No Cash For Hate, Say Mainstream Crowdfunding Firms (reuters.com) 396
An anonymous reader shares a report: Online fund-raising sites are turning their backs on activists looking to offer financial support for James Fields, the man accused of driving his car into counter-protesters at a white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday. GoFundMe, Kickstarter and other mainstream crowdfunding firms have policies that prohibit hate speech or abuse, the latest example of technology firms making it harder for far-right groups to organize online. Fields is accused of killing one woman and injuring 19 others on Saturday after the rally in Charlottesville turned violent. Supporters of Fields, who was denied bail at a court hearing in Virginia on Monday, have turned to the internet to raise money for his legal defense. GoFundMe, one of the two leading crowdfunding firms, said on Monday it has removed multiple fundraising campaigns for Fields, because the company prohibits the promotion of hate speech and violence.
Problematic as a precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Some day an innocent man is going to set up a crowdfunding campaign for his defence and is going to get it shut down because he's been pre-emptively judged guilty. It's that old "first they came for the (x)" story, except this time they came for the Nazis, and it's all that more seductive because the Nazis deserve it.
Re:Problematic as a precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
THIS!
We all need to be guarding the other's rights no matter how repugnant the other's opinions (or actions) are to us. A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged. If we don't slow down and realize this, we are going to have no real justice, no real democracy. It will be mob rule, where those who are the angriest and most violent will rule with impunity, in short anarchy will rule with all it's violence and fury and bring with it death and destrcution.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged.
Nobody is stopping his supporters from writing stuff on a cardboard box and standing at intersections. I don't see a problem here.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops.. meant to add: "with a tin can"
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Problematic as a precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
They're stopping people from providing funds for a lawyer. Perhaps you'll understand some day. Ass-hole.
no they're not. explain to me how supporters are blocked from sending this guy checks or cash. or sending whoever the attorney is checks or cash. answer: they're not.
also explain to me why GoFundMe et al should be forced to facilitate the funding of a murderer? answer: why the fuck should they be?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we'll see about that when Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission reaches the Gorsuch's desk.
Of course it also depends on where GoFundMe et al falls vis-a-vis the definition of "public accommodations", but if some guy can deny gay people a wedding cake, there's no way anyone is going to force crowdfunding sites to do anything whatsoever. Delicious irony.
Re:Problematic as a precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged.
Nobody is stopping his supporters from writing stuff on a cardboard box and standing at intersections. I don't see a problem here.
Way to miss the point. Are we committed to the US constitution with it's bill of rights or not here? Perhaps the ends (silencing repugnant speech) justifies the means (ignoring the bill of rights)?
I'm not saying the "crowd sourced funding" companies don't have the right to refuse, I'm just pointing out that we just might letting the camel's nose into the tent by just accepting the idea that the accused don't deserve to ask for help with their legal costs. We need to error on the side of caution here and stay as far away from acting like a lynch mob rushing to judgment as we can. I've heard that there *might* be some undisclosed circumstances in play here as well and we need to whoa up and let law enforcement do their jobs, bring the appropriate charges and prove them in court, while letting the accused have the benefit of being presumed innocent until convicted. After all, this IS how the US Constitution says this works... One doesn't get tried in the court of public opinion and condemned by the mob in our system.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to miss the point. Are we committed to the US constitution with it's bill of rights or not here?
I am. But what about the right of free association?
I can see being upset at the crowdfunding sites. I can see boycotting them as a result. But their actions are well within their Constitutional rights, and they are not infringing on anyone else's rights.
They are not, as many commenters here are claiming, stopping people from offering financial support. They are just refusing to allow their platforms to be the mechanism. There are myriad other mechanisms still available to everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
I am. But what about the right of free association?
GoFundMe is a company. They gave up the right of "free association" when they formed a company that allows anyone to use their services for fundraising, at least according to the public accomodations law in Colorado and many other states. That's why there's now a case in front of SCOTUS about this issue.
But their actions are well within their Constitutional rights, and they are not infringing on anyone else's rights.
