Left & Right Clash in Virginia

[BLUEDOVE3]

On 8/12/2017 at 6:19 PM, REBgp said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This was inevitable since authorities have consistently let leftist groups attack those on the right.  I've posted on here several times recently this was going to happen.  You cannot allow groups to continually attack others and not expect retaliation.  I just hope authorities will stop this XXXX from now on.

Huh? You stirred it back up when Obama was in office.  You stuck knives into his back and that is not progress. Even if you pull it all the way out, that is not progress. Progress is healing wounds, and America hasn't even begun to pull out the knife.

[CardinalBacker]

7 minutes ago, Big girl said:

White people have it so hard in this country. I feel bad for you guys.

I don't have it too bad at all.  I feel very sympathetic towards the plight of so many of those raised in single parent households in violent neighborhoods, surrounded by poverty, with substandard schools, and believing that all of those problems are caused by "white privilege."

I also feel bad because if the hate-mongers on both sides have their way, people who don't have hard feelings will generate them and the conflicts will only worsen.  

I mean, if somebody on the left was had plowed into a crowd of conservative protestors, it would be labeled "road rage," not a hate crime. 

[CardinalBacker]

6 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

Huh? You stirred it back up when Obama was in office.  You stuck knives into his back and that is not progress. Even if you pull it all the way out, that is not progress. Progress is healing wounds, and America hasn't even begun to pull out the knife.

Like the old saying goes "I never owned any slaves, and I'm pretty sure you haven't picked much cotton..... so what do you say we move on from here?"

Nah... because then certain groups would have to look in the mirror and admit that 95% of the problems facing them are self-inflicted.  

[baddog]

14 minutes ago, Big girl said:

He admitted that he WAS a member of the kkk at one time. He apologized and said that he regretted it once he got older. When Hilliary met him, he wasn't a member, try again

 

Yet you don't forgive white people for slavery. What a too faced dufus.

So was David Duke. Try again.

[Big girl]

5 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I don't have it too bad at all.  I feel very sympathetic towards the plight of so many of those raised in single parent households in violent neighborhoods, surrounded by poverty, with substandard schools, and believing that all of those problems are caused by "white privilege."

I also feel bad because if the hate-mongers on both sides have their way, people who don't have hard feelings will generate them and the conflicts will only worsen.  

I mean, if somebody on the left was had plowed into a crowd of conservative protestors, it would be labeled "road rage," not a hate crime. 

Nope, it wouldn't. Try again

[Big girl]

6 hours ago, REBgp said:

Great editorial by Mr. West.  He mirrored my thoughts, but has the ability to put them into words so much better than I (me?).  And his mention of the coverage of this tragedy by the MSM is right on.  They've turned this into a left wing propaganda film, spewing their vitriolic message that is soaked up by the Left.  I have yet to see what ignited the clash.  The white supremacist, dispicable as they may be, had a permit to march, and spew their hate.  And Mr. West questioned, as I did, did the counter protestors?  As we both questioned, why wasn't there a larger police presence?  Why did this tragedy happen?  The blame falls squarely on the shoulders on the Mayor and Governor.

They should've been left alone. They should've  been allowed to make complete buttholes out of themselves. The people who have been identified have lost their jobs. A guy"s family publicly disowned him. Another guy was kicked out of his hotel room. They are having a difficult time. Lol

[stevenash]

31 minutes ago, Big girl said:

The truth hurts.

Yes it does.  And the same broad electorate that selected Mr. Obama also selected Mr. Trump.  If the electorate became less educated, I guess you could give that credit to Mr. Obama since he was in office when the alleged "decline" took place.

[Big girl]

7 minutes ago, stevenash said:

 

Read your response 

6 hours ago, REBgp said:

 

[stevenash]

39 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Do you have a degree?

If I tell you I am a high school dropout, what is the significance?  If I tell you  I have two masters degrees, what is the significance?

[new tobie]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[new tobie]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[WOSgrad]

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

 

 

 

I'm really not sure which is scarier for me in this video; the evil hatred or the absolute ignorance which breeds it.  Brings me back to something I always find amusing on this board.  Many of you seem to lay blame on the higher education system for creating "liberals."  I would say that the more educated tend to be more liberal.  Because with knowledge comes enlightenment my friends  

I will now look forward to some predictable responses from some predictable posters  

I find it funny that while you claim that yours is the view of "enlightment," there are others that are meet and even exceed your level of "enlightenment' that completely disagree with you.

Now, lets make one thing clear, I find the views of the neo-nazis as philosophy repugnant and I would call on them to re-evaluate their values as bigotry has no place in this nation.  BUT they have, under the first amendment of the United States Constitution......just my unenlightened point of view?  Not really.  That is the enlightened view of the US Supreme Court as stated in Brandenburg vs.Ohio (395 US 447.  This per curiam opinion came, without dissent, from such enlightened individuals as Earl Warren, who court ushered in school desegregation, the "right to privacy" and the legalization of abortion and Thurgood Marshall, who you probably recall him as the first black justice on the Supreme Court.  They held that the 1st Amendment prevented a person from being prosecuted EVEN if he was a KKK member that stated such ditties as "...if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to supress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken." (395 US at 446) and "Personally, I believe the nigger should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel (395 US at 447).

Evidently, this part of your enlightenment was forgotten.  Judge Glen Conrad, a William and Mary Law School graduate, did not when he ordered an injunction against the City of Charlottesville.  Heck, even the ACLU did not forget is as it has  stated that "The incitement standard (in Brandenburg) has been used to protect all kinds of political speech that tacitly endorses violence, no matter how righteous or vile the cause." 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

That's right, the same Amendment that allows Colin Kaepernick to kneel for the national anthem protects the followers of Jason Kessler and the neo nazis to display the Nazi flag.  It even protects the rantings of Shaun King and black lives matter advocates who shout such as the slogans noted by stevenash, although I find such remarks and views equally repugnant to those of the Neo-Nazis and the evidence being that such statements are just as, if not more likely (see Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas, Baton Rouge) to incite, than the views of the folks who demonstrated in Charlottesville.

But, no you are more enlightened than all of those scholars (who although I disagree wholeheartedly with some of their decisions, freely acknowledge their legal knowledge) and look for the shutdown of such views that you disagree with while championing those demonstrations, who also preach violence under the cloak of race and thus separated from those you despise only by the color of the people who are engaging in them.

Such views?  Such as the preservation of history in the form of a statue of Robert E. Lee (which is by the way, the reason that this demonstration given in the court case).  I mean, really, is the removal of a statue of a Confederate general, whether municipally authorized or by force as was done yesterday in Raliegh, going to magically make us forget that at one point in our nation's history, one person could legally own another?  Of course not, as is a part of history will be brought up time and again.....every time there is a need to defend affirmative action and for the periodic call for reparations. There are some whose very relevance depends on that sorry time in our history being brought up again and again. Brought up by folks, who unlike Justice Marshall, who am I sure was sickened by the words of Clarence Brandenburg and who I have no doubt that, unlike those here who only claim such, ACTUALLY DID suffer racial injustice while growing up.

By pulling out the political bullhorn, you will only irritate matters here.  Folks, enlightened despite their "poor" education and even those of us who have endured through several levels of education,are frustrated by the double standard clothed as "decency" being shoved down their throats.  Even the most unenlightened can see THAT is why Donald Trump, aside from economic conditions during the previous administration which resembled days of the Depression, is currently president and persistence of such hypocrisy will give him a wide open road right back there in 2020.

Tell me, was this response in your script?

[stevenash]

Pretty interesting perspective from one who might possibly be a fellow deplorable.  How dare you have the temerity to believe that your opinion could be as valid as someone on the left?  I can't help but wonder why this West Virginia circumstance was looked askance upon when Trump did not immediately denounce what happened.  If my memory is correct, when the Dallas Police officers were murdered, the President at the time was hailed as the voice of reason when he declared" Let's not rush to judgement. Let's wait for the facts"  But, since I am very willing to consider information broadcast by Fox, that immediately disqualifies me from having a valid opinion.  I guess I need to listen to Dan Rather and Brian Williams more often in an attempt to gain enlightened status.

[TxHoops]

2 hours ago, Reagan said:

Unfortunately a socialist.  But good thing that's not how we elect Presidents.  The two prior elections you crow about about left us 20 TRILLION in debt!  Plus many more problems!  Good thing for us, though, your party has been mainstreamed to the far left!  Just listen to what Elizabeth Warren had to say recently!

Yes your party is in such great shape.  Control of the White House and congress and still can't manage to even get that big bad Obamacare repealed.  Talk about a trainwreck lol 

[westend1]

Somebody triggered.  Lol

[stevenash]

17 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Yes your party is in such great shape.  Control of the White House and congress and still can't manage to even get that big bad Obamacare repealed.  Talk about a trainwreck lol 

How did this happen if, as you infer,  the vast majority of the "smart" people are on the other side?  So smart that they lost over 1000 state legislative seats and both houses and the Presidency?

[TxHoops]

26 minutes ago, stevenash said:

How did this happen if, as you infer,  the vast majority of the "smart" people are on the other side?  So smart that they lost over 1000 state legislative seats and both houses and the Presidency?

Well obviously there are more dumb people than smart in this world Steve.  Duh!

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, WOSgrad said:

I find it funny that while you claim that yours is the view of "enlightment," there are others that are meet and even exceed your level of "enlightenment' that completely disagree with you.

Now, lets make one thing clear, I find the views of the neo-nazis as philosophy repugnant and I would call on them to re-evaluate their values as bigotry has no place in this nation.  BUT they have, under the first amendment of the United States Constitution......just my unenlightened point of view?  Not really.  That is the enlightened view of the US Supreme Court as stated in Brandenburg vs.Ohio (395 US 447.  This per curiam opinion came, without dissent, from such enlightened individuals as Earl Warren, who court ushered in school desegregation, the "right to privacy" and the legalization of abortion and Thurgood Marshall, who you probably recall him as the first black justice on the Supreme Court.  They held that the 1st Amendment prevented a person from being prosecuted EVEN if he was a KKK member that stated such ditties as "...if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to supress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken." (395 US at 446) and "Personally, I believe the nigger should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel (395 US at 447).

Evidently, this part of your enlightenment was forgotten.  Judge Glen Conrad, a William and Mary Law School graduate, did not when he ordered an injunction against the City of Charlottesville.  Heck, even the ACLU did not forget is as it has  stated that "The incitement standard (in Brandenburg) has been used to protect all kinds of political speech that tacitly endorses violence, no matter how righteous or vile the cause." 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

That's right, the same Amendment that allows Colin Kaepernick to kneel for the national anthem protects the followers of Jason Kessler and the neo nazis to display the Nazi flag.  It even protects the rantings of Shaun King and black lives matter advocates who shout such as the slogans noted by stevenash, although I find such remarks and views equally repugnant to those of the Neo-Nazis and the evidence being that such statements are just as, if not more likely (see Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas, Baton Rouge) to incite, than the views of the folks who demonstrated in Charlottesville.

But, no you are more enlightened than all of those scholars (who although I disagree wholeheartedly with some of their decisions, freely acknowledge their legal knowledge) and look for the shutdown of such views that you disagree with while championing those demonstrations, who also preach violence under the cloak of race and thus separated from those you despise only by the color of the people who are engaging in them.

Such views?  Such as the preservation of history in the form of a statue of Robert E. Lee (which is by the way, the reason that this demonstration given in the court case).  I mean, really, is the removal of a statue of a Confederate general, whether municipally authorized or by force as was done yesterday in Raliegh, going to magically make us forget that at one point in our nation's history, one person could legally own another?  Of course not, as is a part of history will be brought up time and again.....every time there is a need to defend affirmative action and for the periodic call for reparations. There are some whose very relevance depends on that sorry time in our history being brought up again and again. Brought up by folks, who unlike Justice Marshall, who am I sure was sickened by the words of Clarence Brandenburg and who I have no doubt that, unlike those here who only claim such, ACTUALLY DID suffer racial injustice while growing up.

By pulling out the political bullhorn, you will only irritate matters here.  Folks, enlightened despite their "poor" education and even those of us who have endured through several levels of education,are frustrated by the double standard clothed as "decency" being shoved down their throats.  Even the most unenlightened can see THAT is why Donald Trump, aside from economic conditions during the previous administration which resembled days of the Depression, is currently president and persistence of such hypocrisy will give him a wide open road right back there in 2020.

Tell me, was this response in your script?

No, I'm not sure I could have foreseen someone taking so much time to present an issue which is completely removed from any point I was making.  You will never see me arguing against free speech, except when it evolves (or more appropriately devolves) beyond the protections of the First Amendment. 

But thanks for the "lesson."  I had the great privilege (although it very much seemed a burden at the time) to study this subject under the late, great Charles Alan Wright.  Many considered him the most brilliant constitutional law mind in the country.  And he was a "conservative," who struggled with the fact that all of his closest friends were liberals

[TxHoops]

51 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Somebody triggered.  Lol

No doubt.  I feel like such a troll now...

[stevenash]

28 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Well obviously there are more dumb people than smart in this world Steve.  Duh!

