“Authorities in New York and Chicago warn Jewish communities to stay alert after neo-Nazi groups declare ‘Day of Hate'”
These are not “liberals.” These are not “woke” people. These are the people who marched arm in arm with the people carrying Confederate flags and Trump flags on January 6. These people are the conservative base, the people without whom conservatives cannot win elections.
Will Saturday be another day of mass shootings? Probably not. Police will be on high alert Saturday. No, this Saturday will just plant the seeds for the next time.
Want to get serious about stopping mass shootings? Here’s another good place to start. Conservatives could dial back the hate. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for Trump or DeSantis or MTG or Boebert or anybody else on the right to stand up and condemn these “good people.” They can’t. This is their base. These are their people.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
They aren’t Liberals??
What does the banner they are carrying say? Nationalist SOCIALIST Party is what I saw, and I saw no Trump banners nor any Confederate flags, just proud socialists.
Their hatred for Jews and Blacks is no deeper than their hatred for the rich. They frequently use the phrase “Jewish Bankers” in their rhetoric, much like the Klan of the 30s and 40s.
They are closer to your side of the fence than mine.
LikeLike
You disappoint me, Don. Saying Nazis are liberals because the word “socialist” is in their title is like saying Lincoln was a Republican, therefore Republicans can’t be racists. YOU KNOW BETTER!
But, if Nazis are not on your side of the fence, where are your leaders in condemning them? Trump called them “good people” when they marched in Charlottesville. I haven’t heard any anti-Nazi speeches from anybody in your party. Come on! Get on the ball! Condemn Nazis at least as much as you condemn the “woke.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just can’t respond without repeating lies.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html#!
I am more concerned with the Woke than Nazis because Nazi’s in the US are clowns no one takes seriously. The Woke are clowns in the White House. They are the greater threat.
The NAZIs ARE SOCIALISTS.
Not just back in Germany in the 30s, but here in the US today. Their wealth envy is as bad as yours. That doesn’t make you a NAZI but their economics are closer to yours than to mine.
LikeLike
Maybe I give you too much credit, Don. Maybe you really don’t know that Nazis are Fascists, not Socialists. Here’s an article that can explain it to you: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/
As for my “envy of wealth,” here’s another parable for you:
Chuang Tzu was traveling through the countryside one day when he was confronted by a local priest who told Chuang Tzu he should not enter his town because no one there needed another priest. Chuang Tzu, of course, had no intentions of staying in this town, but he thought for a moment and said:
There once was a magnificent bird called a Phoenix. It could fly to the highest mountain tops and dine on the sweetest fruits from the tops of the tallest trees. It could dive into the deepest depths of the ocean and partake of the most delicate seafoods. One day the Phoenix flew over an owl, sitting on a branch, clutching a dead mouse. The owl looked up and screeched, certain the Phoenix wanted its mouse.
Chuang Tzu looked at the priest and asked, “Sir, are you screeching at me?”
No need to screech at me, Don. I don’t want your dead mouse.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Your link is paywalled, but I’ll rely on the expert on the subject.
Hitler said that Fascism was the perfection of socialism.
The claim that Nazi’s hated socialism results from not knowing the context.
The Fascists and NAZIs were nationalists. The socialists and communists of the time were one-worlders, who believed that as socialism matured into communism, national borders would no longer be needed.
Fascism, and Nazism, were collectivist organizations in which the State controlled all production even though industry theoretically remained in private hands,
If not exactly socialism. it was the opposite of free market capitalism. The closest parallel is the organization of the Mafia.
Conservatism is inherently individualist. while fascism is the extreme of collectivisim.
LikeLike
“ Conservatism is inherently individualist.”
Maybe in the Libertarian world. But one of the driving forces for White supremacy is the fear of replacement by “lesser people”. Add in Christian nationalism, and you have religious bigotry.
Both of those want to “conserve” a vision of America that they want to keep and revive. And scapegoating Jews, Blacks, Hispanics is the mechanism to keep the movement motivated.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“ The closest parallel is the organization of the Mafia.”
You have finally “woken” up. (Pun intended).
The Mafia is not liberal or socialist. And it is what Russia bases its government and economy on. Unwavering loyalty to the chief, financial gains. from favored businesses in return for staying alive, and enough trickle down monies to keep revolution at bay. Daily appeals to patriotism to keep the illusion of being under threat from outside influence. (And to most, this sounds awfully familiar, as in the previous administration.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Your link is paywalled, but I’ll rely on the expert on the subject.”
