The Maelstrom of Violence

[Warren Dew]

(07-10-2017, 11:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Dumping on other posters here personally is usually not what I do. I express my opinions. And political humor and sarcasm about our national politics is respectable and honorable.

Indeed.  I find your posts far more respectful than Bob's.  You can agree to disagree when we have different views of the facts, where Bob has to start flinging insults when he is proven wrong.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-14-2017, 07:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My perspective is flawed! What a thing to try to get someone to admit. Too funny.

If all you got, is to uphold the NRA?

We all do the best we can, I guess, to see things right.

But Taramarie? She is always wrong!

Again, I invite the two of you to go start a forum in which you discuss each other's behavior and egos.

Not interested, myself, in such a boring topic. But, with Taramarie, what can you expect?

No, I cut her no slack at all. She is on my ignore list permanently.

So, you don't want to listen to people who point out that you're not listening?  The correct answer is to ignore people?

And. no, I don't endorse the entire NRA agenda, but I do try to acknowledge truth and respect worthy ideas of the other guys.

[Eric the Green]

(07-14-2017, 10:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 07:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My perspective is flawed! What a thing to try to get someone to admit. Too funny.

If all you got, is to uphold the NRA?

We all do the best we can, I guess, to see things right.

But Taramarie? She is always wrong!

Again, I invite the two of you to go start a forum in which you discuss each other's behavior and egos.

Not interested, myself, in such a boring topic. But, with Taramarie, what can you expect?

No, I cut her no slack at all. She is on my ignore list permanently.

So, you don't want to listen to people who point out that you're not listening?  The correct answer is to ignore people?

And. no, I don't endorse the entire NRA agenda, but I do try to acknowledge truth and respect worthy ideas of the other guys.

The correct choice is to ignore Taramarie. Further conclusions from that, are not warranted.

Your term "your perspective is flawed" was too general and all-embracing. I could not agree with it; nor does it seem the best claim to make if you want someone to listen. I don't say that "your perspective is flawed" on all issues, as such a claim would imply. I consider your perspective good on many things. In general, it's probably best not to make such over-arching general judgements. My preference, when I disagree with someone personally in a dialogue, is to point out the truth as I see it on particular issues, or question assumptions, etc. I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.

[pbrower2a]

OK, some people deserve no attention. The lunatics incapable of expressing a coherent thought probably can't understand my response, either. Internet trolls draw attention for all the wrong reasons. I do not want to discuss my sexuality and especially not what someone wants to believe about me because of one of my stances. (I became resolutely for gay rights once I was gay-bashed because what makes life safer for gays makes my life safer in case someone gets my sexual orientation wrong). I have no desire to debate people who have cruelty and destructiveness as cornerstones of their thought. And, yes, there really are people who are just simply wrong and they cannot accept after finding out that they are wrong that they cannot accept the reality.

The real problem isn't some lunatic howling at the moon. The problem is the person schooled in the wondrous product of three millennia of achievement can still believe in catastrophically-failed patterns of thought even after one can express clearly the consequences of such thought. That is where Galen and I have a problem. He believes that unrestrained greed is the fount of all achievement, something to be cultivated irrespective of the human cost.

To be sure, people can hold some cranky ideas as theology, but if they can devise a workable society out of such -- then so what.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-15-2017, 02:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, some people deserve no attention. The lunatics incapable of expressing a coherent thought probably can't understand my response, either. Internet trolls draw attention for all the wrong reasons. I do not want to discuss my sexuality and especially not what someone wants to believe about me because of one of my stances. (I became resolutely for gay rights once I was gay-bashed because what makes life safer for gays makes my life safer in case someone gets my sexual orientation wrong). I have no desire to debate people who have cruelty and destructiveness as cornerstones of their thought.  And, yes, there really are people who are just simply wrong and they cannot accept after finding out that they are wrong that they cannot accept the reality.  

The real problem isn't some lunatic howling at the moon. The problem is the person schooled in the wondrous product of three millennia of achievement can still believe in catastrophically-failed patterns of thought even after one can express clearly the consequences of such thought. That is where Galen and I have a problem. He believes that unrestrained greed is the fount of all achievement, something to be cultivated irrespective of the human cost.

