Mitt Romney Says Trump Needs To Apologize And Blame Racists For The Charlottesville Violence

Submitted by: kalron27 2 months ago in News & Politics


Mitt Romney’s remarks, posted on Facebook this morning, mark some of the strongest language from a Republican against Mr. Trump following a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville.

"I will dispense for now from discussion of the moral character of the president's Charlottesville statements. Whether he intended to or not, what he communicated caused racists to rejoice, minorities to weep, and the vast heart of America to mourn. His apologists strain to explain that he didn't mean what we heard. But what we heard is now the reality, and unless it is addressed by the president as such, with unprecedented candor and strength, there may commence an unraveling of our national fabric.

The leaders of our branches of military service have spoken immediately and forcefully, repudiating the implications of the president's words. Why? In part because the morale and commitment of our forces--made up and sustained by men and women of all races--could be in the balance. Our allies around the world are stunned and our enemies celebrate; America's ability to help secure a peaceful and prosperous world is diminished. And who would want to come to the aid of a country they perceive as racist if ever the need were to arise, as it did after 9/11?

In homes across the nation, children are asking their parents what this means. Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims are as much a part of America as whites and Protestants. But today they wonder. Where might this lead? To bitterness and tears, or perhaps to anger and violence?

The potential consequences are severe in the extreme. Accordingly, the president must take remedial action in the extreme. He should address the American people, acknowledge that he was wrong, apologize. State forcefully and unequivocally that racists are 100% to blame for the murder and violence in Charlottesville. Testify that there is no conceivable comparison or moral equivalency between the Nazis--who brutally murdered millions of Jews and who hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat--and the counter-protestors who were outraged to see fools parading the Nazi flag, Nazi armband and Nazi salute. And once and for all, he must definitively repudiate the support of David Duke and his ilk and call for every American to banish racists and haters from any and every association.

This is a defining moment for President Trump. But much more than that, it is a moment that will define America in the hearts of our children. They are watching, our soldiers are watching, the world is watching. Mr. President, act now for the good of the country."

This is a powerful statement IMHO, one that needs to be heard by everyone on either side of the spectrum.

There are 119 comments:
Male 87
Trump sees every one of those "legal protesters" (and all their brethren) as Trump votes in 2020.  Trump knows that the people against him aren't going vote for him.  He's going to continue to pander to groups that support him, whether it's right or  wrong.  If you add the white supremacist vote to the never Democrat vote, that's how he won and his plan for 2020.  I don't think Trump is a racist as much a son I think he's willing to say or do anything to remain the Emperor.
1
Reply
Male 1,666
Five US Joint Chiefs are issuing public condemnations of white supremacist groups in the wake of the weekend's racial unrest. President Donald Trump expanded the controversy Tuesday when he appeared to draw a moral equivalency between neo-Nazis and counter-protesters by blaming "both sides" for contributing to violence. The statements are not directly addressing Trump's comments but are instead presented as a message to the general public, their troops and potential recruits. But the messages are notable as US military leaders traditionally uphold an ironclad commitment to stay out of politics.
so says "CNN" so he starts out with a false narrative. What the President said is right if you watch any vidios of the Charlottesville protest you will see the counter protesters threatening the Clan with violence and threats, very deserving but still inflammatory. As its been said in several other posts the right thing for the left to do was to just ignore the protesters line the streets and then just not in gage them. To blame one side and not the other also is so just so disingenuous as to encourage the lefts own forms of racism. Racism needs to be seen and Identified on all sides. As are law breakers. The protest was licensed and cleared by the authority's that over see this type of protest.  Protests of this type are all but gone in recent years one reason is the lack of support among the young. If you do not feed the beast it will die on its own. Personally the Joint Chiefs should have just kept there mouths shut. The left has gotten away with there own brand of racism for to long.
0
Reply
Male 3,435
Remember back when Trump thought that confederate flags should be taken down?  youtube remembers..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goy_L4lj9B4
3
Reply
Male 502
I'm sorry, but did anyone actually listen to what Trump said? Or do you just listen to CNN's interpretation?
-2
Reply
Male 3,419
Shelworth Did you read what Romney said, or just listen to Fax News?
1
Reply
Male 455
Remember the time I didn't have to explain to my child that the president refused to denounce racism and fascism? 

Good times...
5
Reply
Male 1,666
toetagmodel2 I'm sorry I remember him doing it at least three times in the last week or so or have you not been paying attention. Just because you don't like the fact that he called everyone who is a racist hate monger, a racist hate monger does not mean that he did not do it.
0
Reply
Male 3,419
toetagmodel2 ^Comment of the Thread

2
Reply
Male 455
kalron27 ***Award speech*** I humbly accept this award, but wish I didn't f***ing have to... 
4
Reply
Male 3,419
toetagmodel2 me too...it's like the Razzies but worse...
0
Reply
Male 4,235
A perfect example of pandering to the constituents.
What Trump had to say was most adequate.
Yes there were troublemakers on both sides. End of discussion
1
Reply
Male 3,435
dm2754 when the nazis are cheering your speech, perhaps your speech needs tweaking?
1
Reply
Male 5,387
He did, he basically said "both sides were violent".  Just because the media wants them to be specific and echo their agenda, doesn't mean he didn't say he recognized voilence happened.
-1
Reply
Male 40,739
No.
Both sides are to blame. Equally? 70/30 or 30/70? That is up for debate, BUT it is NOT up for debate if the leftists and antifas were violent, they were, and they attacked the legal protesters in many many cases.

Meanwhile:
https://twitter.com/ForAmerica/status/898219253060579329/photo/1
I'd add a few more steps in there, but this works too.

-3
Reply
304
5cats You're totally right. Which is justification for the neo nazis to run people over and kill them.

White Power
1
Reply
Male 40,739
pleasestop You have some evidence he was a member of any group or political party? Odd because the MSM has none and they've searched with a microscope...
Tell us oh Wise One just how this unaffiliated man tarnishes white people across the globe! How it could ONLY be a pre-planned attack co-ordinated by the Nazi Party of the USA (who has denied any connection)... go on, don't be shy!
-2
Reply
Male 3,435
Where were all these first amendment conservatives when Colin Kapernick refused to stand for the national anthem?

Funny how that shit works.
3
Reply
Male 40,739
daegog Fuck you. We ALL were saying he has his right to do that, every one of us here at IAB said it plain as day. Your lies are pathetic, this is all you have now? Lies?

He also has to face the consequences, LEGAL ones, not violence and illegal acts against him, those would still be criminal even if you disagree with his politics.
See how the truth works? It is very easy to explain.
-2
Reply
Male 3,435
5cats WHO EXACTLY is we you fucktard? 

I do not put you into any grouping on IAB.  There are conservatives on IAB which i agree or disagree with from time to time, melcervini, dromed, et al, but no one deserves to be put into a group with you, that would be wrong.  

You stand alone, a sad, crazed little man, desperate for anyone to agree with you and your laundry list of neurosis.
1
Reply
Male 1,666
daegog He does not stand alone  and if you actually read some of the other statements you would know that I stand with him on many of his statements in fact most. So there.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
casaledana Thx casaledana! It is the objective of the liberal-left to isolate and de-humanize anyone they dislike.
Since they have no facts or truth? They attack and slander. Good for you for speaking up :-)
0
Reply
Male 40,739
daegog You and your ilk, that's who.
You spread these LIES and they either silently let them pass or actively support them. But they are STILL LIES and you know it.

all these first amendment conservatives

Oh hell no! You don't lump us in a grouping? Fucking fuck. You cannot even get your lies straight, you shame yourself.
-1
Reply
Male 3,435
5cats See there ya go again, You are not considered by myself to be anything other than a sad, deranged little man.

You might WANT to be grouped with them, but i do not think they would appreciate being grouped with you.


1
Reply
Male 40,739
daegog Pathetic, as usual from you. Weaksauce, flaccid, boring.
-1
Reply
Male 5,004
"State forcefully and unequivocally that racists are 100% to blame for the murder and violence in Charlottesville."

There are some on here that are going to hyper-focus on Mitt assigning 100% of the blame to racists, and use that to discount everything he said. But he is correct. If the racists hadn't been there promoting hatred, division and bigotry there would have been no need for the counter-protesters to show up. The racists brought this all on themselves.
2
Reply
Male 40,739
markust123 If they didn't have any rights? This never would have happened! It is all their fault for legally and rightfully protesting!

And that nightclub? If those gays hadn't been such homosexuals? That Muslim never would have killed them all, it's the gays fault that happened too, yes? Fuck you it is not.
-2
Reply
Male 5,004
5cats Really? Trying to get me angry with a gay example. You are such a bigot.
2
Reply
Male 40,739
markust123 Hey, if it applies to the Nazis? Or to a rape victim? It applies to you gays too... I disagree and you call ME a bigot?

They brought that on themselves, is that not exactly what you just said?  You are the bigot who has different standards for people you hate...
-2
Reply
Male 5,004
5cats White supremacists promoting racism, bigotry, division and hatred in a public setting is NOT the same as gay people going out to a club with friends and being shot down, you bigot.
2
Reply
Male 40,739
markust123 The RIGHT TO DO SO is IDENTICAL shit-fucker.
If one doesn't have that right? Neither does the other, period, end of story.

To blame the WP's legal protest for 100% of the violence is so far gone it takes a special form of fuck-tard to believe it. And you believe it.

I point out how stupid it is by showing the same 'liberal logic' applied to actual terrorism that was carried out against an identifiable group and you STILL don't get it. You still defend the fascists who carried out the violence. You still refuse to admit the truth? That's your cross, you earned it.
-1
Reply
Male 6,077
markust123 I don't agree entirely with Romney in that I don't apply 100% of the blame to the marchers. I do believe they were out there, and specifically in that location, in the hope that the protesters would react as they did, but the onset of violence appears to have been the fault of the protesters for actually having taken that bait.
With regard to 5cats' comment, I don't think he's trying to provoke you; he's just making a point: both groups were doing something legal and were attacked for it. I have to agree with that. As disgusting as I feel Nazis/White Supremacists/Aryan Nation/etc. are (I'm Jewish), those miserable pieces of trash were out there legally. While you're correct that being out there provoking public contempt is not the equivalent of enjoying a night out in a club, both groups were still exercising their legal rights. 
1
Reply
Male 40,739
broizfam Thx! It is not that I'm trying to bait him, I'm trying to 'shock him into thinking' for a change... it's a Zen thing eh>?

One small quibble (just for clarity) the legal protestors were the Nazis, the illegal counter-protestors were the antifas...

I really dislike Nazis, I wish they would go away, just like the KKK. This attack and violence against them has made them MUCH stronger now, that was the intention of those on the left I'm certain: they have a plan.

Correct: a gay person has a RIGHT to walk safely down the street to a (legal) gay bar and should not fear attack. To attack him/her/it is a crime. Same thing for ANY legal (keyword) protest: even if you hate the group and their message? Violence is NOT justified.
-1
Reply
Male 1,137
Fojos Those things are against the law, but it is not against the law to promote the ideas and have a hope to make them legal, sadly.  Therefore, sadly, yes, it is pretty much the same.  

Those are their beliefs, no matter the reason(mental illness? lack of education?  Inability to take blame for ones own actions so blame it on the Jews?) and they have a right to them, just as you are gay(I think), for whatever reason(yes, born that way, I know), and have a right to be that way.  They have just as much right to spread their vile, hate-filled messages as you have to be gay.  Anyone who stands up to them for that is basically doing the same thing as standing up for someone supports people being gay.

For clarification, I have nothing wrong with people being gay or lesbian or trans or whatever.

It's just a fact of life that they have these rights, just as I have rights and you have rights.  We are all human and we have these rights.  As long as no violence, trespassing, harassment  or any other illegal actions occur, it's just something we have to deal with, sadly.
1
Reply
Male 4
markust123
While I agree that the racist jerkoffs are 100% wrong in their ideology and 1 asshole terrorist murdered and injured many innocent, I can't stress enough anyone/everyone's right to be wrong. Saying "If the racists hadn't been there promoting hatred, division and bigotry there would have been no need for the counter-protesters to show up. The racists brought this all on themselves." is equivocal to saying, "She shouldn't have dressed like that if she didn't want to be raped," or something equally ignorant. 
0
Reply
Male 40,739
justsomemnguy Yes, that is exactly the truth! Welcome to IAB!
Try to ignore the trolls and hate-mongers, there are good people here (on both sides!).
0
Reply
Male 287
markust123 Your comments are usually wrong but not this stupid. To what do you extend this idiotic concept of bringing it onto themselves? Do you say the same if people on the extreme left go on a protest and people attack them? Or are you so foolish you only believe one side is full of bigotry and hatred when the slogan of Antifa is "IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US YOU'RE AGAINST US" (yes, this means anyone right of anarcho-communism). What the fuck.


-1
Reply
Male 3,419
Fojos Did you not read Romney's statement?

"State forcefully and unequivocally that racists are 100% to blame for the murder and violence in Charlottesville. Testify that there is no conceivable comparison or moral equivalency between the Nazis--who brutally murdered millions of Jews and who hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat--and the counter-protestors who were outraged to see fools parading the Nazi flag, Nazi armband and Nazi salute."

I think that answers your questions.

0
Reply
Male 1,137
thunderbear Thing is, that is absolutely not true.  Yes, Nazis in the past did those things.  These guys did not.  Do they want to see it happen?  Yes.  Do they have the balls to do it themselves?  Probably not.  

Again, just going to hold signs and say things is not the same as performing the acts.  When they do perform the acts, then we can say they are to blame.  However, all they were doing was exercising their legal rights.  Just because I disagree with what they are saying does not mean they do not have a right to say it.  Just as antifas has a right to say whatever they want.  What they do not have is the right to attack someone for exercising free speech. 

What you are saying is the same thing as saying someone who is driving down the street, crossing an intersection with  green light and gets T-Boned by someone who ran a red light is to blame for the accident.  The were merely exercising their right to drive down the road and following the law.  Someone else broke the law and ran a red light.  Yet the person who ran the red light is not the one to blame?
0
Reply
Male 164
waldo863 

........you've got to be confusing me with someone else.  I stated pretty clearly that I don't believe using violent speech equates to violence.  Unless my phone auto-fucked me.  But then there's nothing of mine above this for you to be replying to...
0
Reply
Male 40,739
thunderbear I think he intended to reply to Kalron's stupidity eh?

I wonder how your name even got on there? Maybe a bug? :-/
0
Reply
Male 1,137
5cats yeah, that's weird.  I was also replying to markus the other day and it made it look like a reply to fojos.  Weird.  
0
Reply
Male 40,739
kalron27 No they are NOT 100% to blame, you have to be an absolute idiot to believe this is a fact. No matter how many flags they fly or words they say that YOU dislike: they did not "deserve" nor did they "ask for it" they were legally protesting for what they believed to be true. 
And they were attacked by criminals.
-1
Reply
Male 164
So Trump had to eat some humble pie and he spit it back out.  Let's see if he can manage to take another bite and keep it down this time...
3
Reply
Male 3,435
3
Reply
Male 1,137
daegog That quote has always bugged me a little.  It really depends on how far that tolerance and intolerance goes though.  Should we tolerate their existence?  I say yes.  Should we tolerate them acting on their intolerance in a violent manner?  Absolutely not.

If they want to have their small towns that are not reliant on jews/blacks/LGBTs?what-have-yous, and they own the land and just leave the land to peacefully preach their message of hate, why can't we just ignore them and tolerate them?  Once they start burning crosses in people's yards or getting violent, then yeah, absolutely incarcerate them.

As was the case with this particular protest, these guys had permits and were not planning on hurting anyone, unless someone hurt them first.  They did in fact get maced and other things and DID NOT retaliate.  When asked to leave, despite having permits and permission ahead of time to be there, they did so, in a fairly peaceful manner.  Personally, I may not agree with their message of hate, but they do have a right to free speech and a right to spread that message.  
0
Reply
Male 3,435
waldo863 How can you be so certain that Nazis had no plans to hurt anyone?  Because they said so?  Seriously?

For the love of fuck, they are HONEST TO GOODNESS NAZIS.

I get the concept of turn the other cheek, but at some point you gotta say, fuck those guys, and this is not being hypocritical in the slightest.

If they stayed in their little towns and had their meetings, fine, i doubt 1000s of antifas would drive to the middle of alabama to protest a midnight clan rally.

They didn't do this, they went to charlottesville, right near Univ of Virginia.  They choose this place specifically because they knew the nearby college kids would react (as dumb kids are apt to do).

This entire event was calculated to do exactly what it did.  Get ostensibly reasonable and rational people, such as yourself, ARGUING on their behalf.  The fact that our president is a total douche and would not call them out is not suprising, but to see how many conservatives feel obligated to talk about their rights is appalling.

1
Reply
Male 40,739
daegog As Waldo pointed out: there were dozens of (legal) protestors there with (legal) GUNS and yet not one single antifas was shot...
If they intended to use violence? They had every opportunity AND RIGHT to start shooting, but they didn't.

The fact that the antifas were there ILLEGALLY and had planned from the day the march was announced to use violence against it > your lies.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
daegog And Nazis have NO human rights, they can be beaten and even killed without question! Who cares about equal justice? Who cares about basic undeniable human rights? The US Constitution? Not the left-liberals, that's for certain!
-2
Reply
Male 3,435
5cats A Nazi-loving 5Cats?  Who would have ever thought that? 

Probably everyone that ever heard the bullshit outta your mouth.
1
Reply
Male 40,739
daegog You're supporting mob violence, not me bucko.
0
Reply
Male 1,137
daegog I do not see where he said he loved them.  Just that, being American Citizens, they have the same rights as you and I.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
waldo863 Thanks, the liberal-left on IAB seems to think that repeating lies makes them facts. Probably got that idea from the MSM (their masters) eh? 

He and others (Marhust for example) have openly said that Nazis are sub-humans who have NO rights at all. That violence and even murdering them is A-OK and should be encouraged.
And the rest of them sit silent or even support that. It sickens me...
0
Reply
Male 5,004
5cats, "He and others (Markus for example) have openly said that Nazis are sub-humans..."
No I've never said that.

5cats, "...who have NO rights at all."
I've never said that either.

5cats, "That violence and even murdering them is A-OK..."
I've never said that.

5cats, "...and should be encouraged." 
I've never said that either. 

You say "The liberal-left on IAB seems to think that repeating lies makes them facts." and then right below that sentence sling this barrage of lies at me. That takes some lying balls.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
markust123 Yes, yes, yes and yes. You've said all those things, how you can even attempt to deny it is remarkable.

Oh! To be sure you used "politically correct language' as is demanded by your MSM overlords eh? You sugar-coated it so much it ALMOST sounded like you weren't saying it!
But you did.
0
Reply
Male 1,137
5cats Me too.  I know all about false equivalency, but I really don't think that applies here.  They want exactly the same thing as the other side.  A group of people treated as less than human for having different views than them.  It really is no different.  The main difference is, one side acted on their beliefs by getting violent and one did not.  So I am not even claiming false equivalency.  I am flat out saying that the side that was the aggressor was worse, and no, practicing free speech, no matter how hateful and vile, is not being an aggressor.
0
Reply
Male 1,137
daegog Do you have any proof of that?  I mean, if they intended to hurt people, they were there with guns and could have.  Yet they did not.

I also did not say that's all they want to do.  I admitted, they want to leave their small towns and go out and exercise their first amendment right to free speech to go out and spread their message of hate.  I may not agree with that message of hate, but they DO have a right to spread it.  

Now, the moment they do turn violent, absolutely, let's lock them all up forever.  All for it.  Please.  However, what evidence do you have to support your claims?  My claims are backed up by the results.  They did not get violent and left when asked.

I'm also not surprised that our leader did not call them out on it.  They did not act ass aggressors.  They had permits and a legal right to be there.  I agree, that just because you can do something does not always mean you should.  In this case, they should not have.  However, it was well within their legal rights to do so.  As long as they did not get violent, which they did not, then the other side should not have, yet they did.

Was it planned to be this way?  To make the other side look like the more violent people?  More than likely.  Is the right answer that to spring their little trap?  I'll leave that for you to decide.  Just stop and think for a minute, with all the pussy ass crying they have been doing over what little did happen, what do you think their response would have been if no one else showed up and just flat out ignored them?  I think, they would have been very very pissed off and possibly turned violent. 

Basically, they were trying to give everyone enough rope to hang themselves, and it worked.  If we had not picked up that rope, they would have taken it back and hung themselves instead.  We would have had reason to lock them up and possibly give some of them the death sentence.  I would have much preferred to see that as a result.

(Now how after saying I want to see them get violent enough where we have a legal right to lock them up and kill them, I really do not understand how ANYONE can continue to consider me an apologist, but I bet you will)
0
Reply
Male 5,004
waldo863 I don't know if you mean to but throughout these threads you are really coming off looking like a Nazi apologist.
1
Reply
Male 40,739
markust123 He bitches and cries like a little girl if I call him the "F-word" or even use it in a sentence... but HE goes around saying others are NAZIS or worse? With no sense of shame or irony...
0
Reply
Male 5,004
5cats Saying, hey, I don't know if you know it or not but you're kind of sounding like a Nazi apologists is NOT me calling people a Nazi. And, no I did not cry like a little girl when you repeatedly called me a faggot. I didn't let you get to me. I would never give a bigot that kind of power. But I will not let you get away with bigotry like that because the next gay guy on here that you attack may not have as thick of skin as me.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
markust123 Correct, it is WORSE than calling someone a Nazi. Like. I. Said.
If you could learn how to read that would speed things along yes?

I honestly don't give a crap if you are gay or not: YOU make it an issue, often, and rub it in my face. All I know is you're a hard-leftist and filled with lies. I have no evidence of your sexual orientation (or anything else for that matter) other than what you've voluntarily told me.
You can be quite reasonable and thoughtful at times, which is why I bother talking to you at all, eh? But not here.

You admit you object when I call you (in your opinion) gay slurs, yes? BUT it doesn't stop YOU from doing the exact same thing or even worse TO ME. I'm objecting your hypocrisy here. I've been called 'A Nazi' and lots more besides! It's bullshit and I know it. Water off a duck's back, I'm used to hate from liberals, it's 90% of the package.

You make rules for me? Obey them yourself! Don't be a liberal about it!! Think!

If anything? I'd expect your "gayness" to make you smarter than that! To reject the MSM's dogma and think for yourself like the many gays (not all, why do I even have to explain that to you?) I've met over the years. They usually reject dogma and stereotypes. They (try to) keep their minds open, at least a little more than the 'average (straight) person' does. In my experience.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
markust123 And you look like a fucking idiot, so?
Should waldo be beaten in the street like you say is OK for those you dislike? Wow, your tolerance is remarkable...
-1
Reply
Male 1,137
5cats I'm not shy about where I live.  San Antonio, TX(one of the most liberal cities in TX, not that that is saying much).  If you are planning on being in the area, would love to share my e-mail address and we can set up a place to meet.  If they want to come attempt to beat me in the street they are free to attempt it.  Remember though, TX is an open carry State and I am at the range at least once a month and a pretty damn good shot.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
waldo863 Thx, but I won't be travelling anytime soon :/ And getting a passport would be tough for me I think.

I wouldn't let the IAB Liberals know where you live, specifically. Several have threatened to call false reports in to the police, or encouraged others to do so, against myself eh? Nasty bunch they've turned in to.
0
Reply
Male 1,137
5cats I say bring it on.  Let them.  Calling in false threats is illegal and I do have the resources to track them down and take full legal action against them for making those false threats.  I'll stat it again, I live in San Antonio, TX.  NW side of town.  Name a time and place and I will make every effort to be there.  Whether that be for a nice discussion over a non-alcoholic beverage(for me, you can drink what you like) or anything else, I'm down.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
waldo863 I'll add that to my 'Bucket List' :-) Beer and plenty of it! And a taxi back to the hotel. (I'll undoubtedly drive there to Texas, but DUI at my age is not an option, lolz!)
0
Reply
Male 164
markust123 The incident in Charlottesville and the alt-right rallies are raising an interesting question: how far should free speech go?  

There's a book called "When the Nazis Came to Skokie" wherein Neo-Nazis applied for a permit to march through Skokie, IL, a predominantly Jewish community.  The ACLU defended their right to do so and subsequently lost hundreds, if not thousands, of Jewish members as a result.  I don't see any difference between that time and now except in the level of tolerance amongst people in general.  Tolerance not just towards extreme fascism but towards everyday language.  People behind the Feminist movement are notorious for trying to censor the world from what they don't like simply because it makes them feel emotions they don't want to feel.

I would be careful, and I say this to everyone reading this, of not only de-humanizing others simply for seeing the value in all forms of speech and wanting to defend it, even if it has the potential to cause violence, but also of setting a precedent for limiting the use of free speech because that is, and I hate this term, a slippery slope.  If you open that door to limiting the free expression of others 1. You may not like what else slips through, and 2. You're gonna have a bitch of a time closing it again.

I'll leave with a list of brainy quotes I pilfered off the internet:

"To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."

Frederick Douglass

"You should protest about the views of people you disagree with over major moral issues, and argue them down, but you should not try to silence them, however repugnant you find them. That is the bitter pill free speech requires us to swallow."

Julian Baggini

"Free expression is the base of human rights, the root of human nature and the mother of truth. To kill free speech is to insult human rights, to stifle human nature and to suppress truth. "

Liu Xiaobo

"Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed."

Anna Quindlen

"Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears."

Louis D. Brandeis

3
Reply
Male 40,739
thunderbear They never broke any free-speech laws, not one. 
Thus you are 100% correct: the antifas had no right to use violence, there is zero justification for that.

Counter protest all they like, from the legally designated areas and without violence, I support that every bit as much as the other side.
But one side obeyed all the laws, while the other ignored them and used violence exclusively.
0
Reply
Male 164
5cats "Thus you are 100% correct: the antifas had no right to use violence, there is zero justification for that."

I never said that.  Please don't try and put words in my mouth.

I'm not interested in assigning blame.  My concern here is the sentiment that free speech does not extend to those who are condoning violence.  Who hit who first and who had permission to say what and where is another matter that I'm not going to argue because it detracts from the greater issue here.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
thunderbear Oh no! I'm agreeing with you, sorry if that wasn't clear. It is what I took away from your defending their right to speak: that illegally preventing them from speaking is unjustified, eh?

Detracting from the greater issue is what the liberal-left is completely devoted to here, I'm happy to stay on topic :-)

I think that the legality is critical here: if the WP group was illegally rallying? SOME might justify stopping them as a defence of Law and Justice eh? And there might be something to that. But they were perfectly legal, so that twist (which is in common use by the liberal-leftists) is invalid. Contrary even.

The antifas were criminals just by being there, even before the violence broke out the police should have removed them. But they did not (under orders from the government, allegedly) and thus the violence was inevitable.
0
Reply
Male 1,137
5cats I not only support that, I actively encourage it and would love to be right there with you.  As long as it stays peaceful.  The moment it turns violent, I'm out.  I do not support violence unless used in self/home/family/friends defense, and even then, if they deserve it, I let it happen.

I'll take my brother-in-laws younger brother as an example.  He used to be a little punk.  Him and his friends would go out and pick fights for no reason.  I stood and watched him get his ass kicked on multiple occasions.  All I really had to do was pull out my gun and send people running, with no shots fired.  However, he went and provoked people with no good reason, so he got what was coming to him.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
waldo863 That is exactly what happened (again!) to the antifas. They really are a bunch of milk-fed pussies.

Now the "alt-right" are going to rally across America, and many good citizens who would never agree with or otherwise help a Nazi or KKK member will be forced to defend them from the violence of the Communists and BLM racists. 

It's a terrible situation, but to support the real fascists would literally be cultural suicide. Who will be next on their list? Jews, Gays? Feminists? Any 'white' group will do...
0
Reply
Male 1,137
5cats Exactly, I actualyl feel kinda terrible sitting here saying they have a right to this free speech and are not doing anything illegal, but that's the long and short of it.  It's just how it is.  It's like saying the sky is blue.  Does saying the sky is blue, a simple fact, make me a Nazi-apologist?  It's rough, especially with all the backlash.  However, 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If it makes them happy to spread this message of hate, then so be it.  It is self-evident that they were created as equally as I and they have that right.  Just as I have the right to ignore them we as a people have the right to prosecute them when they cross the line.  As soon as they actually take actions that prevent Jews from going to worship and go about their lives doing what makes them happy, a line has been crossed.  However, merely holding signs and talking is not preventing any Jews from doing what makes them happy.  
0
Reply
Male 40,739
waldo863 Yup! Me too. 
Don't let the hate-mongers get you down, and thanks for speaking up against them.
0
Reply
Male 3,419
thunderbear In the case of Neo-Nazis it's a paradox.  They have their freedom of speech, but their speech is to restrict persons of a religion, specifically Jews.  That is also a breach of the 1st Amendment of religious freedom in our country.

In addition, their rhetoric is for the extermination of what they consider "sub-human" through genocide.  It can never be a peaceful conversation when that is not only an option but a mandate when dealing with them and their constructs.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
kalron27 "In the case of Neo-Nazis it's a paradox.  They have their freedom of speech, but their speech is to restrict persons of a religion, specifically Jews.  That is also a breach of the 1st Amendment of religious freedom in our country."

Um, no. You clearly don't understand the "freedom of religion" clause in our constitution. I states that the GOVERNMENT is to have no hand in religion, and cannot force an "official" religion upon anyone, or denounce any religion, nor discriminate against anyone based on their religious beliefs. A Neo-Nazi hate group speaking out against Jews, or any other group, is perfectly legal. Deplorable, but legal.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
whosaidwhat You are correct. I truly wish they'd (Nazis, KKK) just shut up and fade away! But no! This incident has given them more power than they've had in decades.
Why? I really wonder.

So it is entirely possible to support their rights without supporting them. This is lost on the alt-left, who really have an "all or nothing" approach to... everything!
0
Reply
Male 1,137
5cats If we just ignored them, they eventually would.  That;s the sad part.  Unlike you though, I am not going to label them alt-left or leftists or anything.  I will say though that anyone who responds in the manner of antifas and similar groups are only bringing about the exact opposite of their desired effect.  

Also, yes, they have trouble distinguishing supporting people rights from supporting their ideas.  I support their right to free speech, nothing more.  Just as I support antifas's right to peacefully protest their free speech.  I agree with neither side, yet support both their rights.
0
Reply
Male 3,419
whosaidwhat

"The First Amendment's free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to exercise that belief by attending religious services, praying in public or in private, proselytizing or wearing religious clothing, such as yarmulkes or headscarves. Also included in the free exercise clause is the right not to believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities.  Second, the establishment clause prevents the government from creating a church, endorsing religion in general, or favoring one set of religious beliefs over another."

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/first-amendment-freedom-of-expression-and-religion/

I'm not saying it is illegal, I"m saying it's a paradox of freedoms.

0
Reply
Male 1,137
kalron27 But it's not a paradox at all.  Once again, just saying you want someone to commit genocide on all Jews, that that is something you would like to see happen, is not removing any of those rights.  I am not seeing the paradox here.  Yes, if they got their way, there would be a paradox, but that is not gonna happen, at least I sure as well hope not.  If they ever grow enough balls to take any action besides peaceful protest, then yes, let's do them in.
0
Reply
Male 3,419
waldo863 see below...
0
Reply
Male 1,798
kalron27 I'm still looking for where in there is says that "no individual or group is allowed to speak out against another individual or group's religious beliefs". Please, show me this "paradox" you speak of. Without something like what I just said, which doesn't exist, there is no paradox. That's all I'm trying to say.
0
Reply
Male 3,419
whosaidwhat It is a paradox...what is right?  What are you going to defend?  

Nazis are a questionable debate at this time and I put forth the argument that the 1st amendment has been specified in the case of religion, specifically bigamy and human sacrifice.  It was rather recent Supreme Court changes that altered the context.  Because human sacrifice specifically is not tolerated in our society, yet it is part of some religions.  Where do we draw the line with Free Speech?  I personally believe Nazi ideals is a perfectly suitable line to draw within the context of past Supreme Court rulings on similar freedoms in the 1st Amendment.  After all, not all speech is protected, you cannot directly threaten someone with death.

Is not the calling for genocide of both a religion and a race (because Judaism is unique in that it qualifies as both) in addition to other races in the guise of freedom of speech the same as calling for the sacrifice of a human in the guise of freedom of religion?

There is a limit to how much society can take and I think we are reaching it.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
kalron27 And yet, until something changes, their speech is, at present, still protected. Trying to silence them is the beginning of a VERY slippery scope. If we allow them to be silenced, the what's next? Who will be the next group to be silenced? Black Lives Matter? Islamics? Pastafarians?
0
Reply
Male 3,419
whosaidwhat Considering we have not restricted religion any further than bigamy and human sacrifice, I'm OK with starting the conversation for changing the speech rights of Nazis.

Besides, as someone pointed out in another thread, if someone had a rally in support of ISIS and waved flags, I'm pretty sure that speech would be silenced real quick and with good measure.  
0
Reply
Male 1,798
kalron27 Fair enough. So who's rights should we go after next?
0
Reply
Male 3,419
whosaidwhat It's not about going after rights, its about further defining our society and what is tolerated.  As I pointed out, rights are defined already and I can go further if needed with other rights that have been limited by law based on the toleration of our society. Hate with the intent of genocide in any form, physical or verbal, should not be tolerated.  That is what Nazis, Neo or otherwise, stand for.  That is what White Supremacy stands for.  They are not about equality, they are about eliminating several different races and religions for existence.

That does not work in a society, a country based on equality.  They stand for Anti-Freedom.  If you stand against Freedom then you do not deserve to partake in the rights Freedom provides.

"Testify that there is no conceivable comparison or moral equivalency between the Nazis--who brutally murdered millions of Jews and who hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat--and the counter-protestors who were outraged to see fools parading the Nazi flag, Nazi armband and Nazi salute."

I agree with what Romney is saying here and I think it is time to be outraged and evaluate the situation on a moral and constitutional level.  Nazis and what they stand for do not belong in The United States of America.

0
Reply
Male 1,798
kalron27 So sorry, but "outrage" is NOT sufficient reason to limit free speech. If you want these kinds of censorship, perhaps you need to move to somewhere like North Korea? I think you'll find them MUCH more receptive to your ideas...
0
Reply
Male 3,419
whosaidwhat Sure it is...it is how things change for the betterment of society.  And "free speech" is already limited.  I'm not moving anywhere, I'm fine where I live defending freedom.  We will agree to disagree then...FUCK NAZIS.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
kalron27 While I do agree with you that Nazis are bad news, again, it is their right to PEACEFULLY assembly, and to spread their message of hate. You wanting to silence them is no different than trying to silence anyone wanting to spread a message of peace. Censorship is censorship, and it SUCKS!!!
0
Reply
Male 40,739
kalron27 Supporting the violence of Communists, Marxists, BLMs and SJWs doesn't set off your 'paradox alarm'? You do know these groups hate Jews every bit as much as any Nazi who ever lived, right? That genocide for the sub-humans is what Communism does every single time in human history, right? 
It is what both sides do: both sides are equally reprehensible.

But in this case? ONE side obeyed the law and the other side brought nothing but criminal, planned violence.
-1
Reply
Male 1,137
 It is what both sides do: both sides are equally reprehensible.

I have to disagree here, as one side started aggressive actions and the other did not.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
waldo863 I was referring to their politics, policies and beliefs eh? And the methods they generally employ, not specifically to the blame for violence in this incident. 
Sorry to be unclear. I can see how that was ambiguous.

0
Reply
Male 1,137
kalron27 You just peacefully talked about it, why can't they?  That's the thing.  As long as all they are doing is talking, why try to silence them.  Speak out against them.  Bring your signs to their rallys/protests and protest their protesting, peacefully, without threatening to kill them.
0
Reply
Male 164
kalron27 
1.  If you try to silence them you're going to fuel their argument by making them look like a victim.  This is something they want, is to get public attention by being repressed and victimized, because it feeds their narrative.  

2.  Keep in mind that speech, even if it promotes physical harm, is not equivalent to physical harm.  And that's not a line anyone wants to blur.  

3. What it sounds like you're saying is that we shouldn't let them have free speech because they don't want others to have free speech.  Is that th case?  If it is then not only are you allowing them to set the rules and essentially buying into their story, but you lowering yourself to their level.  And if you are you are doing it because you're afraid that they'll be successful.  They won't.  Love will always triumph over hate because love is our original nature.  
0
Reply
Male 3,419
thunderbear All I am saying is that it is a paradox.  They have the right to their speech but their speech imposes on others religious freedoms, the first two statements in the 1st Amendment.

But I'm biased because I had a Grandpa who fought in WWII and my wife is of Jewish decent so I have ZERO tolerance for Nazi fucks.

As you said, slippery slope and love will always triumph but being doomed to repeat the past is not a direction I want to go.
0
Reply
Male 1,137
kalron27 How does their speech impose others religious freedoms?  Does them speaking mean that you have to listen to it?  Does them speaking mean you can't still practice your religion?  Does them speaking mean anything other than they want to be heard?  Just don't listen to them, keep following your religion and doing what you do and ignore them.  Your right to practice whatever religion you want is not infringed upon simply because they say they want it to be.  Until they actually do something illegal, just ignore them.  When they do finally do something illegal, if they have the balls to and not just run back to their little meeting spots and talk about it, then hell yes.  Prosecute them to the full extent of the law.
0
Reply
Male 3,419
waldo863 When your speech calls for death to Jews you are imposing on their religious freedom to exist.
0
Reply
Male 1,137
kalron27 talking about killing someone and killing someone are two totally different things.  They are not imposing on anything by saying they want them dead.  If they were actually killing, then they would be.  However, they are not.  By merely saying they want them dead, their rights are not removed from the Constitution.  They are merely speaking words.  Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.  They may want to change that Constitution, but good luck with that.  If they ever got enough traction and something like a vote to take away rights for Jewish people ever came to pass, then what you said may be true.  However, as long as they are only talking about it, it does not have the effect you are describing.

What you continually seem to not be able to comprehend is, it is just speech.  Just as someone saying aliens exist does not mean aliens actually exist(for the record, I think they must, though that does not mean I think they have had any involvement in the development of Earth, if they even know we exist), them saying they want all Jews dead does not mean all Jews are dead.  It's just meaningless words.  Them saying they want all Jews dead does not mean that all Jews can no longer practice their religion.  Nothing is stopping them from continuing their practice, so their religious freedoms have not been imposed in the least.  They have merely stated that they WANT to impose on those freedoms, they have not actually done it.  Until they do, ignore them.
0
Reply
Male 3,419
waldo863 When exactly did Nazis not kill Jews?  It started with talk before, it is their intent.  While hate speech may not be illegal, threatening someone with death or harm is.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
kalron27 The PLO (Hamas, PA & the rest) and dozens of others say "Kill All the Jews" every single day, and then TRY TO DO SO.

