Looting in Ohio 10/15/05

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]ChrisPowers wrote:
I don’t get it, why can’t the neo-nazis demonstrate in the community that is the target of their demonstration? They’re demonstrating against violence in poor black neighborhoods, aren’t they? Doesn’t it make sense that they should get the message to the group they’re targeting?[/quote]

I am truly interested now. What exactly was their message? You seem to be standing up for their message so I assume you know what it was. This is a well established organization with a set of goals? What are those goals? They are simply demonstrating against violence in the black community? Hell, most social programs are against the same thing. You sure have uplifted their image. My assumption was that they were a hate group and thus had the goal of instilling more hatred against them and for their cause. Yes, if that is the case, I do see a problem with it…unless, of course, you inform me of how noble their cause really is.

[quote]
Gee whiz, wouldn’t it be racism to assume that the population of a poor black neighborhood would be unable to control itself and would break out in pointless mob violence over a legal demonstration? Because I sure think people would be screaming racism if the government decided that neo-nazis can’t demonstrate where the uncontrollable, violent blacks live because they’re just so violent and out-of-control.[/quote]

Wait, I am really confused now because I thought the racists were the ones about to protest. I have no idea of the specifics that went on in that community in the days or weeks before this took place. Apparently, for the mayor to even give a warning for people to stay inside, there must have been some unusually strong opposition to this. That alone is what would make this case different.

[quote]
And what is the relevance of whether or not people from this neighborhood are “scared” of neo-nazis or not? There is no relevance, but you felt compelled to include that because it makes you feel good about yourself that you perceive poor blacks as “fearless” when it is in fact irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the right of a group to demonstrate peacefully wherever it wishes.[/quote]

It isn’t irrelevant. If there was an outcry from that community before this even took place that people were warned to stay inside over the radio, bringing up that they were not afraid to go outside or afraid of what was “forcing” them inside IS an issue. It is why this should have been planned better with possibly more security stationed. Why would you take that statement as more than that?

[quote]
Really just shameless on your part.[/quote]

No, clueless on your part for assuming was meant outside of context.

102

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Governments can impose ideologically neutral time, place and manner restrictions (TPMs) on free speech. For instance, they can prohibit people from driving around neighborhoods at midnight and using bullhorns to speak their political messages.

With that in mind, I am wondering who was so incompetent as to allow this without thinking of the final result. Is anyone here so in the dark that they think a group of skinheads could march through any “poor” black neighborhood and everyone would just stay inside? It isn’t like they are afraid of the Nazis.

I wonder if you would leap to the defense of an all white neighborhood where a group of Black people wanted to march?

Would you deny the permit to the Black group?
[/quote]

If those people were standing for all out hatred for white people and there was an outcry from that community against it, I would wonder why more security wasn’t available for that as well. What don’t you get? This wasn’t simply some white people marching through a black neighborhood. It was a group of Nazi wannabes who hate black people as part of the base of who they are. No one even wrote that the permit should have been denied. It was written that more security should have been there. Keep up. Also, again, if what Boston wrote is true, then the issue is also could this have been held elsewhere in the community.

103

[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
mica617 wrote:
I heard that a member of the Black Panthers was going to drive down the road in front of my house today, so I just set fire to my barn. I think the Black Panthers should be held liable for my actions.

Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it as the Ohio story, now, does it?

You are comparing a radical political group from the 60s to the nazi’s. Do I evden have to point out the flaws of your post.[/quote]

I was merely pointing out that it would be pretty stupid to destroy your own neighborhood in “defense” of protestors that you don’t agree with. Make no mistake, in NO way do I support the skinheads. If anything, they make me sicker than the street gangs because, as a white male, in a roundabout way, some people are going to reflect their actions as a representation of ALL white males (just as some dumbasses reflect the actions of urban street gangs as a representation of all young black males).
What disappoints me the most is that these thugs played right into the neo-nazi’s hands. They gave them just what they wanted, and the skinheads DIDN’T EVEN HAVE TO MARCH TO GET IT.
Does anyone with a grain of sense think that the skinheads were hoping that these gangs would “listen to their message and change their ways”?!? HELL NO!! They were obviously hoping to come in there and have this EXACT thing happen. Had the neighborhood turned their back to the protestors and the police done their job, over half of the protestors COULD have been arrested for some- any- sort of violation. These people aren’t smart enough to assemble in that manner without screwing up if the gangs wouldn’t have played right into their hands.

104

Stealing television sets does not stop racism, stop flood waters, or reverse court decisions.

105

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I was under the impression that the thugs started tearing stuff up before the march even began. How can the neo-nazis be guilty of inciting a riot when thugs started their rampage no where near the starting point of the march, and before the march even began?[/quote]

If that was the case, I stand corrected. Like I said, it came from something I read.

I wasn’t trumping up charges because I don’t like them. I said, if it was the case, then they should be charged for inciting a riot. If it wasn’t the case, then they shouldn’t. My like or dislike has nothing to do with that.

