Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charlottesville

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    I'm not defending the man here but on the face of the video, the shooter was reacting to a threat. The threat being a man using a spay can as a blow torch. The shooter shot a warning shot at the ground next to the man with the torch(I think it was BS doing that). The relevance of the charges is that the self defense standard is pretty strong in this case and they were looking for something else.
    Oh OK, so this is a different man than the car driver?

    And I keep asking.. have they arrested the torch man yet?

    On the Second degree murder charges for the driver, that revolves around intent. The lesser charges seem to be an indication the DA is shooting for the easier charge. Remember there was a left leaning journalist who stated that officers reported there may have not been malice.
    Always impossible to know what is in the mind of another person... but I think we can make up an accurate enough idea...

    I've seen these videos too...Showing the car driving away and back tracking around. The Maroon van sitting at the intersection for 5 minutes without a driver. Again, we would need to know what was going through this kids mind and the driver of the van. As far as conspiracy theories, I'm not on board with the program.
    Oh well...

    Closer to what? We all agree the bad people are bad!
    Closer to how people will react to the jury...

    They will follow your position and recognize and respect the legal process, and their results... Or they will call it corrupted and come with more conspiracy theories about the jury and what not...

    This is the BS I'm referring too. You nor I know the driver's intent! If he set out to do harm he will be dealt with...If it was any of the above, he will be dealt with. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't try to spin me.
    I would say I have a pretty clear idea of the driver's intent... like I have a pretty clear idea of what was in the mind of the people that crashed planes in NY buildings... I understand that I will never know 100% sure what was in their mind... maybe they take medications?...

    But this is the core of the issue here...

    I want to keep this option open... that is that he meant to do it...

    Then there is whole debate about not keeping that option open and I should consider anything but that option... I asked "why" and that did not sit well... neither...

    So I am not spinning your words... I am actually celebrating that we are goign to keep this option open... and of course seeking to start eliminating the ones that should not be there... and so we see at the end what options are left?

    But ones my option is included... Then we can start breaking each one of the options to see if they are actually viable in the giving situation... I mean if i get to interest enough people to participate in such exercice... 45 pages just to get to keep one option alive in the list... WOW. How long you think will it take me to debunk the other options?

    I am glad I have debunk some of the other options already.... Would you believe someone actually presented the option that he did not see the protesters on the street? Glad I was able to kill that in just 2 pages... Though I might not really know what he saw or not... and so it gets bring back as... it is possible he did not see any of them and he though he was driving in an empty street... until he hit the car, and so that is when he saw the people, panic and back up to escape the angry mob that was goign to lynch him... I hope the option that he did not see them doesn't come back.. but I am ready for it... anyway...

    Ah, by the way... Dubs in post #426 express some concern that I am here to infiltrate and spy the community... would help dubs if you tell what are your though on making me a moderator of the forum... I am such a crack I am sure I have convince you I am the guy for the job... LOL

    But it is all an infiltration operation, nonetheless. Payed for Soros... I first gain your trust, and seduce you with my wilds and then you trust me the moderation and... I don't know... But if it is possible... you can give some thoughts on that, so might dubs know that I failed my sneaky attempt?

    Don't have to make a big statement... from 1 to 10 how inclined are you on making me a moderator of the forums? Then again, no for me, I kind of have an idea of what it is... but for dubs... it is an actual real worried that dubs don't need to have... in my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • dubs
    replied
    Let us assume that racism (including intra-race racism) exists in the heart of every man.

    Without borders then we have tribalism, ancestor based social structure.

    Borders and civic nationalism enforce the idea that we don't care who your ancestors were.

    KKK doesn't like it, because KKK is white tribalism.

    Same as a Mexican who says "my ancestors lived here, so this area is mine."

    If we are gonna base things on ancestors, then white tribe should live in white area, black tribe should live in black area, etc etc.

    But isn't that how the whole thing started?

    ALL humans were once tribal and "ownership" was based on population and which tribe is better at killing, raping and enslaving the tribe next door.

    Europe at one point was ruled by "duchies" and every small piece of land had a duke or a king and a "du jour" ownership based on kinship and blood ties.

