DrafterX
9 years ago
we were duped..?? 😕
frankj1
9 years ago
the nazis hired actors?
DrafterX
9 years ago
why do you assume the it was a nazi ad..?? 😕
frankj1
9 years ago
cuz the Prez led me to believe there are more good people than bad.
frankj1
9 years ago
and they had cooler costumes...armor and stuff
teedubbya
9 years ago

https://charlotte.craigslist.org/tfr/d/actors-and-photographers/6253305119.html

Just gonna leave that there ......

ZRX1200 wrote:




Yea you prolly should. I'm hoping it's a stir the pot rather than serious.

There were a lot of nice people marching with the nazis and klan while right in the open actors were being recruited via Craig's list to provoke them and make them do things they don't want to as part of an alt left publicity stunt. That's the only logical conclusion you can draw LOL.

I still remember the adement arguments in here that obama wasn't born here and the proof that existed. Anyone that didn't see that is blind. Trump and Sheffif joe had proof. This is up there with that. It's one thing to hate the left. I get that. Its another to buy into this nonsense while doing it. Kkkoo kkkoo kkkooo kkkooo. I assumed back then folks weren't serious because it was so stupid and they were otherwise bright people. Turns out some were serious.

Absolutely rediculas assertation or inference if that's what it is that doesn't even line up with other accusations of why "the other side" was at fault. Are we all that eager to support the supremacists just because they ditched the pillow cases?

It is a good stir though Z although I highly doubt you anywhere close to beleive it.

I heard they all were cgi and the whole thing never happened.
DrafterX
9 years ago
If it was CGI they woulda used the General Lee Charger... 😟
gummy jones
9 years ago

https://charlotte.craigslist.org/tfr/d/actors-and-photographers/6253305119.html

Just gonna leave that there ......

ZRX1200 wrote:



propaganda isnt new
neither is dramatization

i remember when Israel finally retaliated in gaza a couple years ago and palestinians had live actors arranging themselves about like corpses so they could make videos of the carnage. americans unknowingly loved to repost those videos.

however, i am of the mindset that this past weekend was real hate and real tragedy that doesnt need embellished.

im not sure "peaceful protest" means what we think/pretend it means anymore
teedubbya
9 years ago
I have no doubt the any nazi folks were not all grass roots and there was organizing going on. Even maybe some coin. Who knows.

But the attempts to legitimize the nazis is laughable. On of their leaders proudly showed his armor, weapons and that he was hoping for a fight and more will die.

Birtherism was a game. It was sad but a game. This isn't a game. It's not cute.
DrafterX
9 years ago
All Trump was saying is it takes two to fight.. why is that so hard to grasp... the Nazis weren't the only ones wearing armor and carrying bats...

😟
gummy jones
9 years ago
im actually surprised that there havent been more bloody clashes this summer
i guess we still have half of august
i pray charlottesville was it but my gut tells me it will get worse

what surprises me is that everyone is jockeying for moral high ground of some sorts
it is clear to me that there is none

tw - in our country hate groups are legal and their peaceful demonstration is protected. no matter how appalling. i agree there is a fine line and i have been very clear that i find them all equally detestable and anti american ("we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator...") and anti Christian (we are neither slave nor free, male nor female...we are all fallen sinners created in the image of God). neither the new fascists nor the old fascists will get any sympathy from me yet i realize that they have rights too. when in doubt, i error on the side of freedom as i feel the alternatives are much worse. at the same time, the rule of law must be blind and absolute or freedom cant exist.
dstieger
9 years ago
X, I don't think its hard for anyone to grasp. Nobody is denying that both sides were armed...and that both sides traded blows.

I guess, for me, I have a hard time having any sort of 'sympathy' or 'empathy' or anything positive at all for those representing the alt-right/supremacists, etc. To me, its in indefensible position and those standing on that side, even if not fully hate-filled, are part of a problem.

Sure, there were thugs and idiots on the other side. But they are standing behind/alongside a core of folks who appear to have opposition to hate groups as their mission. That's a position that I don't oppose.

