The LDS Church, Charlottesville and continuing revelation

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

no, I don't think mob rule is the best way to govern things, we need the elected government to have laws and enforce them. How do figure going from the individual to a mob? Mobs are fickle! I've seen Gladiator a meelion times!!!! I figured you weren't pro nazi or WS! I guess if things are kept civil and no one is induced into violence or illegal activity. One thing to keep in mind is something may be legal but not ethical and vice versa. 

That's where we start going around in circles again though.  Because, history shows that governments frequently silence those who don't support the governments ideals/plans if the government has the power to do so.  And we know that the people are also not good at deciding who get's to have a voice and who doesn't.  It will end being being whatever the majority decides (mob rule), and like you said, mobs are fickle.

So the best option, given those bad ones above aren't really what we want, is to have in place a system that allows everyone the freedom to express themselves and their beliefs, as long as they aren't advocating violence or breaking laws.  

In a world where there is no good answer to the 'who get's to decide' question, that is the best choice.

[longview]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The mayor was in on having this disaster in his city and let it happen.

Yes.  The LEFT is always up for demonizing "conservatives" (at least indirectly).

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

He does not want to be re elected?

Yes.  The town is mostly liberal.  They share the same sentiments.

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And Trump's moral equivalency between Nazis and those who oppose Nazis is reprehensible, not correct.

Yes.  Nazis and KKK are reprehensible.  Yes.  Communists are also reprehensible.  Yet, Antifa are mostly made up of communists.  In my eyes, they are equally abhorrent.

Have you forgotten the lessons of Ferguson and Baltimore?  The following snippets included to refresh your memory:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/246266/3-myths-about-rioters-and-looters-ferguson-daniel-greenfield

There’s a reason that riots usually happen in the summer. If the grand jury verdict had been issued in January, it would have been met peacefully.
The riots in Ferguson didn’t happen because of outrage, but because the gathering mobs were told by everyone from CNN right up to Governor Nixon that angry protests were expected and would be tolerated. That was as good as throwing a match into a spreading pool of gasoline.
No one was stealing beauty supplies or starting fires in Walgreens because they were upset that Michael Brown got shot. They were stealing for the same reasons that Michael Brown stole; because they believed that they could get away with it.

A riot has two components. There are the bored and irritated locals who begin swarming streets because they have no jobs, it’s hot outside and there’s nothing good on television. They will loosely agree with whatever issue is on the table, but they aren’t all that worked up about it.
And then there are the outsiders.
Before the riot, community organizers, citizen reporters and assorted activists show up to coordinate, spread slogans and justify the coming violence. They want violence far more than the locals do and they taunt police and try to create incidents, but they usually avoid personally engaging in violence.
(In the early twentieth century the group stirring up riots was usually some arm of the Communist Party. Later a variety of leftist groups, many closely entangled with the Democratic Party took over. The Ferguson protests are somewhat unique in the sizable Muslim presence with their activists playing the same role that the Communist Party used to play a century ago.)

"We must not reprimand our children for outrage when it is the outrage that was put in them by an oppressive system," Al Sharpton had said, in the aftermath of the murder of a Jewish student by an angry black mob.
This same rhetoric was used by the inciters of the violence in Ferguson and has been used in similar riots going back generations. Its major theme is that the rioters are free to do whatever they want. They carry no moral responsibility for their actions.
And what they want is to smash and steal anything they can get their hands on. This isn’t outrage. It’s textbook amoral behavior. The riot doesn’t release anger; it frees the perpetrators of their morality.
The real purpose of a riot isn’t to benefit the rioters. It’s to benefit those who incite the riot. The rioters and looters react in response to riot-friendly conditions created from above. If you build the political infrastructure for a riot, the rioters and looters will come.
Sharpton’s riots weren’t about helping anyone except himself. By associating himself with violence, he sold the idea that he was an influential figure in the black community. Whether or not Sharpton was actually popular, his rise to the top of the political establishment became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Those who gain from unleashing chaos and violence are not the powerless, but the powerful. Sharpton rose to his important role as Obama’s liaison on a trail of bodies. Someone operating in Ferguson hopes to be the next Sharpton. Meanwhile Obama is playing a perverse fusion of Sharpton and MLK, amping up a bad situation and then telling blacks and whites that they need to rise above it.
It’s an old and cynical game that has been played in and around the Democratic Party for too long.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259911/ferguson-effect-spreads-matthew-vadum

The police officer's reluctance to use reasonable force or even to make efforts to defend himself in this case is an example of what St. Louis, Missouri, police chief Sam Dotson quite properly calls the "Ferguson effect." Police officers, particularly Caucasians, are becoming increasingly reluctant to do their jobs and follow proper police procedure when dealing with blacks because they fear their actions will be characterized as examples of race-driven police brutality.
In some cities, government officials have essentially ordered police to let black criminals run wild.
During the rioting that followed the suspicious April 19 death of career criminal Freddie Gray in police custody, Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D) ordered police not to enforce the law against black looters. The mayor infamously admitted after riots began that she gave space "to those who wished to destroy."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/238781/dem-gov-jay-nixon-also-wanted-cover-michael-brown-daniel-greenfield

Michael Brown was a violent criminal and the video proved it. Now top Dems like Holder and Nixon are proving that they're equally criminal in their frustrated insistence on covering up the video.
It's a good thing that the Ferguson cops managed to put it out there so that people could see the truth for themselves.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon said his office was unaware that a surveillance video allegedly showing Michael Brown stealing cigars before being shot and killed by a police officer would be released by local police — and he "deeply" disagreed with the decision to make the video public.
The release of the footage purportedly showing Michael Brown getting into a confrontation inside a convenience store "put the community, and quite frankly, the nation on alert again," Nixon said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.
Obama and Nixon pandering to the rioters and looters did that.
"We were certainly not happy with that being released, especially in the way that it was," Nixon said. "It appeared to cast aspersions on a young man that was gunned down in the street. It made emotions raw."
The video shows the truth. Michael Brown was a fat vicious thug. He wasn't a "murdered teen". He was a violent criminal. The only people with an interest in covering that up are Democratic Party race baiters who were feeding off the violent protesters.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/246869/dem-missouri-gov-protected-ferguson-looters-not-daniel-greenfield

