Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Gissie said:

You have sort of proved my point. You and you elk have decided that Trump is a modern equivalent of Hitler. Therefore anyone that does not stand against everything he does is, by default, a Nazi.  Note that this is a personal opinion not shared by all  

The thought you may be wrong or over reacting will never enter your blinkered mind. Trump and all who give him any support must be shouted down, stopped from debate and even physically attacked. What you seem to not be able to see is this is the very behaviour you rail about. In your mind it is justified I guess. I mine you are worse than those you vilify. Unfortunately you would never be prepared to discuss our differences. 

If bj advocated grabbing them by the pussy, your attempt at equivalence wouldn't be considered false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, the US Constitution does not allow advocating replacement of the US Gov't with a militaristic dictatorship

There's not much grey area. You say you hate Nazis, great. But obviously you hate people who beat up Nazis more

-DSK

Yes it does.  You absolutely can say you want to replace the US gov't with anything you want - that is the very essence of the 1st Amendment.  What you cannot do is act on it.  You DO see the difference, right?  

I hate nazis, but I hate people who advocate actually use violence to block someone from exercising an enumerated right.  Elle (a former anarchist) and I happened to be in Wash DC walking around when a Nazi rally marched past the capital.  We stopped to watch out of morbid curiosity.  It was an honest to god nazi rally with swastikas and goose stepping and SS uniforms.  It was pretty comical.  They were protected by the DC police because they were exercising free speech, as abhorent as that speech was to us.  People in the crowds were shouting them down and heckling and such.  Had any one of us jumped into the street and punched them, guess who would have been in jail.

So no, as gratifying as it may be - you cannot just go and punch nazis lest we become as bad as they are.  If we declare an honest to god war against Nazi Germany or similar, then yes - fill your boots and punch and kill all the nazis you want.  But punching nazis in the US because you don't like what they say vs US soldiers killing nazis in WWI is THE worst kind of false equivalence.  BJ, shame on you - of all people you should know better than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes. Fascists have been known to go after the families of those that oppose them. That you don't know that makes me. Very worried for the state of US education. 

I'm more than willing to be educated.  Can you provide some cites for this happening in the US, especially to antifa?  Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yes it does.  You absolutely can say you want to replace the US gov't with anything you want - that is the very essence of the 1st Amendment.  What you cannot do is act on it.  You DO see the difference, right?  

I hate nazis, but I hate people who advocate actually use violence to block someone from exercising an enumerated right.  Elle (a former anarchist) and I happened to be in Wash DC walking around when a Nazi rally marched past the capital.  We stopped to watch out of morbid curiosity.  It was an honest to god nazi rally with swastikas and goose stepping and SS uniforms.  It was pretty comical.  They were protected by the DC police because they were exercising free speech, as abhorent as that speech was to us.  People in the crowds were shouting them down and heckling and such.  Had any one of us jumped into the street and punched them, guess who would have been in jail.

So no, as gratifying as it may be - you cannot just go and punch nazis lest we become as bad as they are.  If we declare an honest to god war against Nazi Germany or similar, then yes - fill your boots and punch and kill all the nazis you want.  But punching nazis in the US because you don't like what they say vs US soldiers killing nazis in WWI is THE worst kind of false equivalence.  BJ, shame on you - of all people you should know better than this.

It seems that you have been proven to be correct. The inability for some nazis to get guns has seen them use cars to kill instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

Sitting here in the Antipodes watching the USA self destruct, it has made me wonder, just how bad do things have to be before 'The People' decide to fix it like they did in the French Revolution.  The very foundations of the country are under attack from those who control Trump and so far Americans are sitting back taking up the arse.  So at some stage hopefully, 'We The People' will have had enough and take to the fucking streets.  They may actually do something to protect the ashes of what's left instead of just bleating about it on the interweb.

 

Trump was the electoral attempt to fix things just like Obama before him.   Frankly, neither were "qualified" to be president and both came from outside the 'party establishment'.  Both were attempts by a portion of the electorate to overthrown the norms.  Taking to the streets ballot box style.

But ACTUALLY taking to the streets?  You mean, like get off the couch or out of Starbucks?  But it's sooooo far away.... The simple reality is that despite all the ** angry fist ** rhetoric, things haven't changed much for the average American.  We print money.  We diddle in global politics.  But, as Buffet predicted, 10 years after the bust everything is back to normal: housing prices are skyrocketing, health care still unfordable, and, in truth, nothing much changed.  Sequestration?  Yea, that's not a thing.  American life is pretty much what it was - comfortable - for the vast majority.  I can't see much taking to the streets within my lifetime.  People won't spend 98 cents for an absentee ballot to vote.  If 2008 didn't change people, a crass NY pussy grabber hasn't got a chance.

