I thought only the left did this sort of thing...

[Pogo]

Christine Blasey Ford Can’t Return Home Due To ‘Unending’ Threats, Lawyers Say

We are told on here daily that only the left engages in such actions...yet here we are.


Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who publicly accused now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, has not been able to return to her home and faces a near-constant stream of threats, her attorneys said in an interview on Sunday.

But how many on the left have actually been accosted by mobs? I’m sure she’s receiving death threats, sadly that’s the double edged sword aspect of social media...But the GOP just got doxed...by a democratic employee in Washington. 300 rioters got arrested in one weekend alone. There are a handful of GOP senators out there who haven’t been accosted by mobs. That’s not even including right leaning figure heads whether they work for the administration, or just pundits, or whatever. They don’t even have to be on the right anymore to face the wrath of the left. We’ve seen plenty of people on the left have to face down mobs for not going with the current dogma. A freaking Bernie Sanders supporting professor (Brett Weinstein) was mobbed by his own students for saying that making white students stay home for the day was racist. If you’re on the left, and say anything remotely redeeming about the right, they’re coming after you. We’ve even seen full grown men throw drinks on kids for the sin of wearing a MAGA hat. Mind you, basically everyone on the right, in any way involved with the Kavanaugh vote (including his family), is receiving death threats too. And if someone were to do an analysis, I’m sure they are receiving a great deal more than Ford. That would be totally consistent with anytime anyone has done analysis on this sort of thing.

It’s not a good trend to see these death threats...however, NO ONE ON THE RIGHT IS CALLING FOR HARRASING ANYBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE. No one on the right is calling for the intensification of the mobs, they are not excusing or turning a blind eye to clearly violent rioters. There is nothing of that sort that we are seeing from left, to a very scary degree. The left is actually paying for people to do this. CNN anchors are excusing this. Legislators on the left are calling in their constituents to do this. So with that in mind, I think it’s pretty dishonest to point out death threats against Ford (which are bad, but you can’t control everyone), vs what the left is actually calling for.

Thank you for your post, it was well thought out and civil.

This thread did just about what I expected it to do, some saying there is no proof, others saying she deserves whatever she gets.

While the left is more vocal and out front with it right now, I suspect that is the by-product of having lost the election. Had those three states that decided the election by less than a half of a percentage point went the other way, things might be very different.

In another thread right now someone who was on this forum crying about no proof is talking about the Clinton pizza sex ring, a thing there is no proof for and a thing that a right wing nut job thought was real and shot up the pizza joint.

This is not as isolated to one side as many wish to pretend.

It isn’t isolated, for sure. But the disparity between the sides is astounding, both in frequency and degree. And what is also astounding is how much it’s being condoned and even called for by major figure heads on the left. There are some on the left who condemn, I can think of two (Schumer, Beto), but almost universally everywhere else it’s ignored, excused, or promoted. There was this whole civil war hubbub going around about 4 months ago or so. I discounted that pretty quickly. After this weekend, I am actually concerned. I only saw calls from the left to turn up the intensity, and I don’t see a way to do that without it turning into criminal harassment, and even flat out violence. Rand Paul’s wife wrote a very good op-Ed appealing to civility, asking questions like what happens if GOP retains control of the house + senate, and RBG croaks...it is not going to be pretty. This was over a judge, with 36 year old sexual assault allegations without any corroborating evidence. Just hearing the nonsensical rhetoric alone, I don’t think I’ve ever been this concerned.

Also, that pizza guy didn’t shoot up the place, he just went in armed. As misguided, and as incredibly stupid it was...it was at least a nobal thing he tried to attempt, even if it was vigilantism. I mean he was convinced there was a child sex ring going on, and nobody was doing anything about it. If there was an event to go vigilante on, if that was a real thing, we’d probably be calling him a hero. Also, no one got hurt in that (I’m pretty sure). Again, extremely stupid (why anybody still listens to Jones now is beyond my comprehension)...but there was at least better justification for taking those measures than what we see coming from the left, either through the riots, mobs, antifa, whatever. Especially more so than the psycho who almost killed 15 or so members of the gop legislature. Had what’s his name not been in the line of succession, they all would have most likely been killed. Imagine that scenario for a second.

Anyway, I’m honestly concerned now, and that’s not a fake “just trying to exaggerate emotion to make a point” thing either. The right shouldn’t ignore the bad actors on their side, but they certainly do not encourage it, and ALL of the rights major figure heads have condemned such actions. I’ll put it this way, I’m not going to exert too much energy bailing water (on the stupid from the right ignoring such things) when the ship is headed straight for an iceberg.

You seem to have quite the selective memory. Have you already forgotten Tiki Torches and "Jews will not replace us" and "fire the sumbitches" and the Leader Brothers and Jeremy Christian Jodie Burchard-Risch and "beat the crap out of 'em" and "very fine people" and an actual Presidential candidate threatening "riots" and suggesting his opponent be shot if he didn't win, let alone "break their windows -- break them NOW" and "if ballots don't work, bullets will" and Jim David Adkisson and Scott Roeder and Dylann Roof and James Fields and Greg Giusti and Byron Williams and Charles Wilson, not to mention all the hyperracist photoshopping of O'bama with a bone through his nose and his wife with a penis, which is still going on two years after he's out of office? Any of that ring a bell?

Nope, you can’t have libertarians be “far right” along side national socialist white supremacists. Conservatives and Nazis are polar opposites. The only thing they have remotely in common is stronger boarders, one wants a socialist ethno-state (we’ll call that a stupid extreme stance), vs “we can’t have open boarders, we have laws we need to enforce.” THATS IT, still wildly different stances in that case. Nazis have waaaay more overlapping policy with Bernie supporters than they do conservatives, but loathe each other for their ethno views. But you don’t have one side unfairly lumping in those whole 24 deluded losers chanting about Jews in with Bernie supporters now do we?

I’m so tired of this ridiculous straw man, lumping national socialists with small government, more fiscal freedom people. Dishonest enough that it makes me barf a little in my mouth.

This pointing out the maybe 100 tiki torch carriers is an obvious deflection from the many riots, we’ve been seeing for half a decade now, made up of thousands each, with violence, with extensive property damage, clashes with police, all over the country, all from the left. It’s not even close to being comparable, even if one could fairly lump ethnic-state socialists with conservatives (which you can’t).

I got about a third of the way through your post before I had to expand my own previous post to see what the hell you were talking about as I can't remember bringing up anything you've got here.

And sure enough I didn't. No mention of "Nazis" or "nationalists" or "libertarians" or "Bernie" or any of --- whatever all that red herring is --- apparently to avoid the point. I simply pointed out several cases of violence and instigation of violence that you seem to bend over backward to avoid noticing. And apparently your response is to not only put on the blinders but to bring in "Nazis" and "libertarians" and gods know what else is coming.

It's really not necessary to go to such great lengths to avoid the point. Just address it on its own merits.

 

[Pogo]

Uh nnnnnnnnnnno they were not. For one thing the Klan was never a political organization; for a second no lynching anywhere --- and there were a great many outside the purview of the Klan ---- had a requirement for any political affiliation, for a third thing such lynchings typically targeted black people and sometimes Jews, which means if there was a lynching all three of the names you just mentioned would have been on the receiving end.

Damn, that was the lowest-hanging fruit I've gulped down in a long time.

You need to do some actual research. The Ku Klux Klan started out as the radical wing of the Democrat Party.

Um.... no Sparkles I don't. I have yet to meet anyone on this board who knows a tenth of what I do about that history.

