Popo Katy is a Liar (Wow, what a surprise!)

[fool]

Yes, the counter-protesters did have their permit.

 

Trump wrong that counter-protesters had no permit

[Digital Phoenix]

Yes, the counter-protesters did have their permit.

 

Trump wrong that counter-protesters had no permit

 

Katy had the same information as everybody else at the time. I fail to see how that counts as lying :rolleyes:

[fool]

Yeah, from where? One of those right wing lunatic news sites?

[Sheldon]

So, they had a permit to two parks that were blocks away from Emancipation Park?

 

If they were to protest in that area, why did they go to the other park?

 

Devils advocate here.... seems like one group WENT to the other.

[SneakyDave]

I think a smart government good make a tidy sum selling these permits to various protesting groups

[fool]

[fool]

why did they go to the other park?

Who?

 

The protesters that got the permit?

 

The protesters that was run over by the car?

 

It's easy to use the word "they" but you need to show evidence who they are first. But we all can identify the killer, the one person that the animal trump never bothered to address. In fact, who are the good people on the nazi side that lunatic trump talked about?

[SneakyDave]

Wait a second. You can't have it both ways. Is Trump supposed to name the killer, or are we supposed to only honor the victims?

 

Because if he had paid any attention to the killer, there would be a lot of wailing and gnashing of the teeth that Trump is disrespecting the victim.

 

It sounds like it doesn't really matter how Trump responded.

[13511]

Yeah, from where? One of those right wing lunatic news sites?

Actually I think it was one of your "mainstream" news medias. But honestly, I don't watch TV news any more so I don't know for sure.

And if she was leaving Emancipation park, then she was outside where there was a permit for them valid at.... so in effect the group she was with was not permitted to be protesting where they were.

But it belabors the point Cuckoo for Coco Puffs... if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it make a sound?

Edited August 18, 2017 by 13511

[fool]

Actually I think it was one of your "mainstream" news medias. But honestly, I don't watch TV news any more so I don't know for sure.

Yeah, you don't know because you're too ashamed to named your lunatic wingnut source.

 

And if she was leaving Emancipation park, then she was outside where there was a permit for them valid at.... so in effect the group she was with was not permitted to be protesting where they were.

But it belabors the point Cuckoo for Coco Puffs... if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it make a sound?

More made up nonsense;

 

In addition, Dickler of the city of Charlottesville [Miriam Dickler, a spokeswoman for the city of Charlottesville] said that counter-protesters would have been permitted even outside of the two park locations specified in the permit. "A permit does not bar other individuals from entry to a public park (such as Emancipation Park), nor does it restrict who can be on streets or sidewalks outside of and/or adjacent to the park."

[fool]

Wait a second. You can't have it both ways. Is Trump supposed to name the killer, or are we supposed to only honor the victims?

 

Because if he had paid any attention to the killer, there would be a lot of wailing and gnashing of the teeth that Trump is disrespecting the victim.

 

It sounds like it doesn't really matter how Trump responded.

 

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.

[SneakyDave]

the one person that the animal trump never bothered to address.

You said that as if Trump was "in the wrong" for not mentioning his name.

 

If he had even slightly alluded to the killer, the left anarchists would dream up a conspiracy that Trump fathered this guy.

[13511]

So Cuckoo for Coco Puffs, a permit for one area allows one to protest anywhere in the city? Pretty sure that's not correct.

Being "permitted" to be there and being permitted to PROTEST there are two entirely different things. Semantics DOES make a difference when speaking of various law aspects.

Anyone is permitted to BE somewhere - as they aren't prohibited from their presence at the location. The prohibition would be the PROTESTING while at the location that they do not have a valid permit for.

 

Yeah, you don't know because you're too ashamed to named your lunatic wingnut source.

And no, I don't really keep up with that kind of shit. I'm not a fanatic like you (and many on the left) are about it. Simple solution - if everyone would ignore them they have no platform. But in todays society everyone has to PROVE that they are on the "side of righteousness". Thing is, your idea of righteous is not the same as others. When one starts forcing their beliefs on others (like you and many on the left/ultra-left) want to do then you become no different than any other "dictator" type. N. Korea ring a bell?

 

I don't agree with the KKK/ultra-nationalists that were attending the original protest... but I do believe they have a right to their beliefs and the right to speak out to those beliefs, no matter how 'hateful" or "hurting" they are to others. Free speech is just that. Once it is only "popular" speech it is no longer free. The voice of dissension must always be allowed to be heard, whether one agrees with it or not.

The issue is that many of the protesters (and specifically counter protesters) have an apparent need to force their beliefs on others, to the point of physical confrontation.

Edited August 18, 2017 by 13511

[fool]

So this nazi popo think he knows better than the spokeswoman of the city which issued the permit herself! The issue is not about all these new "shifting the goal posts" you're making up right now. The issue is simple, you lied and is presented with the fact that contradict your lie.

[fool]

You said that as if Trump was "in the wrong" for not mentioning his name.

 

If he had even slightly alluded to the killer, the left anarchists would dream up a conspiracy that Trump fathered this guy.

 

What the fuck are you talking about dumdum? What I was saying is that the animal trump did not emphasize on the actual victim and killer and instead rambling about violence on both sides (which are irrelevant) and how some people on the other side (nazi side) are good folks. What the fuck is a good nazi anyway?

[SneakyDave]

How would you have addressed it chicken scratches?

 

Now that hindsight is 20/20, I'll bet you have a speech already prepared. Put yourself in The Donald's shoes right after the murder, and you address the American public.

