Charlottesville too much freedom

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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..

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

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

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.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

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.

LOL.....at the paddock in Dallas?....

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/lo...9ea503128.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-polit...rotests-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...-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]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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/lo...9ea503128.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-polit...rotests-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...-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by _______

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]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

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]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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]

Originally Posted by 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.
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]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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....