jetero wrote:

They've been around for so damned long, yet no one's heard of them, and everyone's scared of them. .

WIederling wrote:

jetero wrote:

They've been around for so damned long, yet no one's heard of them, and everyone's scared of them. .

please note:
"you haven't heard" is not equal to "no one's heard".

same goes for "everyone being scared".

jetero wrote:

Very helpful, thanks.

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

There is nothing at all wrong in such opposition, so long as the form of the opposition is not as bad as or worse than what is being opposed.

The Antifa "movement" appears to be opposed to free speech, which makes them just as bad as, say, a number of our universities.

Antifa ultra-left thugs are just as bad as ultra-right thugs.

So, two questions, Bob:

1. How many Nazis and KKK and white supremacists have been lynched by "antifa" simply based on skin color?
2. Since when is speaking out against Nazis and KKK and white supremacists "opposing free speech"?

I ask question one because, according to you, one is as bad as the other.

BawliBooch wrote:

The FBI is an instrument of the state and can therefore be expected to echo the voice of the govt.

There is a theory that a soft-coup is underway in the USA to unseat Trump. Forces opposed to Trump should therefore expect to be on the list of anti-nationals / terrorists.

jetero wrote:

Bob, do you not have any conception of degree? I don't necessarily disagree with what you've written, but the equivocation of it all rubs me the wrong way.

jetero wrote:

Bob, when was the first time you ever heard of Antifa?

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

Bob, when was the first time you ever heard of Antifa?

I am not certain. It is possible that I saw the word in a Washington Post article or column prior to the recent events in Charlotteville, Virginia.

The posts gives me 124 hits on "Antifa" with the oldest being Nov. 19, 2009. There were about 6 in Jan. 2016, and then a fairly steady use of the term in articles and opinion pieces later in 2016 and through 2017.

I no doubt read some of that material when it was originally published, although I may well have just skimmed most of it because it was uninteresting to me at the time.

I did not look up the term on the Internet until Charlottesville hit the news.

I tried searching on "George Will Antifa" and found nothing.

jetero wrote:

Do you not find Antifa to be a convenient boogeyman?

P.S. The only good thing about George Will is that he likes baseball. That's Egghead Numero Uno.

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

Do you not find Antifa to be a convenient boogeyman?

P.S. The only good thing about George Will is that he likes baseball. That's Egghead Numero Uno.

I haven't thought of it in the sense of a boogeyman (which I had to look up to make sure that my 1975 Webster's wasn't lacking a more modern usage).

There is a constant need to come up with new terminology. To me, "antifa" is just a somewhat clumsy suggestion of anti-fascist. Perhaps antifa are really anti neo-fascists. So far as I can see, antifa are themselves employing fascist, strong-arm methods.

It's is, to me, confusing to say the least.

Mr.Will is a lovable egghead. One that is capable of at least some change over time.

pvjin wrote:

jetero wrote:

OK, well then it won't be any problem to share those instead of speaking in generalities.

Yes, the post below yours from Maverick is exactly what I'm talking about. According to him antifas who destroy property and beating people are not a problem while right wing radicals are.

Redd wrote:

pvjin wrote:

jetero wrote:

OK, well then it won't be any problem to share those instead of speaking in generalities.

Yes, the post below yours from Maverick is exactly what I'm talking about. According to him antifas who destroy property and beating people are not a problem while right wing radicals are.

As long as they're beating right wing radicals there is no problem here. The right has always been the bully, ultras, racists, religious nuts using violence to intimidate the educated class which had had violence bred out of it during childhood... Now the left hits back and your run of the mill beer bellied, white pointed hat wearing red neck yodels are crying like little girls, and much as it pains me to repeat this right wing moronic euphemism but.... Butt hurt maybe?. You guys need a good smacking on the face once in a while to put you in your place, and that would be back in the classroom for proper education for a start before you vote again.

Man up right wing I say, you can dish out the violence but when your ass has been handed back to you, you cry to the FBI to label your mirror image group of thugs a terrorist group. The hypocrisy is astronomical.

jetero wrote:

Bob you just wrote "It's is." Shame!

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

Bob you just wrote "It's is." Shame!

Well, I said it's is confusing.

jetero wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

seb146 wrote:

No one said anything about how bad "antifa" was until a Nazi ran down a crowd of counter protesters, injuring 19 and killing 1....

I've always called antifa idiots, as I've aulways called the kkk idiots. Do you support antifa?

Always? Had you even heard of them this time last year?

You're getting a free pass thanks to BP's indulgence of the "both sides" narrative.

I don't know how anyone who so strongly wants a "rational discussion" always defaults to your reductive and reactive idiocy: "Do you support Antifa?" Which you have done to me 20 times in this thread. So I ask, "Do you support the KKK? Do you support the Nazis?"

If you're not for us, you're against us, I guess.

Freakysh wrote:

jetero wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

I've always called antifa idiots, as I've aulways called the kkk idiots. Do you support antifa?

Always? Had you even heard of them this time last year?

You're getting a free pass thanks to BP's indulgence of the "both sides" narrative.

I don't know how anyone who so strongly wants a "rational discussion" always defaults to your reductive and reactive idiocy: "Do you support Antifa?" Which you have done to me 20 times in this thread. So I ask, "Do you support the KKK? Do you support the Nazis?"

If you're not for us, you're against us, I guess.

I've stated I'm against the Kkk and nazis and white supremacists. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you to state your opinion on antifa.

I also said antifa has more potential to be worse than Kkk, considering the climate of social media that has evolved in last few years and the PC climate generating scores of Sjws, I can see the base for that fire spreading more quickly and chaotically then the Kkk. What has the Kkk done in the last 30 years to make them so sensational today?

jetero wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

jetero wrote:

Always? Had you even heard of them this time last year?

You're getting a free pass thanks to BP's indulgence of the "both sides" narrative.

I don't know how anyone who so strongly wants a "rational discussion" always defaults to your reductive and reactive idiocy: "Do you support Antifa?" Which you have done to me 20 times in this thread. So I ask, "Do you support the KKK? Do you support the Nazis?"

If you're not for us, you're against us, I guess.

I've stated I'm against the Kkk and nazis and white supremacists. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you to state your opinion on antifa.

I also said antifa has more potential to be worse than Kkk, considering the climate of social media that has evolved in last few years and the PC climate generating scores of Sjws, I can see the base for that fire spreading more quickly and chaotically then the Kkk. What has the Kkk done in the last 30 years to make them so sensational today?

I'm against Antifa, whatever it is. Feel better now?

Don't go lecturing me on sensationalism when you're conjuring the specter of something that didn't exist this time last year and fantasizing about how bad it could be.

You're not very smart. Par for the course on your "side."

Freakysh wrote:

jetero wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

I've stated I'm against the Kkk and nazis and white supremacists. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you to state your opinion on antifa.

I also said antifa has more potential to be worse than Kkk, considering the climate of social media that has evolved in last few years and the PC climate generating scores of Sjws, I can see the base for that fire spreading more quickly and chaotically then the Kkk. What has the Kkk done in the last 30 years to make them so sensational today?

I'm against Antifa, whatever it is. Feel better now?

Don't go lecturing me on sensationalism when you're conjuring the specter of something that didn't exist this time last year and fantasizing about how bad it could be.

You're not very smart. Par for the course on your "side."

Ahhh the old elitist chestnut that got trump into power..."you're not very smart"

So would it be fair to say that the potential impact Kkk has is quite minimal, similar to antifa?

BobPatterson wrote:

Surely you must have at least a short list of them to support such a claim.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

There is nothing at all wrong in such opposition, so long as the form of the opposition is not as bad as or worse than what is being opposed.

The Antifa "movement" appears to be opposed to free speech, which makes them just as bad as, say, a number of our universities.

Antifa ultra-left thugs are just as bad as ultra-right thugs.

So, two questions, Bob:

1. How many Nazis and KKK and white supremacists have been lynched by "antifa" simply based on skin color?
2. Since when is speaking out against Nazis and KKK and white supremacists "opposing free speech"?

