Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, August 19, 2017

Arnold Schwarzenegger counts himself among those who were deeply disappointed by President Trump's statement that "both sides" were to blame for the violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. And in a new video, the former Republican governor of California offers a pointed suggestion for what Trump should have said instead. "The only way to beat the loud and angry voices of hate is to meet them with louder and more reasonable voices. And that includes you, President Trump," Schwarzenegger says in the video, posted to ATTN's Facebook page Thursday. "In fact, as president of this great country, you have a moral responsibility to send an unequivocal message that you don't stand for hate and racism."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Original post....

www.facebook.com

Best statement yet on this event.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-18 05:22 PM | Reply

"I was born in Austria in 1947 shortly after the Second World War. Growing up I was surrounded by broken men. Men who came home from the war filled with shrapnel and guilt, men who were mislead into a losing ideology. And I can tell you that these ghosts that you idolize spent the rest of their lives living in shame. And right now they are resting in hell.

I know you weren't born with these hateful views. No one is. But the truth is it's never too late to make the choices to learn and to evolve and to understand that all human beings have equal value."

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-18 05:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#2

Great quote!

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-18 05:48 PM | Reply

#3

Yeah, even some Republicans get it. Mostly Donald's old enemies, unfortunately. Ah'nold's message seemed to also be directed to others like Ryan and McConnell who refused to call Trump out by name.

Even the ACLU is getting it as they have agreed today to no longer support protesters who march with guns. Now if they can manage to expand that to protesters who practice violence when they march they'll be onto something.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-18 05:55 PM | Reply

Nicely done, Terminator, nicely done.

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-08-18 06:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

More from Arnold:

"There are not two sides to bigotry, and there are not two sides to hatred. And if you choose to march with a flag that symbolizes the slaughter of millions of people, there are not two sides to that."

www.yahoo.com

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-18 09:26 PM | Reply

Why hasn't someone asked President Trump "If you had been there in Charlottesville last Saturday Mr. President, on which side would you have stood, and why would you choose that side as the American president?"

The answer (or evasion) would tell most what they already probably know.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-18 09:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

He'll be back.

#8 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-08-19 02:03 PM | Reply

= He'll be back.

Easy to picture several at least semi-conscious Repubs considering a primary challenge to the Head Nazi Colluder.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-19 03:31 PM | Reply

#9 | POSTED BY CORKY

Agreed, but I was making an Ahhnnold movie reference. Sort of.

#10 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-08-20 12:25 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

I knew that!

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-20 12:31 AM | Reply

Why hasn't someone asked President Trump "If you had been there in Charlottesville last Saturday Mr. President, on which side would you have stood, and why would you choose that side as the American president?"

The answer (or evasion) would tell most what they already probably know.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma

I was very involved in civil rights marches in Alabama in the mid- to late-60's and I recall one of the songs we frequently sang while marching was "Which Side Are You On?" I think that really is the essential question here. There aren't more than two sides. One side wants freedom, the other side doesn't want them to have it. Which side are you on?

-- not you, personally ;-)

#12 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-08-21 05:49 PM | Reply

I have a question. Why were both sides in each others faces???? That to me is a recipe for disaster.

#13 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-21 06:22 PM | Reply

The First Amendment is a recipe for disaster now???

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 06:28 PM | Reply

I have a question. Why were both sides in each others faces???? That to me is a recipe for disaster.

#13 | Posted by LauraMohr

Same reason america was in germany's face during WW2. Because one side is pure evil. Stop playing trump's "both sides" game.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-21 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@14Go troll someone else. I'm filled up at the moment.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-21 06:35 PM | Reply

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Laura.

Explain why the two sides exercising their First Amendment rights should be separated.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 06:38 PM | Reply

Same reason america was in germany's face during WW2. Because one side is pure evil. Stop playing trump's "both sides" game.

Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-21 06:35 PM | Reply

You aren't even being intellectually honest. They held a rally which is their right to do under the Constitutions 1st Amendment. Antifa came along and counter protested but got in their faces. What is wrong with each side taking a different side of the street and protest each other peacefully??? We went to war in Germany because they declared war upon us. HUGE difference.

#18 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-21 06:40 PM | Reply

Explain why the two sides exercising their First Amendment rights should be separated.

Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 06:38 PM | Reply

You know why.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-21 06:41 PM | Reply

No I don't.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 06:43 PM | Reply

"They held a rally which is their right to do under the Constitutions 1st Amendment. Antifa came along and counter protested but got in their faces."

Getting in a protesters face is a crime now???

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 06:44 PM | Reply

Well we were at war with Germany before they declared war on us. Well we were at least profiteering.

#22 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-21 06:46 PM | Reply

You aren't even being intellectually honest. They held a rally which is their right to do under the Constitutions 1st Amendment. Antifa came along and counter protested but got in their faces. What is wrong with each side taking a different side of the street and protest each other peacefully??? We went to war in Germany because they declared war upon us. HUGE difference.

#18 | Posted by LauraMohr

Threats aren't protected speech, and marching like a lynch mob with torches and guns is a threat.

People who get in the face of armed nazi mobs are heroes. Or at least they were in WW2.

Suddenly republicans think confronting nazis is bad.

Pretending both sides are to blame when one side is nazis and klansmen is no where NEAR intellectually honest.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-21 07:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Laura,

Baby you can drive my car
Beep Beep m Beep Beep yeah

#24 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-21 07:59 PM | Reply

Baby you can drive my car
Beep Beep m Beep Beep yeah

Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-21 07:59 PM | Reply

Whatever floats your boat hunny.

#25 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-21 08:01 PM | Reply

Threats aren't protected speech, and marching like a lynch mob with torches and guns is a threat.

People who get in the face of armed nazi mobs are heroes. Or at least they were in WW2.

Suddenly republicans think confronting nazis is bad.

Pretending both sides are to blame when one side is nazis and klansmen is no where NEAR intellectually honest.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-21 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.vox.com

Why the ACLU defends white nationalists' right to protest -- including in Charlottesville
The ACLU has a long history of standing up for everyone's free speech, even people with bigoted views.

The ACLU has been spotlighted as a liberal icon since President Donald Trump took office, seeing a spike in donations the weekend after Trump was inaugurated when it vowed to hold his administration accountable in court. So it may seem odd or even upsetting to some supporters that the organization is now standing up for the rights of white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

But this is in fact a very old stance for the ACLU, which has long defended free speech rights as guaranteed to everyone. For the ACLU, that means standing up for some unsavory, offensive, and even bigoted groups -- including white nationalists -- in defense of free speech.

The ACLU has been defending neo-Nazis in these cases for decades

The first major ACLU case on this topic goes back to the late 1970s, when the ACLU defended a neo-Nazi group's right to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Illinois. The case, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, went all the way up to the Supreme Court, with the court ultimately ruling in favor of the ACLU and neo-Nazi marchers.

#26 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-21 09:53 PM | Reply

And the ACLU would defend the counter protesters rights to free speech also. The whole point of a Nazi/white supremacist march is to get in people's faces. They weren't chanting peace and love.I understand southern pride but you've turned into quite the apologist. Especially for someone who'd of been sent to the camps.

But whatever floats your boat.

#27 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-21 10:30 PM | Reply

And the ACLU would defend the counter protesters rights to free speech also. The whole point of a Nazi/white supremacist march is to get in people's faces. They weren't chanting peace and love.I understand southern pride but you've turned into quite the apologist. Especially for someone who'd of been sent to the camps.

But whatever floats your boat.

Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-21 10:30 PM | Reply

Don't forget I defended the Fred Phelps and his merry band of misfits too. Doesn't make me an apologist. It makes me a defender of the 1st Amendment however. Oh and the counter protesters don't need their rights protected because their speech is popular speech. Popular speech doesn't need protecting because the majority agrees with it.