    So if you marry a french princess, that give you the right to invade France and invoke the right of blood.

    You think all of the stuff you're saying is avant garde but we've all seen this movie before.

    I'm not saying that the status quo is the final stage of human development.

    I'm saying that ignoring borders is a giant step backwards.

    Globalization is a human eventuality, but it's not going to happen thru illegal immigration.

    It will be more similar to the EU shengen accords.

    Voluntary confederation based on mutual BENEFITS.

    For example if Turkey wants membership to the EU, it must change its values, it must repudiate the Armenian Genocide, they cannot remain "Turkish Tribe" and be part of the EU.

    Likewise Mexico has to clean up its act.

    Why are people crossing the border? Because Mexico doesn't have opportunities, it's a bad economy, bad govt, lots of corruption, etc etc.

    So why the fuck should we voluntarily form confederation with them?

    You can scream "racism" all you want, just like the Turks.

    But this is not the fucking Red Cross, we are not a charity.

    Businessmen want other businessmen to do business with, not beggars or refugees.

    Security + Time = Eventual globalization.

    This will happen after development, not before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grumpy Old Man
    replied
    Finally... after 45 pages we are going to consider the option that he did it on purpose.

    So can we close the justifications that:

    - He was scare
    - He was sad
    - He was angry
    - He takes medications
    - Someone hit his car with a stick...

    ?

    Can we put those to sleep and start considering that he did it because he wanted to hurt those people, because he hates them?
    This is the BS I'm referring too. You nor I know the driver's intent! If he set out to do harm he will be dealt with...If it was any of the above, he will be dealt with. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't try to spin me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grumpy Old Man
    replied
    simpleman;218798]Ok this is a first... as far as I understand... he was not shooting at a school... what is up with that?
    I'm not defending the man here but on the face of the video, the shooter was reacting to a threat. The threat being a man using a spay can as a blow torch. The shooter shot a warning shot at the ground next to the man with the torch(I think it was BS doing that). The relevance of the charges is that the self defense standard is pretty strong in this case and they were looking for something else.

    On the Second degree murder charges for the driver, that revolves around intent. The lesser charges seem to be an indication the DA is shooting for the easier charge. Remember there was a left leaning journalist who stated that officers reported there may have not been malice.


    I think the problem is way deeper than that... a an example that link Manalysis posted earlier, where a guy publish his vieo of the car attack and he have being through in loops in the conspiracy theories...

    Now he is some sort of CIA agent, founded by Soros to stage the whole false flag car attack in order to take the second amendment away... or some like that... the way they spin it around is completely surreal.
    I've seen these videos too...Showing the car driving away and back tracking around. The Maroon van sitting at the intersection for 5 minutes without a driver. Again, we would need to know what was going through this kids mind and the driver of the van. As far as conspiracy theories, I'm not on board with the program.



    Let's give it some time... after jury talks, we come back to this and we see who was closer to it.
    Closer to what? We all agree the bad people are bad!

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    Here's the problem. I'm straightening the lines to get back on the OP and pointing out the relevant ideas under our law. You are bringing other BS into the discussion to justify your premises...masses of text like this is an argument to win, the premises are false and is simply a rabbit hole. I don't play that game.
    What BS?

    Everything I said was factual and on point. The Auto driver may very well have set out for violence and will be dealt with.
    Finally... after 45 pages we are going to consider the option that he did it on purpose.

    So can we close the justifications that:

    - He was scare
    - He was sad
    - He was angry
    - He takes medications
    - Someone hit his car with a stick...

    ?

    Can we put those to sleep and start considering that he did it because he wanted to hurt those people, because he hates them?

    The specificity of how Trump denounces the agitators is a political ploy full of BS. Please don't tell an American what our founding fathers intent was. I'm fully read on the documents.
    Full of BS... on both sides???

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    We can already see the way this is going with the charges...Second degree murder(auto), discharging a firearm within a 1000ft of a school(weapons discharge).
    Ok this is a first... as far as I understand... he was not shooting at a school... what is up with that?

    There certainly will be discussion on the viewable evidence vs the Jury, this is the problem with the access of information on the net.
    I think the problem is way deeper than that... a an example that link Manalysis posted earlier, where a guy publish his vieo of the car attack and he have being through in loops in the conspiracy theories...

