Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by RPA1, Aug 22, 2017.
The situations are not comparable; the situation at the time was not similar; the actors involves did not take comparable actions.
I don't care why they were there. They were there. The presence of both groups contributed to heightened tensions that afternoon.
Stop being a political hack.
They came at us at Pearl Harbor and beat the **** out of us. We responded with greater violence than theirs and whipped their asses. Tell me how that isn't similar.
It's your comparison: Tell us how it is similar in all the relevant matters.
False. There would have been no violence had the supremacists been left alone.
I'm sorry you can't handle the truth.
No he was not wrong I saw folks on both sides using violence and misbehaving. Of course the wackadoo that drove a car into the crowd was the worst. But neither side acted in a responsible manner.
At Pearl Harbor the Japanese used planes and bombs. The only difference at Charlottesville is they came with helmets and clubs. The war isn't over yet so I can't say they got their asses whipped but I'm pretty sure they will at the poles.
This is such a naive and utopian statement to make. Shouting racial slurs and waving tiki torches in an already heightened atmosphere is going to provoke a response.
The truth is you are an apologist for both white supremacists, and for the actual murderer. Because you are a political hack.
No. That was Antifa's fault that he did that.
Not if they are left alone. Like a fire, if there is no air or fuel, it does not matter how strong the spark is.
Further... -you- choose how -you- react to provocation -- If you do not like what you hear and choose to act with violence, the fault for the violence is yours, regardless of how you feel you were provoked.
Unsupportable nonsense, derived from your inability to effectively argue against my points.
Who did what? The wackadoo or Trump?
I think it's your inability to live in reality. Plus, you are a political hack.
As you have given up discussion of the issue at hand and reverted to attacking me, I graciously accept your concession of all points involved.
And this idea that the Nazis and the KKK, carrying rifles, tiki torches, and clubs were there just to shout racial slurs, and not actually provoke a brawl is absolutely ridiculous.
The poor peaceful Nazis. They just wanted to be left alone
If you were at a demonstration and you knew another group was to be there, to "oppose" your exercise of free speech "with deeds, not words", why would you not take steps to protect yourself?
Well, you might choose to run away, I suppose.
Fact remains: Leave the supremacists alone, and there's no violence.
Fact remains: You- choose how -you- react to provocation -- If you do not like what you hear and choose to act with violence, the fault for the violence is yours, regardless of how you feel you were provoked.
Trump could have blamed Antifa for the crowd violence. Blamed the alleged Nazi boy for the murder, and blamed the Nazis as a very unpopular group that many hate. I like to compartmentalize those that deserve my disdain or dismissal of. I would love to do it to Antifa were they not so violent. If they quit being violent, I shall just compartmentalize them as well.
Come to think of it, that is what Trump did. And the press came close to getting violent themselves.
This is the flaw in the argument ^^^^
While it is easy and even fair to attack the Nazis, keep it to words. But Antifa used clubs.
Trump presumes only some of the Antifa used clubs and only some hanging around the Nazis had decency in them.
A major problem with mobs is they get judged by the more radicals.
Why does this only apply to the Left protest groups? Given the much greater history of violence of the Nazis and the KKK, wouldn't it be justified to be wary of a large group of them marching with weapons and shouting racist rhetoric?
Also, why do you think only the white nationalist groups had the right to exercise their free speech? The counter protestors were exercising theirs.
Didn't you just say choosing violence in the face of provocative actions is wrong? Why the negative insinuation here?
Fact remains: Don't shout racial slogans, carry rifles and clubs, wear Nazi insignia, and attack counter protestors and there's no violence.
Fact remains: You choose how you react to provocation. You should also conduct yourself with class and dignity. Don't use racial slurs in public. Don't direct them at people. If someone gives you the finger, because you did, don't throw a tiki torches at them. Don't join a group like the Nazis or KKK in the first place.
Most importantly, should all this take place, don't drive your car into someone at high speed. If you do not like what you hear and choose to act with violence, the fault for the violence is yours, regardless of how you feel you were provoked
Who said it does?
... than leftists groups? LOL Funny.
They wear Che T-shirts for a reason.
If the KKK, etc, said they planned to show up and "oppose" your exercise of free speech "with words, not deeds:", then sure.
That's not what happened, however - in fact, the exact opposite happened.
Free speech does not include the use of violence; those protesting the supremacists did so with violence.
Aside from the obvious difference in choosing violence to suppress free speech and choosing violence for self-defense...
The bigger picture.
What happens if the antifa terrorists have success in suppressing free speech with violence? They keep doing it.
Now, if you agree with the antifa terrorists and are not mindful of the big picture you might not have an issue with that.
The supremacists did all of these things - as they had every right to.
There was no violence until the antifa terrorists showed up, to "oppose" them "with words not deeds".
Sounds like to need to talk to the antifa terrorists, who chose - long before they got there - to react with violence.
Most importantly, should all this take place, don't drive your car into someone at high speed. If you do not like what you hear and choose to act with violence, the fault for the violence is yours, regardless of how you feel you were provoked.
You must have missed the part about how this entire conversation was in the context of the greater violence taking place during this incident.
You must be joking. More than half of the injuries, and the only death in the crowd happened at this moment.
Does it look like this guy is charging in at violent Antifa members? Those look like peaceful counter protesters walking and not engaged in any violence.
Antifa was a small fraction of the counter-protest. They have never killed anyone. They do not advocate racial superiority. They have never ethnically cleansed entire races of people off the Earth, and they never defended the institution of slavery.
The white supremacists escalated this into actual death. Enough of your false equivalency between the two sides. You're a disgusting political hack, who cheapens murder, terrorism, and bigotry to score political points.
No.. just paying attention.
Post # 46, in response to you:
There was a lot more violence in this incident than the driver who ran over those people.
That violence was initiated by the antifa terrorists, who attended the rally to "oppose" the supremacists "with deeds, not words".
Had the antifa not done so and the supremacists left to themselves, it is likely no one would have been hurt.
Had the driver not hit a crowd of peaceful protestors with his car, it's likely no one would have died.
Separate names with a comma.