grego

NO! you MUST pick a side! one is right and one is wrong and thats that.

i think that was his point.

I can't explain it but I kinda like that guy. It's understandable that he's shaken up over having a gun drawn on him and, while he's yelling at the cop, I never got the impression that he was out of control. I think he was speaking intelligently and from the heart and that's endearing. (juxtaposed with some people who go nuts on cops knowing that they can - such as that drunk chick a few months ago going insane on that black cop on the street). I would like to know if there's an actual, real reason the cop drew his gun. Like, was there a shooting and the car matched a description of a car involved, etc.

oops nevermind. looks like its already going on

is there cooley film breakdown today? or is that tomorrow?

race obsession aside, i would say most people are down with anti fascism. its the loose definition of 'fascist', combined with the loose definition of self defense (also employed by people like abortion clinic bombers/shooters as well as jihadists) which provides the justification for violence.

Agree with the first part (that I edited out). Just a question /clarification about blm - I didn't bring them up. I responded after they were brought up by multiple posters that referred to their image being smeared as a terrorist group. The accusations of their acceptance of violence are not unfounded.

I have heard varying accounts of the shooting that she was found guilty of. I haven't figured out yet where I stand on whether or not she pulled the trigger that day. At the end of the day, I feel the same way about her as I do Rasmeah Odeh (another woman convicted of terrorism who maintains her innocence) or the 'non white supremacists' who marched in Charlottesville - you are knowingly associating with a known terrorist group. The black liberation army killed 17 cops in the 70s and early 80s. And this wasn't the first police shooting she was allegedly involved in.

I don't know if I'd say blm is a terrorist group. The problem is they give the opposition too much ammo. Their spiritual leader is, literally, a terrorist. That's not good. And they haven't always denounced violent chants by the few idiots at the rallies. They've refused to denounce leaders who say racist, violent things. Its a bad look. It's also not great for those who are anti police brutality, anti racism and pro gay rights who otherwise might get behind the movement.

I have read the same. The lines do get blurry with political movements. Good on them for separating themselves at least.

'Provoking violence is always bad' I wish we could all just agree on that statement.

I can't claim to know that much about the patriots, but I understand they are anti - racism. Can you fill me on how they provoke violence? I truly don't know.

Yes. As far as I can tell (and fill me on if this is incorrect), Boston and Berkeley weren't nazi or racist rallies. Boston had like 20 people with black lives do matter signs, supporting an Indian immigrants running for some political office. Berkeley was explicitly anti racist, anti hate. Antifa crashed both events with violence. Even the Washington post reported it this way -" Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley" https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/ I agree with the last part you posted. The name is ironic. 'Fascist' seems to have become 'anyone we don't like'

Just saw that. Awful news. I can't imagine what he's going through. Prayers.

Listening on that radio Loving how they are playing so far.

i was just looking at those. https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states seems to me slavery was the main reason for their secession. not sure what the counter-argument to this is. (they only mentioned slavery, but it was really something else?) states rights- as in, the northern states should not have the right to tell southerners passing through that they can't do so with someone they consider property. so, technically, states rights. i would say that kind of whitewashes the actual issue, doesnt it? https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html?utm_term=.312649065f86 As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war’s various battles — from Fort Sumter to Appomattox — let’s first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began. 1. The South seceded over states’ rights. Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery. On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War. South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.” In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer — and South Carolina’s delegates were outraged.

......... nearly a second George Takei gif

"self defense", defined loosely, is the slipperiest of slopes. (as much as one loves to see nazis punched)

Not that I can read minds, but I don't think Kilmer was trying to troll. I think he was genuinely asking what would be next because it has been on the radar - things like schools named after historical people who were slave owners (jmu, Woodrow Wilson school at Princeton, the San Francisco school board for a few examples). How big of a deal it is debatable. I agree that the confederacy is a good line to have, but there are definitely people who would have us go further. It's an interesting topic and he did say one appropriate for another thread. I could be wrong but I don't think any motives were dishonest.

I don't know how many people were thinking "white supremacist... OK. ran car into crowd of people.... OK. Beats mom..... Oh, hell no! "

I dunno about that. There are a lot of white people in the country. How many white families feel that way?

Yep. No masn (at the moment) but they do have csn. Basically, you have to get the basic cable package (or get the mlb package with a fake ip address of you're in market) to watch local baseball. As far as complaining and negotiating, that definitely usually works. But, in the past 3 or so years, I've dropped both Comcast and Verizon because they refused to budge. And I wasn't asking for an outrageous deal. About a month after I dropped fios (after they kept charging me for HBO, etc after I dropped it. Twice) they came out with a deal that was actually cheaper than what I was asking for- my bill would have been basically half what I was paying under that deal.

Whoa, bro.