Freakysh wrote:

Mock all you like. Time will tell which group causes society the most headaches

Yea, Fascists or anti-fascists.

I'll hold my breath.

jetero wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Trump praised "fine people" on both sides which included Antifa types.

By getting lighter treatment in the press, Antifa is being encouraged or enabled.

ANY group coming to a "rally" or "protest" and being ready and looking for a fight should be condemned. By everyone.

Including all those who post here. It doesn't matter what name such groups travel under.

Read the transcript again and tell me if you really think Trump was treating "Antifa" and white supremacists in the same manner. Sure the hell seemed very slanted to me.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/1 ... ipt-241662

Read it again yourself. Mr. Trump excused no one:

"TRUMP: I will tell you something. I watched those very closely, much more closely than you people watched it. And you had, you had a group on one side that was bad. And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I'll say it right now. You had a group – you had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent.

REPORTER: Do you think what you call the alt left is the same as neo-Nazis?

TRUMP: Those people – all of those people, excuse me – I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch."

jetero wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Trump praised "fine people" on both sides which included Antifa types.

By getting lighter treatment in the press, Antifa is being encouraged or enabled.

ANY group coming to a "rally" or "protest" and being ready and looking for a fight should be condemned. By everyone.

Including all those who post here. It doesn't matter what name such groups travel under.

Read the transcript again and tell me if you really think Trump was treating "Antifa" and white supremacists in the same manner. Sure the hell seemed very slanted to me.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/1 ... ipt-241662

Done

Which part do you take exception to?

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Trump praised "fine people" on both sides which included Antifa types.

By getting lighter treatment in the press, Antifa is being encouraged or enabled.

ANY group coming to a "rally" or "protest" and being ready and looking for a fight should be condemned. By everyone.

Including all those who post here. It doesn't matter what name such groups travel under.

Read the transcript again and tell me if you really think Trump was treating "Antifa" and white supremacists in the same manner. Sure the hell seemed very slanted to me.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/1 ... ipt-241662

Read it again yourself. Mr. Trump excused no one:

"TRUMP: I will tell you something. I watched those very closely, much more closely than you people watched it. And you had, you had a group on one side that was bad. And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I'll say it right now. You had a group – you had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent.

REPORTER: Do you think what you call the alt left is the same as neo-Nazis?

TRUMP: Those people – all of those people, excuse me – I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch."

That's certainly one interpretation. But would you not disagree he's going out of his way to defend one "side" while being critical of the other? What do you think his purpose was in doing so?

Even I'm not implying a sinister motive--I just think he's a total inept bozo who won't give a damned inch and instead choose to needlessly dig the hole deeper. His problems are entirely of his own doing.

jetero wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

Read the transcript again and tell me if you really think Trump was treating "Antifa" and white supremacists in the same manner. Sure the hell seemed very slanted to me.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/1 ... ipt-241662

Read it again yourself. Mr. Trump excused no one:

"TRUMP: I will tell you something. I watched those very closely, much more closely than you people watched it. And you had, you had a group on one side that was bad. And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I'll say it right now. You had a group – you had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent.

REPORTER: Do you think what you call the alt left is the same as neo-Nazis?

TRUMP: Those people – all of those people, excuse me – I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch."

That's certainly one interpretation. But would you not disagree he's going out of his way to defend one "side" while being critical of the other? What do you think his purpose was in doing so?

Even I'm not implying a sinister motive--I just think he's a total inept bozo who won't give a damned inch and instead choose to needlessly dig the hole deeper. His problems are entirely of his own doing.

You know I am no fan of Mr. Trump. Inept bozo is good.

But the bozo does at least deserve to be treated fairly by the press, day after day after day.

That is not the case. By and large the press has chosen to ignore Mr. Trump's condemnation of the bad guys in favor of slamming him for some of his stupidities.

The press is biased. Badly so. To me that means they are not acting as a free press should.

And the entire nation is suffering from that (so is much of the rest of the world).

There is hardly any distinction nowadays between reporting of "news" and political commentary.

If the media acted as reporters should act, Mr. Trump would still appear to be a stupid bozo, at least to those with discernment.

In my opinion there can be no excuse for the hatreds being displayed by the press.

Nor any excuse for the actions, words and tweets by Mr. Trump.

