Do "good people" associate with racist hate groups?

LBJ was a social liberal and the KKK represents an extremist social conservative ideology. it was the presidencies of JFK, LBJ, and finally Jimmy Carter that resulted in the White Supremacists leaving the Democratic Party. This is reflected by the Southern vote in 1980 for Ronald Reagan that received all of the Republican votes and the racist Democrats vote in the Southern United States. Since the 1980's all of those states have become Republican states because of the support of the racists that abandoned the Democratic Party.

Republicans now own racism and no amount of trying to recite ancient American history is going to change the fact that TODAY the Republicans own the racism.

 

If you think LBJ held Colored Folk in high regard, you're mistaken.

 

Republicans now own racism and no amount of trying to recite ancient American history is going to change the fact that TODAY the Republicans own the racism.[/QUOTE]

Hysterical bs (no bold face needed). You've been lay at the feet of Al Sharpton too much.

 

OP is loaded question. Marching with the KKK =\= supporting the KKK. If one were to march in support of preserving historical statues, for example, and some KKK were marching to preserve those same statues (even if they have different reasons or motives for preserving the statues), one is not marching in support of the KKK. One is simply marching near the KKK.

Its no different than when muslims join in a march with leftists. The leftists arent supporting female genital mutilation or sex slavery just by marching alongside muslims (who support Shariah Law in the US by ~25% according to polls). Its two very different ideologies who happen to share a viewpoint on perhaps just a single issue.

But none of you really need to have this explained, do you? You arent morons... You're deliberately and disengenuously trying to demonize all of the right by a very loose, occasional association with white supremecists.

No one is buying it.

 

Just the same old dodge of Trump Haters:

Hate and Bait, Never Debate.

It's too hard

 

You either misheard or he misspoke. Nobody in the ACLU is taking any stance based on what violence hate speech might lead to in the future and they are not going to argue that anyone can know the intent of a speaker based on content alone until a judge hears testimony at a criminal trial In short we are talking about an incitement to violence charge and they are almost impossible to get a conviction because the ACLU keeps arguing in front of appellate courts that the language of the statute defining the crime is too vague and leads to a chilling impact on unpopular speech. if this particular lawyer is saying that the ACLU does not want to move that goalpost further, that is because it is already moved off the field already. .

 

Reasons, for myself at least, for wanting ideological unity would be peace of mind and a sense of community and belonging. Of course, there is no single ideology fit for current societies. Though a small, select group may benefit and create a new society once opposition no longer exists. More on this later though.
Regarding the current standard for human thought, you've given a very solid example.

 

I understand marching with the KKK, because their right to march is attacked and you support freedom to assemble however repugnant the organization. there really is no other way to do that. But I have to say, if I were planning to march to preserve those statues, I sure as hell would NOT take my group and march with NAZIs and KKK. I think I would work very hard to get my own permit for a different day a week later or find another tactic to employ.

 

It is a war against whites, so-called white genocide.Any any decent white shall support own race in its fight for surviving in 21 century.
BTW KKK has not more as a dozen victims in its history, but other groups, e.g. Muslims alone have killed 206 only in the last week.

Jihad Report
Aug 12, 2017 -
Aug 18, 2017
Attacks 41
Killed 206
Injured 351
Suicide Blasts 6
Countries 18

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

There is no outrage in MS presstitute 'Medias', only about 'bad guys' from KKK.

Lefts shall stop to lie about allegedly 'white racism'.
Whites want to protect themselves and to survive, nothing more.

White lives matter too!

 

John Locke addressed the key issue in his Second Treatise of Civil Government where, after establishing the foundation for the Right of Liberty he stated, "Though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license."

The Right of Liberty is the Right of the Person to exercise an unalienable/inalienable/natural right. It is not the "license" to do whatever the person damn well pleases. When property used the word "freedom" refers to the "Right of Liberty" of the person.