The KKK was (originally) founded Christmas 1865 by six ex-soldiers of the Confederate Army (specifically in alpha order (Maj) James Crowe, Calvin Jones, (Capt) John B. Kennedy, (Capt) John Lester, (Maj) Frank O. McCord and Richard R. Reed, in Jones' father's law office at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee. None of them had any known political affiliations nor did political parties even exist in that time and place, Tennessee being military-occupied territory after the CSA (which had no political parties) lost the War. These six were all in their twenties and founded a goof social club out of boredom, complete with silly names, rituals and K-alliterations (suggested by Kennedy) based on a popular college fraternity of the time called Kuklos Adelphon. This club had no political or for that matter racial objectives; it was very simply a college-age prank by college-age pranksters, complete with silly induction and hazing rituals adapted from Kuklos Adelphon. That's exactly why it generated all those silly K terms (klaverns, kleagles etc) -- because it was a joke.

Its garb and name were later taken over by pre-existing vigilantes in the region known as "night riders" or "slave patrols" that had been running since at least the eighteenth century (interestingly Abraham Lincoln's father had been part of one in Indiana) who in various states and regions formed at least twenty-five (that I know of) other similar vigilante groups that also visited violence in the cause of white supremacy and "tradition". One of these other groups, called the White League, orchestrated a coup d'êtat on the city government of New Orleans in order to boot out black people that had been duly elected, which act was commemorated for decades with an obelisk at the foot of Canal Street, the busiest spot in the city, and which marker was the first one taken down in the "Confederate statue removal" that city only last year -- and which David Duke had in the past sued the city to keep there.

That original iteration of the Klan lasted about seven years, although officially it was disbanded in January of 1869, before it dried up into oblivion and would have been swept into the dustbin of history along with those 25 other vigilante groups, had it not been for the Lost Cause Movement, which begat the novel "The Clansman" (1905 and part of a trilogy on a common theme), which begat a theater play, which begat a film called "Birth of a Nation" (1915), all of which depicted a version of the Klan of decades past as a glorious chivalrous force out to defend white womanhood and Southern culture from evil Northern aggression. This in turn begat William Joseph "Colonel Joe" Simmons, a huckster, salesman, former Methodist minister and inveterate club-starter, to charge up Stone Mountain Georgia on Thanksgiving night of 1915, figuring he could make money by making the Klan of the controversial film into a real thing that people could join --- which he did, laying out a bible, an American flag and an unsheathed sword and then setting the first cross on fire, an image invented by the film. Simmons also took elements of a lynch mob that had a few months prior murdered Leo Frank, a Jewish factory foreman accused on scant evidence of the murder of a white girl worker in his pencil factory.

This was the Klan that by far spread the widest, lasted the longest, built the biggest membership, invented the burning cross and the pointed hoods, and generated the bulk of any accounts of their activities we have and all of the photographs.

Simmons --- who also had no known political affiliation and pointedly described his venture as "the most powerful, secret, non-political organization in existence", succeeded beyond his own control after he hired an Atlanta PR firm that spread the Klan into every corner of the country by targeting whatever some particular region saw as a vulnerable scapegoat (blacks... Jews.... immigrants.... labor unions.... drunks.... adulterers.... gamblers.... labor unions.... and of course Catholics, which gained it huge memberships in Protestant enclaves like Maine and Indiana). Simmons' requirements for his members were: "native born"; "Christian"; "Protects "pure American womanhood"'; "Prevents "unwarranted strikes by foreign labor agitators"; "(believes in) the Sovereignty of States' Rights" and "Promotes "pure Americanism". Nothing about politics.

Further, once the KKK got so big in the 1920s that Simmons could no longer control it and it did get involved in backing or opposing, and sometimes even supplying* political candidates, it got governors elected in Indiana (Jackson), Colorado (Morley*), Maine (Brewster) and Kansas (Paulen) as well as a Senator in Colorado (Means), a mayor in Portland (Baker), most of the city council of Anaheim, all of whom were Republicans, as well as numerous local offices in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Maine and other states, and publicly endorsed Calvin Coolidge in 1924 and Herbert Hoover in 1928, and ran a vicious national smear campaign against Hoover's Democratic opponent (because he was Catholic). Not to mention the fact that Blacks, Jews, immigrants, Catholics and labor unions are traditional constituents of the Democratic Party, which is spelled with an IC on the end.