MaverickM11 wrote:

jetero wrote:

Yep, it's my head in the sand because I have been spending the entire thread defending antifa after saying I still don't even know what it is.

#FantasyWorld

I'm worried about Trump losing half of his base to aneurysms trying to keep all this inconsistent, angry nonsense straight in their heads.

Antifa has been around forever, rabble rousing and burning down a Starbucks every time the G20 shows up and making a general, dumb mess. That doesn't make them good, but it still doesn't hold a candle to groups that want to exterminate more than half the country to achieve a white ethnostate...wonder where we've heard that before? Oh yah ISIS/Al Qaeda...I wonder if the right thinks we should pay attention to "all sides" of the war on terrorism too

Hmmmm, extermination comes in many forms. One the D's hold dear is abortion. It's effect on population control is staggering, particularly amongst blacks.

I do not associate with anyone that advocates race extermination.

A careful study of genocide shows that it's not restricted to any one race. So spare me the piety please.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Hmmmm, extermination comes in many forms. One the D's hold dear is abortion. It's effect on population control is staggering, particularly amongst blacks.

I do not associate with anyone that advocates race extermination.

A careful study of genocide shows that it's not restricted to any one race. So spare me the piety please.

You guys can rationalize anything. Rather sickeningly so.

#FantasyWorld

Instead of using words for communication, they use them as weapons.
Any small glimmer of intelligence they might have, is used to fashion their barbs, instead of using it to communicate a point of view.

salttee wrote:

Instead of using words for communication, they use them as weapons.
Any small glimmer of intelligence they might have, is used to fashion their barbs, instead of using it to communicate a point of view.

Habitual and shameless provocateurs, finger-pointers, and deflectors indeed. All while claiming to be the real slighted ones and touting "personal responsibility."

Fox News has taught them well.

Freakysh wrote:

jetero wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

I'd say potentially they are worse.

Of course you would. Narrative wouldn't work otherwise, would it?

Freakysh wrote:

The media exacerbates this by painting them as the good guys rather than looking into who they are and what their intentions are.

And . . . examples from hated MSM? Paste here, please.

Freakysh wrote:

They have the potential to become a much bigger problem than the Kkk ever will.

#FantasyWorld. Do you also see unicorns? Now that's some Freakysh*t.

Mock all you like. Time will tell which group causes society the most headaches

Time did already tell us that, quote the FBI:

During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country.
....
Right-wing groups continue to represent a serious terrorist threat. Two of the seven planned acts of terrorism prevented in 1999 were potentially large-scale, high-casualty attacks being planned by organized right-wing extremist groups.
....
From the 1960s to the 1980s, leftist-oriented extremist groups posed the most serious domestic terrorist threat to the United States. In the 1980s, however, the fortunes of the leftist movement changed dramatically as law enforcement dismantled the infrastructure of many of these groups, and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe deprived the movement of its ideological foundation and patronage.

From: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/ ... ted-states

2002, I know, but apparently left wing terrorism posing a significant threat is largely based on foreign support, right wing terrorism is truly domestic. And has been the bigger problem for 25+ years and counting.

Between 2008 and 2016 a total of 201 terrorist incidents occurred in the United States. 115 of those, with 79 dead, where right wing, 19 with 7 victims for the left wing.
The right wing is simply 5 times for active and 10 times more deadly. But hey, facts... Who cared, right?

Best regards
Thomas

Well, wings have to be attached to bodies or they are useless. Us in the body --- the center --- appreciate the lessons and the warnings, but we know how to keep this creature going forward. Remember, there really is a creature with wings that doesn't have to actually fly. The body does all the eating and growing and all that other cool 'being alive' stuff, so you wing folks have fun. But us folks in the center, well . . . Wait, what was I supposed to be doing? A dip in the pool? An ice cream? Oh no, you want me to read something else on that site called airliners something? Please, give me a break.

tommy1808 wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

jetero wrote:

Of course you would. Narrative wouldn't work otherwise, would it?



And . . . examples from hated MSM? Paste here, please.



#FantasyWorld. Do you also see unicorns? Now that's some Freakysh*t.