The "Right of Liberty" does not grant "license" to provoke acts of aggression against others and "Freedom of Speech" does not protect speech or expression designed to provoke acts of aggression. All hate speech is designed to provoke acts of agthe gression and is arguably the initial act of aggression. We can note that already addressed by criminal law is "assault" and "battery" where the "assault" is the verbal threat and the "battery" is the physical attack.

There's a limit to what freedom of speech protects and arguably hate speech is an act of aggression that goes beyond the protections of the First Amendment. This is the position I've heard the ACLU is taking and I tend to agree with their position. The Neo-Nazi White Supremacists are actively provoking "battery" (the physical act of violence) with their "assault" (hate speech). That's easy to observe in the extreme cases and the only pragmatic problem is in determining the "line in the sand" where the hate speech becomes a criminal act but that won't solve the problem. The Neo-Nazi White Supremacists simply "change the language" to comply with the law but without removing the hate.

The solution requires All Americans to stand up against the Neo-Nazi White Supremacists but there's no mobilization from the political right to oppose the Neo-Nazi White Supremacists. In fact the political right had the balls to condemn the civil rights protestors from the political left that organized against the Neo-Nazi White Supremacy demonstration in Charlottesville. Instead of applauding the civil rights demonstrators they attempted to create false linkage between the civil rights demonstrators and Antifa. Antifa is not the friend or ally of the civil rights activists.

 

The Neo-Nazi White Supremacists do not gather to peacefully demonstrate. They gather to express hatred, to intimidate, and threaten others providing a visible reminder of the acts of terrorism they commit. Their demonstration was an act intended to instill fear in the people for a political purpose (i.e. violently waging a "race war" to overthrow the Constitutional government of the United States to impose a fascist regime based upon White "WASP Male" Supremacy) making it an act of terrorism.

When they were marching in Charlottesville, many of them openly armed, and chanting anti-Semitic hatred that was an intentional act of intimidation to threaten and terrorize Jews and other Non-WASP's in America. Their gatherings are a demonstration of the terrorism they promote and commit against others and are arguably a greater act of terrorism than the individual acts of terrorism they commit. The individual terrorist attack by one Neo-Nazi White Supremacist in Charlottesville was merely the exclamation point on the entire Neo-Nazi White Supremacist terrorist attack on Charlottesville.

The right to peaceably assemble and demonstrate is not being attacked. Gathering for the purpose of terrorizing the "non-WASP's" in America by the Neo-Nazi White Supremacists is what is being "attacked" by the civil rights activists.

You mention getting your own permit to demonstrate but I would ask this question. If you, like Speaker Paul Ryan stated last night in a town hall meeting expressed, that the Neo-Nazi White Supremacists are the enemy of all Americans why wouldn't you join in the civil rights counter-demonstration against them?

If your permit to demonstrate was to show a desire to retain these monuments of Civil War leaders like Robert E Lee then I would ask why you support monuments to traitors responsible for the deaths of US soldiers? You can't honor Robert E Lee, that during the three days of Gettysburg was responsible for the deaths of 23,000 US Army soldiers defending the Constitution, and also honor those 23,000 soldiers on Memorial Day.

Robert E Lee, like the other Confederacy participants, was a traitor that only avoided prosecution and execution because of Lincoln's pardons issued for those that fought for and/or supported the Confederacy.

Some knowingly or unknowingly resort to the racist propaganda in an attempt to rationalize a reason for retaining these Confederacy monuments in places of honor in the South but there isn't a legitimate reason. We don't honor traitors or those responsible for the deaths of American soldiers defending the US Constitution. The statues must be preserved but they need to be gathered in a place of dishonor, such as a museum, that accurately remembers the heinous history of White (WASP Male) Supremacy in the United States.

 

Replace it with respectable or honorable and don't play a game of semantics.

 

Hate speech is indeed protected under the 1st; you have the right to express your hatred for anyone you want and do so in any manner you want, so long as you do not actually harm someone or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Or the antifa - they're all the same.

Indeed - all of the antifa 'protestors' in Charlottesville that tried to suppress the exercise of free speech with violence can indeed be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit.