You protect what you value.
What did Governor Nixon value? The rioters and looters, not the small businesses and workers they were torching and looting.
The lives being protected were those of the criminals not of their victims. That's what the whole Michael Brown/Garner/Martin thing comes down to. Pandering to criminals. And it's not just Democrats who are doing it. Too many "conservatives" have jumped on the bandwagon.
Nixon's priorities are familiar ones.  In New York City, Mayor Dinkins, Bill de Blasio's old boss, chose to let the rioters and looters set off by Al Sharpton have a "day of grace" to beat and kill as many Jews as they wanted.
The police were ordered not to respond, to retreat in fact when they came under attack from bottles, rocks and even shotguns. Only when Dinkins and his police commissioner came under attack, did they finally unchain the NYPD. If Nixon was having his house burned, then the National Guard would be called in, but Ferguson's businesses were owned by minorities, by blacks and Asians. They could be sacrificed.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/256093/baltimore-mayor-pulled-cops-back-let-them-loot-its-daniel-greenfield

Despite a firm denial by Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, a senior law enforcement source charges that she gave an order for police to stand down as riots broke out Monday night, raising more questions about whether some of the violence and looting could have been prevented.
The source, who is involved in the enforcement efforts, confirmed to Fox News there was a direct order from the mayor to her police chief Monday night, effectively tying the hands of officers as they were pelted with rocks and bottles.
A senior law enforcement source told Fox News that Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake ordered police officers to stand by and watch the looting Monday.
“Let them loot, it’s only property,” Rawlings-Blake said, according to Fox News’ source.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/257961/baltimore-prosecutor-fights-cover-freddie-gray-daniel-greenfield

Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order that would block the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy report and other "sensitive" documents as she prosecutes the six police officers involved in his arrest.
Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that prosecutors "have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved" and "will not be baited into litigating this case through the media."
But an attorney for one of the officers said the effort shows that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."
Obviously.
The basic answer might be that Freddie Gray had more substances in his bloodstream than a toxic waste dump. Considering his drug history that wouldn't be surprising.
But there might also be something that would introduce serious doubts into the official narrative. Such as pre-existing injuries.
Either way, Mosby has had no problem trying this case in the media and has no commitment to a fair and impartial process. The only reason to hide this information is to try and suppress as much of it as possible later in court.
Mosby and her conspirators have made this a national issue. The public has a right to know what Mosby is trying to hide.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263112/baltimore-mayors-castro-odyssey-humberto-fontova

Remember how after Baltimore was half destroyed by rioters last summer Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s made headlines by claiming she gave Baltimore rioters "space to destroy"?
She tried to walk back the unfortunate statement—but it only half-worked.
In any case, as president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, last week she was in (totally destroyed by Communism) Cuba leading a mayoral delegation which also includes Mitch Landrieu, mayor of New Orleans (among the murder capitols of the U.S.).
"These meetings and visits will provide U.S. mayors and Cuban officials the opportunity to share best practices for providing city services in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and transportation, according to the press release."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257805/baltimore-pays-price-thomas-sowell

Baltimore is now paying the price for irresponsible words and actions, not only by young thugs in the streets, but also by its mayor and the state prosecutor, both of whom threw the police to the wolves, in order to curry favor with local voters.
Now murders in Baltimore in May have been more than double what they were in May last year, and higher than in any May in the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the number of arrests is down by more than 50 percent.
Various other communities across the country are experiencing very similar explosions of crime and reductions of arrests, in the wake of anti-police mob rampages from coast to coast that the media sanitize as "protests."
None of this should be surprising. In her carefully researched 2010 book, "Are Cops Racist?" Heather Mac Donald pointed out that, after anti-police campaigns, cops tended to do less policing and criminals tended to commit more crimes.
If all this has been known for years, why do the same mistakes keep getting made?
Mainly because it is not a mistake for those people who are looking out for their own political careers. Critics who accuse the mayor of Baltimore and the Maryland prosecutor of incompetence, for their irresponsible words and actions, are ignoring the possibility that these two elected officials are protecting and promoting their own chances of remaining in office or of moving on up to higher offices.
Racial demagoguery gains votes for politicians, money for race hustling lawyers and a combination of money, power and notoriety for armies of professional activists, ideologues and shakedown artists.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257663/lefts-reign-terror-continues-baltimore-matthew-vadum

As Maryland's largest city grieves for a mother and her 7-year-old son found shot to death, it is becoming clear that criminals emboldened by left-wingers are terrorizing the people of Baltimore like never before.
The city's radical, left-wing, thug-loving mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D), has emasculated the local police she despises and abandoned her constituents by giving criminals a green light to do as they please. Police officers have been ordered not to do their jobs which is just as well because many of them are quite justifiably terrified of doing their jobs in the current environment. Mobs of as many as 50 people now routinely assemble when police arrive at crime scenes. Are they serving as community watchdogs or are they there to intimidate cops? Maybe both.
At this rate it won't be long before Baltimore dethrones Detroit as the premier municipal showcase for left-wing urban policy failures. Ominously, this is America's Mad Max-like future if it continues on the suicidal course set by President Obama, a man whose proudest accomplishment has been to serve as a rabble-rousing Marxist community organizer.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/256081/stand-baltimores-real-victims-daniel-greenfield

The real victim in Baltimore is not Freddie Gray, a repeat loser who eventually died as he had lived: Being arrested by the police. The real victims are not the thugs smashing and looting stores. It isn’t the young black men disproportionately stopped by the racist majority-black police force in Baltimore under a racist black police commissioner for doing nothing wrong except the usual drug and weapons charges.
It’s not even the “majority of law-abiding Baltimore families” referenced by politicians.
85% of Baltimore voters came out for Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who gave the muggers and looters “space to destroy,” and then apologized for calling them thugs, defending them instead as “misguided young people” who “need support.”

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's where we start going around in circles again though.  Because, history shows that governments frequently silence those who don't support the governments ideals/plans if the government has the power to do so.  And we know that the people are also not good at deciding who get's to have a voice and who doesn't.  It will end being being whatever the majority decides (mob rule), and like you said, mobs are fickle.

So the best option, given those bad ones above aren't really what we want, is to have in place a system that allows everyone the freedom to express themselves and their beliefs, as long as they aren't advocating violence or breaking laws.  

In a world where there is no good answer to the 'who get's to decide' question, that is the best choice.