I have noted that Galen isn't exactly restrained in what he says, but did Galen really say the above in bold?  It sounds more like a straw man, a vile lie misstating what the other guys are trying to say.

Mind you, it is not far from a similar characterization I have made of the general red ideology.  Advocating greed is an element of tribal morality.  If one has something good going on for one and one's group, it in no way implies that the good should be shared by folks outside one's on group.  I've been using the catch phrase, "I've got mine, up yours."  I've been identifying narrow tribal morality as real, but a character flaw to be fought against rather than a worthy excuse for superiority and oppression.  Other than Kinser a while ago, I've found most are unwilling to admit to tribal thinking.  They just cut taxes and services and pretend there is no consequence.

In the clash of world views, again, tribal morality clashes with positive rights such as Freedom from Want and UDHR 25.  Red partisans will seldom acknowledge or endorse such positive rights.  It seems they are slippery ideas which shouldn't be acknowledged, respected or even mentioned.  I strongly suspect that tribal morality conflicting with Freedom from Want is a great core of the red - blue conflict.  As long as we have a huge division of wealth, there need not be and should not be Want, at least from basics like food, shelter and clothing.  In a time where jobs are getting harder to find, we ought to strive towards living wages.

Anyway, if there is a balance to be found between red and blue, it might have to be in part Freedom from Want against Freedom to be Filthy Rich.  One proposal might be for UDHR 25 to be acknowledged as a worthy and moral goal, but beyond that attempts to impose coastal culture on the middle of the country should be minimized or eliminated.  Economic competition should be recognized and allowed while the need for a floor is acknowledged.

Now, I have been pushing for Franklin's Freedom from Want as made specific by Elanor's UDHR 25.  These seem like classic blue positive rights from infamous progressive figures.  Can you endorse them?  When I advocate for those ideas, can I speak for fellow progressives, or am I fairly unique?  I'd like to hear some basic acknowledgement of the ideals from anyone who believes in them, or open rejection of them from those that don't.

***

I've another tangent on positive rights, nothing to do with your comments, but tying in with the discourse on positive and negative rights.  In this case, a positive right to a decent environment.

I can see where different attitudes might develop.  I grew up in a crowded suburban environment with the associated high population density.  There were enough people around that if we all abused the environment we'd soon destroy it.  On the other hand, I spent some time in Colorado Springs, Great Falls and elsewhere working for the Military Industrial Complex.  Less people.  More land.  You could ride through the mountains and see nigh on untouched beautiful territory, then pass by an old mining complex where people just walked away and left everything to rust.  Overall, there was enough wild to be taken for granted traversed by a people who did indeed take it for granted.  With a lower population density, they would make less effort to preserve what they had.

Is there a positive right to an intact environment?  Does the land belong to those who live on the land, or to government bureaucrats living far away on the coast?  To what extent should the blue and faraway attempt to impose their standards and values on those living in God's country?  In addition to trash and exploitation, do we add global warming?

It's easy to see where different values are drawn deep.  In an unspoiled land, why not spoil things?  I've no easy answers.  I'm just throwing another aspect of the red - blue divide on the table.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The correct choice is to ignore Taramarie. Further conclusions from that, are not warranted.

The NRA...  Taramarie...  For amusement I'll keep a list.

(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your term "your perspective is flawed" was too general and all-embracing. I could not agree with it; nor does it seem the best claim to make if you want someone to listen. I don't say that "your perspective is flawed" on all issues, as such a claim would imply. I consider your perspective good on many things. In general, it's probably best not to make such over-arching general judgements. My preference, when I disagree with someone personally in a dialogue, is to point out the truth as I see it on particular issues, or question assumptions, etc. I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.

First, I never said "your perspective is flawed".  Try “Many a partisan would rather go into insult or silence mode than admit their perspective flawed.”  Ironically, I can echo “I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.”  Mine was a broad statement about extreme partisans.  Alas, a lot of extreme partisans perceive themselves to be exceptions when they are not.

Why do I say that?  Extreme partisans cling tightly to unusual world views.  In order to cling to these extreme world views, they have to reject information.  This may take the form of rejecting information from sources they don’t like, rejecting contact with certain individuals, forming strawman notions of what opposing partisans believe, misquoting people, or refusing to continue a contact that isn’t going well.  It’s all par for the course.

