Charlottesville

[GG]

The first amendment was related to how you could not speak out about the ruling party at the time, period. I agree with you on that. Speak easies and negative remarks about the crown were illegal. People have taken the first amendment to mean you can say anything at any time. That is false. You can and will be arrested for using hateful language that incites violence.

Is that why the ACLU worked with the neo Nazis to get the permit for their protest?

[sherpa]

This freedom of speech thing is an oft discussed red herring.he fact is that people came to our town

1. With weapons.

2. With obviously hateful posters. I saw them as they "paraded" with this crap to the "protest area."

2. Looking to cause trouble.

3. Used hate speech in an effort to incite.

4. Senselessly lit up goofy torches and intentionally marched through the University of Virginia campus on Friday night for no other reason than to incite.

They got what their actions clearly invited and now three people are gone and a number are injured.

Forgive me if I shed no tears over their free speech complaints.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

No it does not. Hate speech does not allow peaceable assembly. It provokes violence as we have just seen. Hate speech invites violence.

 

Hate is not peace.

By your measure every antifa marcher should be arrested

[TakeYouToTasker]

The first amendment was related to how you could not speak out about the ruling party at the time, period. I agree with you on that. Speak easies and negative remarks about the crown were illegal. People have taken the first amendment to mean you can say anything at any time. That is false. You can and will be arrested for using hateful language that incites violence.

The fact that the government is violating people's rights does not somehow magic into existence the authorization of a just authority to prosecute thought crimes.

 

Because that's what you're advocating for. A activist government prosecuting people for thinking the "wrong" way.

 

There is not, nor has there ever been, a Constitutional justification for that.

 

Further, it's morally bankrupt and dangerous.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Go yell hateful speech that provokes people into violence and you will get arrested. Plain and simple. You are the king of pathetic bigots so I don't even care what you think.

 

The driver has nazi and white supremacist posts on his social media. Insecure white people and their ass-backward thinking led to three deaths yesterday.

He also voted for Obama and protested as a 99% er

[gatorbait]

maybe I'm just ignorant but explain to me the difference between neo-nazis, BLM, KKK, antifa or other hate groups

Do you really think the only people there protesting the march were from BLM and anti-fascist groups? If you truly believe that then you really are ignorant. Tons of independent people protest for what they feel is right.

 

BLM wants equality and to be treated fairly by the police. The nazis and kkk want to be the master race with the downfall of other ethnicities as the result. I'm pretty sure no one on this website approves of the violence on either side.

He also voted for Obama and protested as a 99% er

So that makes it okay right? You are a tool. Stop spewing your hate on the internet and go hang out with your daughter.

[bilzfancy]

Do you really think the only people there protesting the march were from BLM and anti-fascist groups? If you truly believe that then you really are ignorant. Tons of independent people protest for what they feel is right.

BLM wants equality and to be treated fairly by the police. The nazis and kkk want to be the master race with the downfall of other ethnicities as the result. I'm pretty sure no one on this website approves of the violence on either side.

BLM also advocates assassination of police officers, antifa advocates assassination of the president and other political figures

[gatorbait]

The fact that the government is violating people's rights does not somehow magic into existence the authorization of a just authority to prosecute thought crimes.

 

Because that's what you're advocating for. A activist government prosecuting people for thinking the "wrong" way.

 

There is not, nor has there ever been, a Constitutional justification for that.

 

Further, it's morally bankrupt and dangerous.

I agree. However there is a misunderstanding about the First Amendment. You do not have the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want. If you say the word bomb on an airplane, threaten to harm the president or use hateful speech that insights violence you will be arrested. There are many other examples about how you cannot say anything you want in this country.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Do you really think the only people there protesting the march were from BLM and anti-fascist groups? If you truly believe that then you really are ignorant. Tons of independent people protest for what they feel is right.

 

BLM wants equality and to be treated fairly by the police. The nazis and kkk want to be the master race with the downfall of other ethnicities as the result. I'm pretty sure no one on this website approves of the violence on either side.

So that makes it okay right? You are a tool. Stop spewing your hate on the internet and go hang out with your daughter.

Point is you twat the far left is as dangerous as the far right. Get a grip

[gatorbait]

BLM also advocates assassination of police officers, antifa advocates assassination of the president and other political figures

Some of their members might. They are dead wrong and should be locked up for radical views like that. I'm not advocating for any extremist group in this country, we are already way too polarized as it is. I'm all for peaceful protesting though, it's our right.

[bilzfancy]

Some of their members might. They are dead wrong and should be locked up for radical views like that. I'm not advocating for any extremist group in this country, we are already way too polarized as it is. I'm all for peaceful protesting though, it's our right.

I agree, peaceful protest is our right, I did enough of that in the 60's and 70's, problem is there seldom are peaceful protest anymore

[TakeYouToTasker]

Some of their members might. They are dead wrong and should be locked up for radical views like that. I'm not advocating for any extremist group in this country, we are already way too polarized as it is. I'm all for peaceful protesting though, it's our right.

People "should be locked up for [having] radical views".

 

You've lost. Stop digging.

[gatorbait]

People "should be locked up for [having] radical views".

 

You've lost. Stop digging.

