|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42008 Posts
On August 16 2017 13:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 11:42 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 11:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems. We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack. With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional. On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. Except what's going on is this: Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19. Most people: "Nazis are bad!" Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!" Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?" Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people." We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here. Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening? They should, because this is exactly what is happening. Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument. But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation. By everyone I'm assuming you mean everyone but the president. I've already noted the president several times, thanks for the one liner.
Sure, but a) you said everyone this time and b) the leader of the right is kinda a big exception. Everyone (except, as I've already explained, for the leader, spokesperson and figurehead of the movement, everyone but him).
Also when you say these two racially charged groups, are you equating the protests against police brutality with the Nazis and the KKK as if they're two sides of the same coin?
|
On August 16 2017 13:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 11:42 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 11:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems. We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack. With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional. On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. Except what's going on is this: Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19. Most people: "Nazis are bad!" Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!" Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?" Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people." We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here. Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening? They should, because this is exactly what is happening. Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument. But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation. By everyone I'm assuming you mean everyone but the president. I've already noted the president several times, thanks for the one liner.
I think most people here are condemning Trump, but not condemning the other right-wing politicians like Rubio and Cruz who are assigning the blame for this particular instance more reasonably. It's not clear to me why you think "the whole right" is being tarred here, can you elaborate on that point?
+ Show Spoiler [100 points of identification] +On August 16 2017 13:14 m4ini wrote:
...
Be able to get to a police station with 100 points of identification (whatever that means)
...
Not that it's particularly important, but that's just a generic Australian system for personal identfication via documents. Passport (70pts) and driver's license (40pts) would cover it for instance.
|
https://www.cjr.org/first_person/charlottesville-protest-photographer-photo.php
You can also read Ryan Kelly's account of it. He was a staff photographer at a local newspaper covering the events.
Here's the relevant bit, with some emphasis added
Right before the guy drove his car down the road, it felt like any other day I would be downtown. Because of that, I didn’t feel like I was in danger. Frankly, it was dumb luck that I was on the sidewalk instead of the middle of the road when I was. I was in the road for a few seconds, then moved off, then the car came through. I wasn’t anticipating it. I actually saw the car as I walked up to the scene. It was backing up the street and I assumed that he was backing out of the way and trying to go around the block, didn’t think anything of it until he was blowing past me 20 seconds later
Also, regarding the whole "Only a small number of people at the Unite the Right rally were nazis or white supremacists..." argument. It's pretty well established that there were neo-nazis, KKK, and assorted white supremacists present. There was also a convicted domestic terrorist who'd plotted to bomb black and Jewish businesses.
Anyone who was there who was not a white supremacist found that their goals and chosen means to reach those goals aligned enough with the white supremacists that they were okay marching in the same crowd. I don't know about everyone else in this thread, but I am comfortable judging people based on the criteria of "They were comfortable marching with neo-nazis and the KKK." It seems to me entirely reasonable and acceptable to judge people by who they choose to associate with, and those people chose to publicly associate themselves with people waving the Nazi flag.
The convicted terrorist, and a video showing him leading the charge of alt-right into opposing protesters:
https://warisboring.com/a-convicted-domestic-terrorist-was-at-the-charlottesville-nazi-march/
Some of this may have been posted before in this thread, but the thread moves pretty fast and people miss stuff. The HBO VICE News video was posted at least three times, so I don't feel about reposting links.
|
On August 16 2017 13:31 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:28 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 11:42 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 11:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems. We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack. With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional. On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. Except what's going on is this: Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19. Most people: "Nazis are bad!" Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!" Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?" Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people." We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here. Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening? They should, because this is exactly what is happening. Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument. But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation. By everyone I'm assuming you mean everyone but the president. I've already noted the president several times, thanks for the one liner. I think most people here are condemning Trump, but not condemning the other right-wing politicians like Rubio and Cruz who are assigning blame more reasonably. It's not clear to me why you think "the whole right" is being tarred here, can you elaborate on that point? + Show Spoiler [100 points of identification] +On August 16 2017 13:14 m4ini wrote:
...
Be able to get to a police station with 100 points of identification (whatever that means)
...
Not that it's particularly important, but that's just a generic Australian system for personal identfication via documents. Passport (70pts) and driver's license (40pts) would cover it for instance.
Actually people came out praising Cruz/Rubio (well, more or less) for condemning them. Nobody is blaming "the entire right".