You, I don’t worry about going silent.  You may well stop listening, but you don’t tend to fall quiet.

Anyway, if you expect those you disagree with you to be defeated or subdued, how do you expect those who disagree to behave?  If you are going to spam ridicule, do you not expect returned comment?

[Eric the Green]

(07-15-2017, 10:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The correct choice is to ignore Taramarie. Further conclusions from that, are not warranted.

The NRA...  Taramarie...  For amusement I'll keep a list.

(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your term "your perspective is flawed" was too general and all-embracing. I could not agree with it; nor does it seem the best claim to make if you want someone to listen. I don't say that "your perspective is flawed" on all issues, as such a claim would imply. I consider your perspective good on many things. In general, it's probably best not to make such over-arching general judgements. My preference, when I disagree with someone personally in a dialogue, is to point out the truth as I see it on particular issues, or question assumptions, etc. I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.

First, I never said "your perspective is flawed".  Try “Many a partisan would rather go into insult or silence mode than admit their perspective flawed.”  Ironically, I can echo “I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.”  Mine was a broad statement about extreme partisans.  Alas, a lot of extreme partisans perceive themselves to be exceptions when they are not.

Why do I say that?  Extreme partisans cling tightly to unusual world views.  In order to cling to these extreme world views, they have to reject information.  This may take the form of rejecting information from sources they don’t like, rejecting contact with certain individuals, forming strawman notions of what opposing partisans believe, misquoting people, or refusing to continue a contact that isn’t going well.  It’s all par for the course.

You, I don’t worry about going silent.  You may well stop listening, but you don’t tend to fall quiet.

Anyway, if you expect those you disagree with you to be defeated or subdued, how do you expect those who disagree to behave?  If you are going to spam ridicule, do you not expect returned comment?

If people want to disagree with what John Oliver or Seth Meyers say, that's their privilege. Maybe they can back it up; although I doubt it. If you call posting them "spam," that's your insult. If you refuse to admit that, while criticizing people for not being civil, that's your hypocrisy.

My refusal to continue mis-dialogue with terror-marie, has nothing to do with my world-view, which btw is not an unusual one. Of course, you are making general statements in this post above, so I can assume it's not a personal description of me..... I won't dispute further what you said about my perspective; time to move on.....

Why should anyone not want an opposing group to be defeated? That's just politics, and history. Things need to move forward. That means the old ways have to go. If people disagree about which side is out of date, well, that's how things go too. You can't escape these conflicts by worrying about how people will behave. The conflict and the choice has to be faced.

This is a 4T. Should we have worried about how people would behave if we expected to defeat and subdue the Nazis? Or Dixie? Or King George? No. Or even without war, the Tories? The Democrats under Pierce, Buchanan, Douglas and Breckinridge? Or the Republicans of Hoover and Landon? No. One side was defeated and subdued, and one side was victorious and moved on to shape history.

[pbrower2a]

(07-15-2017, 05:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-15-2017, 02:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, some people deserve no attention. The lunatics incapable of expressing a coherent thought probably can't understand my response, either. Internet trolls draw attention for all the wrong reasons. I do not want to discuss my sexuality and especially not what someone wants to believe about me because of one of my stances. (I became resolutely for gay rights once I was gay-bashed because what makes life safer for gays makes my life safer in case someone gets my sexual orientation wrong). I have no desire to debate people who have cruelty and destructiveness as cornerstones of their thought.  And, yes, there really are people who are just simply wrong and they cannot accept after finding out that they are wrong that they cannot accept the reality.  

The real problem isn't some lunatic howling at the moon. The problem is the person schooled in the wondrous product of three millennia of achievement can still believe in catastrophically-failed patterns of thought even after one can express clearly the consequences of such thought. That is where Galen and I have a problem. He believes that unrestrained greed is the fount of all achievement, something to be cultivated irrespective of the human cost.

I have noted that Galen isn't exactly restrained in what he says, but did Galen really say the above in bold?  It sounds more like a straw man, a vile lie misstating what the other guys are trying to say.

The mainstream opinion is that a State that forces a massive empowerment of economic elites by cutting taxes on the economic elites with a corresponding abolition of air to the poor culminating in the removal of the safety net will lead to much more human suffering than to any economic growth. This also comes with destruction of workers' rights. There would have to be extreme growth in the economy to offset the harm that such policies do  to the non-rich.

it would be one thing if he could express a coherent argument that economic growth would compensate for early harm. Maybe if workers were sweated more on the job   there would be more productivity. Maybe people would be motivated to work harder while expecting the fruit of their toil going to more investment in business as compensation for intense hardship. Maybe hunger, cold, and fear of superiors are excellent motivators of people. I understand his defense of his ideology against the harm that I see in it is essentially the trivialization "So what?"

Quote:Mind you, it is not far from a similar characterization I have made of the general red ideology.  Advocating greed is an element of tribal morality.  If one has something good going on for one and one's group, it in no way implies that the good should be shared by folks outside one's on group.  I've been using the catch phrase, "I've got mine, up yours."  I've been identifying narrow tribal morality as real, but a character flaw to be fought against rather than a worthy excuse for superiority and oppression.  Other than Kinser a while ago, I've found most are unwilling to admit to tribal thinking.  They just cut taxes and services and pretend there is no consequence.

"Tribes" can be ethnic or religious groups, regional groupings, occupational groupings, or social classes, among other things. Tribalism is one of the more questionable forms of collectivism, one that says that one group of people rightly have first choice of educational, vocational, and business opportunities.  If it makes no sense in theory and gets suspect results in practice. tribalism is an ethical failure to be rejected.

Quote:In the clash of world views, again, tribal morality clashes with positive rights such as Freedom from Want and UDHR 25.  Red partisans will seldom acknowledge or endorse such positive rights.  It seems they are slippery ideas which shouldn't be acknowledged, respected or even mentioned.  I strongly suspect that tribal morality conflicting with Freedom from Want is a great core of the red - blue conflict.  As long as we have a huge division of wealth, there need not be and should not be Want, at least from basics like food, shelter and clothing.  In a time where jobs are getting harder to find, we ought to strive towards living wages.

It may be that in the post-scarcity era (which sounds much like Marx' description of Communism) certainty of income has a justification in that not all people can be producers as a market dictates.  The big money comes from meeting scarcities, which means discovering new markets or filling neglected niches.

Quote:Anyway, if there is a balance to be found between red and blue, it might have to be in part Freedom from Want against Freedom to be Filthy Rich.  One proposal might be for UDHR 25 to be acknowledged as a worthy and moral goal, but beyond that attempts to impose coastal culture on the middle of the country should be minimized or eliminated.  Economic competition should be recognized and allowed while the need for a floor is acknowledged.

We may be at the point at which guaranteed income is a necessity. We cannot simply produce more stuff to get a better world. Many people downsize, which implies a great quantity of former middle-class possessions in thrift shops. Good question: what would you do with $1.5K of guaranteed income (including health insurance and food aid)? Would you volunteer? Would you put your creative talents to use?

Most of us have all the manufactured goods that we need.

Quote:Now, I have been pushing for Franklin's Freedom from Want as made specific by Elanor's UDHR 25.  These seem like classic blue positive rights from infamous progressive figures.  Can you endorse them?  When I advocate for those ideas, can I speak for fellow progressives, or am I fairly unique?  I'd like to hear some basic acknowledgement of the ideals from anyone who believes in them, or open rejection of them from those that don't.

Freedom from want is the proof of the success of an economic order, whether capitalist or socialist.

***

Quote:I've another tangent on positive rights, nothing to do with your comments, but tying in with the discourse on positive and negative rights.  In this case, a positive right to a decent environment.

I can see where different attitudes might develop.  I grew up in a crowded suburban environment with the associated high population density.  There were enough people around that if we all abused the environment we'd soon destroy it.  On the other hand, I spent some time in Colorado Springs, Great Falls and elsewhere working for the Military Industrial Complex.  Less people.  More land.  You could ride through the mountains and see nigh on untouched beautiful territory, then pass by an old mining complex where people just walked away and left everything to rust.  Overall, there was enough wild to be taken for granted traversed by a people who did indeed take it for granted.  With a lower population density, they would make less effort to preserve what they had.

