To join or not to join

[Kutnupe14]

If you seen a BLM/ANTIFA/white sheet wearing Nazi stealing Amazon packages off of porches and spray painting monuments, you must to have been following him for some time,or you know more then you are letting on.

I just know my respective "good folks."

 

[Trigger Time]

I view each side just as racist as the other. I think they are all ****stains on society

 

[Kutnupe14]

I view each side just as racist as the other. I think they are all ****stains on society

You'll appreciate this.

82nd Airborne responds to man wearing hat at Charlottesville protests :: WRAL.com

 

[Trigger Time]

You'll appreciate this.

82nd Airborne responds to man wearing hat at Charlottesville protests :: WRAL.com

I saw that. Any idiot can wear a hat. If he was 82nd he doesn't represent them. There are several military units that will disavow you even after you are out of the military if you do **** like him.
I ignore the Klan idiots just as much as I do the black lives matter idiots and the black panther idiots and the antifa idiots and the moms demand action idiots and the Brady idiots and the westboro church idiots and Jehovah's witness idiots that knock on my door and the Isis idiots and the illegal idiots and the nasty women idiots, and the sovereign citizen idiots, and the..... (insert your favorite idiot here)

 

[JAL]

Are the Oath Keeper Racists? IDK. I'm not assigning my view to organizations unless their platform explicitly says so. I'm talking about individuals. It they're there, Im considering them a racist.

I don't believe they are. The fundamental problem with the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters, a similar organization is their claim to know which laws are constitutional and which are not. A County Clerk in Kentucky refused to issue marriage licenses in defiance of a federal court order, citing compliance infringed on her religious beliefs guaranteed in the First Amendment. She found herself in a heap 'o trouble. The courts are the sole domain of determining what is and isn't constitutional and the sole arbiter of which of two or more constitutional requirements or prohibitions in apparent conflict supersedes the others. If you want to bark up that tree taking a stand that an order, regulation or law isn't constitutional, you had better darn well be 100% confident that you're 100% right. If not, you'll be in a similar or even bigger heap 'o trouble.

One of the things I learned as a very young commissioned officer regarding constitutionality of orders, regulations and military law, and asserting that an order, regulation or law isn't constitutional as an affirmative defense is done at one's peril.

John

 

[Benp]

I'm reminded of a quote from John Reese from "Person of Interest" which reads "You can't make something right by doing something wrong."

 

[T.Lex]

I'm reminded of a quote from John Reese from "Person of Interest" which reads "You can't make something right by doing something wrong."

My own twist on that idea, which I have asserted in several different contexts, is that there are wrong ways to do the right thing.

I think that's what trips up Trump more often than not. He's trying to accomplish what he sees as the "right" thing, but does so in inappropriate ways.

 

[jamil]

If you saw a poster that with 5 faces on it, and all were known racists, and they were protesting the against abortion and you were a die-hard pro-life person who had attended other events pro-life events, would you even consider attending that rally?

Here's the difference and why I think you're forcing your own world view interpretation on other people by making that judgement. I am not opposed to allowing hateful people to say what's on their minds. That fact does not mean I agree with the hateful things. But it seems like you're accepting the guilt by association theory, which I reject. By being in close proximity to an ******* without constantly feeling like I need to punch the ******* in the face, doesn't make me an ******* associate, and it doesn't make me an *******.

In your scenario, if I were a anti-abortion activist (I'm not, but for the sake of example) and I went to an anti-abortion rally, maybe I'm carrying a sign that says "god hates abortion". So there's some ******* carrying a sign with 5 racist faces on it. I might ask the dude if he knows those are racist *******s. And if he says he knows, or defends them, having confirmed that he's a racist, I'm not going to leave the rally for that reason. I'm gonna continue to be an activist for MY cause. And maybe I'd add another sign and stand next to him with it, which says "God hates racists-->".