Sidenote, cheers. Didn't know, as i said. Still, way harsher than the US and far from easy altogether.
|
On August 16 2017 13:26 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:23 m4ini wrote:Link i just posted shows the entire situation where he accelerated. Yeah, the video shows pretty clearly that he wasn't surrounded by people and just trying to make his way through a crowd.
It's absolutely mind-bending to me how you could come to any other conclusion than this being deliberate. This is like fucking brainwashed level of idiocy. You can also see clearly from the car backing up that there was no one before the crowd, no bats, no whatever else is being peddled as a dumb excuse. The street is empty except for the crowd ahead. He also rammed into additional cars that were in the crowd making it doubly obvious he wasn't trying to get through the crowd.
There were guys with bats that charged his car after he hit people, but that's besides the point. The video that m4ini posted still doesn't show quite what I am looking for. When that video starts, people are already screaming, suggesting that stuff has already happened. However, what this guy's defense lawyer is not going to like is that the footage seems to show 1) the guy slow down before accelerating into the crowd, and 2) no one is chasing him with weapons or otherwise before he hits people.
|
On August 16 2017 13:14 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:04 Sermokala wrote:On August 16 2017 13:00 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 12:57 Sermokala wrote:
I just don't understand how it doesn't fall under the generally acceptable "its common knowedge" rule we useualy follow. I updated the post with a couple sources.
We state opinions all the time without backing as facts. Because it goes contrary to common knowledge. For example, your source on how easy it is to get a weapon? Completely missing the point. What you linked is the application form if you have a license. https://www.police.qld.gov.au/forms/weaponslicensing.aspThis here is what you should've linked, and that certainly doesn't seem "easy" to me. Well it seems relatively easy to me and thats what I posted in my opinion about gun control in australia. Lets see. You need to: Be a fit and proper person (subjective, can be denied because reasons) Have not been convicted of anything in the past 5 years Have an actual reason for the license (including supporting documentation!) Have proof of weapons training Have a weapons safe Have completed an approved firearms course Pictures of yourself Be able to get to a police station with 100 points of identification (whatever that means) For actually buying a weapon (you don't have one yet, nor are you allowed to buy one): Said license. Mandatory waiting period. Be able to name the seller. If buying off private, have a police officer attending the transaction. That's easy for you. Right. edit: obviously ignoring the restrictions on weapons itself, on top of this.
100 points of ID pretty much means youre going to struggle to get away with ID fraud or go off the radar.
You practically have to supply a birth certificate/citizenship form/passport (70 pts), some form of government supplied photo like a drivers license that also has your place of residence (25 pts) and an additional form that confirms your place of residence like an electricity bill.
In order to actually buy a gun, you have to practically tell the government who are and where you live.
On August 16 2017 13:31 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:28 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 11:42 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 11:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems. We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack. With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional. On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. Except what's going on is this: Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19. Most people: "Nazis are bad!" Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!" Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?" Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people." We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here. Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening? They should, because this is exactly what is happening. Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument. But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation. By everyone I'm assuming you mean everyone but the president. I've already noted the president several times, thanks for the one liner. I think most people here are condemning Trump, but not condemning the other right-wing politicians like Rubio and Cruz who are assigning the blame for this particular instance more reasonably. It's not clear to me why you think "the whole right" is being tarred here, can you elaborate on that point? + Show Spoiler [100 points of identification] +On August 16 2017 13:14 m4ini wrote:
...
Be able to get to a police station with 100 points of identification (whatever that means)
...
Not that it's particularly important, but that's just a generic Australian system for personal identfication via documents. Passport (70pts) and driver's license (40pts) would cover it for instance.
Pretty sure the drivers license only counts at 40 pts if it's the primary form of identification.
