DATA RELEASE: “Unite The Right” Planning Chats Demonstrate Violent Intent

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I would argue that one side has the moral high ground and yet all I'm seeing on this site are people saying both sides are the same.

Feel free doesn't make it true.

When both sides are standing knee deep in the snip themselves.

That moral high ground.

That moral superiority.

The left purports themselves as having ?

DOESN'T EXIST.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: TheRedneck

I was in Charlottesville this past weekend. Do you what feeling I got from the people? Nazi punks f*** off! Not Antifa punks. And not Nazi punks and Antifa punks. The town mostly places the blame of what happened on the Nazis (not to mention the inaction of the police.) They see the counter-protesters as their defenders.

So while I agree that violence for violence sake is a terrible thing I ask: Do you consider violence for the sake of defending the helpless just as bad?

Since Trump was wrong in stating that there were good people on both sides, it's save to assume that if ANTIFA didn't show up, there would not have been ANY violence. The KKK isn't going to fight among themselves, they came looking for a fight. The smart thing to do would be to ignore then and not give them the attention they crave. But that didn't happen. ANTIFA came looking for a fight as well. They both got everything they wanted. A fight and attention. Congrats.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: neo96

I think it matters when adjudicating blame for the events of Charlottesville. One side went there to start violence and the other side went to defend the town from that violence. I would argue that one side has the moral high ground and yet all I'm seeing on this site are people saying both sides are the same.

Think of it this way. In Seven Samurai (or Magnificent Seven if Westerns are more your thing) a town is threatened by a group of outsiders (bandits). Another group of outsiders (the titular characters) come to the defense of the town. Violence occurs. Would you argue that those defending the town are just as responsible for what occurred as those attacking the town?

Spot on, once again.

The most basic natural right is to defend oneself and others from attack.

The equation of those defending and those attacking is standard Doublethink/Doublespeak.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The most basic natural right is to defend oneself and others from attack.

Don't look now you just defended nazis.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

The most basic natural right is to defend oneself and others from attack.

Don't look now you just defended nazis.

You're desperate to push the narrative aren't you?

Actually, I didn't defend Nazis. In fact, I'd like to go on record and make sure that all of you have a reference for what I really think.

To take on Nazi (and White Supremacist) symbolism, accouterments and rhetoric is to declare one's self an active adherent of those vile ideologies that have killed millions, blown up and burned churches, lynched people etc. It is, literally, a threat and a promise of violence, murder, arson and mayhem (as we saw in Charlottesville.)

If you assault me and tell me you intend to murder me and mine, you're declaring yourself a threat. I have the right to respond.

Take it to the bank.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What narrative is that ?

ALL people are created equal.

Instead of agreeing with one side literally giving themselves MORE rights than another side.

Guilty as charged.

a reply to: network dude

Since Trump was wrong in stating that there were good people on both sides, it's save to assume that if ANTIFA didn't show up, there would not have been ANY violence.

That doesn't make much sense.

Trump being wrong in his statement has nothing to do with whether or not there would have been violence if Antifa showed up.

Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are not good people, whether they are engaged in violence or not.

a reply to: network dude

University students were assaulted on Friday night by this group. A group of clergymen and faith leaders were nearly assaulted on Saturday but the intervention of counter-protesters prevents this. If you wind up a bunch of guys and get them ready for a fight they're going to go out and find a fight.

I think the tragedy at Altamont provides a pretty good example of this fact.

I honestly don't know why people starred G's post.

It was an exceptional post of superiorism.

The most basic natural right is to defend oneself and others from attack.

Everyone has that right except people the left disagrees with.

I don't know why there are some people justifying political violence.

The founding fathers gave us a peaceful means of revolution.

The vote. That actually accomplishes something.

The founding fathers were vehemently opposed to mob rule.

To state a well known fact.

No citizen in this country has sovereign power over another citizen.

Wasn't created like that and should not be defended like that.

Two wrongs make a tyranny of the mob.

God help you if your on the wrong side.

After all violence is justified since some people think it's a natural right. To beat your political opposites in to submission or non existence.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

Since Trump was wrong in stating that there were good people on both sides, it's save to assume that if ANTIFA didn't show up, there would not have been ANY violence.

That doesn't make much sense.

Trump being wrong in his statement has nothing to do with whether or not there would have been violence if Antifa showed up.

Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are not good people, whether they are engaged in violence or not.

I don't think you grasp my point. Since Trump was wrong in his statement about there being some "good people on both sides", there obviously were only KKK/WS and ANTIFA there. With me so far? OK, so if ANTIFA didn't show up, who would the KKK hit with their tiki torches?

a reply to: neo96

I honestly don't know why people starred G's post.

Because he is right.

Everyone has that right except people the left disagrees with.

No. Everyone has rights. Period.

You yourself do not see it that way. You yourself are the very thing you claim to hate about the Left. You pick and choose based on what or whom you agree with.

a reply to: introvert

No he isn't.

In American politics there IS no right side.

Since it is the false choice fallacy.

No. Everyone has rights. Period.

Even NAZIS have those SAME RIGHTS.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

University students were assaulted on Friday night by this group. A group of clergymen and faith leaders were nearly assaulted on Saturday but the intervention of counter-protesters prevents this. If you wind up a bunch of guys and get them ready for a fight they're going to go out and find a fight.

I think the tragedy at Altamont provides a pretty good example of this fact.

I think that is exactly what I said, except you are now changing the narrative and placing others there, which if others were there, that would make Trumps statement factual and correct. I agree the idiot KKK/WS were there looking for a fight. Both days. No argument there at all. None. (Do I have to denounce the KKK more so as to not be labeled a sympathizer, or was that enough?)

a reply to: network dude

I don't think you grasp my point.

No. I don't. One has nothing to do with the other.

Since Trump was wrong in his statement about there being some "good people on both sides", there obviously were only KKK/WS and ANTIFA there. With me so far?

No. How does Trump being wrong mean there were only two groups there? He was wrong because KKK/WS's are not good people and there were people protesting that were not with those two groups.

OK, so if ANTIFA didn't show up, who would the KKK hit with their tiki torches?

No one, I guess, but what does that have to do with Trump being wrong about KKK/WS's being good people?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

What narrative is that ?

ALL people are created equal.

Instead of agreeing with one side literally giving themselves MORE rights than another side.

Guilty as charged.

You need a crayon drawing?

Nazis threatening violence is not the same as people defending against that violence?

I can't make it any more clear than that; the sides are not in anyway "equal" ... making threats of violence against others is not "free speech" in fact it is the OPPOSITE.

a reply to: neo96

No one has the right to assault others, or threaten violence in their actions, speech or chosen symbols.

We do have the right to defend against those things.

You keep claiming that Nazis have free speech. Yes, they do. They can spew their hatred all day long.

But they cannot assault people. They cannot invade a town and carry torches, Nazi flags and chant Nazi slogans while threatening others. That is a clear and present THREAT of VIOLENCE.

Stop trying to make it the same as personal defense.

a reply to: neo96

No he isn't. In American politics there IS no right side. Since it is the false choice fallacy.

I don't think he made any such claim.

Even NAZIS have those SAME RIGHTS.

True. Sad that you will say Nazis have such rights, but don't extend the same gesture to Muslims, or a number of other groups of people you despise.

Funny. You hold Nazis in higher regard than you do Muslims or Leftists.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Maybe the left needs to chill out and go to the center.

How bout that ?

You really expect everyone to lay down and let leftists run rough shot over everyone and everything without any pushback ?

Let me be clear.

What they did was wrong.

What the anti's did was WRONG.

a reply to: introvert

Yeah he did.

Quoted again for those IGNORING IT.

The most basic natural right is to defend oneself and others from attack.

Apparently only the anti's have that 'right'.

No one else.

originally posted by: introvert

Funny. You hold Nazis in higher regard than you do Muslims or Leftists.

Careful about dispensing too much truth there, Introvert.

The repugnant double standards of some confound me ... even still.