State of Emergency/White Nationalist Protest in Virginia

[Richard]

Roger, I will gain the self-discipline to ignore you; but before that, let me indulge myself.

First, in your response to assorted posts above, you just changed the topic rather than address issues on which you have clearly been bested in debate.

That speaks to your hero, Mr. Trump, who simply won't admit his mistakes and/or lies and continues on oblivious to the consequences for himself, his administration or his country.

Likewise, if you can't be adult enough to admit you were wrong, at least learn to be quiet.

Yes, you have the constitutional right to make a fool of yourself; that doesn't mean you should exercise it.

****

Second, on the earlier raised subject of my apparent jack-ass-ness over being put off by people who are both under-educated and racist.........

Please note, I did not single out under-educated on its own. There is no evil in not being 'book smart'. I know some incredibly bright people who didn't even finish High School. You're just not one of them.

That said, I don't care if you have years of formal education or how many multi-syllabic words you can use in single sentence, in context.

What I do care about is people who pontificate [[which you do)........

[[that by the way, that means to express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic.)


... who pontificate and who clearly have no clue what they are talking about. You are under-educated formally and informally on the subject, yet speak as if you were an expert.

Please note, to this point, I have not harped on your endless spelling mistakes, [[secession, not succession), nor your complete misuse of words [[you can't have an embassy when you are not a government)

But I am growing very tired of the fact you don't know the facts, but insist you do.

No matter how hard you try, 2 + 2 will not be 18

So while I will never endeavour to humiliate someone because they lack an education; I will now feel free to humiliate and correct at will the errors, misnomers, non-sequiturs that you bring forth.

Not because you lack education but because you imagine you understand, when you are the epitome of ignorance.

Fit the bill you will be called out.

Want respect; EARN IT!.

****

Lastly,

I will gladly challenge the assertion that the night march w/folks wearing Nazi symbols is in fact protected by the first amendment

Everyone knows there are limits on free speech.

The most obvious and frequently referred to example is your right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre when there isn't one.

You don't have that right.

There is a reason at law for that. Its not simply that it would disrupt the performance, or inconvenience the patrons; that is offensive but might be considered a civil matter were that the extent of it.

In fact, such an act is considered criminal; for the reason that patron may in panic, exit the theatre in a rush, and in the course of doing so, it may happen that someone is trampled, possibly even to death.

That can get you charged w/manslaughter or even criminally-negligent homicide.

So how does this apply to a march.

Well, if you march wearing a symbol that conveys your willingness and desire to kill, for reasons of race, religion, physical ability, etc. Then maybe you trigger a panic response. An understandable feeling of fear and anger that may result in someone's death. You knew, or ought to know as a reasonable person that that that might be, the result.

In addition, you might also be riling people on your own 'side' w/hatred, anger, and rage, such that they lose control of their emotions and do both illegal and violent things.

Things their attire seem to condone or encourage.

That comes pretty close, in my judgement to a wanton breach of the peace.

If what you truly wanted was to suggest that a statue be left standing; that you have the right to express, whether I find it agreeable or not.

But you get to do so wearing 'normal' clothes, w/o slogans or symbols associated w/race war or violence.

You can express such a view respectfully.

That was not what the fascists and racists were doing.

That was a show of power; and by definition, a threat to others.

I would argue strongly, NOT protected by the first amendment.

So, I guess you lost that self discipline pretty quick, Hugh.

Do you even read what you post,you do this whole self righteous speal about presenting facts and links and when they are posted you neither read them or understand them.

[Qoute] Please note, to this point, I have not harped on your endless spelling mistakes, [[secession, not succession), nor your complete misuse of words [[you can't have an embassy when you are not a government)

Those are your words and an example how you comment on others postings without even reading the content.

Those were not a misuse of words by me and if you had attempted to even read the link that I posted it would have been clear is was quoting the article.

Did you read the link?Silly me,clearly not.

But in your rush to feel superior to all the underlings in life you saw what you wanted to see.

Sorry to disappoint you but,this is a discussion and honestly I do not care one way or another weather you approve of what I say,how I spell it or how it is formatted.I bet you are real fun at parties.

And least of all weather you respect my opinion or not because bascialy one learns when they mature that there are certain types of people that you associate and others really do not matter and it becomes clear pretty quick that inside they are really not a nice person.

You do seem to like me though because you to have the need to comment on my shortcomings,so either you think I am okay or you are one of those who needs to feel better then everybody else and I am your good deed for the day.

I believe this site has a block function and probably a how to page for its use please feel free to indulge yourself and add me to the top of the list.

I find it pretty sad that supposed adults get so blinded by thier own hatred,But are quick to condone others hatred.

And after all of that writing you still did not answer my question,but you never do anyways so no surprise.

The freedom that you have to call a standing United States president names is the same freedom that you wish to remove from others because you do not agree with them.

Then you try and provide justification as to why it is okay to do so.

They are racist and should not exist.They do not belong in this country.They are nazis,kill the nazis.Anybody that does not agree to kill them or ban them from the United States is also a racist of the same ilk and let's get the public pumped up to agree.They are the reason for our past pain and suffering if we get rid of them then everything will be okay and we will live happily ever after.

You do realize that is the exact same way the nazi party took power,remove the word nazi and add the words,Jews,gypsies,and who ever else does not fit the mold.

Walk down that path and when you speak out and call a president or leader a name,they do not tell you to be quiet,you just disappear in the middle of the night.

Actually go to places like Korea,Russia,Venezuela,Cuba and others,speak your mind in public,or within earshot of anybody,with negative words towards the government and guaranteed one of two things will happen,either you will be shot dead on the spot or imprisioned with no trial.

There no difference between walking around with ones arm up in the air talking shit and one that wants to give up the rights of everybody to eliminate the few.

I view both as a threat to the United States because they are one in the same.

But hey I cannot spell so what do my thoughts matter anyways.

My challenge would be is for those who do not agree with me is take it to the newspaper and march to repeal those rights so you can deal with those hateful nazis once and for all.

Put up or shut up is what that is called.

But nobody will do that because everybody knows that the newspapers are protected by that same free speech and the same rights that everybody else has and if they give up those,then it becomes a government run publication.

But I am not the smartest rock in the box because history has already showed us the ramifications of what happens with that train of thought everybody already knows this so to me anyways the only reason for the kick back is because people are ready to give up those rights.

So the end game is the division of this country and the implementation of a socialist dictatorship.

Well, I wish you guys luck with that one,take that step and the nazis are going to seem like little angels.

[oladub]

You know Gman, once upon a time, it was actually considered patriotic to punch a Nazi in the face. In fact, we fought a war over this. The whole world was involved.

Attachment 33959

Attachment 33960

Actually we went to war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor for killing 2500 Americans. Nazi Germany was an ally of non Nazi Japan. Perhaps you are confusing the actions of German Nazi youth who did punch people in the face they disagreed with just as Antifa does today. In this country police are supposed to reign in violent people. Police instead more or less stood down in Charlottesville. We have not yet found out The who and whys for the stand down. Vigilantism has no place in this country. Never did.

[canuck]

So, I guess you lost that self discipline pretty quick, Hugh.

Do you even read what you post,you do this whole self righteous speal about presenting facts and links and when they are posted you neither read them or understand them.

[Qoute] Please note, to this point, I have not harped on your endless spelling mistakes, [[secession, not succession), nor your complete misuse of words [[you can't have an embassy when you are not a government)

Those are your words and an example how you comment on others postings without even reading the content.

Those were not a misuse of words by me and if you had attempted to even read the link that I posted it would have been clear is was quoting the article.

Did you read the link?Silly me,clearly not.

But in your rush to feel superior to all the underlings in life you saw what you wanted to see.

Sorry to disappoint you but,this is a discussion and honestly I do not care one way or another weather you approve of what I say,how I spell it or how it is formatted.I bet you are real fun at parties.

