President Tiny Hands LIED about counterprotesters not having permit

[HereWeGoAgain]

Their event permit did not allow them to block "fire lanes, vehicular or pedestrian traffic flow."

It seems the Dodge did most of the blocking in this lil shit show.

Nooo...pretty sure it cleared out the street.

Ya good point, bet your proud.

Nah..just flabbergasted that antifa members wonder why they get their shit pushed in after being dicks for so long.

How cool, maybe you Nazi can fix a vehicle up Mad Max style for the next klans meeting to inflict maximum damage.

It's pretty obvious you're new at this....

 

[OldLady]

Read your own connection you bloody simpering fool. They had no legal permit for Emancipation Park. They blocked the only two exits for the rally attendees.

Did YOU bother to read the whole link? Counter protesters didn't need a permit to be in the park.

From the link....................

Charlottesville spokeswoman Miriam I. Dickler told Moyer that only one permit was issued for Emancipation Park — the one received by white nationalists staging the “Unite the Right” rally. However, counterprotesters did not need permits to protest that rally, she said.


“Please bear in mind that people do not need a permit to enter a public park, even when another event is scheduled to take place there, nor are they required to have one to be on streets or sidewalks adjacent to or outside the park,” Dickler said in an email.

Per the spokeswoman, people don't need a permit to enter a public park, even when another event is taking place there. And, they don't need one for the streets or sidewalks adjacent either.

Yeah, the white supremacists did get their permit to hold a rally. But, the people who showed up to protest their rally didn't need a permit, because it's a public park.

A permit is required for an assembly of protesters. That's why there was a permit at all. People can come and go, but they cannot hold an event (like a protest or counterprotest) without a permit. They are first come first served. For safety reasons, protests and counterprotest are separated.

I understand that psychoboy want to the counterprotest? Can't gain a clear understanding because some sources say the WS were removed (by law enforcement) from their approved location and steered right into the CP's. The alleged murder appears to have been at the entrance/exit of one of the parks assigned to CP's.

For safety reasons, protests and counterprotest are separated.

In whose mind, do you suppose, ~400 feet one one side, and ~1000 feet on the other, "separation" in a town the size of C-ville (the vast majority of which is UVA campus and university-affiliated land), a place where one can holler that far and be heard, between groups numbering in the hundreds constitutes sufficient separation "for safety reasons" between groups like white supremacists and their opponents?

It wasn't sufficient at all! As I've said before, the police messed up! They are supposed to be separated for this very reason. If you were in charge of those permits, would you have put them that close with no barricade or wall of mounted cops? I wouldn't have. It doesn't take a psychic to know someone's going to get hurt or killed.

If you were in charge of those permits, would you have put them that close with no barricade or wall of mounted cops?

Were I in charge of issuing permits in Charlottesville, VA and aware that the permit was being requested for a white supremacist/nationalist gathering, I almost certainly wouldn't have issued white supremacists/nationalists a protesting permit -- on the grounds that hate speech isn't protected by the 1st Amendment and that it's reasonable to expect at least some of their speech would be hateful in nature -- in the town of Charlottesville. I would also have denied the counter-protesters a permit too were it apparent to me that they might attract Antifa and or white supremacist/nationalist contingents. Big cities are welcome, at their discretion, to forebear the sorts of conflagrations that result from clashes of those two groups, C-ville, and its overwhelmingly large student population, just doesn't have the resources to contain that sort of madness.

I'd have told them to submit a petition or send in written letters voicing their objections to removing the statue or reasons why it should be removed.

Question: Fox pundits declare at least once per hour that hate speech is protected. I've heard it other places than Fox, as well. Are you sure hate speech isn't protected? Speech inciting violence isn't, but how often has that shut down these people?

 

[OldLady]

I'm apparently missing SNL that isn't on tv. Share them whenever you get them, Lakhota. Fey was perfect in this one.

 

[iceberg]

Did YOU bother to read the whole link? Counter protesters didn't need a permit to be in the park.

From the link....................

Charlottesville spokeswoman Miriam I. Dickler told Moyer that only one permit was issued for Emancipation Park — the one received by white nationalists staging the “Unite the Right” rally. However, counterprotesters did not need permits to protest that rally, she said.


“Please bear in mind that people do not need a permit to enter a public park, even when another event is scheduled to take place there, nor are they required to have one to be on streets or sidewalks adjacent to or outside the park,” Dickler said in an email.