    Now he is some sort of CIA agent, founded by Soros to stage the whole false flag car attack in order to take the second amendment away... or some like that... the way they spin it around is completely surreal.

    As far as being an optimist, I tend to view things from the present legal standing when trying to understand shit obfuscated by politics and the media. IMO that's pretty cynical.
    Let's give it some time... after jury talks, we come back to this and we see who was closer to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grumpy Old Man
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    Ok no sure we all agree... but yeah. more or less... I will go with this to see where it takes us... we all agree...



    Yeah so far this is how stuff is going...



    Close enough.. first statement he denounced them all... second statement he called out the neo-nazis, kkk and white supremacist... 3rth statement he say there is nice people in both sides...

    A bit different than your recollection... unless you saw soemethign else as 3th statement than what I saw... Still not important, the points still valid either case.



    Here is where I am starting to disagree...

    THere was way more than 2 sides on that place... the right was at leas represented for the KKK the neo-nazis, the white supremacists... but the white supremacists can be as many as 20 different sides... and that is the reason why I avoid talking about them in my rants... if you notice.. it is basically an umbrella term where a lot of different people is pack under the tag, for media convenience... And after all this, I will not completely discard the possibility that some people was there actually because they care about the statue... So you have right there several groups of different ideologies, of different backgrounds and with different motives.. that they happened to coincide in the demonstration is miracle, but i would not call them all 1 side...

    Then in the left corner... we have.. even more groups... including the antifa...

    This said... the car attack was not against the antifa... no antifa member went to the hospital or die because of it... But the claim is that... they are in the same side the antifa is... is that correct?



    SOme of the groups in the bunch... but it should not be a surprise that a paramilitary organization is set out to commit violence... that is basically the reason why they exist...



    Then again, some of the groups on the bunch....



    Well in this specific situation one "side" run a car over the other "side"... so in this specific situation the violence was not equal in both sides...

    The problem here is that Trump should denounce violence on each side, when each side commits violence... when the Antifa stab some Trump support, then yeah denounce the antifa by name, but don't say that both guys are equally violent... if one was wearing a red cap and the other was stabbing them... calling them both equally violent in say escenario would be like justifying the stabbing... or in the case of the car attack justifying the car running down a mas of people.



    I wonder how the founder fathers would have handled someone that was using his constitutional rights to undermine the constitution... Actually I think it happened in a couple of occasions... I think founder fathers agree with me... but... what do I know? How you think a Washington would handle a guy using public spaces to call him a pirate and a thief and incite people to go back to the british crown?



    Needles to say... we are an internet forum, no a constitutional assembly... LOL.
    Here's the problem. I'm straightening the lines to get back on the OP and pointing out the relevant ideas under our law. You are bringing other BS into the discussion to justify your premises...masses of text like this is an argument to win, the premises are false and is simply a rabbit hole. I don't play that game.

    Everything I said was factual and on point. The Auto driver may very well have set out for violence and will be dealt with. The specificity of how Trump denounces the agitators is a political ploy full of BS. Please don't tell an American what our founding fathers intent was. I'm fully read on the documents.

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    Agreed, as long as that also means the government cannot make anti-union legislation.
    Sure.. as long as workers union are actual real union of workers and not shields for the communist party to advance their political ideals....


    I'm afraid your ironic sarcasm is so sharp that it penetrates the target without touching any molecules ...

    M
    As long as nobody ask me how old is my friend I think I am safe... anyway, I can always say it was a metaphorical friend... the only real friends I ever have...

    Ditto. It was what socialism (originally conceived as a counterposition to individualism as a worldview) was all about, early in the 19th century.
    Then politicks happened.
    Yeah, they missed an important element, and that was the goodwill of people... you can't really put down social contract into a paper and call it a law... does not work that way. You can't really force people to be charitable or go to jail... fundamental reasons why socialist governments turn into the oppressive monsters they do... and at then end the economy is a mess.

    Works for everyone ... except Exxon.
    I have not idea what this is about.. what happened to Exxon?

