"B ... but Obama!"

[Auld Phart]

If you're going to bring up ISIS, be prepared for others to bring up BLM

You really don't see the difference between neo-nazis and BLM?

I mean, as abhorrent as BLM can get, it's nowhere near the filthiness of the KKK.

Care to point out the damages white supremeists have caused, then compare them to Ferguson, Baltimore, etc?

 

[John Shaw]

If you're going to bring up ISIS, be prepared for others to bring up BLM

You really don't see the difference between neo-nazis and BLM?

I mean, as abhorrent as BLM can get, it's nowhere near the filthiness of the KKK.

That doesn't matter. They have the "right" be the way they are whether we like it or not.

Okay. Doesn't mean we can't condemn their twisted beliefs. But that's not what I'm seeing here. I'm seeing a lot of hand-wringing, then an immediate pivot to go after the people protesting them.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

You just don't get it, I guess.

Who laughs and applauds terror and murder? ISIS does. And now neo-nazis, apparently!!! And there are a whole legion of nazi-sympathizers just rearing to defend them.

Next time you guys start going on about moderate Muslims covering for the extremists, I'm just gonna laugh and shake my head, remembering this hypocrisy.

Just as bad as the rest of them.

You just don't get it either.

???

Exactly!

 

[Doc1]

Now is the moment that these people need to seriously examine their beliefs for perhaps the first time in their lives and decide where they want to stand. I think many are siding with the Nazis simply because liberals rightly despise them rather than an actual sympathy for this ugliest of political movements. This reluctance to side with liberals on the blight of white supremacy will not end well for them because these Nazi ***** have nothing of value to offer them, only guilt by association.

Nope. You couldn't be more wrong. The "right" to free speech includes shit you don't like and don't want to hear. YOU don't have the "right" to outlaw speech that offends you.

It's just that simple.

Did I at any point say anything about speech? These asshole nazi ***** have every right to practice their hate in public but you and the rest of these people need to decide quickly how much you actually sympathize with what they are saying. I would personally defend their first amendment rights as any righteous American would even though I feel their message has no place in a free country.

Nope. Here is what you said.

"Now is the moment that these people need to seriously examine their beliefs for perhaps the first time in their lives and decide where they want to stand. I think many are siding with the Nazis simply because liberals rightly despise them rather than an actual sympathy for this ugliest of political movements. This reluctance to side with liberals on the blight of white supremacy will not end well for them because these Nazi ***** have nothing of value to offer them, only guilt by association."

If by "siding" with them mean accepting their "right" to say what they want, I'm guilty. But that isn't what you're saying here and you know it. They have every right to as reprehensible as they want and simply supporting their right to be so does not make one guilty by "association".

I know what the **** I said nazi.

You don't find it odd that my Constitutional stand makes me a "Nazi"?
Fascinating insight into the mind of a "Lefty".

 

[John Shaw]

If you're going to bring up ISIS, be prepared for others to bring up BLM

You really don't see the difference between neo-nazis and BLM?

I mean, as abhorrent as BLM can get, it's nowhere near the filthiness of the KKK.

Care to point out the damages white supremeists have caused, then compare them to Ferguson, Baltimore, etc?

The riots are a result of anarchists and opportunists taking advantage of a movement that was supposed to be about non-violence.

Whereas white supremacy is founded in extremism, hate, and violence.

 

[postman]

True. The individual doesn't have the right to outlaw speech, but the government does.

No actually, they don't.

Argue with the USSC. They say no right is absolute, and if the government has a "compelling interest" can curtail or limit a right granted by the constitution.

For instance, you can't practice a religion that carries out human sacrifice. Or greet your friend Jack in the airport by yelling out "Hi Jack"

 

[John Shaw]

You just don't get it, I guess.

Who laughs and applauds terror and murder? ISIS does. And now neo-nazis, apparently!!! And there are a whole legion of nazi-sympathizers just rearing to defend them.

Next time you guys start going on about moderate Muslims covering for the extremists, I'm just gonna laugh and shake my head, remembering this hypocrisy.

Just as bad as the rest of them.

You just don't get it either.

???

Exactly!

No, seriously, your comment made no sense.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Liberals did the same shit when people criticized Obama. "But Bush!" The circle of life I guess.

The media tried to brush over criticism of Obama, acting like it was just a bunch of pissed off white guys called the tea party, not to be taken seriously.

But I was pretty young in the Bush years and didn't pay any attention to politics.

But I was pretty young in the Bush years

I'd say you're still pretty young

Okay. Maybe compared to some of the long-toothed old white supremacists on here I am.

Really?

Name them.

 

[Auld Phart]

If you're going to bring up ISIS, be prepared for others to bring up BLM

You really don't see the difference between neo-nazis and BLM?

I mean, as abhorrent as BLM can get, it's nowhere near the filthiness of the KKK.

Care to point out the damages white supremeists have caused, then compare them to Ferguson, Baltimore, etc?

The riots are a result of anarchists and opportunists taking advantage of a movement that was supposed to be about non-violence.

Whereas white supremacy is founded in extremism, hate, and violence.

Not that expensive, and available at a number of stores...

Get one.

 

[occupied]

Now is the moment that these people need to seriously examine their beliefs for perhaps the first time in their lives and decide where they want to stand. I think many are siding with the Nazis simply because liberals rightly despise them rather than an actual sympathy for this ugliest of political movements. This reluctance to side with liberals on the blight of white supremacy will not end well for them because these Nazi ***** have nothing of value to offer them, only guilt by association.

Nope. You couldn't be more wrong. The "right" to free speech includes shit you don't like and don't want to hear. YOU don't have the "right" to outlaw speech that offends you.

It's just that simple.

Did I at any point say anything about speech? These asshole nazi ***** have every right to practice their hate in public but you and the rest of these people need to decide quickly how much you actually sympathize with what they are saying. I would personally defend their first amendment rights as any righteous American would even though I feel their message has no place in a free country.

Nope. Here is what you said.

"Now is the moment that these people need to seriously examine their beliefs for perhaps the first time in their lives and decide where they want to stand. I think many are siding with the Nazis simply because liberals rightly despise them rather than an actual sympathy for this ugliest of political movements. This reluctance to side with liberals on the blight of white supremacy will not end well for them because these Nazi ***** have nothing of value to offer them, only guilt by association."

If by "siding" with them mean accepting their "right" to say what they want, I'm guilty. But that isn't what you're saying here and you know it. They have every right to as reprehensible as they want and simply supporting their right to be so does not make one guilty by "association".

I know what the **** I said nazi.

We cross? You don't like being made to look the fool? A liberal that realizes he has lost the argument ALWAYS plays the "Nazi" card. Go to the corner and lick your wounds kid.

Oh for ***** sake, You are siding with Nazis, if you do not like that label then find some way to be a conservative that does not include jumping to their defense simply because some lib does not like them.

 

[postman]

Unless of course I can get the Government to "regulate" your first amend right This is simply too easy.

You can't even get the government to pass healthcare.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is this the go-to response when it comes to Trump defenders talking about Trump? The subject is Trump, and yet they always drag it back to Obama, Hillary, or the media.

This time they're defending a group of self-proclaimed racists who, if they had the power, would gladly exterminate non-white people, using "b ... but ANTIFA! But BLM! But deep state!"

Seriously, it's kinda gross. First of all, Hillary and Obama are IRRELEVANT! That's why everyone rolls their eyes when you drag us back to them. We don't give a shit about them anymore.

Second of all, how are you all so sure it was the demonstrators who started the violence, when the neo-nazis were running around with torches, combat gear, and clubs? Where is your evidence of this?

You guys are honestly coming off as supporters of white nationalism. You do realize that, right?

Because conservatives are masters of the red herring fallacy.

Trump supporters and apologists know Trump is unfit to be president, they know a majority of Americans didn’t want Trump to be president, and they know Trump is himself a coward and bigot.

And because they know they cannot defend the likes of Trump, they attempt – and fail – to deflect from the failure that is Trump by attacking President Obama.

Moreover, because Trump has an ‘R’ after his name, most on the right will blindly defend Trump because he’ll help advance the hateful, wrongheaded conservative agenda.

 

[Doc1]

True. The individual doesn't have the right to outlaw speech, but the government does.

No actually, they don't.

Argue with the USSC. They say no right is absolute, and if the government has a "compelling interest" can curtail or limit a right granted by the constitution.