Don't listen to what people say.  Watch what they do.  It makes a lot more sense.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Really?  I don't recall from my history texts that happening in the US.  You DO realize we are talking about in the US in this conversation right?

You DO realize we are talking about for-actual Nazis and white supremacists that are advocating racial cleansing and other similar ideas, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

Trump was the electoral attempt to fix things just like Obama before him.   Frankly, neither were "qualified" to be president and both came from outside the 'party establishment'.  Both were attempts by a portion of the electorate to overthrown the norms.  Taking to the streets ballot box style.

But ACTUALLY taking to the streets?  You mean, like get off the couch or out of Starbucks?  But it's sooooo far away.... The simple reality is that despite all the ** angry fist ** rhetoric, things haven't changed much for the average American.  We print money.  We diddle in global politics.  But, as Buffet predicted, 10 years after the bust everything is back to normal: housing prices are skyrocketing, health care still unfordable, and, in truth, nothing much changed.  Sequestration?  Yea, that's not a thing.  American life is pretty much what it was - comfortable - for the vast majority.  I can't see much taking to the streets within my lifetime.  People won't spend 98 cents for an absentee ballot to vote.  If 2008 didn't change people, a crass NY pussy grabber hasn't got a chance.

Don't listen to what people say.  Watch what they do.  It makes a lot more sense.

 

Frog, pot of water ... have you heard that one?

But you know more about it than I do, but somehow that's no better than what I suggested.  It means that the shutting down of the EPA, the opening up of public lands to oil and gas interests, climate denial, easing of restrictions on industrial emissions means that those greedy cunts who don't give a fuck because they can still buy their fat burger are complicit by their inaction.  Tolerating the bullshit that will eventually affect their lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

Frog, pot of water ... have you heard that one?

But you know more about it than I do, but somehow that's no better than what I suggested.  It means that the shutting down of the EPA, the opening up of public lands to oil and gas interests, climate denial, easing of restrictions on industrial emissions means that those greedy cunts who don't give a fuck because they can still buy their fat burger are complicit by their inaction.  Tolerating the bullshit that will eventually affect their lifestyle.

I would love to see people be more concerned but at this point, somehow, it doesn't matter.  I think your boiling frog analogy is apt.  But on top of that, there's the cognitive dissonance thing that keeps people docile and convinced them that they're not the frog - no no - they're the chef!

There's a great line from poker - if you sit down at a table and don't know who the patsy is after 10 minutes, YOU'RE THE PATSY.

 The math is clear.  The demographics are clear.  But, somehow, kicking the can seems to be the preferred option.  It's not just an American thing.  It's a world thing.  The only reason we're able to sell our debt so easily is because we're 'less bad' than the other options!  Let that sink in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmilliken said:

The only reason we're able to sell our debt so easily is because we're 'less bad' than the other options!  Let that sink in.

So you haven't considered that you were spun that line to keep you docile?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random said:

So you haven't considered that you were spun that line to keep you docile?

Absolutely :)

That's why I read this particular board.  I want other people's opinions!  I want to know why they think what they think and how they've come to that conclusion.  The Hegelian dialect is one of my foundational beliefs.

--------------------

Relative to the quoted content, why do YOU think the world buys our debt?  I believe it's because the US is "less bad."  We print less money on average, we have a stronger economic foundation that average, we have a better judicial system for recovering loss in the event of dishonesty than others.  I think the bond buyers make that judgment every day and the US is, in fact, less bad than their options so thats what they buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

You DO realize we are talking about for-actual Nazis and white supremacists that are advocating racial cleansing and other similar ideas, right?

NO, we are talking about actual socialists and anarchists who would overthrow our government.

We need to flip a bitcoin to decide who the enemy is.

Here is a thought, consider a normal curve based on political beliefs.  If you look directly across at the other side, you are seeing those opinions as extreme as your own.

Tnmbk.png

Rational discourse is possible above 0.683 the hate, screaming and tears are down there around 0.954.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

NO, we are talking about actual socialists and anarchists who would overthrow our government.

uh, no, no we aren't. it's been pointed out in this thread that's not ANTIFAs goal and so you are just making up bullshit.

rational discourse requires a commitment to fact that you are consistently unwilling to make, and so we laugh at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RKoch said:

Gissie  painted BJ and his 'elk' with the same broad brush, he got the response his post warranted. 

 

Note primary definition:

faith
fāTH/
noun
  1. 1. 
    complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
    "this restores one's faith in politicians"
    synonyms: trustbeliefconfidenceconviction;More
     
  2. 2. 
    strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
    synonyms: religionchurchsectdenomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideologycreedteachingdoctrine
    "she gave her life for her faith"
     
 

Feedback

 

My point was that BJ and people like yourself use the broad brush. To BJ anyone who doesn’t decry everything about Trump is a fascist. You made it clear they are ignorant and just rely on faith. 

For you to not be able to see your own behaviour in a balanced light just helps prove my original point. 

PS. It is my understanding the elk make very good foredeck workers and are good on nightwatch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Trump was the electoral attempt to fix things just like Obama before him.   Frankly, neither were "qualified" to be president and both came from outside the 'party establishment'.  Both were attempts by a portion of the electorate to overthrown the norms.  Taking to the streets ballot box style.

Obama was a pretty centrist, boring, middle of the road kind of guy and operated and campaigned well within the norms. Mouth breathing partisan morons successfully painted Obama as an extremist, but that doesn't make him so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Obama was a pretty centrist, boring, middle of the road kind of guy and operated and campaigned well within the norms. Mouth breathing partisan morons successfully painted Obama as an extremist, but that doesn't make him so.

Neither Obama nor Trump were the 'establishment' candidates.  They were both upstarts in their own parties whom were elected mostly due to the base choosing bucking the party elders.  Obama campaigned pretty normally and, as you point out, was a pretty middle of the road president.  He pretty much just pushed along the Bush agenda, much to the chagrin of his supporters (which added fuel to the 'deep state' narrative).  .  He was also subject to an inordinate amount of media coverage  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008)

The latter point is one I make frequently.  Just because you LIKE who the media anoints, doesn't mean its a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

NO, we are talking about actual socialists and anarchists who would overthrow our government.

We need to flip a bitcoin to decide who the enemy is.

Here is a thought, consider a normal curve based on political beliefs.  If you look directly across at the other side, you are seeing those opinions as extreme as your own.

Tnmbk.png

Rational discourse is possible above 0.683 the hate, screaming and tears are down there around 0.954.

Oooo, actual socialists and anarchists!  That sounds scary. They even want a better government, that serves the people instead of Wall St banks. Radicals!!!!  Tell me, do they drive cars into crowds and fire guns at people in rallies? Or are they more subversive, perhaps undercover disguise, marching beside you in matching tan Trous  and white Pepe shirts, bearing tiki torches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RKoch said:

BJ has elk? Are they pets, or raised for food? I think discussing differences is difficult when one side is illiterate, and takes an ideological position  based on faith, rather than facts. 

Kocher - you should know the standard malapropisms of this place.

Most of your elk does.

As Eva Dent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line of this whole Trump/Nazi thing is not that he is bent on world domination or industrialized genocide. It's that the psychology of Trump support, the segment of society that provides that support and the methods he uses to whip up that support are virtually identical to that used by Hitler and the Nazi's in the 30's.

You can look it up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

Neither Obama nor Trump were the 'establishment' candidates.  They were both upstarts in their own parties whom were elected mostly due to the base choosing bucking the party elders.  Obama campaigned pretty normally and, as you point out, was a pretty middle of the road president.  He pretty much just pushed along the Bush agenda, much to the chagrin of his supporters (which added fuel to the 'deep state' narrative).  .  He was also subject to an inordinate amount of media coverage  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008)

The latter point is one I make frequently.  Just because you LIKE who the media anoints, doesn't mean its a good thing.

Yes, Cheeto was an upstart. He'd never held political office at all, ever.

While Hillary was certainly the Democratic establishment choice, Obama wasn't an upstart and was well known both by the party elders and base. He was a Senator as was Hillary. He'd had a legislative career in Illinois. He'd given the keynote at the previous DNC. He was well known to the establishment. He wasn't an upstart. You need a little more nuance there.

As for what Obama did and didn't do vis a vis Bush, Obama was dealt a hand by Bush. Two wars and the Great Recession. He was given a recalcitrant Congress who was hell bent on making him a one term President. Start from there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

He was also subject to an inordinate amount of media coverage  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008)

The latter point is one I make frequently.  Just because you LIKE who the media anoints, doesn't mean its a good thing.

the media is biased towards candidates that people want to read about/watch. Hillary Clinton is a boring, wonkish private, candidate. She always has been.

In order to make people read/watch her the republicans had to create a fictitious evil Hillary. That makes people tune into her.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Nothing shouts progressive louder than  a lot of hatred as an antidote for hatred. 

