Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

The Battle of Charlottesville


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We're drifting.  But, if that's what you get from my statement...that I'm trying to excuse the Nazis...you're just looking for a fight. I've been a student of history since I was a child and have

Remember this is a thread about a unite the right rally sponsored by Nazi's and racists who hate Jews/Israel Muslims, blacks and of course the Commies (read, left-wing Americans) who opposed the rally

I didn't really find anything wrong with Trump's statement. Here's why. The views of the white nationalists/supremacists are stupid and offensive. Tough. People are allowed to have stupid, offens

Posted Images

I thought it was Virginia? I any case according to Trump there's no place in America for the bigotry and hate he says many sides put on display today.  Presumably everyone involved in today's clash was in the wrong and he doesn't want to take sides.   Perhaps he fancies himself as some sort of great centrist.

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Charlottesville Virginia. 

Former KKK leader David Duke obviously recognized himself as one of the "bigots" Trump referred to, and he's really pissed at Trump now:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/08/12/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-strikes-out-at-trump-charlottesville/23075788/

So, after decades of White Americans being targeted for discriminated & anti-White hatred, we come together as a people, and you attack us? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896420822780444672 

 

I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896420822780444672 

 
Oooo ... kinda threatening.
I wonder if he'll hit him with his tiki torch?! :blink:
Edited by jacee
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, this tepid statement by Trump may be what turns rockbed supporters like David Duke and taxme away.  Strange.

I didn't really find anything wrong with Trump's statement. Here's why.

The views of the white nationalists/supremacists are stupid and offensive. Tough. People are allowed to have stupid, offensive views. I don't often quote jurists but Oliver Wendel Holmes got it right.

“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

We do not, in other words, have free speech to protect speech which is popular and inoffensive. That sort of speech does not require any protection. We have free speech to protect speech which is offensive, unpopular and distasteful.

So this group with stupid views wanted to hold a march and a demo in a park. They got a permit. All is good.

Then there was this other group from the far left. They could not disagree more strenuously with Holmes or with the concept of freedom of speech, assembly, and thought. As far as they are concerned only speech they agree with should be allowed. So they organized and set out with the well-stated goal of preventing the other group from having their march and demo. And they came equipped with clubs, chains, pepper spray, helmets, shields and body armor. That they call themselves anti-fascists yet espouse the behavior of fascists is ironic, but immaterial. They are the cause of the violence in Charlottesville. The duty of the police was to keep them away from the white supremacists. The police failed, and the white supremacists never got to hold their demo.

What will probably happen next is the white supremacists will apply for another permit. The city will refuse. It will go to court. The city will lose. Hopefully the police will be better organized for the next march, perhaps arresting many of the 'anti-facist' organizers and confiscating their weaponry before the demo takes place.

Now I'm not defending the white supremacists. Their views are moronic and they're a violent bunch and probably have a lot of sub-literate cretins among them - much like that idiot who drove his car into the other side. They also came equipped to fight, knowing who they'd be facing. But they have a right to their views and their demo in a free society. Again, the failure here is of the police in keeping the groups separated.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, this tepid statement by Trump may be what turns rockbed supporters like David Duke and taxme away.  Strange.

Yes, Trump is publicly disassociating himself from the white supremacists ... 'tepidly' anyway ... but that's his base, so it's risky for him. 

Beating 'lefties' with burning torches, ramming cars into crowds of 'lefties' ... this is what he has fueled, I think.

It remains to be seen whether the extreme right turns on him, or turns more violent against 'the left', or both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Argus said:

I didn't really find anything wrong with Trump's statement. Here's why.

The views of the white nationalists/supremacists are stupid and offensive. Tough. People are allowed to have stupid, offensive views. I don't often quote jurists but Oliver Wendel Holmes got it right.

“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

We do not, in other words, have free speech to protect speech which is popular and inoffensive. That sort of speech does not require any protection. We have free speech to protect speech which is offensive, unpopular and distasteful.

So this group with stupid views wanted to hold a march and a demo in a park. They got a permit. All is good.

Then there was this other group from the far left. They could not disagree more strenuously with Holmes or with the concept of freedom of speech, assembly, and thought. As far as they are concerned only speech they agree with should be allowed. So they organized and set out with the well-stated goal of preventing the other group from having their march and demo. And they came equipped with clubs, chains, pepper spray, helmets, shields and body armor. That they call themselves anti-fascists yet espouse the behavior of fascists is ironic, but immaterial. They are the cause of the violence in Charlottesville. The duty of the police was to keep them away from the white supremacists. The police failed, and the white supremacists never got to hold their demo.

What will probably happen next is the white supremacists will apply for another permit. The city will refuse. It will go to court. The city will lose. Hopefully the police will be better organized for the next march, perhaps arresting many of the 'anti-facist' organizers and confiscating their weaponry before the demo takes place.

Now I'm not defending the white supremacists. Their views are moronic and they're a violent bunch and probably have a lot of sub-literate cretins among them - much like that idiot who drove his car into the other side. They also came equipped to fight, knowing who they'd be facing. But they have a right to their views and their demo in a free society. Again, the failure here is of the police in keeping the groups separated.

Oh Argus, I agree with you!

All these hoopla about Trump's response is  ridiculous!   Trump is right!   Both sides are guilty!  And I say,  Charlottesville officials are to blame for this. 