 

Let's hear it.

[13511]

So this nazi popo think he knows better than the spokeswoman of the city which issued the permit herself! The issue is not about all these new "shifting the goal posts" you're making up right now. The issue is simple, you lied and is presented with the fact that contradict your lie.

Pretty sure they said that

counter-protesters would have been permitted even outside of the two park locations specified in the permit. "A permit does not bar other individuals from entry to a public park (such as Emancipation Park), nor does it restrict who can be on streets or sidewalks outside of and/or adjacent to the park."

It does not state that they are allowed to have their PROTEST there. Come on Cuckoo for Coco Puffs... I thought you had more intelligence than that and could understand the written English language. Their PROTEST actions were permitted in a specific area, but their personal presence is allowed anywhere. That is simply what was being said. Nowhere in that statement does it state that COUNTER PROTESTS would be allowed, only the counter protestors. There IS a difference between the action and the participants of said action.

They have a legal right to be walking there, but they didn't have a permit if they were PROTESTING there. If they were protesting (and I don't know and really don't care if they were) then their actions were outside of what they were permitted for. Does not give anyone a reason to do what they did, but the fact would remain the same that if protesting at that location without the permit, they were acting illegally (no big surprise there though for the left).

Edited August 18, 2017 by 13511

[13511]

This is a classic case of snowflakes to the extreme

Six Flags Over Texas removes Confederate flag, reversing earlier decision

Factual reason for the name (and associated display of said reason) of the parks (how Texas actually had 6 flags flown during it's history) now being rewritten because folks get butt hurt over facts.

Nothing but pandering to those that can't accept reality (or factuality).

 

Maybe they need to rename it to "5 flags snowflakes approve of and 1 they don't over Texas".

[fool]

It does not state that they are allowed to have their PROTEST there.

Who said they're protesting there? Is this another made up story from a nazi?

[fool]

Six Flags Over Texas removes Confederate flag, reversing earlier decision

It's their business decision, why are you nazi bitching about it? Why should they loose money just to fly the racist flag?

[fool]

How would you have addressed it chicken scratches?

Focus on the murder and condemn the killer. Rebuke white supremacist ideology. That's all. In any protests and counter protests there will always be violence, it's retarded to focus on this irrelevant reality. Focus on the real tragedy and the disgusting ideology of nazism.

[13511]

Who said they're protesting there? Is this another made up story from a nazi?

 

Read post #9 above AGAIN Cuckoo for Coco Puffs.

Here, let me point out the salient point

And if she was leaving Emancipation park, then she was outside where there was a permit for them valid at

You are trying to skate around the fact that what you were wanting to imply with your quoting of the statement from Miriam Dickler that they had a right to protest there (your implication) but factuality is that they (as individuals) have a right to be there, but they didn't have a legal right to be protesting (if that is what they were doing) there. I wasn't there, and neither were you... so all we can go on is what reports state. I haven't seen (and haven't looked for) anything showing whether they were protesting or simply walking back to somewhere else.

And thank you for agreeing with me, even though you probably don't realize that you did. They had NO right to perform any protests there, but they DID have a right to be walking somewhere there.

Oh, here ya' go, I did some looking for you,

from The Guardian

A man has been arrested and charged with murder after a car rammed into a group of people peacefully protesting against a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one person and injuring 19.

And from the New York Post

One person was killed when a car plowed into a group of counter-protesters at a white supremacist rally in Virginia on Saturday afternoon, authorities said.

And from NBC News

One person was killed and more than 19 others were injured in Charlottesville, Virginia, after a car plowed through a group of counter-protesters who were demonstrating against an alt-right and white nationalist rally.

And from WJLA (Washington D.C. station)

Police have identified the 32-year-old woman who was killed after a car ran over her and injured 19 others as they were protesting the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville on Saturday.

And from Daily Mail (UK)

Heather Heyer was killed and over 20 others were wounded after they were struck by a car driven by 20-year-old white supremacist James Fields, who police say intentionally plowed his Dodge into a crowd of activists protesting an alt-right rally.

 

So according to those sources, they were protesting (The Guardian), counter-protestors (New York Post with no statement of whether actively protesting), demonstrating against (NBC News), where were demonstrating against (WJLA), and activist protesting (Daily Mail). I'm sure that there are more, and I seriously doubt that they were simply walking along the sidewalk like most folks out for a stroll.

Does it justify what happened... no, but quit trying to put a different spin on what the media is reporting. You weren't there so you have no factual 1st hand knowledge of it.

[SneakyDave]

the US condems , in the the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.

 

How should he have reworded that? He mentioned "the young woman" that was murdered. At the time, he may have not even had all the details about the violence. It seems everybody is still fighting about who started what. Even your hated Po Po said that both sides came armed and ready for a fight.

[13511]

It's their business decision, why are you nazi bitching about it? Why should they loose money just to fly the racist flag?

It may be a "racist" flag.. but the park WAS named after the 6 flags that flew over Texas. They flew the other ones until replacing them all with US flags... kind of defeats the purpose of the name. Why are you dealing with feelings when we are dealing with facts Cuckoo for Coco Puffs?

 

BTW, THIS is the flag that they took down

[ATTACH=full]1486._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

Most people wouldn't even associate it with the "rebel" flag that sends the snowflakes into seizure city.

It's the CSA battle flag that gets those snowflakes to melting.

Edited August 19, 2017 by 13511

[fool]

IWhy are you dealing with feelings when we are dealing with facts

Because it's a business decision.