It is within the constitutional rights of the baker in the Colorado case to believe that same sex marriage is wrong, and it does not violate anyone's rights when he refuses to bake a cake for a same sex coup
Re: (Score:2)
The bill of rights prohibits the government from infringing upon a number
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Problematic as a precedent (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, now we have a case which flips the left/right spectrum. If you are running a business offering a service to the public, can you deny that service to white supremacist customers because you personally disagree with white supremacy?
Now, I personally believe the cake shop owner has the right to refuse to make a cake decorated for a gay wedding (but not to refuse to sell a generic cake which the buyer may decorate as they wish). So I have no problem with GoFundMe, Godaddy, etc. denying these Nazis services since it requires "their" equipment to propagate white supremacist materials. But I'm curious though how those on the left justify denying business owners the right to refuse a customer in one case, but having no problem with it in this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what makes you decide to donate money to a crowdfunding site to raise money for those that cannot afford a good lawyer is a white supremacist like James Fields Jr., and, not say the tens of thousands of minority accused who make up the lion's share of people who are forced due to a lack of money to pay for their own attorney? All of sudden, being stuck with a private defender is a big problem when it's some white Nazi who can't afford a lawyer, but it never bothered you before?
Re: (Score:3)
We all need to be guarding the other's rights no matter how repugnant the other's opinions (or actions) are to us.
Here's the thing: we certainly should fight for the rights of those with whom we disagree, but we must also never allow ourselves to be convinced that it's a violation of their rights if we exercise our right to not associate with them. By my count, exactly zero of his rights are being violated.
In fact, if we were to compel the various online services to serve those people, we'd be violating their right to associate (or not) with whomever they choose. As private individuals and companies, they have a right
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Problematic as a precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
These sites can deny service to whomever they like.
While you're legally correct, that view is morally reprehensible. Once a business becomes large enough to wield more power than some governments, they need to be held to a higher standard. In a society where money equals justice, large crowd funding sites become one gatekeeper of said justice.
Re:Problematic as a precedent (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you cannot afford and attorney one will be provided.
Now this is going to be a high profile case, with a lot of solid evidence, if this attorney could find a way to do anything to help him, this would look golden on any job interview for a big high paying firm.
If this was some drug dealer and only getting 15 seconds on the local news. He may just make sure the court doesn't give the death penalty, but for this case the attorney will probably be doing his best. Just because he is in a visible position.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's what the "left" is saying at all. What is being said is "why does some poor white bigot deserve our sympathy and cash for a decent lawyer, and not all the poor minorities who are more likely to need a public defender on average than white people?"
I agree, there should be more money for public defenders, but not just for white Nazis being accused of serious crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Each of those sites can do what they like---and if they have rules prohibiting racial discrimination, violence, or hate crimes, then they are behaving in a reasonably consistent fashion.
Nothing is stopping neo-Nazi sites from starting their own funding campaigns. If you're worried about their freedom, remember this: They are perfectly free to collect and distribute funds on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there doubt? Actually, yes. Was it him? Did he do it intentionally? Is he sane?
All three of those questions deserve to be answered carefully, in front of a judge. There is actually some reasonable doubt about the second two.
Sites refusing him a platform are within their rights, but are skipping the "innocent until proven guilty" bit. Unethical, IMHO.
nobrainer (Score:4, Interesting)
On the one hand, you get free publicity, and most people give you credit for being moral.
On the other hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who support racist violence.
In terms of raw numbers, the choice is easy. On the other hand, you'd like these funding things to be apolitical, not appointing themselves judges. It would be kind of interesting to see how many people actually would be willing to donate to his defense fund. Does that fool actually have any chance at all in court?
Re:nobrainer (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who support racist violence.
And on the third hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who believe that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial.
Re:nobrainer (Score:5, Insightful)
And on the third hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who believe that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial.
For some reason this group seems very small recently.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because nobody noticed our original legal framework was set up to make sure you can get away with your crimes.
If you go out raping and murdering, people are going to notice. It's going to leave evidence, it's going to draw attention, it's going to put you at risk. People care, people start trying to identify who is doing all this raping and murdering, and your strange movements and behaviors start creating patterns which we can see (and which upset people).