Of course, there's tons of nuances and personalities on all sides. But, as you start generalizing, it gets tough...especially tough when the President makes it sound as though each side is somehow equally right....and wrong.

Trump is going to continue digging himself a hole until he unequivocally denounces the hate groups. But by coming out the next day and saying...."they're bad, but there's bad on the other side, too" ...he's equivocating....and any prior denunciation is comical...and sad...and insincere
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
9 years ago


Of course, there's tons of nuances and personalities on all sides. But, as you start generalizing, it gets tough...especially tough when the President makes it sound as though each side is somehow equally right....and wrong.

Trump is going to continue digging himself a hole until he unequivocally denounces the hate groups. But by coming out the next day and saying...."they're bad, but there's bad on the other side, too" ...he's equivocating....and any prior denunciation is comical...and sad...and insincere

dstieger wrote:



The other side lost the high ground once they physically attacked the WS. The guy probably doesn't get into his car to run over the crowd if the group wasn't attacked, then we probably don't even hear about this thing (like it probably should have been). By attacking the protesters, they widened the WS platform and gave them a sh17 load of free press.

Were they equally right and wrong? In this case I would say the anti-protesters did more wrong than anyone.

Just because you don't like the message of the WS and you hate them with all your heart doesn't mean they were more wrong than the other guys on this day.

Anyway, trump already denounced the hate groups, he already denounced the hate and discriminatory practices... on both sides. There are many reasons and issues to beat up trump on, but this one is manufactured.

This is basically an inverse "think of the children" campaign... You love children right, I mean nobody hates children, if you don't vote for this, then you're anti-children.

Ya... everyone hates nazis right? See, he didn't say he hates nazis, therefore he must LOVE NAZIS. No, that's invalid logic, hate to break it to you guys.

Again, this is not a defense of WS, this is a defense of WS right to protest, there's a big fking difference.
dstieger
9 years ago
I didn't realize that the driver was justified and that the 'other side' asked to get run over...had no idea...thanks


I will agree with your last line - I, more than most anyone I know or have met, will defend the WS's the right to protest...and to be allowed to do it with adequate protection from counter-protesters
gummy jones
9 years ago

The other side lost the high ground once they physically attacked the WS. The guy probably doesn't get into his car to run over the crowd if the group wasn't attacked, then we probably don't even hear about this thing (like it probably should have been). By attacking the protesters, they widened the WS platform and gave them a sh17 load of free press.

Were they equally right and wrong? In this case I would say the anti-protesters did more wrong than anyone.

Just because you don't like the message of the WS and you hate them with all your heart doesn't mean they were more wrong than the other guys on this day.

Anyway, trump already denounced the hate groups, he already denounced the hate and discriminatory practices... on both sides. There are many reasons and issues to beat up trump on, but this one is manufactured.

This is basically an inverse "think of the children" campaign... You love children right, I mean nobody hates children, if you don't vote for this, then you're anti-children.

Ya... everyone hates nazis right? See, he didn't say he hates nazis, therefore he must LOVE NAZIS. No, that's invalid logic, hate to break it to you guys.

Again, this is not a defense of WS, this is a defense of WS right to protest, there's a big fking difference.

bgz wrote:




you must be a nazi or something
and you probably hate childruns too

[the car murder i see as something completely different and unjustifiable. it was not in self defense. the above argument likens to "she was wearing a tube top therefore she was asking to be raped" in my mind. the rest of your post i certainly agree with though.]
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
9 years ago

I didn't realize that the driver was justified and that the 'other side' asked to get run over...had no idea...thanks


I will agree with your last line - I, more than most anyone I know or have met, will defend the WS's the right to protest...and to be allowed to do it with adequate protection from counter-protesters

dstieger wrote:



Never justified it, just simple hypothetical review of the potential outcome based on the given causal evidence.
gummy jones
9 years ago
more eloquent than me

The "alt-right" is evil. White supremacism is evil. Neo-Nazism is evil.

I've been saying these things my entire career; I've spent more than a year slamming various factions on the right that refuse to disassociate from and condemn popularizers of the racist alt-right. The media, too, have spent inordinate time covering the rise of the alt-right and tacit acquiescence to it from White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and President Trump. So when an alt-right piece of human debris drove a car at 40 mph into a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, last Saturday, injuring 19 people and killing a 32-year-old woman, the level of scrutiny on the alt-right forced Trump to condemn various alt-right groups by name.

