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

originally posted by: neo96
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.

Sure. Who is "the left"? Where's the website? The membership application? The Twitter account? The Facebook page?

What ... you mean there are none for "the left"?

I submit that the members of that group are little more than bogeymen .... basically anyone you don't agree with, don't like, and wish to silence.

You're promoting the most absurd double standards here ... and I don't event think you recognize it.

a reply to: introvert

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

Funny that muslims are Islamo FASCISTS that like to cling to their guns and religion.

That entire religion is everything you accuse the right of being.

RACIST,homophobe and a marriage of religious and political ideology.

I love HITLER's quote on Islam.

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness? As quoted in Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, by Albert Speer, New York: NY, Simon and Schuster (1970) p. 96

en.wikiquote.org...

The humor here is just how GD inconsistent the antis are.

ETA:

Tear down those mosque's

There is more than enough proof that they had an intent for attacking and physical tactics, they knew what this was and they got the response that they wanted, no "conspiracy" or "Soro's" "Deep State"

a reply to: introvert

Well we all know why he is called neo now.

originally posted by: introvert
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?

What were Trump's exact words that has everyone so upset? He was saying there were good people on both sides. Meaning the right and the left. Now, not all the right were KKK members, and I'd venture a guess that not all those who didn't want the statue removed were "Right", unless this is now a requirement for political affiliation. My point is Trump didn't say anything that warranted this response, it was manufactured outrage, and the idiot public fell for it.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: introvert

Well we all know why he is called neo now.

neo doesn't want liberals and conservatives to agree on anything, or even have rational discussions with each other. he is bound and determined to get Americans fighting each other, intellectually and physically. he doesn't care about "forming a more perfect union" as laid out in our constitution...he wants chaos, and division, Trump is giving him what he craves.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
There is more than enough proof that they had an intent for attacking and physical tactics, they knew what this was and they got the response that they wanted, no "conspiracy" or "Soro's" "Deep State"

So anarchy supports Soros and the deep state all of a sudden.

Wonders never cease !!

a reply to: xuenchen

Wait, what? at what point did I say that we support the Deep State or Soro's? I mean, you clearly show your ignorance because we want to destroy them both

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm curious - does someone warrant being sprayed in the face with bear spray and partially blinded by marching with a group of people to a statue to listen to people speak at a permitted event, just because they may be a hateful bigot?

That is pretty much your argument and it is pretty contrarian to the 1st amendment.

a reply to: underwerks

I dont think anyone believes all conservatives are the same. If they do, they're an idiot. The same type of idiot that believes everyone on the left is a communist terrorist.

I've known some people who believe everyone on the left is a communist... and you're absolutely right: They're total idiots. And I laugh at them, as I dismiss them for being idiots.

But that doesn't seem to be happening on the left. The far-left rioters and vandals and assassins (yes, I called them what they are) DO believe that I am some sort of Nazi sympathizer because of the color of my skin and my political leanings. But instead of being ostracized and scorned by the centrist-left, they seem to be excused and their actions politicized to alleviate consequences.

When that stops, maybe I'll take your words more seriously.

If you're angry at being called a Nazi for being a white patriot, it stands to reason you should be angry at the Nazis for perverting the meaning of white patriot. Not the people who stand against their obvious hate.

If?

If?

Really?

So you think it should be optional for someone to be offended at being unfairly lumped onto a group they disagree vehemently with? Let me guess... I shouldn't take offense at being wrongly accused of racism, either?

If?

My GOD, you have a way with words suddenly... you summed up the entire problem in two letters!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm curious - does someone warrant being sprayed in the face with bear spray and partially blinded by marching with a group of people to a statue to listen to people speak at a permitted event, just because they may be a hateful bigot?

That is pretty much your argument and it is pretty contrarian to the 1st amendment.

No that's not my argument at all, not similar to it, and not inferrable from it.

I very specifically said what I meant, and have clarified that I'm not talking about any speech, any flags, or any marches. I'm talking about an invasive march down a city street carrying Nazi flags, chanting Nazi slogans, with torches and weapons under cover of darkness.

THAT is quite clearly a threat of violence and an attempt to intimidate people specifically the residents of Charlottesville and the students at the University.

originally posted by: neo96
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.

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

And he was right. You're trying to argue against something he never claimed, saying the anti's are the only ones that have rights.

a reply to: neo96

Nice deflection.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: underwerks
If?

If?

Really?

So you think it should be optional for someone to be offended at being unfairly lumped onto a group they disagree vehemently with? Let me guess... I shouldn't take offense at being wrongly accused of racism, either?

If?

My GOD, you have a way with words suddenly... you summed up the entire problem in two letters!

TheRedneck

I'm just trying to figure out why anyone would care. Since we've already established that everyone on the left or right isn't the same, why care what some fringe element labels you as? Unless you're just looking for reasons to be offended and/or outraged.

I would hope that being offended is always optional.

I see that isn't the case a lot of times though.

a reply to: introvert

No he isn't.

That for whatever ever reason.

Side A gets to do something to side B.

Because of that fallacy.

CLEARLY SAID.

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

A perceived so called threat because shills on the television and the internets are running around saying they're bad.

THERE IS NO RIGHT to that.

NONE what so ever.

American politics is bout perception. In other words demagoguery.

Playing on innate prejudice that exists in everyone.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Charlottesville was nowhere near as bad as what the liberal media makes it out to be.

a reply to: carewemust

It wasn't.

What they have been defending is people have the 'right' to take the law in to their own hands.

They are defending mob justice.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
Have you looked into the background of these Unite the Right leaders?

During an interview with Alex Jones one of the dudes admitted to being a member of Occupy and a leftist as of three years ago. Yet he never explained what sort of conversion experience changed him from a far-left activist to a far-right activist. I would think that would be a good story to hear but he danced around the question of why he switched sides. That makes me wonder if money had anything to do with his conversion to fringe right.

Has anyone looked into the other "leaders" of this radical right wing fringe? Any other "road to Damascus" conversions from left to right? Wish I had the time but family matters are presently far more important than a bunch of freaks fighting each other.

Perhaps this "leak" was intentional. Several right wing groups that were invited to the rally refused to attend simply because they looked into the backgrounds of the organizers and saw things that made them fear that this was a set-up. Oathkeepers was one such organization according to an interview with Stwart Rhodes I heard on Caravan to Midnight.

a reply to: carewemust

A woman was killed....Yeah let's pretend it was no big deal.

a reply to: carewemust

And what about the people that live there? They seemed to think it was pretty bad.