Police arrest 31 men of white nationalist hate group for conspiracy to riot

I took him to be criticizing law enforcement and the mainstream media:

It’s certainly annoying and offensive, but since when did that require two press conferences from the police chief and fire-alarm coverage from The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and on and on?
​

 

You ready to gas up this US freak show again in 2024?

Riots, corruption, kangaroo courts..... propaganda on CNN and Fox news......

Who will snap first? The LGBTQ council or will it be the Second Amendment Bros?

FWIW My money is on women..... I think we are going to see the under 40 year old Feminists bring it on HARD and then Trump will have to decide if they can tear down buildings and set middle aged fat men on fire or if he will bring out his storm troopers to gas moms.

My money is that he sends his the troops....

Pick sides or just sit back and watch...... hopefully the 401K stays strong and we still have fresh water.

 

Annoying? Okay.

He has a long history of trolling on the issue of race and gender....

He also has done things like the following.....

at parties that took place on the weekend of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last year, Mr. Scarry surreptitiously snapped two shots of women’s posteriors and posted the photos on FishbowlDC.

“The pink one is particularly bulbous,” Mr. Scarry wrote of one woman whose behind he secretly captured on camera. “But the lumpy gray one takes the cake (and eats it, too).”

Even as Mr. Scarry’s antics attracted condemnation, he remained undeterred. In August 2012, he loitered outside the Supreme Court as justices considered the constitutionality of Obamacare. There, Mr. Scarry took pictures of “weird sightings,” as he put it. Among them were several with “big butts”: “This big butt, one of many that made an already cramped event that much smaller,” he wrote after posting one picture. “Another big butt,” Mr. Scarry captioned a different picture. After the last picture of the series, Mr. Scarry wrote: “And one final series of big butts.”

Early last year, in a post for Glenn Beck’s website, TheBlaze, about how a group of gay Republicans was endorsing Mitt Romney, Mr. Scarry headlined the story: “GOProud Gets Behind Romney, So To Speak.” The organization had previously criticized Mr. Romney, only to turn around and endorse him.

Mr. Scarry also trained his sights on gay women. Just last month, on March 12, he shared some personal thoughts about lesbians—combining them with his favorite issue, those who are overweight. He tweeted: “Not so fast on cutting funding for a govt study on overweight lesbians. I would like to know why they’re fat.”

And Mr. Scarry’s disturbing tactics are not confined to the weekend of the correspondents’ dinner. For instance: “Check out the bunyon on this otherwise cute woman’s foot,” Mr. Scarry tweeted last summer, posting photographic evidence to accompany his remark.

Then there was the time that Mr. Scarry tweeted that a blogger, Stacy Drake, was a “w****” when she dared to criticize him. After Breitbart.com wrote about the incident, Mr. Scarry deleted the tweet.

Eddie Scarry, Assistant Editor at Glenn Beck’s faux journalism site The Blaze, today posted a story about the gay Republican Tea Party group GOProud’s endorsement of Mitt Romney with the headline, ‘GOProud Gets Behind Mitt Romney, So To Speak.’ Get it? Gay = anal sex. Isn’t that funny?

I don’t think so either. I think it’s homophobic. I think it stinks. I think it shows the very level of ‘journalism’ that comes out of the right-wing nut job faux journalism sites and I think it needs to stop. NoMr. Scarry also trained his sights on gay women. Just last month, on March 12, he shared some personal thoughts about lesbians—combining them with his favorite issue, those who are overweight. He tweeted: “Not so fast on cutting funding for a govt study on overweight lesbians. I would like to know why they’re fat.”


FWIW here are some other wonderful headlines from Mr. Scarry

Was Amir Locke Helping A Murder Suspect? Leftists In Media Won’t Like That Critical Question

Angry, Defiant Stacey Abrams Is The ‘New Normal’

Let’s Talk About Mekhi Speed, Amir Locke’s ‘Violent’ Cousin Who Is Directly Related To Locke’s Death

Democrats Aren’t Just Extreme Anymore. They’re Weird And Gross

Openly Queer’ Is Not A Thing, And Other Thoughts On The Depraved Oscars

Washington Post’s Aaron Blake Defends Groomers In Public Schools

Congrats To The Media For Finally Finding A White Supremacist

Mass Shootings Aren’t So Interesting For Democrats When They Can’t Blame A White Supremacist

CBS Mini-Doc Shows Tik Tok Is A Ground Zero For Kids Learning About Transgenderism

 

Wouldn't be surprised. Violence is being tolerated by everyone (both sides extremists seem willing to go there) but there will be a day when the push back begins from the average, everyday person and once it does...off we go.

 

I didn't realize we were making this about Eddie Scarry. I'm not all that interested in that topic

 

Agreed, and there is no way to know what will be the final match that stikes.

There has been a lot of talk of white supremacists and right wing hate groups and violence but it may well be left wing extremists that increase violent attacks, especially if a polarizing figure wins in 2024.

We had the incident with Ron Paul on the softball field.

We have the Kavanaugh stalker and phone call.

It is all escalating and I am concerned the response to an attack will be deemed to hard or soft by the government and it is going to ignite.

It feels like this isn't going to soften until it gets a lot bloodier.

 

He wrote the headline...... he wrote a vague article you posted.

You didn't agree with me about what the article was really about.

You posted part of the article.

I posted a laundry list of other articles he has posted for the Federalist about the topics of white supremacy and other related topics, and they all are sensational.

I don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt based on what he has written before.

 

I'm commenting (now) simply on the argument that the author makes, on the merits of that argument. It is pretty much irrelevant who writes the article if one sticks to the article itself. The author argued that the specifics of the incident did not seem proportional to the specifics of other, similar incidents.

So, for example, the author wrote:

The police report from the arrest says that it was “likely the intent” of the group to “incite physical confrontation and cause disorder,” and “use violence and/or the threat of violence to disturb the public peace.”

Again, it’s not that that’s not serious, but consider the hostage situation the entire nation faced (and continues to face) through the summer and fall of 2020 when violent Black Lives Matter riots were raging in every major city. “Mostly peaceful,” we were assured. In the case of Coeur d’Alene, nothing happened, and in addition, White said plenty of activist groups were in the city at the same time, opposed to and in support of the Pride event, including the left-wing Antifa and the right-wing Panhandle Patriots.
​

So if that argument is something you disagree with, fine. But an extended ad hominem against the author doesn't really convince me about anything I'm interested in. I'm happy to simply accept that Eddie Scarry is a scoundrel.

 

To your point....here's an article about growing political violence.

 

Certainly the author was. He minimalized as much as he possibly could in effort to underscore the threat they posed.

He may have been defending the group in an effort to make a larger attack against the local law enforcement and media, but he was definitely defending them.

 

Understood.

I disagree with the headline/title.

I do not dismiss the possibility that the attention the arrest received isn't commiserate with the actual incident planned.

 

that isn't a "defense" of their actions

 

Lol pot meets kettle.

You apply the same thing to most of what you post on here, nobody is interested in most of the topics you post, yet you continue to spam threads.

 

Sorry, I'm not trying to get to minutia but maybe just clear up some misunderstanding.

I don't think he was trying to justify what they were doing but by trying to minimize it with statements like "only one smoke bomb", he was defending the group against the claims made against them.

 

that's a more precise claim and one that makes more sense. Defending someone against false claims (say a habitual murderer against claims of a murder he/she didn't actually commit) is not necessarily a defense of that murderer, i.e., is not an attempt to justify or excuse that murderer's entire corpus of work. In that case a more precise term (instead of "defend") might be "rebut."

 

But when talking about the fact that they were going to start a riot isn't changed by the fact they only had one smoke bomb.

The important fact is that they had a smoke bomb.

The fact that only some of them had riot shields and shin guards, isn't the important part.

The important part is that this group was marching their with riot shields, shin guards, and a smoke bomb.

Those facts alone support the idea they were headed there to instigate a riot.

 

again, the author of the piece cited was not really trying to defend that group's actions, or intentions. Rather I take it he was trying to criticize the media attention paid to those 31 individuals, in light of what came out after the fact.

This is expressed I believe in this section:

The police report from the arrest says that it was “likely the intent” of the group to “incite physical confrontation and cause disorder,” and “use violence and/or the threat of violence to disturb the public peace.”

Again, it’s not that that’s not serious, but consider the . . . {emph. added}
​

so, that's all I'm trying to say.

 

But he also framed the fact that the group had a smoke bomb as "nothing other than a single smoke bomb..."

That's the problem.

 

okay. Why is that the problem? unsure what you're trying to say

 

The qualifiers that he's using are defending the people by attempting to minimize the threat.