Let me remind you the Unabomber was cau
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How would crowdfunding fix this.
Are they going to ban the ACLU too? (Score:5, Interesting)
The ACLU defended the Unite the Right group in Charlottesville when the city revoked their permit to demonstrate. So is the ACLU a supporter of hate speech and thus needs to be purged?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> Hate groups exists because we give them an audience.
Hate groups exist because people like simple cause-and-effect relationships, and our primate brains are also wired for 'us vs. them'. In other words, we loves us some scapegoats. Didn't you guys coin that term a few thousand years ago? :)
Anyway, when someone's frustrated for whatever reason (and this is true rich or poor, weak or powerful), they almost always look for someone other than themselves to blame. If there's a 'them' around, sometimes the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice try. They weren't defending what the group had to say, they were defending their RIGHT to say it. Big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Care to provide a link to that, or is it another lame attempt at lame "progressive" humor?
Fuck progressives. I'm a Goldwater Republican, not the present day bought and paid for corporatists, turrning into white supremacist Republicans.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tru... [yahoo.com]
Gotta admire a man who will stand up for assault and battery.
Re: (Score:3)
Gotta admire a man who will stand up for assault and battery.
So you equate punching someone who is there deliberately to provoke an incident at a political rally (documented in a hit piece on the candidate the rally was for) with Nazis who drive a car into a crowd? Wow. That's what you say when you claim that Trump has said he'd pay for the defense of this Nazi ("these people"), when the truth is that "these people" refers to a very different group.
Oh, good grief.
My point was that Trump has supported violence before. He said what he said - that he would pay th elegal bills of his supporters who committed violence agains those he opposed.
But yes, you are correct, he did not specifically say that he was going to pay the legal bills of James Alex Fields Jr., the guy who drove his car into a crowd of protesters. You'll also note that I did not specifically say that Trump would pay for the legal fees of James Alex Fields Jr.
I said he can. Since y'
Re: (Score:2)
Except that he never said that. Nice try though.
He has said he would pick up th ebill for supporters who assault protesters. https://www.yahoo.com/news/tru... [yahoo.com]
Deal with it.
Simple Economics (Score:3)
A dollar that goes to ensuring he gets a free trial is a dollar that doesn't fund acts of racism in public.
I sued a telemarketer once. I did everything I could to load up their legal bill. Since the lawyer was in Phoenix and the company was in Florida, I'd send a response to the one who didn't send me the petition. If Florida sent me something, I'd mail the response to Phoenix.
I won $300 by the end of it because they gave up. Talking to their lawyer I said "I know they paid you a lot of money. That's all that matters." Of course he thought it was funny. He got paid. It didn't matter who got the money as long as it was removed from the company.
Removing money from racists to pay a lawyer is a much better use of the money of racists than anything else they'd come up with like idiot signs or idiot flags. Or bus fares to their rallies.
The guy doesn't need legal help (Score:2)
he needs mental help. Supposedly he was diagnosed as a schizophrenic in childhood and been on psychiatric drugs ever since.
How about if they change "Let's raise money for James's legal defense" into "Let's raise money so this loony can be locked up in a proper mental asylum and given treatment", maybe it won't be so objectionable then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I heard Alex Jones was pushing that new excuse. It's known as the "He's white, so he must be a lone wolf/mentally ill defense".
The day before, he was saying that all the alt-right protesters in Charlottesville were Jewish actors paid by George Soros.
They have their own websites (Score:2)
Not going to name names, no need to help bigots.
But they have web sites specifically designed to raise cash for alt-right causes.
Re:Black Lives Matter (Score:4, Informative)
It doesn't. You can find BLM projects on GoFundMe. Nation of Islam too. The usual Marxist/Socialist movements too. This is a one sided ban. Virtue signaling.
