Tennessee Republicans block resolution condemning neo-Nazis 'I'm in utter disbelief at what just hap

Obviously, this is written very one sided, but I'd really like to get a Republican view of this bill and to why it was shut down. Was it included in another piece of toxic legislation? Does this article and the Democrats involved overstating or understating why it was shut down?

I know we have some Tennesseans here and I'd like to know more...

I don't know, why did Democrats refuse to applause advances in cancer research and the like during the State of the Union speech? And if it's okay to use obviously biased writing for this discussion, why did Democrats refuse to condemn infanticide? Why did Democrats kill a bill allowing terminally ill patients the "right to try"? Could it be bullshit, perhaps? I mean right up front we both say the writing is biased, right?

And the whataboutism starts right on post #2.

1) Because The President is a liar who says everything, so nothing he says means anything.
2) Because it was tied to other toxic legislation.
3) Because by definition, there's no evidence to support anything considered experimental.

Now it's my turn.....

How do you fund research when you're slashing funds for basic medical care? Same way Donnie Smallhands "funded" his casinos.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/HJR0583.pdf

There is the actual resolution. If I had to guess, it didn’t receive a second to the motion due to this clause:

I can see how this would be problematic, but is any of that not true?

I don't see the problem with that clause.

Repugnant though neo-Nazis and white nationalists may be, they're not necessarily terrorists and so shouldn't be treated as such solely on their political views. A terrorist is one who actually uses terror; twenty losers groaning about how bad whitey's got it don't qualify.

"neo-Nazis" and "white nationalists" are the losers of history. Why pump up their significance by claiming they are some kind of "threat".

Well, after all, they are white, so it's not as if they need to be monitored (FB makes that easy) for threats and/or small actions of violence that could escalate. Either you monitor all hate groups, or you monitor none of them.

Join a terrorist group, get treated like a terrorist.

Because they won't stop murdering and terrorizing people here and now.

On a related note:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/austin...me-texas-today-three-bombs-linked-2018-03-12/

The original Hitler brand Nazis were a joke until suddenly they weren't.
You gotta watch 'em.

From 1924:

The bill was generally poorly worded. If you’re going to sick law enforcement on people, you have to narrowly define who you’re sicking them on. There were some pretty vague definitions in there - “alt-right,” for example, wasn’t clearly defined. A lot of people who consider themselves alt-right mean anti-swamp... and reject every tenet of white nationalism.

Essentially, this was a really good attempt at “see, they don’t hate Nazis!” They DO hate Nazis, but you just tried to label half the population as Nazi.

"Sic" and "siccing."

"Half the population" of what?

I've checked 6 local news outlets and none of them mention this at all.

The non-Nazi alt-righters need to wake the fuck up, and join another club.
Because the mainstream alt-right is pretty fucking Nazi-fied by this point.

Sho you are saying white people who think genocide and racism are awesome while idolizing one of the biggest enemies the US and the world have ever fought are not terrorists? That is even when they are openly declaring revolution against the US and stockpiling weapons while doing domestic terrorism three times the amount Muslims do?

Ok, at what point do these violent traitors who are advocating killing Americans and their government become a terrorist force? Do they have to invade Poland?

kill yourself, nazi apologist scum

yes and some members of ISIS aren't actually committing physical acts of terror

Ah, so if ISIS had a debate team or perhaps a bunch of BBSers who never went on ops, you'd suggest the government treat 'em differently?

Dammit Paddy!! Stay out of my brain or I'm pulling the "show the teep my worst memories" card.

You sound like a guy who has a relative that was a founding KKK member

racists can't read though. how wold you know that?

Okay, some Muslims aren't homophobes, sexists, terrorists, or sympathetic to extremism, but we should treat them all as if they are, then?

Also, we're going to treat American citizens as terrorists for their point of view even if they--as individuals--have done nothing?

The person or persons behind that should be treated as terrorists (or simply as murderers if there is no political goal). They've actually committed a violent act.