Per the spokeswoman, people don't need a permit to enter a public park, even when another event is taking place there. And, they don't need one for the streets or sidewalks adjacent either.

Yeah, the white supremacists did get their permit to hold a rally. But, the people who showed up to protest their rally didn't need a permit, because it's a public park.

A permit is required for an assembly of protesters. That's why there was a permit at all. People can come and go, but they cannot hold an event (like a protest or counterprotest) without a permit. They are first come first served. For safety reasons, protests and counterprotest are separated.

I understand that psychoboy want to the counterprotest? Can't gain a clear understanding because some sources say the WS were removed (by law enforcement) from their approved location and steered right into the CP's. The alleged murder appears to have been at the entrance/exit of one of the parks assigned to CP's.

For safety reasons, protests and counterprotest are separated.

In whose mind, do you suppose, ~400 feet one one side, and ~1000 feet on the other, "separation" in a town the size of C-ville (the vast majority of which is UVA campus and university-affiliated land), a place where one can holler that far and be heard, between groups numbering in the hundreds constitutes sufficient separation "for safety reasons" between groups like white supremacists and their opponents?

It wasn't sufficient at all! As I've said before, the police messed up! They are supposed to be separated for this very reason. If you were in charge of those permits, would you have put them that close with no barricade or wall of mounted cops? I wouldn't have. It doesn't take a psychic to know someone's going to get hurt or killed.

If you were in charge of those permits, would you have put them that close with no barricade or wall of mounted cops?

Were I in charge of issuing permits in Charlottesville, VA and aware that the permit was being requested for a white supremacist/nationalist gathering, I almost certainly wouldn't have issued white supremacists/nationalists a protesting permit -- on the grounds that hate speech isn't protected by the 1st Amendment and that it's reasonable to expect at least some of their speech would be hateful in nature -- in the town of Charlottesville. I would also have denied the counter-protesters a permit too were it apparent to me that they might attract Antifa and or white supremacist/nationalist contingents. Big cities are welcome, at their discretion, to forebear the sorts of conflagrations that result from clashes of those two groups, C-ville, and its overwhelmingly large student population, just doesn't have the resources to contain that sort of madness.

I'd have told them to submit a petition or send in written letters voicing their objections to removing the statue or reasons why it should be removed.

Question: Fox pundits declare at least once per hour that hate speech is protected. I've heard it other places than Fox, as well. Are you sure hate speech isn't protected? Speech inciting violence isn't, but how often has that shut down these people?

the problem is - define hate speech?

people seem to use that like a race card now - whip it out like you've put out the max line and move on, winner.

words continue to be redefined according to moods and people are taking "stop hitting me" as hate speech at times.

then, it is up to google to tell me? facebook? you? is it my right to tell you what is hateful? i can tell you *i* think it may or may not be but that's nothing more than my opinion that in the end is no better than yours.

why are some opinions trying to carry more weight and "judge/jury" than others may be doing?

 

[Ted Frazier]

You are lying. The counter protesters had a permit for the wrong park ergo NO PERMIT and President Trump's hands are YUUUUUUUGE.

You have been told several times that it was not required to have a permit to stand in Emancipation Park.
Did you pass a new law that requires a permit to be there?

 

[Aletheia4u]

President Trump’s false claim that counterprotesters lacked a permit

The Facts


Walt Heinecke, a professor at the University of Virginia, told Moyer that he received a “special events certificate of approval” for events at McGuffey Park and Justice Park — sites blocks from Emancipation Park, where white nationalists had a permit for a Saturday rally. A car allegedly driven by James Alex Fields Jr. rammed into counterprotesters, killing a 32-year-old woman, on Fourth Street, which runs adjacent to Justice Park.

Trump again misleads his sheeple with bad information.

They didn't had any permit. They didn't have time to get a permit. I believe that the other had it planned two years ago, and which it takes that long to book a protest. They thought that Hillary was going to win, and so they never applied for a permit.


When did Antifa become the facsists? • r/antifa

 

[OldLady]

A permit is required for an assembly of protesters. That's why there was a permit at all. People can come and go, but they cannot hold an event (like a protest or counterprotest) without a permit. They are first come first served. For safety reasons, protests and counterprotest are separated.