So no Hunior, forgive me if I don't think I need to "do some actual research" at this point. What's above is all summarized off the top of my head and I can flesh out further details, dates, names, places and stories 'til the sun comes down.

Can you?

 

[sakinago]

But how many on the left have actually been accosted by mobs? I’m sure she’s receiving death threats, sadly that’s the double edged sword aspect of social media...But the GOP just got doxed...by a democratic employee in Washington. 300 rioters got arrested in one weekend alone. There are a handful of GOP senators out there who haven’t been accosted by mobs. That’s not even including right leaning figure heads whether they work for the administration, or just pundits, or whatever. They don’t even have to be on the right anymore to face the wrath of the left. We’ve seen plenty of people on the left have to face down mobs for not going with the current dogma. A freaking Bernie Sanders supporting professor (Brett Weinstein) was mobbed by his own students for saying that making white students stay home for the day was racist. If you’re on the left, and say anything remotely redeeming about the right, they’re coming after you. We’ve even seen full grown men throw drinks on kids for the sin of wearing a MAGA hat. Mind you, basically everyone on the right, in any way involved with the Kavanaugh vote (including his family), is receiving death threats too. And if someone were to do an analysis, I’m sure they are receiving a great deal more than Ford. That would be totally consistent with anytime anyone has done analysis on this sort of thing.

It’s not a good trend to see these death threats...however, NO ONE ON THE RIGHT IS CALLING FOR HARRASING ANYBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE. No one on the right is calling for the intensification of the mobs, they are not excusing or turning a blind eye to clearly violent rioters. There is nothing of that sort that we are seeing from left, to a very scary degree. The left is actually paying for people to do this. CNN anchors are excusing this. Legislators on the left are calling in their constituents to do this. So with that in mind, I think it’s pretty dishonest to point out death threats against Ford (which are bad, but you can’t control everyone), vs what the left is actually calling for.

Thank you for your post, it was well thought out and civil.

This thread did just about what I expected it to do, some saying there is no proof, others saying she deserves whatever she gets.

While the left is more vocal and out front with it right now, I suspect that is the by-product of having lost the election. Had those three states that decided the election by less than a half of a percentage point went the other way, things might be very different.

In another thread right now someone who was on this forum crying about no proof is talking about the Clinton pizza sex ring, a thing there is no proof for and a thing that a right wing nut job thought was real and shot up the pizza joint.

This is not as isolated to one side as many wish to pretend.

It isn’t isolated, for sure. But the disparity between the sides is astounding, both in frequency and degree. And what is also astounding is how much it’s being condoned and even called for by major figure heads on the left. There are some on the left who condemn, I can think of two (Schumer, Beto), but almost universally everywhere else it’s ignored, excused, or promoted. There was this whole civil war hubbub going around about 4 months ago or so. I discounted that pretty quickly. After this weekend, I am actually concerned. I only saw calls from the left to turn up the intensity, and I don’t see a way to do that without it turning into criminal harassment, and even flat out violence. Rand Paul’s wife wrote a very good op-Ed appealing to civility, asking questions like what happens if GOP retains control of the house + senate, and RBG croaks...it is not going to be pretty. This was over a judge, with 36 year old sexual assault allegations without any corroborating evidence. Just hearing the nonsensical rhetoric alone, I don’t think I’ve ever been this concerned.

Also, that pizza guy didn’t shoot up the place, he just went in armed. As misguided, and as incredibly stupid it was...it was at least a nobal thing he tried to attempt, even if it was vigilantism. I mean he was convinced there was a child sex ring going on, and nobody was doing anything about it. If there was an event to go vigilante on, if that was a real thing, we’d probably be calling him a hero. Also, no one got hurt in that (I’m pretty sure). Again, extremely stupid (why anybody still listens to Jones now is beyond my comprehension)...but there was at least better justification for taking those measures than what we see coming from the left, either through the riots, mobs, antifa, whatever. Especially more so than the psycho who almost killed 15 or so members of the gop legislature. Had what’s his name not been in the line of succession, they all would have most likely been killed. Imagine that scenario for a second.

