Fweethawt

Witnesses describe chaos, panic as car plows into Charlottesville crowd

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Fweethawt said:

Neo simply means new, if I'm not mistaken. So these are new Nazis. Not the old ones. 

I guess I can piece together what that indicates from there thanks for the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
4 hours ago, Deva said:

I strongly suspect that our corporate masters are fomenting, promoting and creating division in this country, primarily through use of the media. Am I mistaken?

 

We have had for many years Neo Nazis and the KKK. Nothing new. The climate in the country over the few months since the election, is different. 

 

I have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy.  As Shelby Foote said, "no one fighting for the South saw it as a slavery issue." Paraphrasing. I have yet to hear two words -"state's rights."

 

 

 

People are getting played and refuse to see it. Their priorities are all mixed up. Who is the bigger Nazi, the black guy who dropped 26,000 bombs on people who never threatened us last year, or some poor schmoes who are offended over the removal of a statue? Hell, the guy even supported actual Nazis in Ukraine for political ends. (And no, Trump isn't any better for those who need me to point that out)

Remove the symbolism and just apply objective facts and it's not even a question. Symbolism and PR tactics make people who would otherwise be smarter than their ape cousins revert back to their lizard thinking roots.  

When people get half as mad at the government for dropping bombs as they do over statue removal or bathroom choices, I'll start taking them seriously. Until then, I'm just going to assume they are being manipulated for political purposes and will refuse to take sides. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks,

If you think new Nazis and racists are despicable fuckers, well, so do I.

 

But even new Nazis and despicable fuckheaded assholes have Free Speech Rights along with Right to Assemble in this Country. (..for which they the new Nazis did proper paperwork demanded by Powers that Be to Assemble)

And trying to silence one group of despicable assholery simply indicates that you're in some OTHER group of despicable assholes.

 

The simple fact of Charlottesville was that the "Unite the Right" group are assholes who came to complain, while Aunty-Phaugh are assholes who came to fight.

 

They're both fucked up form of evil, and Trump was right.

 

kFL

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thoughts? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we're sharing videos...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is something to consider.  How long does a group of people have to continue to apologize for the dark parts of their history?  How long does the south have to apologize for slavery?  How long does Germany have to apologize for the Nazi era of it's history?  HOW FUCKING LONG?  If the rest of the country or the rest of the world wants to keep pointing and wagging their fingers at places like that, you'd better expect some backlash.  The last slave and the last Confederate soldier died in the 1950's.  The last person who was responsible for Jim Crow died perhaps as long ago as the 1990's.  The people in Germany who were around today that were around in the Nazi era are geriatric and even at that, they were children, at the very oldest alive today were young teenagers.  I would venture to bet that there is nobody alive in Germany today that had any control or any say in what happend then.  If those of you (saying this rhetorically) who want to keep it up, expect at some point a backlash you really don't want.  Try coming down to the South and try mouthing ignorant shit and pretty soon, enough people will have enough and use their fist, a blunt instrument and do their dead level best to inflict some common sense into your pretentious self-righteous ass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When asked by JoshPantera about Libertarian politics...   http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/77385-libertarianism-discussion/  ...a certain Libertarian member of this forum responded with this.
 

Josh, 

 

I would take a look at the "non aggression principle".  That is what is at the heart of where Libertarians stand.  Here it is:

https://www.theadvocates.org/aggression/

What is the Non-Aggression Principle?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

QUESTION: What is the libertarian “non-aggression principle” (or “non-aggression axiom”)?

FistsMY SHORT ANSWER: Libertarianism is based on a single ideal, the non-aggression principle, so libertarian rhetoric tends to be remarkably consistent. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals. They reject “first-strike” force, fraud or theft against others; they only use force in self-defense. Those who violate this “non-aggression principle” are expected to make their victims whole as much as possible. This “Good Neighbor Policy” is what most of us were taught as children. We were told not to lie, cheat, steal, not to strike our playmates unless they hit us first. If we broke a friend’s toy, we were expected to replace it.

Most of us still practice what we learned as children with other individuals, but we have grown accustomed to letting government aggress against others when we think we benefit. Consequently, our world is full of poverty and strife, instead of the harmony and abundance that freedom (i.e., freedom from aggression) brings.

Simply put, libertarians take the non-aggression principle that most people implicitly follow in their interactions with other individuals, and apply it to group actions, including government actions, as well.

You might have heard the Libertarian Party (LP) referred to as the “Party of Principle.” This is because the LP bases its programs and policy positions on the non-aggression principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

I'm rightfully missing any knowledge of what the above post has to do with subject of this thread. Just as a reader/follower of this I do not find any reason nor rhyme how it fits.

"....splain to me Lucy?"

 

kL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SkipNChurch said:

BAA,

 

I'm rightfully missing any knowledge of what the above post has to do with subject of this thread. Just as a reader/follower of this I do not find any reason nor rhyme how it fits.

"....splain to me Lucy?"

 

kL

 

Please compare this...

 

Try coming down to the South and try mouthing ignorant shit and pretty soon, enough people will have enough and use their fist, a blunt instrument and do their dead level best to inflict some common sense into your pretentious self-righteous ass. 

 

...with the content of the non-aggression article.

 

Do they fit together?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking that ZAP drives everyone's political thinking and action will not be likely. 
Especially dealing with emotionally driven frenzy whipped issues in OP.

 

I do grok your thinking in part now that understanding has been imparted, do fail to find its niche here in thread.

 


Tanx.

 

kL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SkipNChurch said:

Thinking that ZAP drives everyone's political thinking and action will not be likely. 
Especially dealing with emotionally driven frenzy whipped issues in OP.

 

I do grok your thinking in part now that understanding has been imparted, do fail to find its niche here in thread.