I understand that psychoboy want to the counterprotest? Can't gain a clear understanding because some sources say the WS were removed (by law enforcement) from their approved location and steered right into the CP's. The alleged murder appears to have been at the entrance/exit of one of the parks assigned to CP's.

For safety reasons, protests and counterprotest are separated.

In whose mind, do you suppose, ~400 feet one one side, and ~1000 feet on the other, "separation" in a town the size of C-ville (the vast majority of which is UVA campus and university-affiliated land), a place where one can holler that far and be heard, between groups numbering in the hundreds constitutes sufficient separation "for safety reasons" between groups like white supremacists and their opponents?

It wasn't sufficient at all! As I've said before, the police messed up! They are supposed to be separated for this very reason. If you were in charge of those permits, would you have put them that close with no barricade or wall of mounted cops? I wouldn't have. It doesn't take a psychic to know someone's going to get hurt or killed.

If you were in charge of those permits, would you have put them that close with no barricade or wall of mounted cops?

Were I in charge of issuing permits in Charlottesville, VA and aware that the permit was being requested for a white supremacist/nationalist gathering, I almost certainly wouldn't have issued white supremacists/nationalists a protesting permit -- on the grounds that hate speech isn't protected by the 1st Amendment and that it's reasonable to expect at least some of their speech would be hateful in nature -- in the town of Charlottesville. I would also have denied the counter-protesters a permit too were it apparent to me that they might attract Antifa and or white supremacist/nationalist contingents. Big cities are welcome, at their discretion, to forebear the sorts of conflagrations that result from clashes of those two groups, C-ville, and its overwhelmingly large student population, just doesn't have the resources to contain that sort of madness.

I'd have told them to submit a petition or send in written letters voicing their objections to removing the statue or reasons why it should be removed.

Question: Fox pundits declare at least once per hour that hate speech is protected. I've heard it other places than Fox, as well. Are you sure hate speech isn't protected? Speech inciting violence isn't, but how often has that shut down these people?

the problem is - define hate speech?

people seem to use that like a race card now - whip it out like you've put out the max line and move on, winner.

words continue to be redefined according to moods and people are taking "stop hitting me" as hate speech at times.

then, it is up to google to tell me? facebook? you? is it my right to tell you what is hateful? i can tell you *i* think it may or may not be but that's nothing more than my opinion that in the end is no better than yours.

why are some opinions trying to carry more weight and "judge/jury" than others may be doing?

I think if we were to hear their actual words there would be little doubt what was hateful. Speaking in the hypothetical, it is very easy to defend. Since the speakers really never got on Saturday, it may be mostly the chants from the crowds we are talking about, so who knows. I know a Jewish friend was very distressed with the "Blood and Soil" and anti-Jewish chants by the white nationalists. I've heard enough to know it sounds like hate to me.

 

[iceberg]

In whose mind, do you suppose, ~400 feet one one side, and ~1000 feet on the other, "separation" in a town the size of C-ville (the vast majority of which is UVA campus and university-affiliated land), a place where one can holler that far and be heard, between groups numbering in the hundreds constitutes sufficient separation "for safety reasons" between groups like white supremacists and their opponents?

It wasn't sufficient at all! As I've said before, the police messed up! They are supposed to be separated for this very reason. If you were in charge of those permits, would you have put them that close with no barricade or wall of mounted cops? I wouldn't have. It doesn't take a psychic to know someone's going to get hurt or killed.

If you were in charge of those permits, would you have put them that close with no barricade or wall of mounted cops?

Were I in charge of issuing permits in Charlottesville, VA and aware that the permit was being requested for a white supremacist/nationalist gathering, I almost certainly wouldn't have issued white supremacists/nationalists a protesting permit -- on the grounds that hate speech isn't protected by the 1st Amendment and that it's reasonable to expect at least some of their speech would be hateful in nature -- in the town of Charlottesville. I would also have denied the counter-protesters a permit too were it apparent to me that they might attract Antifa and or white supremacist/nationalist contingents. Big cities are welcome, at their discretion, to forebear the sorts of conflagrations that result from clashes of those two groups, C-ville, and its overwhelmingly large student population, just doesn't have the resources to contain that sort of madness.

I'd have told them to submit a petition or send in written letters voicing their objections to removing the statue or reasons why it should be removed.