Anyway, I’m honestly concerned now, and that’s not a fake “just trying to exaggerate emotion to make a point” thing either. The right shouldn’t ignore the bad actors on their side, but they certainly do not encourage it, and ALL of the rights major figure heads have condemned such actions. I’ll put it this way, I’m not going to exert too much energy bailing water (on the stupid from the right ignoring such things) when the ship is headed straight for an iceberg.

You seem to have quite the selective memory. Have you already forgotten Tiki Torches and "Jews will not replace us" and "fire the sumbitches" and the Leader Brothers and Jeremy Christian Jodie Burchard-Risch and "beat the crap out of 'em" and "very fine people" and an actual Presidential candidate threatening "riots" and suggesting his opponent be shot if he didn't win, let alone "break their windows -- break them NOW" and "if ballots don't work, bullets will" and Jim David Adkisson and Scott Roeder and Dylann Roof and James Fields and Greg Giusti and Byron Williams and Charles Wilson, not to mention all the hyperracist photoshopping of O'bama with a bone through his nose and his wife with a penis, which is still going on two years after he's out of office? Any of that ring a bell?

Nope, you can’t have libertarians be “far right” along side national socialist white supremacists. Conservatives and Nazis are polar opposites. The only thing they have remotely in common is stronger boarders, one wants a socialist ethno-state (we’ll call that a stupid extreme stance), vs “we can’t have open boarders, we have laws we need to enforce.” THATS IT, still wildly different stances in that case. Nazis have waaaay more overlapping policy with Bernie supporters than they do conservatives, but loathe each other for their ethno views. But you don’t have one side unfairly lumping in those whole 24 deluded losers chanting about Jews in with Bernie supporters now do we?

I’m so tired of this ridiculous straw man, lumping national socialists with small government, more fiscal freedom people. Dishonest enough that it makes me barf a little in my mouth.

This pointing out the maybe 100 tiki torch carriers is an obvious deflection from the many riots, we’ve been seeing for half a decade now, made up of thousands each, with violence, with extensive property damage, clashes with police, all over the country, all from the left. It’s not even close to being comparable, even if one could fairly lump ethnic-state socialists with conservatives (which you can’t).

I got about a third of the way through your post before I had to expand my own previous post to see what the hell you were talking about as I can't remember bringing up anything you've got here.

And sure enough I didn't. No mention of "Nazis" or "nationalists" or "libertarians" or "Bernie" or any of --- whatever all that red herring is --- apparently to avoid the point. I simply pointed out several cases of violence and instigation of violence that you seem to bend over backward to avoid noticing. And apparently your response is to not only put on the blinders but to bring in "Nazis" and "libertarians" and gods know what else is coming.

It's really not necessary to go to such great lengths to avoid the point. Just address it on its own merits.

Well I got as far as “Jews will not replace us”, and the tiki torch carriers...and then skimmed the rest and didn’t recognize the instances you were referring too. Either those references are that obscure, or coming from before my time (or I misread/missed it). Anyway, I take it you are suggesting that the tiki torch carriers, and the “Jews will not replace us” chanters are characteristic and representative of the right? Further, that they aren’t neo-nazis, or white supremacists?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In case you may have forgotten..there were 7...count seven....investigations on him.

The final one a complete sham designed to cover up information instead of discover it.

Either we can trust the FBI or we can not. Since you have decided we can not I guess all those investigations into Trump are a farce too? Or is that DIFFERENT?

There have been a 1000 threads on this forum bashing the FBI, 90% of which have been from you Trump sheep.

How quickly you forget these things.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Actually the point is YOU forgot how much you INSISTED the FBI was above reproach. Now suddenly they are not.

Feel free to ever find such a post from me. You are just making shit up now


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And here you are pretending that your beloved left did not do EXACTLY as I said, standard denial by you, you make some claim then pretend when someone responds they are not talking about the left. You gotta quit carrying water for the deranged left it does not help them and in fact enables them.

