Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Trump attacks black CEO who resigned from White House

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5096
(5096 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/16/2017 at 01:23 PM

Look, if you are a sack of sh*t eventually you will attract same.

 

____________________

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3630
(3625 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/16/2017 at 01:54 PM
quote:
So the other side, throwing bags of piss and excrement is OK?


No, of course not. But what you fail to realize, since your mind is clouded with hatred for the left, is that you are exposing the fact that you are only angered by the counter-protesters. The nazis didn't bother you so much, but those damn liberal idiots sure did!!! There was bad behavior, and evil dysfunction. The latter doesn't bother you as much as the first. Psychology is cool. Exposed!

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4999
(4998 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/16/2017 at 03:34 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/16/investing/ceos-trump-manufacturing-council/ index.html

Stunning rebuke for the CEO president
by Matt Egan @mattmegan5
August 16, 2017: 4:29 PM ET

America's CEOs are running away from the CEO president.

The collapse of President Trump's business councils on Wednesday was a stunning and unprecedented rebuke to a chief executive who prides himself on being business-friendly.

It showed just how radioactive corporate leaders believe Trump has become barely seven months into his presidency. Customers, employees and activists put enormous pressure on CEOs after Trump insisted that both sides were to blame for violence at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

At least eight executives quit Trump's manufacturing council this week. A second economic strategy council was reportedly on the verge of dissolving itself -- before the president decided to save face and disband both groups himself.

It's highly unusual for a CEO to put out a statement calling out a sitting president. But that's what happened -- repeatedly -- as the CEOs desperately tried to distance themselves from him.

"This ship of state is sinking -- and the CEOs want to get off of it," said William Klepper, a professor at the Columbia Business School.

That doesn't bode well for Trump's economic agenda of tax cuts and infrastructure spending.

Several CEOs specifically called out Trump's incendiary comments over the weekend and again on Tuesday, when he blamed "both sides" for the violence in Virginia.

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) CEO Alex Gorsky, for instance, slammed Trump for "equating those who are motivated by race-based hate with those who stand up against hatred."

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase (JPM), started a memo to employees on Wednesday by saying: "I strongly disagree with President Trump's reaction to the events that took place in Charlottesville." He added, "There is no room for equivocation here."

And Campbell Soup (CPB) CEO Denise Morrison said she had no choice but to quit the manufacturing council after Tuesday, when Trump clung to his point of view in an off-the-cuff press conference.

"Racism and murder are unequivocally reprehensible and are not morally equivalent to anything else that happened in Charlottesville," the CEO said.

Keep in mind that Trump handpicked his CEO councils -- and praised them lavishly. In December, he hailed the executives on his strategy forum as "pioneering CEOs" who are "at the top of their fields."

Likewise, the White House called the members of the manufacturing council "some of the world's most successful and creative business leaders" when it was formed in January.

Merck (MRK) chief executive Kenneth Frazier, one of America's most prominent black CEOs, touched off the CEO exodus on Monday when he cited a "responsibility to take a stand against intolerance and extremism."

It didn't help that Trump quickly attacked many of these respected business leaders. Trump lashed out at Frazier within minutes, saying his resignation will give him "more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!"

The next day, Trump called the CEOs who were quitting "grandstanders" who should not have joined in the first place. He dismissed Walmart (WMT) CEO Doug McMillon, who criticized Trump's initial response to Charlottesville, as a "very nice guy" who "was making a political statement."

Of course, Trump already had a shaky relationship with corporate America. His views on climate change, immigration and trade put him at odds with many CEOs. And because he can say anything at any time, it was always risky for corporate leaders to align too closely with him.

Indeed, Trump's decision to quit the Paris climate agreement led Tesla (TSLA) founder Elon Musk and Disney (DIS) boss Bob Iger to leave Trump's councils in June. Former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick cut ties after Trump's controversial travel ban.

Yet most CEOs were willing to keep their seat at Trump's table. They argued it gave them a way to influence policy and help move the country forward.

And then came Trump's response to Charlottesville, the final straw for CEOs who were forced to stand up for employees and customers.

All this raises questions about the fate of Trump's economic agenda. His push to repeal Obamacare has already sputtered in Congress. He had been relying on support from the business community to push tax reform and infrastructure spending.

For those proposals and anything else Trump wants, this week shows that CEOs will think twice before attaching their name.

 

____________________
Flies all green 'n buzzin' in his dungeon of despair
Who are all those people that he's locked away up there
Are they crazy?,
Are they sainted?
Are they zeros someone painted?,
It has never been explained since at first it was created

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5125
(5124 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/16/2017 at 04:17 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters




This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......