Trump is looking like the Biblical Solomon in his wisdom,  when compared to all his detractors - who are all off the mark! :D

 

You may not agree with someone's message, but in the USA, they have the right to speak up!  They have the right to rally/protest.

 

If I understood it right, the supremacists had that rally planned for months.  The counter-protesters seems to be in their face - why would they want to try to suppress someone's right to express? 

 

  Charlottesville officials should've already seen the writings on the wall when they allowed both groups to rally at the same time, and at the same place!  It's a very volatile issue that would've been exploited by anarchists.

Charlottesville should've made them rally at different days, or locations.  The way they had them set up was that any ultra-right protester had to go through the counter-protesters to get to the location allotted for the ultra-right.   That's stupid!

 

 

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I heard another General Lee statue has now been declared to come down, so expect the angry snowflakes to show themselves once more.

Some people feel these statues are a part of their history, and don't think they should be taken away because snowflakes cry whenever they see them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What did the anti fascists do to warrant Trump's criticism?  The fascists drove a car into the crowd.

The anti fascists came to riot. It is the rioting Trump was condemning. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I heard another General Lee statue has now been declared to come down, so expect the angry snowflakes to show themselves once more.

 

It's part of history.  That's what some are protesting about: erasing history.   It may be an ugly part of history.....but that's your country's history.

One would have a very tepid identity as a people,  when your history is edited to suit the currenty clime.  Before you know it, you've got none! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, betsy said:

It's part of history.  That's what some are protesting about: erasing history.   It may be an ugly part of history.....but that's your country's history.

One would have a very tepid identity as a people,  when your history is edited to suit the currenty clime.  Before you know it, you've got none! 

If you read the OP on the topic "The ill feeling between left and right on immigration' it describes the way the Left - generally what social scientists call 'open' people, feel about traditions and national institutions. Basically, they have no respect for either, or at least, don't care about either. Closed people, ie, conservatives, do place importance on traditions, history and national institutions.

You see rumblings of this over the native issue here in Canada, where the progressives keep wanting to erase names from history because they think those people weren't politically correct. There is a move from some to even erase John A MacDonald from our history because he said nasty things about natives and supported assimilating them. The Left doesn't care about nationalism or even the nation state. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is an attempt to change history here,  just define what belongs in the historical record and what belongs on public memorials. This is for Americans to decide. Lee was an exceptional soldier and by all accounts a decent man for his age, but the fact remains, he fought for a cause that wanted to keep human beings enslaved.

Edited by Wilber
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So we have speculation on one side, and on the other.. a murderer.

This is why violence is inevitable.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are an apologist for the violent hatred espoused by the far left at this rally. Speculation? It's not speculation that they came to block the racists from their rally. They said it openly and carried weapons, shields and helmets. Do you concur with their belief that only those who agree with you should be allowed to publicly state their views?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I don't think there is an attempt to change history here,  just define between what belongs in the historical record and what belongs on public memorials. This is for Americans to decide. Lee was an exceptional soldier and by all accounts a decent man for his age, but the fact remains, he fought for a cause that wanted to keep human beings enslaved.

And Sir John A MacDonald built Canada, but he also called natives savages and felt it was a good idea to take their children and educate them in our ways so they would be quicker to assimilate. Should we remove all statues and monuments of Sir John A?

Washington had slaves, too. So did Jefferson. That was a part of history.

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Argus said:

 Do you concur with their belief that only those who agree with you should be allowed to publicly state their views?

No.  Both sides stated their views.

One side committed murder.

 

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of MacDonald's views were reprehensible but he was a Canada's first Prime Minister and and architect of Confederation, not a general fighting to break up the country. If he hadn't pushed for the CPR to be built, I would probably be living in a US state right now. He is the biggest single reason the country extends from coast to coast. Washington, Jefferson and other US founders were slave holders as well but they fought to build a country, not tear it apart.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No.  Both sides stated their views.

One side committed murder.

One side? Until we hear otherwise this sounds like the work of one angry idiot, probably someone who got beat up earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Argus said:

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are an apologist for the violent hatred espoused by the far left at this rally. Speculation? It's not speculation that they came to block the racists from their rally. They said it openly and carried weapons, shields and helmets. Do you concur with their belief that only those who agree with you should be allowed to publicly state their views?

 

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

And Sir John A MacDonald built Canada, but he also called natives savages and felt it was a good idea to take their children and educate them in our ways so they would be quicker to assimilate. Should we remove all statues of Sir John A?

Yes we should.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wilber said:

Some of MacDonald's views were reprehensible but he was a Canada's first Prime Minister and and architect of Confederation, not a general fighting to break up the country. If he hadn't pushed for the CPR to be built, I would probably be living in a US state right now. He is the biggest single reason the country extends from coast to coast. Washington, Jefferson and other US founders were slave holders as well but they fought to build a country, not tear it apart.

 

So slavery is dandy for Washington and Jefferson as long as they were "building a country" ?

"Building a country" = revolutionary war, slavery, "genocide", stolen land, broken treaties, etc.

Robert E. Lee was also "building a country".

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing for sure is that Trump in his tepid speech has again exposed America's white identity crisis and their Presidents bigotry. 

He has also exposed racial hatred that is alive and thriving. Perhaps this will bring to light and cause further discussion 

Now if only he will call the demonstration out for what it really was. A KKK and anti Semite demonstration espousing hate towards noncaucasions. This is what 'lets make America great again' is really about. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...