JCauto

1 minute ago, Trouble said:

Can't see where Trump took the side of the white-supremacists and in fact denounced them. Trump could put them all before a firing squad at this point and it would be said he supports them.  Citing Arab extremists is a pathetic attempt to create an analogy that does not exist and has no bearing on the issue at hand. Now Trump and Kushner are arms dealers? Why not call Trump anti-semitic too? 

It's called "equivalence", trying to make an extreme side appear to be similar to one that is not extreme. It's become one of the most common tactics. He used it again when he referred to the "Alt Left", a construct that does not actually exist in any real sense. As noted by one wag on Twitter, "Alt Left attempts to equate White Supremacism with people who want single payer health care". Anyone can see these are in no way the same thing. Similarly, anyone can see that a bunch of Neo-Nazis bearing torches, making Nazi and KKK salutes and screaming "Jews will not replace us" are not the same as a group of people there to oppose racism. I presume you oppose racism. Does that make you similar in outlook to a White Supremacist but just on the other side? I think you'd object to that.

I agree about the Arab extremist/arms dealers point. Irrelevant.

2 minutes ago, Opl said:

so I must understand " blood and soil" is part of Robert E. Lee's legacy ..? 

As the Confederate General used to say "Jews will not replace us!"

4 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Only in America could you have these Rambo Clowns walking down the street as part of their 'Rights'.

Ahem. Those are "peaceful protesters".

2 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Shows how stupid the city government was in allowing to opposing forces to protest at the same location. Just asking for problems. 

Agreed. But I don't think they really had much choice, they tried to move the original site location because it was too small and it got challenged in court and had to be granted. Similarly, I don't think you're allowed to make protesters go unarmed or unarmored to demonstrations due to their 2nd Amendment. I don't believe the police will come out very well after this is examined intensively.

It will be a matter of time before the heavily armed on one side or another decide to open up and we get a real massacre. The nexus of racism and gun laws almost ensures it.

An unusual pivot amongst our racist friends on this thread is the sudden emergence of a Yellow-White alliance. Seems all of those in favour of equating the KKK and Neo-Nazis with BLM and Antifa draw a direct parallel to the Yellow-Red conflict. I suppose I can see some minor similarities, but I would in no way equate the actions and ideals of the Yellows, however much I am disappointed in their acceptance of the Junta, with these racist scum. It does however lend more credence to my opinion as to which side is on the correct side of history with respect to Thailand.

"Round up the usual suspects..."

9 minutes ago, 212Roger said:

The "Unite The Right" has the right to protest, just like the leftist liberals.  Also, they had a permit to protest.  The left started the dispute, all while the police sat on their hands.  To quote Rambo, the left "drew first blood."

And it's now come out that the counter-protesters ALSO had a permit to protest. So take that one off of your talking points. And it's also coming out that the clergy who were there as passive protesters observed the clashes and, unsurprisingly, it was the Alt-Right who incited and started the violence. So, sorry, try again! 

13 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

He plays youse guys like a fiddle, doesn't he?

 

#pcfeelgoodvibesbybarry

I know! Imagine, being on the right side of history and providing leadership to the majority of Americans, rather than a narrow group of narrow-minded bigots. I guess that's what you'll have to do, imagine having competent leadership, because what we got ain't getting any better any time soon. 

So tell us JHolmesJr, what is it that the mean ol' libtards did to make you so angry? Did you not achieve your full potential? Why so bitter?

32 minutes ago, iReason said:

GOP lawmakers react to Trump: “very fine people” don’t participate in rallies with racist chants

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/15/16154212/gop-lawmakers-react-to-trump-charlottesville

 

While I seldom find myself in agreement with Republicans, I must give kudos to these guys for standing up for what's right. Good on them. 

14 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

You think I would've posted that if I'd known the author was from Infowars?? It proves I don't follow Infowars.

And it changes nothing. I still refuse to support any violent hate group on either side like the guy said I must. Unlike you all who support a far-left militant hate group.