Question: Fox pundits declare at least once per hour that hate speech is protected. I've heard it other places than Fox, as well. Are you sure hate speech isn't protected? Speech inciting violence isn't, but how often has that shut down these people?

the problem is - define hate speech?

people seem to use that like a race card now - whip it out like you've put out the max line and move on, winner.

words continue to be redefined according to moods and people are taking "stop hitting me" as hate speech at times.

then, it is up to google to tell me? facebook? you? is it my right to tell you what is hateful? i can tell you *i* think it may or may not be but that's nothing more than my opinion that in the end is no better than yours.

why are some opinions trying to carry more weight and "judge/jury" than others may be doing?

I think if we were to hear their actual words there would be little doubt what was hateful. Speaking in the hypothetical, it is very easy to defend. Since the speakers really never got on Saturday, it may be mostly the chants from the crowds we are talking about, so who knows. I know a Jewish friend was very distressed with the "Blood and Soil" and anti-Jewish chants by the white nationalists. I've heard enough to know it sounds like hate to me.

was milo wanting to talk at berkley to other conservatives hate?
how come their side can "hate" and it's excused because of the "whitewashing" done to anyone who doesn't agree with them? i don't agree AT ALL with antifa - to them i'm now a white supremacist because i don't follow along with their morality.

am i a "hate group" now?

‘Hate group’ map lists mainstream conservative organizations

why are they a hate group and why does CNN get to decide this?

like i said - the term is being used to stop counter-thought, not hate.

and i have a huge problem with that. i also have a problem with removing rights from people cause you *deem* them hateful. if they follow the letter of the law the rights apply to them also.

anything else puts your own views at risk of "thought police". you gonna be ok if your mindset is ever demonized and just go "wow, i never knew how much of a hater i was" or will you fight them from being stupid?

 

[JimH52]

This, so called, president has trampled on the dignity and mortality of the office. Putin is accomplishing what he set out to do. He has helped install the "Great Divider."

Our only hope is that the other two branches of our government will place partisanship aside and lead the country back to being a leader of morality both within this country and in the world.

I have given up on the executive branch. It has been captured by some of the darkest and most distateful, evil forces of our society.

Never before has this country fallen prey to an executive branch devoid of the basic principles of compassion and dignity. Until this vile excuse for a criminal kingdom is gone, we will be living in the dark ages..,.again.

 

[OldLady]

It wasn't sufficient at all! As I've said before, the police messed up! They are supposed to be separated for this very reason. If you were in charge of those permits, would you have put them that close with no barricade or wall of mounted cops? I wouldn't have. It doesn't take a psychic to know someone's going to get hurt or killed.

If you were in charge of those permits, would you have put them that close with no barricade or wall of mounted cops?

Were I in charge of issuing permits in Charlottesville, VA and aware that the permit was being requested for a white supremacist/nationalist gathering, I almost certainly wouldn't have issued white supremacists/nationalists a protesting permit -- on the grounds that hate speech isn't protected by the 1st Amendment and that it's reasonable to expect at least some of their speech would be hateful in nature -- in the town of Charlottesville. I would also have denied the counter-protesters a permit too were it apparent to me that they might attract Antifa and or white supremacist/nationalist contingents. Big cities are welcome, at their discretion, to forebear the sorts of conflagrations that result from clashes of those two groups, C-ville, and its overwhelmingly large student population, just doesn't have the resources to contain that sort of madness.

I'd have told them to submit a petition or send in written letters voicing their objections to removing the statue or reasons why it should be removed.

Question: Fox pundits declare at least once per hour that hate speech is protected. I've heard it other places than Fox, as well. Are you sure hate speech isn't protected? Speech inciting violence isn't, but how often has that shut down these people?

the problem is - define hate speech?

people seem to use that like a race card now - whip it out like you've put out the max line and move on, winner.

words continue to be redefined according to moods and people are taking "stop hitting me" as hate speech at times.

then, it is up to google to tell me? facebook? you? is it my right to tell you what is hateful? i can tell you *i* think it may or may not be but that's nothing more than my opinion that in the end is no better than yours.

why are some opinions trying to carry more weight and "judge/jury" than others may be doing?