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-21 10:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well I stand corrected hunny.

#29 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-21 10:58 PM | Reply

For a guy who spent decades in front of a camera he doesn't seem to have learned much. When your face fills 120% of the screen it's basically unwatchable, no matter what you're saying. It's like watching the Vienna version of Max Headroom.

#30 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-08-21 11:25 PM | Reply

Pretending both sides are to blame when one side is nazis and klansmen is no where NEAR intellectually honest.

#23 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Since Antifa labels everyone with whom they disagree with as "Nazi's" they are perfectly justified in assaulting anyone they disagree with, according to Speaks.

Hold a Free Speech rally - Nazis!!!! Let's go kick the ---- out of them!

Thugs are thugs. Quit defending thugs.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-22 07:08 AM | Reply

--Since Antifa labels everyone with whom they disagree with as "Nazi's" they are perfectly justified in assaulting anyone they disagree with, according to Speaks.

It's not just Antifa. It's DR progressives. I wonder, Jeff, how much longer are you going to read this blog when you are called a Nazi or "nazi coddler" everyday?

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-22 08:44 AM | Reply

"Since Antifa labels everyone with whom they disagree with as "Nazi's"

Oh come on. You label everyone who disagrees with Nazis as "Antifa," you big baby.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-22 12:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#33

Those 40K counter-protesters to the Nazi scum in Boston? ALL antifa.

Buh-lieve me!

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-22 12:40 PM | Reply

"Thugs are thugs. Quit defending thugs."

You've spent the past week here defending thugs right to an armed march.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-22 12:44 PM | Reply

"Thugs are thugs. Quit defending thugs."

You've spent the past week here defending thugs right to an armed march.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-22 12:44 PM | Reply

I said it twice because it's so true.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-22 12:45 PM | Reply

The ACLU has been defending neo-Nazis in these cases for decades

#26 | Posted by LauraMohr

And they said they will no longer do so if the nazis are marching with weapons because that is a threat, not free speech.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-22 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Since Antifa labels everyone with whom they disagree with as "Nazi's" they are perfectly justified in assaulting anyone they disagree with, according to Speaks.

#32 | Posted by nullifidian

It's more like the nazi defenders label anyone who resists nazis as "antifa", when some are just decent people who hate white supremicists.

As if "ANTI-FAscist" is some sort of insult. Every decent person should consider themselves anti-fascist.

#39 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-22 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh come on. You label everyone who disagrees with Nazis as "Antifa," you big baby.

#33 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No, I don't.

"Thugs are thugs. Quit defending thugs."
---
You've spent the past week here defending thugs right to an armed march.

#36 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I was defending a right. I was NOT defending behavior. That is a fundamental difference that you, Dirk, Speaks and others seem unable to grasp.

They have a right to protest and to spew their hateful message as long as it's done so without violence. That I defend that right does NOT mean that I defend their message. Again, see: ACLU if you are having difficulty grasping this.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-22 01:51 PM | Reply

Sorry for the runaway italics

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-22 01:52 PM | Reply

"I was defending a right. I was NOT defending behavior."

Protesting and marching isn't behavior???

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-22 02:02 PM | Reply

#40 | Posted by JeffJ

Marching with torches and guns screaming nazi slogans is a threat. Not protected speech. Why do you keep ignoring that critical part.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-22 02:19 PM | Reply

Protesting and marching isn't behavior???

#42 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Protesting and marching is behavior. I am appalled by what they were protesting and am appalled by the manner in which they did it. I still defend their right to do so under the 1st Amendment.

Marching with torches and guns screaming nazi slogans is a threat.

No, it isn't.

Not protected speech.

Yes, it is.

Why do you keep ignoring that critical part.

#43 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Because you are wrong. If another group marched in a similar manner (with torches and weapons) and were chanting horrible things under the rubric of "Black Lives Matter", you would likely change your tune immediately.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-22 03:16 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort