First they came for the anti-fascists

[PyramidHead]

The entire point of dismal's participation in any conversation is to get the other person to concede that they are bad in some way, he doesn't actually think about politics very much

 

[dismal]

dismal, if you want to know what I mean or what I believe, you could try asking a question for the first time in your long tenure in this community. The question mark is the little squiggly line with a dot underneath it


I'm not a liberal

No, agreed, you've got a nasty totalitarian streak.

Wow, it didn't even take 5 minutes.

Do you, or do you not, support the criminalization of demonstrations against fascism?

Do you or do you not support the criminalization of demonstrations FOR fascism?

Take a stand on the OP.

I don't support the "criminalization of demonstrations" of any kind. Do you not get that I have said I AM FOR FREE SPEECH here over and over again? Seriously, how can you possibly keep missing that?

Which is not to say that there can't be reasonable time place and manner restrictions on demonstrations. But certainly no criminalization based on content.

THIS IS THE EXACT POINT I"M MAKING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

NO ONE SHOULD PUNCH OR PROSECUTE ANYONE BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR SPEECH!@!!!!

And anyone who punches someone based on the content of their speech should be prosecuted.

 

[bilby]

Oh, look; It's possible to say something dogmatic and wrong in large capital letters.

I hope that doesn't catch in, it could ruin the Internet.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow, it didn't even take 5 minutes.

Do you, or do you not, support the criminalization of demonstrations against fascism?

Do you or do you not support the criminalization of demonstrations FOR fascism?

Take a stand on the OP.

I don't support the "criminalization of demonstrations" of any kind. Do you not get that I have said I AM FOR FREE SPEECH here over and over again? Seriously, how can you possibly keep missing that?

Which is not to say that there can't be reasonable time place and manner restrictions on demonstrations. But certainly no criminalization based on content.

THIS IS THE EXACT POINT I"M MAKING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

NO ONE SHOULD PUNCH OR PROSECUTE ANYONE BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR SPEECH!@!!!!

And anyone who punches someone based on the content of their speech should be prosecuted.

So, follow this to it's expected conclusion: do you or do you not agree with this statement: the government declaring Antifa a terrorist organization so as to criminalize anti-fascist demonstrations is wrong

 

[dismal]

Wow, it didn't even take 5 minutes.

Do you, or do you not, support the criminalization of demonstrations against fascism?

Do you or do you not support the criminalization of demonstrations FOR fascism?

Take a stand on the OP.

I don't support the "criminalization of demonstrations" of any kind. Do you not get that I have said I AM FOR FREE SPEECH here over and over again? Seriously, how can you possibly keep missing that?

Which is not to say that there can't be reasonable time place and manner restrictions on demonstrations. But certainly no criminalization based on content.

THIS IS THE EXACT POINT I"M MAKING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

NO ONE SHOULD PUNCH OR PROSECUTE ANYONE BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR SPEECH!@!!!!

And anyone who punches someone based on the content of their speech should be prosecuted.

So, follow this to it's expected conclusion: do you or do you not agree with this statement: the government declaring Antifa a terrorist organization so as to criminalize anti-fascist demonstrations is wrong

a) the government didn't declare antifa a terrorist organization
b) if declaring something a "terrorist organization" inhibited their ability to peacefully demonstrate it would not be held constitutional

 

[Jarhyn]

So, follow this to it's expected conclusion: do you or do you not agree with this statement: the government declaring Antifa a terrorist organization so as to criminalize anti-fascist demonstrations is wrong

a) the government didn't declare antifa a terrorist organization
b) if declaring something a "terrorist organization" inhibited their ability to peacefully demonstrate it would not be held constitutional

Neither of those answered the questions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So, follow this to it's expected conclusion: do you or do you not agree with this statement: the government declaring Antifa a terrorist organization so as to criminalize anti-fascist demonstrations is wrong

a) the government didn't declare antifa a terrorist organization
b) if declaring something a "terrorist organization" inhibited their ability to peacefully demonstrate it would not be held constitutional

Geez, just answer the question.

 

[dismal]

Oh, look; It's possible to say something dogmatic and wrong in large capital letters.

I hope that doesn't catch in, it could ruin the Internet.

I'd be surprised if it could hurt the internet more than reading comprehension failure and general assholery. Or maybe that's just this site.

 

[dismal]

So, follow this to it's expected conclusion: do you or do you not agree with this statement: the government declaring Antifa a terrorist organization so as to criminalize anti-fascist demonstrations is wrong

a) the government didn't declare antifa a terrorist organization
b) if declaring something a "terrorist organization" inhibited their ability to peacefully demonstrate it would not be held constitutional

Neither of those answered the questions.

The question is nonsensical. The government declaring something a terrorist organization does not criminalize peaceful otherwise legal demonstrations.

The question is akin to asking "Is the government declaring antifa a ham sandwich wrong because it makes the sky turn yellow?"

Now just answer the damn question 121!!!

 

[Jarhyn]

Neither of those answered the questions.

The question is nonsensical. The government declaring something a terrorist organization does not criminalize peaceful otherwise legal demonstrations.

The question is akin to asking "Is the government declaring antifa a ham sandwich wrong because it makes the sky turn yellow?"

Now just answer the damn question 121!!!

Then you don't understand what the OP is about.

Paul Ryan wants Antifa designated as a "terrorist organization".

It is within the purview of government to suppress domestic terrorism through surveillance, disruption of their activities (breaking up groups that form), denying permits to protest, dispersing demonstrations (and jailing organizers), and censoring attempts to increase membership.

This criminalized what are, ostensibly, peaceful and otherwise legal demonstrations through systematic government action "against terrorist activities".

So I ask again...

do you or do you not agree with this statement: the government declaring Antifa a terrorist organization so as to criminalize anti-fascist demonstrations is wrong

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't support the "criminalization of demonstrations" of any kind. Do you not get that I have said I AM FOR FREE SPEECH here over and over again? Seriously, how can you possibly keep missing that?

Which is not to say that there can't be reasonable time place and manner restrictions on demonstrations. But certainly no criminalization based on content.

THIS IS THE EXACT POINT I"M MAKING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

NO ONE SHOULD PUNCH OR PROSECUTE ANYONE BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR SPEECH!@!!!!

And anyone who punches someone based on the content of their speech should be prosecuted.

So Charles Manson should have walked?

 

[dismal]

Neither of those answered the questions.

The question is nonsensical. The government declaring something a terrorist organization does not criminalize peaceful otherwise legal demonstrations.

The question is akin to asking "Is the government declaring antifa a ham sandwich wrong because it makes the sky turn yellow?"

Now just answer the damn question 121!!!

Then you don't understand what the OP is about.

Paul Ryan wants Antifa designated as a "terrorist organization".

It is within the purview of government to suppress domestic terrorism through surveillance, disruption of their activities (breaking up groups that form), denying permits to protest, dispersing demonstrations (and jailing organizers), and censoring attempts to increase membership.

This criminalized what are, ostensibly, peaceful and otherwise legal demonstrations through systematic government action "against terrorist activities".

So I ask again...

do you or do you not agree with this statement: the government declaring Antifa a terrorist organization so as to criminalize anti-fascist demonstrations is wrong

*sigh* try reading what it means on a reputable source.

 

[dismal]

I don't support the "criminalization of demonstrations" of any kind. Do you not get that I have said I AM FOR FREE SPEECH here over and over again? Seriously, how can you possibly keep missing that?

Which is not to say that there can't be reasonable time place and manner restrictions on demonstrations. But certainly no criminalization based on content.

THIS IS THE EXACT POINT I"M MAKING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

NO ONE SHOULD PUNCH OR PROSECUTE ANYONE BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR SPEECH!@!!!!

And anyone who punches someone based on the content of their speech should be prosecuted.

So Charles Manson should have walked?

Finally, someone gets what i mean when I say I don’t support violence based on the content of speech.

 

[bilby]

I don't support the "criminalization of demonstrations" of any kind. Do you not get that I have said I AM FOR FREE SPEECH here over and over again? Seriously, how can you possibly keep missing that?

Which is not to say that there can't be reasonable time place and manner restrictions on demonstrations. But certainly no criminalization based on content.

THIS IS THE EXACT POINT I"M MAKING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

NO ONE SHOULD PUNCH OR PROSECUTE ANYONE BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR SPEECH!@!!!!

And anyone who punches someone based on the content of their speech should be prosecuted.

So Charles Manson should have walked?

Finally, someone gets what i mean when I say I don’t support violence based on the content of speech.

Oh, I get what you mean. I just don't give a crap about your faith-based opinions.

Your nation's idiosyncrasies are not universal natural laws; Not even if they are enshrined in your scripture constitution.

There are some circumstances when it is perfectly acceptable, moral, and beneficial to society for some kinds of speech to be punished.