I ask question one because, according to you, one is as bad as the other.

1. I did not address the matter of lynchings. I did address modern day thuggery and suppression of speech.

2. "Speaking out against" is the exercise of free speech. Bring it on (talk, all you want to).

Beating up of those who are speaking, drowning out their voices, coming to rallies with the principle aim of using force to silence an opponent is "opposing free speech".

You know it. I know it. So let's stop being cute and let's call a spade a spade. Thuggery is thuggery.

Alt-left and alt-right are both a pox upon civil society.

Stop making excuses for any of them.

And stop excusing the biased media.

Freakysh wrote:

jetero wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

I've always called antifa idiots, as I've aulways called the kkk idiots. Do you support antifa?

Always? Had you even heard of them this time last year?

You're getting a free pass thanks to BP's indulgence of the "both sides" narrative.

I don't know how anyone who so strongly wants a "rational discussion" always defaults to your reductive and reactive idiocy: "Do you support Antifa?" Which you have done to me 20 times in this thread. So I ask, "Do you support the KKK? Do you support the Nazis?"

If you're not for us, you're against us, I guess.

I've stated I'm against the Kkk and nazis and white supremacists. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you to state your opinion on antifa.

I also said antifa has more potential to be worse than Kkk, considering the climate of social media that has evolved in last few years and the PC climate generating scores of Sjws, I can see the base for that fire spreading more quickly and chaotically then the Kkk. What has the Kkk done in the last 30 years to make them so sensational today?

Freakysh wrote:

I also said antifa has more potential to be worse than Kkk

MaverickM11 wrote:

Right wing violence is 10x more prevalent than left wing violence, and while the former is regularly lynching people, the latter is burning the odd starbucks. Unless you are actually a chain franchise yourself in a city that is about to host a global economics forum, you have nothing to worry about.

BobPatterson wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Right wing violence is 10x more prevalent than left wing violence, and while the former is regularly lynching people, the latter is burning the odd starbucks. Unless you are actually a chain franchise yourself in a city that is about to host a global economics forum, you have nothing to worry about.

Could you please tell us what acts qualify as lynching in support of your statement?

Thanks.

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Right wing violence is 10x more prevalent than left wing violence, and while the former is regularly lynching people, the latter is burning the odd starbucks. Unless you are actually a chain franchise yourself in a city that is about to host a global economics forum, you have nothing to worry about.

Could you please tell us what acts qualify as lynching in support of your statement?

Thanks.

Is this a serious statement? Are you for real?

BobPatterson wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Right wing violence is 10x more prevalent than left wing violence, and while the former is regularly lynching people, the latter is burning the odd starbucks. Unless you are actually a chain franchise yourself in a city that is about to host a global economics forum, you have nothing to worry about.

Could you please tell us what acts qualify as lynching in support of your statement?

Thanks.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

I also said antifa has more potential to be worse than Kkk

Nope. That is only wishful thinking from the fever dreams of the right wing media. Right wing violence is 10x more prevalent than left wing violence, and while the former is regularly lynching people, the latter is burning the odd starbucks. Unless you are actually a chain franchise yourself in a city that is about to host a global economics forum, you have nothing to worry about.

Super80Fan wrote:

I haven't seen or heard of any lynching going on where I am, and I am in a pretty conservative backward part of Florida. Stop with the fear-mongering.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Could you please tell us what acts qualify as lynching in support of your statement?

Thanks.

Is this a serious statement? Are you for real?

It is not a statement. It is a question.

Will you ever learn the difference?

jetero wrote:

And as for the Nazis being "socialist," most of Western Europe is, so I'm not sure what the point is with that one, either. The implication seems to be that modern Democrats are Nazis and Klan members. Very civilized discourse.

WIederling wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

I haven't seen or heard of any lynching going on where I am, and I am in a pretty conservative backward part of Florida. Stop with the fear-mongering.

So no whites were harmed as far you know ?

Super80Fan wrote:

there is no current problem of lynchings in this country,

Freakysh wrote:

I was talking about what I see happening in the future, you know, where things can change. Let's try and keep arguments relevant people.
Cheers