Charlottesville

And I hope this wasn't photo shopped:

 

It's photoshopped. There are at least 5 different variants floating around the Internet.

 

His inability to mitigate damage for himself has continually astonished me. It's the oddest thing I've ever seen in a public figure, especially since I wasn't around for Nixon. And, it isn't a conservative Republican thing, either, because Regan was masterful at managing public opinion and communication. He wastes so much time on this stuff that discussion about policy is shockingly scarce. He interrupted an already bizarre press conference on infrastructure, a topic even I am fully willing and eager to support, to address the Charlottesville matter. It's insane.

 

I guess that's my problem. I've got 0 problem condemning the left on this as I don't agree with their views and actions either, but he keeps presenting the alt right in a way that appears that he's saying "it's not that bad".

It's the same as when my 5 year old gets in trouble and tries to lessen it my pointing out something my 7 year old did. And I've got no time for either scenario.

 

I've been critical of President Trump on several occassions, and whenever I felt it was justified. I've even admitted being both disappointed - and frankly mystified - by some (perhaps a minority, for sure, but several) of his actions and antics, and particularly when I personally found them to be dishonest, senseless, unnecessary or just silly.

But even this is just another moving of the goal posts, Un. You said what you said, I've said what I've said and that's all that I know to say about it, or at least that which would be productive. I'm satisfied that everyone can read it and draw their own conclusions from it, if they care to do so, and to move on from it.

 

Damn.

 

I'm not being a contrarian asshole. And if your point is some speech is protected and some isn't, then I disagree with you.

If Stone Mountain is government owned or run, and they've ever let a fire on it before, If they refuse to do so now, because they don't like the representation, they are violating the 1st Amendment.

 

No, they cannot. If it is state owned, or funded, they cannot deny an activity they have allowed of others.

This is like saying "Marriage is state run, but all those that issue licenses are private citizens, so they can refuse to issue a license."

We know how your argument plays out. Every time.

 

This is a little off topic, but I'm tired of the milquetoast criticisms of racism from our politicians. Enough with phrases like 'inconsistent with our values' and 'no place in civilized society'. What's the use of pushing back against political correctness if we can't simply tell racists to go **** themselves?

 

That's all bullshit but whatever... Read up in who exactly owns the place and why the carvings will be there for at least the next 35 years. You may not be up to speed on the actual town of Stone Mountain but if you come here burning crosses you may not live to tell about it. If you think incitement to riot (which would be the likely result of such activity given the raw emotions being felt nowadays) is protected speech then yeah... We disagree.

 

It is owned by the State of Georgia, therefore the State of Georgia is bound by Constitutionl law to not trample on free speech.

Your argument has been hashed and rehashed by everyone who encounters something they disagree with:

"Them protestors will never protest a military funeral in my town." They did, they got permits. They caught hell, they still did if.

"The KKK will never march in my town, there'd be riots." They did, they got permits.

A permit would be issued weeks in advance, state and local le enforcement would be present. If rioting happened, those starting it would face charges, but the issuance of the permit wasn't what caused the riot. And the state will be obligated to issue the permit, if a fire permit has been issued before.

They may say they have to have their fire in a specific location, but they cannot deny the permit on the grounds that they don't like the speech. This is well established.

 

Bannon is harsher than Trump:

I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump’s reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump’s base.

He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: “Ethno-nationalism—it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more.”

“These guys are a collection of clowns,” he added.

http://prospect.org/article/steve-bannon-unrepentant

 

Incitement. To. Violence. That's why the permit was denied. Hell, the Klan even admitted as much and aren't going to push the issue. Telling that even the nimrods at the KKK admit it but you can't.

 

If KKK challenged it in court, they would win.

Do you agree that burning an American flag could result in "incitement to violence?"

Then square that thought with why the courts have always come down that flag burning is protected? As you cannot, you see that they must allow that cross burning is also protected.

If the KKK challenges this, they will win. Them choosing not to is very interesting.

 

Are they challenging the Texas A&M event being denied? I don't know if that was the KKK. But I don't think thatvchallenge will be won. There is precedence for denying if you can tie the event to recent violence. And thebotganizer of the event basically said today - Charlottesville - Sept 11 - College Station. By drawing that connection, I think they won't win.

 

That's not a denial, that's a postponement, though, right?

"Recent violence." So they can say we'll allow the event in 134 days, or something.

 

I think they just revoked the permit. They'll have to reapply for a different date if they want it to be a postponement.

 

Basically the revocation was based on the belief that the event was intended to be violent given what transpired in Charlottesville and the fact that the organizer tied it to Charlottesville.

 

I don't think that's an implicit denial. But maybe the Stone Mountain one isn't either.

I still think both would be on shaky ground. If the mention of previous violence is grounds to say the intent is not to peaceably assemble, ok.

But if there is no mention of violence, and government is deciding what is and isn't peaceable assembly, then that's very, very dangerous.

 

Agreed. Without the organizer directly connecting t to Charlottesville, I believe either a) it wouldn't have been revoked or b) the courts would overturn the revocation. As it is I believe they'll find in favor of TAMU.