't think it's ok to get together with a bunch of people and wear swastikas and yell racist things and carry weapons. Whether or not the protest was "suppose" to be about the statue... if I was protesting about the statue and I looked to my right and left and saw these racist nazis, I would know right there that I don't want to be supporting this kind of protest. It doesn't take a genius to know that this wasn't about the statue.

 

[Imalive]

This thread isn't about justifying the White Nationalists. No one is trying to say that their racism is appropriate, but they do have legal rights to do so within the United States to have freedom of speech. You don't live in this country so you may not know about our freedom we have.

That is weird. Neonazi's coming together is forbidden here. Freedom of speech? May the Isis members go to the street to then to say what they want? They're very fond of our freedom of speech but if it's racist they have to shut up.

 

[peace_]

And fine... you can proclaim freedom of speech. But that doesn't mean you have freedom of consequence from that speech.
In this country a women gets raped and they say... well why we're you wearing that? Why we're you alone? If a black person shoots a racist that was yelling hateful rhetoric at them I say to you.... what the hell do you expect?! It's idiotic. You cant go around saying and doing whatever you want and think you won't face consequences.
You can't bring a knife to the gunfight and not expect a war.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Good, you are aware that the rally was legal even though the attendees were racist. Have you found any Nazis here in our forum yet or in support of racism? I have not.

Are you trying to be insulting?

 

[peace_]

They do have freedom of speech. They did it didn't they? They weren't arrested were they?

 

[tango]

Where did peace_ say anything about hating anyone. You're sounding a lot like your frightening President, trying to turn the blame on those who did no wrong instead of those who were spreading hate.

... and the rhetoric where everything other than gushing approval is some form of hatred continues.

It's not such a big leap of imagination to see that at, aside from the rabid foam-at-the-mouth wingnuts on the fringe, there are plenty of white people who feel aggrieved at being constantly told they have some mystical "privilege" that renders their opinions worthless, even if they live in trailer parks and have little hope of ever bettering themselves. And when those people see all sorts of "affirmative action" programs that do little more than discriminate against them while banging the drum of non-discrimination, it's not a huge leap of imagination to see they might start to get upset about it.

There's no point denying there are some truly frightening people on the extreme fringes of both sides of the political spectrum, and many of their tactics can only be condemned. But if we want to live in a country that honors free speech we must allow them to express their opinions with the only restrictions being that they must do so peacefully and not call for violence against others. If you truly want to shut people down and deny them free speech because you consider their opinions to be abhorrent (however justified you may be in such consideration) you must immediately consider the issue of who gets to decide which groups are allowed to express their views.

Sadly these days speaking out against "affirmative action" suddenly turns into accusations of racism, being proud to be white is somehow racist (although being proud to be black is perfectly OK), and so on. And all the while the divide-and-conquer merchants on both sides set one group against another based on a difference that, to the vast majority of people across most of the political spectrum, means nothing.

 

[tango]

And fine... you can proclaim freedom of speech. But that doesn't mean you have freedom of consequence from that speech.
In this country a women gets raped and they say... well why we're you wearing that? Why we're you alone? If a black person shoots a racist that was yelling hateful rhetoric at them I say to you.... what the hell do you expect?! It's idiotic. You cant go around saying and doing whatever you want and think you won't face consequences.
You can't bring a knife to the gunfight and not expect a war.

The thing is if someone wants to shout hateful racial insults at a black person that doesn't in any way justify the black person shooting them. Escalating from words, however unpleasant, to physical violence is the responsibility of the person who escalated, not the person who spoke a few insults. Certainly, if you were to walk around an area like Harlem carrying a banner that said "I hate (racial slur)" you shouldn't be surprised if people take exception and you shouldn't be surprised if some people were to express their displeasure at your slogan in the form of violence.

The trouble is there are so many double standards. To question the decision of a young woman to walk alone through a dark alleyway wearing revealing clothing is slammed as victim-blaming, yet to question the decision of a person walking through Harlem with a racially offensive T-shirt is perfectly acceptable.

Personally I think it's for every person to use a bit of common sense and take some responsibility for their own safety, whether that means locking their home when they go out, not walking alone in remote areas, and generally not doing things that are almost guaranteed to make people around you angry unless there's a Very Good Reason to do it.

 

[Imalive]

... and the rhetoric where everything other than gushing approval is some form of hatred continues.

It's not such a big leap of imagination to see that at, aside from the rabid foam-at-the-mouth wingnuts on the fringe, there are plenty of white people who feel aggrieved at being constantly told they have some mystical "privilege" that renders their opinions worthless, even if they live in trailer parks and have little hope of ever bettering themselves. And when those people see all sorts of "affirmative action" programs that do little more than discriminate against them while banging the drum of non-discrimination, it's not a huge leap of imagination to see they might start to get upset about it.

There's no point denying there are some truly frightening people on the extreme fringes of both sides of the political spectrum, and many of their tactics can only be condemned. But if we want to live in a country that honors free speech we must allow them to express their opinions with the only restrictions being that they must do so peacefully and not call for violence against others. If you truly want to shut people down and deny them free speech because you consider their opinions to be abhorrent (however justified you may be in such consideration) you must immediately consider the issue of who gets to decide which groups are allowed to express their views.

Sadly these days speaking out against "affirmative action" suddenly turns into accusations of racism, being proud to be white is somehow racist (although being proud to be black is perfectly OK), and so on. And all the while the divide-and-conquer merchants on both sides set one group against another based on a difference that, to the vast majority of people across most of the political spectrum, means nothing.

Those people may complain and be racist. They do that here too. The immigrants get the nice houses boohoo. we have nothing. they should leave. Eigenes volk erst. But the KKK on the street? They should be in jail.

 

[Josiah]

Fundamental to any civil society is the freedom of speech. This freedom means NOTHING if it's limited to politically correct or popular speech or that which echos the press. It exists to protect UNPOPULAR speech.

The PROBLEM, in my view, was violent disrespect. And we saw that vividly by BOTH "sides" in this event. MOST didn't engage in any violence (true for both sides) but some did (on both sides). It's the violence that should be condemned, not free speech. And note, one side had a permit (it was the side the press didn't like), the other side was actually illegally present (a point the press dismisses).


I think Trump had a point about the statue. Yes, SOME are offended by a general whom the North wanted to serve as it's highest general but instead chose to defend his home state. I agree with him: While this is up to the locale, we have to wonder where this ends? Are these liberals offended by a state named for the owner of hundreds of slaves and a sharp defender of slavery, George Washington? Must we remove him from our currency, force the state to change it's name to Obama or Waters, eliminate his name from all schools and roads because his stance on slavery? What about Jefferson, another slave owner and defender of slavery, who insisted that states be allowed to permit slavery and put that into the Constitution? Shall we close the University of Virginia because he founded it? Shall we eliminate these two names from the list of presidents? It just seems..... well...... as Trump put it, where does this end? But I agree with Trump, this is a local issue and a local town certainly has the ability to do what they want with public art. And if Washington wants to change its name to "Obama" that's 100% up to Washington (not CNN).

And then there's the silliness of the press talking about the "old right". Hum..... it was the first REPUBLICAN president who freed the slaves (Lincoln), it was the "old right" that defended blacks and taht had the universal supporter of Blacks until 1964 (some CENTURY AFTER the Civil War) when many Republicans rejected the FEDERAL government passing a civil rights bill when they felt this was a state issue; it was a close vote and many democrats also voted against it. These reporters and liberals should have taken a course in American history at some point in their lives.

We SHOULD be rebuking violence and disrespect and incivility BY ANY guilty of such..... we SHOULD be defending freedom of speech against the view police of the press or government or majority.... instead, we have political correctness gone amock. And ANYTHING to twist and distort to try to make 'conservative' and "Republican" equal "evil" and "satanic" and certainly stupid and hateful and ignorant.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Fundamental to any civil society is the freedom of speech. This freedom means NOTHING if it's limited to politically correct or popular speech or that which echos the press. ...

Of course no laws prevent people from saying anything that they want to say in public - except for slander and things that incite riot. No laws stop people saying (or typing) negative stereotypes about races, religions, or any other hot topic that one is likely to talk about.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

What is your point? I don't think it's ok to get together with a bunch of people and wear swastikas and yell racist things and carry weapons. Whether or not the protest was "suppose" to be about the statue... if I was protesting about the statue and I looked to my right and left and saw these racist nazis, I would know right there that I don't want to be supporting this kind of protest. It doesn't take a genius to know that this wasn't about the statue.

You're probably correct about the purpose of them being there. But as much as it sucks, they had a constitutional right to stage a protest. Where this thing gets really twisted, though, is when opponents show up, everything goes off the rails, instigated (i'm positive) by these same folks who had a 'right' to be there. At this point, we need to make a distinction between rights and privileges. When things go sideways like they did, and some jack-donkey starts plowing through the crowd, guess what? You've no longer have the privilege (freedom) to do what you came to do, and don't be surprised when the cops and counter-protesters commence to do violence to you.

 

[Josiah]

You're probably correct about the purpose of them being there. But as much as it sucks, they had a constitutional right to stage a protest. Where this thing gets really twisted, though, is when opponents show up, everything goes off the rails, instigated (i'm positive) by these same folks who had a 'right' to be there. At this point, we need to make a distinction between rights and privileges. When things go sideways like they did, and some jack-donkey starts plowing through the crowd, guess what? You've no longer have the privilege (freedom) to do what you came to do, and don't be surprised when the cops and counter-protesters commence to do violence to you.

Good points!

And the press skips over this: One group had a permit to gather and was peaceful until the other side showed up, one without a permit, one there illegally....

IMO, what needs to be condemned is VIOLENCE in attempts to deny the freedom of speech..... not being politically incorrect and speech we disagree with. And truth is: a small minority on BOTH sides were violent and disrespectful, both the group legally there and the group illegally there.

The press and the liberals are working overtime TRYING to twist this to make Trump a neo-Nazi and "white supremist" because he is condemning violence. This reveals how desperate the press and "left" is and sad how so many are jumping on.



Pax Christi


Josiah

 

[Stravinsk]

Fellow CH'rs.

This is a false flag event. At the least - elements of it are. Without going to youtube and specifically looking - I just looked at some of the mainstream videos of the alleged car plowing into citizens - and since that time I've been working nearly non stop on a video highlighting numerous inconsistencies and impossibilities with this footage over the last 24 hours or so.

This is not real. At the least - parts of it have been fabricated. Now, my video is being converted atm to a suitable format for upload, and while that was happening - I did a quick search and found this - which highlights some photos I missed:

The video I made should be up tomorrow.

 

[Lamb]

The guy in the video is comparing photos that are a block away. In that time, people are moving about. He says there are no signs in one photo but there are in the other. Well, yeah. If people came around the corner with their signs from the other location at the rally they would then be in the shot once the car neared the stop sign...a block away.

I saw another video where a guy was saying the car wasn't driving fast enough to do damage. I can tell you from riding a bike and crashing into a parked car, that my traveling 11 mph did $3,000 worth of damage to that car.

Fellow CH'rs.

This is a false flag event. At the least - elements of it are. Without going to youtube and specifically looking - I just looked at some of the mainstream videos of the alleged car plowing into citizens - and since that time I've been working nearly non stop on a video highlighting numerous inconsistencies and impossibilities with this footage over the last 24 hours or so.

This is not real. At the least - parts of it have been fabricated. Now, my video is being converted atm to a suitable format for upload, and while that was happening - I did a quick search and found this - which highlights some photos I missed:

The video I made should be up tomorrow.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Sorry Strav, but what a load...
In a linked video from the one you posted, a genius voice-over guy says "well, the car isn't going that fast".
Brilliant... #facepalm

 

[Stravinsk]

The guy in the video is comparing photos that are a block away.

Not even that. A tiny city block, maybe half of one.

In that time, people are moving about. He says there are no signs in one photo but there are in the other. Well, yeah. If people came around the corner with their signs from the other location at the rally they would then be in the shot once the car neared the stop sign...a block away.

Lamm, I know you love your T.V. and your mainstream news but when you argue for them it makes you look like you are under their spell your excuses are so bad. Of course - anyone who watches corporate news and television is under their spell. It's called the "boob tube" and the "idiot box" FOR REASONS. IT CRIPPLES PEOPLE'S CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS.

To wit:

In order for the car to do the damage it is supposed to have done it would have to have been driving at a considerable speed. Considerable speed over the course of even 2 or 3 city blocks (let alone 1 or half of one) would not give a whole bunch of people TIME to rally in front of the speeding vehicle (mind you - push through the crowd even to get to the center of it with their signs!!!)

And if we are really thinking about things instead playing make believe - who in their right mind is going to see a speeding car and then purposely run out in front of it?

I saw another video where a guy was saying the car wasn't driving fast enough to do damage. I can tell you from riding a bike and crashing into a parked car, that my traveling 11 mph did $3,000 worth of damage to that car.

And you think this comparison is valid? Honestly? Your bike and a bill (which might have been $1000 or $5000 given different mechanics) for car damage equals the clarity of thinking that allows a slow moving vehicle to plow through a bunch of people AND rear end a car THAT ALSO pushes a mid size van from a parked position into the middle of an intersection? Do you think your bike could do that at even 50 mph?


I have not even uploaded a video yet and the resistance for corporate news and t.v. huggers is already at the ready. Perhaps I shouldn't bother.

 

[Stravinsk]

Sorry Strav, but what a load...
In a linked video from the one you posted, a genius voice-over guy says "well, the car isn't going that fast".
Brilliant... #facepalm

You quote a LINKED video that I didn't link to to make a point? Now that is a load.

 

[Josiah]

In listening to the OBSESSION of the press over this (there is not even one other story anywhere in the world....) it is good and right to illegally gather and to VIOLENTLY "protest" any who are/were "racist" or discriminatory or exclusionary. Okay....

Then we need to violently protest that northwest State with the name of Washington (a racist, a slave owner, a defender of slavery) and we need to condemn the US Government for calling the US capitol city "Washington" (ditto), and every city, county, road, school or anything else named for him. Same for Jefferson (who not only owned slaves but insisted that states be allowed to approve of such and pushed that into the Constitution). We need to condemn every president before Lincoln (several of them Democrats!) because not a one of them pushed to eliminate slavery, segregation and discrimination in this country - until Lincoln whom history says was a Republican but that's not possible since he wasn't a racist, hate-filled bigot. And FDR, who supported segregation and refused to desegregate the military - we must violently protest any school or road named for him. (Oh, take that back, he is a SAINT in the Democrat party and thus is incapable of being an ignorant, hateful racist). And Eisenhower (a Republican, it was finally learned) because he too refused to desegregate the military during WW 2 even though nearly all African Americans voted for him and the civil rights leaders (who were all Republicans back then) all endorsed him - because he finally said he was a Republican and therefore was a bigoted, hate-filled racist. All statues, roads, schools named for him must be destroyed. People who are liberals and who are illegally and violently protesting those people and insisting we remove all mention of them are therefore obviously smart, loving, passionate, tolerant people and are to be honored. While we're at it, let's eliminate half of the stripes on our flag since half of the original 13 states were slave states and we must not honor them on our flag. Rip down those flags, burn those flags, spray tear gas on any trying to stop you from doing that because this shows you are a liberal, tolerant, smart person who doesn't want anything to offend anyone.




.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, it seems Trump DID say that civil violence is bad - REGARDLESS of who is doing it. Frankly, I think that's a pretty moral, civil, good thing to say. A FEW on both sides (the one legally there, the other illegally there) were violent, too much even for the police who fled. Trump seems to think that violence is bad. The press and the libs seem to think only the violence of one side is bad and so his universal condemnation makes Trump a stupid, hateful, ignorant racist pig.

Yes, it seems Trump said there were "good people" on both sides. He didn't say ALL the people on either side were good but that SOME on each side were good. After all, most on both sides (both the side that had the permit and the side that did not) did not bring weapons and did not engage in violence. The press and the libs tell us this makes Trump a stupid, hate-filled, ignorant, racist pig who clearly is anti-African American, anti-Jewish and a Neo-Nazi White Supremist.

IMO, the liberal press is just showing their hand (and desperation)..... what is sad is that it seems a LOT of Americans are swallowing it hook, line and sinker.



- Josiah

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

And you think this comparison is valid? Honestly? Your bike and a bill (which might have been $1000 or $5000 given different mechanics) for car damage equals the clarity of thinking that allows a slow moving vehicle to plow through a bunch of people AND rear end a car THAT ALSO pushes a mid size van from a parked position into the middle of an intersection? Do you think your bike could do that at even 50 mph?

Exactly how fast was the car going, if you know.