"in a world where there is no good answer to the 'who get's to decide' question, that is the best choice."

if you ever write movies or books that should be the tag line! an objective line between hate and strong disapproval may not have a good answer of where it is and context matters. In Germany it's illegal to have a swastika symbol on anything but over here it's not simply because we have had a different history with it. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If Confederate sites were treated more like Nazi sites I would not have a problem. Something more along the lines of "never again" monuments or a source of sorrow at past mistakes. Places of penitence and self-reflection. Instead people are perversely proud of them. There are ways to keep the past alive and remembered without honoring those who risked and gave their lives in battle in the hope that others would not be free.

I am understanding better your point of view. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Yes.  The LEFT is always up for demonizing "conservatives" (at least indirectly).

Yes.  The town is mostly liberal.  They share the same sentiments.

Yes.  Nazis and KKK are reprehensible.  Yes.  Communists are also reprehensible.  Yet, Antifa are mostly made up of communists.  In my eyes, they are equally abhorrent.

Have you forgotten the lessons of Ferguson and Baltimore?  The following snippets included to refresh your memory:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/246266/3-myths-about-rioters-and-looters-ferguson-daniel-greenfield

There’s a reason that riots usually happen in the summer. If the grand jury verdict had been issued in January, it would have been met peacefully.
The riots in Ferguson didn’t happen because of outrage, but because the gathering mobs were told by everyone from CNN right up to Governor Nixon that angry protests were expected and would be tolerated. That was as good as throwing a match into a spreading pool of gasoline.
No one was stealing beauty supplies or starting fires in Walgreens because they were upset that Michael Brown got shot. They were stealing for the same reasons that Michael Brown stole; because they believed that they could get away with it.

A riot has two components. There are the bored and irritated locals who begin swarming streets because they have no jobs, it’s hot outside and there’s nothing good on television. They will loosely agree with whatever issue is on the table, but they aren’t all that worked up about it.
And then there are the outsiders.
Before the riot, community organizers, citizen reporters and assorted activists show up to coordinate, spread slogans and justify the coming violence. They want violence far more than the locals do and they taunt police and try to create incidents, but they usually avoid personally engaging in violence.
(In the early twentieth century the group stirring up riots was usually some arm of the Communist Party. Later a variety of leftist groups, many closely entangled with the Democratic Party took over. The Ferguson protests are somewhat unique in the sizable Muslim presence with their activists playing the same role that the Communist Party used to play a century ago.)

"We must not reprimand our children for outrage when it is the outrage that was put in them by an oppressive system," Al Sharpton had said, in the aftermath of the murder of a Jewish student by an angry black mob.
This same rhetoric was used by the inciters of the violence in Ferguson and has been used in similar riots going back generations. Its major theme is that the rioters are free to do whatever they want. They carry no moral responsibility for their actions.
And what they want is to smash and steal anything they can get their hands on. This isn’t outrage. It’s textbook amoral behavior. The riot doesn’t release anger; it frees the perpetrators of their morality.
The real purpose of a riot isn’t to benefit the rioters. It’s to benefit those who incite the riot. The rioters and looters react in response to riot-friendly conditions created from above. If you build the political infrastructure for a riot, the rioters and looters will come.
Sharpton’s riots weren’t about helping anyone except himself. By associating himself with violence, he sold the idea that he was an influential figure in the black community. Whether or not Sharpton was actually popular, his rise to the top of the political establishment became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Those who gain from unleashing chaos and violence are not the powerless, but the powerful. Sharpton rose to his important role as Obama’s liaison on a trail of bodies. Someone operating in Ferguson hopes to be the next Sharpton. Meanwhile Obama is playing a perverse fusion of Sharpton and MLK, amping up a bad situation and then telling blacks and whites that they need to rise above it.
It’s an old and cynical game that has been played in and around the Democratic Party for too long.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259911/ferguson-effect-spreads-matthew-vadum

The police officer's reluctance to use reasonable force or even to make efforts to defend himself in this case is an example of what St. Louis, Missouri, police chief Sam Dotson quite properly calls the "Ferguson effect." Police officers, particularly Caucasians, are becoming increasingly reluctant to do their jobs and follow proper police procedure when dealing with blacks because they fear their actions will be characterized as examples of race-driven police brutality.
In some cities, government officials have essentially ordered police to let black criminals run wild.
During the rioting that followed the suspicious April 19 death of career criminal Freddie Gray in police custody, Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D) ordered police not to enforce the law against black looters. The mayor infamously admitted after riots began that she gave space "to those who wished to destroy."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/238781/dem-gov-jay-nixon-also-wanted-cover-michael-brown-daniel-greenfield

Michael Brown was a violent criminal and the video proved it. Now top Dems like Holder and Nixon are proving that they're equally criminal in their frustrated insistence on covering up the video.
It's a good thing that the Ferguson cops managed to put it out there so that people could see the truth for themselves.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon said his office was unaware that a surveillance video allegedly showing Michael Brown stealing cigars before being shot and killed by a police officer would be released by local police — and he "deeply" disagreed with the decision to make the video public.
The release of the footage purportedly showing Michael Brown getting into a confrontation inside a convenience store "put the community, and quite frankly, the nation on alert again," Nixon said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.
Obama and Nixon pandering to the rioters and looters did that.
"We were certainly not happy with that being released, especially in the way that it was," Nixon said. "It appeared to cast aspersions on a young man that was gunned down in the street. It made emotions raw."
The video shows the truth. Michael Brown was a fat vicious thug. He wasn't a "murdered teen". He was a violent criminal. The only people with an interest in covering that up are Democratic Party race baiters who were feeding off the violent protesters.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/246869/dem-missouri-gov-protected-ferguson-looters-not-daniel-greenfield

You protect what you value.
What did Governor Nixon value? The rioters and looters, not the small businesses and workers they were torching and looting.
The lives being protected were those of the criminals not of their victims. That's what the whole Michael Brown/Garner/Martin thing comes down to. Pandering to criminals. And it's not just Democrats who are doing it. Too many "conservatives" have jumped on the bandwagon.
Nixon's priorities are familiar ones.  In New York City, Mayor Dinkins, Bill de Blasio's old boss, chose to let the rioters and looters set off by Al Sharpton have a "day of grace" to beat and kill as many Jews as they wanted.
The police were ordered not to respond, to retreat in fact when they came under attack from bottles, rocks and even shotguns. Only when Dinkins and his police commissioner came under attack, did they finally unchain the NYPD. If Nixon was having his house burned, then the National Guard would be called in, but Ferguson's businesses were owned by minorities, by blacks and Asians. They could be sacrificed.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/256093/baltimore-mayor-pulled-cops-back-let-them-loot-its-daniel-greenfield

