Charlottesville too much freedom

[Show Me the Wire]

Thask asked if there is too much freedom. Yes, there is too much freedom when people ignore the obligation to exercise any Constitutional right responsibly.

The basic facts. People have the right to assemble to express their opinions. Only one of the two groups, that clashed, had the legally protected right to be present that day and at that place. The group who followed procedures to obtain the permit to hold a rally.

Another organized group, without a permit, assembled possessing items which could be used as weapons and defensive paraphernalia, with the purpose to oppose the legally permitted rally. A group, without a permit, assembling with weapons, defensive devices and dressed for some sort of physical violence is a mob. A mob intending to do violence against others is not a responsible exercising of Constitutional rights. Yet this mob formed to perform physical violence is being treated as the victims and morally superior.

Complete b.s. They are a mob. A mob bent on committing unnecessary violence. Any time a mob is allowed to commit unnecessary violence, that is too much freedom.

The mayor and the local police department are at fault, for the violence. The police, did not do their job. As soon as the law enforcement superiors observed the mob, the non-permitted mob, with weapons, defensive devices and the type of dressing, law enforcement should have dispersed the mob.

Law enforcement's excuse was they were outgunned. Out gunned by a mob wanting to engage in violence against demonstrators granted a permit to hold the rally. If that is true, the mayor and police officials are inept and should be called out as such.

I purposely stripped out the ideologies of the two groups, so the objective facts can demonstrate the differences between too much freedom and responsible use of freedom.

We cannot legitimize violence or protect mob violence as a legitimate exercise of the Constitutional right to disagree with another's opinions, by claiming the moral high ground satisfies the requirement to exercise a right responsibly. Allowing such is too much freedom.

[lamboguy]

if you really want to know the real culprit, its society in general, all of society. instead of working things out together we oppose with 2 different diabolical sides, completely opposite one another.

i truly believe this is a result of to many drugs, legal and illegal along with alcohol entering the blood streams of individuals. it brings about irrational behavior.

[Show Me the Wire]

if you really want to know the real culprit, its society in general, all of society. instead of working things out together we oppose with 2 different diabolical sides, completely opposite one another.

i truly believe this is a result of to many drugs, legal and illegal along with alcohol entering the blood streams of individuals. it brings about irrational behavior.

True. The reality is relativism is the problem. Your truth is yours and my truth is mine. If we both have our own truth there is no truth between us. Therefore, there is no objective standard in exercising our rights.

If my truth is I am morally superior and the morally superior truth should be imposed on others, it is justifiable for me to use physical force or violence to implement my beliefs.

As long as our society buys into relativism we cannot discuss or work out things between us, because by definition there is no truth between us.

[Clocker]

They are a mob. A mob bent on committing unnecessary violence. Any time a mob is allowed to commit unnecessary violence, that is too much freedom.



Your definition of freedom is breaking the law and getting away with it? :eek: :faint:

[Show Me the Wire]

Your definition of freedom is breaking the law and getting away with it? :eek: :faint:


Too much freedom equals anarchy. The point is freedom does not allow anyone to break the law. The group who broke the law and are being let off the hook by the liberals and the news media have too much freedom. Freedom from the laws because of a perceived moral high ground. Got it?

[woodtoo]

I got it and you laid it out in plain English.:ThmbUp:

[Show Me the Wire]

I got it and you laid it out in plain English.:ThmbUp:


Thank you

[davew]

the antif(irst)a(mendment) should be added to the domestic terrorist list

[ReplayRandall]

Thask asked if there is too much freedom. Yes, there is too much freedom when people ignore the obligation to exercise any Constitutional right responsibly.


SMTW, Your post is admirable but it's all about "timing". You waited too long to start a response thread to Thask's question posed in the thread that was shut down.....The momentum his question started is long gone, as well as Gus himself.

[Inner Dirt]

My take is if the counter protestors ignore the KKK and the like their voice and numbers will diminish. They crave attention and use it as a recruiting tool. If the counter protestors just let them make fools of themselves and there is no one there except the Klan and police you will get 5% of the news coverage that melee in Charlottesville got. Without their dumb asses in bed sheets parading all over the TV and internet most people will forget they exist, and consider them a thing of the past.

[Clocker]

Too much freedom equals anarchy.

Oops, it looks like I should have consulted my copy of the 1984 dictionary.

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984

[Show Me the Wire]

Oops, it looks like I should have consulted my copy of the 1984 dictionary.

You only needed to consult a current dictionary.

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/Submit
noun
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
"conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
[emphasis added]

[Show Me the Wire]

SMTW, Your post is admirable but it's all about "timing". You waited too long to start a response thread to Thask's question posed in the thread that was shut down.....The momentum his question started is long gone, as well as Gus himself.

Gus is gone? Taking another leave?

[ReplayRandall]

Gus is gone? Taking another leave?

Might be permanent this time, we'll see.....Vegas is more appealing to the full use of his time, now that he's returned. Let's see how long it takes him to start missing PA Nation.....Over/Under- 30 days?

