• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

MaggieD said:
Good post. When I go into a courthouse, do you think I'd get in wearing a mask? A bank? Banks in our area post that baseball caps pulled down and SUNGLASSES are not permitted. It is my understanding some of those demonstrators, Antifa and BLM I assume, came with BODY ARMOUR. Yeahhhh, that's the ticket.

A lawsuit has been filed by 17 people who were bystanders or innocent attendees were forced by the cops to walk through the melee when all were ordered to disband. More than a few were injured. The atty representing them claims cop orders were not to get involved unless they saw evidence of imminent death. WTF?
Click to expand...

There are so many stories floating around I don't know what to believe. Masks are illegal anywhere in public in Va. So that would have been a no brainer. Arrest them. Guns? You kidding me? I can't walk into my bank armed, With a hoodie, sun glasses, or a pulled down hat.

I blame the politicians involved for 90% of the problem. The three locals and our loony far left governor. The Chief of police stated that he thought he had a deal that The nazi group would only use the back of four entrances so he left the other 3 unguarded. And he separated the groups with portable fences.

What I know is that if you and I were in charge, one or the other would have taken a look and said we got a shltstorm coming and we'd better get prepared.
 
jimbo said:
There are so many stories floating around I don't know what to believe. Masks are illegal anywhere in public in Va. So that would have been a no brainer. Arrest them. Guns? You kidding me? I can't walk into my bank armed, With a hoodie, sun glasses, or a pulled down hat.

I blame the politicians involved for 90% of the problem. The three locals and our loony far left governor. The Chief of police stated that he thought he had a deal that The nazi group would only use the back of four entrances so he left the other 3 unguarded. And he separated the groups with portable fences.

What I know is that if you and I were in charge, one or the other would have taken a look and said we got a shltstorm coming and we'd better get prepared.
Click to expand...

Exactly right! I hope Kentucky has taken note. I think they have one going on this weekend.
 
calamity said:
I understand that something akin to a race war is their goal. But, what can you do? People of color, gays and non-Christians are threatened directly by these scumbags. And, some of them are lashing out violently, as are the white Christians who consider themselves to be the protectors of the people Nazis hate.

I've communicated with s a few of these Antfa types. I can say that they are not at all seeing this as just a few fringe nut cases holding a parade. That is for sure.
Click to expand...

They directly threaten anyone that opposes an authoritarian regime. The problem is they are baiting people into violence to garner support and people are falling for it. The idea that they would get enough support through open debate in this country is pretty ridiculous. The more people hear of their goals the more the people will understand the evil that they stand for. By making it a free speech debate you are forcing people to stand with them due to principles.

The problem with the Antifa types is that they go after anyone that has a remotely Right lean and consider them Nazis. Ben Shapiro has been condemning the Alt-Right longer than they have but yet they label him as one of them.
 
Polar Bum said:
Yes....I also wondered about that when I saw pictures of the armed individuals.....

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHCAy_yVYAAOhgr.jpg:large

But the caption indicated that these individuals were outside the park and physically separate from the actual march itself....that may have been the tissue thin legality than allowed then to be present with the weapons, yet not actually participating in the march....but this is speculation, as I was not there.
Click to expand...

This was also in VA. Dunno if they have a similar law as NC does.
 
OlNate said:
I'm sorry...you think we should be pro-inequality?
Click to expand...

I think people's rights to speak or assemble on public ground should not be restricted for political reasons. I don't believe the government should be allowing for speech and assembly on public grounds on the basis of being "pro" or "anti" political positions.
 
Chomsky said:
Rights are guaranteed in the Constitution, and enforced through government, law enforcement, and the courts.

Since we are a Constitutional Republic, there really is no choice but to enforce the law regardless of the costs. We cannot constitutionally abridge rights due to difficulty in guaranteeing them. The only other choice, is to amend the Constitution. I found this last choice repugnant, if done to take the easy and lazy way out.

Freedom is not easy, folks. It takes a great deal of effort and courage. Otherwise, it tends to erode away ...
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Zyphlin said:
I think people's rights to speak or assemble on public ground should not be restricted for political reasons. I don't believe the government should be allowing for speech and assembly on public grounds on the basis of being "pro" or "anti" political positions.
Click to expand...

But you are ok with folks using those rights to drive initiatives to restrict or remove rights from other people...which essentially is what the white supremacist movement is doing. What a confusing system you have down there, I'm glad we had the good sense and common decency to omit hate speech from what is covered under our freedom of speech protections.
 
OlNate said:
But you are ok with folks using those rights to drive initiatives to restrict or remove rights from other people...which essentially is what the white supremacist movement is doing. What a confusing system you have down there, I'm glad we had the good sense and common decency to omit hate speech from what is covered under our freedom of speech protections.
Click to expand...

What point is there having freedom of speech if it only protects speech that is acceptable to society? You don't need to protect speech that is already deemed acceptable
 
Nap said:
What point is there having freedom of speech if it only protects speech that is acceptable to society? You don't need to protect speech that is already deemed acceptable
Click to expand...

Sure let them legally say what they want. But, then they should also have the balls to let someone who doesn't like it to legally beat his ass.

Everyone wants free speech to say what they want. No one wants to pay the price for saying it. Sounds like a sociopath disorder to me.
 