Despite a firm denial by Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, a senior law enforcement source charges that she gave an order for police to stand down as riots broke out Monday night, raising more questions about whether some of the violence and looting could have been prevented.
The source, who is involved in the enforcement efforts, confirmed to Fox News there was a direct order from the mayor to her police chief Monday night, effectively tying the hands of officers as they were pelted with rocks and bottles.
A senior law enforcement source told Fox News that Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake ordered police officers to stand by and watch the looting Monday.
“Let them loot, it’s only property,” Rawlings-Blake said, according to Fox News’ source.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/257961/baltimore-prosecutor-fights-cover-freddie-gray-daniel-greenfield

Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order that would block the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy report and other "sensitive" documents as she prosecutes the six police officers involved in his arrest.
Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that prosecutors "have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved" and "will not be baited into litigating this case through the media."
But an attorney for one of the officers said the effort shows that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."
Obviously.
The basic answer might be that Freddie Gray had more substances in his bloodstream than a toxic waste dump. Considering his drug history that wouldn't be surprising.
But there might also be something that would introduce serious doubts into the official narrative. Such as pre-existing injuries.
Either way, Mosby has had no problem trying this case in the media and has no commitment to a fair and impartial process. The only reason to hide this information is to try and suppress as much of it as possible later in court.
Mosby and her conspirators have made this a national issue. The public has a right to know what Mosby is trying to hide.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263112/baltimore-mayors-castro-odyssey-humberto-fontova

Remember how after Baltimore was half destroyed by rioters last summer Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s made headlines by claiming she gave Baltimore rioters "space to destroy"?
She tried to walk back the unfortunate statement—but it only half-worked.
In any case, as president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, last week she was in (totally destroyed by Communism) Cuba leading a mayoral delegation which also includes Mitch Landrieu, mayor of New Orleans (among the murder capitols of the U.S.).
"These meetings and visits will provide U.S. mayors and Cuban officials the opportunity to share best practices for providing city services in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and transportation, according to the press release."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257805/baltimore-pays-price-thomas-sowell

Baltimore is now paying the price for irresponsible words and actions, not only by young thugs in the streets, but also by its mayor and the state prosecutor, both of whom threw the police to the wolves, in order to curry favor with local voters.
Now murders in Baltimore in May have been more than double what they were in May last year, and higher than in any May in the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the number of arrests is down by more than 50 percent.
Various other communities across the country are experiencing very similar explosions of crime and reductions of arrests, in the wake of anti-police mob rampages from coast to coast that the media sanitize as "protests."
None of this should be surprising. In her carefully researched 2010 book, "Are Cops Racist?" Heather Mac Donald pointed out that, after anti-police campaigns, cops tended to do less policing and criminals tended to commit more crimes.
If all this has been known for years, why do the same mistakes keep getting made?
Mainly because it is not a mistake for those people who are looking out for their own political careers. Critics who accuse the mayor of Baltimore and the Maryland prosecutor of incompetence, for their irresponsible words and actions, are ignoring the possibility that these two elected officials are protecting and promoting their own chances of remaining in office or of moving on up to higher offices.
Racial demagoguery gains votes for politicians, money for race hustling lawyers and a combination of money, power and notoriety for armies of professional activists, ideologues and shakedown artists.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257663/lefts-reign-terror-continues-baltimore-matthew-vadum

As Maryland's largest city grieves for a mother and her 7-year-old son found shot to death, it is becoming clear that criminals emboldened by left-wingers are terrorizing the people of Baltimore like never before.
The city's radical, left-wing, thug-loving mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D), has emasculated the local police she despises and abandoned her constituents by giving criminals a green light to do as they please. Police officers have been ordered not to do their jobs which is just as well because many of them are quite justifiably terrified of doing their jobs in the current environment. Mobs of as many as 50 people now routinely assemble when police arrive at crime scenes. Are they serving as community watchdogs or are they there to intimidate cops? Maybe both.
At this rate it won't be long before Baltimore dethrones Detroit as the premier municipal showcase for left-wing urban policy failures. Ominously, this is America's Mad Max-like future if it continues on the suicidal course set by President Obama, a man whose proudest accomplishment has been to serve as a rabble-rousing Marxist community organizer.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/256081/stand-baltimores-real-victims-daniel-greenfield

The real victim in Baltimore is not Freddie Gray, a repeat loser who eventually died as he had lived: Being arrested by the police. The real victims are not the thugs smashing and looting stores. It isn’t the young black men disproportionately stopped by the racist majority-black police force in Baltimore under a racist black police commissioner for doing nothing wrong except the usual drug and weapons charges.
It’s not even the “majority of law-abiding Baltimore families” referenced by politicians.
85% of Baltimore voters came out for Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who gave the muggers and looters “space to destroy,” and then apologized for calling them thugs, defending them instead as “misguided young people” who “need support.”

No, that is just crazy.

Also, you need a less nutzoid media diet if you uncritically buy those articles. I am sure you love websites that say up front that leftists are totalitarians but that might also be a clue that the writers are nuts.

In short: Wrong!!!!!!

[longview]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, that is just crazy.

Also, you need a less nutzoid media diet if you uncritically buy those articles. I am sure you love websites that say up front that leftists are totalitarians but that might also be a clue that the writers are nuts.

In short: Wrong!!!!!!

More of your Ad Hominem assaults?   Nuke the messenger without attempting to refute the message?  Most (if not all) items appeared in mainstream newspapers and broadcast services.  None was pulled out of thin air.   Your tone is definitely sounding hysterical.

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, longview said:

More of your Ad Hominem assaults?   Nuke the messenger without attempting to refute the message?  Most (if not all) items appeared in mainstream newspapers and broadcast services.  None was pulled out of thin air.   Your tone is definitely sounding hysterical.

I suspect some of the premises of this argument are things that happened.

The "and therefore the Left is secretly hiring provocateurs to embarrass the poor innocent Nazis just out saluting on a fine summer day" conclusion is just nuts.

And, as to the flag, yeah, it has similarities. They are obviously defining themselves as opponents of the original. The idea that some fascist hack 'discovered' the similarity and that they are secretly Nazis just makes them look like morons. The flag is an obvious quasi-parody. Am I supposed to believe they are secretly fascists, the groups they fight? By this logic the Nazis are secretly Jews.....

[longview]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The flag is an obvious quasi-parody.

Wow.  A new twist on your narrative!   I will just leave it at that.  Unless you want to show more examples of their creative "parodies?"

[The Nehor]

Just now, longview said:

Wow.  A new twist on your narrative!   I will just leave it at that.  Unless you want to show more examples of their creative "parodies?"

A new twist? What? It is obvious. If you are blatantly and specifically opposed to something then which is more likely?

1) You are secretly sympathetic to that group and subconsciously match their symbolism.

2) You coopt their symbolism as a method of opposing them.

Take your time and think it through.

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

A gang of bank robbers rob a bank and one of them  murders the bank teller. All the gang is responsible for that murder

The opposing group had a permit. No group has a permit to commit violence EVER.

So reporting on violence is worse than the  actual violence?

For the President of the US to side with the NAZIS, the KKK, and the Alt-Right is deplorable. These are not good people.

Why is it so hard to just use facts?  When an emotional topic comes up it is as if individuals lose all rational thought.  They lose a grasp of reality because it their agenda has become the most important thing in their lives; they forfeit thinking.  It is a strange phenomena that plays out every day and these posts are an excellent example.

Okay, one more time; let's look at facts:

1. Let's go slow and let's remind ourselves that the only thing of value is facts and nothing else.  
2. A group of bank robbers are generally a small group - not hundreds of people.  In addition, they are in a very small space where each member of the team is conscious of the actions of the other.  They can actually tell another to stop and be heard; they can actually dissociate from the actions of another immediately.   Now, what do you see different between that group of bank robbers and a group of 200 people with no team leader, no union of action or even thought.  They are independent of each other.  Can you begin to see the facts and why your response is devoid of any rational application?  You need to stop until you grasp reality and forfeit your emotions.  Conversation is has no value until that point.
3. In this situation, the action's of an individual are only liable by the individual. All other protesters had no liability at all - as in zero.  So, however much you want to paint the entire group as violent - you have to admit by just the facts, that you are wrong and you continue to be committed to lies and distortions.
4. No, only a single group had a permit to assemble in the park.  No other group was legally recognized to assemble.  The reason this is so important is that the city had previously denied the permit - a denial of a citizen's rights - and the ACLU came in and through the courts forced the city to comply with the constitution.  Further, the second group - the one that did not seek a permit - was allowed to assemble consciously by the city, the local authorities, and was even pushed, if the papers were correct, by a local university authority.  
5. Boy, we certainly are not interested in facts or any degree of acknowledgement of the facts.  I guess I need to stop based on what I have already stated.  You have lost touch with reality and rational thought; you have become so emotionally attached to your agenda/story that facts have any meaning or value.

In conclusion, as I have stated repeatedly, this conversation has two levels.  I have remained committed to the first level, which is the right of citizens to assemble in the public square without fear of violence or threat.  The second level is the discussion about the message of protesters.  Though we might find some messages repugnant in the extreme that does not negate their right to assemble and protest to express their opinions, beliefs, thoughts, etc.  When we find messages repugnant we should resist them - through the same methods of assembling in a legal manner to express our contrary opinions, etc.  

We have citizens that have become so completely zealous to their ideas that all others that do not agree become less than human.  We verbally denigrate them to make them less than human in order to continue to give personal license to punish and destroy them for having contrary thoughts and ideas to our own.  This is scary to me.  Some individuals actually think that they know better than every one else and they should be entitled to determine what are acceptable thoughts and what are not.  If an individual is found to have unacceptable thoughts to these new thought police then that individual can be destroyed for their thoughts alone.  If this does not scare you then there is great reason to fear for the future of this country.  Today it is "their" thoughts that are wrong, but tomorrow they will find that your thoughts are wrong and turn on you.  

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

One of my posts apparently got lost in the net. No news coverage has been as exaggerative about their presence as you placed here. But still, they have a surprising presence in the US and derivatives of these groups are located across the nation.  Out of 917 groups, over half are groups that could have been tied to white nationalism in some way or fashion. Another 114 are likely also white racism oriented (the anti-muslim/immigrant groups). These are also disproportionately the arbiters of hate-based violence in the country. And this does not include all white culture and alt-right style movements, particularly ones online that are also growing (see here). It is not the most important event of this decade...but it's a movement that if left unchecked can grow and can gain political power and voice.....placing others at risk of losing rights and protections. It has the potential to shift the direction of our country for the worst. It's concerning.  

Ignoring a problem doesn't make a problem go away. It often just means the issue gets worse. And this is a growing movement. Leaving their voices unchallenged means a sense of acceptance or at least tolerance for their voice as a viable option of thought. Silence is just another form of enabling.  Personally I am very grateful for the church for its stances on immigration, refugees, and now "white culture" and white nationalist movements. At the very least, it helps retard the growth of support or acceptance of these groups among our members who may be vulnerable to their messages and anti-minority fervor.

 

With luv,

BD

The SPL is not really an entity that I trust to a high degree. They have an agenda that is anything but neutral. Regardless, when I looked at a few of these groups I saw groups listed as anti-Muslim, Christian identity (I have no clue what that means), and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Anyway, I did not immediately find how many people these groups that they identify as hate groups represent.  Are we talking about 917 hate groups that represent 10,000 people or are we talking representing 50 million people?  Do you see why this is important?  Do see why that information provides a more complete context to understand the impact of such groups?

Let's not exaggerate or distort my statements or its intent.  My point was not to ignore it to make it go away, but to ignore these hate groups to starve them of publicity.  Do you think that preventing publicity of these small groups would have an impact?  My position is that denying them publicity will negatively impact their ability to grow, to attract members, etc.  Do you think this position is wrong and if so, why?

See, now you create the narrative that there is a danger in our membership being attracted to such philosophies.  Are we talking 20 members or 500,000 members?  Who benefits from exaggerating the issue?  Who's message gains prominence?  You see, when I read about what took place in this event I did not see a single group that was there for peace and love, tolerance, inclusiveness, etc.  I saw a lot of anger and ugly emotions from both sides.  I suspect that is because that is what the media does is focus on what sells.  

I appreciate when the Church guides and teaches the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I am sensitive to public manipulation and distortion of facts that are constant in the current political arena in our nation.  I don't trust the national news and believe that the news should be highly parsed if one is seeking facts and to be informed.  

[Duncan]

18 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Why is it so hard to just use facts?  When an emotional topic comes up it is as if individuals lose all rational thought.  They lose a grasp of reality because it their agenda has become the most important thing in their lives; they forfeit thinking.  It is a strange phenomena that plays out every day and these posts are an excellent example.

Okay, one more time; let's look at facts:

1. Let's go slow and let's remind ourselves that the only thing of value is facts and nothing else.  
2. A group of bank robbers are generally a small group - not hundreds of people.  In addition, they are in a very small space where each member of the team is conscious of the actions of the other.  They can actually tell another to stop and be heard; they can actually dissociate from the actions of another immediately.   Now, what do you see different between that group of bank robbers and a group of 200 people with no team leader, no union of action or even thought.  They are independent of each other.  Can you begin to see the facts and why your response is devoid of any rational application?  You need to stop until you grasp reality and forfeit your emotions.  Conversation is has no value until that point.
3. In this situation, the action's of an individual are only liable by the individual. All other protesters had no liability at all - as in zero.  So, however much you want to paint the entire group as violent - you have to admit by just the facts, that you are wrong and you continue to be committed to lies and distortions.
4. No, only a single group had a permit to assemble in the park.  No other group was legally recognized to assemble.  The reason this is so important is that the city had previously denied the permit - a denial of a citizen's rights - and the ACLU came in and through the courts forced the city to comply with the constitution.  Further, the second group - the one that did not seek a permit - was allowed to assemble consciously by the city, the local authorities, and was even pushed, if the papers were correct, by a local university authority.  
5. Boy, we certainly are not interested in facts or any degree of acknowledgement of the facts.  I guess I need to stop based on what I have already stated.  You have lost touch with reality and rational thought; you have become so emotionally attached to your agenda/story that facts have any meaning or value.

In conclusion, as I have stated repeatedly, this conversation has two levels.  I have remained committed to the first level, which is the right of citizens to assemble in the public square without fear of violence or threat.  The second level is the discussion about the message of protesters.  Though we might find some messages repugnant in the extreme that does not negate their right to assemble and protest to express their opinions, beliefs, thoughts, etc.  When we find messages repugnant we should resist them - through the same methods of assembling in a legal manner to express our contrary opinions, etc.  

We have citizens that have become so completely zealous to their ideas that all others that do not agree become less than human.  We verbally denigrate them to make them less than human in order to continue to give personal license to punish and destroy them for having contrary thoughts and ideas to our own.  This is scary to me.  Some individuals actually think that they know better than every one else and they should be entitled to determine what are acceptable thoughts and what are not.  If an individual is found to have unacceptable thoughts to these new thought police then that individual can be destroyed for their thoughts alone.  If this does not scare you then there is great reason to fear for the future of this country.  Today it is "their" thoughts that are wrong, but tomorrow they will find that your thoughts are wrong and turn on you.  

if they turn on us, good thing more people don't like Nazis! and God will fight our battles as per Dc 105

[Storm Rider]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, you are defending these people. You should stop or explain why you want to defend Nazis as law abiding people because they have a permit and some of them like to drive cars into people. If you want to argue that not all are terrible despite marching with people that are throwing Nazi salutes,, hauling around Nazi and Confederate flags, and spewing anti-Semitic rhetoric you can. You would just be completely wrong. Any decent person would leave immediately.

I don't want to continue to repeat myself when you simply ignore what I say.  Any "decent person" would not be so completely devoid of the ability to actually read what is posted rather than have knee-jerk, emotional responses.  I will answer one more time and this is the last time for you, Nehor, please READ IT:

MY ONLY FOCUS IS ON THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS TO ASSEMBLE IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE WITHOUT FEAR OF PERSECUTION OR VIOLENCE.  IF A PERMIT IS REQUIRED THEN ANY GROUP SEEKING TO ASSEMBLE MUST OBTAIN THE PERMIT.  ANY GROUP NOT HAVING A PERMIT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ASSEMBLE.  I am not, and I have never have, addressed the message of any group that wants to protest or assemble in the public square.  I think radical feminists, those who want to maintain legal abortions for 9 month embryos, nazis, or any other group that you, your neighbor, or anyone else thinks is morally repugnant, should be allowed to assemble and share their message.  

I don't think you or anyone else is entitled to be the thought police for everyone else in the nation.  I believe the First Amendment is sacrosanct and must be respected regardless of how many people want to police the thoughts of others.  If fact, those who think they should be entitled to aggressively police the thoughts of their fellow citizens should be put in jail to save the nation.  

Now, if you cannot see the difference then let me know and I can put you on ignore.  I rarely have this much patience with such a consistent display of a willingness to just look at what I say and stop distorting it.

[longview]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

A new twist? What? It is obvious. If you are blatantly and specifically opposed to something then which is more likely?

1) You are secretly sympathetic to that group and subconsciously match their symbolism.

2) You coopt their symbolism as a method of opposing them.

Take your time and think it through.

Oh, ok.   I am going to go with number 2 and say that Antifa types have deep seated love for totalitarianism.  The neo-nazi perverts and KKK dummkopfs are also drawn to statist ideals.  This causes Antifa thugs to have a severe dissonance of thought because totalitarianism and statist ideals are awfully close together in concept.  Which in turn leads them to gut-wrenching self-loathing.  So when they see their opponents across the street, they begin to "project" their self-loathing onto them and explode into irrational violence!  

[Gray]

You know, in Charlottesville, the Nazis killed someone and said they planned to kill many more. Afterwards their leaders said they were glad that the woman was dead.

Meanwhile, those protesting against the Nazis that day acted to save the lives of clergy on the scene. But I guess some people think that that kind of behavior makes them worse than the Nazis, somehow.

I wish I could say that I did Nazi that coming. Unfortunately active recruitment to the side of the white supremacists is ongoing, which includes a campaign of disinformation.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Gray

[Storm Rider]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if they turn on us, good thing more people don't like Nazis! and God will fight our battles as per Dc 105

Duncan, for the live of me I really don't understand how these individuals got to the point that they thought the Neo-Nazi philosophy was the answer.  How does it happen and what made them conclude this type of message was the answer?  

It is apparent these groups can be violent - Timothy McVey comes to mind immediately.  One of my concerns about these types of groups is that I am fearful that the persecution in the media they are getting is only making them more resolved in their path.  I would bet they see the world against them and that scares me because very small groups can do outrageously bad things.  

