Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Recommended Posts

Recommended Posts

Last 7 days. Updated daily
  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    17 Aug '17 08:49 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @robbie-carrobie
    you want to keep a score?

    Nazis 1 , ANTIFA 0

    who has claimed they were defenceless? You are in a moral dilemma fatboy, I suggest you deal with that first and then you can fantasise about the hippy flower children of ANTIFA. placing flowers in the machine guns of those dastardly permit holding right wingers.
    I want a link from a reliable news source indicating such an incident ever occurred. You keep insisting that some group of leftists "charged" the Neo-Nazis and the rest swinging baseball bats (a deadly weapon though not as deadly as the semi-automatic rifles the right wingers had); where is the evidence supporting this claim?

    American Nazis and the KKK have killed counter demonstrators in the past and did again here; I do not demand or expect those who protest against these groups to leave themselves at their mercy.
  2. Subscriber finnegan
    13 Aug '17 23:55
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Is calling the Far right "alt right" in the media going to get someone else killed?

    I'm not sure if labels like this will get anyone killed, but you can expect more deaths regardless, there seems to be a great deal of anger in the world these days. I'm not going to pretend I have the answers, because I don't.

    It's time to learn another song on my flute.
    Reverend John Pavlovitz has been preaching the gospel for two decades, but unlike his Trump-supporting counterparts, he actually practices what he preaches.

    In the below piece, posted to his website today, Pavlovitz shows the courage to say what many will not about the terrifying scene that unfolded today. Every white American needs to take urgent action to confront the scourge of racist hate.

    Pavlovitz’s powerful words are below and should be read by every white American.

    Yes, This is Racism

    As a writer and pastor, my job is to weave together words so that those words will hopefully reach people in their deepest places; to frame the experience of this life in a way that is somehow compelling or creative or interesting, causing them to engage with the world differently than before.

    But there are times when to do this would be actually be a disservice to reality, when any clever wordplay would only soften the jagged, sickening truth; when clever turns of phrase might succeed in obscuring the horrid ugliness in front of us.

    Sometimes we just need to say it without adornment or finessing.

    What we’re watching unfold in Charlottesville, with hundreds of white people bearing torches and chanting about the value of white lives and shouting slurs, is not a “far Right” protest. When you move that far right, past humanity, past decency, past goodness—you’re something else.

    You’re not a supremacist, you’re not a nationalist, and you’re not alt-Right.

    This is racism.
    This is domestic terrorism.
    This is religious extremism.
    This is bigotry.
    It is blind hatred of the most vile kind.
    It doesn’t represent America.
    It doesn’t represent Jesus.
    It doesn’t speak for the majority of white Americans.
    It’s a cancerous, terrible, putrid sickness that represents the absolute worst of who we are.

    No, naming it won’t change it, but naming it is necessary nonetheless. It’s necessary for us to say it—especially when the media won’t, when our elected leaders won’t, when our President won’t. It’s necessary to condemn it so that we do not become complicit in it.

    This is our national History being forged in real-time, and to use words lacking clarity now would be to risk allowing the ugliness off the hook or to create ambiguity that excuses it. And yes, there are all sorts of other ways that racism and privilege live and thrive; ways that are far less obvious or brazen than tiki-torch wielding marches. There are systemic illnesses and structural defects and national blind spots that we need to speak to and keeping pushing back against, and we will. But in moments that are this clear, when the malignancy is so fully on display—we’d better have the guts to say it.

    White people especially need to name racism in this hour, because somewhere in that crowd of sweaty, dead-eyed, raw throated white men—are our brothers and cousins and husbands and fathers and children; those we go to church with and see at Little League and in our neighborhoods. They need to be made accountable by those they deem their “own kind.” They need to know that this is not who we are, that we don’t bless or support or respect this. They need white faces speaking directly into their white faces, loudly on behalf of love.

    Though all of us can eventually trace our lineage back to oneness, all carrying a varied blood in our veins—the surface level differences matter to these torch-bearers. They value white lives and white voices above anything else, and so we whose pigmentation matches theirs need to speak with unflinching clarity about this or we simply amen it.

