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

[apdst]

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?

That's exactly right. Sorry you missed the point.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's exactly right. Sorry you missed the point.

In context, your original statement appeared to be an ENDORSEMENT of "making bigotry a crime". Since you have now clarified that you believe that bigotry (of whatever nature) should be totally unrestrained by law, I can see that the impression created (for me) by your original statement was incorrect.

Unfortunately, it appears that the vast majority of civilized people in civilized countries do NOT agree that bigotry (of whatever nature) should be totally unrestrained by law. I happen to be one of those who, also, does NOT agree that bigotry (of whatever nature) should be totally unrestrained by law, but don't, because of that, make any claim to being "more civilized than Americans" or to living in a country that is "more civilized than the United States of America".

If you chose to conclude that the level of civilization amongst Americans or of the United States of America is either higher or lower than the level of civilization amongst some other country and/or people, that is completely up to you.

 

[slick]

When's the hearing black nationalism going to take place?

Wasn't that matter already settled in the countries of South Africa & Rhodesia (whoops I meant Zimbabwe) decades ago
along with reparations. White farmers who made those British colonies the breadbasket to all Africa were unceremonously
deprived from their possessions without compensation.

The colonists from Jamestown to Washington's inauguration almost 200 years were for the most part WASP supremists
who formed a country, by driving the Indians over the mountains, of white men & women & african slaves.
As such men they composed the founding documents which created the most powerful nation in the world before or
at the time of the Coolidge presidency. These same documents are used today with pretzel like contortions to demean
the founders themselves.

 

[apdst]

ob]In context, your original statement appeared to be an ENDORSEMENT of "making bigotry a crime".[/b] Since you have now clarified that you believe that bigotry (of whatever nature) should be totally unrestrained by law, I can see that the impression created (for me) by your original statement was incorrect.

Unfortunately, it appears that the vast majority of civilized people in civilized countries do NOT agree that bigotry (of whatever nature) should be totally unrestrained by law. I happen to be one of those who, also, does NOT agree that bigotry (of whatever nature) should be totally unrestrained by law, but don't, because of that, make any claim to being "more civilized than Americans" or to living in a country that is "more civilized than the United States of America".

If you chose to conclude that the level of civilization amongst Americans or of the United States of America is either higher or lower than the level of civilization amongst some other country and/or people, that is completely up to you.

That's because you can't read worth a ****.

 

[Oborosen]

"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.

Alright I'm going to answer this in a way that you can possibly understand and be as candid as possible.

The world you're positing is for lack of a better word "impossible" given those standards. No trading, no communication, no nothing... Then how did they get the slaves in the first place? It makes no sense because the question is as far from logical as you could possibly get.

Yes, police would need to be armed and wear protection. Because there is still a basis for which they are shot at and that they need to shoot back.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Alright I'm going to answer this in a way that you can possibly understand and be as candid as possible.

Good start.

The world you're positing is for lack of a better word "impossible" given those standards. No trading, no communication, no nothing... Then how did they get the slaves in the first place? It makes no sense because the question is as far from logical as you could possibly get.

Gosh, already forgot what you said in your first paragraph, didn't you?

Yes, police would need to be armed and wear protection. Because there is still a basis for which they are shot at and that they need to shoot back.

I guess that you had better tell that to the New Zealanders because they are living in a delusional world where the police do NOT need to be armed and wear protection 24/7/52 and they are living in that delusional world because they think that people do NOT routinely attempt to kill police officers and where police officers do NOT routinely attempt to kill other people.

I do realize that it is absolutely impossible for someone who lives in a country where people DO routinely attempt to kill police officers and where police officers DO routinely attempt to kill other people to conceptualize a country where that is not the case, so I guess that New Zealand simply doesn't exist. And, of course, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, and a whole lot of other countries don't exist either - right?

 

[Oborosen]

Good start.



Gosh, already forgot what you said in your first paragraph, didn't you?



I guess that you had better tell that to the New Zealanders because they are living in a delusional world where the police do NOT need to be armed and wear protection 24/7/52 and they are living in that delusional world because they think that people do NOT routinely attempt to kill police officers and where police officers do NOT routinely attempt to kill other people.

I do realize that it is absolutely impossible for someone who lives in a country where people DO routinely attempt to kill police officers and where police officers DO routinely attempt to kill other people to conceptualize a country where that is not the case, so I guess that New Zealand simply doesn't exist. And, of course, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, and a whole lot of other countries don't exist either - right?

I don't care about those countries. Let them deal with their own problems and we will deal with ours.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't care about those countries. Let them deal with their own problems and we will deal with ours.

Indeed.

Now maybe you might want to take a look to see what the problem ACTUALLY is in the US rather than simply

1. chanting "We need MORE guns." (or "We need FEWER guns." if you prefer) and claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is (figuratively speaking) a "tool of the devil"; or
2. chanting "Forget about the guns, we have to find ways of finding and curing the crazy people." (or "Forget about the guns, we have to find ways of finding and killing the crazy people." if you prefer.) and claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is (figuratively speaking) a "tool of the devil".

The LAST thing that anyone in America should do is to take an actual look at how other societies regard and deal with "the people who think that killing people is a legitimate form of self-expression".

 

[Oborosen]

Indeed.

Now maybe you might want to take a look to see what the problem ACTUALLY is in the US rather than simply

1. chanting "We need MORE guns." (or "We need FEWER guns." if you prefer) and claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is (figuratively speaking) a "tool of the devil"; or
2. chanting "Forget about the guns, we have to find ways of finding and curing the crazy people." (or "Forget about the guns, we have to find ways of finding and killing the crazy people." if you prefer.) and claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is (figuratively speaking) a "tool of the devil".

The LAST thing that anyone in America should do is to take an actual look at how other societies regard and deal with "the people who think that killing people is a legitimate form of self-expression".

You seem to be missing the point that I've never chanted either.