I think if we were to hear their actual words there would be little doubt what was hateful. Speaking in the hypothetical, it is very easy to defend. Since the speakers really never got on Saturday, it may be mostly the chants from the crowds we are talking about, so who knows. I know a Jewish friend was very distressed with the "Blood and Soil" and anti-Jewish chants by the white nationalists. I've heard enough to know it sounds like hate to me.

was milo wanting to talk at berkley to other conservatives hate?
how come their side can "hate" and it's excused because of the "whitewashing" done to anyone who doesn't agree with them? i don't agree AT ALL with antifa - to them i'm now a white supremacist because i don't follow along with their morality.

am i a "hate group" now?

‘Hate group’ map lists mainstream conservative organizations

why are they a hate group and why does CNN get to decide this?

like i said - the term is being used to stop counter-thought, not hate.

and i have a huge problem with that. i also have a problem with removing rights from people cause you *deem* them hateful. if they follow the letter of the law the rights apply to them also.

anything else puts your own views at risk of "thought police". you gonna be ok if your mindset is ever demonized and just go "wow, i never knew how much of a hater i was" or will you fight them from being stupid?

was milo wanting to talk at berkley to other conservatives hate?
We aren't discussing Milo. I condemned the actions at Berkeley already. Let's not confound the issue.
and i have a huge problem with that. i also have a problem with removing rights from people cause you *deem* them hateful. if they follow the letter of the law the rights apply to them also
So far, you're just saying the same thing over and over.
I don't want to go search the vids of these disgusting assholes to give you examples of their speech. You already know what they've said and you are pretending that what is coming out of their mouths is not hateful and disrespectful of entire groups of people. I'd prefer in this country that we uphold the rights of all groups to be treated with respect. Chanting Nazi slogans and screaming N!gger is hateful, and moreover it is meant to humiliate, harass and intimidate those targeted groups. Fuck that, Iceberg. Don't even talk to me if you're going to defend that.

 

[iceberg]

Were I in charge of issuing permits in Charlottesville, VA and aware that the permit was being requested for a white supremacist/nationalist gathering, I almost certainly wouldn't have issued white supremacists/nationalists a protesting permit -- on the grounds that hate speech isn't protected by the 1st Amendment and that it's reasonable to expect at least some of their speech would be hateful in nature -- in the town of Charlottesville. I would also have denied the counter-protesters a permit too were it apparent to me that they might attract Antifa and or white supremacist/nationalist contingents. Big cities are welcome, at their discretion, to forebear the sorts of conflagrations that result from clashes of those two groups, C-ville, and its overwhelmingly large student population, just doesn't have the resources to contain that sort of madness.

I'd have told them to submit a petition or send in written letters voicing their objections to removing the statue or reasons why it should be removed.

Question: Fox pundits declare at least once per hour that hate speech is protected. I've heard it other places than Fox, as well. Are you sure hate speech isn't protected? Speech inciting violence isn't, but how often has that shut down these people?

the problem is - define hate speech?

people seem to use that like a race card now - whip it out like you've put out the max line and move on, winner.

words continue to be redefined according to moods and people are taking "stop hitting me" as hate speech at times.

then, it is up to google to tell me? facebook? you? is it my right to tell you what is hateful? i can tell you *i* think it may or may not be but that's nothing more than my opinion that in the end is no better than yours.

why are some opinions trying to carry more weight and "judge/jury" than others may be doing?

I think if we were to hear their actual words there would be little doubt what was hateful. Speaking in the hypothetical, it is very easy to defend. Since the speakers really never got on Saturday, it may be mostly the chants from the crowds we are talking about, so who knows. I know a Jewish friend was very distressed with the "Blood and Soil" and anti-Jewish chants by the white nationalists. I've heard enough to know it sounds like hate to me.

was milo wanting to talk at berkley to other conservatives hate?
how come their side can "hate" and it's excused because of the "whitewashing" done to anyone who doesn't agree with them? i don't agree AT ALL with antifa - to them i'm now a white supremacist because i don't follow along with their morality.

am i a "hate group" now?