Haha okay. I proved you wrong about the First Amendment. I informed the board of the truth that the driver has racist posts on social media and wasn't acting in self-defense. The only digging I'm doing is a grave for ignorant partisan hacks.

 

The most violent and radical people on both sides should be locked up, that's my opinion.

Edited August 13, 2017 by gatorbait

[TakeYouToTasker]

Haha okay. I proved you wrong about the First Amendment. I informed the board of the truth that the driver has racist posts on social media and wasn't acting in self-defense. The only digging I'm doing is a grave for ignorant partisan hacks.

Wait.. you think you're winning?

 

You are dead wrong on the First Amendment. All you had to do is show me the provision in the Constitution which empowers the government to prosecute thought crimes, and the authorization to restrict speech. That should have been easy to do if such things existed. The Constitution was written in plain language.

 

What you demonstrated... all you've demonstrated... was either a lack of understanding about what freedom is, or an open contempt for freedom with a preference for telling individuals how they must think at the barrel of a gun.

 

The first is forgivable, but the second? The second is far more dangerous, by magnitudes, than a few hundred racists saying racist things.

[gatorbait]

Wait.. you think you're winning?

 

You are dead wrong on the First Amendment. All you had to do is show me the provision in the Constitution which empowers the government to prosecute thought crimes, and the authorization to restrict speech. That should have been easy to do if such things existed. The Constitution was written in plain language.

 

What you demonstrated... all you've demonstrated... was either a lack of understanding about what freedom is, or an open contempt for freedom with a preference for telling individuals how they must think at the barrel of a gun.

 

The first is forgivable, but the second? The second is far more dangerous, by magnitudes, than a few hundred racists saying racist things.

This is a free country but we are not free to do whatever we want. We have free speech but we cannot say whatever we want, whenever we want. Making threats, using slander, libel, inciting violence and yes, using hate speech is not tolerated in this country and can lead to an arrest and prosecution. Debate that all you want with your fancy lawyer talk but that is how it is.

[grinreaper]

Did you hear David Duke?

 

It's time to take our country back and make America great again!

 

Donald Trumps promise and that's why we voted for him.

 

That doesn't mean you should say it.

 

You have that right and so do the people you are telling it too.

See David Duke comments

 

 

You did ask.

Just because Duke supports Trump doesn't mean that Trump supports Duke. You've been shown that here, on more than one occasion, yet you still cling to that false premise. You are ignorant and dishonest. Oh, and a partisan hack too.

[Tiberius]

President Donald Trump's national security adviser, Gen. H.R. McMaster, called the deadly attack on protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia an act of terrorism. “Certainly I think we can confidently call it a form of terrorism,” he said on NBC’s Meet The Press. “What terrorism is, is the use of violence to incite terror and fear, and of course it was terrorism.” Trump was vague about the attack, choosing to blame “many sides” for violence. McMaster refused three times to answer whether or not he could work with Steve Bannon, the president's chief strategist and self-proclaimed godfather of the alt-right.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/hr-mcmaster-calls-charlottesville-attack-terrorism

Just because Duke supports Trump doesn't mean that Trump supports Duke. You've been shown that here, on more than one occasion, yet you still cling to that false premise. You are ignorant and dishonest. Oh, and a partisan hack too.

 

Trump still wants and needs these people's vote and all those people out there that generally believe the message of these hate groups

[PastaJoe]

Just because Duke supports Trump doesn't mean that Trump supports Duke. You've been shown that here, on more than one occasion, yet you still cling to that false premise. You are ignorant and dishonest. Oh, and a partisan hack too.

It took Trump days to renounce Duke's support during the campaign. Now Trump has yet to specifically denounce the white supremacist KKK and Nazis by name. Will Trump say the words "radical domestic terrorism"? It would be naive to think that Trump is willing to upset this section of his dwindling base. He empowered them to speak out, from his Birther movement through his campaign rhetoric about non-whites.

 

It's been over a week and he still hasn't spoken out against the bombing of a mosque in Minnesota. You can bet he would have spoken out if a Muslim attacked a Christian church.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

It took Trump days to renounce Duke's support during the campaign. Now Trump has yet to specifically denounce the white supremacist KKK and Nazis by name. Will Trump say the words "radical domestic terrorism"? It would be naive to think that Trump is willing to upset this section of his dwindling base. He empowered them to speak out, from his Birther movement through his campaign rhetoric about non-whites.

 

It's been over a week and he still hasn't spoken out against the bombing of a mosque in Minnesota. You can bet he would have spoken out if a Muslim attacked a Christian church.

You're a !@#$ing idiot.

[bilzfancy]

It took Trump days to renounce Duke's support during the campaign. Now Trump has yet to specifically denounce the white supremacist KKK and Nazis by name. Will Trump say the words "radical domestic terrorism"? It would be naive to think that Trump is willing to upset this section of his dwindling base. He empowered them to speak out, from his Birther movement through his campaign rhetoric about non-whites.

It's been over a week and he still hasn't spoken out against the bombing of a mosque in Minnesota. You can bet he would have spoken out if a Muslim attacked a Christian church.

kinda like Obama never used the words Islamic Terrorism, or having hate groups like BLM at the oval office many times