Nothing shouts stupid like a redhat posting on the Internet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

It seems that you have been proven to be correct. The inability for some nazis to get guns has seen them use cars to kill instead.

WTF does that even mean???  The one nazi who killed some people with a car doesn't mean that you get to punch ALL nazis, as satisfying as that might be.  

Well, at least you admit that even nazis have 1st amendment rights.  Tell you what, I'll let you punch nazis while we do away with the 1st Amendment rights if you let me keep my 2nd amendment right to keep my gunz.  Deal?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

You DO realize we are talking about for-actual Nazis and white supremacists that are advocating racial cleansing and other similar ideas, right?

Yeah, and as much as I hate that "talk", that talk is not illegal.  Acting on it is.  When they start acting on it, I'm more than happy to crush them.

You DO get that, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, and as much as I hate that "talk", that talk is not illegal.  Acting on it is.  When they start acting on it, I'm more than happy to crush them.

You DO get that, right?

Acting on it... You mean like mowing down a crowd with a vehicle, or shooting into a crowd ? Beating a black guy with baseball bats?  That kind of acting on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

It seems that you have been proven to be correct. The inability for some nazis to get guns has seen them use cars to kill instead.

We need to ban cars.

When cars are outlawed only outlaws will have cars.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than most guns.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RKoch said:
28 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, and as much as I hate that "talk", that talk is not illegal.  Acting on it is.  When they start acting on it, I'm more than happy to crush them.

You DO get that, right?

Acting on it... You mean like mowing down a crowd with a vehicle, or shooting into a crowd ? Beating a black guy with baseball bats?  That kind of acting on it?

Yes, absolutely.  If someone does those things, they need to be crushed.  I'll be the first to put the noose around their neck or the needle in their arm if they act on this hate.  

But carrying tiki torches and shouting racist slogans is not illegal according to the 1st Amendment.  

Are you interested in repealing or significantly restricting the 1st to stop this behavior???  To stop this killing?  Because the 1st Amendment is enabling what you purport to hate.  So which is it?  Is this just the price of freedom or should this be stopped.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'If' someone does those things? The Nazi redhats already have. Therefore, using your own argument, they should be crushed. Congrats for seeing the light. And kudos to AntiFa, BLM, and other counter-protestors to the neo-Nazis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RKoch said:

'If' someone does those things? The Nazi redhats already have. Therefore, using your own argument, they should be crushed. Congrats for seeing the light. And kudos to AntiFa, BLM, and other counter-protestors to the neo-Nazis.

A couple of nazi redhats have done those things.  Feel free to crush those who have acted violently towards others.  The rest of the deplorables, sadly, still get to spew hate under our constitution.  Like it or not, Its protected speech.  

If you disagree with that, then you not only hate our constitution, but you also hate what America stands for.  As evadent.  If you persist with hating this aspect of our constitution, time to call a Connie Convention and change the 1st Amendment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, and as much as I hate that "talk", that talk is not illegal.  Acting on it is.  When they start acting on it, I'm more than happy to crush them.

You DO get that, right?

Why don't you try that patronizing tone with Heather Heyer's and get back to me with their opinions about your peace loving Nazis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yes, absolutely.  If someone does those things, they need to be crushed.  I'll be the first to put the noose around their neck or the needle in their arm if they act on this hate.  

But carrying tiki torches and shouting racist slogans is not illegal according to the 1st Amendment.  

Are you interested in repealing or significantly restricting the 1st to stop this behavior???  To stop this killing?  Because the 1st Amendment is enabling what you purport to hate.  So which is it?  Is this just the price of freedom or should this be stopped.  

You know that shit happened in Charlottesville, right?

Its already happening and hate crimes have spiked under Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Its already happening and hate crimes have spiked under Trump.

All over the world.

Trump has made the world safe for fascists and racists because there are good people on both sides.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

A couple of nazi redhats have done those things.  Feel free to crush those who have acted violently towards others.  The rest of the deplorables, sadly, still get to spew hate under our constitution.  Like it or not, Its protected speech.  

If you disagree with that, then you not only hate our constitution, but you also hate what America stands for.  As evadent.  If you persist with hating this aspect of our constitution, time to call a Connie Convention and change the 1st Amendment.  

Where do you draw a line between people and groups? I suspect about 98% of Al Queda members killed by the USA have never been within 5,000 miles of the country. If 20 Nazis come to your town and 4 of them shoot people, then the next week 16 of them show up - minus the 4 in jail - and 4 of them shoot people, then next week it is 12 and next week 8, do you actually wait for the last 4 to show up?

Note vigilante type groups spring up when government is seen as useless or on the side of the criminals. The Nazis were not getting praise and encouragement from prior governments. Now.............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

53 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

A couple of nazi redhats have done those things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

the media is biased towards candidates that people want to read about/watch. Hillary Clinton is a boring, wonkish private, candidate. She always has been.

In order to make people read/watch her the republicans had to create a fictitious evil Hillary. That makes people tune into her.

Hmmm. That 2nd paragraph? Maybe you meant the media or the Ruskies... it was funny to read, however.

Remember when she was under sniper fire at the airport? I bet those clever Rs of all stripes were behind that too. Not boring, wonkish H.

And all that email controversy , her Islamic hand maiden, oh, and her Jewish hubby, he-man Carlos Danger, the Repubs made all that up? Sorry bub, Hillary, the boring, wonkish, private candidate wasn't home baking cookies.

Hopefully she is now a happy homemaker, and grandmother, joyfully watching Jeopardy! with the rest of us. (We know the unwashed dont turn on the tube til Murican Ninja.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

The whole Nazi Racist Russian mole BS is your Birtherism. 

1737785440_WarningMalarkey.jpg.0ccfc13cad80389f0790235dc2b5fbcd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that email controversy , her Islamic hand maiden

Oh my.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Crying Nazi' Banned From Virginia for 5 Years

https://splinternews.com/crying-nazi-banned-from-virginia-for-5-years-1827776742 

<snip> 
“Crying Nazi” Christopher Cantwell, 37, pleaded guilty on Friday to two counts of assault and battery for using pepper spray on counterprotesters during the “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, VA, last year. 

Counterprotester Heather Heyer, 32, was killed in the two-day protests when white terrorist James Alex Fields Jr., then 20, drove his car into a crowd, injuring dozens in addition to killing Heyer. Fields has since been indicted on 30 charges, including a federal hate crime charge. 

Cantwell was sentenced to two concurrent jail terms of 12 months for a pepper spray attack on two counterprotesters on Aug. 11, 2017, at the Thomas Jefferson statue at the University of Virginia. All but seven months of that sentence were suspended, The Washington Post reported. Cantwell will serve no additional time over the incident. However, Virginia booted him from the state for at least five years, ordering him to leave within eight hours of the end of the hearing. He also was fined $250.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

A couple of nazi redhats have done those things.  Feel free to crush those who have acted violently towards others.  The rest of the deplorables, sadly, still get to spew hate under our constitution.  Like it or not, Its protected speech.  

If you disagree with that, then you not only hate our constitution, but you also hate what America stands for.  As evadent.  If you persist with hating this aspect of our constitution, time to call a Connie Convention and change the 1st Amendment.  

Why change the constitution when the 2nd gives groups the right to fight?

Its time to prove that the pen is no longer mightier than the sword!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Why change the constitution when the 2nd gives groups the right to fight?

Its time to prove that the pen is no longer mightier than the sword!

Sword fights? I doubt the pen has ever really been mightier. Real power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Do you ever proof your work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm more than willing to be educated.  Can you provide some cites for this happening in the US, especially to antifa?  Thanks in advance.

I've already mentioned the Aryan Brotherhood. They are Nazis and they do go after people's families.

Given you've proven you'll vilely insult my family when you get pissed off at facts you don't like, you can dig up specific examples yourself. They aren't hard to find. Go fuck yourself, in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Remember when she was under sniper fire at the airport? I bet those clever Rs of all stripes were behind that too. Not boring, wonkish H.

And all that email controversy , her Islamic hand maiden, oh, and her Jewish hubby, he-man Carlos Danger, the Repubs made all that up? Sorry bub, Hillary, the boring, wonkish, private candidate wasn't home baking cookies.

You proved my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

Sword fights? I doubt the pen has ever really been mightier. Real power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Do you ever proof your work?

No, but I try to use small words for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You proved my point.

I think you lost track of what you meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

No, but I try to use small words for you.

No need. Both you and jibs have goofed, and can't man up to being mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

No need. Both you and jibs have goofed, and can't man up to being mistaken.

Maybe you can tell me what my mistake was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

I think you lost track of what you meant.

no. she's so boring you can only find a couple of grossly distorted lies, scandals and double standards vs. the current presidents symphony of lies, scandal, poor decisions and incompetence. that's not whataboutism, that's blunt fucking math.

OMG! Hillary had an aide who's a muslim! Her husband was a scumbag. Fuck that bullshit. Manafort - Trump's campaign manager - made his wife fuck other men against her will.

Fuck your double standard, fuck your bullshit. You believe shitty lies, you get a shitty government. SO QUIT FUCKING BITCHING ABOUT IT. YOU ARE PART OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, RKoch said:
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No, I have not forgotten that.  But that right to oppose ends at violence towards someone else.  As I said, you can scream them down all you want and block them from marching or whatever.  But your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.    

No one from AntiFa carries guns or Rams a car into a crowd. Your whataboutism is an epic fail. 

So you advocate punching someone in the face like a skinhead or a nazi even though they are exercising first amendment rights?  If they are in the process of or about to shoot someone or run someone over with a car, then have a nut and wail on them until their brains ooze out of their ears.  That's call "self-defense".  You may have heard of that concept before? 

But until then, any violence you advocate makes you no better than the nazis you hate.  In some ways, I would say it makes you WORSE than the nazi, because you are directly attacking our constitutional values.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RKoch said:

'Peaceful' Nazi redhats shoot up crowd in Gainesville after Richard Spencer speech. 

http://www.gainesville.com/news/20171020/three-charged-in-shooting-after-spencer-talk

Jeff's boys....

 

Fuck you, cunt - they are not MY boys.  I find them as despicable as you do or anyone else.  But what I also find despicable is a flagrant disregard for the constitution and our values.  And our fundamental value is freedom of speech.  Yes, the 1st Amendment mostly applies to gov't stopping free speech, but it also comes down to criminal law where you don't have a right to punch someone because you don't like what they say or think.  As I said, shout them down, stop them from getting to a rally, block their path, counter-protest, etc.  But you cannot use violence to stop someone from speaking because you don't like the message.

‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ - Voltare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Maybe you can tell me what my mistake was?

As mentioned previously, your post about swords and pens was mismoyled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Fuck you, cunt - they are not MY boys. 

JB that language is inappropriate for this forum.

You have just been given three warning points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Antifa efforts seem a lot more like Kristallnacht than burning the Reichstag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

no. she's so boring you can only find a couple of grossly distorted lies, scandals and double standards vs. the current presidents symphony of lies, scandal, poor decisions and incompetence. that's not whataboutism, that's blunt fucking math.

OMG! Hillary had an aide who's a muslim! Her husband was a scumbag. Fuck that bullshit. Manafort - Trump's campaign manager - made his wife fuck other men against her will.

Fuck your double standard, fuck your bullshit. You believe shitty lies, you get a shitty government. SO QUIT FUCKING BITCHING ABOUT IT. YOU ARE PART OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

I'm astonished at your blind partisanship re Mrs Clinton. Your whataboutism knows no bounds but let's call it what it is: a smokescreen. H was just one of the many turds in the 2016 punchbowl.

Good luck to you sir. Watch that blood pressure. Please join me in dumping Trump in '20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

I'm astonished at your blind partisanship re Mrs Clinton. Your whataboutism knows no bounds but let's call it what it is: a smokescreen. H was just one of the many turds in the 2016 punchbowl.

Good luck to you sir. Watch that blood pressure. Please join me in dumping Trump in '20.

the bullshit you fervently believe, and how many of your elk fervently believe it, is one of the reasons Hillary would have made a bad President. It's also part of the reason she lost. Hillary was private, wonkish, a bit sleazy - and offends a bunch of old men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 4:55 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Absent fascists, they wouldn’t exist. 

I don't believe that for a moment, Sol - they're colletively a bunch of shitheads looking for a fight, who decided to choose "fighting fascism" as their cover story.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The Antifa efforts seem a lot more like Kristallnacht than burning the Reichstag.

you really are a fucking idiot, aren't you?

7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't believe that for a moment, Sol - they're colletively a bunch of shitheads looking for a fight, who decided to choose "fighting fascism" as their cover story.  

If that's true, why do they only appear when fascists are about? I realize yours is the standard gripe for people who prioritize order over justice though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 4:41 PM, Clove Hitch said:

You are making a moral equivalency between Nazis and those fighting Nazis.

I don't know why you would  do that. One group are Nazis, the other are fighting Nazis.  

Here is a photo of a group of armed, uniformed guys going to fight a bunch of Nazis.  Do you care to spin your moral equivalency bullshit about them?

trrops_heading_to_normandy_beach-P.jpeg

 

There's a bit of difference between the situation you describe, the soldiers acting on government sanctioned orders in a declared conflict and a bunch of assholes who take it upon themselves to physically attact another bunch of assholes because the antifa assholes don't like what the nazi assholes are saying.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't believe that for a moment, Sol - they're colletively a bunch of shitheads looking for a fight, who decided to choose "fighting fascism" as their cover story.  

Disagree. If you read their history, they had pretty much succeeded at the Nazi-punk vs. other punk battle and were kind of fading away when the current issues brought them back t life. Well on second thought I will give you half credit - some of them probably are just looking for a fight and don't care that much what it is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2018 at 3:37 PM, RKoch said:

Free speech also includes the right to oppose offensive speech...did you forget that? 

And as long as that opposition doesn't take the form of violence?  They're well within established legal precedent. When protesters initiate violence as a means to suppress what they don't want to hear?  They've stepped across the line and lost any moral justification they may have thought they had for their protest. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Disagree. If you read their history, they had pretty much succeeded at the Nazi-punk vs. other punk battle and were kind of fading away when the current issues brought them back t life. Well on second thought I will give you half credit - some of them probably are just looking for a fight and don't care that much what it is about.

If we're taking a historic perspective?  I'd disagree with myself.   The opinion I shared applies only to the current crop of troublemakers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How/why is the current crop different from the 80's version? 

 

That young guy I met on a crew 2 summers back  -  seemed pretty much the same as the guys I knew in Vancouver, back in the day  -  only difference, was using the internet to find fascists to fight.  Back in the day, you just went & stood outside their favorite bar, and wait for them to come out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

And as long as that opposition doesn't take the form of violence?  They're well within established legal precedent. When protesters initiate violence as a means to suppress what they don't want to hear?  They've stepped across the line and lost any moral justification they may have thought they had for their protest. 

 

Yep.  

I now understand why these same folks have no issues with being gun grabberz.  They don't give two shits about the constitution.  Its all about mob rule and what the fickle electorate wants right now.  Which is precisely why the constitution was written in the first place to protect against these mobs.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence the electoral college system, and why the nuclear option was such a bad decision.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Just  reminder BJ. 

Hate is not the antidote to hate. 

Malarky.thumb.jpg.d07a6756727e4a796d2d37c2b8abf60c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't believe that for a moment, Sol - they're colletively a bunch of shitheads looking for a fight, who decided to choose "fighting fascism" as their cover story.  

Some of them obviously would be looking for a fight under another banner, some would not. However, it is correct that ANTIFA wouldn't exist without fascists. Those spoiling for a fight would join other causes and those that simply oppose fascism (to the point of violence) would stay at home. Which is a salient point.

After all, people with a violent streak join the army - doesn't mean that everyone in the army has a violent streak. People who were racist supported Trump, but not everyone who supports Trump is racist. By the same principle, not everyone under the ANTIFA banner are "shitheads looking for a fight".

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Some of them obviously would be looking for a fight under another banner, some would not. However, it is correct that ANTIFA wouldn't exist without fascists. Those spoiling for a fight would join other causes and those that simply oppose fascism (to the point of violence) would stay at home. Which is a salient point.

After all, people with a violent streak join the army - doesn't mean that everyone in the army has a violent streak. People who were racist supported Trump, but not everyone who supports Trump is racist. By the same principle, not everyone under the ANTIFA banner are "shitheads looking for a fight".

I've been drinking but the logic here seems shaky. My take is that ONLY people looking for trouble are people looking for trouble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blue Crab said:

I've been drinking but the logic here seems shaky. My take is that ONLY people looking for trouble are people looking for trouble. 

Yes, but for that to refute my logic, one needs to accept that all people identifying with/as ANTIFA are looking for trouble. I debate that as being the case. Some most certainly are, just as some people joining the military do so cos they want to hurt/kill people, and some people support Trump because they want him to implement racist policies supporting their racist views. 

As not every protest with ANTIFA showing up results in violence and not every protestor identifying as ANTIFA joins the violence should it break out, I'm pretty safe in the assumption that not all of them are "shitheads looking for a fight". Perhaps they fact it's the middle of the work day here and the only beverage I've had all day is coffee helps me see how obvious that is. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my haze, I forgot your penchant for ... ah ... wordsmithing. I could slither around here but I'll give you this: not all Antis drink craft beers. The women drink wine and love flowers.

Personally, you line up all the Nazis and I'd shoot them myself but for that damned First Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all need to quit thinking of ANTIFA as an organized group with policies and leaders. The various groups are very different from each other.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

You all need to quit thinking of ANTIFA as an organized group with policies and leaders. The various groups are very different from each other.

No doubt. I recall with some clarity the welcome home the soldiers received returning from the unpopular war. The protesters were Antis before Antis were cool. Heck, I'm an Anti meself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

You all need to quit thinking of ANTIFA as an organized group with policies and leaders. The various groups are very different from each other.

You're right, and Bent's correct in his point too.  I was overly broad in my assertion that everyone aligned with Antifa were behaving like the shitheads I observed and commented upon. That said - the fact that not every person aligned w/ANTIFA engaged in the intentional violence we've seen doesn't give those who did a pass on their behavior.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is some of the rhetoric conservatives call 'free speech'

Alex Jones Threatens to Shoot 'Pedophile' Robert Mueller

Alex Jones Threatens to Shoot 'Pedophile' Robert Mueller, Accuses Zuckerberg of Facebook 'Shadow Ban' 
By Benjamin Fearnow On 7/24/18 at 3:38 AM 
https://www.newsweek.com/alex-jones-threatens-shoot-pedophile-robert-mueller-accuses-zuckerberg-1038500 

infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones ramped up threats against special counsel Robert Mueller on Monday, calling him a "monster" and described shooting the former FBI Director. 

Jones' nearly 3-hour July 23 InfoWars broadcast ranged from rants about Hollywood pedophilia to social media "shadow bans" to outlandish allegations Mueller was personally involved in a child sex ring composed of left-leaning political figures. 

The InfoWars host went on to illustrate a "real world" threat against the former Marine Corps officer and Vietnam War veteran currently in charge of the Russian interference investigation of the 2016 presidential election. 


Jones took on a particularly insidious tone during his Monday show, accusing Mueller of violent child sex acts before dramatizing a hypothetical "wild west" shootout with Mueller, a Republican appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to lead the Russia investigation in May 2017. 

While playing spaghetti western music riffing off The Good, the Bad and the Ugly theme song, Jones detailed how the only thing about Mueller that scares him is Jones "not manning up." 

"I'm constantly in fear that I'm not being a real man, and I'm not doing what it takes, and I'm not telling the truth. And so, call it whatever you want, I look at that guy, and he's a sack of crap," Jones said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're right, and Bent's correct in his point too.  I was overly broad in my assertion that everyone aligned with Antifa were behaving like the shitheads I observed and commented upon. That said - the fact that not every person aligned w/ANTIFA engaged in the intentional violence we've seen doesn't give those who did a pass on their behavior.  

How do you know it was specifically AntiFa committing 'intentional violence'?  There are many groups and individuals that show up to counter-protest white supremacists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RKoch said:

How do you know it was specifically AntiFa committing 'intentional violence'?  There are many groups and individuals that show up to counter-protest white supremacists. 

Antifa's own members talk about fighting Nazis. They do contain a street fighting element in some areas for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys forget, in American you are allowed to be anything you want as long as you do not hurt anyone or damage others properties.

We've seen all sides do both and they should be jailed and prosecuted for their crimes.

quit being a bunch of pussy snowflakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RKoch said:

How do you know it was specifically AntiFa committing 'intentional violence'?  There are many groups and individuals that show up to counter-protest white supremacists. 

Because they took video of themselves doing it?  Publicized the intention prior to several recent events?   Why do you want to apologize for violent shitheads who have appropriated a positive idea in an attempt to justify their poor behavior?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Because they took video of themselves doing it?  Publicized the intention prior to several recent events?   Why do you want to apologize for violent shitheads who have appropriated a positive idea in an attempt to justify their poor behavior?   

I'm not apologizing for anyone...punching a Nazi is a job well done. Just want to give credit where credit is due.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RKoch said:

I'm not apologizing for anyone...punching a Nazi is a job well done. Just want to give credit where credit is due.

Like Jeff said - lots of you sorry fuggers have no problem abandoning the constitution when its tenets run contrary to your personal desires.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be illegal to punch Nazis but it isn't un-Constitutional.

Y'all do spend a lot of effort defending the Constitutional rights of Nazis but don't defend those same rights for antifa. Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Like Jeff said - lots of you sorry fuggers have no problem abandoning the constitution when its tenets run contrary to your personal desires.  

If money = free speech, then fists = free speech. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question exactly, Olsonist. Look at the number of avowed white nationalists, fascists, and neo-nazis running for office on the Republican ticket. That's not a crisis of the first order for the GOP, and Antifa is their concern?

https://nyti.ms/2Obpn0b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lasal said:

My question exactly, Olsonist. Look at the number of avowed white nationalists, fascists, and neo-nazis running for office on the Republican ticket. That's not a crisis of the first order for the GOP, and Antifa is their concern?

https://nyti.ms/2Obpn0b

It won't be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites