LAPD and Nazis Work Hand In Hand Against People of Los Angeles

[lord of flies]

Thousands of counter-demonstrators resist Nazis and LAPD allies

City of Los Angeles made an extra effort to host fascists

 

On April 17, nearly 2,000 counter-demonstrators overwhelmed a few dozen racists protected by a full mobilization of the City of Los Angeles.

 

The Nazi National Socialist Movement

[~Di]

Oh, dear lord. Where's a decent *facepalm* icon when you really need one.

[Gorth]

@LoF: I've no idea what you are talking about, but I took the liberty of removing the mangled url parts from the thread title.

[I want teh kotor 3]

So, who are you trying to troll here? Nazis? LAPD? Everyone else?

[Gromnir]

this might have been a noteworthy topic... if the year were 1976.

 

use google or some other search engine... the following words may prove useful: NATIONAL, SOCIALIST, PARTY, AMERICA, VILLAGE, SKOKIE.

 

the only speech that needs protection is the crap that most of us hate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[lord of flies]

this might have been a noteworthy topic... if the year were 1976.

 

use google or some other search engine... the following words may prove useful: NATIONAL, SOCIALIST, PARTY, AMERICA, VILLAGE, SKOKIE.

 

the only speech that needs protection is the crap that most of us hate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Neo-nazis are not a joke. The NSM has murdered people. They believe in the forcible deportation of all non-whites from the United States. They are a racist, criminal hate gang and no, their speech is not OK.

[Calax]

Grommies point is valid. No matter the speech it's still free, otherwise those on the other side of the aisle wouldn't be able to do things like protest at abortion clinics (because, that leads to stuff blowing up) or protesting gay marriage (because of gay bashing) etc etc.

[lord of flies]

Grommies point is valid. No matter the speech it's still free, otherwise those on the other side of the aisle wouldn't be able to do things like protest at abortion clinics (because, that leads to stuff blowing up) or protesting gay marriage (because of gay bashing) etc etc.

Yes, I mean, just look at Germany! Because they banned nazism, all their freedoms disappeared and there are no protests in the country... wait...

[Gromnir]

this might have been a noteworthy topic... if the year were 1976.

 

use google or some other search engine... the following words may prove useful: NATIONAL, SOCIALIST, PARTY, AMERICA, VILLAGE, SKOKIE.

 

the only speech that needs protection is the crap that most of us hate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Neo-nazis are not a joke.

 

who suggested that neo-nazis is a joke? nevertheless, they got the same first amendment rights that your local VFW or NOW members got. you say that these guys is murderers? fine. arrest and charge with murder. unless the neo-nazi speech actual incites an immediate violent response, chances are their speech is gonna be deemed protected by the U.S. Constitution.

 

...

 

the U.S. has its origins as a revolutionary government. you think that such origins maybe figured into the Framer's desire to protect speech? from the brit pov, the Founding Fathers were a bunch o' terrorists inciting rebellion amongst the colonials. there has been numerous groups that the majority o' Americans has considered unsavory... groups who has had their speech rights protected: jews, african-americans, gays, labor unions, etc. how many african-american organizations were vilified as murderous or terrorist? how many labor organizations were garnering similar labels during the first half of the 20th century? 'course everybody loves free speech, right up until the point when they realize that nazis, pornographers, gang members, and bolshevik wannabees is the folks that is benefiting from the protections o' the First Amendment.

 

*snort*

 

again, use google and do a search as we suggested... might also wanna check the following: Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, & R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul.

 

honestly, what is the point of free speech if only polite and acceptable speech is being defended?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[lord of flies]

the U.S. has its origins as a revolutionary government. you think that such origins maybe figured into the Framer's desire to protect speech? from the brit pov, the Founding Fathers were a bunch o' terrorists inciting rebellion amongst the colonials. there has been numerous groups that the majority o' Americans has considered unsavory... groups who has had their speech rights protected: jews, african-americans, gays, labor unions, etc. how many african-american organizations were vilified as murderous or terrorist? how many labor organizations were garnering similar labels during the first half of the 20th century? 'course everybody loves free speech, right up until the point when they realize that nazis, pornographers, gang members, and bolshevik wannabees is the folks that is benefiting from the protections o' the First Amendment.

Slippery slope arguments don't work, since history implies the exact opposite thing. The Nazis were allowed to run free in Germany, do you remember how that ended? Letting these people speak their minds in an open way only encourages them, you don't need to look farther than groups like C18 and ANM to see that.

 

Whereas, banning the groups has historically worked to significant efficacy without simultaneously undermining other groups rights to free speech. Does modern Germany have problems with everybody losing all their political rights? No. No they do not.

[Gromnir]

"Slippery slope arguments don't work, since history implies the exact opposite thing. The Nazis were allowed to run free in Germany, do you remember how that ended?"

 

am gonna assume you is being intentional ironic... or does we need point out the manifest hypocrisy o' the above quoted material?

 

btw, nowhere did Gromnir suggest that draconian prohibition o' ideologies were ineffective as a means o' eliminating certain unsavory groups... no need to do so, 'cause if such means is indeed successful it only bolsters our argument and our belief that First Amendment protections is an essential fundamental right.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps keep in mind that your own wacky argument works just as effective in reverse: the Nazis would never have been able to suppress opposition if free speech and other fundamental rights had been protected as they are in the United States. so, abandoning fundamental rights in the first place is what allowed for the third reich to come to and retain power.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Gromnir

[Walsingham]

If they banned nazi rallies how long do you think your communist rallies would last? Or is that the point? To provoke a reaction you can turn into a victimisation complex?

[HoonDing]

Nazi rallies should always be held together with communist rallies. That way they can 'nullify' each other.

[Killian Kalthorne]

this might have been a noteworthy topic... if the year were 1976.

 

use google or some other search engine... the following words may prove useful: NATIONAL, SOCIALIST, PARTY, AMERICA, VILLAGE, SKOKIE.

 

the only speech that needs protection is the crap that most of us hate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Neo-nazis are not a joke. The NSM has murdered people. They believe in the forcible deportation of all non-whites from the United States. They are a racist, criminal hate gang and no, their speech is not OK.

 

The Freedom of Speech applies here. Go ahead and disagree with them, you have that right just as they have the right to speak their minds.

[lord of flies]

If they banned nazi rallies how long do you think your communist rallies would last?

Let me check, hmm, okay, hold on. Nazism was banned in Germany in 1945... it's now 2010 and The Left, KDP, etc. still legally operate... so at least 65 years.

the Nazis would never have been able to suppress opposition if free speech and other fundamental rights had been protected as they are in the United States. so, abandoning fundamental rights in the first place is what allowed for the third reich to come to and retain power.

Uh, yeah they would have. The principles of the state cannot be made untouchable or immortal any more than the state itself can be made so. Germany didn't ban the Nazi Party because everybody believed that would be "wrong." When the Nazis came to power, of course, they started banning all the other parties. Do you think that if genuine fascists came to power in the USA they wouldn't do the same?

[Gromnir]

If they banned nazi rallies how long do you think your communist rallies would last?

Let me check, hmm, okay, hold on. Nazism was banned in Germany in 1945... it's now 2010 and The Left, KDP, etc. still legally operate... so at least 65 years.

the Nazis would never have been able to suppress opposition if free speech and other fundamental rights had been protected as they are in the United States. so, abandoning fundamental rights in the first place is what allowed for the third reich to come to and retain power.

Uh, yeah they would have. The principles of the state cannot be made untouchable or immortal any more than the state itself can be made so. Germany didn't ban the Nazi Party because everybody believed that would be "wrong." When the Nazis came to power, of course, they started banning all the other parties. Do you think that if genuine fascists came to power in the USA they wouldn't do the same?

 

now you is just spouting rhetoric. check your favorite wacky websites where you usually get your messed up stats... no doubt you see that neo-nazism has hardly been eradicated in post war germany. furthermore, you never bothered to consider the legal mechanic used to prohibit nazism in Germany. why don't you check and get back to us on that... maybe you learn something.

 

your quote directed at Gromnir is... huh? no doubt you thinks you got a point. doesn't address the fact that Nazi Germany systematically denied political opponents and various unsavory groups o' their fundamental rights... including commies btw. if the German legal system had been able to effectively protect the fundamental rights o' various groups o' people, then the greatest atrocities o' the third reich woulda' been avoided, and it is possible that there woulda' been no 3rd Reich at all.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[lord of flies]

your quote directed at Gromnir is... huh? no doubt you thinks you got a point. doesn't address the fact that Nazi Germany systematically denied political opponents and various unsavory groups o' their fundamental rights... including commies btw. if the German legal system had been able to effectively protect the fundamental rights o' various groups o' people, then the greatest atrocities o' the third reich woulda' been avoided, and it is possible that there woulda' been no 3rd Reich at all.

 

HA! Good Fun!

The FACT is that it doesn't matter how much your "legal system" is "able to effectively protect the fundamental rights o' various groups o' people," it does not matter when fascists take charge. Fascism is about the destruction of traditional post-enlightenment governments from within and has proven highly effective at it. The very idea that a political system can "effectively protect the fundamental rights" of its citizenry when the leadership no longer wants to is absurd.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Who the frak cares what Germany does? I don't. I live in the US and what happens in the US only matters to me.

[Gromnir]

your quote directed at Gromnir is... huh? no doubt you thinks you got a point. doesn't address the fact that Nazi Germany systematically denied political opponents and various unsavory groups o' their fundamental rights... including commies btw. if the German legal system had been able to effectively protect the fundamental rights o' various groups o' people, then the greatest atrocities o' the third reich woulda' been avoided, and it is possible that there woulda' been no 3rd Reich at all.

 

HA! Good Fun!

The FACT is that it doesn't matter how much your "legal system" is "able to effectively protect the fundamental rights o' various groups o' people," it does not matter when fascists take charge. Fascism is about the destruction of traditional post-enlightenment governments from within and has proven highly effective at it. The very idea that a political system can "effectively protect the fundamental rights" of its citizenry when the leadership no longer wants to is absurd.

 

 

more nonsense. more rhetoric. you gots some silly notion that fascism is inherent different and requires different rules to prevent? why?

 

besides which, there is a considerable number o' examples o' fundamental rights being protected in the U.S. in spite of opposition of the Leaders of government. where the heck did you go to school that you ain't aware that the Judiciary has opposed Congress and the Executive on numerous occasions? every time the Court strikes down a law or executive order as unconstitutional it is acting in opposition of the leaders of government. somebody needs a reintroduction to their high school civics lessons.... is too many such examples to list individually. yeah, there is some noteworthy examples o' the Executive functionally ignoring the Court, but such examples is noteworthy 'cause o' their rarity.

 

again, tell us the legal mechanic utilized in Germany to prohibit nazi participation. once you learn the mechanic, many o' your mistakes and preconceptions will evaporate.

 

btw, we can direct you to numerous sources that indicate a rise in the popularity o' neo-nazi groups w/i modern Germany.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

every time the Court strikes down a law or executive order as unconstitutional it is acting in opposition of the leaders of government.

Fascism would work in Belgium. In Belgium, governments (yes, we have plenty of those) happily ignore decisions by the Constitutional Court (not to mention, European Commission) and hold illegal elections... then waste several months bickering & go on to form more rickety governments that are doomed to fail again.

[Gromnir]

every time the Court strikes down a law or executive order as unconstitutional it is acting in opposition of the leaders of government.

Fascism would work in Belgium. In Belgium, governments (yes, we have plenty of those) happily ignore decisions by the Constitutional Court (not to mention, European Commission) and hold illegal elections... then waste several months bickering & go on to form more rickety governments that are doomed to fail again.

 

fascism would work in many places. is a shame too. the enumeration o' fundamental rights has never been a bar on governmental excess. the Chinese Constitution, as an example, actually affords its citizens a far greater range o' fundamental rights than does the U.S. Constitution. is not really the document that is important.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Fascism is about the destruction of traditional post-enlightenment governments from within and has proven highly effective at it. The very idea that a political system can "effectively protect the fundamental rights" of its citizenry when the leadership no longer wants to is absurd.

Oh, the irony. So is communism, you should be illegal as well.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Yes LoF. We all know you hate civil rights. Interestingly enough, though, you condemn them for murder (as well you should), but I'm not quite sure why; is it just Commies who can rightfully kill in your ****ed-up world?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Now, lets not be too cruel to LoF. Let him do his ranting and raving. Free speech and all that.

[Orogun01]

Now, lets not be too cruel to LoF. Let him do his ranting and raving. Free speech and all that.

But don't you get tired of it sometimes?