Abrams calls for removal of Confederate faces off Stone Mountain

[Bill the Cat]

Well that's exactly what you did, otherwise your comment had no meaning.



I don't think you should try. The verdicts re abortion and SS Marriage have been decided by the highest court in the land and supported by the majority of the population. They're not like the Dred Scott case which was transparently unjust and based upon racial discrimination.

RvW was based on bad science and emotionalism while SSM was based on emotional claptrap and ignorance of past precedent (Specifically Atherton v Atherton which was never cited by the majority)

[Jedidiah]

Here. "Look at my video in this thread and find others on line, the bricks and bottles are only going one way". Done. Will you acknowledge it?

Give me an honest example, not a twisted opinion. You have not given me one link to any Evangelical on TWeb who claimed that only one the BLM And Communists were guilty. If you think you have seen such a thing link to it, or admit you do not have any such example.

[Jedidiah]

. . . It is generally considered in our society that Fascism = bad and anti-Fascism = good. Except among Evangelicals it seems.

As an evangelical I find Fascism is bad, in spite of lies to the contrary from a couple bad eggs. Anti-Fascism is not a single position, unlike Fascism. I see Fascism as bad but the rioters opposing KKK, et al, are not my friends. So some anti-Fascism is good and some, like BLM and communist rioters, are bad.

[Sparko]

The Antifa ARE fascists. They want to stop free speech and beat up people who don't agree with them, and they believe violence an acceptable political tactic. That's Fascism 101.

[Charles]

Stop lying Roy, I never said there was violence only on one side. Nor did I suggest that white supremacists were good.

You actually said: "And if the leftists did not show up in this latest incident there would have been no violence."

[Charles]

Give me an honest example, not a twisted opinion. You have not given me one link to any Evangelical on TWeb who claimed that only one the BLM And Communists were guilty. If you think you have seen such a thing link to it, or admit you do not have any such example.

It is a good example. Try to read it again and reconsider. I guess you will find that he is right. If not I would like to see your interpretation of

"Look at my video in this thread and find others on line, the bricks and bottles are only going one way." Where does this leave room for both sides being equally guilty? Or even both sides being guilty to at least some extent. Only one side is mentioned.

"And if the leftists did not show up in this latest incident there would have been no violence." If the same would have gone the other way around then why only mention the "leftists"? And since the others would (according to seer) have caused no violence then where does that leave the guilt for all the violence?

I would like to see an explanation. Calling it dishonest is not fair. Nor does it explain anything.

[seer]

It is a good example. Try to read it again and reconsider. I guess you will find that he is right. If not I would like to see your interpretation of

"Look at my video in this thread and find others on line, the bricks and bottles are only going one way." Where does this leave room for both sides being equally guilty? Or even both sides being guilty to at least some extent. Only one side is mentioned.

"And if the leftists did not show up in this latest incident there would have been no violence." If the same would have gone the other way around then why only mention the "leftists"? And since the others would (according to seer) have caused no violence then where does that leave the guilt for all the violence?

I would like to see an explanation. Calling it dishonest is not fair. Nor does it explain anything.

Right, there would have been no violence if the left had their protest on a different day, just like in Boston recently where it was the left alone causing the problems, or at Berkeley, or the Portland May Day riots. But I did not say that only the left was violent in Charlottesville - that was obviously not true since one of the supremacists actually ran people down.

[Sparko]

You actually said: "And if the leftists did not show up in this latest incident there would have been no violence."

if the leftists didn't show up with bats and ready to fight who would the KKK have fought with?

Both sides wanted a fight and they got it.

[Charles]

Right, there would have been no violence if the left had their protest on a different day, just like in Boston recently where it was the left alone causing the problems, or at Berkeley, or the Portland May Day riots. But I did not say that only the left was violent in Charlottesville - that was obviously not true since one of the supremacists actually ran people down.

Here is what you said:

"Well they started it, the left has been showing violence for the last year. A congressman, and three others, shot by a leftist, 5 cops in Dallas killed by a Black Lives Matters follower, countless properties destroyed by Antifa. And in Virginia it was the left that started throwing bottles and bricks. Look at my video in this thread and find others on line, the bricks and bottles are only going one way. And if the leftists did not show up in this latest incident there would have been no violence."

I only see you pointing towards the "leftists" and no one else? Can you please show me where you blame anyone but the leftists in the text?

[Charles]

if the leftists didn't show up with bats and ready to fight who would the KKK have fought with?

Both sides wanted a fight and they got it.

But you point to both sides. Seer only pointed to the leftists. Your presentation is more fair than his was. But it does nothing to change what he actually wrote.

[Sparko]

It is a good example. Try to read it again and reconsider. I guess you will find that he is right. If not I would like to see your interpretation of

"Look at my video in this thread and find others on line, the bricks and bottles are only going one way." Where does this leave room for both sides being equally guilty? Or even both sides being guilty to at least some extent. Only one side is mentioned.

"And if the leftists did not show up in this latest incident there would have been no violence." If the same would have gone the other way around then why only mention the "leftists"? And since the others would (according to seer) have caused no violence then where does that leave the guilt for all the violence?

I would like to see an explanation. Calling it dishonest is not fair. Nor does it explain anything.

The KKK and the right-wing nutjobs actually had a PERMIT to be there. The left just showed up.

But the KKK goons knew they would show up and were ready for a fight. They wanted a fight. And the left gave it to them. But if the left didn't show up to fight, then there would have been no fight. That doesn't make the KKK innocent or peaceful, it just means they would not have had anyone to fight with. But the KKK were there first and had permission to be there. The antifa and BLM did not.

[seer]

Here is what you said:

"Well they started it, the left has been showing violence for the last year. A congressman, and three others, shot by a leftist, 5 cops in Dallas killed by a Black Lives Matters follower, countless properties destroyed by Antifa. And in Virginia it was the left that started throwing bottles and bricks. Look at my video in this thread and find others on line, the bricks and bottles are only going one way. And if the leftists did not show up in this latest incident there would have been no violence."

I only see you pointing towards the "leftists" and no one else? Can you please show me where you blame anyone but the leftists in the text?

Yes I recounted the recent history of leftist violence - and? And I said they started it, not that they were the only one doing violence.

[Sparko]

But you point to both sides. Seer only pointed to the leftists. Your presentation is more fair than his was. But it does nothing to change what he actually wrote.

If you read that thread in context...

oh wait, that would be too much trouble. Much easier to sit on the sidelines and nitpick. Carry on.

[Charles]

The KKK and the right-wing nutjobs actually had a PERMIT to be there. The left just showed up.

But the KKK goons knew they would show up and were ready for a fight. They wanted a fight. And the left gave it to them. But if the left didn't show up to fight, then there would have been no fight. That doesn't make the KKK innocent or peaceful, it just means they would not have had anyone to fight with. But the KKK were there first and had permission to be there. The antifa and BLM did not.

Again you are both providing information and giving a more balanced presentation. I think this is what seer should have done. It was a very one sided presentation.

[Sparko]

Again you are both providing information and giving a more balanced presentation. I think this is what seer should have done. It was a very one sided presentation.

because you are reading his post in isolation.