Politics White Nationalist Rally turns to violence and terrorism

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
There were similar illegal marches in D.C. the day Trump was sworn in, and the days after. So what?

I'm not particularly a fan of regulating free speech and assembly with permits in the first place.

Calling road rage a terrorist act is taking away the fucktard's civil rights. We have more appropriate laws regarding hate crimes that actually fit what happened, and carry the severest of penalties. That's what is being applied and rightly so. The fucktard should get the chair (or whatever) for MURDER.

You can go back through this thread and count the number of times I've called these vile people just that - vile.

WE are allowing someone's civil liberties to be taken away if we allow government to loosely apply the terrorist label to whoever they want to "get." Precedent.
Click to expand...

bodyman5000 and 1 said:
A. A permit to protest is just idiotic.
B. If they broke the law prior to their "permitted"protest arrest them.

I don't see how one can argue that they should have their permit pulled. Keep the permit in place, if they are in jail while it is active who cares?

They're all moronic shitbirds. If we don't let them demonstrate their idiocy without trampling on their rights you give them something to be defensive about.
Click to expand...

bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Agree, I don't see how a permit should be needed unless you block a street like a parade.
Click to expand...

No one's rights were taken away. Any of those people are allowed to stand in front of that statue and protest its removal.

What was asked for and what was originally granted was to have an organized rally/event.

That includes setting up a stage, public address system, speakers, etc.

It also includes coordination with local law enforcement and city officials for protection of those holding the public rally/event.

1,500 people suddenly showing up with stages, electrical equipment and porta potties isn't something that is allowed or safe for the participants or the law enforcement officers sent their to protect them.

A protest and a large organized event are not the same things.

Since the participants of the organized event were not following the conditions of their permit the permit was revoked. Their right to protest was not taken away from them.
 
The first amendment is strangely silent about stages and electrical equipment and porta potties, though it isn't about the right to assemble and to free speech.

When you have government choosing who can assemble and who can have free speech, we all lose.

The whole point of civil disobedience is to break the law, even go to jail for it, and to bring about political action. There's no point in requiring a permit.

A hundred years after the civil war, the government was using fire hoses on black protesters (or not even protesters) in the streets. The protesters weren't following the rules of some permit. So, yeah, no, I don't want the government to have THE say.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
I thought about that but nowadays people will protest a small business for political reasons.

If you block the street my business is on daily because the bakery next door won't make cakes for someone I'm gonna be pissed.
Click to expand...

The whole point is for people to be pissed. :)
 
Denny Crane said:
The first amendment is strangely silent about stages and electrical equipment and porta potties, though it isn't about the right to assemble and to free speech.

When you have government choosing who can assemble and who can have free speech, we all lose.

The whole point of civil disobedience is to break the law, even go to jail for it, and to bring about political action. There's no point in requiring a permit.

A hundred years after the civil war, the government was using fire hoses on black protesters (or not even protesters) in the streets. The protesters weren't following the rules of some permit. So, yeah, no, I don't want the government to have THE say.
Click to expand...

You are free to make up all the "Save the Civil War white statues" signs and march around the city you live in. You are free to have as many friends as you want join you. But if you want to have a large rally on public property you must follow the rules of that city required to hold an event. This includes events that are not politically related. Concerts in the park, marathons, fundraisers, etc. There are rules for large events. This is done for liability of the city and the safety for the participants and citizens of that city.

This was a large event. There are rules and regulations for having a large event.
 
Denny Crane said:
Calling road rage a terrorist act is taking away the fucktard's civil rights.
Click to expand...
We wouldn't want to chill freedom of expression by dissuading those who want to drive cars into crowds of people purely as a political statement. You keep talking about people throwing punches. This fucktard drove a car recklessly into a crowd of nazi protestors. Yet, you can't seem to figure out how that could be politically motivated.
 
Sedatedfork said:
We wouldn't want to chill freedom of expression by dissuading those who want to drive cars into crowds of people purely as a political statement. You keep talking about people throwing punches. This fucktard drove a car recklessly into a crowd of nazi protestors. Yet, you can't seem to figure out how that could be politically motivated.
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't say you can't drive cars into crowds of people.

If George Washington had a car he would have driven it into the British.

- Denny Crane
 
SlyPokerDog said:
No one's rights were taken away. Any of those people are allowed to stand in front of that statue and protest its removal.

What was asked for and what was originally granted was to have an organized rally/event.

That includes setting up a stage, public address system, speakers, etc.

It also includes coordination with local law enforcement and city officials for protection of those holding the public rally/event.

1,500 people suddenly showing up with stages, electrical equipment and porta potties isn't something that is allowed or safe for the participants or the law enforcement officers sent their to protect them.

A protest and a large organized event are not the same things.

