Jump to content

After criticism, White House says Trump condemns KKK, neo-Nazis


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 277
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

43 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Actually, I believe the statue of Robert E Lee should remain. It's part of history. Trying to force 21st century morals onto the past is damned stupid.

Slavery was widely condemned in the 18th century, and long before.

It was abolished in America in the 19th century.

The statue was erected in the 20th century, almost two generations after the Civil War.

 

Generally, the purpose of heroic statues in public spaces is to celebrate great men and to inspire the public to aspire to similar greatness. Was a warrior who led soldiers to fight to perpetuate slavery a great man? Is a defender of slavery something for the public to aspire to?

 

The statue was never about history. It was a referees engineered monument to The Lost Cause. These pretend war memorials were themselves efforts at racial devaluation, made long after the Civil War, when flaming torches had stopped working but adverse possession and racial rezoning could still do the trick.

 

May I suggest the following article:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2017/06/how_charlottesville_s_confederate_statues_helped_decimate_the_city_s_historically.html

 

From the above link:

 

The statues of Jackson and Lee not only symbolize the violence of the ongoing displacements of gentrification; they also initiated and facilitated these changes when they were first put up. Strategically erecting these symbols of the Confederacy at the edges of or atop black and nonwhite immigrant communities provided Charlottesville’s white elite with a means of physically buttressing their ever-fragile hold of white supremacy. To understand this is to understand Charlottesville’s demographic population shifts throughout the 20th and 21st centuries and how the statues physically bisect those gentrifying spaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump Just Retweeted a Cartoon of the “#TrumpTrain” Running Someone Over. Then He Retweeted a Tweet Calling Him a Fascist.

Just two days after a white supremacist Donald Trump supporter was charged with running over anti-racist protesters and murdering one of them, Trump retweeted a cartoon approvingly showing the “#TrumpTrain” running someone over.

That someone was labeled “CNN,” making the retweet reminiscent of a Trump tweet from July, in which the president retweeted a fake video of himself body-slamming and punching CNN.

Whether by accident or because he didn’t think these previous tweets were quite clear enough, he then retweeted another, less approving tweet calling him a “fascist.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/15/trump_retweets_trumptrain_running_over_cnn.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

Or maybe, without the counter protesters fueled by Trump hate, it would have gone on largely un-noticed, and been a total non event as it deserved to be.

 

Oh yeah, let's ignore the gun-toting, Nazi flag-waving white Supremacist hate mongers as they take over a city center to spew their racist ideology. 

 

They needed to be confronted at the time and place they spewed their ugly poison. 

 

The tragedy of the day was caused when one of the Nazis plowed his car into a group of counter protesters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:


Muslim terrorists aren't his base.

Yes and it gets right to the very crux of the matter. Donald Trump acts only for Donald Trump , its all about him and how he can gain advantage from any situation. Make no mistake , he would sell anybody down the river , and I include friends and family , if he thought it would help him personally.

Its hard these days not to be cynical regarding those in public life who are meant to serve us , but as in most things the degree of self interest is relative. Does anybody truly believe that the current president cares even the slightest degree about the citizens or fortunes of the USA , excepting instances that directly benefit him of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

So you condone violence from 'true patriots', but not others?  The Republicans would see themselves as true patriots too.   It's all a matter of perspective.

Interesting, it was US liberals who won our freedom from the British and it was the US conservatives who remained loyal to the British.  US liberals wrote the documents containing our tenets of government and guided our liberal progressive doctrines which have freed much of the world. So, I doubt conservatives hold sole claim to being patriots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

5 hours ago, Thakkar said:

.. this is about mothereffing NAZIS marching shamelessly in an American city in 2017 and then legitimately feeling that THE PRESIDENT has their back!!

 

 

wow…pure and dangerous speculation.

 

1)  Were there NAZI's marching shamelessly in an American city in 2017?..........Answer....yes! See the news and countless videos (a good one below here).

 

2) Did the same NAZI's have the legitimate feeling that the President has their back?............Answer........Yes, as the various tweets and blood articles show where the NAZI's are saying what a good man the President was for not naming them and that the President did not condemn them!