The recent case of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon attempting to pervert the course of justice, and being rightly jailed for contempt of court, is a good example.

 

[RavenSky]

All zero of them?

So there are zero antifa in Portland? Then who beat Andy Ngo?

Andy Ngo's buddy so they could create a "false-flag" anti-antifa situation

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

All zero of them?

So there are zero antifa in Portland? Then who beat Andy Ngo?

Andy Ngo's buddy so they could create a "false-flag" anti-antifa situation

I saw those doctored headlines too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't support the "criminalization of demonstrations" of any kind. Do you not get that I have said I AM FOR FREE SPEECH here over and over again? Seriously, how can you possibly keep missing that?

Which is not to say that there can't be reasonable time place and manner restrictions on demonstrations. But certainly no criminalization based on content.

THIS IS THE EXACT POINT I"M MAKING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

NO ONE SHOULD PUNCH OR PROSECUTE ANYONE BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR SPEECH!@!!!!

And anyone who punches someone based on the content of their speech should be prosecuted.

So Charles Manson should have walked?

Finally, someone gets what i mean when I say I don’t support violence based on the content of speech.

So he should have walked?

And mob bosses should also be basically immune from prosecution?

And there should be no such charge as conspiracy to commit a crime?

 

[PyramidHead]

El Paso

 

[PyramidHead]

When the state institutions that are assumed to be the legal bulwark against fascism openly and transparently capitulate to it, why should we not expect ordinary citizens to be outraged and compelled to take direct action?

 

[PyramidHead]

Trump Supporter with Loaded Pistol, Knife Arrested Outside El Paso Immigrant Center

Organizers with Casa Carmelita say police also recovered a loaded gun, ammunition and a bag of white powder from the man’s truck, which sported a large banner portraying Donald Trump as Rambo and bumper stickers for the far-right conspiracy website InfoWars. The man appears to be 21-year-old Thomas Bartram, who was profiled earlier on Wednesday by the Washington Examiner. Bartram told the paper he was an “open-carry kind of guy” at political rallies; a photo accompanying the article shows Bartram making what appears to be a white nationalist hand gesture.

Racial slurs and swastika found at scene of house explosion in Ohio, sheriff says

Wayne County Sheriff's deputies and fire officials responded to a 911 call around 12:40 a.m. to find the home in Sterling, south of Cleveland, engulfed in flames, Sheriff Travis Hutchinson told reporters. The side of the home was blown out, the sheriff said.

Authorities believe the fire was intentionally set, he said. The incident is being investigated as a possible hate crime, the sheriff said.

Former firefighter stops man armed with 100 rounds of ammunition at south Springfield Walmart

The Springfield Police Department arrived on scene within three minutes of the call. Police stated that a young white male, appearing to be in his twenties, pulled up to the Walmart, where he donned body armor and military fatigues. Police say the man had tactical weapons.

Police then say the man walked into the Walmart: Neighborhood Market where he grabbed a cart and began pushing it around the store. Police say the man was recording himself walking through the store via a cell phone.

Anybody who says there is no threat of fascism in this country should think about the fact that these events all happened in the last 24 hours. If you oppose antifa, I genuinely would like to know: what, exactly is the appropriate response to this trend?

Wait for the government to address it? The first shooter had a Ted Cruz bumper sticker on his truck, for fuck's sake.

Call the cops?

13 Philadelphia Cops Will Be Fired For Racist And Violent Facebook Posts

The Philadelphia Police Department will fire 13 officers for their racist and violent Facebook posts, following an investigation into more than 3,000 such social media messages sent by the city's cops that were exposed by a local lawyer.

The 13 officers will be suspended for 30 days “with intent to dismiss," Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross Jr. announced at a press conference on Thursday.

Four other officers — whose Facebook posts were “less egregious” — will receive a 30-day suspension, Ross said.

The posts were revealed in June by the Plain View Project, launched by Philadelphia lawyer Emily Baker-White. She examined the accounts of about 2,900 officers and about 600 retirees from eight departments across the US. She compiled posts that represented troubling conduct in a database that was first reported on by Injustice Watch in collaboration with BuzzFeed News.

Baker-White found that of the 328 Philadelphia officers, 139 appeared to have one or more federal civil rights lawsuits against them. At least 64 of the officers had leadership roles including sergeants, lieutenants, captains, or inspectors.

13 fired out of 328. So 96% of them kept their jobs. This is why relying on the state, which functions as an arm of coercive force for the interests of the ruling class, can never be relied upon to combat fascism. This is why antifa is needed.