It's is so very interesting that the Dems had the Presidency and both Houses in 2008 and were obviously elected by some really smart people.  Could one conclude that, during the 8 years of the Presidency of the "enlightened", the voters suddenly became dumber?  I can't imagine that happening while someone so very smart was in power- the  one who knows better- the only adult in the room- the visionary-the chosen one- yada yada yada- I know how  repulsive and unacceptable this question will be but I just have to ask.  Is it even remotely possible that some over estimate their intelligence/intellect?  Are they so firmly convinced that they, and only they, know what is best?  Could it be that the thoughts, ideas, and values of others ought to be considered rather than dismissed?  Wouldn't these questions fall into the category of tolerance and inclusiveness? Two areas that are allegedly the exclusive provenance of the left?

[TxHoops]

6 minutes ago, stevenash said:

It's is so very interesting that the Dems had the Presidency and both Houses in 2008 and were obviously elected by some really smart people.  Could one conclude that, during the 8 years of the Presidency of the "enlightened", the voters suddenly became dumber?  I can't imagine that happening while someone so very smart was in power- the  one who knows better- the only adult in the room- the visionary-the chosen one- yada yada yada- I know how  repulsive and unacceptable this question will be but I just have to ask.  Is it even remotely possible that some over estimate their intelligence/intellect?  Are they so firmly convinced that they, and only they, know what is best?  Could it be that the thoughts, ideas, and values of others ought to be considered rather than dismissed?  Wouldn't these questions fall into the category of tolerance and inclusiveness? Two areas that are allegedly the exclusive provenance of the left?

Do you really believe that I believe that all conservatives are intellectually inferior?  Conversely, I routinely see a lot of broad strokes painted about liberals by your conservative brethren.  And also to whom, many of the assertions you set forth could be applied.  Except for tolerance and inclusion, of course.  

Now let me know if you need me to send someone to Sour Lake to remove that hook from your mouth  

[TxHoops]

By the way, you should be ashamed of yourself Nash:

 

 

[WOSgrad]

42 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

No, I'm not sure I could have foreseen someone taking so much time to present an issue which is completely removed from any point I was making.  You will never see me arguing against free speech, except when it evolves (or more appropriately devolves) beyond the protections of the First Amendment. 

But thanks for the "lesson."  I had the great privilege (although it very much seemed a burden at the time) to study this subject under the late, great Charles Alan Wright.  Many considered him the most brilliant constitutional law mind in the country.  And he was a "conservative," who struggled with the fact that all of his closest friends were liberals

Good, then this won't bother you....although it has seemed to trigger many.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Englebert]

16 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Do you really believe that I believe that all conservatives are intellectually inferior?  Conversely, I routinely see a lot of broad strokes painted about liberals by your conservative brethren.  And also to whom, many of the assertions you set forth could be applied.  Except for tolerance and inclusion, of course.  

Now let me know if you need me to send someone to Sour Lake to remove that hook from your mouth  

I noticed these broad strokes...but these were/are being lobbed by the Liberals on this board. I initially tried to debate. Then attempted to just asking for evidence to support these unsubstantiated allegations. Finally, and reluctantly, resorted to using the same despicable tactics in retaliation. You could probably have a debate with anyone on this site from the Right, but try having a debate with the Liberal posters on here. If you think anyone on the Right is using unjust broad strokes, ask them to defend their opinion, and you will get an answer. Ask anyone on the Left, and you will get crickets, only to see the same vile being spewed at a later time. The evidence is abundant and overwhelming. You haven't posted much on this forum so I'm not putting you in their category. In fact, I have no doubt I could have a congenial debate with you. I'll throw Westend in there also because I believe I can (and had a few) adult debates with him. (Although I think he frequently uses the Liberal tactic of diving into the mud at times...as do I.) But try having any debate above a 3rd grade level with anyone else on the Left and it will devolve into childishness in less than two posts. I see absolutely no equivalency, just retaliation using like tactics. If you would like to debate on which side has degraded this forum into childish mudslinging, I will gleefully accept that challenge. I can pick one poster and have enough smut to overwhelm your evidence 10 fold.

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

Do you really believe that I believe that all conservatives are intellectually inferior?  Conversely, I routinely see a lot of broad strokes painted about liberals by your conservative brethren.  And also to whom, many of the assertions you set forth could be applied.  Except for tolerance and inclusion, of course.  

Now let me know if you need me to send someone to Sour Lake to remove that hook from your mouth  

If you pull the hook out of my mouth, will that cement your status as the "masterbaitor"?