Inauguration Day 2017

weso1 said:
The white supremacy movement is irrelevant. There are maybe ten guys and they don't appear to be violent. In fact they seem to be the ones getting sucker punched. The social justice warrior movement however has a huge platform on the democrat party. And they are very fond of doxing folks they disagree with and shutting down those who have differing opinions. Just in the course of a few days you've had violent protesting at a Milo event, disruptJ20 planning to gas a Trump celebration, windows smashed by anti capitalists. Certainly the right has people with extreme thoughts and a plethora of trolls, but the violence is rare.

I'll try to ask one more time just to see if you're willing to accept a basic fact or if you're just going to keep filibustering. Would you agree that the vast majority of political violence is against more right leaning political thinkers? Once we can agree on a basic fact maybe we can have an honest discussion about why that is and if there is any culpability from the leaders of the democratic party.
Click to expand...

So it's irrelevant because you say it's irrelevant? Emmanuel AME probably disagrees.
 
Obviously I mean it's irrelevant politically. David Duke just ran in arguably the most racist part of the US and got 3%. Difference of course is that the extreme politics are actually a part of the democratic platform. When the crazy dude shot up the church in Charleston, that act and and his politics were rightly shamed. When the crazy dude shot up police in Dallas his act was mostly shamed but his politics... not so much. See the difference in regards to relevance?

You going to answer the question filibusterin' Julio?
 
Can confirm, Louisiana is incredibly racist. Police departments operate with near impunity and they have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

I wish I could find a percent for black people 18 or older in Louisiana who are either in prison, on probation, currently facing charges, or receive government benefits like disability/welfare. If you take the remainder left over I bet over half work a government job.
 
weso1 said:
Obviously I mean it's irrelevant politically. David Duke just ran in arguably the most racist part of the US and got 3%. Difference of course is that the extreme politics are actually a part of the democratic platform. When the crazy dude shot up the church in Charleston, that act and and his politics were rightly shamed. When the crazy dude shot up police in Dallas his act was mostly shamed but his politics... not so much. See the difference in regards to relevance?

You going to answer the question filibusterin' Julio?
Click to expand...

Dylann Roof was steeped in the thought of the same people who provide the intellectual and ideological backbone of the so-called Alt-right, which your boy Milo tells us are just a bunch of merry pranksters and meme-makers. You want to talk about the culpability of the leadership of the dem party for some anarchist windowbreakers and campus hooligans, but you're not ready to even acknowledge the extent to which the right has fed, watered, and tolerated the people who bring us--at the extremes--anti-government terrorism in the form of so-called "sovereign citizens" and various identitarian types.

So no, I'm not interested in having a discussion about culpability if I'm being asked to enter it on these terms. The terms, as you've elucidated, are that the President can retweet white supremacists and it's NBD, but the Democratic leadership owns every campus radical in the world.
 
Julio3000 said:
Dylann Roof was steeped in the thought of the same people who provide the intellectual and ideological backbone of the so-called Alt-right, which your boy Milo tells us are just a bunch of merry pranksters and meme-makers. You want to talk about the culpability of the leadership of the dem party for some anarchist windowbreakers and campus hooligans, but you're not ready to even acknowledge the extent to which the right has fed, watered, and tolerated the people who bring us--at the extremes--anti-government terrorism in the form of so-called "sovereign citizens" and various identitarian types.

So no, I'm not interested in having a discussion about culpability if I'm being asked to enter it on these terms. The terms, as you've elucidated, are that the President can retweet white supremacists and it's NBD, but the Democratic leadership owns every campus radical in the world.
Click to expand...

There were no terms. Just a very simple question filibusterin' Julio. I would love to continue the conversation, but if you aren't going to acknowledge a basic fact then there is no point.

If you do choose to answer the question I'll be happy to discuss the alt right and Milo with you, but I need some a showing of good will on your part first that you are willing to be intellectually honest.
 
Julio3000 said:
Dylann Roof was steeped in the thought of the same people who provide the intellectual and ideological backbone of the so-called Alt-right, which your boy Milo tells us are just a bunch of merry pranksters and meme-makers. You want to talk about the culpability of the leadership of the dem party for some anarchist windowbreakers and campus hooligans, but you're not ready to even acknowledge the extent to which the right has fed, watered, and tolerated the people who bring us--at the extremes--anti-government terrorism in the form of so-called "sovereign citizens" and various identitarian types.

So no, I'm not interested in having a discussion about culpability if I'm being asked to enter it on these terms. The terms, as you've elucidated, are that the President can retweet white supremacists and it's NBD, but the Democratic leadership owns every campus radical in the world.
Click to expand...

There were no terms. Just a very simple question filibusterin' Julio. I would love to continue the conversation, but if you aren't going to acknowledge a basic fact then there is no point.

If you do choose to answer the question I'll be happy to discuss the alt right and Milo with you, but I need some a showing of good will on your part first that you are willing to be intellectually honest.
 
weso1 said:
There were no terms. Just a very simple question filibusterin' Julio. I would love to continue the conversation, but if you aren't going to acknowledge a basic fact then there is no point.

If you do choose to answer the question I'll be happy to discuss the alt right and Milo with you, but I need some a showing of good will on your part first that you are willing to be intellectually honest.
Click to expand...

Heh. Intellectually honest.

Again, I'm not eager to enter the conversation on your terms. While I don't agree with the strategy of, for example, protesting with the intent of shutting out free expression as happened at UC Davis this week, I do not characterize that protest as violent . . . nor did the authorities. So while I'm not prepared to agree with your characterizations of leftist "violence," I will stipulate that people broadly identified with the left are more likely to engage in direct-action mass protests that result in disorderly conduct and property damage.

Over to you. Edify me.
 
thethe said:
What will the messages be when civil right are not trampled on the next 4-8 years?
Click to expand...

yes, wiping those off the white house website as soon as possible gives me great comfort on how much civil rights is important to them
 
Garmel said:
Are you on the autistic spectrum? I'm curious.
Click to expand...

i know some special ed teachers who would argue everyone is autistic in someway

but what are you aiming at cause it seems like pretty awful tone

are you outraged over a cake like weso is or something?
 
Read the DOJ reports relased the last 2 months about Baltimore, Chicago, and Evangeline Parish. Violating your basic and constitutional rights is not even a crime. If you want rights become a police officer.
 
thethe said:
Has some thing real happened that impacted civil rights?
Click to expand...

There is a lawsuit against the state of Texas based on its Voter ID law. The federal district court found that the law was discriminatory in its intent and its effect. A conservative appeals court agreed that the law was discriminatory in its effect, but did not rule on intent. The case was bumped back down to the district court. It was due for a hearing next week. The Trump Justice Department filed for a delay in the hearing. Based on the public statements of the AG-designate, it's quite likely that the Justice Department will not pursue the case. If they do not . . . that's a real impact to civil rights that's happened within hours of DJT's assumption of office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top