Is there a positive right to an intact environment?  Does the land belong to those who live on the land, or to government bureaucrats living far away on the coast?  To what extent should the blue and faraway attempt to impose their standards and values on those living in God's country?  In addition to trash and exploitation, do we add global warming?

It's easy to see where different values are drawn deep.  In an unspoiled land, why not spoil things?  I've no easy answers.  I'm just throwing another aspect of the red - blue divide on the table.

Let's start with this self-evident right: people do not deserve to be rendered homeless and otherwise destitute because of inundation of their farmland. The sorts of people that global warming will first and most severely hurt will be peasant farmers in low-lying areas For an affluent American, some peasant farmer in Bangladesh is someone worthy of legitimate concern. Likewise some campesino in Latin America who dehydrates more frequently and more severely with resulting damage to the kidneys that shortens his life.  Global warming of human origin could kill as many people as World War II and the genocides that happened under the fog of war. But there will be no Hitler, Tojo, or Stalin upon which one will be able to place culpability through evil designs.

The urban-rural divide is often one between those who get to enjoy nature with little difficulty, those who must plan and spend to do so, and those priced out of the enjoyment of nature. Damage is a different question. One can burn off huge amounts of fuel  in off-road driving if one lives in parts of the desert Southwest. That's practically impossible in the corridor east of Interstate 81. People living in costly, cramped apartments use much less energy and generate much less trash than people with similar income in more spacious housing. One may not enjoy nature as much if one lives in the Bronx as one can if one lives in Billings... but I can tell you who is more likely to compact garbage, recycle soft-drink containers, and not go on Sunday drives.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-16-2017, 02:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The mainstream opinion is that a State that forces a massive empowerment of economic elites by cutting taxes on the economic elites with a corresponding abolition of air to the poor...

Is somebody denying air to the poor via strangulation?    Darn these spell checkers...

More seriously, good post.  I may get back to it.

[pbrower2a]

(07-16-2017, 08:19 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-16-2017, 02:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The mainstream opinion is that a State that forces a massive empowerment of economic elites by cutting taxes on the economic elites with a corresponding abolition of air to the poor...

Is somebody denying air to the poor via strangulation?    Darn these spell checkers...

Yes, tpyos happen to us all. Of course it is aid. Spell-check is limited in its logic.

A society that casts off people to hunger once it no longer needs them is sick.

Quote:More seriously, good post.  I may get back to it.

Thank you.

[Eric the Green]

(07-20-2017, 02:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-16-2017, 08:19 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-16-2017, 02:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The mainstream opinion is that a State that forces a massive empowerment of economic elites by cutting taxes on the economic elites with a corresponding abolition of air to the poor...

Is somebody denying air to the poor via strangulation?    Darn these spell checkers...

Yes, tpyos happen to us all. Of course it is aid. Spell-check is limited in its logic.

A society that casts off people to hunger once it no longer needs them is sick.

Quote:More seriously, good post.  I may get back to it.

Thank you.

Of course, it IS abolition of air too. Breathable air at least.

[gabrielle]

Protesters clash in Virginia city on eve of white nationalist rally

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-12-2017, 08:42 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Protesters clash in Virginia city on eve of white nationalist rally

The timing of the alt-right violence seems a bit strange to me.  All it takes is a few dozen to hit national headlines, yet it has been erratic rather than continuous.

[pbrower2a]

[pbrower2a]

On the man arrested for driving his car into the crowd of counter-protesters against the white racists assembled in Charlottesville, Virginia:

Quote:“I thought it had something to do with [President Donald] Trump. Trump’s not a white supremacist,” said his mother, Samantha Bloom.

Bloom, who said her son recently moved to Ohio from Kentucky, told the Toledo Blade that she didn’t speak with her son about his political views.

One of Fields’ former high school teachers, who spoke with Cincinnati TV station WCPO, said he remembered Fields as having “radical views” that made him stand out.

“He had some very radical views on race, he was very infatuated with Nazis, with Adolf Hitler,” Derek Weimer of Cooper High School in Boone County, Kentucky, told the station.

“He was pretty infatuated with that stuff. His freshman year he had an issue with that that was raised,” Weimer added, without going into more detail.

Fields was arrested and charged with one count of second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and one count related to leaving the scene of the wreck.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/char...247274ff48

[Eric the Green]

This is not acceptable.

[pbrower2a]

A murder victim (at least as I understand the circumstances) of the Alt Right:

RUCKERSVILLE, Va. ― The woman who was killed in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday when a car plowed into a group of anti-racist demonstrators was a 32-year-old paralegal who was passionate about social justice.

Quote:Heather Heyer’s mother, Susan Bro, told HuffPost that her daughter attended Saturday’s rally because she “was about bringing an end to injustice.”

“Heather was not about hate, Heather was about stopping hatred,” Bro said through tears. “Heather was about bringing an end to injustice. I don’t want her death to be a focus for more hatred, I want her death to be a rallying cry for justice and equality and fairness and compassion.”

According to The Associated Press, Heyer was struck as she was crossing the street. At least 19 others were injured in the crash, some critically, said police.

20-year-old James Fields Jr. was arrested over the incident and charged with murder. Fields was one of thousands of members of the so-called “alt right” who were in Charlottesville attending Saturday’s “Unite The Right” march. The rally became violent after the white supremacists were confronted by anti-fascist groups.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) tweeted condolences to Heyer’s family and said that “her bravery should inspire us all to come together.”

In a few months I expect the legal process to have assembled a case and a jury in the event that there is no plea bargain.

[Kinser79]

(08-12-2017, 01:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-12-2017, 08:42 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Protesters clash in Virginia city on eve of white nationalist rally

The timing of the alt-right violence seems a bit strange to me.  All it takes is a few dozen to hit national headlines, yet it has been erratic rather than continuous.

There is a reason for that.  Because according to the Lugenpresse that masquerades as the Main Stream Media (MSM) everyone slightly to the right of Bill Clinton is Adolf Hitler.  Unfortunately these clowns don't seem to realize that if you start labeling everyone a nazi the real nazis eventually show up, and when they do, they show up with a far larger mass than they otherwise would have.

In short I strongly suspect that the US is setting itself up for a civil war, which fits into the two stroke internal/external 4T pattern.

[Kinser79]

(08-13-2017, 11:03 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: On the man arrested for driving his car into the crowd of counter-protesters against the white racists assembled in Charlottesville, Virginia:

Quote:“I thought it had something to do with [President Donald] Trump. Trump’s not a white supremacist,” said his mother, Samantha Bloom.

Bloom, who said her son recently moved to Ohio from Kentucky, told the Toledo Blade that she didn’t speak with her son about his political views.

One of Fields’ former high school teachers, who spoke with Cincinnati TV station WCPO, said he remembered Fields as having “radical views” that made him stand out.

“He had some very radical views on race, he was very infatuated with Nazis, with Adolf Hitler,” Derek Weimer of Cooper High School in Boone County, Kentucky, told the station.

“He was pretty infatuated with that stuff. His freshman year he had an issue with that that was raised,” Weimer added, without going into more detail.

Fields was arrested and charged with one count of second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and one count related to leaving the scene of the wreck.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/char...247274ff48

The article you linked to is extremely light on substance.  According their argument, I a gay, black man would be a neo-nazi because I recognize that whites and blacks are in fact different on very deep and fundamental levels (seriously there is a reason I prefer the company of whites) and have also read Mein Kampf (in the original German, which like Marx is the only way to read it--so much is lost in translation).

[Warren Dew]

(08-12-2017, 01:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-12-2017, 08:42 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Protesters clash in Virginia city on eve of white nationalist rally

The timing of the alt-right violence seems a bit strange to me.  All it takes is a few dozen to hit national headlines, yet it has been erratic rather than continuous.

That's because while the alt right is large, very few of them are extremists such as the ones who conducted this rally.  And even then, violence requires a counterprotest.  Basically, these white nationalists are even more of a fringe group than Occupy Wall Street or the Black Lives Matter militants were.

However, Kinser correctly notes that the tremendously overinflated news coverage they get works to their advantage.  The publicity is a great recruiting tool for them.