|
On August 16 2017 13:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 12:38 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 12:34 Danglars wrote:On August 16 2017 12:30 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 12:14 Danglars wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:20 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems. We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read. And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented. So you are going to just stick to your talking points and not bother with evidence? Do you concede you can't show any Antifa violence in Charlotesville? The VICE video is pretty decisive in what it shows: the racist side was there to beat people with sticks and did beat people with sticks. So you are just going to stick with your talking points and not read what I wrote? There were reports of confrontation between both sides there, but that's not what the post or the tweet is about entirely. On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. Except what's going on is this: Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19. Most people: "Nazis are bad!" Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!" Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?" Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people." We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here. On August 16 2017 10:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems. We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read. And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented. Here is something to read. When fascists came to Berkeley, Antifa caused some property damage. You keep getting to say that Antifa is violent for free. Pony up something beyond vandalism. http://time.com/4899658/charlottesville-antifa-protests/EDIT: here is more. Yes, the Fascists are the ones doing the violence. No, not seeing assaults initiated by Antifa. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/far-right-white-supremacists-berkeley-protests-antifa-trump/ We've already had this discussion in this thread recently, but you are again confirming why you are one of the great ignored posters. I'm not excusing anyone here for anything. Honestly though, parroting talking points and never addressing opposing argumentation ("I refuse to actually read and understand what you wrote, so I'm just going to continue berating you for your wrongthink and bigotry") shouldn't necessarily be the default. But that's where we're at. Every week, I'm caught between whether Trump's the one gone wildly overboard, or whether the Dems, media allies, and most of this thread are more insane. Except the only one parroting talking points and refusing to address opposing arguments is Introvert. He won't back up his claim that the violence was equal from both sides (or even really that there was much aside from a few scuffles by the counter protesters). He also isn't explaining that tweet, or backing it up with evidence, it's just him going "this tweet is correct". My answer is what is happening. Explain to me why my version is wrong and the other one is right. People like Trump aren't saying "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "yeah and we're angels". That's NOT HAPPENING. I'm not hearing it or seeing it. I'm hearing a lot of excuses from people on the far right about "but the left" and "but Antifa" or "not all the people at the neo-nazi rally were bad". How is that not a problem? Why is Trump's refusal to roundly condemn the Neo-nazis and white supremacists not bad. How is his attempt to blame the left and how terrible they are not that big of a problem? He blamed many sides! He defended the Unite the Right protesters, the ones who are on camera and pictures chanting Nazi slogans, yelling racist, vile rhetoric, beat counter-protesters and one of them killed a person with a car. He said the other side was just as to blame and claimed the protesters were good people. The President of the United States wouldn't condemn racist, neo-nazi hate filled rhetoric! He gave them a pass by blaming the "many sides" and saying there were "good people" there. He's doing his best to lighten what happened at the rally. Did you read his claims and arguments? Serious question. I feel like your eyes glazed over during a skit read and you chose to characterize it as excuses. Or like you privilege your own and others assertions and think everybody else should be held to a higher standard of evidence. Frankly, I'm left wondering if you understood his claims rather than insert your own interpretations in place of them. I read it. I addressed it to the best of my ability. He's putting forth no evidence or really any argument other than a tweet and claiming antifa is violent. The anitfa thing is something that most of us arguing with him admit and have presented evidence *for* him. We've also argued that it's nowhere near the same as what is happening at these neo-nazi and white supremacist rallies, specifically the one in Charlottesville. I'm asking for his argument, while presenting my own as well. And I see you parroting the talking points of others, which are hardly argument and hardly admission of wrong on both sides. You responded to his tweet with your own preferred narrative, which is shared by many disreputable media organizations. You hold mutually exclusive perspectives, but I've seen you hold more faith that yours is backed by evidence and less faith that his is as well. This is the politics thread where facts plain as day to you come into conflict with facts plain as day to others. I see no reason to prejudice evidentially one opinion over another when both are offered as pure viewpoints.
Ok. I'll go into deeper details with facts to back up my viewpoint.
Neo-nazis and white supremacists, along with I'm certain a few good people, showed up to protest at the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, NC. Counter-protesters showed up. The Unite the Right protesters waved Nazi and Confederate flags while chanting Nazi slogans and using violent rhetoric. There's video all over the place of this, if you need me to find it for you I will. Some of the Unite the Right protesters showed up with weapons. They're on camera starting fights and beating a black man (again, video and photos easily available to be provided). Counter-protesters were attacked and reportedly a small number of scuffles broke out started by them. Reports from many there say the counter-protester started fights were much smaller than those started by the Unite the Right protesters. One of the Unite the Right protesters drove his car into a group of counter-protesters at high speed, killing 1 and injuring 19.
Politicians and many ordinary people express sadness at the death and violence, specifically from the Unite the Right protesters. President Trump gives a statement about the violence saying he condemns the violence, bigotry and hatred "on many sides, on many sides". He doesn't specifically mention white supremacists or neo-nazis. Those groups view that as him on their side. His aides and surrogates go in 2 directions. One is the statement of "well of course he doesn't support neo-nazis or white supremacists". The other side is to talk about how bad and terrible the left's protesters are. I can find those all over the web as well, specifically if you search Fox News shows. This is the angle taken up by many on the far right. They are framing this as the counter-protesters were just as bad and terrible. When questioned about why they need to add that to the conversation as it seems they are making excuses for the terrible, violent actions of the Unite the Right protesters while defending neo-nazis, they say they're not nazis and shouldn't be called nazi's by the intolerant left.
