Comments by "Scott Charney" (@scottcharney1091) on "CNN" channel.

  1. The theocrats aren't gone yet, that's what's happening. If you're not armed yet (in any way that's feasible for you), and at least loosely organized and prepared, you should be.
    1
  2. It's very American, as it happens.
    1
  3. Why is this election even close?
    1
  4. Don't blame the victims. He was trying to drive through a crowd.
    1
  5. You're right, but please stop shouting.
    1
  6.  @fpshooterful  A better idea is to put an asterisk before the word, and another after it.
    1
  7.  @selfdo  Calm down, take a breath, stop shouting, and learn about paragraphs. Also, the playground insults ("tard?" Really?) are unbecoming.
    1
  8. There are a lot of fools in the comments not noticing that, if anything, this story was pro-AR-15.
    1
  9.  @douglasreagan4979  As a matter of fact yes, humans made up laws on their own. They also made up their deities, unfortunately.
    1
  10.  @janetprice85  True, those laws are aimed at violent third parties assaulting women, not a procedure performed with consent.
    1
  11. Maybe he should not have tried to drive through a crowd, and just have a little patience.
    1
  12.  @NC_SUGAR  Yeah, as he was driving through the crowd, they were trying to get him to stop.
    1
  13.  @alternate3307  They have the right to try and prevent him from hitting more people. I thought that was obvious. Also: *you're.
    1
  14.  @alternate3307  That sort of thing all happens at once. The car was moving through the crowd, and you can see here that it's pushing people.
    1
  15. What the hell are you talking about?
    1
  16.  @CCPLord  First, that's a red herring; I asked for some kind of evidence of your very silly assertion. Second, what of it? Hunter Biden has taken advantage of his father's name for corrupt business opportunities (this should sound familiar to you). What does that have to do with this?
    1
  17.  @CCPLord  I didn't say that it was fake. Of course it isn't. So what? It's not a particularly big deal. Your last two sentences are really silly.
    1
  18. I don't like Big Pharma any more than you do, but you sound like you're looking at the Herman Cain Award.
    1
  19. That's a wild hyperbole.
    1
  20. He was on the attack, and what are you trying to say with your last sentence?
    1
  21.  @aussies4trump76  Rubio, among others, admitted that Trump was guilty, but that he (Rubio) wasn't willing to vote to convict.
    1
  22.  @MichiganWinteriswhyimhere  He was impeached twice. You don't seem to know what that means.
    1
  23. ?
    1
  24. This is slightly off the main point, but it's perfectly legal to ask for asylum. The border is not open, not even close. Under Biden, people die in the desert. Under Trumpists like Abbott, people die in the river.
    1
  25. He was already driving into the crowd, and they were trying to get him to stop. I remember Charlottesville.
    1
  26. The only attacker was the driver.
    1
  27.  @NickKautz  The driver attacked them. Have you never been in a march before? The crowd was on the move. They weren't targeting vehicles for attack (that makes no sense, and you would know if they were!), they were just passing through. That's how it works. The driver can wait a few moments (or better yet, join in).
    1
  28.  @NickKautz  That's funny, I've been on countless such marches (including one a couple of nights ago), and there's absolutely no reason nor motive to harass drivers. In a case like this, rather than wait for a moment and let the crowd pass, the driver acts like a macho hothead and decides that it's worth possibly killing and/or maiming someone (and putting themselves in danger of retaliation) by driving through the crowd. Your last clause is simply mean-spirited and ignorant.
    1
  29.  @ThisisKyle  They're on the move. They'll pass by. Most drivers can wait for a few moments, rather than deciding that it's worth possibly killing/maiming someone and putting themselves in danger of retaliation by being a macho hothead.
    1
  30.  @mauritackett1977  Yes, instead of waiting a moment for the crowd to pass, he decided that it was worth it to possibly kill/maim someone, and also to put himself in danger of retaliation.
    1
  31.  @NickKautz  It's not a case of "looking for trouble." The groups are usually too big to just take sidewalks, and one has to attract attention. There was no reason for the drivers to feel threatened; they were not the targets of anything. Thus, driving through the crowd was a needlessly violent act. There's the phenomenon of "road rage;" usually wildly out of proportion to the provoking circumstances. Did you ever see "Motor Mania" in driver's ed? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Mania) As for your last assertion, you're asking people to place trust in a system that is stacked against them in a variety of ways, depending on what issue is at hand and who's involved. Spreading information, digitally and otherwise, is of course crucial these days, but it can never be successful on its own (and "slacktivism," like online petitions that organizations send around, are basically worthless). Contacting the offices of one's alleged representatives is not hopeless, but that too only goes so far. "Direct action gets the goods," as the old labor slogan goes. It was true then, and it's true now. Without pressure from below, nothing changes from above. Women can vote and obtain contraception because so many were willing to put their bodies on the line. This country has a very violent labor history, with hundreds of workers being killed in strikes (at the hands of private detectives/security agencies & other company goons) as late as the 1930s. Then you have the life-and-death struggles of LGBT people, and much more. Being quiescent and following the state's proscribed rules for activism is never successful. That's the reason for those stipulations to begin with.
    1
  32.  @kevinouellette5316  He was driving through a crowd, and when one is being pushed by a car, jumping to one side is extremely difficult inasmuch as it's all one can do to stay on one's feet. That's why they were trying to stop him. It's not up to drivers to enforce laws via violence.
    1
  33.  @AndisweatherCenter  Or at minimum, vehicular assault.
    1
  34.  @moonpie2637  I'm not sure who "you people" are. This sort of thing has happened many times before in different settings. They weren't taking to the streets to attack cars & drivers! Some driver starts moving through the crowd, and people try to stop said driver. This car was shoving people in front of it. It's pretty clear.
    1
  35.  @ThisisKyle  They were crossing. Do you feel the same way about the truckers who clogged the Beltway?
    1
  36.  Colt'sNation  They were crossing. The light changed. I've been in marches (and events like Bike Party) that sometimes necessitate "corking" intersections for one cycle, so that everyone can pass through. Rather than wait a moment, this hothead decided to drive through the crowd, putting people (including himself) at risk. Is it fine for those truckers to stop traffic on the Beltway?
    1
  37.  Colt'sNation  After the driver started it.
    1
  38.  @AB-ou8ve  I would never try and drive through a crowd.
    1
  39.  Colt'sNation  The driver started the violence. They were crossing the road, and they would have been out of the way shortly.
    1
  40.  @rhettsalsbury9394  For no reason? I wouldn't blame you. That's not what happened here.
    1
  41.  @realtruenorth  I understand that, except he was pushing people with his car, and the others were trying to protect them.
    1
  42.  @realtruenorth  Because the car was shoving people along in front of it. It's all that they could do to stay on their feet; it's no simple matter to just jump aside.
    1
  43.  @ewaj.6260  Embryos aren't children yet.
    1
  44.  @ewaj.6260  (Why do people always ask this question?) Obviously, human embryos are humans. I didn't state otherwise. The point is that it's a question about personhood, the characteristics that make killing wrong- sentience, the will to live, biological autonomy, and everything else that's taken away when a person is killed. In a rudimentary but very real way, babies have that. Embryos & fetuses do not and cannot. There's no harm in not being born.
    1
  45.  @CalikoTube  You're being disingenuous. Also, that's not how question marks work. Also: *its.
    1
  46.  @CalikoTube  You're not fooling anyone.
    1
  47.  @johnmarksmithmiller9895  They were crossing. Rather than wait a moment like a reasonable person would, this hothead tried to drive through.
    1
  48.  Turd Ferguson  Sure he did.
    1
  49.  @EstrangedSounds  Protests take the streets. They were on the move, and they would be out of the way soon. There is no reason to put people's very lives at risk, not to mention one's own.
    1
  50.  @EstrangedSounds  Have a little decency. You know what I mean.
    1