Re:Black Lives Matter (Score:4, Insightful)
BLM doesn't advocate violence in pursuit of their objectives. In fact, they don't even have any objectives. Many activists don't understand that to be effective, you need to have clear actionable goals. As an example of this, look at the two movements that arose in reaction to the 2008 financial bailout: Occupy Wall Street, and the Tea Party. One had clear goals, the other did not. Occupy Wall Street accomplished nothing, and has mostly faded away. Meanwhile, the Tea Party is running the country.
Re: Black Lives Matter (Score:5, Informative)
BLM advocates nonviolence and loving engagement [blacklivesmatter.com]. When people associated with BLM have engaged in violence, the organization has denounced their actions.
Can you cite any white supremacist organization that has denounced the actions of James Fields in Charlottesville?
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticise BLM, but comparing them to Nazis is absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
In any case it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
The equivalency argument concludes that to consistent, if campaigns like this one are disallowed, then no campaigns by BLM whatsoever should be allowed.
But that logically holds only if anything that anyone does under the label "BLM" is morally equivalent to murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence please.
Re:Black Lives Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Black Lives Matter is not a hate group with a mission of violence. I have nothing good to say about any religion, but there' also nothing inherently violent about the Nation of Islam. There's no reason whatsoever to compare any of the things you mention to neo-nazis, unless we accept the tacit assumptions of your poisonous mentality.
In fact, any political movement is almost certainly fine SO LONG AS THEY AREN'T OPENLY ADVOCATING VIOLENCE. Like, seriously, do you REALLY not even see the fucking difference? Seriously? Scary fucking times.
Re:Black Lives Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Because pointing out the greater likelihood of being shot by police if you're black than if you're white is clearly hate speech...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because pointing out the greater likelihood of being shot by police if you're black than if you're white is clearly hate speech...
Well, that is not hate speech. An example of BLM-related hate speech might be calling for the assassination of law enforcement officers or praising it when it happens, like what happened in Dallas.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's not ok to fund white bigots then it's not ok to fund non-white bigots. It's pretty obvious the KKK et al, BLM/antifa, and BAMN all have self-serving agendas aligned along various lines, all under the guise of making the world a better place, of course.
Anyway, it's a little more complicated than you suggest.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pu... [bjs.gov]
Of reported persons who died during the process of arrest, 95 percent were male. About 42 percent were white, 32 percent were black/African American and 20 percent were Hispanic or Latino. More than half (55 percent) were between ages 25 and 44, and juveniles (persons under age 18) were about three percent of all arrest-related deaths.
Among persons who committed suicide during the process of arrest, 60 percent were white, 20 percent were Hispanic or Latino and 15 percent were black/African American. About 12 percent of persons who committed suicide during the process of arrest allegedly committed homicide during or prior to the arrest.
Of reported arrest-related deaths by intoxication, black/African Americans were 41 percent of persons who died, whites were 34 percent and Hispanic or Latinos were 21 percent. During an arrest, females were more likely than males to die of intoxication (16 percent compared to 11 percent) and natural causes (12 percent compared to five percent).
This one does contradict but only when the suspect is drunk.
Over the seven year period when the arrest-related deaths were reported to BJS, the FBI estimated that state and local law enforcement officers made nearly 98 million arrests.
5000 arrest related deaths over 98 million.. Not nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be, but I'
Re: (Score:2)
I think 98 million arrests out of a population of 300 million people seems extremely high.
Re: (Score:2)
I think 98 million arrests out of a population of 300 million people seems extremely high.
Over seven years, and considering that some people are arrested on a weekly or monthly basis, I don't think it's out of line. It says "98 million arrests", not "98 million different people arrested..."
Re: (Score:2)
Because pointing out the greater likelihood of being shot by police if you're black than if you're white is clearly hate speech...
Regardless of the fact that the reverse is actually true.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Such a simplistic approach to the problem.
There are many times that white people have contact with the Police when they are doing something wrong, and normally they will just get a talking to and move along. A minority has a higher chance on getting arrested for the same problem.
Being in a culture where the law enforcement will not treat you justly means the local communities will put the law into their own hands, with often poor results. Thus escalating the minor offence to a bigger one.
In short growing
Re: (Score:2)
Civilian Lives Matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Being more-likely to be shot if you're X than Y isn't impacted by how much of the total population are X or Y. If the two values aren't equal, something is different.
Being more-likely to be X or Y if you're shot is impacted by how much of the population is X or Y. If it's not proportional to population, something's different in those too situations.
That doesn't suggest what the difference may be. Likewise, there are other interesting comparisons: are you more-likely to be accused or convicted of a c
Re: (Score:3)
It should be noted that this doesn't control for a lot of other factors that typically factor in to likelihood to commit crime such as socioeconomic status or family status. Being
Re: (Score:2)
That's only because that population is 10% of our population, but they are responsible for 40% of all crime.
You'll need to provide supporting evidence, as all of the stats that I've seen indicate that this is not true.
Just to preempt some of the bad "evidence" that is out there -- the evidence must cover actual crime, not arrests. It also must compensate for economic conditions.
Re:Black Lives Matter (Score:4, Informative)
Because people who are poor (of any race) are more likely to get caught committing crimes, and black people are more likely to be poor. So if you want to support the hypothesis that black people are inherently more crime-prone, then you need to take away the skew that economic effects introduce.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm going to take the opportunity to point out that Charles in Charge had the better theme song, but it was no replacement for Three's Company.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Have you seen what White Culture has become?
https://media.boingboing.net/w... [boingboing.net]
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/... [bbci.co.uk]
https://o.aolcdn.com/images/di... [aolcdn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you invent a whole new narrative for BLM that appears to have little or nothing to do with what BLM is about.
"It centers those that have been marginalized within Black liberation movements. It is a tactic to (re)build the Black liberation movement." -- BLM [blacklivesmatter.com]
If you look up the Black Liberation Movement that BLM refers to, you will see that the Black Panther Party was a part of that movement, too.
Re:Black Lives Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
And what actions are those? The leaders of the movement have been quick to condemn any violence done in BLM's name. You are literally just making shit up to try to create a false equivalency.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly does that have to do with African-Americans being more likely to be shot by police than white Americans?
Re:Black Lives Matter (Score:5, Informative)
To make it an accurate equivalency, you'd have to find someone who was anti-white, tried to kill a bunch of white people, and then GoFundMe decided to allow a defense fund.
Re: (Score:3)
No, BLM is recognised as a Black Power movement. 93% of Black homicides are committed by black people (84% of homicides against white people are committed by whites; while this is only a 10% difference, in the population sizes, a vast amount more white people are killed by non-whites than the other way round.
If Black Lives Matter, then to get the biggest return, they need to address the (probably cultural, gangsta, edgy, which is so popular it's practically mainstream) issues in their own community first.
B
Re:Black Lives Matter (Score:5, Informative)
As a result of BLM protests, municipalities across the country have gotten police cams, which have served to reduce police violence. Secondly, a lot of municipalities have gotten de-escalation training, with good results [dailykos.com]. These things are good for everyone, not just black people.
So you could say that as a result of BLM, Americans of all races have benefited.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Black Lives Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have a structure like that, it's really hard to treat them as a monolith. For example, one city's BLM decided to have a cookout with their local police [usatoday.com] to try to have a friendly dialog and voice their concerns. Even if you're generally against the movement as a whole, it's pretty hard to condemn trying to come together on good terms and build understanding. On the other hand it's hard to support the BLM member who has allegedly defrauded the University of Toronto for almost $300,000 dollars [torontosun.com] even if you generally support the movement as a whole.
In general, most things are a mixed bag, but typically you're dealing with an entity that is ultimately answerable to a single person or a small group of individuals so you can still form a cohesive opinion of the whole, but I don't know if that's really possible with BLM since it's completely decentralized. I suppose it's possible to argue that the "good" parts of BLM should rebrand or distance themselves from the "bad" parts, but as a brand BLM is attractive under the idea that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Even if you are one of those "good" parts of the movement, you can use the negative publicity as a foil to highlight the positive of your own particular subgroup within the movement.
Re: (Score:3)
What it is though, is inaccurate and unfair.
Life isn't fair though, so quit bitching about it. You get to post on the internet instead of slowly dying in a diamond mine in a country that largely doesn't even have electricity. If your biggest problem in life is that the media or
Re:Black Lives Matter (Score:4, Informative)
Black Live Matters isn't a hate group.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't expect a poor white man to put up with a public defender.
FTFY - Yes, I do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So now it's up to crowdfunding sites to decide who can and who cannot get good legal representation?
This isn't about supporting hate speech - it's about giving a guy a proper lawyer so the courts can do what they're supposed to do.
The courts can do exactly what they're supposed to do... appoint a lawyer if the defendant can't afford it. Show me a law that says this is Kickstarter's responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Also they're just not offering help in rising the funds, instead of blocking access to funds.
Re:Meet the new judge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There his a higher principal at place here which is being rather visibly injured.
Not at all.
He will have legal representation. Almost anything is adequate in this case, though. His act was caught on several cameras, so it's not like his lawyer has much to do. Maybe a plea deal.
At most, his lawyer could get plus/minus a few years on a plea in the face of overwhelming evidence. The plates on his car are visible, and his mom and teachers have both said he was alt-right with other signs of radicalization.
A legal defense fund is wasted money. That asshole is going to jail for a long time, no
Re: (Score:3)
Crowdfunding sites aren't the only way for others to support individuals. Even before the internet existed, I remember plenty of local fundraisers at churches or through other organizations like the VFW back in the day to ra
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see.
I really see some restriction of free speech on the first case. Rightful or a precedent opening for further step reductions should be debated.
Now, fund raising isn't freedom of speech and isn't a necessity for adequate legal representation. These platforms aren't also near monopolies that control the monetary flow around the world.
Basically, just well done bashing...
Re:Free speech vs fair trial (Score:4, Interesting)
That line about the US having the best justice system money can buy is meant to be sarcasm. Isn't "putting their finger on the scales of justice" what you do when you introduce money to this situation, not when you remove it?
Re: (Score:2)
So where is the evidence that a guy who has been recorded driving into a bunch of people, is somehow not getting adequate legal representation.
If that is the case, where is the crowdfunding source for all the public defenders? Not for this one high profile case.
Re: (Score:3)
If that is the case, where is the crowdfunding source for all the public defenders? Not for this one high profile case.
There is an irony to your statement that I don't think you intended or are aware. The public defenders office very expensive.
https://news.vice.com/article/... [vice.com]
Re:Where is the evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
He was seen marching with a white supremacist group (Vanguard America) and was seen wearing one of their shields early in the protest. Couple that with statements by others who knew him that he espoused white supremacist views, I don't think you need to be Sherlock Holmes to draw the line, unless you're intentionally trying to make a group like Vanguard look less loathsome than they are by making the absurd claim that he had nothing to do with them.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to remember the biblical admonition against throwing pearls before swine. GP knows exactly WTF this guy did, and is being a parrot. Your effort is wasted on him.
I'm sorry.
Re:Where is the evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Here. [reuters.com] Or do statements by former classmates and teachers not satisfy you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nazis are bad investment risks (Score:4, Informative)
Except he wasn't....
http://www.snopes.com/george-s... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Aaaaand you proved his point. You're being a dickhead because you don't agree with his message.
You're like the Antifa guys who claim to hate Fascists, but act exactly like the Fascists of old who shout down and commit violent acts against people who date to say something other than what you agree with.
I don't agree with Kim Il Sung's message, or ISIS either. That doesn't mean I have to support them in this country. They are enemies, just like White Supremacists and Neo Nazis. Enemies.
So anyhow, if one of your people comes after me and tries to run me over with his car, and I exercise me second amendment right to defend myself, and pop him between the eyes - it means I am just as bad as him? Ridiculous.
Sorry, but your anarchist anti-American wet dream does not apply to people who want to violently o
Re: (Score:2)
Triggered snowflake is triggered. Quick, someone get xer to a safe space!
Sorry, but you and your ilk don't understand normal discourse, so I have to get to your level.
Funny how people who believe in the first amendment are the Anonymous Cowards in here.