So, where am I factually wrong? It seems like few on the far right are coming out to say Nazis are bad, with those on the left claiming total innocence. Where is that? And I'm not talking about how media or some people aren't bringing up Antifa. You are, you and Trump and other far right people are bringing them up yourselves, which runs counter to the left saying they're "100% innocent". I've presented factual evidence supporting my viewpoint and argument as to why that tweet is not based on anything real.
|
On August 16 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:26 Logo wrote:On August 16 2017 13:23 m4ini wrote:Link i just posted shows the entire situation where he accelerated. Yeah, the video shows pretty clearly that he wasn't surrounded by people and just trying to make his way through a crowd.
It's absolutely mind-bending to me how you could come to any other conclusion than this being deliberate. This is like fucking brainwashed level of idiocy. You can also see clearly from the car backing up that there was no one before the crowd, no bats, no whatever else is being peddled as a dumb excuse. The street is empty except for the crowd ahead. He also rammed into additional cars that were in the crowd making it doubly obvious he wasn't trying to get through the crowd. There were guys with bats that charged his car after he hit people, but that's besides the point. The video that m4ini posted still doesn't show quite what I am looking for. When that video starts, people are already screaming, suggesting that stuff has already happened. However, what this guy's defense lawyer is not going to like is that the footage seems to show 1) the guy slow down before accelerating into the crowd, and 2) no one is chasing him with weapons or otherwise before he hits people.
People screaming because they see a car coming at them. As you can tell, some jump aside. They start screaming once they hear the tyres squeal after he "jumped" over the speedbump.
There's no two opinions on this.
|
On August 16 2017 13:11 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 12:57 Sermokala wrote:
I just don't understand how it doesn't fall under the generally acceptable "its common knowedge" rule we useualy follow. I updated the post with a couple sources.
We state opinions all the time without backing as facts. My intention was to inform you that my common knowledge, as an Australian, is that your common knowledge about Australia was not entirely correct, and therefore that additional sources were required to justify your point. I think the important point is that the rate of gun-related incidents in Australia has gone down considerably as a result of the gun control measures of the 90s. If those gun control measures haven't actually made it much harder to get a gun for legitimate purposes, as you assert, then that seems like an even better case for gun control being a good thing.
And I can perfectly agree that your common knowledge about Australia is more correct then mine. You didn't ask why my opinion was what it was you asked for a citation on my opinion. The Time article I posted says that a University of Sydney researcher said that the removal of firearms owned by civilians wasn't "boune out by the evidence" to reduce gun related deaths.
I read statistics previous that It didn't effect legal gun owners or reduce the total ammount of guns in civilian circulation and I posted some that proved that.
My opinion was that the legislation was symbolic if nothing else in its effectiveness (much like the kentucky example) and wasn't as far reaching as people portray it as. I don't think the same program is possible in America for obvious hashed out reasons.
My opinion is that the majority of gun deaths are done with the simplest of guns in the pistol. A 1911 is a modern and popular model of pistol coming obviously from 1911 and can be made from hand in a third world country at great profit and shipped into America in small parts. I'm tired and I need to go to bed so here you go.
|
On August 16 2017 13:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:28 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 11:42 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 11:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems. We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack. With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional. On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. Except what's going on is this: Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19. Most people: "Nazis are bad!" Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!" Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?" Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people." We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here. Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening? They should, because this is exactly what is happening. Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument. But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation. By everyone I'm assuming you mean everyone but the president. I've already noted the president several times, thanks for the one liner. Sure, but a) you said everyone this time and b) the leader of the right is kinda a big exception. Everyone (except, as I've already explained, for the leader, spokesperson and figurehead of the movement, everyone but him). Also when you say these two racially charged groups, are you equating the protests against police brutality with the Nazis and the KKK as if they're two sides of the same coin?
A) Wow, once time I said "everyone" by mistake in a chain where I have clearly mentioned him as an exception.
B) The right is fractured ("unite the right"?) so calling anyone a leader of anything right now is dubious. He only leads the GOP, and they all distance themselves super fast.
C) Not yet (Edit: as in they aren't equally bad yet. I disagree with that characterization of them though, but that's different).