 

Sorry you do not like the fact your poll is flawed as it is based on definitions of words you do not provide.
Try harder next time.

 

Hmm... consider exhibit B...

 

There is so much in here I don't know where to begin. I will answer your questions addressed first. "You mention getting your own permit to demonstrate but I would ask this question. If you, like Speaker Paul Ryan stated last night in a town hall meeting expressed, that the Neo-Nazi White Supremacists are the enemy of all Americans why wouldn't you join in the civil rights counter-demonstration against them?"

I was responding to another poster here who was referring the statue-lovers who marched with the NAZIS, and Klan, but who did not want to lumped together with the NAZI's and Klan member. Their goal was to save these memorials to confederate generals/ soldiers and that is all they had in common. I meant to say that if I were them I would never marched with them under those circumstances. The only circumstance under which I might march with these folk, is if people like you were trying to deny them the right to march and protest because you define the activity differently than the courts do. My view is similar to that of SCOTUS on whether these guys get to march and I am no more interested in your opinions on their motives in marching , than the federal bench is. They get a permit. they get to march.

Once we have established that, I prefer nobody bring weapons including bricks bats and guns. None of it has any place here, but if whoever is showing up, is concerned for their safety because the 'other side' is going to be bringing that crap, you have an arms race based on fear and intimidation. The same goes for counter-protesters and cops. A right to march ought not include a right to weaponize before you start. Whether I join the counter protesters, depends on whether I share their goals in confronting the protesters and whether I like the tactics employed.

As for my position on the statutes, I have said multiple times, its a matter for the local community / state to sort out. They will get rid of them when they are ready to and enough political pressure is exerted. I live in Oregon, we don't have statues of Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee around here. I don't have an in depth understanding of the nuanced dynamics of southern cultural history, black or white, conservative or progressive so I don't intend to offer a lot of my opinions. I respect the process by which the local community has imput into what memorials and art sits in their parks and outside their city hall.
If we are talking federal land and parks, I want them gone.

 

I appreciate your candor and reasoned response to my statements.

I also support the freedom to peacefully assemble and to demonstrate and I'm a subscribed member of the ACLU that's protecting that right for all Americans. I would still never march beside the Neo-Nazi White Supremacists because they're objective is not to peacefully assemble and demonstrate.

Their goal is to commit an act of terrorism with their assembly. From my perspective the permit should be issued but with the first anti-Semitic, racist, or religious intolerance demonstrated by the assembled Neo-Nazi White Supremacist I'd yank that permit and declare the event an unauthorized gathering. When Richard Spencer (Alt-Right) and David Duke (KKK) filed for the permit in Charlottesville they declared the purpose of the demonstration was to protest the removal of the Confederate statutes but not once did they ever address the statutes. David Duke declared the event was about implementing Trump's agenda (of racism and religious intolerance) and the gathered demonstrators chanted anti-Semitic slogans for the exclusive purpose of terrorizing Jews in America. I would have yanked the permit instantly because the applicants lied when applying for it.

There's only one side showing up with weapons and threats of violence and it's the Anti-American/Anti-Constitution demonstrators that advocate treasonous ideology with an ultimate goal of overthrowing the Constitutional government of the United States. These are a combination of Neo-Nazi White Supremacist (the Fascists) that we can lump under the grandfather of all Neo-Nazi While Supremacy organizations, the KKK. With them on the one side are the Anti-American/Anti-Constitution demonstrators that advocate treasonous ideology with an ultimate goal of overthrowing the Constitutional government of the United States that are identified today as the AntiFa (Anti-Fascists) that are a combination of Communists and Anarchists.

We can summarize this side as being Hitler and Stalin showing up and they are both anti-Americans Traitors that are the "domestic enemy" of the Constitution that every person that's ever been a member of the US military has sworn an oath to protect the Constitution from.