 

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to follow the Alt-Right playbook. I hope that this is indeed reflective of a confused mind who doesn't understand fully what BS he's been fed. Unfortunately I suspect not given the proven disingenuousness of your posts. 

It's always a surprise to me to discover how deep the roots of prejudice and extremism run, and how well they mesh with conspiracy theories. I suppose none of you ever question why you're in Thailand, home to an entire nation of people whom you'd as soon toss out of the USA given half a chance.

29 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

You are wrong with your biased summary of Antifa. You are just relaying their lies and propaganda.

This is who Antifa really are and why I deem them as a bigger threat than the alt or far right.

https://lecf-inc.org/jerome-r-corsi-articles/2017/7/30/how-the-violent-hard-left-antifa-movement-copies-communists-in-weimar-republic-germany

 

You are wrong with your biased summary of Antifa, says the guy who then quotes Jerome Corsi of Infowars.

You sure showed me! This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

8 hours ago, KunMatt said:

It's really not that complicated. I oppose all hate groups, especially Antifa.

 

 

Yes, it's not that complicated, and thanks for clarifying. So here's the two groups for comparison.

Group 1: Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists. Believe in establishing an Ethno-State in the USA, where only White people are allowed. Preparing for an upcoming war they hope to spark. Actively campaigning to build their movement from the dark side of the internet to where they can be out in the open and push for legitimacy. Believe in killing other people to achieve their goals and have done so on numerous occasions. Comprise approximately 2/3 of the domestic terrorism incidents in the USA over the last 9 years.

Group 2: Antifa. Believe in fighting only against racism, sexism and Anti-Semitism. Confine their activities to confronting Group 1 and similarly-minded people. Will use violence as a tool, but will not cross the line into killing. Actively campaigning to increase their numbers as well, but are not a political movement. Have caused some minor property damage and assaulted some individuals, none of whom have been severely injured or killed. No record of domestic terrorism in the USA over the last 9 years.

And you hate Group 2 more than Group 1. Yep, clear.

2 hours ago, KunMatt said:

 

Well yes, Antifa have been designated a terror group by the authorities.

https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa

Also, any search for Antifa on any media site will bring up nothing but videos of Antifa being thugs and terrorising everyone around them.

After Charlottesville, Antifa are going to be very much in the public eye. So everytime they crack civilians over the head with bike D-Locks or beat the hell out of people because they don't agree with them, then this will be covered in the news.

And soon enough what I said about them being a fascist hate group will be common knowledge and undeniable. And this post with all your praise for a violent extremist hate group will still be here for all to see.

 

Sorry, but that is a far cry from "being designated a terror group by the authorities". Did you bother to read it? The only reference is to "counterterrorism" as a keyword placed just below the headline. And will you stop going on about they're being fascist? You clearly don't know the meaning of the word. The bloody name of the group is a contraction of "Anti-Fascist" for Gawd's sake.

The list of things they've done is kind of embarrassing in comparison to the Alt-Right thugs. Not a single murder! Disrupting Right-Wing rallies and demonstrations seems to be their major activity. As to whomever wrote this fine document, all I can say about them is to quote their own words. "Perceived injustices" indeed!

"Anti-fascist groups, or “Antifa,” are a subset of the anarchist movement and focus on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices."

20 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

 

I know it goes against your agenda but Antifa are a hate group. They are also technically a terrorist group too.

Just because they don't fit in with the current new definition of a hate group, they most definitely are a mob of violent thugs driven by hate. You can continue to pretend to not know this but soon enough it will be undeniable.

So again, I condemn all hate groups, including Antifa. Maybe especially Antifa seeing as they are the root cause of all is this really.

 

 

So you just keep repeating "Antifa and BLM are hate groups", like a proper parrot, and using similar logic, i.e., things you've been taught to repeat by your masters. But you've already acknowledged that they're not a hate group, at least according to our current definitions. Just yours.

So tell us KunMatt, why are Antifa and BLM "violent hate groups"? Do you have any evidence other than just repeating it over and over again? This is just more equivalence, desperately trying to equate one side to a far more extreme and vicious opposite. Provide us some facts that enable us to judge whether this is true or not. Similar to others, I hadn't even been aware of whatever Antifa is prior to this discussion, it's just an Alt-Right code word. How many people have they killed? How many buildings have they blown up? Can you explain why 2/3 of the violent extremist terrorism that occurs in the USA is from Right-Wing Extremists?