[PaceAdvantage]

Might be permanent this time, we'll see.....Vegas is more appealing to the full use of his time, now that he's returned. Let's see how long it takes him to start missing PA Nation.....Over/Under- 30 days?Thask was completely mistaken about his interpretation of that thread being closed. I explained it to him, but he either didn't read it or didn't want to hear it.

I've done my part. So be it.

[ReplayRandall]

Thask was completely mistaken about his interpretation of that thread being closed. I explained it to him, but he either didn't read it or didn't want to hear it.

I've done my part. So be it.

He's got a built-in excuse.....he can't help it, he's Greek..:p

[Show Me the Wire]

He's got a built-in excuse.....he can't help it, he's Greek..:p

Good thing I waited. Gus was stating that the Constitution gives too much freedom to people with obnoxious views. He would be upset with me for disagreeing with him and then we would have to go mano on mano in a handicapping contest.:cool:

[ReplayRandall]

Good thing I waited. Gus was stating that the Constitution gives too much freedom to people with obnoxious views. He would be upset with me for disagreeing with him and then we would have to go mano on mano in a handicapping contest.:cool:


LOL.....at the paddock in Dallas?....:pound::faint::pound:

[mostpost]

Thask asked if there is too much freedom. Yes, there is too much freedom when people ignore the obligation to exercise any Constitutional right responsibly.

The basic facts. People have the right to assemble to express their opinions. Only one of the two groups, that clashed, had the legally protected right to be present that day and at that place. The group who followed procedures to obtain the permit to hold a rally.

Another organized group, without a permit, assembled possessing items which could be used as weapons and defensive paraphernalia, with the purpose to oppose the legally permitted rally. A group, without a permit, assembling with weapons, defensive devices and dressed for some sort of physical violence is a mob. A mob intending to do violence against others is not a responsible exercising of Constitutional rights. Yet this mob formed to perform physical violence is being treated as the victims and morally superior.

Complete b.s. They are a mob. A mob bent on committing unnecessary violence. Any time a mob is allowed to commit unnecessary violence, that is too much freedom.

The mayor and the local police department are at fault, for the violence. The police, did not do their job. As soon as the law enforcement superiors observed the mob, the non-permitted mob, with weapons, defensive devices and the type of dressing, law enforcement should have dispersed the mob.

Law enforcement's excuse was they were outgunned. Out gunned by a mob wanting to engage in violence against demonstrators granted a permit to hold the rally. If that is true, the mayor and police officials are inept and should be called out as such.

I purposely stripped out the ideologies of the two groups, so the objective facts can demonstrate the differences between too much freedom and responsible use of freedom.

We cannot legitimize violence or protect mob violence as a legitimate exercise of the Constitutional right to disagree with another's opinions, by claiming the moral high ground satisfies the requirement to exercise a right responsibly. Allowing such is too much freedom.
Your facts are inaccurate. Both sides had permits. The city of Charlottsville wanted to revoke the Unite the right permit unless they took their demonstration away from Emancipation park to McIntire Park.
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/city-says-permit-will-only-be-ok-d-if-rally/article_29f8e566-7baa-11e7-906d-63c9ea503128.html

Rally organizers, including Jason Kessler went to court. Represented by that commie organization the ACLU, they won their case and the permit was issued.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/12/16138326/aclu-charlottesville-protests-racism

Counter protestors also had permits. From the Daily Progress Article:
According to permits acquired from the city by University of Virginia professor Walt Heinecke, counter-protesters are expected to gather at the park and at nearby McGuffey Park and Justice Park, recently renamed from Jackson Park.

And from vox.com:
“Kessler’s assertion in this regard is supported by the fact that the city solely revoked his permit but left in place the permits issued to counter-protestors,” Conrad added. The ruling allowed the protests to continue.

Conrad is Judge Glen Conrad who ruled in Kessler's favor.

As far as who attacked who; on August 11 there was a march (unsanctioned) by members of the Alt-Right onto the University of Virginia campus.Waiting for the white nationalist protestors at the Jefferson Statue was a small contingent of counter-protesters, who circled and linked arms with their backs toward the statue. The “alt-right” marchers surrounded the counter-protesters and continued chanting until a fight broke out.
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2017/08/torch-wielding-white-nationalists-
A large group surrounds and intimidates a smaller group. Who do you blame for any violence that ensues. Perhaps this further paragraph from the same article gives the answer.

Police declared the march an unlawful assembly and separated the two groups, but not before several were injured and reported being pepper-sprayed — it’s unclear where the alleged pepper spray came from. Marchers also began swinging and throwing their lit tiki torches, adding to the chaos of the event.

Marchers-not counter protestors. Throwing Tiki torches which is what the Alt right fascists were carrying.

August 12 was the main event.