Is your stable genius intellect really so limited that you do not understand the difference between words and actions. Hitler was a politician. He paid lip service to socialism because socialism was on the rise in Europe in the 1930s – they did not have an FDR to save capitalism.
It is his actions that count. There was absolutely nothing “socialist” about the Nazi state. There was no ownership of the means of production by the workers. There were not even the social welfare programs that you people label as “socialist” all the time. Corporations did not “theoretically” remain in the hands of the oligarchs. They DID remain in their hands. Actual socialists were rounded up and murdered.
The Nazi state controlled production not based on socialist theory but on the exigencies of war in exactly the same way that EVERY warring country did. Including ours. The profits from German war industry did not go to the workers. It went to the capitalists who helped Hitler take power.
That is the real history. “Conservative” attempts to distance themselves from the Nazi wing of the political spectrum are a bust.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Were there any “fine people” at the Unite the Right rally. If it was all about the statue, what were all the Neo-Nazi groups doing there. And they were there in all their glory, shields, symbols…the full Monty. Any historians?
Trump didn’t clarify until pressed to do so. Why?
This is the same crap as his assertion that the gangs need to “stand by”. The gangs are his people.
I would not defend Trump on his twisting and turning to make sure those “Jews won’t replace us” voters stick with him. He knew then, as well as now, that he needs their votes. If he can make it look like he was coerced to satisfy media, then he would be excused.
So stick with the “technically, he didn’t really call them fine people” because he backpedaled. That is what MAGA does to justify support for Trump.
LikeLiked by 2 people
His original statement seemed clear enough to me, no backpedaling was really necessary.
How many Nazi votes do you think there are? Maybe a thousand nation wide? Include the KKK(which aren’t NAZIs) and maybe 10K.
“A small number of really bad people”
No one needs those votes.
LikeLike
Don, the numbers of hard core Nazis may be
small, but the spill over is much greater. Otherwise why on earth would Trump have tap danced until pressed. Or the “standby” gangs. Not that many either, but they represent a belief by many, many more. Like you.
No, your are not necessarily a gang member, but you have defended them many times. “European chauvinists”, really? That is pure racism under the most generous description. And that fits with the “shithole” countries v. Norway viewpoint.
Oathkeepers? They are just ex-police and military patriots. Like Brown Shirts, perhaps? There are thousands of them, but a legion of admirers and supporters.
You think Trump’s enthusiastic embrace of birtherism was to get a few thousand Nazis and KKK votes? That would be a given, but the tacit agreement among MAGA are millions.
The Nazis in Germany had a fitful start, but as conditions worsened, they took hold and the rest is history.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your TDS is distorting your view of fellow Americans.
When people tell you what they believe, take them at their word until proven otherwise. The Proud Boys are primarily standing against the Woke constantly apologizing for Western civilization. Yes, we displaced the Amerindians. So what? Show me the place on Earth where inefficient cultures have not been displaced by more advanced ones.
The Proud Boys have Blacks in their leadership, yet you try to paint them as an extension of the Klan.
You’re seeing your paint and not what is underneath.
The Oathkeepers were formed primarily in response to the failure of the courts to enforce the 2nd Amendment, something that appears to be changing. What is it you think is wrong with adhering to their oath to support the Constitution?
Yes, there are millions in the MAGA movement, but they are proud Americans dedicated to our heritage and values and the Rule of Law applied to government as well as individuals.
They are not racists. They only look that way through your TDS glasses.
LikeLike
“Yes, we displaced the Amerindians. So what?”
And God forbid that our children should learn that history. We better get the Ministry of Truth on the case so we don’t get some woke version of the past where SUPERIOR and rapacious white people committed genocide on a continental scale.
Your defense of the Oath Keepers tells the true story. It is very revealing. A violent response to the unwanted workings of our democratic and Constitutional order is not only justified, but admirable. I suppose when they get out of prison they will be welcome speakers at future gatherings of the real Americans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are thousands of Oath Keepers in no danger of going to prison. A handful participated in a riot, maybe 1% of the total membership.
They are current and former military and policemen who take their oath to the Constitution seriously, and are rightly concerned with our abandonment of the Constitution in the name of democracy.
They are our quiet insurance policy that protects the Constitution.