On the other side are the American patriots that don't come armed, they don't come for violence, they don't come for any other purpose other than to peacefully demonstrate showing their support for the Constitution and the Rule of Law in the United States. They can be liberals, centralists, or conservatives and they can be Democrats, Republicans, Independents or members of the minority political parties in the United States but what they all share in common is their support for the Constitution, the American ideology, and their patriotism.

Those are the only two sides showing up,

The armed and violent anti-American traitors and the unarmed non-violent American Patriots.

Reciprocating the respect you shared in your reply to my post I would suggest you reconsider your opinion based upon the following.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/

Every person that is honored on these monuments to participants in the Confederacy is a traitor that only avoided prosecution and punishment because of the clemency of President Lincoln that issued 64 general pardons for war-related offences (22 for conspiracy, 17 for treason, 12 for rebellion, 9 for holding an office under the Confederacy, and 4 for serving with the rebels). There was no doubt about the guilt of those like Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson that if prosecuted would have been convicted and executed for treason at the end of the Civil War.

The State's display of these traitors as monuments in places of honor reflects the advocacy of treason that's expressly prohibited by Article III of the US Constitution. No state or person has the "power" to advocate treason in the United States by any means explicit or implied. Advocacy for treason is a violation of the law based upon "conspiracy to commit treason" that is, of course, exactly what the Neo-Nazi White Supremacists of the KKK, ultimately responsible for these monuments, advocate.

The removal of these monuments that glorify treason and the armed insurrection by White (WASP Male) Supremacists against the Constitutional government of the United States between 1861 and 1865 is a federal issue under the US Constitution.
As mentioned I hope you will reconsider your opinion based upon the US Constitution and American history.

These monuments need to be preserved of course because they are a part of American history, a very dark and heinous part of American history, but they need to be displayed in a place of dishonor. I've suggested in other post that perhaps it's time to build a new museum and we can call it "The National Museum of White Supremacy and Treason" that addresses the crimes, anti-Americanism, and treason that these men were a part of.

It's long past time for us to crush the propaganda (lies based upon half-truths) about the Confederacy that's been promoted by the KKK since it's inception in 1865. We need to teach every American the truth about the Civil War that was an armed insurrection against the Constitutional government of the United States by treasonous White (WASP Male) Supremacist to impose a tyrannical "fascist" state for the purpose of retaining the hideous institution of slavery. There was nothing noble or honorable about the Confederacy and that myth propagated by the KKK needs to be crushed by the truth.

Once again my respects to you. Thank you for your reply.

 

No surprise at all that your criticism over "racist hate groups" is limited to just white groups. Never a word of condemnation from you over groups like the New Black Panther Party or Nation of Islam, both of which have a much higher membership than the KKK. Your agenda is obvious.

 

Left-wing groups like NAMBLA certainly would.

 

The same thing can be said about Islam, yet you wouldn't dream of violating the rights of Muslims to practice their religion. You would use the Constitution to protect those rights, the same Constitution that you say does not protect the KKK.

Free speech does, indeed, protect the "spreading of hatred", which is nothing more than a subjective value judgment that differs from person to person. In your opinion, it would be "spreading hatred" when I state that multiculturalism and diversity are abject failures and are going to destroy this country, whereas that's not "spreading hatred" at all to me. I'm simply giving my opinion on a subject, and it doesn't matter at all to me that you're offended by it. But, what's really funny is that as a "progressive libertarian", you would attempt to use the power of the Government to silence dissenting voices like mine. That's how we know you're not actually a libertarian.

 

Lots of racist minorities out there and they belong almost exclusively to the Democratic Party. Again, no surprise you'd leave them out in your discussion on "racism".

 

Total nonsense, but I understand how you want to lower the threshold for "terrorism" so you can include a lot more white people as "terrorists". It's a tad embarrassing for you that so many Muslims are fitting this category.

If Neo-Nazis are non-violent, they have every right to peacefully assemble and protest. They are protected by the Constitution. You know, that thing you pretend to respect?

 

Which makes you no better than the "fascists" you claim to oppose. You would gladly strip away the civil rights of people you didn't approve of. How very "libertarian" of you.

 

The anti Trump movement?