 


Tanx.

 

kL

 

 

Ok, Kevin.

 

It's a simple comparison of two posts by the same member.

 

Just the same has been done elsewhere in Ex-C.

 

Doing that often throws contradictions into sharp relief.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7o4z20xkctgz.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So vehicular homicide is a funny meme now? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends. 

 

s6kv9ax0k2hz.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hurry Mom.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TEAR THIS STATUE DOWN!

 

 

hate laundry.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2017 at 7:55 PM, SkipNChurch said:

TEAR THIS STATUE DOWN!

 

 

 

Well then pay king kong to "clothesline" it,problem solved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, 50 people hold a free speech rally in Boston and 40,000 liberals show up to shut them down. 

 

This guy was a speaker at the rally:

 

Quote

There's significant debate going around about me and whether I'm a Nazi or a White Supremacist.... this is all I will say to that:

-I've marched with BLM
-I've marched with Arabs
-I've marched with Muslims
-I've marched for Palestine
-I'm an anti-war Green voter
-I support open borders
-I oppose the Drug War
-I oppose the Prison-Industrial-Complex
-I oppose the Military-Industrial-Complex
-I will defend the Bill of Rights for ALL persons (citizens and non)

Thank you for the people who have my back when it is far easier and apparently more popular to turn against me and slander and defame me. It's incredibly frustrating to defend the rights of ALL human beings just to be attacked for not falling in line with the Regressive Left's bullshit "Everyone's a Nazi" shtick.

 

Dunno what to call myself anymore as I'm certainly not a liberal like the 40k protesters who used violence and strong arm tactics to shut down free speech and who jump on board one mass hysteria to the next. 

I for one, still believe in free speech, even for those whom I find repugnant. Who's to say which group will be labeled a hate group next? Atheists? Anti-war types? Socialists? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vig,

 

As much as I might be inclined to despise Twitter (policies are so anti-right they have gone nuts), do follow many of my Oregon and National Poli-tick-shuns as they use it.

Ms Blaire White is very opinionated, quite enjoyable to read, pretty as a new penny. And..... Ohhh MerFuggin GAHWD a transsexual woman.
QFT:
 

Quote

 

Principled people condemn political violence regardless of which side it's coming from. They don't wait until their enemy engages in it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(CNN)Thousands of counterdemonstrators marched Saturday in downtown Boston in a largely peaceful response to a self-described free speech rally that had sparked concerns of possible violence.

The march and rally came one week after racially motivated protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned deadly. There were no major incidents reported Saturday in Boston, but police said 33 were arrested -- mostly for disorderly conduct and assaults on police officers.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/us/boston-free-speech-rally/index.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, midniterider said:

(CNN)Thousands of counterdemonstrators marched Saturday in downtown Boston in a largely peaceful response to a self-described free speech rally that had sparked concerns of possible violence.

The march and rally came one week after racially motivated protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned deadly. There were no major incidents reported Saturday in Boston, but police said 33 were arrested -- mostly for disorderly conduct and assaults on police officers.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/us/boston-free-speech-rally/index.html

 

 

 

Looks a bit more hairy that CNN is reporting here. It does appear to be one more of those instances where CNN is not telling the whole truth. Some of these shots look pretty violent: https://www.facebook.com/RevoltMofugga/media_set?set=a.10212610070238998.1073741856.1601930899&type=3

The original free speech participants had to be taken away in these police vans for their own protection as the crowd was threatening to do them violence. In the vid, the crowds appear quite menacing (maybe it's just the music?): 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All 40,000 of the counter-protesters were yelling threats, but only 33 people got arrested? No buildings went up in flames, no cars flipped over, no stores looted. Nobody died. And lots of people spread the word about no hate and anti-kkk. Sounds like a success. If 40,000 people were truly on the warpath, I think we would have seen some major destruction.

 

In my town we had 42 people arrested at our last car show and 13 arrested during New Years Eve city event (20k people at the latter one). It happens when people gather.

 

Every news source is full of baloney to a certain extent. I agree with that. They show us what we want to see....shocking stuff. 350 million people didn't run over someone in Charlottesville...that's boring ... but one person DID run over someone. Let's talk about it for weeks and weeks. CNN gots to eat! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue isn't damaged property, but the fact that those who were just trying to rally for free speech had to be hauled away in police vans to keep from getting beaten or worse. The speaker, whom I posted above, said that he was terrified for his life. That ain't cool IMO. 

But, whatever. This isn't the biggest issue we face today. I'm merely pointing out that I find myself increasingly isolated in terms of ideological allies. Those in the crowd brand themselves primarily as liberals, which I've personally identified with historically. I can't empathize with them or ally with them if they oppose instead of defend the rights of others. You don't have to agree with others to defend their rights. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Vigile said:

My issue isn't damaged property, but the fact that those who were just trying to rally for free speech had to be hauled away in police vans to keep from getting beaten or worse. The speaker, whom I posted above, said that he was terrified for his life. That ain't cool IMO. 

But, whatever. This isn't the biggest issue we face today. I'm merely pointing out that I find myself increasingly isolated in terms of ideological allies. Those in the crowd brand themselves primarily as liberals, which I've personally identified with historically. I can't empathize with them or ally with them if they oppose instead of defend the rights of others. You don't have to agree with others to defend their rights. 

 

I would not want to be terrified for my life nor have to be hauled away in protective custody. I agree.

 

I also agree that liberals seem to be going off the deep end with outrage over everything. I generally have identified myself as a liberal and always voted for the liberal presidential candidate (even while registered as Republican in my Christian days) but as I look at some of the liberal stupidity I find myself actually more of a moderate. My strongest statement is voter registration: Non Partisan. :)

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now