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

BTW, I wasn't attempting humor when I posted about BLM.  Perhaps because I spent a number of years in the western US, when I read BLM I think of Bureau of Land Management.

Not just there - much of the irrigation work done in Thailand was based on the Bureau's excellent standard designs and guidance but adjusted for the local conditions.

21 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What has "Old Glory" got to do with this?

These people are so bereft of facts and understanding that they believe the Confederate Flag is "Old Glory". No doubt they read about it on Breitbart.

Google it. It's the flag of the United States of America, the ones who fought against the Confederacy.

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

I respectfully disagree with you

and state again.  

You are only for free speech when you allow that which you disagree with  otherwise you engage at a different form of fascism.

I am , as we all should be against all forms of fasism

No disrespect to you, you have have being pleasant and reasonable in this little conversation we had, and I appreciate   you taking the time to engage me in this , But I don't know how many different ways I can make the same point.

 

 

I understand your point and respectfully disagree. I believe you do need to confront evil, and if you don't then you normalize it. I still maintain that anyone is allowed to say what they like, but they're in no way guaranteed either the peace/forum/venue to do so nor are they insulated from the consequences of whatever it is they say. I do believe that providing them with equivalence damages the overall quality of dialogue and makes us dumber for it.
night and good luck.

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

I don,t know who threw the first punch , I am not sure anyone knows.

But that's not the point

The counter protesters were not there express their right of free speech they were there to   disrupt other people's right.

They could just as easily have had a counter protest later  after the right wingers, at a different location . or a different day , Their counter protest could had being peaceful and on point, showing the world how they were different.

Instead they took the bate and crawled in the mud with them .

Of course they were! They were there to let the world know that these idiots were not representative of the views of the majority and that they supported the decision to remove the statue. And it's very effective, after all, there were far more of them and it was a far more diverse group of people. A protest after they left would have been less effective, and in fact would have provided the idiots with the kind of false equivalence that we're seeing more and more of. 

As with Scott Pruitt of the EPA forming "Red" and "Blue" teams to "debate" climate change, this is simply a tactic designed to provide an illusion that there is serious doubt about an issue (there is not, at least among those who are informed) and to give the whacko viewpoint some kind of standing beyond what it has earned. Climate change deniers were provided opportunity to review the data and findings and despite having enormous funding to do so failed to sway scientific consensus. Why should they now be given a national platform and megaphone to broadcast what they already have had discredited by the best informed and trained people on the issue? I use this as a parallel, obviously. Similarly, the view that White people are superior to others has been completely discredited. Why should they be allowed to protest without having more enlightened people demonstrate to show that they're both wrong and that their views are contrary to those of civil society? 

Just now, sirineou said:

In a free society people are free to express their point of view  ( how ever wrong) within the limits of the law. If they exceed the legal limits it is the responsibility of the police to arrest them and the legal system to prosecute them . Anything else is vigilantism.

Agreed. So I ask you once again, do you have any information to the effect that these people were prevented from protesting or that the counter-protesters were the ones to start the fighting?

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Those of you who know how I feel about Trump and his kind. Also know how I feel about free speech.

You are for free speech only when you protect the free speech you disagree with. 

If those right wing idiots were allowed to protest, non of this would have happened, and they would had being exposed for the idiots they are.

But it takes two to tango ,

 don't forget not even for a moment that fascism can exist on the left as well as the right.  

Nobody prevented these idiots from protesting. I don't believe it's at all been determined who started the fighting. I don't understand why they didn't have more of a police presence to ensure that the violence didn't break out, but that's a different issue. 

The right to free speech does not include the right to be immune from the consequences of your free speech, one of which is to have people who disagree with you express that point of view, or even drown it out. I noted this previously in my point about the Westboro Baptist Church. They're free to obnoxiously offend people, just as others are free to reduce their effectiveness at doing so by having counter-protests. Is your point that they should have prevented people from counter-protesting? Wouldn't that infringe upon their rights?