OlNate said:
But you are ok with folks using those rights to drive initiatives to restrict or remove rights from other people...which essentially is what the white supremacist movement is doing. What a confusing system you have down there, I'm glad we had the good sense and common decency to omit hate speech from what is covered under our freedom of speech protections.
Click to expand...

People are free to advocate for whatever policy they want. A free society demands no less.

The only reason to silence someone is if you're afraid their ideas may catch on. (Which is actually what you're afraid of here.) It's not a particularly good sign of confidence in your society if you think Nazi ideas will catch fire just because people talk about them.

There's also no way Nazi ideas will take hold, because Constitutionally, they can't -- and that's by design. You would actually undo that very Constitutional order.

Fear is what drives you here. Fear is absolutely the worst reason to start curtailing rights. But that's what you're advocating.
 
calamity said:
Sure let them legally say what they want. But, then they should also have the balls to let someone who doesn't like it to legally beat his ass.

Everyone wants free speech to say what they want. No one wants to pay the price for saying it. Sounds like a sociopath disorder to me.
Click to expand...

Why should we legally condone violence?
 
calamity said:
Sure let them legally say what they want. But, then they should also have the balls to let someone who doesn't like it to legally beat his ass.

Everyone wants free speech to say what they want. No one wants to pay the price for saying it. Sounds like a sociopath disorder to me.
Click to expand...

Why should the price be Violence, how about ignore or respond in similar fashion rather than escalate to violence? If someone responds violently to someone's words then it may be a physcopathic disorder.
 
Last edited:
Nap said:
Why should the price be Violence, how about ignore or respond in similar fashion rather than escalate to violence? If you respond violently to someone's words then it me be a physcopathic disorder.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is. Point is. When someone says offensive things to people, they need to be willing to accept the consequences. Otherwise, they are just being assholes yelling from the safety of window high up on a tower.
 
calamity said:
Maybe it is. Point is. When someone says offensive things to people, they need to be willing to accept the consequences. Otherwise, they are just being assholes yelling from the safety of window high up on a tower.
Click to expand...

So you essentially advocate anyone being able to punch someone for whatever reason they find, legally.

What a dumb ass slippery slope.

That isn't order and justice, that is chaos and anarchy.
 
Caine said:
Why should we legally condone violence?
Click to expand...

Why should we allow people to say offensive things without consequence?
 
calamity said:
Why should we allow people to say offensive things without consequence?
Click to expand...

Who determines what is offensive and what is not????

Oh, thats right....

The "Ministry of Truth".

Good job Big Brother.
 
Caine said:
Who determines what is offensive and what is not????

Oh, thats right....

The "Ministry of Truth".

Good job Big Brother.
Click to expand...

No. I'm fine with the person who feels offended making that decision. If someone says something rude, they need to be aware that someone just might punch them in the face. Sure would be a more polite society.
 
Caine said:
So you essentially advocate anyone being able to punch someone for whatever reason they find, legally.

What a dumb ass slippery slope.

That isn't order and justice, that is chaos and anarchy.
Click to expand...

No. I believe challenging them to a duel--a fair fight, if you will--should suffice. If it worked for Hamilton and Burr...should be fine today. After all those silly amendments were written back then. Right?
 
calamity said:
No. I'm fine with the person who feels offended making that decision. If someone says something rude, they need to be aware that someone just might punch them in the face. Sure would be a more polite society.
Click to expand...

No. It wouldn't.

It would then be an excuse for people to punch others for no apparent reason with impunity.
 
calamity said:
No. I believe challenging them to a duel--a fair fight, if you will--should suffice. If it worked for Hamilton and Burr...should be fine today. After all those silly amendments were written back then. Right?
Click to expand...

An agreed upon duel isn't the same thing as the knock out game.
 
calamity said:
Maybe it is. Point is. When someone says offensive things to people, they need to be willing to accept the consequences. Otherwise, they are just being assholes yelling from the safety of window high up on a tower.
Click to expand...

The consequences for saying something offensive is having people be offended by you and/or an offensive response directed back at them.

Violence is only reasonable in response to violence. Someone that reacts violently to someone's words does not belong in a civilized society which is what prisons are for.
 
calamity said:
No. I believe challenging them to a duel--a fair fight, if you will--should suffice. If it worked for Hamilton and Burr...should be fine today. After all those silly amendments were written back then. Right?
Click to expand...

A duel is mutually accepted violence upon one another. If 2 people consent to fighting each other than I am all for it. However, punching someone in the face because they call you a jerk is uncivilized.
 
Nap said:
A duel is mutually accepted violence upon one another. If 2 people consent to fighting each other than I am all for it. However, punching someone in the face because they call you a jerk is uncivilized.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you call civilized. IMO, calling blacks N-words and Jews whatever horrible crap comes to mind is not. So, on that issue, the line of civility has been left in the dust long ago.
 
calamity said:
People complain about how the locals and the state handled things in Charlottesville. Well, there was a reason for that. A big one.



So, one has to analyze this a bit. Free speech is a fundamental right, even crap Nazi speech. Carrying weapons is also a fundie right, granted, with some limitations. But...

What is not a right, IMO, is the right to terrorize or the right to make life a living hell for the people in a community, including law enforcement. So, where do we draw the line? And, what do we do if the speech is so egregious that physical and/or armed confrontations are almost inevitable...if not even the actual intent of said speech?
Click to expand...


In many states it is unlawful, even for CCW permit holders, to carry to a political rally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom