Trump Administration removed Obama funding to fight White Extremism

[gsdx]

An armed assembly is peaceable until violence occurs. We have both the right to bear arms and peaceably to assemble. We do not forfeit one by exercising the other.

You are when one uses a weapon (a car in the case of Charlottesville) to take away the rights completely for one person and to infringe upon the rights of 19 others. Weapons carried by a protesting mob (and they were a mob, not a militia) are sending only one message, and that message isn't 'Peace on Earth'.

 

[Kulindahr]

The first amendment lets us speak. The second amendment guarantees the Right to bear arms. That's pretty much what the right is doing, especially with their silence. This is the sad and spooky truth.

Um, what's "sad and spooky" about people exercising a protected right?

 

[Kulindahr]

Once again, an armed assembly is not a peaceful one.

Actually, the "armed assembly" in question was a peaceful one, on the part of those armed, so your point is in error.

It is showing that they are prepared for violence.

Yes -- in other words, they are ready for the likelihood that someone else is not going to be peaceful.

Otherwise, you have to maintain that no nation in Europe is peaceful, because they're all armed.

And weapons have no voices until they are used by humans, and when they talk, some people cease to be. It is truly sad and spooky when one person's rights either infringe upon or take away another person's rights entirely.

Wrong again: weapons have a very pointed voice merely by being visible, just as a police car parked visibly along a highway says "Don't exceed the speed limit".

By merely being visibly armed, I have prevented both assault, because my bearing arms spoke quite well without them even being touched.

Going armed bothers no one else's rights in the least -- it does the opposite: it guards them.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are when one uses a weapon (a car in the case of Charlottesville) to take away the rights completely for one person and to infringe upon the rights of 19 others. Weapons carried by a protesting mob (and they were a mob, not a militia) are sending only one message, and that message isn't 'Peace on Earth'.

The armed citizens at that protest sent the same message the Black Panthers and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership do when they go armed: be peaceful.

The only evidence of anyone advocating violence came from the individual who realized that a car is a very dangerous weapon and made use of one.

 

[luckynumbah7]

The armed citizens at that protest sent the same message the Black Panthers and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership do when they go armed: be peaceful.

I dunno that I've ever seen a peaceful nazi with a gun. Do you have a picture?

 

[gsdx]

^ I see guns as weapons of destruction and death. I will never see them as 'peaceful' when they are carried by a hate-filled mob.

I'm 65 years old. I have never, in my life, seen a gun drawn in public. Ever.

 

[ballcaphair]

The first amendment lets us speak. The second amendment guarantees the Right to bear arms. That's pretty much what the right is doing, especially with their silence. This is the sad and spooky truth.

Um, what's "sad and spooky" about people exercising a protected right?

Because the exercisiing protected rights are just emotions without dignity. That would include everyone, even you and me. Respects, Sir

 

[62624rd]

Please show us evidence of leftists going to protests armed to the teeth with semi-automatic weapons.

to me they are the NRA.(members) who else would want need semi automatic weapons to protect their family. I can see being armed to protect; but semi automatic weapons are a bit extreme.

 

[Benvolio]

I am better informed about what I understand than you are informed about what I understand.

Please substantiate the following statement:

Your post shows that $400,000 went to Life After Hate. Its website show that it is one sided one sided, with no mention of left wing extremism or anti-whte racism. Here is just one bit:
ABOUT US
OUR MISSION

LIFE AFTER HATE is dedicated to inspiring individuals to a place of compassion and forgiveness for everyone, including themselves.
OUR STORY

Life After Hate, Inc., a 501(c)(3) U.S. nonprofit, was created in 2011 by former members of the American violent far-right extremist movement. Through powerful stories of transformation and unique insight gleaned from decades of experience, we serve to inspire, educate, guide, and counsel."
You will find no suggestion that they have a problem with anti-white racism, Black Lives Matter, Black Panthers, La Raza.

 

[Benvolio]

Since the Obama administration was non-whte, and used its IRS power to suppress conservative organizations, I wonder if you have seen any evidence that any funds went to conservative or Republican groups or groups opposing anti-white racism and violence? We all know that the democrats used the money to funds liberal, anti-conservative causes, whether we can prove it or not.

 

[gsdx]

Since the Obama administration was non-whte, and used its IRS power to suppress conservative organizations, I wonder if you have seen any evidence that any funds went to conservative or Republican groups or groups opposing anti-white racism and violence? We all know that the democrats used the money to funds liberal, anti-conservative causes, whether we can prove it or not.

You have uttered few more racist statements in this forum. I can't imagine what it must be like staring out at the world through those two tiny eye-holes.

 

[opinterph]

Please substantiate the following statement:

This was money given to leftist extremist organization, on the pretence of resisting right wing groups.

We all know … whether we can prove it or not.

That sounds a lot like a white flag.​

---

Your post shows that $400,000 went to Life After Hate.

Actually, no, it doesn’t.

Here is just one bit:

And here is another bit:

Compassion is the opposite of judgment and we understand the roles compassion and empathy play in healing individuals and communities.

Life After Hate is the only grantee among the Countering Violent Extremism funds (awarded by the Obama Administration) that focuses exclusively on fighting white supremacy.

 

[Benvolio]

That sounds a lot like a white flag.​

---

Actually, no, it doesn’t.

And here is another bit:
​

Life After Hate is the only grantee among the Countering Violent Extremism funds (awarded by the Obama Administration) that focuses exclusively on fighting white supremacy.

Who says the "white supremacy" is violent? It is often applied to defensive opinions. Or to toddlers waving the American flag. Most any political opinion can result in violence, but in a free country that does not stigmatize the entire opinion. Black lives matter can be violent, or La Raza, Were any funds awarded that focused of fighting possibly violent minority groups?

 

[gsdx]

Who says the "white supremacy" is violent?

I'm Canadian and even I know the answer to that one. History speaks for itself, but, like Trump, you don't seem to know any history.

No, I am in error. Like Trump, you know YOUR version of history.

 

[opinterph]

Was any money going to fight the communist party?

I would love to see a list of the organizations who have received these funds and those whose opinions were being attacked, but I doubt if that will ever be available.

I wonder if you have seen any evidence that any funds went to conservative or Republican groups or groups opposing anti-white racism and violence?

Were any funds awarded that focused of fighting possibly violent minority groups?

The information you seek is part of the public record.​

 

[Benvolio]

I'm Canadian and even I know the answer to that one. History speaks for itself, but, like Trump, you don't seem to know any history.

No, I am in error. Like Trump, you know YOUR version of history.

The problem is that the term is now used to encompass anything white, as schools have corse decrying white privelege, whiteness etc, which do not involve violence.

 

[opinterph]

"white supremacy" … is often applied to defensive opinions.

Please explain (or at least provide an example).

 

[gsdx]

^ I hope he does. They've always been aggressive from what I've seen, read, and heard.

 

[Kulindahr]

I dunno that I've ever seen a peaceful nazi with a gun. Do you have a picture?

Just watch the news.

 

[Kulindahr]

to me they are the NRA.(members) who else would want need semi automatic weapons to protect their family. I can see being armed to protect; but semi automatic weapons are a bit extreme.

"Extreme"? How is a gun that functions just like revolvers do, one shot per pull of the trigger, "extreme"? The only thing a step down would be single-shot items -- and if you want to protect your family, a single-shot gun is idiocy.