From Wikipedia:
Paragraph one:
Protesters and counterprotesters gathered at Emancipation Park in anticipation of the rally. White nationalist protesters chanted Nazi-era slogans,[2] including "Blood and Soil".[71] They shouted "You will not replace us" and "Jews will not replace us."[2] Some waved Confederate flags, and others held posters targeting Jews that read "the Goyim know", using the Yiddish word for non-Jews, as well as "the Jewish media is going down".[3] Protesters also shouted racial slurs and "Jew" when Charlottesville mayor Michael Signer was mentioned, and they waved Nazi flags and signs claiming, among other things, that "Jews are Satan's children".[72] Dozens wore Donald Trump's red "Make America Great Again" campaign hats.[3]

Paragraph Two:
Counterprotests in opposition to the white nationalists began with an interfaith, interracial group of clergy who linked arms, prayed, and sang songs of peace. Later in the day, militant groups chanted such slogans as "Kill All Nazis

What is the difference between paragraph one and paragraph two? In one, the white nationalist are venting their hatred against people for something those people have no control over, they hate them because of who they are, not what they have done. In the second instance, the counter protestors are reacting to what the Alt right is doing. Being a Nazi is a choice. Another difference is that only a small portion of the counter protestors espoused violence. All of the white nationalists do.
ETA: I almost forgot. To end the day there was James Fields who ran his car into a group of peaceful counter protestors. Mr. Fields is a big fan of Adolph Hitler.

[_______]

There is no First Amendment protection for threatening imminent violence so I'm not sure how we have too much freedom.

If I say, "Let's get some bats and beat the crap out of those people we disagree with" it's incitement to riot and a crime. There is no protected speech there.

If I say "I'm going to kill you" it's a criminal threat and again not protected speech.

I can say "I think (fill in the blank) are subhuman and will work for their eventual extermination" because there is no imminent threat of violence in that statement regardless of how vile and repugnant most of us find it.

The First Amendment has NEVER protected mob violence so the premise of this entire thread is flawed.

[Show Me the Wire]

Your facts are inaccurate. Both sides had permits. The city of Charlottsville wanted to revoke the Unite the right permit unless they took their demonstration away from Emancipation park to McIntire Park.
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/city-says-permit-will-only-be-ok-d-if-rally/article_29f8e566-7baa-11e7-906d-63c9ea503128.html

Rally organizers, including Jason Kessler went to court. Represented by that commie organization the ACLU, they won their case and the permit was issued.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/12/16138326/aclu-charlottesville-protests-racism

Counter protesters also had permits. From the Daily Progress Article:
According to permits acquired from the city by University of Virginia professor Walt Heinecke, counter-protesters are expected to gather at the park and at nearby McGuffey Park and Justice Park, recently renamed from Jackson Park.

And from vox.com:
“Kessler’s assertion in this regard is supported by the fact that the city solely revoked his permit but left in place the permits issued to counter-protesters,” Conrad added. The ruling allowed the protests to continue.

Conrad is Judge Glen Conrad who ruled in Kessler's favor.

As far as who attacked who; on August 11 there was a march (unsanctioned) by members of the Alt-Right onto the University of Virginia campus.Waiting for the white nationalist protestors at the Jefferson Statue was a small contingent of counter-protesters, who circled and linked arms with their backs toward the statue. The “alt-right” marchers surrounded the counter-protesters and continued chanting until a fight broke out.
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2017/08/torch-wielding-white-nationalists-
A large group surrounds and intimidates a smaller group. Who do you blame for any violence that ensues. Perhaps this further paragraph from the same article gives the answer.

Police declared the march an unlawful assembly and separated the two groups, but not before several were injured and reported being pepper-sprayed — it’s unclear where the alleged pepper spray came from. Marchers also began swinging and throwing their lit tiki torches, adding to the chaos of the event.

Marchers-not counter protestors. Throwing Tiki torches which is what the Alt right fascists were carrying.

August 12 was the main event.

From Wikipedia:
Paragraph one:
Protesters and counterprotesters gathered at Emancipation Park in anticipation of the rally. White nationalist protesters chanted Nazi-era slogans,[2] including "Blood and Soil".[71] They shouted "You will not replace us" and "Jews will not replace us."[2] Some waved Confederate flags, and others held posters targeting Jews that read "the Goyim know", using the Yiddish word for non-Jews, as well as "the Jewish media is going down".[3] Protesters also shouted racial slurs and "Jew" when Charlottesville mayor Michael Signer was mentioned, and they waved Nazi flags and signs claiming, among other things, that "Jews are Satan's children".[72] Dozens wore Donald Trump's red "Make America Great Again" campaign hats.[3]

Paragraph Two:
Counterprotests in opposition to the white nationalists began with an interfaith, interracial group of clergy who linked arms, prayed, and sang songs of peace. Later in the day, militant groups chanted such slogans as "Kill All Nazis

What is the difference between paragraph one and paragraph two? In one, the white nationalist are venting their hatred against people for something those people have no control over, they hate them because of who they are, not what they have done. In the second instance, the counter protestors are reacting to what the Alt right is doing. Being a Nazi is a choice. Another difference is that only a small portion of the counter protestors espoused violence. All of the white nationalists do.
ETA: I almost forgot. To end the day there was James Fields who ran his car into a group of peaceful counter protestors. Mr. Fields is a big fan of Adolph Hitler.

Hey mostie did the counter protester's have permits for weapons too? If what you say is true about the city issuing a permit to the counter protesters, the city officials are bigger idiots than I originally thought.

Once the Court re-instated the original permit, the city should have cancelled the counter-protesters' permit to avoid the possibility of violence.

[classhandicapper]

Mosty,

Please don't defend the Antifa/BLM movements. If you are truly a liberal, you are above vile and disgusting media companies like the WPO, NY Times etc.. that are doing that.

Members of these movements have or have influenced people that have rioted, looted, suppressed reasonable speech at universities, killed innocent police officers, beaten innocent bystanders, destroyed public and private property, shot at congressmen etc...

This is not and should not be a battle of whose scumbags are worse.

The other day Obama said. "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion..."

He unwittingly implied something with that quote. If we aren't born bigoted, that means we become bigoted because of our life experience. So maybe we need to address some of the grievances (real or imagined) on each side to defuse the hate. That means the first order of business is to discredit the mainstream media that is doing so much to incite it.

[jms62]

Mosty,

Please don't defend the Antifa/BLM movements. If you are truly a liberal, you are above vile and disgusting media companies like the WPO, NY Times etc.. that are doing that.

Members of these movements have or have influenced people that have rioted, looted, suppressed reasonable speech at universities, killed innocent police officers, beaten innocent bystanders, destroyed public and private property, shot at congressmen etc...

This is not and should not be a battle of whose scumbags are worse.

The other day Obama said. "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion..."

He unwittingly implied something with that quote. If we aren't born bigoted, that means we become bigoted because of our life experience. So maybe we need to address some of the grievances (real or imagined) on each side to defuse the hate. That means the first order of business is to discredit the mainstream media that is doing so much to incite it.

Big money Globalists own the media and they would rather we peons battle it out over stupid political parties that are both corrupt. Meanwhile they'll ship your job overseas or bring in endentured servants via H1B visas to do it here. They'll fan the flames so we don't turn on them. And the American public just too caught up in it to see it.

[Show Me the Wire]

There is no First Amendment protection for threatening imminent violence so I'm not sure how we have too much freedom.

If I say, "Let's get some bats and beat the crap out of those people we disagree with" it's incitement to riot and a crime. There is no protected speech there.

If I say "I'm going to kill you" it's a criminal threat and again not protected speech.

I can say "I think (fill in the blank) are subhuman and will work for their eventual extermination" because there is no imminent threat of violence in that statement regardless of how vile and repugnant most of us find it.

The First Amendment has NEVER protected mob violence so the premise of this entire thread is flawed.


The premise of the thread is the only way we have too much freedom is when there is anarchy. A mob of people arming themselves with weapons to confront another group is anarchy. The premise is solid.

[mostpost]

Hey mostie did the counter protester's have permits for weapons too? If what you say is true about the city issuing a permit to the counter protesters, the city officials are bigger idiots than I originally thought.

Once the Court re-instated the original permit, the city should have cancelled the counter-protesters' permit to avoid the possibility of violence.

Did the marchers have permits for their weapons? The stories I read say that attacks came from both sides.

Why don't the counter protesters have as much right to march as the fascists? This is not 1930's Germany.

[Show Me the Wire]

Did the marchers have permits for their weapons? The stories I read say that attacks came from both sides.

Why don't the counter protesters have as much right to march as the fascists? This is not 1930's Germany.

They both have rights to march, and neither side has the right to violence. The City has the responsibility to protect its citizens and other people from harm. The City officials blew it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tell me mostie, why do you believe the counter-protesters should not be held accountable for their violence? Do the counter-protesters have a right to use violence just because the other group holds offensive opinions?

[mostpost]

Mosty,

Please don't defend the Antifa/BLM movements. If you are truly a liberal, you are above vile and disgusting media companies like the WPO, NY Times etc.. that are doing that.
Antifa is anti fascist right? In that case I will definitely defend antifa. To do otherwise would mean I am pro fascist. That may be something you are comfortable with; I am not.

Members of these movements have or have influenced people that have rioted, looted, suppressed reasonable speech at universities, killed innocent police officers, beaten innocent bystanders, destroyed public and private property, shot at congressmen etc...
What a laundry list of nonsense. BLM has always denounced violence, whether committed in its name or otherwise.

This is not and should not be a battle of whose scumbags are worse.
There is no battle here. The Fascist scumbags are winners in a landslide.



The other day Obama said. "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion..."

He unwittingly implied something with that quote. If we aren't born bigoted, that means we become bigoted because of our life experience. So maybe we need to address some of the grievances (real or imagined) on each side to defuse the hate.
It isn't our life experiences, but how we perceive them. If we can't take responsibility for our shortcomings, we blame others. If I don't make it into the college of my choice, it's not because my grades weren't that good; It's because some black guy got in on affirmative action. If I didn't get that promotion at work, it's not because I took 142 sick days last year; it's because the feminazis run the company.

That means the first order of business is to discredit the mainstream media that is doing so much to incite it.
You mean you want to discredit the mainstream media so that no one listens to them as they continue to tell the truth.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
Did the marchers have permits for their weapons? The stories I read say that attacks came from both sides.

Yes, Eintstein, that is exactly what TRUMP said.
But the alt.american had conniption fits about it.

BOTH side were to blame.
BOTH side came to cause trouble.

[ReplayRandall]

You mean you want to discredit the mainstream media so that no one listens to them as they continue to tell the truth.

