Charlottesville

Right wing extremist nutters are just as crazy as the extremist nutters of all other varieties, who'd have thought that... Everybody who thinks it's alright for others to lose their basic human rights for some ideology need to go fuck themselves.

Mojo for all those who got hurt by what went down.
 
ColourofFire said:
Right wing extremist nutters are just as crazy as the extremist nutters of all other varieties, who'd have thought that... Everybody who thinks it's alright for others to lose their basic human rights for some ideology need to go fuck themselves.

Mojo for all those who got hurt by what went down.
Click to expand...

i don't this those extremists should loose any human rights....but they should loose their voting rights.
(we now see what happens when those racists vote)
 
i'm only going to post this here.....not going to double post it.

Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'
http://abcnews.go.com/US/mother-charlottesville-suspect-knew-rallyi-thought-trump/story?id=49185691

here's the part that is a little more important, to me.

"Bloom told The AP she and her son had just moved to the Toledo area from the northern Kentucky city of Florence. She said that's where Fields grew up. She relocated to Ohio for work."

now it all makes a hell of a lot more sense.:mad:
 
mongooz said:
IF that really is how he feels, then he clearly has misunderstood what white nationalists stand for. it's like saying 'i joined the KKK because i like the white robes, not to kill everyone of color'. what the fuck is he thinking?
Click to expand...
Cynical assessment: If he's perceived as somehow reasonable or contrite then maybe he does more interviews and makes the talk show rounds, giving him a bigger platform from which to espouse his views.
 
dmn23 said:
Cynical assessment: If he's perceived as somehow reasonable or contrite then maybe he does more interviews and makes the talk show rounds, giving him a bigger platform from which to espouse his views.
Click to expand...
maybe......but i don't think he's that bright and slick.:shrug:
 
45 has absolutely no problem with attacking: Mexicans, Muslims, gold star families, actresses, Nordstrom's, women, war heroes, allies, LGBTQ, etc...
The only people safe from his bile are white supremacists and Putin, both pillars of his base.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, here is what we should not lose focus on:
Donald Trump administration 'wants to cut white supremacism from counter-extremism program
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...amme-neo-nazi-counter-extremism-a7558796.html

Impeccable timing, this one:
N.C. House Votes to Protect Drivers Who Hit Protesters
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...e-votes-to-protect-drivers-who-hit-protesters

And my parting gift
upload_2017-8-13_16-16-59.jpeg
 
sunvalleylaw said:
"We just want to preserve what we have." He says.

Oh, you mean downtrodden minorities and more governing power for whites, aka white privilege? F@ck you, dick.
Click to expand...

this whole protest started because charlottesville is going to take down a statue of Lee, and rename Lee park to Emancipation Park.

so.....preserving what they have means preserving the racism of the civil war, the lynchings, the murders, the slavery.
 
Tig said:
This is what a leader sounds like.

Click to expand...

I like that message and tone overall. His statement that they have to go home and that they are not welcome is tricky though. 1st Amendment right to PEACEFULLY assemble still exists for all. Not saying these d-bags were engaged in that. Lines are easily crossed, and IMO, were here. In theory, however, there could be some who harbor these views that do not engage in this behavior. It gets into a study of Brandenburg v. Ohio. Violence, and the inciting of violence, and where is that line is the question.

From wiki: The per curiam majority opinion overturned the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California,[3] and articulated a new test – the "imminent lawless action" test – for judging what was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:

…Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.


Link to full opinion and other useful resources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492

Discussion here:
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/brandenburg-v-ohio/

And of course, the wiki on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

So this these douches wish to peacefully congregate and state their views, they have a right to do so. But to incite violence, and beyond that to intimidate and harass others exercising their right of protest or otherwise (burning crosses, molotov cocktails at churches, etc.), is not to be allowed.
 
Last edited:
Tig said:
Meanwhile, here is what we should not lose focus on:
Donald Trump administration 'wants to cut white supremacism from counter-extremism program
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...amme-neo-nazi-counter-extremism-a7558796.html

Impeccable timing, this one:
N.C. House Votes to Protect Drivers Who Hit Protesters
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...e-votes-to-protect-drivers-who-hit-protesters

And my parting gift
View attachment 35643
Click to expand...

the south just cannot get over loosing the civil war. it's not over, to them. and that something i know well about. i was stationed exclusively in the south and have lived in 5 different towns in virginia after the air force.
it ain't over to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tig
sunvalleylaw said:
I like that message and tone overall. His statement that they have to go home and that they are not welcome is tricky though. 1st Amendment right to PEACEFULLY assemble still exists for all. Not saying these d-bags were engaged in that. Lines are easily crossed, and IMO, were here. In theory, however, there could be some who harbor these views that do not engage in this behavior. It gets into a study of Brandenburg v. Ohio. Violence, and the inciting of violence, and where is that line is the question.

Link to full opinion and other useful resources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492

Discussion here:
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/brandenburg-v-ohio/

And of course, the wiki on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

So this these douches wish to peacefully congregate and state their views, they have a right to do so. But to incite violence, intimidate and harass others exercising their right of protest or otherwise (burning crosses, molotov cocktails at churches, etc.), is not to be allowed.
Click to expand...

there are also laws about gatherings/marches, etc., that it may be required to acquire a permit for it. that's where it becomes legal to sqaush this kind of shit. they don't get issued a permit because they have shown great propensity to engage in violence in the past.
 
mongooz said:
there are also laws about gatherings/marches, etc., that it may be required to acquire a permit for it. that's where it becomes legal to sqaush this kind of shit. they don't get issued a permit because they have shown great propensity to engage in violence in the past.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. Brandenburg does not cover all the issues. There can be a lot of different "time, manner, place" restrictions. And of course actual acts of harassment, intimidation, threats, etc. can be outlawed if the law is crafted well. Then it is a matter of getting the local police, AND local prosecutor to act on it. A lot of us remember Wallace never did that, and so the Kennedy's though they didn't want to and had to be goaded into it, sent in the feds finally. In this case, the VA gov. sure seems a lot mor on it that our current federal "leader".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top