[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]


Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.





So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.


It looks that way, if you take the version you "THINK" was posted, but that wasn't what was posted.
Go back and READ the post rather than kneejerking.

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5125
(5124 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/16/2017 at 06:39 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters




This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......





[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]


Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.





So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.


Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3243
(3249 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/16/2017 at 08:03 PM
quote:


I watched Trump's speech at the NY hotel lobby where he wanted to talk about infrastructure. All the reporters wanted to talk about was his Chartlottesville comments. They wanted to pigeon hole him to see if he would make a statement where they could twist it around against him. The MSM are not acting like independent reporters, more like propagandists.


After 7 months of 45 attempting to pretend to be President, reading his tweets, watching him still in campaign mode, it is evident that he thrives on sparring and enjoys creating confrontation. And that goes to the way HE deals with the press and everyone else. He wasn't pigeon holed. That's laughable. He chose to answer questions asked of him. If he wanted, he could have stopped at any point, but he didn't. He enjoys going toe to toe and always has to attempt to get in the last word. After he first said he was finished, why did he continue to attempt to answer questions - because he can't help himself in spite of the damage he did to himself yesterday? He's his own worst enemy in front of a microphone when he has to deal with questions & going impromptu.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9095
(9094 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/16/2017 at 11:58 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters




This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......





[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]


Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.





So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.


Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?
Do domestic terrorist groups deserve to go unchallenged?, are YOU a proud supporter of them?.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15986
(15990 all sites)
Registered: 9/24/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 07:25 AM
quote:
quote:
Group A hates due to their belief system and Group B says it's wrong. Then Group B hates Group A due their belief system and their hate is okay? I don't get it.

Hate is hate and it is wrong<--IMHO


I hate Nazis. You know, that whole genocide thing. I don't care if you get it or not.


What makes your hate any better than theirs ?

And I'm not condoning/supporting anybody/anything by saying that either. It is an honest question.

Let's hate Americans too, we committed genocide against Natives and stole everything from them due to hate, greed, and their different manner of worship. We just did it over multiple decades instead of during the duration of WWII. I bet you'd love living on a Reservation, it is just a step or two above a Concentration Camp.

To simplify my position, you can't abolish "hate" with "hate". It is like trying to put out a forest fire by tossing wood on it. Your a smart person, I'd think you'd get that. But I suppose it is easier to point a finger at others and be part of the problem...not the solution.

 

____________________

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3630
(3625 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 10:35 AM
Gotdrumz, the fact that you had to go back about 400 years to find a good comparison should tell you all you need to know. Only a damn fool cannot connect the dots there.

quote:
To simplify my position, you can't abolish "hate" with "hate". It is like trying to put out a forest fire by tossing wood on it. Your a smart person, I'd think you'd get that. But I suppose it is easier to point a finger at others and be part of the problem...not the solution.


One is a cancer and the other is chemo. You are angry with the chemo for attacking the cancer - be proud.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46252
(46253 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 01:29 PM
quote:
What makes your hate any better than theirs ?


I'm not comparing myself to them. You are comparing them to me. However, I'm not marching in the streets against Nazism. I would think that the basic core tenets of Nazism would be repulsive to just about any person and just about any American. I wouldn't think that anyone would actually have to justify hating Nazism. This is obviously not the case. Oh well.

quote:
Let's hate Americans too, we committed genocide against Natives and stole everything from them due to hate, greed, and their different manner of worship. We just did it over multiple decades instead of during the duration of WWII. I bet you'd love living on a Reservation, it is just a step or two above a Concentration Camp.


I have three great uncles that died in WWII. One in Okinawa, one during the Guadalcanal Campaign, one in Italy. For as much focus that people rightfully place on honoring American veterans, it blows me away that the same people that not that long ago equated not "supporting the troops" with treason have absolutely zero issue with Nazis with torches and swastika flags marching and chanting in the streets. Again, oh well.

quote:
To simplify my position, you can't abolish "hate" with "hate". It is like trying to put out a forest fire by tossing wood on it. Your a smart person, I'd think you'd get that. But I suppose it is easier to point a finger at others and be part of the problem...not the solution.


I absolutely despise the entirety of the tenets and beliefs of white supremacy, white nationalism and Nazism. If you think that makes me part of the "problem," I don't care.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5125
(5124 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 04:48 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters




This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......





[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]


Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.





So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.


Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?
Do domestic terrorist groups deserve to go unchallenged?, are YOU a proud supporter of them?.


Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to protest?
Are you a fascist that thinks only those who agrees with them are allowed the right to speak and protest?

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46252
(46253 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 04:51 PM
"No fundamental right...is absolute."

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9095
(9094 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 05:04 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters




This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......





[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]


Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.





So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.


Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?
Do domestic terrorist groups deserve to go unchallenged?, are YOU a proud supporter of them?.


Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to protest?
Are you a fascist that thinks only those who agrees with them are allowed the right to speak and protest?
These aren't people, they are domestic terrorists, are YOU one of them?, or just a sympathizer?.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3318
(3316 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 06:48 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters




This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......





[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]


Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.





So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.


Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?
Do domestic terrorist groups deserve to go unchallenged?, are YOU a proud supporter of them?.


Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to protest?
Are you a fascist that thinks only those who agrees with them are allowed the right to speak and protest?
These aren't people, they are domestic terrorists, are YOU one of them?, or just a sympathizer?.


What if there was a group of extremist Muslims protesting something. Would he be against a counter protest? What if an Islamic radical armed their car into a counter protest? I'm 100% positive that the right wingers would have quite a different reaction, and I'm 100% sure our liar-in-chief would not be blaming "multiple sides."

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5125
(5124 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 07:19 PM
quote:

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters




This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......





[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]


Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.





So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.


Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?
Do domestic terrorist groups deserve to go unchallenged?, are YOU a proud supporter of them?.


Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to protest?
Are you a fascist that thinks only those who agrees with them are allowed the right to speak and protest?
These aren't people, they are domestic terrorists, are YOU one of them?, or just a sympathizer?.


Now, we get to the crux of your problem. You are following the same ideals of the Nazi party from the 1930's. You declare a group you don't like as "non-people" and try to force others to see that their removal is "good for the country". Next you'll be wanting to build camps to relocate them away from others like you, then those "non-people" will start to disappear. You'll just stand there and say "Those weren't people, just vermin, so we eradicated them for you. Why are you so concerned about a few vermin?"

What would be the next group, Jews, Catholics, Republicans, Libertarians, Asians, gays, anybody that doesn't agree with you 100%?

WHERE DOES IT END?

So Pops, you are a Nazi. You just try to deflect people away from your true self by attacking others.

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9095
(9094 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 08:13 PM
quote:
quote:

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters




This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......





[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]


Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.





So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.


Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?
Do domestic terrorist groups deserve to go unchallenged?, are YOU a proud supporter of them?.


Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to protest?
Are you a fascist that thinks only those who agrees with them are allowed the right to speak and protest?
These aren't people, they are domestic terrorists, are YOU one of them?, or just a sympathizer?.


Now, we get to the crux of your problem. You are following the same ideals of the Nazi party from the 1930's. You declare a group you don't like as "non-people" and try to force others to see that their removal is "good for the country". Next you'll be wanting to build camps to relocate them away from others like you, then those "non-people" will start to disappear. You'll just stand there and say "Those weren't people, just vermin, so we eradicated them for you. Why are you so concerned about a few vermin?"

What would be the next group, Jews, Catholics, Republicans, Libertarians, Asians, gays, anybody that doesn't agree with you 100%?

WHERE DOES IT END?

So Pops, you are a Nazi. You just try to deflect people away from your true self by attacking others.
How am I a nazi, you brainless wonder?. because I think the kkk and neo-nazi groups are vermin ?. boy are you stupid.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15986
(15990 all sites)
Registered: 9/24/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 08:49 PM
quote:
Gotdrumz, the fact that you had to go back about 400 years to find a good comparison should tell you all you need to know. Only a damn fool cannot connect the dots there.


Actually my reference was just to our own history as a nation. We were the ones that waged war in the name of progress and drove them to the Reservations. That only ended less than a century ago.

quote:
One is a cancer and the other is chemo. You are angry with the chemo for attacking the cancer - be proud.


Actually I'm not angry. I think it's counter productive to try to end one type of hate with more hate
Your analogy works for you, but for me hate is hate. I don't care to place a merit system on it. That just leads to minimizing and justifying behaviors.

I appreciate your civil approach to debate our individual perspectives.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15986
(15990 all sites)
Registered: 9/24/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 09:12 PM
Jerry said..."I'm not comparing myself to them. You are comparing them to me."

You missed the point as usually happens when people react on emotion. I am comparing "hate" in the connotation of being a verb. I am not attaching any noun to hate in any manner whatsoever. That personalizes it, which either takes away or increases the act of hating by an individual or group of people.

Jerry said..."I absolutely despise the entirety of the tenets and beliefs of white supremacy, white nationalism and Nazism."

I don't condone what they do or represent either. People responding to their hate with more hate escalated the entire situation in North Carolina. That is the premise of my perspective on the issue.
Hate + Hate = more hate <---PERIOD

Jerry said..."If you think that makes me part of the "problem,""

Yeah posting on a message board about how much you hate is helping the matter.

