Trump says the 'alt-left' bears some responsibility for violence in Charlottesville

a reply to: windword

yeah with you once a liar always a liar

oh you on board with removing washington too?
yeah i bet you are

jog on

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Did I say that the city wanted public land to be used for a riot? No, I didn't. Does that make any logical sense even?

No, it doesn't.

As I understand it, one event was permitted inside the venue (the park) and the other outside. I'm not sure of the actual straight-line distance between the two points ... are you?

When the UTR factions presented a danger to public safety (was that the fault of the PD too?) their permit was revoked.

I'm not sure how many ways there are out of this park ... but often, there's one way in and one way out.

So again, to me, we have to look at the behaviors of the people involved.

Aren't people responsible for their own actions?

Or are you saying that proximity excuses violence?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Konduit

I suppose the same logic could be applied to Marxism, Anarchism and Ultra Egalitarianism, right?

I don't remember the US declaring war on any of those. So, nope.

So I guess the KKK doesn't apply?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: windword

yeah with you once a liar always a liar

oh you on board with removing washington too?
yeah i bet you are

jog on

Removing confederate statues -- statues of traitors to the union -- has nothing to do with statues of the Founding Fathers. The veneration of the rebel army is creaking to an end.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

your ilks lunacy now includes george washingoton just as trump predicted yesterday

march on lemmings

I"m an ilk now?

Wow, the "good day" motif really has gone right out the window.

Again, let me know if you come up with any facts. You apparently are unaware of basic facts about WWII; frankly, can we trust any of your unsourced statements at this point?

a reply to: Gryphon66

you have yet to produce any source so your opinion is irrelevant
you also appear to back the removal of washington now as well( which is not surprising in the least)

trust ,from you , is meaningless
as are discussions

a reply to: shooterbrody
the only people who's opinion matters are the people in THAT CITY! not yours, not mine...
there would be 45 days or so for the people of that city to make their opinion known, and then the council will consider those opinions and make a decision. it's called democracy.. and it's stunning to me that a country that claims we need to bomb the crap out of countries to spread it just can't seem to get it through their head how it works!!

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

you have yet to produce any source so your opinion is irrelevant
you also appear to back the removal of washington now as well( which is not surprising in the least)

trust ,from you , is meaningless
as are discussions

But you quoted me!

I don't think that makes my opinion irrelevant does it? Seems like you care a lot about what I think ...

What claim of mine do you want a source for ... be specific.

Also, please demonstrate anything I've said that regards removing statues of George Washington.

If not ... my followup: are you confused or lying?

Okay, time to speak up.

Free speech. This is one of the foundations of the United States. We, as citizens, have the right to say whatever we wish.

I keep hearing the left say that the people who spoke/showed their opinion(s) are just as guilty as the people who fought them and drove a car through there.

WRONG.

The issue here is, if you think that something a person said is wrong or that you do not agree with, then it's perfectly acceptable to punch them in the mouth.

NO, IT'S NOT.

The violence in this country has to stop. People need to put on their big boy/girl pants and grow a backbone. It's called FREE SPEECH.

Just because you don't agree with someone, DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO SLUG THEM!!!

Once you start down the path that "something" can't be legally discussed, it's a slippery slope that won't have a happy ending.

I certainly do not agree with either of the sides in this regard, but I will defend each of the sides rights to express their opinions, NOT to become violent because you don't like what they are saying.

Fred

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960

I keep hearing the left say that the people who spoke/showed their opinion(s) are just as guilty as the people who fought them and drove a car through there.

WRONG.

Fred

So, you seem to be upset about what you think some folks "on the left" have said ... would that be exercising their free speech rights then?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody
the only people who's opinion matters are the people in THAT CITY! not yours, not mine...
there would be 45 days or so for the people of that city to make their opinion known, and then the council will consider those opinions and make a decision. it's called democracy.. and it's stunning to me that a country that claims we need to bomb the crap out of countries to spread it just can't seem to get it through their head how it works!!

I have no issue with the city of charlottesville removing anything or erecting anything on public property.
I do have an issue with the city of charlottesville permitting an event and then not providing proper protection.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960

I keep hearing the left say that the people who spoke/showed their opinion(s) are just as guilty as the people who fought them and drove a car through there.

WRONG.

Fred

So, you seem to be upset about what you think some folks "on the left" have said ... would that be exercising their free speech rights then?

Absolutely!! And I would defend their rights to express them!! I may not AGREE with them, but they have the right to express whatever they feel the need to express.

