monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

revelette1 wrote:

I agree with George on this one in the respect that everyone no matter what their views are have the right to speak them in any venue

no

they do not have that right in private venues

Are you sure that's what you mean? I'd think people like you would rather have those people secluded away in private venues instead of public ones. I think you mean in "safe spaces" where liberals can huddle together and ignore that there is a real world around them full of hateful, disgusting things. Better to plug the ears and close the eyes and babble on safely tucked away behind the ignore button.

I'm not a supporter of hate speech of any kind, but I also abhor the idea of 'safe spaces' for specific groups. The world isn't a safe space, people ought to get used to that ****.

Beth is right here, though: you have no right of free speech in a private venue. You can't come on my property and spout racist **** with no consequences.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Sheesh. There is no ******* 'misleading interpretation' here, man. This photo clearly shows people being hit by a car - at speed. What are you even going for with comments like those?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Mr. Cocksure. Hope you'll never be a juror.

Ever read the fuckin NYT? Apparently they didn't rely on one still.

Neither am I, of course: there's plenty of video, which you seem to be forgetting? I really don't care what the NYT wrote, it doesn't support the case you're making here.

As for the juror, I not only have sat on several juries, I daresay that you or anyone would be pleased if I sat on a jury for their trial, as I fully believe in the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Sorry if you said this earlier, but: what is your argument here? That the guy didn't actually run these people down? That he's not actually at fault here? Or, are you just ****-stirring because you're a right-winger who likes to argue with left-wingers?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

snood wrote:

Quote:
you don't seem like a stupid person

It really speaks well of you, that you can hold your gaze - looking for semblances of sense and sanity - the way you do.
He seems stupid AND crazy to me.

That would actually be removing responsibility for him posting the things he does. I don't like doing that. People who post hateful or idiotic things deserve to carry the weight of their decisions and be held responsible for them.

Cheers
Cycloptichorn

Yeah, I see that. But to get under that weight they have to be convinced that they are wrong. Rationalizing and defending this kind of evil (yes, I think intentionally running over people in the name of white nationalism is evil)is way more wrong than any of the apologists will cop to. Ever. But, I see your point.

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

Yeah, I see that. But to get under that weight they have to be convinced that they are wrong. Rationalizing and defending this kind of evil (yes, I think intentionally running over people in the name of white nationalism is evil)is way more wrong than any of the apologists will cop to. Ever. But, I see your point.

If I had to guess, I'd say that this guy didn't wake up that morning intending to run a bunch of people down. He definitely drove from OH to attend a racist rally and most likely had a lot of very strong and negative feelings about the protestors, who did effectively **** their rally up. I don't know if the Murder charges against him will stick, my guess is that they end up reducing it to vehicular manslaughter and aggravated assault.

What we saw here is, I'm further guessing, the result of online rhetoric on the right-wing that seeks to remove the humanity of left-wingers and minorities. You should see the **** I read in right-wing forums, man. I actively seek them out and look to see what people are really saying and thinking. It's hard to even reproduce the level of hate that these people have for those who disagree with their bigoted views, not without feeling scummy yourself for having read it and re-typed it.

A big part of these online communities is the idea that the protestors deserve to die, that they are 'scum,' that they are simply throwing the first punches in an eventual civil war in this country. Impressionable young men start out venting their frustrations, and they think the whole thing is a big joke, they make memes and sit around laughing with each other, but when you've read comments about how you should just 'run down protestors' a thousand times, and you're sitting behind the wheel simmering, just full of anger, and you're in the same position? Suddenly it's not a joke. That's the scariest **** out of all of this, our internet and discussion system is (in my opinion) leading to the radicalization of both sides of political equation, and we're going to see a lot more of this violence before things get better.

There are white nationalist marches in the next few weeks in both Boston and Texas. Both are a disaster waiting to happen at this point and should be shut down.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

There were a hundred eye witnesses. The video shows the car sending people flying. What the **** is wrong with you?

Glad you found them, because I haven't been able to. Can you give me even one site which quotes a actual eyewitness who says the car hit people, rather than another car.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Sorry if you said this earlier, but: what is your argument here? That the guy didn't actually run these people down? That he's not actually at fault here? Or, are you just ****-stirring because you're a right-winger who likes to argue with left-wingers

I did say earlier. I don't know what happened. But yes, according the the NYT (I already gave the link) he only hit another car, not people.

I've looked for the video of the guy's car being attacked (which I saw, but I forget where) by antifa thugs, but I can't find it right now. It was not on a mainstream outlet, I do know that. It will come out more widely, with time, I would think.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Sorry if you said this earlier, but: what is your argument here? That the guy didn't actually run these people down? That he's not actually at fault here? Or, are you just ****-stirring because you're a right-winger who likes to argue with left-wingers

I did say earlier. I don't know what happened. But yes, according the the NYT (I already gave the link) he only hit another car, not people.

Sorry, I didn't read far back enough to see this. This is immaterial: if he rammed another car after driving several hundred feet on the street, and then tried to book it out of there, and it was the car he hit that hit the other people, he's exactly as guilty as if he'd hit them with his car. There is no meaningful distinction between the two.

Quote:

I've looked for the video of the guy's car being attacked (which I saw, but I forget where) by antifa thugs, but I can't find it right now. It was not on a mainstream outlet, I do know that. It will come out more widely, with time, I would think.

You can't find it, because you didn't see it. Isn't that right? Why isn't that video all over various right-wing forums? I damn well would be, and I read LOTS of them and I've seen nothing of the sort. Just a bunch of people who claim this happened, or claim to have seen the video but 'can't find it.' Sure.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

If they lawfully apply to assemble and march, by what mechanism could they be "shut down"?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Sorry, I didn't read far back enough to see this. This is immaterial: if he rammed another car after driving several hundred feet on the street, and then tried to book it out of there, and it was the car he hit that hit the other people, he's exactly as guilty as if he'd hit them with his car. There is no meaningful distinction between the two.

No "meaningful distinction," eh?

That's a far cry from your recent IT IS IMPOSSIBLE that he didn't run down people certainly of a couple minutes ago, eh?

Maybe you would be better off reading "back far enough," or somewhere else, before you dive in, eh?

Ambrose Bierce wrote:

"To be positive: To be mistaken at the top of one's voice. "

Mark Twain wrote:

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You can't find it, because you didn't see it. Isn't that right?

I see that outright slander and foundationless accusations are basically your stock in trade, now, eh?

Thanks for the information. I now know exactly where your lyin ass is coming from.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Sorry, I didn't read far back enough to see this. This is immaterial: if he rammed another car after driving several hundred feet on the street, and then tried to book it out of there, and it was the car he hit that hit the other people, he's exactly as guilty as if he'd hit them with his car. There is no meaningful distinction between the two.

No "meaningful distinction," eh?

That's a far cry from your recent IT IS IMPOSSIBLE that he didn't run down people certainly of a couple minutes ago, eh?

Maybe you would be better off reading "back far enough" or somewhere else before you dive in, eh?

Sorry, I don't have all day to look back several pages to find your core argument. That's why I politely asked you to reiterate it here.

As for what I wrote above, you're still wrong. It IS impossible that the guy didn't run people down. I just went back and looked at the video - the driver hits people prior to his striking another car. Go back and look again, he actually launches one person over the car in front (that he ended up hitting) and also flips people up in the air hard enough that they landed behind his car. I can't see how someone who actually watched the video and looked at pictures could come to any other conclusion, which leads me to believe that either a) you haven't actually watched the video, or b) you know you're wrong and just get your lols by ******* with leftists. That second one is the truth, right? It's okay to admit it.

I only wrote my post above to point out that the driver is just as guilty even under your preferred scenario. It shouldn't be taken as some sort of agreement with you or admission that you're right: I don't agree with you, and you're wrong. Just want to make that 100% clear. I also still don't understand your motives for defending the dude.

Quote:

I see that outright slander and foundationless accusations are basically your stock in trade, now, eh?

Prove me wrong. Check your browser history, if you watched it online you can find a link to it - it only happened Saturday, you don't even have to look very far back. I dare ya!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
You can't find it, because you didn't see it. Isn't that right?

I see that outright slander and foundationless accusations are basically your stock in trade, now, eh?

Thanks for the information. I now know exactly where your lyin ass is coming from.

Where did he slander you,or lie? All he did was call you out on your lie, and you can't handle it. There isn't any such video with the counter protesters attacking the car, and if there were, it would be pasted all over every right wing site you could find. We know you can't ever admit you lied, but at least stop whining about getting busted.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

If they lawfully apply to assemble and march, by what mechanism could they be "shut down"?

Yeah, it's a tough one. The real question is, is this a peaceful demonstration? If not, why are they showing up in armor and carrying weapons? Non-peaceful gatherings are unlawful and if it can be shown that these people are holding these events with the intent to start violence, I see no reason why those event permits cannot be cancelled.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@layman,

By how much did your recruitment go up after your march, victim?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

if it can be shown that these people are holding these events with the intent to start violence

Proving intent to be violent before the fact. That's tough. Especially since it wouldn't be lost on the organizers that they should keep any violent intent a secret.

0 Replies

@snood,

Kinda strange that you claim to be familiar with "hundreds" of eyewitness accounts, but can't cite even one, eh, Snooty?

What's up with that?

1 Reply

New recotd low approval for Trump in Gallup daily tracking poll 34, that's 34 percent approval. Looks like his wishy washy non response on Charlottesville did not sit well with the country.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I wonder if today's statement helped a lot.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

just went back and looked at the video - the driver hits people prior to his striking another car.

What video? Got a link?

0 Replies

Quote:

But you still can't prove you saw any video about counter protesters attacking the car, now can you?

I have no need, and certainly no desire, to "prove" a god-damned thing to you, Snooty.

I started out assuming that your new homey, who I hadn't encountered before, was sincere.

He has proved otherwise. If I ever get around to it, I'll find the video again and probably post it, but NOT for your benefit, or his.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know