As for the Amerindians, inefficient cultures get displaced. They had the richest continent on Earth for more than 10,000 years and had made negligible progress, still being a stone age hunter gatherer culture.
Would it have been moral to let them keep the continent while people in Europe and Asia starved in the hardships of the Little Ice Age?
In a very real sense, they were displaced by the real climate refugees.
LikeLike
“They are our quiet insurance policy that protects the Constitution.”
Uh, no. They are the potential traitors that our Constitution explicitly singled out for the death penalty. See Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 for the definition of Treason. And while most “Oath Keepers” did not participate in the attempted overthrow of the government, their leaders did. And it is the leaders that set the agenda of such an organization.
As for the claimed moral superiority of genocide, it does not deserve a response. But, it clearly shows where you are coming from. Thanks for that.
By the way, your characterization of the native people encountered by Europeans as “still being a stone age hunter gatherer culture” is beyond ignorant. It is ugly self-serving stupidity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because you say so?
What in Amerindian culture justified leaving millions to starve to death in Europe and Asia?
The “agenda” of the Oath Keepers is to refuse to participate in the enforcement of unconstitutional laws.
Less than 1% of their members let personal loyalty to Trump override that goal.
Do you want to hold all Democrats responsible for the excesses of Antifa?
LikeLike
“The “agenda” of the Oath Keepers is to refuse to participate in the enforcement of unconstitutional laws.”
Fine, let them resign when asked to do so. But that is not what they threaten. They threaten and PREPARE for violence. They ARE the potential traitors that the Constitution addresses. Some of them – their leaders – have acted on those threats and are now where they belong – in prison.
With all due respect, your attempted moral jujitsu with respect to European genocide is ridiculous. You are someone who finds it immoral to be taxed to feed a starving child but wiping out tens of millions because you are hungry is okay? You ask . . . what moral right did Amerindians have to deny their homes to invaders? Really? Try thinking about that question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yet conquest of less efficient cultures is universal, whether you approve or not.
Think if it as natural selection applied to cultures.
LikeLike
“Yet conquest of less efficient cultures is universal . . .”
You seem to think that it is therefore moral. And that resisting genocide would have been immoral. There could not be a better exemplar of “conservative” morality – might makes right. It explains your love of oligarchs, bullies, and dictators.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, natural selection applies to cultures just as much as to species.
LikeLike
“Again, natural selection applies to cultures just as much as to species.
So, it is moral to deliberately slaughter people and take what is theirs because it is “natural?” Keep digging, Dr. Tabor. The more you write, the more you reveal of the dark essence of “conservative” thought.
Here is some wisdom that you might benefit from . . . “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quoting a fictional religious fanatic?
So, your morality requires leaving the most productive land in the world undeveloped by the perhaps 4 million inhabitants instead of bringing more efficient culture to make use of those resources.
Of course, assimilation is the moral choice rather than genocide. But the least moral choice would be leaving the continent undeveloped while millions starved in Europe and Asia.
LikeLike
“Of course, assimilation is the moral choice rather than genocide.”
Why did you not say so in the first place? Too hard to just accept that our white ancestors committed genocide so we had to talk about natural selection of superior cultures.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Where did I recommend genocide?
I said their culture would be displaced. You’re the one who went straight to genocide.
LikeLike
“I said their culture would be displaced. You’re the one who went straight to genocide.”
Uh, no. You brought up Amerindians when you said this in defense of being no woke . . .
“Yes, we displaced the Amerindians. So what? Show me the place on Earth where inefficient cultures have not been displaced by more advanced ones.”
We displaced the Amerindians alright. By killing 90% of them. There is a word for that. The word is “genocide.” And your moral take on this genocide? “So what?” And what is your MAGA party take on that – it is “divisive” and cannot be taught.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, you are projecting. I said the culture would be displaced. That does not require killing people.
Assimilation would have been a far better option.
Of course, it is hard to explain that to smallpox.
LikeLike
“Again, you are projecting. I said the culture would be displaced. That does not require killing people”
You can shove that “projecting” bullshit up your ass. Your tense switching is fooling no one. You were talking about the history of the Amerindians when you wrote in the past tense : “Yes, we displaced the Amerindians. So what?” That historical “displacing” involved killing millions of people.
Now you are shifting to some sort of future subjunctive tense . . . “the culture would be displaced” as if it had not happened and might be done without mass murder. Nice try, but busted.
You can shuck and jive when the grotesque ugliness of what you had to say is pointed out, but you still said it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Assimilation would have been a far better option.”
Jews have tried that for centuries. It NEVER seems to work out so well for them. America being the exception. UNless the anti-Semites in the closet come out and be counted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“ But the least moral choice would be leaving the continent undeveloped while millions starved in Europe and Asia.”
So Jackson killed thousands on the Trail of Tears so China could eat? Now I understand😇.
Genocide was the norm for colonial powers. Not to eventually give rise to an enlightened indigenous peoples, but to work them to death or take the land. See Belgian’s King Leopold to see how that worked to the benefit of the current African nations. Divided by random borders, abandoned when resources dried up or poorly trained locals were promoted to political power in return for riches.
That may have been acceptable socially, politically and religiously so long as Africans were considered an inferior race. That is not acceptable today, but damage has been done that will take decades, if not more, to repair. Our difference is that we never left America. Instead we shoved the indigenous onto land we thought was not valuable and smiled. Of course, if something were found, treaties were broken and moving day arrived.
All this is history. True. But history that defines modern cultural society has had an effect that needs to be recognized and then we might see if we can change what can be changed and accept what cannot. Hiding or ignoring that because it is divisive or uncomfortable is not healthy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jackson came about 200 years after the commitment to colonizing the Americas had been made.
LikeLike
So, he didn’t kill off thousands on the Trail of Tears. Are you saying it was just for fun?
Is it better to kill indigenous after 200 years? 100?
Truthfully, I really don’t know what your point is. The era of exploration in the15th, 16th and 17th centuries created the seeds for colonialism by Europe. But Léopold’s atrocious slaughter and treatment of the Congo people lasted until 1908.
That we killed large numbers of indigenous on our push across the country is not in question. Could we have done better as the “all men are created equal” nation is worthy of study. And its effects on the modern lives of indigenous peoples today.
The joke is that Indian casinos are the revenge for centuries of bloodshed and misery. A joke based on reality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What I am saying is that for America, the die was cast long before Jackson was involved.
LikeLike
How much assimilation was offered to the native peoples? Or were they just tossed in the name of economics?
LikeLike
…”less efficient cultures is universal, “…
How much of that “less efficient culture” did we steal from them? AGricultural techniques and the basis for our form of government come to mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why is learning from the experience of others now stealing?
Ideally, we should learn from them and they should learn from us.
Many did.
LikeLike
BUt if they are “less efficient” why steal form them?
LikeLike
“BUt if they are “less efficient” why steal form them?”
Dr. Tabor declared the 60 million people or so living in this hemisphere in 1492 to be nothing but “a stone age hunter gatherer culture” ripe for genocide by “more efficient” cultures like that of white Europeans. So, if killing them is okay, certainly it is okay to steal from them as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now you’re getting silly.
Of course a culture less efficient overall can still have useful knowledge.
LikeLike
Less efficient, in this case, also means less armed with weapons. It was superior force that doomed the indigenous peoples.
LikeLike
“Do you want to hold all Democrats responsible for the excesses of Antifa?”
You and Mr. Roberts, as well as Mr. Smith have done that repeatedly. Also, you have previously called “The Squad” the voice of the Democratic Party. “The Squad”, which Nancy Pelosi so effectively kept in the fold.
And ANTIFA is a movement, not a party or organized group. Unlike the Oath Keepers, 3 Percents, Proud Boys and the rest of the groups that you CLAIM to be protectors of the Constitutional order, when in fact their goal is to overthrow the Constitution through violence and not the means established IN the Constitution to change it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I knew TDS would arise again. Predictable and beside the point.
I also figured you would approve of the gangs. Look, there is a token Black in the Proud Boys.
Look, Blacks fought for the Confederacy. Look we had a Black president.
Few things in life are clear cut.
We boomers profited greatly because our parents came home from WW2, got housing, education at the finest schools, got good paying jobs. If they were White.
That is at least a 20 year headstart if just counting the actual Civil Rights legislation.
At best. More like 40 years if we look at the ensuing battles to enforce equal access.
So now it’s “pull yourself up by the bootstraps”. “We did and look at us now.” “Now it’s your turn.”
Sure, there is serious crime in the White abandoned inner cities. But there are lots of hard working folks there, two or three jobs, juggling non-existent affordable daycare and they would like that cleaned up. Community cohesion was important in Jim Crow era. Only when a community got too successful, uppity don’t you know, would it risk destruction. Oklahom, Florida, Alabama…shameful, ignored in history unto recently. Still, communities and the Black churches made life tolerable in a hostile land.
Then came roads. Interstates. Where did they cut communities in half? Not Grosse Point in case you were wondering. So even the sense of community was wiped out.
History is crucial to understanding the present and what the future might bring. I could say take off your DDS glasses and see what the rest of the nation looks like.
IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people
“ What is it you think is wrong with adhering to their oath to support the Constitution?”
Which is why the Oathkeepers, Proud Boys and others tried to force the VP and Congress to perform a distinctly un-Constitutional overturning of the election.
They are gangs. Street brawlers and self appointed arbiters of what is right and proper to be an acceptable American with North European ancestry. You can dress these folks up and wrap them in flags, it does not change what they are.
And you can trust that the gangs and their admirers are not alone in patriotism. Like any country in the world, we have problems. The liberals tend to think we can, and should, improve rather than just accept societal ills. Maybe not all ideas work, but the old ways were not working either.
Republicans harp that they are the party of ideas. Come up with some for a change.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Only a small number of those arrested were members, not enough to be representative of the groups, and there is still doubt that they were charged appropriately. An issue we should revisit after Carlson’s team has examined the recently released videos.
LikeLike
If those videos were given to Joy Reid by Pelosi, you might nor be so cavalier. But it will be interesting to see all the security arrangements, escape routes, safe rooms and other sensitive spots for the next attacks.
As far as “small number”, there are the buildup of hundreds of messages, plans and storing of weapons in hotel rooms.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would agree that it would be better to have the videos reviewed by a panel of newspeople form across the spectrum.
But as I understand it, Carleson got an agreement to an exclusive in return for supplying the manpower to review 44,000 hours of video, and that the videos will be available to all in a few weeks.
LikeLike
“Carleson got an agreement to an exclusive in return for supplying the manpower to review 44,000 hours of video, ”
You got a site for that drivel? The only agreements were to give the info to him so he could spread his fertilizer all over the Fix News Network landscape and watch the conspiracy theories flow. -IMO
…”that the videos will be available to all in a few weeks.”
ALL video? Or just the stuff Carlson’s crackhead team alters and passes around to prove his BS?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Only a small number of those arrested were members, not enough to be representative of the groups,”…
Guilt by association? Sorry, but in your world if one Democrat says something ill-advised, that person speaks for the entire party. When one Right winger says anything ill-advised, that person is either misunderstood, quoted out of context and DOESN’T speak for all.
You have a habit of doing this and will point it out to you every time. Your hypocrisy is once again on display.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Come up with some for a change.”
Too busy investigating the investigators and looking to release Hunter Biden’s “Big Guy” pics from his laptop. Not to mention jeopardizing Congressional security by passing thousands of hours of security camera video to a purveyor and promoter of conspiracy theories, even though he knew what was being spread on his “show” was a LIE.
No ideas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…”the Woke c”…
Define “woke”. Go ahead. I dare you to describe it the same way as anyone else on this forum or anywhere else that use the term to describe anything from the Progressives side of an argument.. Except for the parrots that pat you on the back and add noting to the conversation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Woke is a virtue signaling contest.
LikeLike
You are the only one that calls it that. The originator of the term, Chris Rufo, calls it what it is: A marketing tool for the Right wing fanatics who are the ones who truly want to control the lives of those under them. Education, reproductive rights, Second Amendment absolutism. All things that the new GOP is attempting to use to win votes.
So who is virtue signalling now?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Woke is a virtue signaling contest.”
If so, it explains why “woke” is slur in your circles. Nobody wants to go into a contest with a decisive handicap. In this case, “conservatives” have no virtue to signal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re confusing ‘virtue signaling,’ which is inherently phony, with actual virtue.
Wokeness is driven by fear of what others think, groupthink enforced by cancel culture. Nothing more than intellectual cowardice.
LikeLike
Your attempted definition is misplaced. -IMO. And ignores the “virtues” from the right. Which are all about control of individuals and being forced to adhere to THAT version of groupthink.
In your world only the views of “conservatives” are virtuous. Virtue is in the eye of the beholder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What aspects of your life are under control by Republicans?
LikeLike
What books my grandchildren can read. What a woman can decide with her doctor about her body. Not being safe in the streets because everyone with a gun, good guy and bad, could pop off at any time.
Democrats stand for freedom of choice in their lives. Period. More trust for the individual than for a certain religious group to dictate to those who don’t adhere to their beliefs FORCED to do so by force of law. You try to equate progressive idea with those used in the 30’s and 40’s to ACTUALLY enslave a specific group of people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Freedom of choice? From Democrats?
If nothing changes, you will be unable to buy a new fuel powered car in VA in a few years.
No GOP passed law limits what your grandchildren can read, Buy them any book you want, What is limited is access to books through the schools without the parent’s consent.
No one cares what a woman and her doctor does with HER body, the issue is the body and life of an unborn child and at what point that life exists for legal purposes. But I note that you cannot discuss abortion without leading with a false premise.
Your choices are not limited by my ability to defend myself and others in public places.
LikeLike
Why should I have to pay for a book that can be borrowed for free from the school library?
“No one cares what a woman and her doctor does with HER body”…
Then there should be NO debate concerning a woman’s right to choose. The parasite living off of the mother is hers, just as if it were a tumor. I know that is a crass way to look at it, but if the price of giving birth is the mother’s life, then why should YOU or anyone else dictate what can be done. Even better, if a fetus is viable, but has no chance of survival after birth, as is the case with a woman in Florida that was reported on last week, why should she be forced to carry to term something that is NOT going to survive?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fetus has the exact same DNA, making it a unique human being unlike any other, at conception and until death.
It is not a tumor, it is a unique human life.
The only question is at what point that human being has rights.
LikeLike
Next time YOU get pregnant, you can pontificate. Until then, leave women alone. They are smarter than men, tougher than men and I trust them more than most men.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will be happy to leave them alone if they will agree to stop murdering babies.
LikeLike
“Nothing more than intellectual cowardice.”
Yeah, so much more brave to declare genocide natural and inevitable. So brave!
It also takes quite a bit of Chutzpah to accuse others of being in a “cancel culture” while the shithead politicians vying for your MAGA approval are busy trying to re-write history without “divisive” concepts. Not to mention your being in a movement where failure to follow Dear Leader and repeat his lies is the quickest way to end your political career.
Seriously, the “intellectual cowards” are people like you who cannot face the core truth in CRT – our history and our country is riddled with systemic racism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, nothing but TDS
LikeLike
So you have no answer for Paul. Your indefinite support of MAGA, not Trump, but the MAGA movement he started, is disturbing in its lack of Libertarian ideas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No. Trump had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Remaining on topic has nothing to do with supporting Trump.
LikeLike
“No. Trump had nothing to do with the subject at hand”
LOL!
So why did YOU invoke TDS out of the blue. Several times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Read what I said again. I stated specifically “NOT TRUMP”. His movement lives on in the minds of those who supported him and those who want to replace him.
LikeLike
“So, nothing but TDS”
Yep, that is your goto comment when backed into a corner with your nonsense being called out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump is irrelevant to the subject. Please try to remain on topic.
LikeLike
…”the failure of the courts to enforce the 2nd Amendment, ”
Since when did that happen?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many states are worse, but here in VA we have blatantly unconstitutional limits on where concealed carry is permitted, though I am reasonably sure the courts will act correctly when the suits work their way to SCOTUS
LikeLike
There is nothing unconstitutional about “well regulated”. Words have meanings. And the 2A purists seem to believe that an 18th Century placement of a comma makes a difference.
Concealed carry is NOT in the Constitution. Like abortion, it is NOT an enumerated right. You can own a gun. The several states can rule WHEN and how you can carry it. – IMO
LikeLiked by 1 person
The 2nd protects our right to keep and BEAR arms.
Currently, in Virginia, you can be arrested for concealed carry if you are going about your business a block away from a permitted event you don’t even know is going on.
The previous Democrat controlled GA created such restrictive rules on where carry is allowed that it is almost impossible to avoid a restricted place. That was expressly prohibited in Bruen.
Democrats all over the country are passing gun control laws they know full well are in conflict with Bruen and then saying ‘sue us’ knowing in a few years they will lose in court.
LikeLike
“The 2nd protects our right to keep and BEAR arms.”
But not to HIDE them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The 2nd does not place limits on HOW we bear arms, It does not require us to cede the element of surprise and uncertainty to criminals.
LikeLike
“The 2nd does not place limits on HOW we bear arms”
That is true. It does not address the question of concealment in any way. It is therefore a matter for the legislatures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Well regulated”? Would that not be the HOW of which you speak?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once again, per the Heller decision, the prefatory clause explains but does not limit the active clause.
LikeLike
…”per the Heller decision”…
Possibly one of the cases that was decided incorrectly. Or is it only cases YOU deem to be incorrectly decided that matters?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find Scalia’s historical and legal arguments to be persuasive. I suggest you read them rather than simply reject them because they do not lead ot the outcome you desire.
LikeLike
Projection again? I find Scalia’s arguments to be funded be over zealous gun rights advocates.
All of this BS over a freaking comma!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not the comma, it’s the sentence structure and the historical context.
LikeLike
The comma is part of the sentence structure. My English teacher daughter cleared it up for me.
LikeLike
In a well regulated militia. The 2A has been bastardized away from the necessity of the 8th Century to what it has become today.
Bruen may very well have been decided wrongly.
LikeLike
SCOTUS says differently.
There are a lot of decisions I would like to ignore, but they are what they are unless reversed.
LikeLike
“There are a lot of decisions I would like to ignore . . .”
You can get off your high horse. You offered nothing but support when redneck legislatures passed laws that clearly violated the precedent of Roe V. Wade.
Did I say redneck? I meant red state.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“. . . blatantly unconstitutional limits on where concealed carry is permitted”
The Constitution says NOTHING about any right to have a concealed weapon on your person. We should make concealed carry illegal everywhere. It is useful to know what kind of people you are associating with and who to shun.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“No one needs those votes.”
Yet many on the Right, including the de facto leader in MAL, panders to them regularly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice try I guess. But Nazis are not leftists on any planet. They just take the hatred of others and threats of violence which are hallmarks of modern “conservatives” to an extreme which embarrasses even you. So you pretend they are leftists. Laughable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Conservatives could dial back the hate.”
So could you, whatever you are. Do you not notice that your post makes you look like Archie Bunker, a bigot?
LikeLike
Deflection. Page two of the JTR post playbook. Stolen directly from the Trump playbook of “no responsibility because the other side did it first or better.”
LikeLike
Here’s a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934.”
If Trump didn’t really think there were good people on both sides, why did he dine with Nick Fuentes, one of the “Unite the Right” rally attendees in Charlottesville, last November?
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/extremists-react-trump-dinner-ye-and-nick-fuentes
And if Neo-Nazis are leftists, why did they call their rally “Unite the RIGHT?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Test
LikeLike
Weird, my rebuttal to this will not post. Censored?
LikeLike
Certainly not by me. John and Don are the other two sheriffs in this town.
As far as I’m concerned, so long as you tip the piano player, don’t spill the whiskey or shoot customers you have access to this establishment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m joking but I have never had this problem. Rather long post with a link, hit post comment and it scrolls to the top. Hit post comment again and it says duplicate comment but ig never displays. Thanks anyway.
LikeLike
John is computer and WordPress savvy. He might help.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what I have been trying to post is the relationship between the left wing and socialist mass murderers. Socialists, the darlings of the left, are responsible for hundreds of millions of murders far exceeding any other political party on earth in modern history. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Putin, Chavez and even Hitler are more aligned with left wing socialist ideology than anyone else. Hitlers party was the NSDAP which stands for National Socialist German Workers Party or NAZI for short. Oddly, Democracy and diversity were slogans of these mass murderers until they took power and then mass bloodshed ensued. I would be careful pointing fingers when your friends are responsible for so much carnage and bloodshed. It’s a wonder why Paul isn’t rooting for his socialist ally Putin.
LikeLike
Maybe because none of them were Socialists in the truest sense of the economic movement. They were ALL dictators who clothed themselves in the banner of Socialism, but were murderous tyrants. All of your points have been clarified by others concerning the idea of Socialism and the Nazi Party.
ANd your continuing lack of understanding, dismissal, or attempt to equate of modern day Social Democracy to those listed above is on display again. Look it up and learn something.
…”why Paul isn’t rooting for his socialist ally Putin.”
Probably because Mr. ROberts is doing enough Putin cheerleading for all of us.😇
LikeLiked by 1 person