Jerry said..."I don't care."

Yet you made a comment, classic !



[Edited on 8/18/2017 by gotdrumz]

 

____________________

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5125
(5124 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 09:31 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:

Those who came to protest (a constitutional right) the removal of the statue are reviled.
Those who came to stop them from protesting ( a violation of their constitutional rights) are glorified.
The violence during the protests is being blamed on the protesters, the ones fighting the protesters are being praised.
Both sides are critical of the police response during the protests and have filed complaints.

Many of the posters on this site who are criticizing those protesting the removal of the statue, and have no problem with trying to throttle their freedom of speech, don't criticize the violence of the counter protesters




This is where you went off the rails. It is ok by you to protest a statue being removed (constitutional), but a protest against hate is somehow a violation of the constitution? They didn't come to stop them from protesting..... they came to also express their opinion - against hate and the the KKK. I think you need to think about it some more and take off your blinders......





[Edited on 8/16/2017 by Sang]


Just exactly where did I go off the rails in the original post?

I have noticed on all the posts responding to the original that no one has bothered to include in their quotes the line
"I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE OR SUPPORTIVE OF IT."

Some of the posters need to get their heads on correctly and READ what is posted rather than "kneejerking" to it.





So those weren't your words where you thought protesting the removal of the statue was their constitutional right (which it was) but protesting against them was also not a constitutional right? Instead, you called it "a violation of their constitutional right" - meaning you only think it is a right if you agree with it...... Really not that hard to understand.


Where did I say having a counter protest was not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to stop some one from protesting.
Those who came to stop the protest were trying to violate the constitutional right of the original protesters.
Now, do you understand what was written?
Do domestic terrorist groups deserve to go unchallenged?, are YOU a proud supporter of them?.


Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to protest?
Are you a fascist that thinks only those who agrees with them are allowed the right to speak and protest?
These aren't people, they are domestic terrorists, are YOU one of them?, or just a sympathizer?.


Now, we get to the crux of your problem. You are following the same ideals of the Nazi party from the 1930's. You declare a group you don't like as "non-people" and try to force others to see that their removal is "good for the country". Next you'll be wanting to build camps to relocate them away from others like you, then those "non-people" will start to disappear. You'll just stand there and say "Those weren't people, just vermin, so we eradicated them for you. Why are you so concerned about a few vermin?"

What would be the next group, Jews, Catholics, Republicans, Libertarians, Asians, gays, anybody that doesn't agree with you 100%?

WHERE DOES IT END?

So Pops, you are a Nazi. You just try to deflect people away from your true self by attacking others.
How am I a nazi, you brainless wonder?. because I think the kkk and neo-nazi groups are vermin ?. boy are you stupid.


In your hate filled mind, who will be next? When those you think are vermin go through their camps and die at the hands of those you approve of, will you send a small box containing their ashes with a letter to their family explaining how they died of pneumonia?
Will you feel any sadness at the death of them, or will you cajole and laugh as you imagine the sound of them being crushed like bugs under your hobnail boots?

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5096
(5096 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/17/2017 at 09:35 PM
quote:

quote:
Gotdrumz, the fact that you had to go back about 400 years to find a good comparison should tell you all you need to know. Only a damn fool cannot connect the dots there.

quote:
Actually my reference was just to our own history as a nation. We were the ones that waged war in the name of progress and drove them to the Reservations. That only ended less than a century ago.



Just visit Pine Ridge, then we'll talk.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46252
(46253 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/18/2017 at 07:01 AM
quote:
You missed the point as usually happens when people react on emotion. I am comparing "hate" in the connotation of being a verb. I am not attaching any noun to hate in any manner whatsoever. That personalizes it, which either takes away or increases the act of hating by an individual or group of people.


Don't mean to get in the way of the sanctimony, but you did or did not type this?

quote:
What makes your hate any better than theirs?


I'd say that's personalizing it.

quote:
I don't condone what they do or represent either. People responding to their hate with more hate escalated the entire situation in North Carolina. That is the premise of my perspective on the issue.
Hate + Hate = more hate <---PERIOD


If hating the entirety of the tenets and beliefs of white supremacy, white nationalism and Nazism is so offensive to you, that says way more about you than me.

quote:
Yeah posting on a message board about how much you hate is helping the matter.

Jerry said..."I don't care."

Yet you made a comment, classic !