Since the participants of the organized event were not following the conditions of their permit the permit was revoked. Their right to protest was not taken away from them.
Click to expand...
You didn't say any of that. You said they were protesting illegally the day before and earlier the day of the permit. You said "because of those actions"

Nothing about not following the conditions of the permit. Why not just say that so I don't get some bad information? I haven't read everything about what happened so I have to take your word for it.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
The president just condemned the KKK, Nazis and White Supremacists.

Finally.
Click to expand...

He's done it repeatedly.

Condemning bias and hate is condemning them all.

If he names just 3 groups, there's going to be a 4th posting on their stormfront site about how Trump didn't single them out.

SMH
 
SlyPokerDog said:
The Constitution doesn't say you can't drive cars into crowds of people.

If George Washington had a car he would have driven it into the British.

- Denny Crane
Click to expand...

Another idiotic post, strawman argument.
 
Sedatedfork said:
We wouldn't want to chill freedom of expression by dissuading those who want to drive cars into crowds of people purely as a political statement. You keep talking about people throwing punches. This fucktard drove a car recklessly into a crowd of nazi protestors. Yet, you can't seem to figure out how that could be politically motivated.
Click to expand...

We have laws against murder and vehicular homicide, and all that. I'm open to his action being politically motivated, but unless we have some admission of guilt, you cannot prove it's anything but road rage.

Again, the hate crime laws (as dubious as mind reading is), do cover this crime and that is the route being pursued. And rightly so. The guy deserves the death penalty, and that will (or won't be, but he did the crime, he gets the penalty) how you dissuade these racist assholes from driving their cars into crowds of people.
 
Denny Crane said:
He's done it repeatedly.

Condemning bias and hate is condemning them all.

If he names just 3 groups, there's going to be a 4th posting on their stormfront site about how Trump didn't single them out.

SMH
Click to expand...
Considering the shit storm that the right had about how Obama didn't call them "Islamic terrorists", I find it funny to hear any conservative (or someone claiming they're not one, but really are) now all the sudden be OK with someone taking their time using an already historically accurate designated name.
 
julius said:
Considering the shit storm that the right had about how Obama didn't call them "Islamic terrorists", I find it funny to hear any conservative (or someone claiming they're not one, but really are) now all the sudden be OK with someone taking their time using an already historically accurate designated name.
Click to expand...

So calling them racist bigots is somehow not calling them what they are?
 
wasserman-1992.jpg
 
Denny Crane said:
So calling them racist bigots is somehow not calling them what they are?
Click to expand...

calling them terrorists is somehow not calling them what they are?

Because I distinctly remember people having a conniption fit that the wasn't calling them "radical islamic terrorists"
 
Common sense tells you that what's right is always in the middle. Don't give in to extremes and choose either racism or non-racism--find the middle ground. I think we can agree that both sides of this white supremacist issue are wrong and extremists. It's a complicated issue and one the President navigated well.
 
If Trump really wanted to support these groups, he would have said nothing. Common sense.
 
A white person isn't a terrorist! therefore this can't be labelled a terrorist attack!
Why is this so difficult to understand for some.
 
The driver, Fields is not even being charged with premeditated murder. The current charges are second degree murder. The authorities must know something to hold the back on the charge.

If it isn't premeditated, it sure as heck can't be political.
What do we have here?
A twenty year old, who until recently had been living with his disabled mother.
No father.

It seems we see a lot a bad stuff from this "group" and it isn't political.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/james-alex-fields-charlottesville-driver-.html
 
From MarAzul's link:

A photographer said he saw Mr. Fields on Saturday with symbols of Vanguard America, a group whose manifesto declares that “a government based in the natural law must not cater to the false notion of equality.” The organization denied any ties to Mr. Fields.
​
It's odd that this terrorist organization isn't taking credit for this "act of terrorism."

The actual terrorist organizations do take credit.

“The driver of the vehicle that hit counterprotesters today was, in no way, a member of Vanguard America,” the group said in a statement on its Twitter account. “All our members had been safely evacuated by the time of the incident. The shields seen do not denote membership, nor does the white shirt. The shirts were freely handed out to anyone in attendance.”​

upload_2017-8-14_11-4-25.png

James Alex Fields Jr. of Ohio was charged with second-degree murder in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday after the authorities said he smashed a car into a line of cars in an episode that left a 32-year-old woman dead and injured at least 19 other people who were protesting a rally staged by white nationalists.​
 
honkicracker said:
A white person isn't a terrorist! therefore this can't be labelled a terrorist attack!
Why is this so difficult to understand for some.
Click to expand...
Focus on something that doesn't matter. See if I care. This guy may have seen aliens and heard voices if he is a schizophrenic as one of his teachers claimed. A white guy can be a terrorist. So what?

Is this woman a terrorist and if so what difference does it make?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nyda...trip-crowd-faces-71-charges-article-1.2503709
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top