    My, my ... sounds almost like a paradox ...

    M
    Probably... Socrates was a philosopher, they like to toy with those thing...

    Leave a comment:


  • Grumpy Old Man
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    You are definitely an optimists...

    My prediction is that regardless of what the jury decides one of the "sides" will call them corrupted... so the options right now are that the jury is racist or libtard...

    Would be interesting if I see in the forums, few months from now... people trashing the jury and saying that they ignore such and such evidence... and so on...

    You can tell I am not an optimist...

    And the option o a presidential pardon is not completely out of the table....
    We can already see the way this is going with the charges...Second degree murder(auto), discharging a firearm within a 1000ft of a school(weapons discharge).

    There certainly will be discussion on the viewable evidence vs the Jury, this is the problem with the access of information on the net. As far as being an optimist, I tend to view things from the present legal standing when trying to understand shit obfuscated by politics and the media. IMO that's pretty cynical.

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    *Now the Caveat: In the maylay it is hard to discern who started what in each instance. Some of us are waiting for the Jury. An American tradition!
    You are definitely an optimists...

    My prediction is that regardless of what the jury decides one of the "sides" will call them corrupted... so the options right now are that the jury is racist or libtard...

    Would be interesting if I see in the forums, few months from now... people trashing the jury and saying that they ignore such and such evidence... and so on...

    You can tell I am not an optimist...

    And the option o a presidential pardon is not completely out of the table....

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    It's what happens when the premise of the OP is faulty and the person arguing it is seeking to refute as opposed to understand. Let me Clarify:

    Nazis standing outside a Synagogue intimidating is bad(your antidote). We all agree.
    Ok no sure we all agree... but yeah. more or less... I will go with this to see where it takes us... we all agree...

    Trump not condemning violence at the rally. We do not agree.
    Yeah so far this is how stuff is going...

    Fact: Trump denounced "all sides" for violence in his original statement, elaborated in his second to include the Racist groups. Then he included Antifa in the third. You present a faulty premise IMO.
    Close enough.. first statement he denounced them all... second statement he called out the neo-nazis, kkk and white supremacist... 3rth statement he say there is nice people in both sides...

    A bit different than your recollection... unless you saw soemethign else as 3th statement than what I saw... Still not important, the points still valid either case.

    Both sides came "prepared" for violence. We all agree.
    Here is where I am starting to disagree...

    THere was way more than 2 sides on that place... the right was at leas represented for the KKK the neo-nazis, the white supremacists... but the white supremacists can be as many as 20 different sides... and that is the reason why I avoid talking about them in my rants... if you notice.. it is basically an umbrella term where a lot of different people is pack under the tag, for media convenience... And after all this, I will not completely discard the possibility that some people was there actually because they care about the statue... So you have right there several groups of different ideologies, of different backgrounds and with different motives.. that they happened to coincide in the demonstration is miracle, but i would not call them all 1 side...

    Then in the left corner... we have.. even more groups... including the antifa...

    This said... the car attack was not against the antifa... no antifa member went to the hospital or die because of it... But the claim is that... they are in the same side the antifa is... is that correct?

    The demonstrators(Right) set out to commit violence. We agree based on the outcome.
    SOme of the groups in the bunch... but it should not be a surprise that a paramilitary organization is set out to commit violence... that is basically the reason why they exist...

    The Counter demonstrators(Left) set out to commit violence. We do not agree:
    Then again, some of the groups on the bunch....

    Myself and most others who follow the happenings of Antifa know damn well their tactics, have been watching them for months and have no doubt they set out to incite violence when they geared up in "Black Block." They have committed violence across the US for the last year and a half against anyone who supports Trump and many of their own caught in the middle. That is the context of Trump's first statement. What you need to demonstrate or prove, is one side is more culpable than the other. Saying one side is to blame because they organized a rally, or are Racists don't cut it under our laws. They have a right to demonstrate, as offensive as they are. One side holds both culpable, you do not from my understanding.
    Well in this specific situation one "side" run a car over the other "side"... so in this specific situation the violence was not equal in both sides...

