Auburnfan91

Verified Member
  • Content count

    2,683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Auburnfan91 last won the day on October 19 2009

Auburnfan91 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

121 Sterling

About Auburnfan91

  • Rank
    bleed orange and blue

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Interests
    college football, professional wrestling, music, and movies.
  • Location
    Deatsville, Alabama
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

814 profile views
  1. I've already told you my view on violence and the exceptions like self defense. I'm not going to discuss war here because that's not what this thread is about and that's not why I'm making posts here. If I wanted to talk about war, the morality of it, or the qualifiers for getting into a war then I'd go post in the WW2 thread. I'm not interested in a debate about war. So I'm not going to answer your questions.
  2. Because I thought most understood that violence outside of war is not acceptable. The WW2 discussion in a another thread. I was never including war in my view of violence. I'm sorry for not taking into consideration that people love to argue with extremes such as war to make a point for violence. Duly noted though. I'll make sure not to make the mistake again.
  3. Violence is wrong in most cases except for self defense and in the face of physical danger. Violence isn't justified if you go and seek it out which is what a lot of counter-protesters, Antifa, and BLM protesters have done at Trump rallies in Berkeley, Chicago, etc....... You don't go to a rally and provoke violence. That doesn't make you courageous and righteous.
  4. I've already told people personally, someone on here, and others who aren't on this forum that I thought Trump should have been more forceful in condemning the white supremacists. I have no problem with all the sh*t Trump's getting for his response. But I just can't gloss over how we're supposed to understand and rationalize violence on one side, regardless of whether you feel they have a right to be angry or not. Obama did a poor job condemning the violence and calling it out. He rationalized it and gave it cover by blaming police bias and systemic racism. Jack Ruby still went to prison for killing Lee Harvey Oswald. He's not a hero for what he did and nobody should ever view him as one for killing Oswald. Violence is wrong period ..........
  5. Read more at: http://www.dailywire.com/news/19689/flashback-after-black-radical-massacred-dallas-james-barrett# The hypocrisy is overwhelming. Obama's response to the Dallas shooting was praised despite not being aggressive in condemning the attack by labeling it what it was "terrorism" and also sidestepping the shooters motivations at the time even though it was obvious within hours that the shooter's background was very radical and racist. Even after having a couple of days to digest the situation, not only did Obama still not bring up the shooters motives and call them out, he did what Trump did and blamed both sides. So when Obama blamed both sides, even though police bias had nothing to do with why 5 police officers were killed, it was ok for him to criticize police practices and include them in the blame just days after the attack. Obama not only got a pass for this but praise was heaped upon him for his response. When a black person was killed by police, Obama didn't blame both sides. But when police officers were killed, he spent as much time talking about police bias and systemic racism as he did in actually condemning the attack and the motives behind them. He also managed to blame guns and call for gun control. The shooter's motives just didn't seem to be important to Obama as he never brought it up. The way Trump's response to Charlottesville was treated vs how Obama's Dallas response was treated is an example of blatant bias and hypocrisy. Despite both responses sharing ineffectual condemnation, blaming both sides, and both responses spending as much time making excuses for the conditions that led to the incidents, only one response was harshly rebuked. The other response was glowingly accepted and revered as "Lincolnesque".
  6. Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News

    Really? ..... Since you're more educated about Antifa than I am, are there members of Antifa that support Trump or the GOP?
  7. Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News

    Wow, so the Washington Post publishes 2 articles on the same day with completely different descriptions of the size of the far right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/organizers-postpone-google-protest-marches-citing-alt-left-terrorist-threats/2017/08/16/1a62a248-824b-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?utm_term=.ca676d329414
  8. So you don't care about consistency? Is it because some groups are more socially acceptable than others? Is it only socially unacceptable groups that it's ok to give all the blame too? If a socially acceptable group is at fault and clearly the only side that did wrong in a given situation but a leader wants to blame both sides because it's politically convenient, then why should that be given a pass?
  9. So only in this situation and circumstance does one side and only one side need to be called out? If you think so that's fine, but what about other situations in recent history where the shoe was on the other foot but both sides were called out as being at fault for the event that happened? Why is it only in certain situation does one side get all the blame but in others where it's obvious that only one side was at fault but both sides still get blamed? Does it depend on who the guilty party is? What the's qualifier where only one side should be given all the blame?
  10. 2017 Touchdown Auburn Bowl

    Georgia Florida Tennessee South Carolina Kentucky Vanderbilt Missouri Alabama LSU Auburn Arkansas Texas A&M Mississippi State Ole Miss Alabama Alabama 447
  11. So do you listen to the Nazis' words if they tell you why they were holding a rally in Charlottesville? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/11/charlottesville-braces-itself-yet-another-white-nationalist-rally-saturday/560829001/
  12. This thread is based solely about blaming Trump or holding him responsible for the violence of white nationalists. There's a difference in acknowledging his rhetoric is used by hate groups for cover and outright blaming Trump for what these groups do like coming out to a rally that was originally about opposing the removal of a confederate statue. My point about Dylan Roof was that these groups aren't just feeding off of Trump's rhetoric, they don't need Trump saying something they like to come out in public and hold a rally or commit terrorism. They latch onto things like the confederate symbols to push their racists and hate filled views. I don't have a problem with criticizing Trump for not being forceful enough in labeling it a "white nationalist" attack or terrorism. But where I draw the line is outright blaming Trump and holding him responsible for it. The bottom line is do you agree with the OP and thread title that Trump is responsible for the rise of white nationalists and the acts of violence they commit?
  13. So Dylan Roof was emboldened by Trump in 2015? I'd say the social and political changes that have gone on in recent yeas have ginned up the reaction from hate groups more than Trump has. Some of these folks may think Trump's statements about immigration, etc.... give them cover but it's hardly a silent approval the way many are portraying Trump's response. The confederate flag and other confederate related issues like confederate monuments and statues have been lightning rods for these groups. Which is what I thought the origin of Charlottesville rally was about?............. No?
  14. The base of the Democrat party. No joke, this guy was close to being the Chair of the DNC. He of course didn't win but he has still gotten to be Deputy chair of the DNC.
  15. Job growth slowed in 2016 but wages did rise

    I'm glad you agree.