For instance, you can't practice a religion that carries out human sacrifice. Or greet your friend Jack in the airport by yelling out "Hi Jack"

Textbook response. Run to the illogical extreme. We aren't talking about those things are we? We're talking about White Supremacists and BLM. Any White Supremacist is free to call any Black person a "nig*er", assuming of course he is willing to accept the consequences that said black man may visit upon his person.

 

[John Shaw]

Why is this the go-to response when it comes to Trump defenders talking about Trump? The subject is Trump, and yet they always drag it back to Obama, Hillary, or the media.

This time they're defending a group of self-proclaimed racists who, if they had the power, would gladly exterminate non-white people, using "b ... but ANTIFA! But BLM! But deep state!"

Seriously, it's kinda gross. First of all, Hillary and Obama are IRRELEVANT! That's why everyone rolls their eyes when you drag us back to them. We don't give a shit about them anymore.

Second of all, how are you all so sure it was the demonstrators who started the violence, when the neo-nazis were running around with torches, combat gear, and clubs? Where is your evidence of this?

You guys are honestly coming off as supporters of white nationalism. You do realize that, right?

Because conservatives are masters of the red herring fallacy.

Trump supporters and apologists know Trump is unfit to be president, they know a majority of Americans didn’t want Trump to be president, and they know Trump is himself a coward and bigot.

And because they know they cannot defend the likes of Trump, they attempt – and fail – to deflect from the failure that is Trump by attacking President Obama.

Moreover, because Trump has an ‘R’ after his name, most on the right will blindly defend Trump because he’ll help advance the hateful, wrongheaded conservative agenda.

No, this is all your opinion. Some of it, like Trump being a bigot, is probably not true. At least, no more than most 70 year old men are bigots.

 

[Doc1]

Unless of course I can get the Government to "regulate" your first amend right This is simply too easy.

You can't even get the government to pass healthcare.

That whoosh you heard was your silly point going right over your head. I am not a Republican OR a Trump supporter.

p.s. I said from the start that they wouldn't get it repealed

 

[John Shaw]

If you're going to bring up ISIS, be prepared for others to bring up BLM

You really don't see the difference between neo-nazis and BLM?

I mean, as abhorrent as BLM can get, it's nowhere near the filthiness of the KKK.

Care to point out the damages white supremeists have caused, then compare them to Ferguson, Baltimore, etc?

The riots are a result of anarchists and opportunists taking advantage of a movement that was supposed to be about non-violence.

Whereas white supremacy is founded in extremism, hate, and violence.

Not that expensive, and available at a number of stores...

Get one.

Weakest retort I've seen yet on here. Nice. I'll put that one in the W column, even though I'd rather find common ground.

 

[postman]

For instance, you can't practice a religion that carries out human sacrifice. Or greet your friend Jack in the airport by yelling out "Hi Jack"

Textbook response. Run to the illogical extreme. We aren't talking about those things are we? We're talking about White Supremacists and BLM. Any White Supremacist is free to call any Black person a "******", assuming of course he is willing to accept the consequences that said black man may visit upon his person.

The easiest way of proving what the USSC said, the government can place limits on constitutional rights.

And like the old joke, we've already established what you are, now we're just arguing over the price.

 

[Auld Phart]

If you're going to bring up ISIS, be prepared for others to bring up BLM

You really don't see the difference between neo-nazis and BLM?

I mean, as abhorrent as BLM can get, it's nowhere near the filthiness of the KKK.

Care to point out the damages white supremeists have caused, then compare them to Ferguson, Baltimore, etc?

The riots are a result of anarchists and opportunists taking advantage of a movement that was supposed to be about non-violence.

Whereas white supremacy is founded in extremism, hate, and violence.

Not that expensive, and available at a number of stores...

Get one.

Weakest retort I've seen yet on here. Nice. I'll put that one in the W column, even though I'd rather find common ground.

Nice. I'll put that one in the W column,

You have a win column?

Weakest retort I've seen yet on here

You should read your own posts.

 

[postman]

We're talking about White Supremacists and BLM. Any White Supremacist is free to call any Black person a "nig*er", assuming of course he is willing to accept the consequences that said black man may visit upon his person.

Since it's usually illegal to commit an assault based on a verbal battery, there should be no consequences. But that right is curtailed in a context which would tend to spur violence. Hence the prohibition of "inciting a riot"

 

[John Shaw]

Are you flirting with me now?

Dude, if you want to make a point, I'm all ears. Any day now.