Charlottesville protests

So I thought this was going to be just another editorial about freedom of speech…

And then this caught my eye:

States are considering laws that forgive motorists who drive into protesters.

No details. Has anyone heard of this?


Incidentally, here are some numbers about right vs. left violence:

They conclude that the right is (currently) more violent than the left. I don’t have time to scrutinize the details, but this one stuck out:

The far left was far more active and violent in the 1970s, while the far right and, specifically, militia movements resurged in the 1980s. A decade later, environmental terrorists became active. And jihadist attacks dominated after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

They’re off by at least two decades there. :2cents:


And one more thing. I obviously don’t waste enough of my life online, because I only heard about this today:

What’s next, alt-reft? :roll:

1 Like

All of these issues are just meant to divide people further and further until people come to their senses or act out on the drama and triggers the elite are spoon feeding everyone. Hard to stop hate if all you see if Hate on the News, one would get enraged and react with hate, and the cycle goes on and on and on.

In this litigious society, one must parse their words carefully.

As a Republican globalist, I look at these protests and see left wing fighting left wing. And the sadist in me absolutely loves it. :joy: Good article by the Guardian here about how the racists have very much of a left wing platform. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/20/socialism-neoliberal-capitalism-far-right

“States are considering laws that forgive motorists who drive into protesters.”

Errr can’t say as I have.

Incidentally, here are some numbers about right vs. left violence:

Interesting article.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/backlash-gop-bills-shield-drivers-hit-protesters-49234719

EDIT: I forgot to add this.

Apparently the author thinks they should fix this problem by narrowing their definition of free speech to exclude people the author doesn’t like. The ACLU does what it does, always has. It’s been criticized for that stance before, but today we get specious reasoning designed to show why they’re on “the wrong side of history” because they’re not doing exactly what EYE think they should be. It’s sad that the NYT would even publish this.

I have, although kind of busy to look for articles, might do later. It sounds like madness, but the basic idea is when surrounded by a violent mob, or a mob that is threatening your life and perhaps kids if you have them in the car, you would be allowed to hit the gas to get out of there.

There is a video below (nothing to do with Charlottesville protests) shows a driver being targeted by a gang of bikers. Apparently he had his kid in the back of the car. I couldn’t say if there was something leading up to this, but you can see in the video a bike deliberately hitting the brakes before the car taps the rear end of the bike. Why? Who knows, it’s an internet video and it seems everyone has an opinion, but his car is then swarmed by a gang of bikers.

Is it an act of self defense when surrounded by an angry mob to hit the gas? That’s the question being discussed. I’m not offering an opinion one way or the other.

1 Like

Just saw that in JB’s articles as well, so a misrepresentation in the editorial, shocking.

“Free Speech! But, only for me!” Kind of missing the point of free speech.

Once we attempt to define speech, we start down a slippery slope. What is OK for one, is not for someone else. One person’s idea of hate and threats, is another’s artistic expression, and reverse.

We have, in my opinion, reached a stage in our society where you can have either all the freedoms, or zero freedoms. All the government, or none of the government. All the speech, or none. If someone is asked to give up a little liberty for the sake of the greater good, then who is to define the greater good? Is that morally acceptable?

I posted in another thread a picture about the two sides of free speech. Right now, the right is protecting nazis and racism, and they are crying free speech. In a few months, the left will be destroying christmas and calling it free speech.

1 Like

Bullshit. Look at the economic policy of these protestors. Nothing right wing in it at all. Republican realists, globalists and neocons look at such protestors on both sides (the racists on one side and the sanitizers of history on the other side) and want to puke.

To play on someone’s fears means you encourage or use such fears dishonestly or unfairly to get an advantage. So no, I don’t agree with the premise of your question. This doesn’t apply because Trump didn’t fabricate these fears just to play politics. He is for real, as I said. Those fears are already valid as terrorism and terrorist acts are meant to inspire fear. Terrorists are the ones who play on people’s fears, that if you don’t release such a person or if your government doesn’t make such a decision or implement laws in accordance to Sharia, then more terror on innocent lives can be expected. It is manipulation.

Trump is reacting to terrorism, to those who are playing on our fears, certainly he is not encouraging the fear of it or using it unfairly. Democrats may think it is unfair, for fear of insulting Islam, so they don’t say anything at all about what’s behind the terrorism, hoping they will like us and not terrorize us anymore. That policy has proven disastrous, which is why we need someone like Trump who is willing to talk about it unabashedly and take a course of action that will be effective. We need to be able to discern those who use Islam to terrorize and implement sharia on democratics people and those who don’t, so we can weed out the violent Islamists without doing so to the peaceful.

1 Like

Then I suppose you would say Hillary and the MSM did play on fears of Trump, because only bad people do that kind of thing, and only Democrats and their cronies are bad. Okay. :slight_smile: :rainbow:

I don’t recall her doing such in the campaign, though I wasn’t playing close attention. My view of her is she is guarded, her answers are studied. When asked a question off-script, she slows down noticeably because she’s making instant political calculations about how it might look bad if she told this truth or that truth. It kinda can put people off, at least on the Republican side that she is insincere. Her staff would go to such pains to make sure she isn’t off script. Now Trump is different, he talks to you. He didn’t have a script, or if he did, he probably stuck with it for 5 seconds. He flows with the moment, improvises, and he knows how to communicate with crowds, and the crowd picks it up, that he talks genuine, he believes in what he says and not putting on some phony front. Some on the Democrat get nervous about this, thinking he will put his foot in his mouth. And he probably does just that in the view of Democrats if they find something not PC, which is probably stoking them on purpose, but not a single time I remember it happening with his base so far.

I also saw Hillary as kind of uppity, supercilious, condescending, thinks she’s superior. I think she treated Trump more like a joke then a serious contender. I think that was their general campaign strategy.

Democrats in the past have dishonestly talked about Republicans taking away senior citizens social security, or kids starving or dying because they want to do away with the lunch program. And then this classic advertisement by Johnson about what will happen if we elect Goldwater.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbIfVEboAzg

Not sure if was instrumental in getting Johnson elected. He was spying on Goldwater’s headquarters, so every time they strategized on speech topics, Johnson took the wind out of their sail every time. So I think that greatly reduced the efficacy of the Goldwater campaign as they didn’t have very good plan Bs. This kind of government spying stopped after the Nixon scandal.

Yes, and we got the motherfuckers back tenfold with Dukakis and Willie Horton. :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

Sometimes…you make it too easy

Go ahead…blame Obama and the liberal media.

2 Likes

This one’s for you Jotham.

2 Likes

Here, here!

The Google will set you free.

So will Lexus/Nexus, JSTOR, and others.

Wikipedia…not so much.

This buds for you…

AJObama

Dukakis did Dukakis in with his ride in the tank. Dukakis never really had anything on Bush.

Also, Lee Atwater was a spawn of satan.