Mostpost, why do you LIE on such an epic scale? Do you ever espouse your views in an actual public venue? You like the internet, don't you? It's so easy to post push-button nonsense, just so you can get a rise out of someone, with no immediate consequences for such inflammatory and inciteful venom you spew forth.......I truly don't believe you're from this planet. PA Mike let's you post here because you represent the worst in lunatic liberalism, and yet you think you're not part of the problem?....Your way of thinking IS the problem, but by all means continue to make a fool of yourself on a daily basis.

Well done, Sport....

[classhandicapper]

You mean you want to discredit the mainstream media so that no one listens to them as they continue to tell the truth.

The modern mainstream media is largely made up of vile disgusting excrement that have made truth and honest intellectual debate secondary to personal politics, ratings, and money. No institution could possibly disgust me more because we are counting on them to inform us.

Just because you call yourself Antifa (anti fascist) does not mean you behave in a civilized manner or are any less of a scumbag. In this case it just means you are a different kind of scumbag.

[Inner Dirt]

Mostpost, why do you LIE on such an epic scale? Do you ever espouse your views in an actual public venue? You like the internet, don't you? It's so easy to post push-button nonsense, just so you can get a rise out of someone, with no immediate consequences for such inflammatory and inciteful venom you spew forth.......I truly don't believe you're from this planet. PA Mike let's you post here because you represent the worst in lunatic liberalism, and yet you think you're not part of the problem?....Your way of thinking IS the problem, but by all means continue to make a fool of yourself on a daily basis.

Well done, Sport....

:lol::lol::lol: That can't be a serious question. The guy insults people constantly many times out of nowhere to people who have not even directed comments at him. If he took his act out in public he would not last a day before someone beat his ass. Even if you are old and frail mouthing off to the wrong person can have things end badly for you. I am guessing he was bullied as a child and was too big of a coward to fight back, now decades later mouthing off hiding behind a keyboard empowers him. There has to be some psychological reason for his behavior. On the handful of internet forms I go to and one has 25,000 members, there is only one other person I know of who behaves like him.

[dkithore]

Thask asked if there is too much freedom. Yes, there is too much freedom when people ignore the obligation to exercise any Constitutional right responsibly.

The basic facts. People have the right to assemble to express their opinions. Only one of the two groups, that clashed, had the legally protected right to be present that day and at that place. The group who followed procedures to obtain the permit to hold a rally.

Another organized group, without a permit, assembled possessing items which could be used as weapons and defensive paraphernalia, with the purpose to oppose the legally permitted rally. A group, without a permit, assembling with weapons, defensive devices and dressed for some sort of physical violence is a mob. A mob intending to do violence against others is not a responsible exercising of Constitutional rights. Yet this mob formed to perform physical violence is being treated as the victims and morally superior.

Complete b.s. They are a mob. A mob bent on committing unnecessary violence. Any time a mob is allowed to commit unnecessary violence, that is too much freedom.

The mayor and the local police department are at fault, for the violence. The police, did not do their job. As soon as the law enforcement superiors observed the mob, the non-permitted mob, with weapons, defensive devices and the type of dressing, law enforcement should have dispersed the mob.

Law enforcement's excuse was they were outgunned. Out gunned by a mob wanting to engage in violence against demonstrators granted a permit to hold the rally. If that is true, the mayor and police officials are inept and should be called out as such.

I purposely stripped out the ideologies of the two groups, so the objective facts can demonstrate the differences between too much freedom and responsible use of freedom.

We cannot legitimize violence or protect mob violence as a legitimate exercise of the Constitutional right to disagree with another's opinions, by claiming the moral high ground satisfies the requirement to exercise a right responsibly. Allowing such is too much freedom.
:ThmbUp:

[delayjf]

The other day Obama said. "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion..."

Sounds great, but how would he know. He and the left believe you are born to be gay, trans, or whatever. How does he know there is no hate gene - just saying.

[Inner Dirt]

Sounds great, but how would he know. He and the left believe you are born to be gay, trans, or whatever. How does he know there is no hate gene - just saying.


I know I was born with an aversion to homosexual behavior. Even as a small child I didn't feel comfortable being touched by another male. Something like my uncle or dad hugging me I did not like, that was long before I even knew what a homosexual was. I had no problem with women showing physical affection toward me. The first time I remember seeing two guys in public who were an obvious gay couple holding hands I immediately looked away. Of course in the eyes of the left how I was born makes me a bad person. I have nothing against homosexuals, I just don't want to be in view of homosexual behavior.

[DSB]

Sounds great, but how would he know. He and the left believe you are born to be gay, trans, or whatever. How does he know there is no hate gene - just saying.
Members of the left are omniscient - especially those in positions of power - and the sooner we all learn that the better off we will be.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have nothing against homosexuals, I just don't want to be in view of homosexual behavior.Of course you have something against them. You basically wrote a whole paragraph on what you have against them.

Be the man you claim to be and at least own up to it...jeez...

I don't care what adults do among themselves one iota...

And I don't feel threatened by homosexuals one bit. I don't understand really, why any hetero male would feel threatened so much, by even the sight of a homosexual couple, that they feel the need to look away.

Why do you care so much? I don't.

[Inner Dirt]

Of course you have something against them. You basically wrote a whole paragraph on what you have against them.