38 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

What gets me  wondering about America. Is if it is the land of freedom of expression why do people always have to disrupt right wing protests? Do they not have the right to free speech also? They should be allowed their say. No one has to listen no one has to care what they say but they have the right to say it.If right wingers used violence to stop anything they would be the bad guys and go to jail. If right wing protests have violent thugs show up and destroy the protest it is ok. This is not the American way that America tries to say it is.Seems as though violence against right wingers is ok. Quite a double standard as I see it  speaking as an outsider.

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of "free speech"? They're free to protest, just as the left wingers are free to counter-protest. Both occur regularly. Do you think that nobody should counter-protest or prevent the Westboro Church people from disrupting funerals of soldiers for example? Or is your outrage confined only to the Right?

Do you have information that the rest of us do not about who started the fights/violence? We do know already that the guy who drove his car into a group of protesters at 40kph and then reversed back into them was a Right-Wing Neo-Nazi. Care to comment on that? Was that terrorism?

1 hour ago, rkidlad said:

I don't think he understands how paying money for a service works. Does he really think people who've been paid to go will stop because he said so? Or is he just finding a passive way to insinuate there will be fake supporters? 

 

Being paid to like someone or having a gun to your head and being forced to like someone? Time for both sides to be banned and make way for brand new people. 

So you're buying the General's <deleted>? This is nothing more than the usual trotting out of lies about why people support the Shins, "because they're paid". It's BS when it comes to elections, and it's BS when it comes to this situation. Recognize that there is strong support for them and for very good reasons. You may not like those reasons, or that politician, but to pretend that there's only paid supporters is to decide deliberately to avoid reality. Then again, that's a very Thai trait, the primacy of appearance over reality.

Say, Mr. Meechai, could you give us an estimate of just HOW MANY freaking constitutions you've written over the years at the behest of various juntas? And how many have managed to make the slightest difference? Every. Single. One. Has been ripped up and dispensed with at the first opportunity whenever the next coup happens, and then guess who shows up for a cushy two- to three-year position to rewrite the latest one?

Why does it take you so long? You must be the most experienced creator of short - lived constitutions the world has ever seen. Why do you keep doing it when it's clear it makes not the slightest difference? It's enablers like this that underlie Thailand 's endless cycle. The very definition of a shyster. 

1 minute ago, F4UCorsair said:

There's no doubt the US administration needs analysts like those posting here on TV, such clarity of thought, such tactical responses, such foolishness.

 

If Trump doesn't back up against this worm, he will walk all over whoever gets in his path.   Hopefully he'll realize before he sticks his head up too far, that it will be chopped off.  Bullies need to be opposed.

Well, Mr. Clarity-of-thought, could you kindly respond to my post that was directly quoting yours? Why is it you think the Left believes what you said they did? 

As to your post here, it seems indeed that you're in favour of a shooting war with NK. I presume you believe that the previous administration of the Kenyan Muslim guy didn't "back up" against this worm, and hence he was able to "walk all over whoever got in his path". Could you please detail exactly how the worm has done that? From what I can see, he's isolated in his impoverished gulag watching porno movies and desperately getting cash by exporting counterfeit currency and crappy restaurants. In your mind, has he managed to achieve some sort of strategic goal while doing so?

By the end of the Obama administration, NK was fully isolated and the Chinese were in the process of retrenching themselves in a far less supportive role.

4 minutes ago, tonray said:

It's funny...the Trump base wanted us to get out of foreign entanglements, cut ties and international agreements and focus on America. But now that they need a distraction from the sheer incompetency and plummeting poll numbers they are all in. Hypocrites.

 

Attacking NK will NOT get your coal mining jobs back, nor will it get you better health coverage, nor will it make America great again. Another war to make the Defense Industry more money and for Congressman to suck up to the taxpayer teat.

Exactly, this was sooooooooooo predictable. Anything to distract, people are becoming more attuned to the constant lies and attempts to change the focus.