On August 16 2017 13:31 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:28 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 11:42 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 11:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems. We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack. With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional. On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. Except what's going on is this: Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19. Most people: "Nazis are bad!" Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!" Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?" Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people." We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here. Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening? They should, because this is exactly what is happening. Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument. But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation. By everyone I'm assuming you mean everyone but the president. I've already noted the president several times, thanks for the one liner. I think most people here are condemning Trump, but not condemning the other right-wing politicians like Rubio and Cruz who are assigning the blame for this particular instance more reasonably. It's not clear to me why you think "the whole right" is being tarred here, can you elaborate on that point? + Show Spoiler [100 points of identification] +On August 16 2017 13:14 m4ini wrote:
...
Be able to get to a police station with 100 points of identification (whatever that means)
...
Not that it's particularly important, but that's just a generic Australian system for personal identfication via documents. Passport (70pts) and driver's license (40pts) would cover it for instance.
Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run.
I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
|
On August 16 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:26 Logo wrote:On August 16 2017 13:23 m4ini wrote:Link i just posted shows the entire situation where he accelerated. Yeah, the video shows pretty clearly that he wasn't surrounded by people and just trying to make his way through a crowd.
It's absolutely mind-bending to me how you could come to any other conclusion than this being deliberate. This is like fucking brainwashed level of idiocy. You can also see clearly from the car backing up that there was no one before the crowd, no bats, no whatever else is being peddled as a dumb excuse. The street is empty except for the crowd ahead. He also rammed into additional cars that were in the crowd making it doubly obvious he wasn't trying to get through the crowd. There were guys with bats that charged his car after he hit people, but that's besides the point. The video that m4ini posted still doesn't show quite what I am looking for. When that video starts, people are already screaming, suggesting that stuff has already happened. However, what this guy's defense lawyer is not going to like is that the footage seems to show 1) the guy slow down before accelerating into the crowd, and 2) no one is chasing him with weapons or otherwise before he hits people.
Just to be clear, this is completely justified and there is no reason they shouldn't do this after he ran down 20 people. And the man was a violent Nazi lover. And we know this because he school teachers and criminal record of domestic abuse back this up. Did you know his disabled mother once locked herself in the bathroom bathroom because she yelled at him to stop playing video games and he became violent?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/judge-denies-bail-for-man-accused-of-ramming-car-into-charlottesville-protesters/2017/08/14/2177a028-80fd-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?utm_term=.acadcaf663bf&xcv
|
On August 16 2017 13:34 rageprotosscheesy wrote:
...
Pretty sure the drivers license only counts at 40 pts if it's the primary form of identification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_point_check
If this is accurate the first thing like a drivers license counts for 40 and the others for 25. The details may have changed over time or vary a little by state, I'm not positive.
|
On Tuesday, the woman who pulled down the statue turned herself in: her name is Takiyah Thompson, and she is a 22-year-old college student at N.C. Central University.
READ: New Orleans Removes Statue Of Confederate President Jefferson Davis
She was charged with disorderly conduct by injury to a statue, damage to real property, participation in a riot with property damage in excess of $1,500 — which is a Class H felony — and inciting others to riot where there is property damage in excess of $1,500, which is a Class F felony.
Source
Just to make sure anyone who brings up the statue being torn down. The lady was arrested. There is video proof in the link.
|
On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote:
Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run.
I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
|
On August 16 2017 13:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:18 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
Is there a video showing the car before the guy gunned it and rammed the crowd? Yes. edit: don't go there, there's no ground for you or that argument to stand on. There's videos showing the car completely free accelerating into the crowd. Post a link. The only videos that I've seen show the car already at speed plowing into the car. I want to see what was going on at the point of acceleration.
This post reeks so much of desperation to avoid the mental gymnastics required to hold your position.
|
On August 16 2017 13:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:26 Logo wrote:On August 16 2017 13:23 m4ini wrote:Link i just posted shows the entire situation where he accelerated. Yeah, the video shows pretty clearly that he wasn't surrounded by people and just trying to make his way through a crowd.
It's absolutely mind-bending to me how you could come to any other conclusion than this being deliberate. This is like fucking brainwashed level of idiocy. You can also see clearly from the car backing up that there was no one before the crowd, no bats, no whatever else is being peddled as a dumb excuse. The street is empty except for the crowd ahead. He also rammed into additional cars that were in the crowd making it doubly obvious he wasn't trying to get through the crowd. There were guys with bats that charged his car after he hit people, but that's besides the point. The video that m4ini posted still doesn't show quite what I am looking for. When that video starts, people are already screaming, suggesting that stuff has already happened. However, what this guy's defense lawyer is not going to like is that the footage seems to show 1) the guy slow down before accelerating into the crowd, and 2) no one is chasing him with weapons or otherwise before he hits people. Just to be clear, this is completely justified and there is no reason they shouldn't do this after he ran down 20 people. And the man was a violent Nazi lover. And we know this because he school teachers and criminal record of domestic abuse back this up. Did you know his disabled mother once locked herself in the bathroom bathroom because she yelled at him to stop playing video games and he became violent? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/judge-denies-bail-for-man-accused-of-ramming-car-into-charlottesville-protesters/2017/08/14/2177a028-80fd-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?utm_term=.acadcaf663bf&xcv
I mean, there's no denying that he's a nazi, there's plenty of pictures of him posing with other, uhm.. "men", i guess.
It's kinda interesting to see what kinda people become nazis in the US. Like this pudding bodied virgin, next to plenty of other retarded people running around with stupid haircuts, white poloshirts and cargopants.
I mean.. Poloshirts? Really?
edit:
![[image loading]](https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2017/08/13/BostonGlobe.com/National/Images/1608a8e1-e691-4483-9b75-ff504a3d1838.jpg)
edit: out of interest, how cold was it that day, or what's the reasoning behind those gloves there?
|
On August 16 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:26 Logo wrote:On August 16 2017 13:23 m4ini wrote:Link i just posted shows the entire situation where he accelerated. Yeah, the video shows pretty clearly that he wasn't surrounded by people and just trying to make his way through a crowd.
It's absolutely mind-bending to me how you could come to any other conclusion than this being deliberate. This is like fucking brainwashed level of idiocy. You can also see clearly from the car backing up that there was no one before the crowd, no bats, no whatever else is being peddled as a dumb excuse. The street is empty except for the crowd ahead. He also rammed into additional cars that were in the crowd making it doubly obvious he wasn't trying to get through the crowd. There were guys with bats that charged his car after he hit people, but that's besides the point.
Because when a violent racist runs 20 people down with his car, you just let him do it. Seriously, why the fuck would you point that out?
|
On August 16 2017 13:44 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:18 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
Is there a video showing the car before the guy gunned it and rammed the crowd? Yes. edit: don't go there, there's no ground for you or that argument to stand on. There's videos showing the car completely free accelerating into the crowd. Post a link. The only videos that I've seen show the car already at speed plowing into the car. I want to see what was going on at the point of acceleration. This post reeks so much of desperation to avoid the mental gymnastics required to hold your position.
You clearly have no fucking idea what my position is. Just stay out of this one.
|
On August 16 2017 13:45 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:26 Logo wrote:On August 16 2017 13:23 m4ini wrote:Link i just posted shows the entire situation where he accelerated. Yeah, the video shows pretty clearly that he wasn't surrounded by people and just trying to make his way through a crowd.
It's absolutely mind-bending to me how you could come to any other conclusion than this being deliberate. This is like fucking brainwashed level of idiocy. You can also see clearly from the car backing up that there was no one before the crowd, no bats, no whatever else is being peddled as a dumb excuse. The street is empty except for the crowd ahead. He also rammed into additional cars that were in the crowd making it doubly obvious he wasn't trying to get through the crowd. There were guys with bats that charged his car after he hit people, but that's besides the point. Because when a violent racist runs 20 people down with his car, you just let him do it. Seriously, why the fuck would you point that out?
Now I am not an equivocator about race, but let me make this quick equivocation for this Nazi.
|
On August 16 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 11:42 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 11:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems. We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack. With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional. On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. Except what's going on is this: Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19. Most people: "Nazis are bad!" Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!" Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?" Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people." We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here. Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening? They should, because this is exactly what is happening. Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument. But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation.
The "left-wing violence" was covered ad nauseam on all news networks. The politicians on both sides, especially the left, condemned the action and did what President Trump didn't. They didn't talk about how terrible the other side was with their violent tendencies or problems. They condemned and shut down violence from their side. There also wasn't a rally where the left chanted about killing other ethnicities or the superiority of the white race before he went to do it.
There is no tarring of the whole right. People are taking issue with Trump's inability to strongly condemn the neo-nazis and white supremacists at that rally. They're also taking issue with Nazis and white supremacists and the people on the far right who are attempting to say "but the violent left/antifa", which is seen as an argument to make what happened in Charlottesville okay. Otherwise they'd just say "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "they are" and that would be that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