And least of all weather you respect my opinion or not because bascialy one learns when they mature that there are certain types of people that you associate and others really do not matter and it becomes clear pretty quick that inside they are really not a nice person.

You do seem to like me though because you to have the need to comment on my shortcomings,so either you think I am okay or you are one of those who needs to feel better then everybody else and I am your good deed for the day.

I believe this site has a block function and probably a how to page for its use please feel free to indulge yourself and add me to the top of the list.

I find it pretty sad that supposed adults get so blinded by thier own hatred,But are quick to condone others hatred.

And after all of that writing you still did not answer my question,but you never do anyways so no surprise.

The freedom that you have to call a standing United States president names is the same freedom that you wish to remove from others because you do not agree with them.

Then you try and provide justification as to why it is okay to do so.

They are racist and should not exist.They do not belong in this country.They are nazis,kill the nazis.Anybody that does not agree to kill them or ban them from the United States is also a racist of the same ilk and let's get the public pumped up to agree.They are the reason for our past pain and suffering if we get rid of them then everything will be okay and we will live happily ever after.

You do realize that is the exact same way the nazi party took power,remove the word nazi and add the words,Jews,gypsies,and who ever else does not fit the mold.

Walk down that path and when you speak out and call a president or leader a name,they do not tell you to be quiet,you just disappear in the middle of the night.

Actually go to places like Korea,Russia,Venezuela,Cuba and others,speak your mind in public,or within earshot of anybody,with negative words towards the government and guaranteed one of two things will happen,either you will be shot dead on the spot or imprisioned with no trial.

There no difference between walking around with ones arm up in the air talking shit and one that wants to give up the rights of everybody to eliminate the few.

I view both as a threat to the United States because they are one in the same.

But hey I cannot spell so what do my thoughts matter anyways.

My challenge would be is for those who do not agree with me is take it to the newspaper and march to repeal those rights so you can deal with those hateful nazis once and for all.

Put up or shut up is what that is called.

But nobody will do that because everybody knows that the newspapers are protected by that same free speech and the same rights that everybody else has and if they give up those,then it becomes a government run publication.

But I am not the smartest rock in the box because history has already showed us the ramifications of what happens with that train of thought everybody already knows this so to me anyways the only reason for the kick back is because people are ready to give up those rights.

So the end game is the division of this country and the implementation of a socialist dictatorship.

Well, I wish you guys luck with that one,take that step and the nazis are going to seem like little angels.

Richard,
The Nutsy Party was also self-described as National Socialism, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.

[jcole]

Everyone knows there are limits on free speech.

The most obvious and frequently referred to example is your right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre when there isn't one.

You don't have that right.

There is a reason at law for that. Its not simply that it would disrupt the performance, or inconvenience the patrons; that is offensive but might be considered a civil matter were that the extent of it.

In fact, such an act is considered criminal; for the reason that patron may in panic, exit the theatre in a rush, and in the course of doing so, it may happen that someone is trampled, possibly even to death.

That can get you charged w/manslaughter or even criminally-negligent homicide.

So how does this apply to a march.

Well, if you march wearing a symbol that conveys your willingness and desire to kill, for reasons of race, religion, physical ability, etc. Then maybe you trigger a panic response. An understandable feeling of fear and anger that may result in someone's death. You knew, or ought to know as a reasonable person that that that might be, the result.

In addition, you might also be riling people on your own 'side' w/hatred, anger, and rage, such that they lose control of their emotions and do both illegal and violent things.

Things their attire seem to condone or encourage.

That comes pretty close, in my judgement to a wanton breach of the peace.

Perfectly stated, Canadian Visitor. Bravo.

[Canadian Visitor]

So, I guess you lost that self discipline pretty quick, Hugh.

Do you even read what you post,you do this whole self righteous speal about presenting facts and links and when they are posted you neither read them or understand them.

[Qoute] Please note, to this point, I have not harped on your endless spelling mistakes, [[secession, not succession), nor your complete misuse of words [[you can't have an embassy when you are not a government)

Those are your words and an example how you comment on others postings without even reading the content.

Those were not a misuse of words by me and if you had attempted to even read the link that I posted it would have been clear is was quoting the article.

Did you read the link?Silly me,clearly not.

.

Actually, I did read the links.

Further, you didn't 'quote them'.

Re-read your post.

No quotations marks are present. Nor did you give immediate reference to the source of your information [[the links are well down the page).

Yet more still, you didn't use the words in the exact same order as the underlying source.

That's plagiarism even in High School. Its also improper attribution.

But never mind those nice details; the original source of the word embassy, in the original article was wrong to use it.

As such, you should have said 'embassy' [[sic) which allows the reader to understand that you know you read a load of BS and you're just quoting it verbatim [[as written).

I read every link; and check its sources, I hate being wrong with a deep passion.

It doesn't happen all that often for just that reason. I'm a skeptic, of everyone [[right, left and otherwise).

It would be nice if you showed the same devotion to truth. Check your sources; if they lack credibility, don't use them.

If someone you like says something, double-check it anyway.

[Canadian Visitor]

Not that this is any way pertinent to the discussion; but I throw the most awesome parties.

Oddly, they don't feature any political discussion or spelling exercises.

They generally involve awesome food, beer/wine, great music, some dancing, and lots of people who would share my opinion of you. Love them.

LOL

[GMan]

http://www.little-swastika.com/about-swastikas

[aj3647]

Actually we went to war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor for killing 2500 Americans. Nazi Germany was an ally of non Nazi Japan. Perhaps you are confusing the actions of German Nazi youth who did punch people in the face they disagreed with just as Antifa does today. In this country police are supposed to reign in violent people. Police instead more or less stood down in Charlottesville. We have not yet found out The who and whys for the stand down. Vigilantism has no place in this country. Never did.

How many people did ANTIFA kill at Charlottesville? How many people did ANTIFA put in the hospital at Charlottesville? Answer that question, then answer it for the Nazi side, then get back to me.

Yes, the police failed in their responsibility to protect people that day, which is why they should have put two in the chest and one in the head of the Nazi terrorist fuck driving the Dodge Challenger into a crowd of innocent people. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you going once again ignore the actual Nazi terrorism that occurred that day and instead myopically focus on some liberals who punched some Nazis?

[Canadian Visitor]

....And least of all weather you respect my opinion or not.....

You certainly don't have to try to persuade ME of anything. I doubt you could.

But, here's the thing, if you truly believe even 1/2 the rubbish you post, you should want to convince other people that its true.

After all that will help affect the change you seek in government and society.

But when you make a less than 1/2 hearted effort to get things right, and don't illustrate empathy w/those who hold differing views, shockingly, they tune you out. They are either angered by your intransigent ignorance or view you as the class clown. In the process you accomplish nothing and change less.

There are hints of truth in the odd thing you say; but they are lost under the mountain of ill-informed BS.

You want to be understood and have the better aspects of your arguments bring about change? Then presume you need the respect of others. Your arguments don't have to 'fancy' or laced with big words. They need only be true, and that requires restraint in writing. Don't over reach, stop at good enough, do more listening, and question your gut, it might just be wrong.

*****

The freedom that you have to call a standing United States president names is the same freedom that you wish to remove from others because you do not agree with them.

I said no such thing. People may 'SAY' as they wish, but they may not say it in such a manner as to threaten others w/violence. Its about Nazi symbols, hoods, torches and certain extremities of language.

Learn nuance.

They are racist and should not exist.They do not belong in this country.They are nazis,kill the nazis.Anybody that does not agree to kill them or ban them from the United States is also a racist of the same ilk and let's get the public pumped up to agree.They are the reason for our past pain and suffering if we get rid of them then everything will be okay and we will live happily ever after.

Again, I said no such thing. Not that I don't agree the world would be a better place w/o racists. But I did not suggest violence against anyone.

I did suggest that certain symbols and threats of violence were a non-starter. That they are not protected by the first amendment, nor should they be, for anyone or any group.

That does not restrict anyone's right to exist, or hold beliefs, or even proffer them in public, with the caveats noted above.

You do realize that is the exact same way the nazi party took power,remove the word nazi and add the words,Jews,gypsies,and who ever else does not fit the mold.

:O You mean the Nazis denied racist Jews a platform to publicly foment hatred? Really? Not what went down Richard, not in any way comparable.

[aj3647]

Are you guys aware of a thing called Caliexit?

It is a push for California to succeed from the United States,they have gained the 585 + thousand votes to bring it to the referendum in 2018.

No, Calexit did NOT get "585 thousand" votes to bring it to referendum in 2018. Not even close. In fact, the "Yes California" campaign folded back in April without having gathered the requisite number of signature after it was uncovered that they had Russian support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Ca..._.22Calexit.22

So no, as of today, this measure is NOT going to appear on the 2018 ballot in California, as you incorrectly claimed. Just so you are aware.

Also, just to burst your balloon that there are probably enough votes in California to secede, all the polling data [[available at the above link) shows that Californians are 2-to-1 opposed to even holding a referendum on the subject, let alone actually seceding [[not "succeeding") from the United States.

[Richard]

No, Calexit did NOT get "585 thousand" votes to bring it to referendum in 2018. Not even close. In fact, the "Yes California" campaign folded back in April without having gathered the requisite number of signature after it was uncovered that they had Russian support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Ca..._.22Calexit.22

So no, as of today, this measure is NOT going to appear on the 2018 ballot in California, as you incorrectly claimed. Just so you are aware.

Also, just to burst your balloon that there are probably enough votes in California to secede, all the polling data [[available at the above link) shows that Californians are 2-to-1 opposed to even holding a referendum on the subject, let alone actually seceding [[not "succeeding") from the United States.

Do you consider the supporters of a California succession from the United States
traitors of the United States.

Yes or No

It is a simple question that requires an answer of either 3 or 2 words.

[GMan]

Do you consider the supporters of a California succession from the United States
traitors of the United States.

Yes or No

It is a simple question that requires an answer of either 3 or 2 words.

Richard, he's busy checking Wiki for the answer. Not sure if they list the reason for the Civil War as succession so the answer will probably be no.

[Canadian Visitor]

Richard, he's busy checking Wiki for the answer. Not sure if they list the reason for the Civil War as succession so the answer will probably be no.

There never was a successionist movement [[not that there is such word).

Succession is when you inherit something, like a kingdom, a title, or responsibility.

Secession is when you leave something.

Please you the right word.

Wow

*facepalm*

[GMan]

There never was a successionist movement [[not that there is such word).

Succession is when you inherit something, like a kingdom, a title, or responsibility.

Secession is when you leave something.

Please you the right word.

Wow


*facepalm*

O WOW you are hung up on words. I am not worthy to bang out on the keyboard in your presence. Mea Culpa Mea Culpa..... OK?

It still doesn't answer what was the Civil War about?

[aj3647]

Do you consider the supporters of a California succession from the United States
traitors of the United States.

Yes or No

It is a simple question that requires an answer of either 3 or 2 words.

I'll answer your question, even though in the past I've repeatedly asked you straightforward yes or no questions that you have outright refused to answer. But I'll extend to you courtesies that you refuse to extend to me because that's who I am.

I consider anyone who would wish to secede from the United States through illegal means or through force of arms to be a traitor. That's what the Confederacy did. They took up arms against their nation and their countrymen. I don't consider anyone to be a traitor based on an opinion that they hold, only their actions. You are responsible for your actions, you are not legally responsible for your privately-held thoughts. So no, simply holding the opinion that California should secede from the United States does not make you a traitor. It would make you unpatriotic. If you picked up a gun and decided to wage war on the United States to see California become an independent country, you would be a traitor.

[aj3647]

Richard, he's busy checking Wiki for the answer. Not sure if they list the reason for the Civil War as succession so the answer will probably be no.

Shouldn't you be on Russia Today getting your latest talking points, comrade? Putin needs your support!

Super sorry that I often link to the most widely-used encyclopedia on the Internet, in the future I just won't cite any sources at all [[as you guys usually do not) or I'll just stick to Gman-approved sources like Breitbart and Drudge Report to satisfy your sensitivities. Or just straight up Russian propaganda. Whatever nonsense you decide to fill your head with. Sound good?

[Richard]

Richard,
The Nutsy Party was also self-described as National Socialism, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.

And you can back that up by showing me where I have ever posted where I felt that they were not.

How is Canada dealing with their Nazi party,or smaller scale how is Windsor dealing with the Nazis there?

I already posted Canada's position on it,which is the exact same as Americas.

Did anybody know there was a Nazi party march planned and permitted month's ago?

I would guess,no,just like the hundreds that they hold across the country yearly.

If they had instigated violence in the past no city in this country would allow them to be leagly permitted because they are,whether we personally like it or not they are protected under the constitution.

If the brightest lawyer minds in this country and in Canada and all of the other countries in the world could find a way around that,you think maybe they would have done so already.

For them to hold their rally and to instigate violence would give leagle grounds to shut them down and the next rally would be considered an illegal assembly and they could be charged with such,they are not that stupid.

I do not like them or agree with them,personally,I feel Germany should have been leveled to the ground and never allowed to exist again as a country.

So why all of the sudden after 50 years of rallies do we have a death.

Why did the governor or police chief say that the police were overwhelmed and unsuited to intervene.

Why did the state police say that was not the case and the officers were geared with riot gear from the start.

Why did the Governor or police chief say there was chaches of weapons and that is why they did not interfere,but the state police said no stocks of weapons were found.

Every situation antifa has gotten involved in,there has been looting,burning and destruction of private property.

Why not this time?

They are not little choir boys out for an afternoon of tea in the park.

Their mission was specific and directed

Where was antifa in the rallies before this one? They were well aware of where and when they would be happening because it is public record when the permits are applied for.

The guy that drove his car and killed the woman was a grown man responsible for his actions and will be prosecuted for his actions.

Personally,I would like to know exactly what happened,why it happened and if there was motives other then to disrupt a rally.

That does not make me a supporter of Nazis,a racist,a democrat or a republican.

You guys are calling for changing the constitution of the united states and denying millions of Americans of their rights in the process based on personal feelings and not the facts that you are so quick to ask for of everybody else.

Get the facts,find a way leagly and without destroying the rights of others and I am behind you 100% against the Nazis.

But I will not be manipulated in doing so,and I will stand behind the constitution of the United States above anything else.

[JBMcB]

I will gladly challenge the assertion that the night march w/folks wearing Nazi symbols is in fact protected by the first amendment
Everyone knows there are limits on free speech. The most obvious and frequently referred to example is your right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre when there isn't one. You don't have that right.There is a reason at law for that. Its not simply that it would disrupt the performance, or inconvenience the patrons; that is offensive but might be considered a civil matter were that the extent of it. In fact, such an act is considered criminal; for the reason that patron may in panic, exit the theatre in a rush, and in the course of doing so, it may happen that someone is trampled, possibly even to death.

That is completely incorrect, in the US at least.
http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/...ter-19421.html

Key word here is "imminent lawless action" That woman who egged on her ex-boyfriend to kill himself while he was in the middle of going through with it? Imminent lawless action. Someone holding a gun to someone's head while you shout out "Pull the trigger?" Imminent lawless action. Some idiot shouting about how Jews are evil? Not imminent lawless action.

[Richard]

I'll answer your question, even though in the past I've repeatedly asked you straightforward yes or no questions that you have outright refused to answer. But I'll extend to you courtesies that you refuse to extend to me because that's who I am.

I consider anyone who would wish to secede from the United States through illegal means or through force of arms to be a traitor. That's what the Confederacy did. They took up arms against their nation and their countrymen. I don't consider anyone to be a traitor based on an opinion that they hold, only their actions. You are responsible for your actions, you are not legally responsible for your privately-held thoughts. So no, simply holding the opinion that California should secede from the United States does not make you a traitor. It would make you unpatriotic. If you picked up a gun and decided to wage war on the United States to see California become an independent country, you would be a traitor.

Thank you for that.

We are both military or X military and already know the answer to the next question,but for the sake of others.

Do you believe that it is possible to wage a war or detrimental actions that undermines the stability of the government in another country,without firing a shot?

Would you view the participants or American citizens of that war on American soil as traitors?

Aside from the fact that you do not need to actually pick up a weapon to become a traitor.

And yes I understand the semantics of a actual war declaration.

[Meddle]

Do you consider the supporters of a California succession from the United States traitors of the United States.

Yes or No

It is a simple question that requires an answer of either 3 or 2 words.

No.

Remember 'states rights' and all.

Nor would I object to expelling Texas from the Union. They don't seem to like it here, so why not boot them?

[Meddle]

Do you believe that it is possible to wage a war or detrimental actions against another country,without firing a shot?

Would you view the participants of that war on American soil as traitors?

Sure. It's done all the time in many ways. 'Rump is engaged in such actions now and that's why many want him Impeached.

[aj3647]

That is completely incorrect, in the US at least.
http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/...ter-19421.html

Key word here is "imminent lawless action" That woman who egged on her ex-boyfriend to kill himself while he was in the middle of going through with it? Imminent lawless action. Someone holding a gun to someone's head while you shout out "Pull the trigger?" Imminent lawless action. Some idiot shouting about how Jews are evil? Not imminent lawless action.

As much as I hate the Nazis, I have to agree with this. Their chants, while pure evil, were not an incitement to immediate violence and so were on the correct side of the law.

In Canada and most of Western Europe, that march would have been illegal for violating Hate Speech laws and that might be where CV's perspective is coming from, but in the U.S. chanting hate speech against Jews is still legal [[if not reprehensible and inhuman).

[GMan]

Shouldn't you be on Russia Today getting your latest talking points, comrade? Putin needs your support!

Super sorry that I often link to the most widely-used encyclopedia on the Internet, in the future I just won't cite any sources at all [[as you guys usually do not) or I'll just stick to Gman-approved sources like Breitbart and Drudge Report to satisfy your sensitivities. Or just straight up Russian propaganda. Whatever nonsense you decide to fill your head with. Sound good?

No I got a reprieve for being such a good comrade!

Funny thing is, I am not the one calling for socialism in this country so who is brainwashed?

Enforce the borders!

Peace out everyone!

[Canadian Visitor]

That is completely incorrect, in the US at least.
http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/...ter-19421.html

Key word here is "imminent lawless action" That woman who egged on her ex-boyfriend to kill himself while he was in the middle of going through with it? Imminent lawless action. Someone holding a gun to someone's head while you shout out "Pull the trigger?" Imminent lawless action. Some idiot shouting about how Jews are evil? Not imminent lawless action.

The U.S. Supreme Court has a tradition of reversing itself. It previously upheld the principle I stated, it likely will again.

Be that as it may, it may well be that current legal precedent suggests legality here. Though that is up for debate even in the link your provided.

It suggests the standard is inciting imminent, lawless action.

Seeing as someone responded to the protest in real time by murdering people with his car, that would be imminent, unlawful action.

[GMan]

As much as I hate the Nazis, I have to agree with this. Their chants, while pure evil, were not an incitement to immediate violence and so were on the correct side of the law.

In Canada and most of Western Europe, that march would have been illegal for violating Hate Speech laws and that might be where CV's perspective is coming from, but in the U.S. chanting hate speech against Jews is still legal [[if not reprehensible and inhuman).

I agree with this statement from AJ.