Sharing ideas in the public square is the opportunity to discuss - not persecute - but to hear from these groups and respond to them in a logical manner.  Given the kinds of responses I have had on this board simply because I am committed to 1st Amendment does not engender any degree of confidence our society is capable of rational discussion.  There is no middle ground; no willingness to discuss anything.  Everyone is at the polar opposites.  Just think about it how incapable it is to defend the 1st Amendment when the protesters are a few hundred people with a repugnant message.  Never once did I defend their message and consistently defended their right to share their message and I have been excoriated by fellow LDS or those who call themselves LDS.  

When our own members are incapable of rational discussion.....it may just be there is no hope until some radical changes are made.  It is not hard to believe that there may be a time when the constitution actually does hang by mere threads.  I don't think it will be the Church that saves the nation if this thread is any example.

[BlueDreams]

35 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The SPL is not really an entity that I trust to a high degree. They have an agenda that is anything but neutral. Regardless, when I looked at a few of these groups I saw groups listed as anti-Muslim, Christian identity (I have no clue what that means), and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Anyway, I did not immediately find how many people these groups that they identify as hate groups represent.  Are we talking about 917 hate groups that represent 10,000 people or are we talking representing 50 million people?  Do you see why this is important?  Do see why that information provides a more complete context to understand the impact of such groups?

Not trusting SPLC is your problem, not mine. The map is actually a lower extimate than others I've seen. I didn't count the FLDS and others in white nationalist numbers. They show up in different categories as hate groups. Overall, hate groups are generally not known to show their roster to just anybody but it's indicative that they are all across the country. To give an indiaction, I looked up a well known white nationalist board that only allows white nationalists to be actual members of the board. Over 1100 members checked the site in the last 24 hrs. Over all they had 327,000+ members to their board. This is a largely american based board....but do have several international subforums. So I'll guestimate low that 200K are probably american. That's from only one site in one branch of the WN/hate groups. This is not including the new "polished" versions that include the alt-right and like groups.  That's a lot. And personally, no. I see that they commit most of the domestic terrorism and that these groups growth recently, increases the likelihood that more will happen.  

 

Quote

 

Let's not exaggerate or distort my statements or its intent.  My point was not to ignore it to make it go away, but to ignore these hate groups to starve them of publicity.  Do you think that preventing publicity of these small groups would have an impact?  My position is that denying them publicity will negatively impact their ability to grow, to attract members, etc.  Do you think this position is wrong and if so, why?

 

No. I believe you're wrong, for what I mentioned earlier. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. It just means recruitment goes unnoticed. It is a means to enable racism, whether one meant to do so or not.

Quote

 

See, now you create the narrative that there is a danger in our membership being attracted to such philosophies.  Are we talking 20 members or 500,000 members?  Who benefits from exaggerating the issue?  Who's message gains prominence?  You see, when I read about what took place in this event I did not see a single group that was there for peace and love, tolerance, inclusiveness, etc.  I saw a lot of anger and ugly emotions from both sides.  I suspect that is because that is what the media does is focus on what sells.  

I appreciate when the Church guides and teaches the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I am sensitive to public manipulation and distortion of facts that are constant in the current political arena in our nation.  I don't trust the national news and believe that the news should be highly parsed if one is seeking facts and to be informed.  

 

When looking up more stats, I found yet another video of the night fights. More of the counter protesters in active, but peaceful resistance as they were heckled, harassed, and beaten with torches. I do not know what you are seeing, but you may want to correct your lenses.

I am not creating a narrative, it's what I've seen and been worried about for a while now.  

 

With luv,

BD 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't want to continue to repeat myself when you simply ignore what I say.  Any "decent person" would not be so completely devoid of the ability to actually read what is posted rather than have knee-jerk, emotional responses.  I will answer one more time and this is the last time for you, Nehor, please READ IT:

MY ONLY FOCUS IS ON THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS TO ASSEMBLE IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE WITHOUT FEAR OF PERSECUTION OR VIOLENCE.  IF A PERMIT IS REQUIRED THEN ANY GROUP SEEKING TO ASSEMBLE MUST OBTAIN THE PERMIT.  ANY GROUP NOT HAVING A PERMIT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ASSEMBLE.  I am not, and I have never have, addressed the message of any group that wants to protest or assemble in the public square.  I think radical feminists, those who want to maintain legal abortions for 9 month embryos, nazis, or any other group that you, your neighbor, or anyone else thinks is morally repugnant, should be allowed to assemble and share their message.  

I don't think you or anyone else is entitled to be the thought police for everyone else in the nation.  I believe the First Amendment is sacrosanct and must be respected regardless of how many people want to police the thoughts of others.  If fact, those who think they should be entitled to aggressively police the thoughts of their fellow citizens should be put in jail to save the nation.  

Now, if you cannot see the difference then let me know and I can put you on ignore.  I rarely have this much patience with such a consistent display of a willingness to just look at what I say and stop distorting it.

By calling me the thought police you mean my specific non-legally sanctioned and non-violent opposition to domestic Nazis? I am not sure how saying they are terrible people qualifies as being part of the "thought police".

I agree that those who want to aggressively police the thoughts of others are dangerous. I would state that they are less dangerous then those who want to destroy democracy, reopen concentration camps, and throw fellow citizens into ovens. Minor peccadillo of mine but I feel strongly about it.

I get defending the First Amendment rights of absolute monsters to protect that right. I do. That is why I give the ACLU a pass for defending the rights of Nazis to get permits like this. You go too far with false equivalency pretending the Nazis and their opposites are equal.

[BlueDreams]

On a brighter note: A friend and I went to a vigil held tonight over the terrrorist attack, lives lost, and in general solidarity against hate in Provo. It was surprisingly well attended and comforting to see so many faces there. It was also healing. My friend and I are both WOC's (women of color) and it was nice to vent all the frustrations and pent up tension we'd carried. Several spoke, including the BYU republican and democrat club leaders.  It was wonderful and re-normalizing after a very weird week.

This is personal, and I hesitate to say this. But I do think it's important. I'm a big believer that silence and not really stepping into minority shoes and stories is part of what allowed these events to formulate. I was just south of DC when 9-11 happened. It's one of the most formative memories of my teens/childhood. I particularly remember the after effect. Looking up in the sky at all the planes going by. And more shamefully looking at the muslim girl in my class in uncertainty. I knew even then it was stupid, but I couldn't stop myself. This week I had a bit of a flashback. I went on my usual hike, but found myself nervous around the white people walking up and down the trail. It was that same irrational response. The fear and niggling worry. I know it's irrational. It's why I was grateful for the event....to remind me of that. But that is a hallmark of terrorism. It terrorizes, it makes us question how we see the world and if we're really safe.  

We can talk about free speech and peaceful assembly and having a space to talk and whatever else. But I want to say what it looks like as a WOC. I see a confederate flag and feel uncomfortable, angry. I'm in UT, so I know most of these are ignorant...maybe even making some stupid point about free speech. But it's only a minor comfort because I know what that represented, what that still means. And that if one can sit there, even just obstinately pushing it then you don't really see me....or so many other minorities and the experiences they've had. I look at the people at that rally with Nazi flags/salutes, WN symbols, etc....I just see a domestic smaller version of ISIS. Of extremism and violent hate. Of diminishing my worth and right to my country. Me and my families and my friends place in this landscape. You can talk about free speech all you want. Fine. You have it. But no one has a right to terrorism. Of spreading fear into communities. And that's what that was. Terrorism and angrily pushing back against it are not the same thing. Hate speech and terror language are a potent force that cannot be ignored and it shouldn't be tolerated. Being "wrong" in a correct cause (counter protesters who may have used minor violence) is not the same as just being wrong and using one's evil ideology to promote violence and the loss of rights for others. 

If you can't see this, if you have an urge to just argue your point back at me in some prolonged ridiculous battle of semantics....stop. Think. Listen to someone who doesn't just sit and validate your view of the world. Take a minute and hear another person and what it's like to live in this situation again and again. To have all these events around race be picked apart and questioned and inevitably dismissed again and again. While I watch the real-time results for those I love and know. To have to hear debates about obscure points when my friends manage a world as minorities....to be flippant about immigration while my friend fears leaving the country for fear he wouldn't be let back in to his wife and child. To hear ideas that could harm family and friends and communities I participate in. I keep most of this calmly down most days; pushed between my ribs to carefully talk to the white folks in my life who get defensive in a few sentences they may take wrong. I wait for moments like tonight on the porch with my friend who I know I won't have to justify my experience. Where I can vent and she can vent without being questioned again and again. Where I can just be.

But I would hope those here, convicted in their ideology or counterpoints may see what it's like to have symbols with the bite of terrorism and racism that has infected this country/world for centuries be defended. The toll it takes on those like me. Silence is deadly. Ignoring a growing problem does not make it go away. Making false equivalencies is just insulting. 

These are terrorists   

Their rhetoric frightens me. The growing xenophobia and bigotry that is being exhibited is wearing 

The softening of their message to make it more palatable to the masses is unnerving

There is no space for anything but frank and clear condemnation. It is a balm to have such from the church and to hear that from so many others both on this site and at that vigil and in my normal day to day.

 

With luv,

BD        

Edited August 21, 2017 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Oh, ok.   I am going to go with number 2 and say that Antifa types have deep seated love for totalitarianism.  The neo-nazi perverts and KKK dummkopfs are also drawn to statist ideals.  This causes Antifa thugs to have a severe dissonance of thought because totalitarianism and statist ideals are awfully close together in concept.  Which in turn leads them to gut-wrenching self-loathing.  So when they see their opponents across the street, they begin to "project" their self-loathing onto them and explode into irrational violence!  

No, they don't. Their flaws are in the opposite direction. If anything they lean towards being anti-govenment anarchists. Your cognitive analysis is based on false premises.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

You know, in Charlottesville, the Nazis killed someone and said they planned to kill many more. Afterwards their leaders said they were glad that the woman was dead.

Meanwhile, those protesting against the Nazis that day acted to save the lives of clergy on the scene. But I guess some people think that that kind of behavior makes them worse than the Nazis, somehow.

I wish I could say that I did Nazi that coming. Unfortunately active recruitment to the side of the white supremacists is ongoing, which includes a campaign of disinformation.

It is ironic. When talking about Mexican immigrants our President talks about rapists and thieves and drugs "and some, I assume, are good people".

When it comes to actual Nazis he sticks almost entirely to the 'some are good people' schtick and leaves out the part about genocide, concentration camps, and world domination. Nazis love Donald Trump and as one commentator said, "David Duke and the Nazis really seem to like Donald Trump, which is weird because Nazis are a lot like cats – if they like you it’s probably because you’re feeding them."

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Am I wrong to feel kind of bad about the statues going down?  I am a US History buff..every country (and our young country) has gone through a series of growing pains.  I look at history being destroyed...a representation of how far we have come.  I dunno know...I hate to see all these things just go away...but whatever brings peace I guess will be a good thing. 

Those monument commemorate slavery, and armed Rebellion against the US. Most were put up after 1915 to re-enforce the second class citizenship of blacks, and to remind them who was boss. I see some point in having a few in museums to remind generations of vileness of the Confederate cause.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is ironic. When talking about Mexican immigrants our President talks about rapists and thieves and drugs "and some, I assume, are good people".

When it comes to actual Nazis he sticks almost entirely to the 'some are good people' schtick and leaves out the part about genocide, concentration camps, and world domination. Nazis love Donald Trump and as one commentator said, "David Duke and the Nazis really seem to like Donald Trump, which is weird because Nazis are a lot like cats – if they like you it’s probably because you’re feeding them."

Cats are the only domesticated animal that stays with humans because they want to.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is ironic. When talking about Mexican immigrants our President talks about rapists and thieves and drugs "and some, I assume, are good people".

When it comes to actual Nazis he sticks almost entirely to the 'some are good people' schtick and leaves out the part about genocide, concentration camps, and world domination. Nazis love Donald Trump and as one commentator said, "David Duke and the Nazis really seem to like Donald Trump, which is weird because Nazis are a lot like cats – if they like you it’s probably because you’re feeding them."

Trump will insult anyone and everyone, with the notable exception of Nazis/White Supremacists and Putin. The former are his most loyal core base, the latter is his boss.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

By calling me the thought police you mean my specific non-legally sanctioned and non-violent opposition to domestic Nazis? I am not sure how saying they are terrible people qualifies as being part of the "thought police".

I agree that those who want to aggressively police the thoughts of others are dangerous. I would state that they are less dangerous then those who want to destroy democracy, reopen concentration camps, and throw fellow citizens into ovens. Minor peccadillo of mine but I feel strongly about it.

I get defending the First Amendment rights of absolute monsters to protect that right. I do. That is why I give the ACLU a pass for defending the rights of Nazis to get permits like this. You go too far with false equivalency pretending the Nazis and their opposites are equal.

"Storm" is a term used in two major neonazi website. I wonder if that's significant here?