And you and your ilk support them whole-heartedly... or sit silently while others defend them.
Why is that? 
-1
Reply
Male 1,137
kalron27 In current times, the large groups are not threatening though.  They are simply saying they want it to happen.  That's not the same thing.  Yeah, you have a few, even further extreme, individuals who may say certain things, but the organizations do not back them up on this.  When those individuals DO actually place those threats though, yes, lock them up.

See that's the thing, it's a very fine subtle line that they manage not to cross.  Saying, "Kill all Jews" is NOT saying you personally want to kill all Jews, just that you want someone else to "Kill all Jews."  In this case, they are basically just telling everyone that they want all Jews dead, are looking for other people to join them who want all Jews dead, and are basically just lobbying to either make it legal to kill Jews or get the government to Kill all Jews.  What they are not doing, is saying they will go out and kill all Jews. 

They do admit, "It may come to that", but as soon as real confrontation starts, they start crying like little pussies, so I somehow doubt it.  If it does though, yes, prosecute them to the full extent of the law.  As long as it is just words though, as I said before, Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
0
Reply
Male 164
kalron27 I feel you. Nazi Germany saw the slow and incremental withdrawal of civil rights because of fear by the Nazis.  I think another paradox is that if we allow ourselves to buy into their premise of hate and fear we'll end up doing that to ourselves.
1
Reply
Male 3,435
kalron27 its not being biased to be anti nazi.

Its called being human.  Fuck those guys.
1
Reply
Male 1,137
daegog a bias against a bias is still a bias.  So yes, it is.  I agree, those guys can fuck off back to whatever hole they crawled out of.  Let them crawl out and fly their flags and speak their words when they want to.  Ignore them and they'll eventually get the point.  We just don't agree with you and won't listen to it, because it is morally wrong.  However, by responding with more bias, you actually reinforce their beliefs.  Just as you hate me for defending their right to free speech, they will hate you for defending Jews.
0
Reply
Male 3,435
waldo863  First, i do not hate you, you sound like a nazi apologist, but i never said i hate you.  UNLESS you are claiming nazis are good, then you are right, i do hate you.

They would hate me if i never said a word, im black.
1
Reply
Male 1,137
daegog But I am not an apologist.  The moment they break the law, I am all for prosecuting them to the full extent of the law, and hit them with any other little crap you can at the same time.  Lock them up for life with no chance of parole and if their crime is violent enough fast track them to a death sentence.  PLEASE.  I would love to see that.  However, until they actually break laws, just ignore them.
0
Reply
Female 4,406
0
Reply
Male 1,137
melcervini neat that this now points to what I said.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
melcervini Welcome to the "downvote" club! :-)
Say the truth? Get downvoted by IAB Liberals, various trolls and their sock-puppets too...
0
Reply
Male 3,435
markust123 you are correct, waldo gives off that image.  I do not think it is intentional the perception certainly is there.
1
Reply
Male 40,739
daegog You give off a far more "pro-fascist" image than any Nazi anywhere. I think this is intentional on your part since you honestly believe that humans lose their rights and freedoms when they disagree with YOU.
0
Reply
Male 1,137
daegog I have a hard time understanding why, when in these conversations I have said over and over and over again, I do not agree with their beliefs, I think they are vile and that I will avoid them in any way I can.  All I state, repeatedly, is that they are not doing anything illegal and feeding hate back at their hate will never solve anything, only serve to reinforce their hate and make it worse.

The fact that so many people take my defense of Free Speech as being a Nazi though speaks volumes about your comprehension.  Which is to say, you have hardly any at all.
0
Reply
Male 3,435
waldo863 If multiple people think you sound like a nazi apologist they all must be wrong and your right.  They must all have comprehension issues because they all took whatever you said the wrong way.

I guess it's possible, not likely, but possible. 
0
Reply
Male 40,739
daegog Theya re all bigoted, biased and live in a thought-bubble of lies.
There are multiple hate-trolls here, does that mean they are right? Majority rules your morality?

I know YOU are a filthy hate-monger who has nothing but lies and hypocrisy to use in place of discussion, it's just my opinion tho. It's possible you aren't a shit-for-brains in real life too... but highly unlikely.
-1
Reply
Male 1,137
daegog Oh no.  I fully admit that I am not the best at talking to people and articulating my thoughts.  However, when I have said multiple times, as soon as they break the law, lets prosecute them to the full extent of the law, up to and including the death penalty when applicable, I fail to see how that sounds like an apologist at all and would really love for someone to explain that to me.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
daegog Sorry, but I have to defend Waldo on this one. Its called free speech. Just because you don't agree with what they have to say, it absolutely DOES NOT give you, or anyone else, the right to silence them. Along with Waldo, I think that they are deplorable idiots, and a blight on humanity, but, also along with Waldo, I will defend their right to publicly speak their minds. As I will defend yours.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
whosaidwhat So how about daegog and Markust (for example) branding us (including you) as "Nazi Sympathisers" and other hate-filled labels? Isn't that the very sort of hate-speech they accuse the actual Nazis of using? Isn't it the very thing they say should be illegal? :-/

Just wondering if you see it too, eh?
-1
Reply
Male 1,137
whosaidwhat Yeah, it's like some people just simply can not separate the two ideas.  Just because they are deplorable idiots does not mean they do not have a right to be deplorable idiots.  It also does not mean that their deplorable ideas will ever come to pass or that anyone that does not want to has to listen to them.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
waldo863 Exactly.
0
Reply