Good.

But the media have remained largely silent about another group: Antifa. Antifa is a loosely connected band of anti-capitalist protesters generally on the far left who dub themselves "anti-fascist" after their compatriots in Europe. They've been around in the United States since the 1990s, protesting globalization and burning trash cans at World Trade Organization meetings. But they've kicked into high gear over the past two years: They engaged in vandalism in violence, forcing the cancelation of a speech by alt-right popularizer Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley; a few months later, they attacked alt-right demonstrators in Berkeley; they attacked alt-right demonstrators in Sacramento, California, leading to a bloody street fight; they threw projectiles at police during President Trump's inauguration; they attacked pro-Trump free-speech demonstrators in Seattle last weekend. They always label their opponents "fascists" in order to justify their violence.

In Charlottesville, Antifa engaged in street violence with the alt-right racists. As in Weimar, Germany, fascists flying the swastika engaged in hand-to-hand combat with Antifa members flying the communist red. And yet, the media declared that any negative coverage granted to Antifa would detract from the obvious evils of the alt-right. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times tweeted in the midst of the violence, "The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding 'antifa' beating white nationalists being led out of the park." After receiving blowback from the left, Stolberg then corrected herself. She said: "Rethinking this. Should have said violent, not hate-filled. They were standing up to hate."

Or perhaps Antifa is a hateful group itself. But that wouldn't fit the convenient narrative Antifa promotes and the media buy: that the sole threat to the republic comes from the racist right. Perhaps that's why the media ignored the events in Sacramento and Berkeley and Seattle -- to point out the evils of Antifa might detract from the evils of the alt-right.

That sort of biased coverage only engenders more militancy from the alt-right, which feels it must demonstrate openly and repeatedly to "stand up to Antifa." Which, of course, prompts Antifa to violence.

Here's the moral solution, as always: Condemn violence and evil wherever it occurs. The racist philosophy of the alt-right is evil. The violence of the alt-right is evil. The communist philosophy of Antifa is evil. So is the violence of Antifa. If we are to survive as a republic, we must call out Nazis but not punch them; we must stop providing cover to anarchists and communists who seek to hide behind self-proclaimed righteousness to participate in violence. Otherwise, we won't be an honest or a free society.

dstieger
9 years ago
Who's quote, gummy?

I have a couple of problems with it, however. Unless the antifa is much more organized than I realize, I don't have them on my radar as a huge threat. I see the total anarchist 'philosophy' as a threat, but as a group, I don't think they're principled enough, motivated enough, or have a coherent enough message to grow and be a big threat to society. They're evil individuals and nucking futz, but if they're organizing on any scale, I've been largely oblivious...I will keep an eye out, though.

The supremacists, on the other hand, are highly attached to their very specific beliefs; worse, they are able to communicate those feelings and beliefs to others who might be 'vulnerable' to the message.

I have little tolerance for individuals of either persuasion, but I do acknowledge and support their right to believe what they want, largely to say what they want, and assemble peacefully. But, in the grand scheme of things, I think the supremacists represent a much greater threat to the society that I'd like to have
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
9 years ago
That's kind of how I feel about Islam... The belief is so far "right", that it almost seem left... probably why it's believers get so heavily defended from the left even though their ideals are on par with the WS.

Racism... check
Supremacism... check
Outdated Barbaric Practices... check
Hates outsiders... check


Anyway, just wondering why all the hate for one hate group, but all the love for another hate group, I just don't understand...

My guess is this policy (which makes them more dangerous than the WS)

Quran (3:28) - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them..

In other words, if you're not a believer, they're not allowed to be your friend, but they can pretend to be.

Yet, this hate group is beloved by the left.

But I would still defend Muslim American's right to protest. Not illegal ones mind, I don't support illegal immigrant protest protection, let them do that sh17 in their own country... oh wait, they can't, because they're beliefs are all fkd up and it's not allowed.
Users browsing this topic