    So I’m saying it.

    We are not with you, torch-bearers, in Charlottesville or anywhere.
    We do no consent to this.
    In fact we stand against you, alongside the very beautiful diversity that you fear.
    We stand with people of every color and of all faiths, people of every orientation, nationality, and native tongue.

    We are not going to have this. This is not the country we’ve built together and it will not become what you intend it to become.

    So you can kiss our diverse, unified, multi-colored behinds because your racism and your terrorism will not win the day.

    Believe it.
  3. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    17 Aug '17 00:15
    Originally posted by @robbie-carrobie
    I have stated my case plainly, either the Americans uphold First Amendment rights for all or they rip up the constitution and let baseball bat wielding thugs with riot gear make the laws. I have no intention of fueling the arguments of contributors who are devoid of both substance and reason and who need to resort to outlandish fantasies.
    Sorry, but the only "riot gear" I saw was on the Nazis marching into town with their automatic weapons.

    Stop watching FoxNews.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    17 Aug '17 08:34
    Originally posted by @robbie-carrobie
    I have already refuted your vacuous claim, How long will you continue with your airhead rhetoric before you realise that the vast majority of your sentiments are meaningless bumper sticker memes. You would be just as well posting gifs of fluffy pussycats with machine guns.
    How many defenseless Neo-Nazis, KKK members and other white supremacists were killed and seriously injured by this murderous baseball bat attack you claim occurred?
  5. Subscriber roma45
    st johnstone
    13 Aug '17 07:41
    Originally posted by @chaney3
    Kudos to Ghost for providing that Silence of the Lambs info. Inside joke appreciated.
    Goad lost his scum status with that great post
    But in line with kudos you just earned double non sub scum status for being an arse kissing troll
  6. 16 Aug '17 13:29
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Recently, he was also shown to have had sex with under age girls while playing baseball.
    You would have thought one of the umpires would have spotted this.
  7. Subscriber finnegan
    16 Aug '17 14:19
    Originally posted by @jacob-verville
    it takes a very educated person to admit that there is _a lot more_ to the Alt Right than what people say it is.

    I've followed the Alt RIght & all manner of reactionary ideas for a long time now -- since well before 2010. Some of it is bonehead material -- just like anything else, but a lot of it is very well put together, eloquent and full of ap ...[text shortened]... lame narrative that the Western Establishments have put forward while failing their own people.
    This is where it all gets to be fun.

    This is not unlike being told that newspaper horoscopes are just foolish and misrepresent the deep mysteries of true astrology, which can only be appreciated by deep study of approved authorities. Or being told that the acknowledged deficiencies of 19th Century racism can be set aside in favour of the scientific marvels of sociobiology, which will prove scientifically that primitive man on the African savannah ate toast with his eggs for breakfast and favoured primogeniture (the second is a true example of a claim repeated on this forum).

    To start with, we will be told that there is a new, improved Alt-Right version of fascism which requires detailed study to appreciate in all its fine nuances, like those marchers were finely nuanced, or Trump's press conference was finely nuanced. Probably Ayn Rand was finely nuanced too - is she in or out with the Alt-Right?

    It follows that all historical evidence of fascism and racism is not to be considered relevant and can be ignored. Nothing can be learned from the track record.

    Indeed, even referring to actual examples of fascism in the present day (Poland or Hungary anyone?) can be nuanced out of the debate, when it is not the correct, approved edition of Alt-Right fascism.

    Oh and anyway, since fascists claimed to be socialist and revolutionaries then we must include Lenin and Stalin and Mao and single payer insurance and abortion and Norway's herring fisheries and Germany's fiscal policies. And of coure the Alt-Right will not be socialists so that excludes them from the count.

    That should keep everyone debating until the cows come home, or the pigeons come back to roost, or the cock crows, or ...
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    What ya gon' do?
    17 Aug '17 00:07
    Originally posted by @robbie-carrobie
    Fascism, a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterised by dictatorial power and the forcible suppression of opposition.