 

So what exactly about the post was "wow! pure and dangerous speculation"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mikebike said:

I'll let Thakkar answer:

 

Right, because you can't logically defend yourself because the poorly thought out comment you made had no relation to mine in any way whatsoever. Go back to what you are good at, being a sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, csabo said:

500 "gun-toting, Nazi flag-waving white Supremacist hate mongers" out of 323 million people hardly represents a threat of revolution. Stop sucking the inflammatory media schlong.

April 6, 2017
Congressional Requesters
"Violent extremism—generally defined as supporting or committing violent acts to achieve political, ideological, religious, or social goals—has been perpetrated and promoted by a broad range of groups in the United States for decades. Such groups include white supremacists, antigovernment groups, and groups with extreme views on abortion, animal rights, the environment, and federal ownership of public lands; and radical Islamist entities, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), among others."

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf

 

pages 29 and ff :  Number of Violent Extremist-linked Incidents and Resulting Fatalities in the United States from September 12, 2001 through December 31, 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Propellerhead said:

They were itching for a fight and are proud they inflicted casualties.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

Steve Bannon, Steven Miller and Gorka must cream their pants when they watch the opening minutes of that. Trump will be thinking 'those are my boys, those are my base".

 

Very Sad America.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump has now doubled down of violence by the left during the Charlesville protests, saying there were "very, very violent" and again attacking the media during his statement. It's extraordinary this man has such terrible lack of capability to deescalate tensions. To date have any numbers been reported on those attacked & injured by the left during the protests? 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/15/politics/trump-charlottesville-delay/index.html

 

After looking at the numbers in the US Government report provided by member OPL above, there have been no murders by the extreme left during the report period (12/09/2001 - 21/12/2016). For the period, murders by individuals from far right groups in the US exceed the combined total for all other extremist groups; obviously excludes 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, csabo said:

Right, because you can't logically defend yourself because the poorly thought out comment you made had no relation to mine in any way whatsoever. Go back to what you are good at, being a sheep.

No, because I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out for you twice.

 

You believe in free speech, great, who the fark doesn't?

 

Where your Venn crosses Neville's is, obviously, in the appeasement department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Thakkar said:

Oh yeah, let's ignore the gun-toting, Nazi flag-waving white Supremacist hate mongers as they take over a city center to spew their racist ideology. 

 

They needed to be confronted at the time and place they spewed their ugly poison. 

 

The tragedy of the day was caused when one of the Nazis plowed his car into a group of counter protesters. 

So you don't believe in free speech then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PattayaJames said:

limits set by who? You?

ANTIFA?

The mob on the street?

But BLM can say what they want. 

The US Supreme Court. However, as you probably well know legislation differs between legal jurisdictions. Freedom of Speech is an ongoing discussion in most Western countries. e.g. in some countries it is illegal to support Nazism, but obviously not in the US.

 

If you are a supporter of unrestricted 'free speech", why on earth do you reside in Thailand?

Edited by simple1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, PattayaJames said:

So you don't believe in free speech then.

So You don't believe in reading comprehension then.

 

"Confronting" means to be there to tell them that we disagree, that what they say and do is wrong and show them that while they are free to spew their obnoxiousness, others are there to pushback at it.

 

It is different from "denial"

 

Get a dictionary, you're embarrassing yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SouthernDelight said:

One can not /read/ comprehension per se; One requires certain brain functions to get a meaning of something...

It's a common refrain from The Right:

"I can say any [insert obnoxious] thing I want"

But you point out that the things they are saying is stupid/obnoxious/wrong, they whine that their speech is being curtailed. To them, being lampooned, rediculed, factually corrected—and, dare I say, confronted—is the same as being denied free speech. Too stupid to use their words, they use their whine. No wonder the Whitney whiner, Trump is their hero.

 

I whine and I whine.

And I whine till I win.

And then I whine some more

Till I double win win.

 

Tv35.jpeg.0cccfdba2fc43d107eda99cad7860a7c.jpeg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

"Confronting" means to be there to tell them that we disagree, that what they say and do is wrong and show them that while they are free to spew their obnoxiousness, others are there to pushback at it.

Unfortunately, ANTIFA are not capable of this. Without bringing violence with them.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...