James, you always have had this all-encompassing view that in essence, everyone is the same, all situations are equal and there's no sense of right and wrong based on...anything. We'll never agree. Ever.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15986
(15990 all sites)
Registered: 9/24/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/18/2017 at 07:51 PM


Jerry said..."If hating the entirety of the tenets and beliefs of white supremacy, white nationalism and Nazism is so offensive to you, that says way more about you than me."

Actually I don't dig on any type of hate, so I guess that does say something about me.
In my past, a lot of years were wasted hating just about everything. It cost 5 years of my life behind bars in the California Department of Corrections. My hate was reciprocated with hate in return. It is a vicious cycle that always has the same conclusion in the end...More hate. I refuse to put any effort or time into hate, hating, and/or hatred. It is an awesome sense of freedom & peace.

Jerry said..."James, you always have had this all-encompassing view that in essence, everyone is the same, all situations are equal and there's no sense of right and wrong based on...anything. We'll never agree. Ever"

In some things, I'd say you are absolutely correct. It is a waste of time, as far as I'm concerned to trip on stuff you have no control over. What is right to one person, may be wrong to another or visa/versa. Basically, you can only control your own choices and whether you are going to react or respond to situations & circumstances in your life. When you look at all perspectives & possibilities than just your own, the decision making process is way more simplified and beneficial all the way around.

I don't expect anybody to always agree with me, much less understand where I'm coming from.
You haven't walked in my shoes, nor me in yours. So there is the proverbial crux of the biscuit.

My hope is that you are yours are happy and doing well. Maybe we can agree on that my friend.

Laterz, James

 

____________________

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3630
(3625 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/19/2017 at 09:02 PM
Oh please. You wish him well by saying this?

quote:
Your a smart person, I'd think you'd get that. But I suppose it is easier to point a finger at others and be part of the problem...not the solution.



 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5125
(5124 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/19/2017 at 09:03 PM
quote:


Jerry said..."If hating the entirety of the tenets and beliefs of white supremacy, white nationalism and Nazism is so offensive to you, that says way more about you than me."

Actually I don't dig on any type of hate, so I guess that does say something about me.
In my past, a lot of years were wasted hating just about everything. It cost 5 years of my life behind bars in the California Department of Corrections. My hate was reciprocated with hate in return. It is a vicious cycle that always has the same conclusion in the end...More hate. I refuse to put any effort or time into hate, hating, and/or hatred. It is an awesome sense of freedom & peace.

Jerry said..."James, you always have had this all-encompassing view that in essence, everyone is the same, all situations are equal and there's no sense of right and wrong based on...anything. We'll never agree. Ever"

In some things, I'd say you are absolutely correct. It is a waste of time, as far as I'm concerned to trip on stuff you have no control over. What is right to one person, may be wrong to another or visa/versa. Basically, you can only control your own choices and whether you are going to react or respond to situations & circumstances in your life. When you look at all perspectives & possibilities than just your own, the decision making process is way more simplified and beneficial all the way around.

I don't expect anybody to always agree with me, much less understand where I'm coming from.
You haven't walked in my shoes, nor me in yours. So there is the proverbial crux of the biscuit.

My hope is that you are yours are happy and doing well. Maybe we can agree on that my friend.

Laterz, James


I don't remember saying that.

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3870
(3881 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/19/2017 at 09:14 PM
quote:
quote:


Jerry said..."If hating the entirety of the tenets and beliefs of white supremacy, white nationalism and Nazism is so offensive to you, that says way more about you than me."

Actually I don't dig on any type of hate, so I guess that does say something about me.
In my past, a lot of years were wasted hating just about everything. It cost 5 years of my life behind bars in the California Department of Corrections. My hate was reciprocated with hate in return. It is a vicious cycle that always has the same conclusion in the end...More hate. I refuse to put any effort or time into hate, hating, and/or hatred. It is an awesome sense of freedom & peace.

Jerry said..."James, you always have had this all-encompassing view that in essence, everyone is the same, all situations are equal and there's no sense of right and wrong based on...anything. We'll never agree. Ever"

In some things, I'd say you are absolutely correct. It is a waste of time, as far as I'm concerned to trip on stuff you have no control over. What is right to one person, may be wrong to another or visa/versa. Basically, you can only control your own choices and whether you are going to react or respond to situations & circumstances in your life. When you look at all perspectives & possibilities than just your own, the decision making process is way more simplified and beneficial all the way around.

I don't expect anybody to always agree with me, much less understand where I'm coming from.
You haven't walked in my shoes, nor me in yours. So there is the proverbial crux of the biscuit.

My hope is that you are yours are happy and doing well. Maybe we can agree on that my friend.

Laterz, James


I don't remember saying that.


Wrong Jerry. I believe that is also Bhawk's name.

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com