"Express" and "running them down with a car" are not exactly the same, and the latter one would have me pulling my pistol out to take out the driver.

An extremely large difference.

a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Hmmm. Fair enough.

Good answer.

For the record, I agree with you about violence completely.

Violence including violence against things (vandalism) is unacceptable as a political discourse.

I fear the U.S. Is gonna be done for in 20 years or so over people not understanding heritage and history and letting minorities rule.

This is why I hate the power of individual perception. Too many perceive differently.

If everyone's perception was actually reality, we might have a chance.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody
the only people who's opinion matters are the people in THAT CITY! not yours, not mine...
there would be 45 days or so for the people of that city to make their opinion known, and then the council will consider those opinions and make a decision. it's called democracy.. and it's stunning to me that a country that claims we need to bomb the crap out of countries to spread it just can't seem to get it through their head how it works!!

I have no issue with the city of charlottesville removing anything or erecting anything on public property.
I do have an issue with the city of charlottesville permitting an event and then not providing proper protection.

And I have serious issues with the fact that there needs to be protection. Free speech? Great. Slugging someone because you don't like what they are saying? The fact that people who are willing to take this to a violent level, show up with the sole purpose of taking this to the violent level, unto itself is the most disturbing part.

We need to start teaching people that it's NOT okay to take protesting to the next level. If that means jailing them for 10 years or more to get the message across, so be it. Jail'em and throw away the keys for 10 years. Maybe they will re-think it the next time.

Fred

originally posted by: icanteven
I get it. Nazis are going to Nazi. I don't need to hear the man who lives in the people's house imply some of the Nazis and white supremacists were good people.

Last chance to clear up the reality of what the president said--if you fail to comprehend after this, so be it.

The president was specifically speaking about the people ON BOTH SIDES who showed up there without the hate and intention of violence that both the white supremacists and the ANTIFA people did. Those people in bold are the ones that the president was referencing as good people.

Take it or leave it, that's up to you.

This isn't some abstract thing. Nazi and white supremacist views being entertained as a side represents an existential threat to the republic. There is nothing that these people stand for that is good, that is wholesome, that is "another side". They are evil.

Nazi-esque and racial-supremacy views have always existed as long as America has been a nation and long before that. Hell, even Native American tribes were racist against each other. And long after the U.S. is no longer a nation, there will still be these ignorant beliefs in the world.

But, to pretend that, all of a sudden, they have become some big threat to the nation is ridiculous. These idiots rear their ugly heads at relatively regular intervals, and a more just society always pushes them back in the shadows where they belong. Don't get to the point where you see this as a the-end-is-nigh incident. It's far from it, and there are those of use who abhor this type of behavior (on both sides of this Charlottesville incident) who are better trained and armed than most of them, so if it ever came down to it (which I don't think that it will), an uprising of these douches wouldn't last long.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Perception has no place in a logical debate.

Sadly, most, if not all, of these ATS debates on this topic reek of illogical ramblings.

a reply to: fredrodgers1960

And I have serious issues with the fact that there needs to be protection.

Then why make anyone get a permit for any event at all?
Concerts, sporting events, and other gatherings all have to have protection, streets blocked ect.
From what I have seen this event had none of that.
Police were there and stood and watched crimes take place.
Just blocking traffic to that area alone could have saved the life lost.
If that is not the local governments responsibility then whose is it?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

And I have serious issues with the fact that there needs to be protection.

Then why make anyone get a permit for any event at all?
Concerts, sporting events, and other gatherings all have to have protection, streets blocked ect.
From what I have seen this event had none of that.
Police were there and stood and watched crimes take place.
Just blocking traffic to that area alone could have saved the life lost.
If that is not the local governments responsibility then whose is it?

Well, let's see. How about we start at the citizens and people who think it's okay to turn a peaceful demonstration into chaos? Is it not "the people" who started this?

Personal opinion, had I been the person in charge of the police, I would have deployed a water cannon. That will make them think twice the next time. As soon as the first punch was traded, water hose them down. Pick up the offenders, and toss them in the padded van. Charge them with enough jail time to disrupt their normal lives.

I seriously doubt they will return to another event. If they do? Keep them in jail far longer with each time.

We see these protests like this come in stages.

AND we need there to be serious consequences for ACTIONS.

My point was, "the people" involved think that they can get away with crap like this. That we need to deploy armed people unto itself speaks large and tells us that whatever actions we have taken to stop this violence isn't working obviously.

Time to ratchet up the response.

Fred