Mr. Obvious Antifa wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:That does not a constitutional violation, it is assault.
Can't you even read?
You need to brush up on your constitutional jurisprudence. I suggest starting with Grayned v. City of Rockford and moving on to Brandenburg v. Ohio and City of Chicago v. Alexander.
If the protesters want to argue that the government has restricted their free speech, they can go to court and argue that. I do not expect that challenge to be forthcoming.
Lenin vs Trotsky wrote:
not quite true wrote:No. Antifa is anarchist, not leftist.
Isn't it cute when leftists quarrel over who are the True Leftists?
Antifaschistische Aktion, Antifascistische Aktie, Antifascist Action or Antifascistisk Aktion — abbreviated as Antifa (German/Dutch/English) or AFA (Scandinavian) — is a far-left, extra-parliamentary, anti-fascist network in Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Canada, the UK and the United States of America whose stated goal is to "smash fascism in all its forms".
It is also described as a heterogeneous group which in the late 1930s and early 1940s was mostly made up of social democrats, communists, and progressive Christians
Whether you want to call it "left" or not, it's definitely not communist, which was really my point.
How are "left" and "right" even defined in the context of the discussion of these types of ideologies?
We seem to accept that fascism is "far right" and socialism is "far left," but I wouldn't consider fascism and radical socialism/communism to be political opposites at all. They seem more like two variations on the same theme of complete submission to government authority.
Far right: national socialism
Far left: international socialism
Left vs. Right wrote:
We seem to accept that fascism is "far right" and socialism is "far left," but I wouldn't consider fascism and radical socialism/communism to be political opposites at all. They seem more like two variations on the same theme of complete submission to government authority.
Look up horseshoe theory.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Left vs. Right wrote:We seem to accept that fascism is "far right" and socialism is "far left," but I wouldn't consider fascism and radical socialism/communism to be political opposites at all. They seem more like two variations on the same theme of complete submission to government authority.
Look up horseshoe theory.
Look up argument to moderation fallacy.
DiscoGary wrote:
Terrorist supporter wrote:No, you don't understand your own Constitution. The first amendment specifically states that "no government can..."
It says nothing about stopping people who have opposing views than yours shouting louder than you.
Can I just confirm that have you stated in this thread that you are a KKK and Nazi supporter? Do you not understand how these groups are FUNDAMENTALLY violent hate groups?
So now we have people on the left denying that 1st amendment rights protect people from being silenced by left wing terrorists. Liberals are condoning terrorism. The spin machine is going to fly apart at this rate.
Liberals = lawlessness
Gary, if you start mouthing off about how White's area the superior race and all blacks should by lynched, as you usually do, and I tell you to shut your stupid fcking mouth, have I "violated your first amendment rights". Hell no you moron. I've just told you to fck off because you are a shithead whom I couldn't give a shit about. It's my freedom of speech to shout louder than you also. Permit or no permit. I am allowed.
What isn't allowed is the Gov to silence people because that is what the 1st amendment is about. So if Trump's Gov cancelled your rally wrongly, then Trump violated your first amendment rights. Interesting. If it was Obama's gov then go cry a river he's gone now... take them to court.
But BLM or myself or any other boogeyman you care to call out did not and have not violated any of your rights. Although I'd relish to doing so.
Shall I tell you what is "flying off"? The bodies of innocent people after being smashed into by a right wing terrorists vehicle, whom you support fully.
We now have several liberals on this site making the case that no one has the right to free speech as long as someone else wants to beat them into silence.
You know ... most people go through their day hoping against all available evidence that their view of the world is right. I go through my day hoping against all available evidence that my view of the world is wrong, but the rest of you keep proving I'm right.
The idea that the Unite the Right groups were a bunch of non-violent demonstrators who were attacked by Antifa activists is pure fiction. The Unite the Right groups were armed and ready to fight. There were weeks of chatter on white supremacist websites about coming to Charlotte to get into street battles with the Antifa. The Unite the Right groups had plastic shields, helmets, bats, batons, poles and a group fully outfitted with assault weapons and body armor.
Video of Fields shows him driving full speed through an empty street in order to crash into a group of protesters towards the end of the street. If any of the protesters had messed with his car as they passed him on the street, they had cleared the street by the time he decided to floor it and smash into them. He could have backed up or turned at the intersection if he was afraid of being attacked. He purposely drove as fast as possible down the street in order to catch up with a group of protesters in order to try to crash into them with his car.
The full video clearly shows him being attacked by violent commies/leftists.
I hope he is fully acquitted, if for anything watch the Liberals loons, blacks, and Jews start burning stuff down again. Violent children.
Al Bundy's Dodge wrote:
The full video clearly shows him being attacked by violent commies/leftists.
No, it doesn't.
No Gary, you are just not very good at this whole "logic and reason" thing.What people are saying is that antifa and BLM are not suppressing anybody's first amendment rights. That is because they are not a government and the first amendment constrains the actions of governments.The government and police have absolute no obligation to protect anybody. This is also well established.I have said quite clearly that if anybody is guilty of assault that they should be charged with a crime. That crime is Assault! It is not "denying somebody of their first amendment privileges. Personally I am a civil libertarian, not a liberal but again that distinction seems to be lost on a lot of people here.
DiscoGary wrote:
We now have several liberals on this site making the case that no one has the right to free speech as long as someone else wants to beat them into silence.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
The government and police have absolute no obligation to protect anybody. This is also well established.
This is true. Unfortunately, this also is the reason why everybody needs to arm themselves.
Precious Roy wrote:
The idea that the Unite the Right groups were a bunch of non-violent demonstrators who were attacked by Antifa activists is pure fiction. The Unite the Right groups were armed and ready to fight.
Nope. They came armed to protect and defend themselves from the brownshirt attacks they knew, based on precedents such as Berkeley, were going to be coming from the violent leftists.
DiscoGary wrote:
We now have several liberals on this site making the case that no one has the right to free speech as long as someone else wants to beat them into silence.
The liberals are as always clueless. The right to free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution, that is guaranteed by the Federal government. But the Constitution does not contain a right to protection (except a right to due process). But this right to protection can be found in the state constitutions. This separation of powers was introduced to keep the Federal government to interfere with the states policies.
Only a dishonest leftist would claim that "the government" does not have to protect the citizens' right to free speech. That's just twisting of words. Every state government has that obligation.
But it doesn't stop there. The 14th amendment REQUIRES the states to protect the citizen from violence (The Equal Protection Clause). Ironically this was introduced to protect blacks from white violence. But now it's whites who need protection.
not quite true wrote:
Lenin vs Trotsky wrote:Isn't it cute when leftists quarrel over who are the True Leftists?
Antifaschistische Aktion, Antifascistische Aktie, Antifascist Action or Antifascistisk Aktion — abbreviated as Antifa (German/Dutch/English) or AFA (Scandinavian) — is a far-left, extra-parliamentary, anti-fascist network in Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Canada, the UK and the United States of America whose stated goal is to "smash fascism in all its forms".
It is also described as a heterogeneous group which in the late 1930s and early 1940s was mostly made up of social democrats, communists, and progressive Christians
Whether you want to call it "left" or not, it's definitely not communist, which was really my point.
Then why do many of the protestors show up in images sporting shirts emblazoned with the hammer and sickle or proudly waving communist flags?
Do an image search for "antifa communist" if you don't believe me. There are many, many photos. Antifa members want the collusion of big government / public institutions and major corporations to crack down on individual rights and freedoms such as free speech. How can you possibly say that this is consistent with any kind of anarchism?
The establishment controlled MSM refers to Antifa as anarchists because they want to disparage the term. The establishment actually wants to subject the World to global communism / technocracy. They most definitely do not want relative anarchy to become the norm, as the big banks and corporations would lose all their power if people started banding together and relying on one another as communities, buying locally... etc, rather than relying on the government.
Charlottesville Car Attack Suspect Slapped With New Felony Charges
Police said they're readying even more charges against the white supremacist, who's jailed without bail.
Anyone know if there is a Gofundme for his legal expenses?
DailyStormer.com
But, currently looking for a new home. Maybe Russia.
DailyStormer.com wrote:
DailyStormer.com
But, currently looking for a new home. Maybe Russia.
dailystormer.lol