‘Hate group’ map lists mainstream conservative organizations

why are they a hate group and why does CNN get to decide this?

like i said - the term is being used to stop counter-thought, not hate.

and i have a huge problem with that. i also have a problem with removing rights from people cause you *deem* them hateful. if they follow the letter of the law the rights apply to them also.

anything else puts your own views at risk of "thought police". you gonna be ok if your mindset is ever demonized and just go "wow, i never knew how much of a hater i was" or will you fight them from being stupid?

was milo wanting to talk at berkley to other conservatives hate?
We aren't discussing Milo. I condemned the actions at Berkeley already. Let's not confound the issue.
and i have a huge problem with that. i also have a problem with removing rights from people cause you *deem* them hateful. if they follow the letter of the law the rights apply to them also
So far, you're just saying the same thing over and over.
I don't want to go search the vids of these disgusting assholes to give you examples of their speech. You already know what they've said and you are pretending that what is coming out of their mouths is not hateful and disrespectful of entire groups of people. I'd prefer in this country that we uphold the rights of all groups to be treated with respect. Chanting Nazi slogans and screaming N!gger is hateful, and moreover it is meant to humiliate, harass and intimidate those targeted groups. Fuck that, Iceberg. Don't even talk to me if you're going to defend that.

i am trying to - as i started off - define hate speech.

i said nothing about any other group.

i also prefer all groups to be treated with respect. i would just as soon both sides stop shouting out hateful commentary to each other. but my question was not to do with this specific incident but the larger issue of banning "hate speech".

you keep moving me to some demonic side of things and pretending i'm saying things i've never said simply because i'm asking for a better definition of what we are in fact trying to get our heads around.

you can give me examples of assholes talking. i can give you examples of assholes talking. both sides. now that i'm trying to define what we can agree would be hate speech you're to "fuck that don't talk to me"

maybe that's best as you don't seem to want to listen anyway.

peace out. no hate from me.

 

[OldLady]

Question: Fox pundits declare at least once per hour that hate speech is protected. I've heard it other places than Fox, as well. Are you sure hate speech isn't protected? Speech inciting violence isn't, but how often has that shut down these people?

the problem is - define hate speech?

people seem to use that like a race card now - whip it out like you've put out the max line and move on, winner.

words continue to be redefined according to moods and people are taking "stop hitting me" as hate speech at times.

then, it is up to google to tell me? facebook? you? is it my right to tell you what is hateful? i can tell you *i* think it may or may not be but that's nothing more than my opinion that in the end is no better than yours.

why are some opinions trying to carry more weight and "judge/jury" than others may be doing?

I think if we were to hear their actual words there would be little doubt what was hateful. Speaking in the hypothetical, it is very easy to defend. Since the speakers really never got on Saturday, it may be mostly the chants from the crowds we are talking about, so who knows. I know a Jewish friend was very distressed with the "Blood and Soil" and anti-Jewish chants by the white nationalists. I've heard enough to know it sounds like hate to me.

was milo wanting to talk at berkley to other conservatives hate?
how come their side can "hate" and it's excused because of the "whitewashing" done to anyone who doesn't agree with them? i don't agree AT ALL with antifa - to them i'm now a white supremacist because i don't follow along with their morality.

am i a "hate group" now?

‘Hate group’ map lists mainstream conservative organizations

why are they a hate group and why does CNN get to decide this?

like i said - the term is being used to stop counter-thought, not hate.

and i have a huge problem with that. i also have a problem with removing rights from people cause you *deem* them hateful. if they follow the letter of the law the rights apply to them also.

anything else puts your own views at risk of "thought police". you gonna be ok if your mindset is ever demonized and just go "wow, i never knew how much of a hater i was" or will you fight them from being stupid?

was milo wanting to talk at berkley to other conservatives hate?
We aren't discussing Milo. I condemned the actions at Berkeley already. Let's not confound the issue.
and i have a huge problem with that. i also have a problem with removing rights from people cause you *deem* them hateful. if they follow the letter of the law the rights apply to them also
So far, you're just saying the same thing over and over.
I don't want to go search the vids of these disgusting assholes to give you examples of their speech. You already know what they've said and you are pretending that what is coming out of their mouths is not hateful and disrespectful of entire groups of people. I'd prefer in this country that we uphold the rights of all groups to be treated with respect. Chanting Nazi slogans and screaming N!gger is hateful, and moreover it is meant to humiliate, harass and intimidate those targeted groups. Fuck that, Iceberg. Don't even talk to me if you're going to defend that.

i am trying to - as i started off - define hate speech.

i said nothing about any other group.

i also prefer all groups to be treated with respect. i would just as soon both sides stop shouting out hateful commentary to each other. but my question was not to do with this specific incident but the larger issue of banning "hate speech".

you keep moving me to some demonic side of things and pretending i'm saying things i've never said simply because i'm asking for a better definition of what we are in fact trying to get our heads around.

you can give me examples of assholes talking. i can give you examples of assholes talking. both sides. now that i'm trying to define what we can agree would be hate speech you're to "fuck that don't talk to me"

maybe that's best as you don't seem to want to listen anyway.

peace out. no hate from me.

