Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
336
Views

Re: THOSE THAT DEFEND THE HATE GROUPS MUST BELIEVE IN THEIR PHILOSOPHY

336 Views
Message 1 of 29

@MIseker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

You are throwing names out and names of people who cannot engage with you here.

 

where have i seen someone do that?

 


If it is me you are talking about and I offended you, I apologize.

 

What happened was that one poster claimed (but without substantiation) that I agreed with Nazi thinking. Then another came up with a brilliant, "Yeah, me too". So I responded to them. 

 

So - back to you - do you think I an a Nazi sympathizer? If so, details as to why would be appreciated.


In all reality, you have stated you do not support them. what I, and other posters have a problem with is not outright OPPOSING them. And your statements do lend cover, which is provocative and does not lend itself to discussion. You do not admit Friday nights activities were without permit, you wont admit the protestors spewed hate and IGNORED what their permit was for, protesting the removal of the statue. Hey, if that was all they did, protest the statue as their permit stipulated, yes they have free speech. But when that speech turns in to terrorism, we expect people to oppose it.


I believe that there is a definition of terms thing here. Here is an example - when the Workers World Party gets a permit and stages a rally, I support their right to do it.

 

When one of their members, Takiyah Thompson, climbs up a statue and attaches the ropes used to destroy it, I do not support that.

 

Hey, I'd even support a beer party thrown by all 12 remaining members of the Wobblies - I might even attend.


the IWW is different from the WWP and TWP. it is, still, an international organization.

 

O.K. I'll go to a beer party thrown by any or all of those people. I'll bet there could be lively discussions with folks not afraid to admit to their Marxism.

 

Now, back to the issue - do you see the difference between supporting a person's or a group's rights vs supporting their agenda?? This is a key distinction in this and several other topics here.


 yes i do. and i have stated so. but the permit was obtained on false pretenses. Can you admit that?

 

No, unfortunately I can't. It seems like there are too many "variations on the theme" and politics involved.

 

However, if for whatever reasons there was a violation of the law I cling to the idea that dealing with it was the job of the police officials - not the leftwing brownshirts. Can we agree on that?

 

Do you know (sourced, of course) what the "false pretenses" were?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
336
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
341
Views

Re: THOSE THAT DEFEND THE HATE GROUPS MUST BELIEVE IN THEIR PHILOSOPHY

341 Views
Message 2 of 29

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

You are throwing names out and names of people who cannot engage with you here.

 

where have i seen someone do that?

 


If it is me you are talking about and I offended you, I apologize.

 

What happened was that one poster claimed (but without substantiation) that I agreed with Nazi thinking. Then another came up with a brilliant, "Yeah, me too". So I responded to them. 

 

So - back to you - do you think I an a Nazi sympathizer? If so, details as to why would be appreciated.


In all reality, you have stated you do not support them. what I, and other posters have a problem with is not outright OPPOSING them. And your statements do lend cover, which is provocative and does not lend itself to discussion. You do not admit Friday nights activities were without permit, you wont admit the protestors spewed hate and IGNORED what their permit was for, protesting the removal of the statue. Hey, if that was all they did, protest the statue as their permit stipulated, yes they have free speech. But when that speech turns in to terrorism, we expect people to oppose it.


I believe that there is a definition of terms thing here. Here is an example - when the Workers World Party gets a permit and stages a rally, I support their right to do it.

 

When one of their members, Takiyah Thompson, climbs up a statue and attaches the ropes used to destroy it, I do not support that.

 

Hey, I'd even support a beer party thrown by all 12 remaining members of the Wobblies - I might even attend.


the IWW is different from the WWP and TWP. it is, still, an international organization.

 

O.K. I'll go to a beer party thrown by any or all of those people. I'll bet there could be lively discussions with folks not afraid to admit to their Marxism.

 

Now, back to the issue - do you see the difference between supporting a person's or a group's rights vs supporting their agenda?? This is a key distinction in this and several other topics here.


 yes i do. and i have stated so. but the permit was obtained on false pretenses. Can you admit that?

 



 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
341
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
345
Views

Re: THOSE THAT DEFEND THE HATE GROUPS MUST BELIEVE IN THEIR PHILOSOPHY

345 Views
Message 3 of 29

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

1) If someone has a permit to rally, may they rally?  Not if the rally is cancelled by the Governor as it was. Granted, a Governor can cancel a permit and it ceases to exist.