Mock all you like. Time will tell which group causes society the most headaches

Time did already tell us that, quote the FBI:

During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country.
....
Right-wing groups continue to represent a serious terrorist threat. Two of the seven planned acts of terrorism prevented in 1999 were potentially large-scale, high-casualty attacks being planned by organized right-wing extremist groups.
....
From the 1960s to the 1980s, leftist-oriented extremist groups posed the most serious domestic terrorist threat to the United States. In the 1980s, however, the fortunes of the leftist movement changed dramatically as law enforcement dismantled the infrastructure of many of these groups, and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe deprived the movement of its ideological foundation and patronage.

From: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/ ... ted-states

2002, I know, but apparently left wing terrorism posing a significant threat is largely based on foreign support, right wing terrorism is truly domestic. And has been the bigger problem for 25+ years and counting.

Between 2008 and 2016 a total of 201 terrorist incidents occurred in the United States. 115 of those, with 79 dead, where right wing, 19 with 7 victims for the left wing.
The right wing is simply 5 times for active and 10 times more deadly. But hey, facts... Who cared, right?

Best regards
Thomas

Thanks for the blast from the past Tommy.

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

Now I'm in trouble. I'm back. I had something trigger something in my brain but it took too long to really perk up the proper brain cells.

I am going to ask any of you that might be able to answer, but maybe tommy1808 can answer, because you dug it up. I think.

This:

In the 1980s, however, the fortunes of the leftist movement changed dramatically as law enforcement dismantled the infrastructure of many of these groups ...

I don't understand what the FBI is referring to with that "infrastructure" bit. What infrastructure did they take apart?

Truthfully, I know I should go to the FBI's site and see what they have to answer that, but if anyone here knows, you'd be kind if you'd educate me. Quite frankly, I've never been much of a political go-go-go type and probably don't know enough about politics UNLESS it affects my VFW. Then I have been known to get busy. But I only ever got up to district level, so I ain't nobody.

But what infrastructures supported leftist groups that were able to be dismantled by law enforcement folks?

Thank you.

Aesma wrote:

Antifas are almost a century old. It's ridiculously funny that the US is discovering them now, and immediately labelling them by the very charged term terrorism. With such a loose definition of the word terrorism, there are probably hundreds of terrorist groups in the US, mostly right-wing extremists.

Sadly it is human nature to turn to violence in the face of violence, repression and economic problems.

In the early part of the 20th Century, there were small radical groups commonly called Anarchists. Only a few blocks away from the WTC site of the 1993 bombing and the mass destruction of 9/11, in 1917 some Anarchists set off a junk laden bomb on a horse drawn wagon on Wall Street, around the corner from the NY Stock Exchange, as well as the site of the 1st US Capitol. It killed dozens, maimed many more and even today you see gouged chunks in building walls from their attack. There were other attacks against 'capitalism' done by these extremist groups. The result was a massive crackdown on anyone on the extreme left including the passage of draconian laws to round up, jail and repress socialists, communists, union organizers and the like.
During the Vietnam War protests, we saw violence from the 'left' who attacked police officers, damaged or destroyed Federal buildings. The destruction of a ROTC facility at Kent State College in Ohio led the deaths of 4 relative innocents by National Guardsman in its immediate aftermath. President Nixon and other political leaders encouraged 'law and order' polices which included personal and police violence against Black protest groups, anti-war protesters and 'hippies' not unlike Trump and other political leaders today to repress the poor, non-White, Muslims, and illegal immigrants.
Into the 1970's some radical left groups also committed acts of terrorism, robbing armored cars killing their guards (one of the worst was in Rockland Co., NY), murder of police officers and triggering riots in cities.
The danger of the 'Atifas' is the use of violent attacks to get attention and revenge for terrible public polices for generations. The relatively small group of violent Antifas will just make for more government repression including of freedom of speech and assembly to those with real grievances we need to change.Yes, we should go criminally after those on the left that assault people on the right, encourage physical confrontation, tear down public property like statues of CSA leaders, kill police officers but we also need to do the same with those on the extremist right who also tote guns in protests, and use violence to get their point across.

ltbewr wrote:

The relatively small group of violent Antifas will just make for more government repression including of freedom of speech and assembly to those with real grievances we need to change.

And you can forgive some of us cynics from thinking that this fascination with Antifa is nothing but a way to justify the above or a convenient boogeyman distraction.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Hmmmm, extermination comes in many forms. One the D's hold dear is abortion. It's effect on population control is staggering, particularly amongst blacks.

Yessssssssss let's get all of the non sequiturs out in the open so you can rationalize your Nazi/white supremacist buddies. What else can you use to cover for neo Nazis? What about the Clean Air Act? I'm sure you can twist that into some sort of equivalent 'what aboutism' to protect your erstwhile-hooded boys.

Freakysh wrote:

Thanks for the blast from the past Tommy.

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

Because in the future you can speculate all you want and everyone can have an opinion, without any necessary basis or foundation in facts. Right?

How convenient.

CH47A wrote:

I don't understand what the FBI is referring to with that "infrastructure" bit. What infrastructure did they take apart?

The Organization and Infrastructure of Terrorist Groups

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/node/341

Hope this helps.

ANTIFA..Do any of these F'K sticks even have a damn job? Do they even pay rent or a mortgage or do anything that contributes to society one damn bit. I say probably not. Can hate the KKK and be against white supremacy I am. But these clowns do their crap unabated and the liberal media slants it to their favor and no one calls them out. Tell you what when it comes to violence in my lifetime its been radial left wingers .

stratosphere wrote:

ANTIFA..Do any of these F'K sticks even have a damn job?

I thought they were all paid protesters?

jetero wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

ANTIFA..Do any of these F'K sticks even have a damn job?

I thought they were all paid protesters?

It's like a rolodex narrative--just pick whatever one you like so you can absolve the nazi/white supremacist trump supporters as much as possible.

MaverickM11 wrote:

jetero wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

ANTIFA..Do any of these F'K sticks even have a damn job?

I thought they were all paid protesters?

It's like a rolodex narrative--just pick whatever one you like so you can absolve the nazi/white supremacist trump supporters as much as possible.

My favorite thus far on this thread is that the KKK is leftist and votes Democratic. Somebody should tell Maxine Waters. It's oh-so-cute that people actually believe that!

OA412 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Nope, just like the terrorist group Antifa the Nazis/KKK are all representations of the left. Own it.

I've heard this lie repeated may times, both here and elsewhere. It's embarrassing. It embarrasses you, and it embarrasses the rest of us. No serious person, ever, anywhere, classifies the Nazis or the KKK as leftist organizations. None.

The Nazi's were Socialists. The KKK was started by the Democratic party. You cannot get any more leftist than that. Period.

Flaps wrote:

OA412 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Nope, just like the terrorist group Antifa the Nazis/KKK are all representations of the left. Own it.

I've heard this lie repeated may times, both here and elsewhere. It's embarrassing. It embarrasses you, and it embarrasses the rest of us. No serious person, ever, anywhere, classifies the Nazis or the KKK as leftist organizations. None.

The Nazi's were Socialists. The KKK was started by the Democratic party. You cannot get any more leftist than that. Period.

Precious

Flaps wrote:

The KKK was started by the Democratic party. You cannot get any more leftist than that. Period.

Why not? Which Klan are you selecting to base your claims upon?

History of three KKK "movements" at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

The first Klan was anti-republican government in the south.

The 2d and 3rd were not directed at or by political parties.

BobPatterson wrote:

Flaps wrote:

The KKK was started by the Democratic party. You cannot get any more leftist than that. Period.

Why not? Which Klan are you selecting to base your claims upon?

History of three KKK "movements" at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

The first Klan was anti-republican government in the south.

The 2d and 3rd were not directed at or by political parties.

Regardless, what does it have to do with the KKK of today, who almost exclusively vote Republican and are Trump freaks?

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.

Deleted

Socialism is not just a foul word you know, it's an ideology. Nothing Hitler did has anything to do with socialism, he killed socialists, dismantled trade unions, and was very fond of industrialists (capitalists). Then he was all about the race nonsense, not class struggle.

KKK, again an obsession with race, nothing to do with left or right to be honest.

The history, theory and contradictions of antifa

A book review by Carlos Lozada in the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/boo ... f8ecff2348

Flaps wrote:

The Nazi's were Socialists.

Just because the S in NSDAP stood for socialist, does not mean they actually were socialists. They may have started socialists, but by the time Hitler rose to power that had gone out the window.

By that same logic I am confident you will consider North Korea a democracy. After all, their full name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Who is the leader of "antifa?" What is their history? How long have they been around? The most important question to me is: Why is it so wrong to be against fascism and neo-Nazis and KKK?

Read Patterson's link. He actually brought some valid information to the forum.

A book review by Carlos Lozada in the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/01/the-history-theory-and-contradictions-of-antifa/?utm_term=.f0f8ecff2348

seb146 wrote:

Who is the leader of "antifa?" What is their history? How long have they been around? The most important question to me is: Why is it so wrong to be against fascism and neo-Nazis and KKK?

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.

I appreciate Bob Patterson's point that while Trump may be a fool, the press does him big favors with their crass unprofessionalism. Bob, I totally agree. I didn't vote for Trump, but I have spotted many basic, fundamental collapses of journalistic method and grammar in the past year. That immediately leads me to assume that Trump must be onto something. Because that is how one must read a crooked press. The press were absolutely livid at Trump's election. It became personal for them - as many of them fully explained.

The question isn't "is the article true," the question is, "who decided to run this article today, and why." Only by answering THAT question can you begin to ascertain what is going on. And frequently, the article is a "fact collage" (cherry-picked piece with a preordained agenda) or an "analysis piece" with no attributed facts or timeliness that day.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Who is the leader of "antifa?" What is their history? How long have they been around? The most important question to me is: Why is it so wrong to be against fascism and neo-Nazis and KKK?

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.

This.

Unfortunately though, the narrative has become if you question antifa, that automatically means you support the Kkk and want all black people exterminated. This twisted thinking is robbing society of progress and intelligent discussion.

Freakysh wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Who is the leader of "antifa?" What is their history? How long have they been around? The most important question to me is: Why is it so wrong to be against fascism and neo-Nazis and KKK?

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.

This.

Unfortunately though, the narrative has become if you question antifa, that automatically means you support the Kkk and want all black people exterminated. This twisted thinking is robbing society of progress and intelligent discussion.

None of you gave a hoot about antifa until your precious nazis and white supremacists were thrown regular lifelines by Trump. They've been around for decades and they weren't Fox's favorite whipping boy until Trump started salivating over the attention he was getting from the violent right. This is the same as the nonsense of the 'all lives matter' crowd--a) you didn't care about all lives mattering until you needed another reason to oppose black people not wanting to get shot and b) you're not *doing* anything to support 'all' or even 'blue' lives mattering anyway. Trump supporters just need a foil to protect their nazi/supremacist brethren.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Freakysh 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.

This.

Unfortunately though, the narrative has become if you question antifa, that automatically means you support the Kkk and want all black people exterminated. This twisted thinking is robbing society of progress and intelligent discussion.

None of you gave a hoot about antifa until your precious nazis and white supremacists were thrown regular lifelines by Trump. They've been around for decades and they weren't Fox's favorite whipping boy until Trump started salivating over the attention he was getting from the violent right. This is the same as the nonsense of the 'all lives matter' crowd--a) you didn't care about all lives mattering until you needed another reason to oppose black people not wanting to get shot and b) you're not *doing* anything to support 'all' or even 'blue' lives mattering anyway. Trump supporters just need a foil to protect their nazi/supremacist brethren.

Case in point

Freakysh wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

This.

Unfortunately though, the narrative has become if you question antifa, that automatically means you support the Kkk and want all black people exterminated. This twisted thinking is robbing society of progress and intelligent discussion.

None of you gave a hoot about antifa until your precious nazis and white supremacists were thrown regular lifelines by Trump. They've been around for decades and they weren't Fox's favorite whipping boy until Trump started salivating over the attention he was getting from the violent right. This is the same as the nonsense of the 'all lives matter' crowd--a) you didn't care about all lives mattering until you needed another reason to oppose black people not wanting to get shot and b) you're not *doing* anything to support 'all' or even 'blue' lives mattering anyway. Trump supporters just need a foil to protect their nazi/supremacist brethren.

Case in point

You don't want an "intelligent discussion", you want moral relativism. You want to pretend the 3% of scientists who don't believe in climate change are equivalent to the 97% that do, or the 6% that don't believe in a cancer-tobacco connection with the 94% that do, or that a few moron anarchists are equivalent to the insanely armed miliatias, nazis, and white supremacists who have Trump's ear. Who would you blame for the violent right if you didn't have the #fakenews of antifa? I wonder who the Breitbart-Fox crowd would dredge up to satisfy their what about-ism craving then... You might have to look in the mirror. Perish the thought!

