LonJowett

Right-wingers have too. Hitler, Franco, Reagan, Cheney... What's your point?

What have you read?

You tripled the number of attacks cited by the clearly unbiased "religion of peace" website and then you ask how you were exaggerating? But the right-wingers you defend have not committed just one terrorist attack. They are responsible for the majority of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 with an average of 300 a year. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/u-s-sees-300-violent-attacks-inspired-far-right-every-year/

It's interesting to note the hypocrisy of the Right on this issue. They inflate the number of Muslims who have committed terrorist murder in the name of their ideology so they can better paint all muslims with the same brush. Then when many of their own group commit terrorist murder, they defend them and still whine about being painted with the same brush. Even though nobody is suggesting all conservatives are Nazis like they like to imply all muslims are terrorists. But whiners gotta whine.

You're saying the NDP has slaughtered more people than the Nazis?

It means it was planned beforehand. Why won't you answer why you feel it's important that that distinction is made in this forum? Is it less heinous a crime to you if he didn't plan it beforehand? Personally, I think he's Nazi scum whether he planned it or not. What do you think?

I don't dispute what was said. I just don't see you and Hal arguing that Islamic terrorism in similar situations might merely be crimes of passion and I wonder why. Why is this guy worthy of that distinction?

But why do you feel it's important to make that distinction?

My salient argument is as follows: You said I must be joking that the people who were run down were not behaving violently. I said you could redeem yourself from those who would call you a lying Nazi apologist by showing evidence you weren't lying and that they were behaving violently. You whined about ad hoc arguments and refused to defend your argument. Do you now concede there is no evidence the people in the crowd who were run down were violent protesters? Do you now admit they were only exercising their right to freedom of speech, which you defend?

My reaction when a Nazi drives a car into a bunch of defenceless people is not to take the position of his defence lawyer and try to reduce his charges. I am wondering why you would do that for this particular Nazi. Can you explain or is that too much to ask?

You should ask yourself why that difference matters to you.

We're talking about the video where the car drives into the crowd of peaceful protesters. Try to keep up.

There's nothing ad-hoc about giving you the chance to show you're not a lying Nazi apologist. It's not even ad-hom. But I interpret your bitter outburst and unwillingness to show evidence as a concession that you were lying in order to defend the Nazis. So those people who would call you those names might have more of an excuse to make ad-hom attacks now.

Where in the video do you see those people behaving violently? Give a link and point it out. Here's your chance to prove you're not a cowardly lying Nazi apologist.

Yes, the most glaring deficiency in the argus/betsy argument is that they start with the premise that protesting for and against white supremacy are equally reprehensible and then they go from there.

That's not true. There isn't one reputable source that describes anything like that. There's just a bunch of Russian fake news about him, as far as I can see.

So you don't have any evidence for your claims but you lack the integrity to admit that?

If he failed at stopping the protest, how would he be able to stop the counter-protest?

Can you provide evidence from a reputable source that Soros paid for the protesters? If you can't, do you have the integrity to admit you have no evidence?

He did try to stop the assemblies but the pro-free-speech left-wingers (that do not exist according to you and Argus) went to court to allow it to happen. Maybe you should have read more about the situation before coming to conclusions about who (besides the Nazis) might be responsible. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/12/16138326/aclu-charlottesville-protests-racism

You're trying to argue it wasn't conservative people who were threatening the Dixie Chicks when they exercised their right to free speech? It was. Again, if you were aware of the lead-up to this demonstration, many of the Nazis were going specifically to engage in violence. I'm sure there were people on the left with the same intent, but we can see the Nazis were much more successful at it now that we have a body count. The fact remains that whatever you or I think of these people, the anti-racists (be they left or right wing) had a legal right to counter-protest, and the Nazis set out to beat and kill them. In simpler terms, the people getting run down in the street were not preventing the poor defenceless Nazis from exercising their right to free speech. They were just exercising their own right to the same.

I think the Dixie Chicks would disagree. Both the Nazis and the anti-Nazis showed up ready for a fight, but the Nazis were more heavily armed. If you were aware at all of the discourse before the event, you would know that a lot of the Nazis were planning on beating liberal protesters. Don't try to pretend it was one sided. It wasn't at all. And the only side that killed and/or sent people to the hospital was the Nazis.

I don't think it's just the far left who will not tolerate Nazis rallying in their streets. There's wide support for counter-rallying against them. It's really just the very right-wing conservatives who are whining about how the poor Nazis had their free speech violated by seeing people who disagree with them.

So you're not down with anti-racism? That says a lot.

I'm not sure of your point about "perspective" but Obama installed sanctions against Russia for invading the Crimea, which Trump has looked into removing. Were you unaware of this before you commented or are you saying they should have responded militarily and not with sanctions?