But for you to judge me for that is projecting your reasons which you gained by your personality and your life experiences, and your priorities onto me. For me, determined by my personality, my life experiences, and my priorities, I'd rather get to know the person or the group to determine what they actually believe before I decide that they are evil just because they're participating in a rally where other evil people are participating. They might have reasons that aren't evil. And I'll not judge your morality if you disagree.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here's the difference and why I think you're forcing your own world view interpretation on other people by making that judgement. I am not opposed to allowing hateful people to say what's on their minds. That fact does not mean I agree with the hateful things. But it seems like you're accepting the guilt by association theory, which I reject. By being in close proximity to an ******* without constantly feeling like I need to punch the ******* in the face, doesn't make me an ******* associate, and it doesn't make me an *******.

In your scenario, if I were a anti-abortion activist (I'm not, but for the sake of example) and I went to an anti-abortion rally, maybe I'm carrying a sign that says "god hates abortion". So there's some ******* carrying a sign with 5 racist faces on it. I might ask the dude if he knows those are racist *******s. And if he says he knows, or defends them, having confirmed that he's a racist, I'm not going to leave the rally for that reason. I'm gonna continue to be an activist for MY cause. And maybe I'd add another sign and stand next to him with it, which says "God hates racists-->".

But for you to judge me for that is projecting your reasons which you gained by your personality and your life experiences, and your priorities onto me. For me, determined by my personality, my life experiences, and my priorities, I'd rather get to know the person or the group to determine what they actually believe before I decide that they are evil just because they're participating in a rally where other evil people are participating. They might have reasons that aren't evil. And I'll not judge your morality if you disagree.

No Jamil, I don't think I explained myself well. The 5 faces on the poster, are the organizers of the anti-abortion protest, and you know them to be racists. It's not a poster at the rally, but a poster inviting people to attend the protest. You're walking by, and agree with the anti-abortion stance, and note the protests is afterwards. Do you go to the protest, organized by the racists, because, despite disagreeing with 99% of the things they stand for, the 1 thing out of 100 they oppose, you also agree with?

 

[BugI02]

Does no one else find it ironic that one of the main bankrollers/backers of the left's resistance to purported neo-nazis (Soros) is in fact a REAL Nazi

That tells me these protests are not about a persons beliefs, it's Political Kabuki. 99% of Antifa et al are useful idiots. If, as Kut asserts, you are tainted by the people you stand with; what does that say about ANY Soros financed group or movement

 

[T.Lex]

Does no one else find it ironic that one of the main bankrollers/backers of the left's resistance to purported neo-nazis (Soros) is in fact a REAL Nazi

You know that's a lie, right? Or at least, an intentional deceit.

 

[HoughMade]

You know that's a lie, right? Or at least, an intentional deceit.

Counsel, can you explain the difference between a lie and "intentional deceit"?

 

[BugI02]

Do you mean in that he could only be a sympathizer/work for them but never be accepted as a party member? That is a valid point and I stand corrected, although I would assert that acting as an agent of the National Socialists to confiscate jewish property is much closer to being an actual Nazi than anyone at Charlottesville

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PUDmLCkgNc

[h=1]George Soros Interview Where He Admitted He Was A Nazi Collaborator[/h]
I don't expect that you will much like this source, but it seems to accurately synopsize the interview (although some of its interpretations are a bit of a reach)

9 Things You Need To Know About George Soros | Daily Wire

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Chances are,he financed both sides. Can someone post his Nazi youth picture.It is out there.

 

[BugI02]

The only pictures of that nature that I am aware of have been thoroughly debunked as frauds. He was 14 and under the guidance/contol of an adult relative at the time, which could have been mitigating if he hadn't defended his actions in the 60 minutes interview I posted

 

[jamil]

No Jamil, I don't think I explained myself well. The 5 faces on the poster, are the organizers of the anti-abortion protest, and you know them to be racists. It's not a poster at the rally, but a poster inviting people to attend the protest. You're walking by, and agree with the anti-abortion stance, and note the protests is afterwards. Do you go to the protest, organized by the racists, because, despite disagreeing with 99% of the things they stand for, the 1 thing out of 100 they oppose, you also agree with?

I'm having a failure of imagination here, because it's not much more likely that I'd attend an anti-abortion protest as I would a "Unite The Right" rally. It's very unlikely that I'd attend either, as I don't believe in both those causes the same way the organizers do. So let's make it a free speech rally. Or maybe a gun rights rally. I mean that's the most likely event I might consider attending. But it'd really have to be a nice, cool day, and there'd have to be decent coffee shops around. And clean public restrooms.

Okay, so let's say that Black Lives Matter, who is a racist organization, held a gun rights rally, and somehow I actually believed that they're really going to speak out in favor of citizens' gun rights, and not chant "pigs in a blanket...", or talk about how much white people owe them reparations, and so on. And I'd be right there with them, sipping my coffee while they're speaking in favor of gun rights. But, the moment they start in on their racist ****, I may not leave unless I feel threatened. I'd still carry my sign because that's what *I'm* rallying for.

So about WN, to be consistent, I think I'd have to say the same. So if I thought they're actually going to rally for the cause, and not start chanting all the racist ****, I'd consider attending for those causes. And if they started in on all the racist ****, I'd still proclaim MY cause. And maybe I'd change the sign I'm carrying to fit the new circumstances. So, if it's a free speech rally and they start in on the racist ****, maybe I'd change the sign to say, "Even racists should be free to proclaim their ideas in open, where those ideas can die from honest public scrutiny." That's not the same thing as standing shoulder to shoulder.

I did some more looking into Oath Keepers. I don't really agree with some of the things they stand for. They kinda remind me of Sovereign Citizens in a way. I think they're well meaning though. I came across some articles about them protesting against White Supremacists at other rallies. It doesn't seem consistent that they'd stand shoulder to shoulder with racists rallying *for* racism. I don't really know much about their role in Charlottesville, but it looks like it's a mischaracterization to say they're racists because they were at the same event as racists.

I reject the idea of guilt by association. In my sense of morals I think it is intellectually dishonest to judge people by who they associate with, without any regard for exactly what the association is. But I understand not everyone has the same values as me, that some people can't not connect people and ideas, instead of dealing with ideas separately. So I'm not going to judge you as intellectually dishonest for that. You can judge me however you want, but you'll be more accurate in your judgement if you try to understand the why more deeply than what.

 

[T.Lex]

Do you mean in that he could only be a sympathizer/work for them but never be accepted as a party member? That is a valid point and I stand corrected, although I would assert that acting as an agent of the National Socialists to confiscate jewish property is much closer to being an actual Nazi than anyone at Charlottesville

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PUDmLCkgNc

George Soros Interview Where He Admitted He Was A Nazi Collaborator


I don't expect that you will much like this source, but it seems to accurately synopsize the interview (although some of its interpretations are a bit of a reach)

9 Things You Need To Know About George Soros | Daily Wire

I actually hate indulging this derail, but here are the facts:
- Soros' family was Jewish, in Hungary, when the Nazis (actual, real, Nazis) took over;
- they used forged documents to avoid a free trip to an evil place;
- part of that avoidance included becoming wards of a Christian (allegedly) who was helping save Jews;
- part of that Christian's job was to oversee the taking of Jewish families' things;
- Soros was taken along with that Christian on one such event when he was pretending to be the Christian's godson, I believe when he was 13.

Different perspectives.
George Soros: Early Life and Education | Investopedia
https://knowledgefight.com/lie-file...lped-the-nazis-round-up-jews-in-the-holocaust

Soros has done plenty of things to deserve animosity. This is not one of them, and it undermines the credibility of those who repeat the lie.

 

[Benp]

If the rally is about "A" then focus on "A" and then if it goes off on a tangent "B" that you do not agree then at that point leave rally "A."
Before going to a rally should a person look up each person who is going to attend the rally to find out everything they believe before attending?
You aren't going to agree on everything with most people. I have friends who aren't as conservative as I am, should I stop being friends with them or should we just agree to disagree about some things while focusing on the things that we have in common?

 

[Benp]

Counsel, can you explain the difference between a lie and "intentional deceit"?

Deception is deception, whether it is a total lie or a partial truth with intent to mislead.
Sorry, your question was directed toward counsel, I'll sit back down.

 

[T.Lex]

...I have friends who aren't as conservative as I am, should I stop being friends with them ...

Welcome to INGO.

Not only can you not be friends with them, you have to post about shouting them down as virtue signaling.