    Denying people the free exercise of a constitutional right by violent coercion is an attempt to forcibly suppress opposition.
    Who's the leftist dictator who controls the nation? Right wing WASPs control the entire government.
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    What ya gon' do?
    17 Aug '17 00:08
    Originally posted by @suzianne
    Baseball bats against automatic weapons, yeah, that's fair.
    Antifa can use guns too. The Right seems insistent on escalating to deadly force. Gotta be able to handle the "Second Amendment People" Trump likes to talk about.
  10. Subscriber finnegan
    17 Aug '17 00:31
    Originally posted by @robbie-carrobie
    Fascism, a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterised by dictatorial power and the forcible suppression of opposition.

    Denying people the free exercise of a constitutional right by violent coercion is an attempt to forcibly suppress opposition.
    You see how issues get strangled here?

    People have rights and freedoms. Like free speech, assembly, protest. That's good stuff which we must protect. They have many other rights too, like the right to be free from violence or the fear of violence, the right to economic opportunity, the right to fair treatment, the right to equality before the law....

    Now who does or does not have these rights and on what grounds?

    You make a point of identifying a clause in the US constitution granting (or conceding?) a right, but to whom does the US constitution give those rights? It obviously gives not a single right to people in other countries and offers no restraint on US violence abroad. It gives less rights - a lot less - to migrants in the US who are not US citizens. Less obviously, it appears to give more rights to some American citizens than to others. It certainly gives more rights to those with wealth and property than those without. It seems pretty unhelpful to those in poverty or to women. It has often and pretty consistently shown itself to be decidedly unhelpful to those who are not white.

    Some legalistic purist will say that the constitution willl eventually prove itself to be democratic and fair (only an idiot would attempt to argue that it always has been) but many honest observors are dubious of this. This is especially so because the independence of the judicial system from party politics and partisan politics is simply not assured. The evidence is that we have to think in terms of not just progressive or reactionary judges but of Republican judges or Democrat judges - judges owing their positions to political influence and hence acting not for the public good but for vested interests.

    And when we see the independence of the judiciary curtailed so severely, then we already have in place one of the building blocks for fascism. One of the most important commentators on the American constitution, De Toqueville, was quite clear that nothing in the constitution prevents America moving in that direction.

    The whole language of rights is dangerously individualistic and non-social. At a minimum, if I have a right and you also have a right, there will come a point when we cannot both enjoy our full rights - there will be a conflict. One of us will have to make a concession, or compromise in some way. How will that work out? Who will arbitrate? Talking about rights without talking about society leads to nonsense.

    What happens when my right to free speech infringes your right to be free of the threat of violence? After all, a threat can be conveyed with language and gesture long before it becomes actually physical. What is the boundary between an opinion and a threat and an actual assault? How far must I allow you to push your rights without compromise or concession to mine, before I am entitled to protest?

    And again, where is the fair arbiter who might intervene in good faith between us? Can I rely on the police to be fair? The politicians? The judiciary? Let's agree I should be able to, it is essential that I am able to, but let's not be entirely naive about this. What is the limit when I have a responsibility to myself not to tolerate an abuse of my rights, even if the abuser is exercising their rights?

    Maybe my problem is in your wording. "Denying people the free exercise of a constitutional right". Now what does "free exercise" mean? Are there really no constraints, do we really operate in a world that is not social, that does not require recognition of the rights of others, where we can demand our own rights be exercised "freely" and to hell with everyone else?

    Well, at times that does seem to be exactly the case and because that is so, because people are prepared to push their own rights to the extreme without constraints, because the police, the politicians and the judiciary and perhaps the sacred constitution enables that, then sometimes, at some point, maybe people are entitled to respond by exercising some of their own rights in a confrontational way, saying no, setting a boundary, drawing a line ... And meaning it when they say "no" - to the point of exercising their right to defend themselves, and being prepared and equipped for that.

    One of the mad rights enjoyed in the US constitution is the right to bear arms. Why is it only the Right that feels entitled to be armed against tyranny? If one person feels entitled to turn up at a protest with weapons, why would they be concerned that others do the same or similar? Using the language of rights, why do you insist on calling counter protestors violent when they are simply exercising various of their rights?

