(08-17-2017 11:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-16-2017 12:58 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-16-2017 12:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If you saw the video, it does in fact look like he was going to say "us" and made a hand gesture as well with his hands pointing toward his chest.

One thing I noted in the video that was interesting was that he said some people were wearing black with masks and sticks. The only people I saw wearing masks and sticks were the White Supremacists.

It made me wonder if he even knew who was whom in the videos.

Google "antifa charlottesville". Takes 5 seconds.

Then who are these guys?

only

[ohn-lee]

adverb

without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively:This information is for your eyes only.

no more than; merely; just:If it were only true! I cook only on weekends.

..........

Do you need this in Espanol?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-17-2017 11:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Here is MY problem....

whether he said 'us' or 'em' really doesn't make any difference except to people trying to call everyone on the right racists. The point is that when someone charges at someone, they are being victimized by aggressors... and not the other way around. Trump's comments are not only about this one single incident, but about NUMEROUS such incidents (Berkeley comes to mind) where violence has been 'justified' by some of the left based on words/opinions expressed by the people they are protesting. This isn't so much a right/left thing as it is a 'free speech' vs 'not free speech' thing... which has some party leanings, but is not universal. The more progressive left and the extreme right are in agreement that speech they find abhorrent should be met with physical violence and legal action.

The VERY clear point that the (libertarian) right are making is that whether or not we agree with the message of the alt-right, the right to have and express an unpopular opinion in this country is inviolate.... and people who charge at you expressing that opinion are the ones inciting violence.

This is a direct counter to the 'micro-aggression through words' policy of some of the left, who use people's words to justify their physical actions.

Your rights stop at my nose is a very common term I've seen LOTS of people use, which clearly implies 'physical' actions.

You make some great points. I wonder however if you believe there should be some restrictions when it comes to protesting. For example, you can't cover your face, or you can't have torches. I say that simply because it is a fire hazard.

Interesting... Thank you

In general yes on restrictions.

I'd say if you're going to be using torches, you should be restricted to areas where open burning is okay.... and more reasonably, apply for a 'fire' permit (and thus fire protection onsite) to go along with your protest permit... which is part of the LEGAL point as to why 'unregistered counter protests' are a problem for me.

Covering your face... That's a tough one for me. I guess that until you do something illegal, it's okay to cover your face... (personally I'm not a fan of that, but politically, I can't really say it should be illegal) of course if you're doing something illegal, you don't care that it would be illegal to cover your face while you did it.

That's a tougher one for me... I've tried to answer the question and I can't... I see support for both sides. I'd support the teacher not wanting to lose her job for being at a rally where 'failing bad kids' was the issue, and I support outing racists as racists.

I suppose I have to say that because I wouldn't want the teacher to lose her job (and maybe that's not a great example) I have to accept that the racist may not be outed either.