Lawmakers held a hearing on white nationalism. On YouTube ...

[TU Curmudgeon]

Nothing illegal about building a wall

True, but a big ditch would be (long-term) cheaper and just as effective if stocked with piranha, alligators, and crocodiles.

In fact, if built the entire length of the US/Mexican border, and if built deep and wide enough, the US could have its own totally secure alternative to the Panama Canal. All that would be required would be to ensure that the canal was at least 100' deep and that the northern bank was vertical and at least 100' higher than the water level (which would be really easy to do because you could use the material excavated from the ditch to build the northern bank.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's funny. You just mentioned weasel wording in your last post and now I'm getting fed this.

Speaking precisely is often confused with "weasel wording" by those who do not have the habit of listening precisely.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I guess you missed the point where its established that society had accepted such a way of life. Not such law would be needed in that case, if no one was coming forward in full to have such a practice abolished.

You'd possibly get such an occurrence several decades down the line. But not in the immediate age.

It appears that the "n" was finger fumbled out of the theoretical "In a case where "no one would talk to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would sell anything to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would buy anything from anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and everyone completely ignored (except to insult) anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__," it would be incredibly difficult for anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__ to "network" with anyone else who owned __[fill in the blank]__ - wouldn't it?".

However you are still evading the question (which I will rephrase) of "When no one will do 'X' and everyone will express disapproval for anyone who would do 'X', is it NEEDED to establish a law to outlaw 'X'?" - please note the emphasized word.

In a country where the people don't shoot police officers (on a "routine" basis) and where the police officers don't shoot the people (on a "routine" basis), is it NEEDED for the police to carry guns and wear bulletproof vests at all times?

Does such a country exist? Yes. Is it the United States of America? No.

 

[Oborosen]

Speaking precisely is often confused with "weasel wording" by those who do not have the habit of listening precisely.

You do know that such a finger can just as rightfully pointed in your direction as well, correct?

 

[Oborosen]

It appears that the "n" was finger fumbled out of the theoretical "In a case where "no one would talk to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would sell anything to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would buy anything from anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and everyone completely ignored (except to insult) anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__," it would be incredibly difficult for anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__ to "network" with anyone else who owned __[fill in the blank]__ - wouldn't it?".

However you are still evading the question (which I will rephrase) of "When no one will do 'X' and everyone will express disapproval for anyone who would do 'X', is it NEEDED to establish a law to outlaw 'X'?" - please note the emphasized word.

In a country where the people don't shoot police officers (on a "routine" basis) and where the police officers don't shoot the people (on a "routine" basis), is it NEEDED for the police to carry guns and wear bulletproof vests at all times?

Does such a country exist? Yes. Is it the United States of America? No.

Have you realized yet, that nothing you posted even mention disapproval?

At the very best, it's an introverted society. Nothing more.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You do know that such a finger can just as rightfully pointed in your direction as well, correct?

Indeed, and when someone explains what they actually meant, but which I have misinterpreted from the words that they actually used, I generally adopt a highly unusual internet practice and acknowledge that fact.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Have you realized yet, that nothing you posted even mention disapproval?

One might sort of infer that "... would talk to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would sell anything to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would buy anything from anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and everyone completely ignored (except to insult) anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__," sort of hinted at implying "disapproval".

Would you like to take a stab at actually answering the reformulated questions (feel free to insert the above into the "X" portion if you feel like it)?

At the very best, it's an introverted society. Nothing more.

Since New Zealand is a country where the people don't shoot police officers (on a "routine" basis) and where the police officers don't shoot the people (on a "routine" basis), I guess that you consider New Zealand (ranked as the SECOND BEST country of the world to live in [guess which country ranked FIRST])to be an "introverted society"

 

[Oborosen]

One might sort of infer that "... would talk to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would sell anything to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would buy anything from anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and everyone completely ignored (except to insult) anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__," sort of hinted at implying "disapproval".

Would you like to take a stab at actually answering the reformulated questions (feel free to insert the above into the "X" portion if you feel like it)?


Since New Zealand is a country where the people don't shoot police officers (on a "routine" basis) and where the police officers don't shoot the people (on a "routine" basis), I guess that you consider New Zealand (ranked as the SECOND BEST country of the world to live in [guess which country ranked FIRST])to be an "introverted society"

Now you're going with country by rank of best to live in.