2) if they go beyond the limits of the permit, whose job is it to take corrective action - the police or the leftwing brownshirts?  depends who is located where.  If  you walk in my back door and spit on me, I'm clocking you.  If the cops get there first, you won't be spitting on anyone. Please stick to the topic, we are talking about public areas not your home.

3) Can one not defend the Constitutional rights to free speech without supporting the content of the free speech?  I can't speak for all one's; so I won't. Cute - can I not defend the Constitutional right to free speech without supporting the content of the free speech?

 

Now, dealing straight forward with those issues would be "reality". There, now a reasonable person should have gathered most, if not all from the first 15 posts about this subject. Does that mean that we are in agreement as to the point immediately above and I can count on no more accusations about my support for Nazis and Kluxers??


 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
345
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
351
Views

Re: THOSE THAT DEFEND THE HATE GROUPS MUST BELIEVE IN THEIR PHILOSOPHY

351 Views
Message 4 of 29

@MIseker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

You are throwing names out and names of people who cannot engage with you here.

 

where have i seen someone do that?

 


If it is me you are talking about and I offended you, I apologize.

 

What happened was that one poster claimed (but without substantiation) that I agreed with Nazi thinking. Then another came up with a brilliant, "Yeah, me too". So I responded to them. 

 

So - back to you - do you think I an a Nazi sympathizer? If so, details as to why would be appreciated.


In all reality, you have stated you do not support them. what I, and other posters have a problem with is not outright OPPOSING them. And your statements do lend cover, which is provocative and does not lend itself to discussion. You do not admit Friday nights activities were without permit, you wont admit the protestors spewed hate and IGNORED what their permit was for, protesting the removal of the statue. Hey, if that was all they did, protest the statue as their permit stipulated, yes they have free speech. But when that speech turns in to terrorism, we expect people to oppose it.


I believe that there is a definition of terms thing here. Here is an example - when the Workers World Party gets a permit and stages a rally, I support their right to do it.

 

When one of their members, Takiyah Thompson, climbs up a statue and attaches the ropes used to destroy it, I do not support that.

 

Hey, I'd even support a beer party thrown by all 12 remaining members of the Wobblies - I might even attend.


the IWW is different from the WWP and TWP. it is, still, an international organization.

 

O.K. I'll go to a beer party thrown by any or all of those people. I'll bet there could be lively discussions with folks not afraid to admit to their Marxism.

 

Now, back to the issue - do you see the difference between supporting a person's or a group's rights vs supporting their agenda?? This is a key distinction in this and several other topics here.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
351
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
369
Views

Re: THOSE THAT DEFEND THE HATE GROUPS MUST BELIEVE IN THEIR PHILOSOPHY

369 Views
Message 5 of 29

There may be better happenings in White Nationalist land than merely being fired from jobs, and losing schools.

 

It came on a terror alert I received last night posted somewhere on boards.

 

Paraphrasing only been up to dang long - said the Supremacists are fearful of attending their rallies against google planned for today, across the USA.

 

Cited reason from gun, pipe , bat wielders, fear of Liberals after Charlottesville.They were identified through videos, stills, tweets by dreaded liberals and computer literate people and friends and neighbors.

 

Personally, I don't know if I believe them entirely. They may show up in larger numbers with more weaponry but, police departments will be more wary of their presence.

 

And places such as Boston in Massachusetts, isn't a right to carry state, last time I looked.

 

Automatic 1 year imprisonment, I believe, and forfeiture of weapon(s) maybe😇.

 

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNGVsmx7E21R3yBr5FmOew1AfNihyg&clid=c3a7d30...

 

Froze

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
369
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
381
Views

Re: THOSE THAT DEFEND THE HATE GROUPS MUST BELIEVE IN THEIR PHILOSOPHY

381 Views
Message 6 of 29

@MIseker wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:


right. that means the govt cant interfere. it says nothing about the consequences of that speech.



Wouldn't it also mean that it is legal for them to do so?  And if another group or anyone took action to prevent their right would be engaging in illegal activities....i.e. anti-fas going over to their permitted area for that?  Wouldn't that mean the leftist were institgators?



Yes. and antifa ( counter demonstraters too ) are willing to suffer the consequences of their actions. As these Nazi's are being outed they are complaining about it. and back pedaling. 


And suffering some consequences....

 

....one was fired from his job in southern California....a customer recognized him from a facebook video.....reported it to the company prez.....was fired on Tuesday.

 

....another one was reported to the college dean.....dean said the school couldn't do anything legally....his picture was all over the news and he lost his girlfriend and maybe transferring......

 

....another's family told him he was no longer welcome home.....story all over the news......can't get a date.....

 

These are great consequences for excessive hating......

 

Oh, yeah, another was arrested due to video evidence in Charlottesville......

 

Yes, very nice consequences......

 

one was
 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
381
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
384
Views

Re: THOSE THAT DEFEND THE HATE GROUPS MUST BELIEVE IN THEIR PHILOSOPHY

384 Views
Message 7 of 29

@rk9152 wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

The title of this topic makes an invalid assumption. Can anyone point out any defenders of those hate groups??

 

Yes, the frauds who claim the issue is "freedom of speech"......

If I understand you, to defend freedom of speech (not the speaker) makes one a member of a hate group. I'm sure that is not what you intended so maybe you can expand on your theory. I could, but you usually don't understand.  Let's give it a try though.....

 

A group comes into town under fraudulant purposes.  They claim to the government that they are there to protest the legal moving of a statue.  But it's only a ruse you see?  It's actually the known hate groups, the KKK, the Nazi's, the White Nationalists and the Steve Bannon supported Alt-Right coming into town to "Unite-the-Right.  That's you, "rk".  They want to "unite" you, the Right, with other like-minded whites on the right.  On camera, they boast that they are coming into town to show those ***bleep*** that they are taking back the country; that they will kill those ***bleeps*** if they have to.  Not one mention about the statue.  On Friday night, again, not one word about the statue, but they chant "Jews won't replace us" and other derogatory hateful words.

 

The next day they show up armed in body armor, protected by shields, over 200 with loaded guns according to one of their organizers, they don't follow the agreement they had with the police and they intentionally enter an area they were prohibited from entering that's occupied by counter-protesters and a melee takes place.  The police regain control, the Governor calls a State of Emergency and therefore, the permit, again, obtained under false pretenses, is terminated.

 

But your side, the Righties, that are all united now, blame the JEW Government and the Leftists and are angry.....the now United Right mob attacks and beats a young male to near death, while another hate-filled member of the now, very united right, jumps in his car, revs up the engine, and speeds into a large group of innocent Americans killing one and injuring 19 more.

 

Now, we have a poster here who chooses to ignore all the facts and claims this whole issue is a freedom of speech issue.  Choosing to ignore the fact the permit was obtained under fraudulant purposes, ignoring the fact his team, showed up with loaded guns, body armor and shockingly, no signs about the statue.  Ignoring the FACT his team, the United Right, has caused their permit to be canceled by not following the instructions by police (a requirement) and entered the forbidden area.  NOTE:  THEY caused their Freedom of Speech to be silenced.  They disobeyed the police which initiated the melee which got the protest cancelled.

 

So the permit was a fraud and the posters argument is a fraud.  IMO, the "united right" is a fraud.

 

But hey, "rk", thanks for asking......

 

If not, let's move on.  Please do.....

 

Can't - your position is still somewhat vague. Hasn't been vague since day one.....some choose to just play ***bleep***   Seems like you have an urge to insult but are holding back.  For some, reality can be insulting, can't it, rk?


No ***beeping**** involved. I'm just trying to figure out your thinking about a coupla things:  They were already answered above, dontcha know.  But since you're struggling....

1) If someone has a permit to rally, may they rally?  Not if the rally is cancelled by the Governor as it was.

2) if they go beyond the limits of the permit, whose job is it to take corrective action - the police or the leftwing brownshirts?  depends who is located where.  If  you walk in my back door and spit on me, I'm clocking you.  If the cops get there first, you won't be spitting on anyone.

3) Can one not defend the Constitutional rights to free speech without supporting the content of the free speech?  I can't speak for all one's; so I won't.

 

Now, dealing straight forward with those issues would be "reality". There, now a reasonable person should have gathered most, if not all from the first 15 posts about this subject.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
384
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
393
Views

Re: THOSE THAT DEFEND THE HATE GROUPS MUST BELIEVE IN THEIR PHILOSOPHY

393 Views
Message 8 of 29

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

You are throwing names out and names of people who cannot engage with you here.

 

where have i seen someone do that?

 


If it is me you are talking about and I offended you, I apologize.

 

What happened was that one poster claimed (but without substantiation) that I agreed with Nazi thinking. Then another came up with a brilliant, "Yeah, me too". So I responded to them. 

 

So - back to you - do you think I an a Nazi sympathizer? If so, details as to why would be appreciated.


In all reality, you have stated you do not support them. what I, and other posters have a problem with is not outright OPPOSING them. And your statements do lend cover, which is provocative and does not lend itself to discussion. You do not admit Friday nights activities were without permit, you wont admit the protestors spewed hate and IGNORED what their permit was for, protesting the removal of the statue. Hey, if that was all they did, protest the statue as their permit stipulated, yes they have free speech. But when that speech turns in to terrorism, we expect people to oppose it.


I believe that there is a definition of terms thing here. Here is an example - when the Workers World Party gets a permit and stages a rally, I support their right to do it.

 

When one of their members, Takiyah Thompson, climbs up a statue and attaches the ropes used to destroy it, I do not support that.

 

Hey, I'd even support a beer party thrown by all 12 remaining members of the Wobblies - I might even attend.


the IWW is different from the WWP and TWP. it is, still, an international organization.

 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
393
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
398
Views

Re: THOSE THAT DEFEND THE HATE GROUPS MUST BELIEVE IN THEIR PHILOSOPHY

398 Views
Message 9 of 29

@MIseker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

You are throwing names out and names of people who cannot engage with you here.

 

where have i seen someone do that?

 


If it is me you are talking about and I offended you, I apologize.

 

What happened was that one poster claimed (but without substantiation) that I agreed with Nazi thinking. Then another came up with a brilliant, "Yeah, me too". So I responded to them. 

 

So - back to you - do you think I an a Nazi sympathizer? If so, details as to why would be appreciated.


In all reality, you have stated you do not support them. what I, and other posters have a problem with is not outright OPPOSING them. And your statements do lend cover, which is provocative and does not lend itself to discussion. You do not admit Friday nights activities were without permit, you wont admit the protestors spewed hate and IGNORED what their permit was for, protesting the removal of the statue. Hey, if that was all they did, protest the statue as their permit stipulated, yes they have free speech. But when that speech turns in to terrorism, we expect people to oppose it.


I believe that there is a definition of terms thing here. Here is an example - when the Workers World Party gets a permit and stages a rally, I support their right to do it.

 

When one of their members, Takiyah Thompson, climbs up a statue and attaches the ropes used to destroy it, I do not support that.

 

Hey, I'd even support a beer party thrown by all 12 remaining members of the Wobblies - I might even attend.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
398
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
408
Views

Re: THOSE THAT DEFEND THE HATE GROUPS MUST BELIEVE IN THEIR PHILOSOPHY

408 Views
Message 10 of 29

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

You are throwing names out and names of people who cannot engage with you here.

 

where have i seen someone do that?

 


If it is me you are talking about and I offended you, I apologize.

 

What happened was that one poster claimed (but without substantiation) that I agreed with Nazi thinking. Then another came up with a brilliant, "Yeah, me too". So I responded to them. 

 

So - back to you - do you think I an a Nazi sympathizer? If so, details as to why would be appreciated.


In all reality, you have stated you do not support them. what I, and other posters have a problem with is not outright OPPOSING them. And your statements do lend cover, which is provocative and does not lend itself to discussion. You do not admit Friday nights activities were without permit, you wont admit the protestors spewed hate and IGNORED what their permit was for, protesting the removal of the statue. Hey, if that was all they did, protest the statue as their permit stipulated, yes they have free speech. But when that speech turns in to terrorism, we expect people to oppose it.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
408
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Roundtable Discussion:
Ask questions and get advice from fellow entrepreneurs
Now through Nov. 22

Top Authors