MaverickM11 wrote:

None of you gave a hoot about antifa until your precious nazis and white supremacists were thrown regular lifelines by Trump. They've been around for decades and they weren't Fox's favorite whipping boy until Trump started salivating over the attention he was getting from the violent right. This is the same as the nonsense of the 'all lives matter' crowd--a) you didn't care about all lives mattering until you needed another reason to oppose black people not wanting to get shot and b) you're not *doing* anything to support 'all' or even 'blue' lives mattering anyway. Trump supporters just need a foil to protect their nazi/supremacist brethren.

I hate to have to burst your bubbles, but.......

1. Nazis and white supremacists are not precious in my sight.

2. Despite the fact that I have read the Washington Post daily for more than 60 years, I was not aware of the term "Antifa" until the recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia.

3. I have never had a reason to "oppose black people", and have never done so.

4. I am not a Trump supporter. Quite the opposite.

We might be able to have a discussion when you return from flights of fancy.

Have a nice day.

BobPatterson wrote:

2. Despite the fact that I have read the Washington Post daily for more than 60 years, I was not aware of the term "Antifa" until the recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Imagine that...it was almost like someone wanted to shift the focus off the...you know...nazi murder.

MaverickM11 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

2. Despite the fact that I have read the Washington Post daily for more than 60 years, I was not aware of the term "Antifa" until the recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Imagine that...it was almost like someone wanted to shift the focus off the...you know...nazi murder.

More conspiracy theories than the loony right...

Anti trump msm is now purposely reporting about antifa, something they never did, to help trump deflect from his nazi supporters. Sure.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Who is the leader of "antifa?" What is their history? How long have they been around? The most important question to me is: Why is it so wrong to be against fascism and neo-Nazis and KKK?

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.

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

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 always called the kkk idiots. Do you support antifa?

BobPatterson wrote:

2. Despite the fact that I have read the Washington Post daily for more than 60 years, I was not aware of the term "Antifa" until the recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Pretty old actually. Started in the 1920ties as opposition to first Mussolini, then Hitler and Franco.
( Driven by a wide range of political movements : Socialist, Communist, .. )

The idea was to forcefully _counter_ the extremely aggressive activities of those fascistic groups.
( This should be accessible to people that go for "an eye for an eye" reactive behaviour. )

Which seems to repeat in the US : Antifa as reaction to the extremely aggressive stance of
a right wing seemingly fascistic movements. ( if you see fascism as a centrally led coherently acting group
that sees any opposition to their agenda as unaceptable deviation.)

It is a bit rich to bring up free speech issues and undemocratic behaviour as argument against Antifa, isn't it?

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.

When a string of unarmed Blacks where shot to death by police, people rallied and the Black Lives Matter movement was born. Right wing media called them "militant" and "terrorists" and (mostly) White people followed suit.

When people show up to protest groups like neo-Nazis and KKK, those opposition protesters are now called "terrorists" and "antifa" and that they "hate free speech" by right wing media and (mostly) White people follow suit.

That is how I see it.

And, yes, I support "antifa" because I support free speech. Why do you all who label "antifa" a terrorist group hate free speech?

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 always 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.

WIederling wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

2. Despite the fact that I have read the Washington Post daily for more than 60 years, I was not aware of the term "Antifa" until the recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Pretty old actually. Started in the 1920ties as opposition to first Mussolini, then Hitler and Franco.
( Driven by a wide range of political movements : Socialist, Communist, .. )

The idea was to forcefully _counter_ the extremely aggressive activities of those fascistic groups.
( This should be accessible to people that go for "an eye for an eye" reactive behaviour. )

Which seems to repeat in the US : Antifa as reaction to the extremely aggressive stance of
a right wing seemingly fascistic movements. ( if you see fascism as a centrally led coherently acting group
that sees any opposition to their agenda as unaceptable deviation.)

It is a bit rich to bring up free speech issues and undemocratic behaviour as argument against Antifa, isn't it?

They've been around for so damned long, yet no one's heard of them, and everyone's scared of them. I'd say they must be pretty lame if they've been around for a century and haven't accomplished sh*t.

I'm waiting for the people saying that Hitler was Antifa. And also the KKK.

You righties are certifiably NUTS.