    If you want to demand for the fascist marchers the right to march through Charlottesville, armed and carrying aggressive and abusive regalia, while chanting threatening and racist slogans, then at least recognise that their right is exercised at the expense of the rights of their neighbours to enjoy their own, decent lives free of such abusive and threatening behaviour. The right of decent citizens are being infringed and in such a way that they are not satisfied with the protection of a complicit state and choose instead to defend their space with no less determination than the fascists.

    Sadly, once fascism is emboldened in this way, such confrontations become necessary.
  11. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    17 Aug '17 02:30
    Originally posted by @jacob-verville
    Alright, then: as an American by birth, I suggest that the First Amendment was meant for the tolerance of free speech which includes hate speech.
    §Subdivision 1.Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
    (1) engages in brawling or fighting; or
    (2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
    (3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
  12. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    17 Aug '17 11:20
    Originally posted by @robbie-carrobie
    Actually I see myself more like Australian fast bowler Mitchell Johnson. Sometimes I bowl to the left, sometimes I bowl to the right! No disgrace in remaining detached and objective! Infact we have an intellectual duty to remain so otherwise we start to espouse partisan perspectives and end up resorting to fantasises or worse still misrepresenting ...[text shortened]... s to our own with vacuous epithets. I am kind of like a Libertarian that doesn't smoke weed.
    It's not wrong to take sides.
    Nazis bad.
  13. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    17 Aug '17 11:39
    Originally posted by @robbie-carrobie
    I have already refuted your vacuous claim, How long will you continue with your airhead rhetoric before you realise that the vast majority of your sentiments are meaningless bumper sticker memes. You would be just as well posting gifs of fluffy pussycats with machine guns.
    What you fail to notice is that no one believes you any longer. Your post is filled with irony as this is how people finally see you and your claims. You didn't even bother to re-brand yourself before coming back here, over-confident, as always, in your ability to confound and sweet-talk people.

    Sorry, but people just aren't as stupid as you think they are.
  14. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    17 Aug '17 13:29
    Originally posted by @robbie-carrobie
    Actually I read it on those ultra right wing sources yahoo news and Vox.

    We the British practically wrote your constitution for you sweetie! and seem much more inclined to hold to it than those who claim it as their own
    I'm surprised Russ let you back in, Zeroboy.

    I thought we had rules against cheaters.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    17 Aug '17 20:39
    Originally posted by @robbie-carrobie
    Actually I read it on those ultra right wing sources yahoo news and Vox.

    We the British practically wrote your constitution for you sweetie! and seem much more inclined to hold to it than those who claim it as their own
    I didn't see any stories on Vox (which I read regularly) reporting a crazed baseball bat charge from Leftists. I did read this though:

    White supremacists went to Charlottesville to protest the city’s plan to tear down Confederate monuments, particularly a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. This has become a hot-button topic over the past several years, as civil rights groups and protesters have condemned the monuments as symbols of a Confederacy that fought to maintain slavery and white supremacy in America.
    On Friday, some of the white supremacist protesters — made up of white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and members of the Ku Klux Klan — brandished torches and marched onto the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville. When they were met by counterprotesters, they surrounded and eventually attacked the counterprotesters, triggering brawls.
    On Saturday, white supremacists planned to hold a bigger rally — dubbed “Unite the Right” — at noon.
    Things quickly spun out of control as protesters and counterprotesters faced off and clashed around the city. Eventually, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency and police told the crowds to disperse.
    As one group of counterprotesters moved away from the demonstrations, a Dodge Challenger, allegedly driven by reported Nazi sympathizer Alex Fields, drove into the crowd. The driver killed 32-year-old Heather Heyer, a local from Charlottesville who went to the protests to, her mother and friends said, stand against hate and bigotry.
    Meanwhile, a state police helicopter responding to the protests crashed, killing two pilots.
    In total, at least three people were killed (counting those who died in the helicopter crash) and dozens others were injured as a result of the white supremacist protests.

    I'm still waiting for a link showing this baseball bat charge you keep insisting occurred.