Be the man you claim to be and at least own up to it...jeez...

I don't care what adults do among themselves one iota...

And I don't feel threatened by homosexuals one bit. I don't understand really, why any hetero male would feel threatened so much, by even the sight of a homosexual couple, that they feel the need to look away.

Why do you care so much? I don't.


I did own it, it seems every time I make a comment about how I am uncomfortable witnessing homosexual behavior you seem to have to comment and put me down. Why is that? Like I said I was born that way.

[PaceAdvantage]

I didn't put you down. I pointed out that you contradicted yourself mightily, whether you know it or not.

Don't say you don't have anything against homosexuals when you clearly do. It's laughable. I have a right to my opinion on anything posted here just as much as you do.

[JustRalph]

I've had gay friends, male and female. I've had them live at my home for short periods of time. I gotta admit when two guys kiss it makes me want to look away. I can't recall any of the gals doing that in front of me......

[PaceAdvantage]

I've had gay friends, male and female. I've had them live at my home for short periods of time. I gotta admit when two guys kiss it makes me want to look away. I can't recall any of the gals doing that in front of me......I'm not sure where you guys hang out, but I'm in NYC all the time, and I can't recall the last time I saw two guys making out...even heteros aren't making out in public all the time, don't see much of that either.

I'd probably be just as uncomfortable watching a guy and a girl go at it hot and heavy in public as I would be two guys...both sets need to get a room...:lol:

[HoofedInTheChest]

Sounds great, but how would he know. He and the left believe you are born to be gay, trans, or whatever. How does he know there is no hate gene - just saying.
Obama was quoting Nelson Mandela in that tweet, those aren’t his words.

[barahona44]

I've had gay friends, male and female. I've had them live at my home for short periods of time. I gotta admit when two guys kiss it makes me want to look away.I can't recall any of the gals doing that in front of me......

Into each life a little rain must fall.:D

[onefast99]

My take is if the counter protestors ignore the KKK and the like their voice and numbers will diminish. They crave attention and use it as a recruiting tool. If the counter protestors just let them make fools of themselves and there is no one there except the Klan and police you will get 5% of the news coverage that melee in Charlottesville got. Without their dumb asses in bed sheets parading all over the TV and internet most people will forget they exist, and consider them a thing of the past.20/20 just ran an hour special on Richard Spencer and Matthew Heimbach two individuals who are both dangerous people if given a platform and media attention. Their message is to spread hate in areas of the country hurt by stale job growth. The show brought out the groups intent to make America White again. They were also fueled by Trump after one of their own drove into a crowd killing one and injuring dozens. Their message is clear it is pure hate for everyone and anything that isn't pure white. The worst part of their movement is most are too ignorant to understand what the movement is all about.

[woodtoo]

20/20 just ran an hour special on Richard Spencer and Matthew Heimbach two individuals who are both dangerous people if given a platform and media attention. Their message is to spread hate in areas of the country hurt by stale job growth. The show brought out the groups intent to make America White again. They were also fueled by Trump after one of their own drove into a crowd killing one and injuring dozens. Their message is clear it is pure hate for everyone and anything that isn't pure white. The worst part of their movement is most are too ignorant to understand what the movement is all about.

"fueled by Trump" BS

[wisconsin]

"fueled by Trump" BS


They just gotta keep driving in a dagger wherever they can.

[JustRalph]

20/20 just ran an hour special on Richard Spencer and Matthew Heimbach two individuals who are both dangerous people if given a platform and media attention. Their message is to spread hate in areas of the country hurt by stale job growth. The show brought out the groups intent to make America White again. They were also fueled by Trump after one of their own drove into a crowd killing one and injuring dozens. Their message is clear it is pure hate for everyone and anything that isn't pure white. The worst part of their movement is most are too ignorant to understand what the movement is all about.

They are a threat to very few over-all. More drama created by the news folks

[Tom]

If you saw it on the news, it ain't real.
Jerry Springer had more reality on his show.

[chadk66]

The media is the #1 cause of racial tensions in this country today. It sells

[Robert Fischer]

anyone see the Boston free-speech rally being forced to end when thousands of "counter protesters" swarmed around them in intimidating demonstration?

or how about the Boston "free speech" rally ending after counter-protesters took to the streets?

(quotes for discrediting purposes only)

I didn't really see either very well.


There were about 20? or so free speech demonstrators from what I could see, and perhaps a thousand or so counter-protestors.

I only skim these stories, but a few counter-protestors were burning confederate flags and peacocking violently, mostly while regular looking counter-protesters crowded around to snap camera-phone pics.

Succeeded in firing up the boston liberals. Succeeded in generating a story and some ad revenue.


When I see stuff like this, I can't help but think how easily it would be to stage, or even to fund, brainwash, manipulate a small cell of idiots (and a couple friends/girlfriends/family indirectly), and a few confederates(as in social experiment, not civil war confederates).

:)

[jimmyb]

anyone see the Boston free-speech rally being forced to end when thousands of "counter protesters" swarmed around them in intimidating demonstration?

or how about the Boston "free speech" rally ending after counter-protesters took to the streets?

(quotes for discrediting purposes only)

I didn't really see either very well.


There were about 20? or so free speech demonstrators from what I could see, and perhaps a thousand or so counter-protestors.

I only skim these stories, but a few counter-protestors were burning confederate flags and peacocking violently, mostly while regular looking counter-protesters crowded around to snap camera-phone pics.

Succeeded in firing up the boston liberals. Succeeded in generating a story and some ad revenue.


When I see stuff like this, I can't help but think how easily it would be to stage, or even to fund, brainwash, manipulate a small cell of idiots (and a couple friends/girlfriends/family indirectly), and a few confederates(as in social experiment, not civil war confederates).

:)

some of the counter demonstrators thought it was a good idea to fight police. Are we hearing any of the liberal media outlets reporting this?

[Robert Fischer]

some of the counter demonstrators thought it was a good idea to fight police. Are we hearing any of the liberal media outlets reporting this?

Only in passing.

[woodtoo]

I heard about 2 identical charter buses parked bumper to bumper in Charlottesville.
Why would people wearing KKK and BLM shirts be exiting these 2 buses at the same time? Set up from the beginning!

[Inner Dirt]

The media is the #1 cause of racial tensions in this country today. It sells

Isn't that the truth. Any time a white police officers sneezes on a black person it is plastered all over the place.

[FantasticDan]

Enjoy prison, scumbag!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMvh71kVw1Q

[Ocala Mike]

He will soon find that there will be hardened criminals on both sides of him in the shower. Hope he doesn't drop the soap!

[sammy the sage]

He will soon find that there will be hardened criminals on both sides of him in the shower. Hope he doesn't drop the soap!

They'll put that soap in his mouth....whether he drops it or not...he'll deserve everything he gets...:kiss:

[letswastemoney]

It should be illegal to protest in the streets. It's a scummy move, usually done by liberals, considering there are people who could need the road for an emergency.

[horses4courses]

It should be illegal to protest in the streets. It's a scummy move, usually done by liberals, considering there are people who could need the road for an emergency.

Go ahead....just abolish that 1st Amendment, Einstein.
Who needs dissenters when you have all the answers and knows what's best? :rolleyes:

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Ocala Mike]

It should be illegal to protest in the streets. It's a scummy move, usually done by liberals, considering there are people who could need the road for an emergency.



Liberals like UNITE THE RIGHT?

[MargieRose]

Go ahead....just abolish that 1st Amendment, Einstein.
Who needs dissenters when you have all the answers and knows what's best? :rolleyes:
Oh brother! LWM just meant that protesters, ANY of them, should stay off of the streets...literally. They can protest somewhere where others' rights are not impeded, like possibly needing to get through in case of an emergency. Do you not understand what is the other side of that RIGHT?

[letswastemoney]

Oh brother! LWM just meant that protesters, ANY of them, should stay off of the streets...literally. They can protest somewhere where others' rights are not impeded, like possibly needing to get through in case of an emergency. Do you not understand what is the other side of that RIGHT? Yes, this is what I mean. You don't need to be on the streets to protest.

If you have to disrupt innocent people, then stand in front a building or something. It's better than blocking the street or shutting down a freeway.

[thaskalos]

When I initially posted here that "we have too much freedom in this country"...everyone jumped on me and reminded me about how "cherished" our freedoms are in this country...and how important it is for us to fastidiously preserve our "constitutional rights". But now I see that it has become acceptable to AMEND our "constitutional freedoms"...in order to satisfy whatever preconceived notions we might hold. Nice! :ThmbUp:

If people have the "right to assemble" in the street...then they should be free to assemble in the street. And if other people don't like it...then they can write about it to their congressperson.

[MargieRose]

When I initially posted here that "we have too much freedom in this country"...everyone jumped on me and reminded me about how "cherished" our freedoms are in this country...and how important it is for us to fastidiously preserve our "constitutional rights". But now I see that it has become acceptable to AMEND our "constitutional freedoms"...in order to satisfy whatever preconceived notions we might hold. Nice! :ThmbUp:

If people have the "right to assemble" in the street...then they should be free to assemble in the street. And if other people don't like it...then they can write about it to their congressperson.
What is being amended? Does the constitution specifically say "right to assemble in the street"?

What it does say is "right of the people peaceably to assemble." How about on your driveway, at some group's will...maybe Antifa? I don't see any differentiation in the 1st Amendment about public or private property use.

Reasonableness and individual rights should prevail...without needing a specific amendment to the 1st. Amendment. No?

[davew]

I didn't think the first amendment was for the right to riot.

[thaskalos]

What is being amended? Does the constitution specifically say "right to assemble in the street"?

What it does say is "right of the people peaceably to assemble." How about on your driveway, at some group's will...maybe Antifa? I don't see any differentiation in the 1st Amendment about public or private property use.

Reasonableness and individual rights should prevail...without needing a specific amendment to the 1st. Amendment. No?

When our forefathers created the constitution, they did so with the foresight that the power of the government could quickly become tyrannical if left ignored and unchallenged. When the people were granted the right to bear arms...it was with the intention that they should be able to defend themselves even against their own GOVERNMENT. And, when the people were given the right to "peacefully assemble"...it was with the intent that they could assemble in a manner whereby they wouldn't be easily ignored by the ruling class. When the citizens in other countries feel that their constitutional rights are being trampled upon by their own governments, then they take to the streets en masse...and entire cities are paralyzed as a result. That's how the citizens flex their collective muscle when their governments get tyrannical...and that's what is meant when we say that "democracy" means...'power to the people'. Surely you didn't think that "power to the people" means walking into a voting booth every 4 years or so.

[MargieRose]

When our forefathers created the constitution, they did so with the foresight that the power of the government could quickly become tyrannical if left ignored and unchallenged. When the people were granted the right to bear arms...it was with the intention that they should be able to defend themselves even against their own GOVERNMENT. And, when the people were given the right to "peacefully assemble"...it was with the intent that they could assemble in a manner whereby they wouldn't be easily ignored by the ruling class. When the citizens in other countries feel that their constitutional rights are being trampled upon by their own governments, then they take to the streets en masse...and entire cities are paralyzed as a result. That's how the citizens flex their collective muscle when their governments get tyrannical...and that's what is meant when we say that "democracy" means...'power to the people'. Surely you didn't think that "power to the people" means walking into a voting booth every 4 years or so.
Nicely stated, Thaskalos; however, unfortunately, in today's society peaceful assembly is too often not the intention. Like Davew stated, to riot, often with deadly consequences, is the intention! No one has a right to impose potentially deadly force on our public streets...not in my book!

As to truly peaceful assembly, right-of-way should be a given and structured accordingly...LWM's point, and mine.

[thaskalos]

Nicely stated, Thaskalos; however, unfortunately, in today's society peaceful assembly is too often not the intention. Like Davew stated, to riot, often with deadly consequences, is the intention! No one has a right to impose potentially deadly force on our public streets...not in my book!


Do you feel the same outrage when citizens misuse their "right to bear arms"...and innocent people die as a result? What "adjustment" are we prepared to make about THAT?

Yes...these constitutional rights sometimes fail to live up to their originally-intended purposes. But to carelessly temper with them leads to risking losing them altogether...and that's an even graver injustice, IMO.

[Tom]

Go ahead....just abolish that 1st Amendment, Einstein.
Who needs dissenters when you have all the answers and knows what's best?


Operative words being "peacefully assemble."

That rules out Ferguson, Baltimore, NYC, Wall Street, Mitch McConnel having dinner, Tucker' house.......you know, where they are NOT peaceful and they interfere with the daily lives and right of the 99% who think they are smelly idiots and would love to just piss on them?

[Tom]

When I initially posted here that "we have too much freedom in this country"...everyone jumped on me and reminded me about how "cherished" our freedoms are in this country...and how important it is for us to fastidiously preserve our "constitutional rights". But now I see that it has become acceptable to AMEND our "constitutional freedoms"...in order to satisfy whatever preconceived notions we might hold. Nice! :ThmbUp:

If people have the "right to assemble" in the street...then they should be free to assemble in the street. And if other people don't like it...then they can write about it to their congressperson.

Except that in the street is not spelled out in the constitution. Other people have business in the streets. Blocking them is NOT peaceful.

[Buckeye]

You have the Right of peaceably assemble and that's about it.

[MargieRose]

Do you feel the same outrage when citizens misuse their "right to bear arms"...and innocent people die as a result? What "adjustment" are we prepared to make about THAT?

Yes...these constitutional rights sometimes fail to live up to their originally-intended purposes. But to carelessly temper with them leads to risking losing them altogether...and that's an even graver injustice, IMO.
It is my understanding that the "right to bear arms" is meant for self-defense...nothing needs to be tampered with, there. Use of arms for any other purpose, other than for recreational hunting purposes, perhaps, should be punishable to the fullest extend of the laws...laws that need to be explicit, made harsher and fully enforced...no exceptions that I can think of, including stupidity, accidents and mental illness and at any age. Harsh, but maybe a start!

[Tom]

People who misuse firearms and people who misuse the right to assemble are both breaking established laws - and should be arrested. Nothing special need occur. Just follow the laws.

[Clocker]

What it does say is "right of the people peaceably to assemble." How about on your driveway, at some group's will...maybe Antifa? I don't see any differentiation in the 1st Amendment about public or private property use.



The founders held that we have the basic human rights of life, liberty, and property, and that your rights exist only to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others.

You can't "assemble" on my property without my permission. That infringes on my property rights.

You can't assemble on public property without the permission of the public, in the form of the public's representatives, the government. The courts have ruled that the government can make reasonable and nondiscriminatory restrictions on the use of public property. Assembling in the streets infringes on the property rights of the public.

[MargieRose]

The founders held that we have the basic human rights of life, liberty, and property, and that your rights exist only to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others.

You can't "assemble" on my property without my permission. That infringes on my property rights.

You can't assemble on public property without the permission of the public, in the form of the public's representatives, the government. The courts have ruled that the government can make reasonable and nondiscriminatory restrictions on the use of public property. Assembling in the streets infringes on the property rights of the public.
With the 'public' being each and every individual, it seems that we agree.

To reiterate: As to truly peaceful assembly, right-of-way should be a given and [the streets] structured accordingly...LWM's point, and mine.