[quote]
The thugs broke the law. They should pay. It was there fault for acting the way they did. Period. [/quote]

And I agree with them being charged for their actions. I never said they shouldn’t be. In fact, I feel that no one, including the media, should have given the neo-nazis any attention at all. That way, they wouldn’t get the press they wanted and their message of hate wouldn’t have been publicized.

106

[quote]ZEB wrote:
(Shaking head) you are missing the entire point my friend!
It’s not politically correct to hold certain groups responsible for their actions. However, it is always politically correct to attack a bunch of Nazis.

Heck who likes Nazis? I can’t stand Nazis![/quote]

No, ZEB, you missed the point. I never said that we shouldn’t hold the groups responsible for their actions, regardless of who they are. What I said, which admittedly may have been missinformation, is that if the neo-nazis incited a riot by their actions, then they should be held responsible AS WELL as the rioters. If they didn’t, then JUST the rioters should be held responsible.

Stop trying to stir up trouble when there really wasn’t any to beging with. It was just a misunderstanding.

BTW, it is always politically correct to attack a group of people who do nothing but preach hatred, violence and intolerance, regardless of who they are.

107

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

BTW, it is always politically correct to attack a group of people who do nothing but preach hatred, violence and intolerance, regardless of who they are. [/quote]

i hate to say this, but that brings into all sorts of religous groups. or is that okay? should it be okay??

108

[quote]cycobushmaster wrote:
ALDurr wrote:

BTW, it is always politically correct to attack a group of people who do nothing but preach hatred, violence and intolerance, regardless of who they are.

i hate to say this, but that brings into all sorts of religous groups. or is that okay? should it be okay??
[/quote]

I personally have big issues with religious groups that espose these actions. I had the chance, throughout my education, to learn about many of the major religions of the world and not a one, if you look at their origins, preaches these things. It is only when it gets into the hands of a select few when it goes that route. None of the true religious beliefs promote hatred. It is only when the evils of men try to use it for personal gain when it get corrupted.

109

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Governments can impose ideologically neutral time, place and manner restrictions (TPMs) on free speech. For instance, they can prohibit people from driving around neighborhoods at midnight and using bullhorns to speak their political messages.

With that in mind, I am wondering who was so incompetent as to allow this without thinking of the final result. Is anyone here so in the dark that they think a group of skinheads could march through any “poor” black neighborhood and everyone would just stay inside? It isn’t like they are afraid of the Nazis.

I wonder if you would leap to the defense of an all white neighborhood where a group of Black people wanted to march?

Would you deny the permit to the Black group?

If those people were standing for all out hatred for white people and there was an outcry from that community against it, I would wonder why more security wasn’t available for that as well. What don’t you get? This wasn’t simply some white people marching through a black neighborhood. It was a group of Nazi wannabes who hate black people as part of the base of who they are. No one even wrote that the permit should have been denied. It was written that more security should have been there. Keep up. Also, again, if what Boston wrote is true, then the issue is also could this have been held elsewhere in the community.[/quote]

If I lived in that community,I’d be pissed off that a bunch of Yo-Yos were coming to my town to stir up trouble .Because they don’t belong there in the first place and their stirring up crap that will possibly have effect on the town after they are gone,as far as race relations go.

110

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
ZEB wrote:
(Shaking head) you are missing the entire point my friend!
It’s not politically correct to hold certain groups responsible for their actions. However, it is always politically correct to attack a bunch of Nazis.

Heck who likes Nazis? I can’t stand Nazis!

No, ZEB, you missed the point. I never said that we shouldn’t hold the groups responsible for their actions, regardless of who they are. What I said, which admittedly may have been missinformation, is that if the neo-nazis incited a riot by their actions, then they should be held responsible AS WELL as the rioters. If they didn’t, then JUST the rioters should be held responsible.

Stop trying to stir up trouble when there really wasn’t any to beging with. It was just a misunderstanding.

BTW, it is always politically correct to attack a group of people who do nothing but preach hatred, violence and intolerance, regardless of who they are. [/quote]

Al I was not even referring to any of your posts my man. :slight_smile:

111

[quote]ZEB wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
ZEB wrote:
(Shaking head) you are missing the entire point my friend!
It’s not politically correct to hold certain groups responsible for their actions. However, it is always politically correct to attack a bunch of Nazis.

Heck who likes Nazis? I can’t stand Nazis!

No, ZEB, you missed the point. I never said that we shouldn’t hold the groups responsible for their actions, regardless of who they are. What I said, which admittedly may have been missinformation, is that if the neo-nazis incited a riot by their actions, then they should be held responsible AS WELL as the rioters. If they didn’t, then JUST the rioters should be held responsible.

Stop trying to stir up trouble when there really wasn’t any to beging with. It was just a misunderstanding.

BTW, it is always politically correct to attack a group of people who do nothing but preach hatred, violence and intolerance, regardless of who they are.

Al I was not even referring to any of your posts my man. :)[/quote]

Oh, then I apologize profusely then. Your post came right after and it looked like it was referring to it. My mistake.