    The problem here is that Trump should denounce violence on each side, when each side commits violence... when the Antifa stab some Trump support, then yeah denounce the antifa by name, but don't say that both guys are equally violent... if one was wearing a red cap and the other was stabbing them... calling them both equally violent in say escenario would be like justifying the stabbing... or in the case of the car attack justifying the car running down a mas of people.

    Under the US Law everyone gets a place in the public square to voice their opinion, they do not get the rite to an audience. We do not agree on the no platforming in this circumstance. It is a founding US Constitutional principle.
    I wonder how the founder fathers would have handled someone that was using his constitutional rights to undermine the constitution... Actually I think it happened in a couple of occasions... I think founder fathers agree with me... but... what do I know? How you think a Washington would handle a guy using public spaces to call him a pirate and a thief and incite people to go back to the british crown?

    All the wordsmithing and posturing in this thread which lies outside our US laws are simply Politics and opinion.
    Needles to say... we are an internet forum, no a constitutional assembly... LOL.
    Last edited by simpleman; 08-29-2017, 02:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheNarrator
    replied
    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post

    The demonstrators(Right) set out to commit violence. We agree with *caveat.

    The Counter demonstrators(Left) set out to commit violence. We do not agree with *caveat
    great post gom!

    Leave a comment:


  • Grumpy Old Man
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    That is what happens when we allow the debate to go out of topic a little bit... LOL
    It's what happens when the premise of the OP is faulty and the person arguing it is seeking to refute as opposed to understand. It also happens when there is an agenda outside finding the truth. Let me Clarify:

    Nazis standing outside a Synagogue intimidating is bad(your antidote). We all agree.

    Trump not condemning violence at the rally. We do not agree.

    Fact: Trump denounced "all sides" for violence in his original statement, elaborated in his second to include the Racist groups. Then he included Antifa in the third. You present a faulty premise IMO.

    Both sides came "prepared" for violence. We all agree.

    The demonstrators(Right) set out to commit violence. We agree with *caveat.

    The Counter demonstrators(Left) set out to commit violence. We do not agree with *caveat:

    Myself and most others who follow the happenings of Antifa know damn well their tactics, have been watching them for months and have no doubt they set out to incite violence when they geared up in "Black Block." They have committed violence across the US for the last year and a half against anyone who supports Trump and many of their own caught in the middle. That is the context of Trump's first statement. What you need to demonstrate or prove, is one side is more culpable than the other. Saying one side is to blame because they organized a rally, or are Racists don't cut it under our laws. They have a right to demonstrate, as offensive as they are. One side holds both culpable, you do not from my understanding.

    *Now the Caveat: In the maylay it is hard to discern who started what in each instance. Some of us are waiting for the Jury. An American tradition!

    Under the US Law everyone gets a place in the public square to voice their opinion, they do not get the right to an audience. We do not agree on the no platforming in this circumstance. It is a founding US Constitutional principle.

    All the wordsmithing and posturing in this thread which lays outside our US laws are simply Politics and opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Manalysis
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    We should not control wages at all... I believe in open market, another great landmark of capitalism... each employee should negotiate his wages with the employer, the government have not business to intervene in this, it is inserting an element of artificiality that is hurting the marketplace...
    Agreed, as long as that also means the government cannot make anti-union legislation.

    He claims that long time ago he was in Mexico, but then some people came with some soldiers and claim that it was not longer Mexico but Texas, and he now is being told he should go back to the place he came from... which is interesting, assuming he is telling me the true... that he did not illegally crossed any border, but the border basically crossed him... Maybe the border hire a coyote?

    I'm afraid your ironic sarcasm is so sharp that it penetrates the target without touching any molecules ...

    M

    Leave a comment:


  • Manalysis
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    Yeah, I think it is something constant with humankind... Basically the only form of socialism I am cool with...
    Ditto. It was what socialism (originally conceived as a counterposition to individualism as a worldview) was all about, early in the 19th century.
    Then politicks happened.

    Socrates explain it way better than me... if I made my community better, I will benefit of living in such better community...
    Works for everyone ... except Exxon.

    so for selfish reasons I am selfless...
    My, my ... sounds almost like a paradox ...

    M
    Last edited by Manalysis; 08-29-2017, 01:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X