I don't blame you. What else can you do? Call in the conspiracy police. Imagine a better ending in that narrative running through your noggin.
You should watch Brazil, one day. But not all the way to the end.
Alt-righter plows into crowd of anti-racists in Charlottesville
- Thread starter Town Heretic
- Start date
You should watch Brazil, one day. But not all the way to the end.
I'd rather see that guy running the department of labor then the guy who decided to pay him that $7.25/hr. Which is what Trump tried to do before Pudzer decided he didn't want the job after all.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
What did you expect Anna? Those were black citizens, TRYING TO VOTE!
YES!
They should have had some hoses like those at the Charlottesville protest rally.
That's what you do.
They don't do that to blacks trying to vote, these days. It's much more genteel.
Set up ID requirements, and then make it as difficult as possible to get an ID.
The problem is that old bane of the far right:
Texas just lost another voting suppression attempt:
Texas GOP’s Voter Suppression Efforts Lose in Court
https://rewire.news/article/2017/08/24/texas-gops-voter-suppression-efforts-lose-court/
Set up ID requirements, and then make it as difficult as possible to get an ID.
The problem is that old bane of the far right:
Texas just lost another voting suppression attempt:
Texas GOP’s Voter Suppression Efforts Lose in Court
https://rewire.news/article/2017/08/24/texas-gops-voter-suppression-efforts-lose-court/
What does voting have to do with the protests in Charlottesville?
We are talking about hosing protesters that cause a ruckus or try to do harm to others THESE DAYS.
Not about something that took place 50 years ago.
Someone posted it here. Just pointing out the irony.
Same excuses they made to do it in THOSE DAYS. You guys never really change.
It's not the same excuses.
:rotfl:
Who is voting has nothing to do with the Charlottesville protests.
They came armed with bottles of urine and feces to throw at others, macing others, hitting others, knocking others down, shoving others, spitting on others, and running over with a car.
THOSE are the folks that should be hosed, silly willy.
Would blocking access to a park by linking arms as Nazis with a permit to speak there approach constitute a "fuss" or is it only about damaging property and harming others?
Harming others, silly.
Geeze, ya'll are dense.
Freedom of speech is for all sides, no matter how many others think what they say is offensive.
If no one was allowed to speak anything that others think is offensive, then neither ANTIFA, KKK, BLM, LGBT, etc. should be permitted to have a public rally.
By law, they should be able to have a public rally WITHOUT HINDRANCE of their free speech.
They should be allowed to have their say, or else don't allow anyone to have their say.
You don't hose folks for free speech, you hose folks that obstruct or cause harm to those that are there to express their Constitutional right.
Are you starting to get the picture yet?
Or are you all for making it a standard that it is OK to hinder/obstruct and harm folks that are there to express their Constitutional right?
Okay, then I'm fine with anyone trying to harm someone else being stopped.
I've never held a different belief.
Not really and you're about to demonstrate why.
See, now you altered it to include obstructing. So it isn't dense to wonder what you mean in particular.
I was, but then you fuzzied it a bit at the end.
You can sit in the way of a Nazi parade route without harming a soul. You can march up to authority in defiance of law without harming anyone. King and Gandhi both did that.
I knew it would go right over your head.
Unless every word is scripted just as you want it to be, you can't figure out what anyone is getting at.
And because of your failure to figure it out, at best, you start fumbling around and jumping to conclusions of what other's intents are; and at worst, you vomit out innuendo of horrid intents they never had.
Everybody has a dream. Now we know what yours is.
You gave one answer, then a different answer. The first seemed reasonable enough. The second less so.
It's not a puzzle. You were inconsistent.
I didn't anything of the sort.
I asked a question and then noted a problem with something you said after it.
Having very little time to comment, I'd love to have a conversation about this but I probably won't be able to.
What happened at the rally:
Most of the people were regular people with legit grievances on both sides. There were a number of people on both sides among them that were violent. The violent people clashed and it spilled over into innocent ralliers.
Should the police have done more to avoid the violence? They probably could have. The evidence I have for this is because they granted, degranted, regranted, and then pushed the alt-right rally out after it started but before they spoke. Some eyewitnesses say they pushed them out into the lines of Antifa. That was a mistake. Not only because they shouldn't have pushed warring factions together, but because violating their speech rights will escalate the next encounter (although escalation may be a tactic used by the leadership of Charlottsville, which are all leftists).
There was an argument within the alt-right whether to let leftists in that said they would support the alt-right, specifically the Nazis. Obviously those that argued to keep leftists out were correct both strategically and tactically. One should not expect the Alt-right to let leftists in a rally ever again.
Disclaimer: I'm not alt-right. I think we should expand immigration. Limiting or stopping immigration is a central tenet of the Alt-right.
Related: the KKK could have alt-right members. Although it was typically leftist throughout its history, race supremacy is neither a right nor left foundational tenet. That being said, those on the hard right would probably be less inclined toward race supremacy because believing in absolutes suggests that mankind is subject to the same problems and a similar human nature to deal with said problems.
True, hard left and hard right have always been worker's movements in opposition to free market capitalism.
In that last pic, the firefighters are black too, black lives matter!
White Supremacists and Nazis with legit grievances? :think: Regarding their upbringing?
Seems like.
Okay. I agree that was handled abysmally. I'm not going to get into speculation about motives and the why, but badly done doesn't seem to cover it.
This new group of racial purists have nothing in common with the left, unless it's at the left extreme and in terms of a willingness to engage in violence to advance their aims.
I'm not an open borders guy, but I think we have a decent process set up. People should follow it legally and those who don't shouldn't be rewarded for breaking the law. I think building a wall on our southern border is a bad move.
You just have to stop it. I get why the right wants that to be true, but it just isn't. They were Democrats, but not liberals. When the Republican party of Lincoln became the resistance to social change and minority empowerment the traditional bastions of support for the Democratic party largely abandoned it in the South, establishing that same power block for the right that it leans on today.
It depends on when and to what extent. It's largely been about power and status quo. Whoever has the former protects the latter. And, for a large part of our history you couldn't throw a dead cat in any party meeting of any major party without hitting a racist.
Actually, being right wing isn't a religious position and neither conservative nor liberal thinking speaks to eternal truths in that sense. Most White Supremacists and the like will be found among the right, mostly because it is from that side that they'll derive protection of the traditions that empower them.
Stewart was right. It isn't that if you're a right winger you like Nazis or the Klan, it's that if you're a Nazi or a Klan member you like the right. Just as minorities look to the Democrats for empowerment and advancement, whether or not they get what they pay for.