Do you mind deciding between reality, or speculation and sticking with it for the full question?

 

[Nickyjo]

Neither is white nationalism. But, you already knew that.

++ Tell that to the families of Dylann Roof's victims.

This is the usual socialist tactic intended to create a domestic enemy. Stalin and Hitler did the same thing.

++ Wrong. It's an investigation into a phenomenon that is percieved as a danger given past murderous acts. Legitimate function of Congress to examine it. And what does socialism have to do with it?

 

[apdst]

++ Wrong. It's an investigation into a phenomenon that is percieved as a danger given past murderous acts. Legitimate function of Congress to examine it. And what does socialism have to do with it?

The objective is to justify passing more laws in order to excercise more control over the citizenry. It doesn't have anything to do with solving any problems, except for the problem, as Leftists see it, of citizens of the republic wielding too much freedom. Now, that's the problem the Leftists need to solve.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Now you're going with country by rank of best to live in.

Do you mind deciding between reality, or speculation and sticking with it for the full question?

"The question" was

It appears that the "n" was finger fumbled out of the theoretical "In a case where "no one would talk to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would sell anything to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would buy anything from anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and everyone completely ignored (except to insult) anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__," it would be incredibly difficult for anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__ to "network" with anyone else who owned __[fill in the blank]__ - wouldn't it?".

However you are still evading the question (which I will rephrase) of "When no one will do 'X' and everyone will express disapproval for anyone who would do 'X', is it NEEDED to establish a law to outlaw 'X'?" - please note the emphasized word.

In a country where the people don't shoot police officers (on a "routine" basis) and where the police officers don't shoot the people (on a "routine" basis), is it NEEDED for the police to carry guns and wear bulletproof vests at all times?
​

"The question" was asked by me of you, and not the other way around.

Are you going to take a stab at actually answering the actual question that was actually asked, or are we going to continue with you providing non-responsive answers and then me asking the same question over and over until you finally do? (I once asked the same question over 20 consecutive times of the same witness in a trial before getting an actual answer, the answer wasn't all that helpful to my client's case, but the fact that the witness kept dodging and weaving in an effort to avoid answering a fairly simple question most certainly destroyed that witness' credibility and DID assist my client's case.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Neither is white nationalism. But, you already knew that.

This is the usual socialist tactic intended to create a domestic enemy. Stalin and Hitler did the same thing.

So did those well known "socialists" Huey Long and Joeseph McCarthy - so your point would be - what?

 

[apdst]

So did those well known "socialists" Huey Long and Joeseph McCarthy - so your point would be - what?

McCarthy wasn't a socialist. :lamo

 

[Nickyjo]

The objective is to justify passing more laws in order to excercise more control over the citizenry. It doesn't have anything to do with solving any problems, except for the problem, as Leftists see it, of citizens of the republic wielding too much freedom. Now, that's the problem the Leftists need to solve.

Tell me then: what should the response be to mass shootings such as Dylann’s, or things like the OK City bombing? That ain’t wielding freedom. Seems to me that in a diverse society such as the US there is a legit government interest in investigating groups that might target others on account of race or some other factor. If you think this is not worthy of your government’s consideration, fine. I assume others agree with you. Vote for them. Nobody is stopping you from chanting “Jews will not replace us.” But if you advertise your bigotry, expect people’s representatives to look into it.

 

[apdst]

Tell me then: what should the response be to mass shootings such as Dylann’s, or things like the OK City bombing? That ain’t wielding freedom.

The death penalty for the shooter should be a mandatory sentence.

Seems to me that in a diverse society such as the US there is a legit government interest in investigating groups that might target others on account of race or some other factor. If you think this is not worthy of your government’s consideration, fine. I assume others agree with you. Vote for them. Nobody is stopping you from chanting “Jews will not replace us.” But if you advertise your bigotry, expect people’s representatives to look into it.

If there are reasonable grounds to investigate a possible crime, of course and it should be done by the proper authority. Congress doesn't have the authority to investigate crimes.

Advertising one's bigotry isn't a crime, nor should it be.