Nor from me. I'm giving you a chance but there is no way to define hate speech without using words. The words themselves are essential.

 

[easyt65]

The criminally violent AntiFa group may have had a permit to PEACEFULLY protest that day, but they did NOT have a permit to INSTIGATE VIOLENCE!



Antifa: It's become necessary to destroy the town to save non-violence, or something - Hot Air

"Unlike most of the counterdemonstrators in Charlottesville and elsewhere, members of antifa have shown no qualms about using their fists, sticks or canisters of pepper spray to meet an array of right-wing antagonists whom they call a fascist threat to American democracy. As explained this week by a dozen adherents of the movement, the ascendant new right in the country requires a physical response."

The violent criminals who violated both the Constitution and Law by instigating violence in an attempt to deny a group their Constitutional Right to Assemble and Right of Free Speech is calling the group they physically attacked 'a fascist threat to America'?

Bwuhahahaha....



“People are starting to understand that neo-Nazis don’t care if you’re quiet, you’re peaceful,” said Emily Rose Nauert, a 20-year-old antifa member who became a symbol of the movement in April when a white nationalist leader punched her in the face during a melee near the University of California, Berkeley.


“You need violence in order to protect nonviolence,” Ms. Nauert added. “That’s what’s very obviously necessary right now. It’s full-on war, basically.”

That's the most F*ed up Liberal attempt to justify their crimes I have ever heard.

 

[iceberg]

the problem is - define hate speech?

people seem to use that like a race card now - whip it out like you've put out the max line and move on, winner.

words continue to be redefined according to moods and people are taking "stop hitting me" as hate speech at times.

then, it is up to google to tell me? facebook? you? is it my right to tell you what is hateful? i can tell you *i* think it may or may not be but that's nothing more than my opinion that in the end is no better than yours.

why are some opinions trying to carry more weight and "judge/jury" than others may be doing?

I think if we were to hear their actual words there would be little doubt what was hateful. Speaking in the hypothetical, it is very easy to defend. Since the speakers really never got on Saturday, it may be mostly the chants from the crowds we are talking about, so who knows. I know a Jewish friend was very distressed with the "Blood and Soil" and anti-Jewish chants by the white nationalists. I've heard enough to know it sounds like hate to me.

was milo wanting to talk at berkley to other conservatives hate?
how come their side can "hate" and it's excused because of the "whitewashing" done to anyone who doesn't agree with them? i don't agree AT ALL with antifa - to them i'm now a white supremacist because i don't follow along with their morality.

am i a "hate group" now?

‘Hate group’ map lists mainstream conservative organizations

why are they a hate group and why does CNN get to decide this?

like i said - the term is being used to stop counter-thought, not hate.

and i have a huge problem with that. i also have a problem with removing rights from people cause you *deem* them hateful. if they follow the letter of the law the rights apply to them also.

anything else puts your own views at risk of "thought police". you gonna be ok if your mindset is ever demonized and just go "wow, i never knew how much of a hater i was" or will you fight them from being stupid?

was milo wanting to talk at berkley to other conservatives hate?
We aren't discussing Milo. I condemned the actions at Berkeley already. Let's not confound the issue.
and i have a huge problem with that. i also have a problem with removing rights from people cause you *deem* them hateful. if they follow the letter of the law the rights apply to them also
So far, you're just saying the same thing over and over.
I don't want to go search the vids of these disgusting assholes to give you examples of their speech. You already know what they've said and you are pretending that what is coming out of their mouths is not hateful and disrespectful of entire groups of people. I'd prefer in this country that we uphold the rights of all groups to be treated with respect. Chanting Nazi slogans and screaming N!gger is hateful, and moreover it is meant to humiliate, harass and intimidate those targeted groups. Fuck that, Iceberg. Don't even talk to me if you're going to defend that.

i am trying to - as i started off - define hate speech.

i said nothing about any other group.

i also prefer all groups to be treated with respect. i would just as soon both sides stop shouting out hateful commentary to each other. but my question was not to do with this specific incident but the larger issue of banning "hate speech".

you keep moving me to some demonic side of things and pretending i'm saying things i've never said simply because i'm asking for a better definition of what we are in fact trying to get our heads around.

you can give me examples of assholes talking. i can give you examples of assholes talking. both sides. now that i'm trying to define what we can agree would be hate speech you're to "fuck that don't talk to me"

maybe that's best as you don't seem to want to listen anyway.

peace out. no hate from me.

Nor from me. I'm giving you a chance but there is no way to define hate speech without using words. The words themselves are essential.

which is why i want to know who can call what hate speech.

in an example i tried to show i'm pointing out CNN is taking it upon themselves to tell you who the hate speech groups are out there. who gave them this role? is there an official "you have crossed X line and are now an official hate group" like we do with sex offenders?

as for giving me a chance - really? you're taking the moral MY OPINIONS ARE BETTER THAN YOURS and so kindly "giving me a chance"?

keep your chances. i'm here to talk about our differences, not find out how to make you happy.

 

[easyt65]

which is why i want to know who can call what hate speech.

Dude, you haven't been paying attention again - ONLY LIBERALS!

 

[iceberg]

which is why i want to know who can call what hate speech.

Dude, you haven't been paying attention again - ONLY LIBERALS!

and i'm busy challenging that. i am not about to give them that right and i don't care who it pisses off.

no i don't like white supremacist assholes. if i happened to be at that area i'd be glad to speak out against them but i would not take it to violence. as much as i hate what they say, i hate giving up an overall right we all share just to shut them up. there are better ways to deal with them and let the law run it's course.

but defending rights we all share some have an issue with cause i'm not taking them away from the bad guy out of a socially related issue. if this means oldlady is back to not talking to me oh well. if the limits of our conversation can only exist within her own comfort zone then i've said all i can say to her anyway. if she can't understand the differences in what i'm asking and only wants to lower her head and scream for the hate to stop - her call. it's just not going to work until we can talk it through together.

anything that puts one side as better than the other at this point is only going to keep the bullshit alive and well in 'merica.

i want more than that for *all* of us.

 

[easyt65]

and i'm busy challenging that. i am not about to give them that right and i don't care who it pisses off.

I'm right there with you

 

[iceberg]

and i'm busy challenging that. i am not about to give them that right and i don't care who it pisses off.

I'm right there with you

i will fight for our rights we all share with them or without them. if we allow rights to become a commodity we're done.

 

[easyt65]

i will fight for our rights we all share with them or without them. if we allow rights to become a commodity we're done.

Agreed, which is why I am going on 30 years in the military. I have served to defend the Constitution and the rights of ALL Americans, to include those I agree with and with whom I do not.

The AntiFa leader from the Charlottesville mess attempted to justify their violence against and attempted to deny the White Supremacists of their Constitutional Rights to freely assemble and freedom of speech WHILE calling the White Supremacists 'a threat to our democracy'.

I guess she actually believes that the Constitution only applies to HER / the Left and THEIR ideology. The Left used violence to shut down freedom of speech at Berkeley as well as Charlottesville, and the scary thing is they can / do justify the use of violence to shut down anyone who does not agree with them. That's not how it works here in this country, lil' snowflake.

THAT / THEY are the REAL threat to our Democracy.

Just because you are offended by someone else's opinion does not mean you can beat and bloody them as Leftists did to opposing political party supporters at Trump rallies.

Just because you are offended by someone else's words - because you don't agree with them - doesn't mean you can shut it down by rioting, looting, destroying property, torching businesses, and terrorizing / intimidating / beating and bloodying people.

Just because you are personally offended by statues, photos, etc doesn't mean you legally can destroy / tear down those things.

There are a few things for people who are so easily offended (who, BTW, are called 'snowflakes'):
1. Medication
2. Therapy
3. The legal process to try to create/change laws
4. PRISON, for those who do not choose to go with any of the 1st 3 but instead choose to break the law.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, over the years, Nazism, white supremacy have been considered things that are against the ideals that this country stands for.

Many conservatives are against Muslims because of their belief in Sharia law, and yeah, I will agree that Sharia law is incompatible with the ideals of this country as well.

Quick question................a lot of you on here have been defending the Nazis and white supremacists right to assemble, claiming that it is free speech and protected by the law, so how would you feel if a bunch of Muslims got together to hold a rally in support of Sharia law? Free speech and all that, right?