Who's Waving Nazi Flags ?

[protectionist]

So if conservatives allow the neo nazi's to be a part of their group and don't kick them out, then they must believe in the NeoNazi causes as well...one can presume....?

Actually you have it backwards. Allowing the Nazis to march with them is allowing free speech. Kicking them out would be a Nazi tactic of suppressing free speech. That's what you're advocating. >> Nazism/facism

 

[monkrules]

I'm curious as to what your intent is by floating this hypothetical situation. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on what we can prove? We know for a fact that Klansmen and neo-Nazis were in attendance protesting against the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue. We know, from photos and video footage, that at least some of these people engaged in unwarranted attacks on counter-protesters, or even simply aa.

1. So what if they were in attendance. So were lots of people who are not of these groups. You're trying to demonize the whole group by the flags of a few. You're wrong.

2. I don't know if the protesters did what you say or not, but I sure know that the counter-protesters engaged in unwarranted attacks on the protesters. They ALL did that by (illegally) blocking the street, blocking the march, and then attacking the protesters, in a facist attempt to silence the protesters. How ironic, and hypocritical of them to accuse the protesters of facist ideology, when that is exactly what the counterprotesters (ones who oppose the statue) were DOING.

You’re wrong in what you’ve written. I’ll leave it to you to figure out why you’re wrong.
==
Also, you wrote:

“They ALL did that by (illegally) blocking the street, blocking the march, and then attacking the protesters, in a facist attempt to silence the protesters. How ironic, and hypocritical of them to accuse the protesters of facist ideology, when that is exactly what the counterprotesters (ones who oppose the statue) were DOING”

===

You might want to educate yourself about the meaning of the word fascist, before trying to use it to attack others.

It would also help if you would at least learn to spell the word before using it, twice, in a sentence.

 

[Peach]

NeoNazis wave Nazi flags(.)

 

[WhatAWorld]

Actually you have it backwards. Allowing the Nazis to march with them is allowing free speech. Kicking them out would be a Nazi tactic of suppressing free speech. That's what you're advocating. >> Nazism/facism

While I'm also an advocate for free speech, I think you're reaching a bit with your last point. Something can be oppressive or totalitarian without necessarily being "Nazism/fascism". Antifa definitely has a lot of soul searching to do. Whether most of these folks realize it or not, they (anarchists, communists) have traditionally been on the receiving end of the kind of violence they're now dishing out to neo-Nazis, often with people using the same justifications for mob violence against them.

 

[WhatAWorld]

1. So what if they were in attendance. So were lots of people who are not of these groups. You're trying to demonize the whole group by the flags of a few. You're wrong.

2. I don't know if the protesters did what you say or not, but I sure know that the counter-protesters engaged in unwarranted attacks on the protesters. They ALL did that by (illegally) blocking the street, blocking the march, and then attacking the protesters, in a facist attempt to silence the protesters. How ironic, and hypocritical of them to accuse the protesters of facist ideology, when that is exactly what the counterprotesters (ones who oppose the statue) were DOING.

1) I'm curious as to what you're arguing here. Are you attempting to say that the "Night to Unite" was not actually an effort to bring white supremacist organizers together under one banner? Because I think that would be news to the organizers!

2) I wouldn't call peacefully blocking a march route or street an "unwarranted attack," but instead non-violent resistance. Those specific actions were led by clergy. Yes, there was violence on both sides, and some folks on both sides came well prepared for it. Turns out, both the Right and the Left have some douche bags who never met a problem they didn't think they could punch their way out of. Frankly, I think both are misguided (and I used to be one of those kids dressed all in black, duking it out with neo-Nazis). That said, the reports coming out of Charlottesville are painting the antifa is a fairly decent light. They worked directly with local organizers of the counter-protests, stood in solidarity with a synagogue that neo-Nazis were menacing, and placed themselves between the neo-Nazis and clergy, in an effort to protect the clergy from physical harm. Compare that to the white supremacist groups who harassed a synagogue, harassed black residents, purposefully invoked the imagery of Nazi torch lit parades, and killed a woman.

 

[protectionist]

You’re wrong in what you’ve written. I’ll leave it to you to figure out why you’re wrong.
==
Also, you wrote:

“They ALL did that by (illegally) blocking the street, blocking the march, and then attacking the protesters, in a facist attempt to silence the protesters. How ironic, and hypocritical of them to accuse the protesters of facist ideology, when that is exactly what the counterprotesters (ones who oppose the statue) were DOING”

===

You might want to educate yourself about the meaning of the word fascist, before trying to use it to attack others.

It would also help if you would at least learn to spell the word before using it, twice, in a sentence.

I'll educate YOU about the meaning of the word fascist, >>

forcible suppression of opposition (like the counterprotesters in Charlottesville)

Definition of FASCISM

 

[protectionist]

1) I'm curious as to what you're arguing here. Are you attempting to say that the "Night to Unite" was not actually an effort to bring white supremacist organizers together under one banner? Because I think that would be news to the organizers!

2) I wouldn't call peacefully blocking a march route or street an "unwarranted attack," but instead non-violent resistance. Those specific actions were led by clergy. Yes, there was violence on both sides, and some folks on both sides came well prepared for it. Turns out, both the Right and the Left have some douche bags who never met a problem they didn't think they could punch their way out of. Frankly, I think both are misguided (and I used to be one of those kids dressed all in black, duking it out with neo-Nazis). That said, the reports coming out of Charlottesville are painting the antifa is a fairly decent light. They worked directly with local organizers of the counter-protests, stood in solidarity with a synagogue that neo-Nazis were menacing, and placed themselves between the neo-Nazis and clergy, in an effort to protect the clergy from physical harm. Compare that to the white supremacist groups who harassed a synagogue, harassed black residents, purposefully invoked the imagery of Nazi torch lit parades, and killed a woman.

1. What is there to be "curious" about ? Yes, the counterprotesters were not interested in neo-Nazis, they were interested in shutting down the free speech of the statue-supporting protesters, and just nullifying everything they were doing. This is not news to anyone. They're the same as the leftist facists who tried to stop Trump rallies in Chicago and San Jose. Ho hum. What else is new ?

2. I WOULD (and DO) call blocking a march route or street an "unwarranted attack", and call it physical violence as well. Clergy ? If the counterprotesters had an ounce of decency, they would have simply stayed off the street, and protested only by their presence, signs, etc, but without interfering with the protesters. You have a very distorted idea of how these things should be. If your background is having been with left activists, this doesn't surprise me.

 

[WhatAWorld]

1. What is there to be "curious" about ? Yes, the counterprotesters were not interested in neo-Nazis, they were interested in shutting down the free speech of the statue-supporting protesters, and just nullifying everything they were doing. This is not news to anyone. They're the same as the leftist facists who tried to stop Trump rallies in Chicago and San Jose. Ho hum. What else is new ?

2. I WOULD (and DO) call blocking a march route or street an "unwarranted attack", and call it physical violence as well. Clergy ? If the counterprotesters had an ounce of decency, they would have simply stayed off the street, and protested only by their presence, signs, etc, but without interfering with the protesters. You have a very distorted idea of how these things should be. If your background is having been with left activists, this doesn't surprise me.

1. You're arguing that we should ignore the signs, banners, and statements of the protesters themselves and instead accept your narrative? As if you would know their motivations better than they do themselves? I mean, c'mon, don't be ridiculous here. Clearly anti-Nazism and anti-fascism was a huge focus for the counter-protesters.

2. If you consider peacefully standing in a road to be "physical violence" than I tend to believe you know very little on the subject. It's called non-violent resistance for a reason - because it doesn't physically harm anyone.

 

[protectionist]

1. What is there to be "curious" about ? Yes, the counterprotesters were not interested in neo-Nazis, they were interested in shutting down the free speech of the statue-supporting protesters, and just nullifying everything they were doing. This is not news to anyone. They're the same as the leftist facists who tried to stop Trump rallies in Chicago and San Jose. Ho hum. What else is new ?

2. I WOULD (and DO) call blocking a march route or street an "unwarranted attack", and call it physical violence as well. Clergy ? If the counterprotesters had an ounce of decency, they would have simply stayed off the street, and protested only by their presence, signs, etc, but without interfering with the protesters. You have a very distorted idea of how these things should be. If your background is having been with left activists, this doesn't surprise me.

1. You're arguing that we should ignore the signs, banners, and statements of the protesters themselves and instead accept your narrative? As if you would know their motivations better than they do themselves? I mean, c'mon, don't be ridiculous here. Clearly anti-Nazism and anti-fascism was a huge focus for the counter-protesters.

2. If you consider peacefully standing in a road to be "physical violence" than I tend to believe you know very little on the subject. It's called non-violent resistance for a reason - because it doesn't physically harm anyone.

No I'm not arguing that we should ignore the Nazi signs. That is the false idea the left tries to pin on all righties.
2. CPs were not peacefully standing in a road. Were blocking a peaceful march/protest & attacking protesters.
They should all have been arrested & so should the mayor for holding back his police.
1.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah, I get it................Protectionist is for free speech, even for the Nazi's who are against every thing this country stands for.

 

[Conservative65]

One is James Allsup, president of the Washington State U College Republicans. He made this video of his proud racist rants, then tried removing it once he started getting reamed for it.

Others have been identified. They're all alt-right loyal Republicans. That is, the Republican base.

And yes, the media should investigate this more, and publicize all of their connections to the Republicans.

"Others" doesn't cut it. Until there are names and investigations of WHO they are, we don't know if these are neo-Nazis, or ultra liberals masquerading as them, to demonize the protest (which has a purely legitimate purpose.) >> there is no reason to remove the statue of Robt E Lee.

Like local government? Because it is local government that is removing that statue. If you feel so badly about it, buy it and put it up on your own land.

The one in Durham was removed by the local government? Best I could, it was a bunch of pussies that did an illegal act. They sure whipped that statue's ass, though. They did a number on a defenseless piece of metal. Wonder why they don't try that shit on something that can fight back. I think you know.

 

[mamooth]

The one in Durham was removed by the local government? Best I could, it was a bunch of pussies that did an illegal act. They sure whipped that statue's ass, though.

And it folded like it was made of tinfoil, because those statues pretty much are tinfoil. They're not art, they're mass produced crap, put up on the cheap as a statement of white supremacy.

They did a number on a defenseless piece of metal. Wonder why they don't try that shit on something that can fight back. I think you know.

Because we'd go to jail if we gave Nazi wusses the beatings they so richly deserved? Yep, that's it. Everyone knows that.

 

[Conservative65]

The one in Durham was removed by the local government? Best I could, it was a bunch of pussies that did an illegal act. They sure whipped that statue's ass, though.

And it folded like it was made of tinfoil, because those statues pretty much are tinfoil. They're not art, they're mass produced crap, put up on the cheap as a statement of white supremacy.

They did a number on a defenseless piece of metal. Wonder why they don't try that shit on something that can fight back. I think you know.

Because we'd go to jail if we gave Nazi wusses the beatings they so richly deserved? Yep, that's it. Everyone knows that.

The statue in Durham was to a Nazi? Interesting.