You should think hard about making bigotry a crime, what with the anti-white, anti-southern and anti-Christian bigotry that comes from the Left wing.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

McCarthy wasn't a socialist. :lamo

I'm having my annual Spring Special on apple boxes for people to stand on so that things don't go over their heads.

Shall I put you down for two or three, of the Extra Super Colossal Jumbo size ones?

 

[apdst]

I'm having my annual Spring Special on apple boxes for people to stand on so that things don't go over their heads.

Shall I put you down for two or three, of the Extra Super Colossal Jumbo size ones?

Looks like you're having a spring special on stupidity. :lamo

I bet you think Joe McCarthy was the chairman of the HUAC, too.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The death penalty for the shooter should be a mandatory sentence.



If there are reasonable grounds to investigate a possible crime, of course and it should be done by the proper authority. Congress doesn't have the authority to investigate crimes.

Advertising one's bigotry isn't a crime, nor should it be.

You should think hard about making bigotry a crime, what with the anti-white, anti-southern and anti-Christian bigotry that comes from the Left wing.

We will, however, staunchly defend the 1st Amendment rights of the "Right Wing" to spout its "anti-Black", "anti-Northern", and "anti-Jewish" "honest expression of personal opinion" - right?

 

[apdst]

We will, however, staunchly defend the 1st Amendment rights of the "Right Wing" to spout its "anti-Black", "anti-Northern", and "anti-Jewish" "honest expression of personal opinion" - right?

That's exactly right. Just like we support anyone else's 1st Amendment right to talk about who they hate.

 

[Nickyjo]

The death penalty for the shooter should be a mandatory sentence.



If there are reasonable grounds to investigate a possible crime, of course and it should be done by the proper authority. Congress doesn't have the authority to investigate crimes.

Advertising one's bigotry isn't a crime, nor should it be.

You should think hard about making bigotry a crime, what with the anti-white, anti-southern and anti-Christian bigotry that comes from the Left wing.

Don’t want to make bigotry a crime at all. But Congress passes laws providing penalties for some crimes. They have a legitimate interest in looking into white supremacists, especially given recent events. No different than investigation into alien smuggling now, organized crime a generation ago, or lynching several generations ago, especially if they believe local authorities are failing to do so or there is an interstate issue. Their legislative options are limited to be sure, but I fail to see tyranny lurking behind the hearings. The ACLU and other constitutionalists are watching.

 

[apdst]

Don’t want to make bigotry a crime at all. But Congress passes laws providing penalties for some crimes. They have a legitimate interest in looking into white supremacists, especially given recent events. No different than investigation into alien smuggling now, organized crime a generation ago, or lynching several generations ago, especially if they believe local authorities are failing to do so or there is an interstate issue. Their legislative options are limited to be sure, but I fail to see tyranny lurking behind the hearings. The ACLU and other constitutionalists are watching.

The Democrats' motivation for looking into is nothing more than attempt to create a domestic enemy and white folks are the chosen target.

They would be more credible if they were investigating all extremism.

The ACLU is watching? :lamo

 

[Nickyjo]

The Democrats' motivation for looking into is nothing more than attempt to create a domestic enemy and white folks are the chosen target.

They would be more credible if they were investigating all extremism.

The ACLU is watching? :lamo

All extremism? Fine with me, if there are other examples of violence from other groups. And yes, the ACLU which defended the constitutional rights of Nazis to demonstrate, is also available to defend white nationalists.

 

[apdst]

All extremism? Fine with me, if there are other examples of violence from other groups. And yes, the ACLU which defended the constitutional rights of Nazis to demonstrate, is also available to defend white nationalists.

So, some extremism is ok?

The ACLU is a joke.

Redirect Notice

Redirect Notice

 

[Rogue Valley]

The ACLU is a joke.]

Trumpov is a joke.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's exactly right. Just like we support anyone else's 1st Amendment right to talk about who they hate.

Which, of course, is exactly why you wrote

"You should think hard about making bigotry a crime, what with the anti-white, anti-southern and anti-Christian bigotry that comes from the Left wing."
​

when you support

"We will, however, staunchly defend the 1st Amendment rights of the "Right Wing" to spout its "anti-Black", "anti-Northern", and "anti-Jewish" "honest expression of personal opinion"."
​

isn't it?