 

[Pogo]

Thank you for your post, it was well thought out and civil.

This thread did just about what I expected it to do, some saying there is no proof, others saying she deserves whatever she gets.

While the left is more vocal and out front with it right now, I suspect that is the by-product of having lost the election. Had those three states that decided the election by less than a half of a percentage point went the other way, things might be very different.

In another thread right now someone who was on this forum crying about no proof is talking about the Clinton pizza sex ring, a thing there is no proof for and a thing that a right wing nut job thought was real and shot up the pizza joint.

This is not as isolated to one side as many wish to pretend.

It isn’t isolated, for sure. But the disparity between the sides is astounding, both in frequency and degree. And what is also astounding is how much it’s being condoned and even called for by major figure heads on the left. There are some on the left who condemn, I can think of two (Schumer, Beto), but almost universally everywhere else it’s ignored, excused, or promoted. There was this whole civil war hubbub going around about 4 months ago or so. I discounted that pretty quickly. After this weekend, I am actually concerned. I only saw calls from the left to turn up the intensity, and I don’t see a way to do that without it turning into criminal harassment, and even flat out violence. Rand Paul’s wife wrote a very good op-Ed appealing to civility, asking questions like what happens if GOP retains control of the house + senate, and RBG croaks...it is not going to be pretty. This was over a judge, with 36 year old sexual assault allegations without any corroborating evidence. Just hearing the nonsensical rhetoric alone, I don’t think I’ve ever been this concerned.

Also, that pizza guy didn’t shoot up the place, he just went in armed. As misguided, and as incredibly stupid it was...it was at least a nobal thing he tried to attempt, even if it was vigilantism. I mean he was convinced there was a child sex ring going on, and nobody was doing anything about it. If there was an event to go vigilante on, if that was a real thing, we’d probably be calling him a hero. Also, no one got hurt in that (I’m pretty sure). Again, extremely stupid (why anybody still listens to Jones now is beyond my comprehension)...but there was at least better justification for taking those measures than what we see coming from the left, either through the riots, mobs, antifa, whatever. Especially more so than the psycho who almost killed 15 or so members of the gop legislature. Had what’s his name not been in the line of succession, they all would have most likely been killed. Imagine that scenario for a second.

Anyway, I’m honestly concerned now, and that’s not a fake “just trying to exaggerate emotion to make a point” thing either. The right shouldn’t ignore the bad actors on their side, but they certainly do not encourage it, and ALL of the rights major figure heads have condemned such actions. I’ll put it this way, I’m not going to exert too much energy bailing water (on the stupid from the right ignoring such things) when the ship is headed straight for an iceberg.

You seem to have quite the selective memory. Have you already forgotten Tiki Torches and "Jews will not replace us" and "fire the sumbitches" and the Leader Brothers and Jeremy Christian Jodie Burchard-Risch and "beat the crap out of 'em" and "very fine people" and an actual Presidential candidate threatening "riots" and suggesting his opponent be shot if he didn't win, let alone "break their windows -- break them NOW" and "if ballots don't work, bullets will" and Jim David Adkisson and Scott Roeder and Dylann Roof and James Fields and Greg Giusti and Byron Williams and Charles Wilson, not to mention all the hyperracist photoshopping of O'bama with a bone through his nose and his wife with a penis, which is still going on two years after he's out of office? Any of that ring a bell?

Nope, you can’t have libertarians be “far right” along side national socialist white supremacists. Conservatives and Nazis are polar opposites. The only thing they have remotely in common is stronger boarders, one wants a socialist ethno-state (we’ll call that a stupid extreme stance), vs “we can’t have open boarders, we have laws we need to enforce.” THATS IT, still wildly different stances in that case. Nazis have waaaay more overlapping policy with Bernie supporters than they do conservatives, but loathe each other for their ethno views. But you don’t have one side unfairly lumping in those whole 24 deluded losers chanting about Jews in with Bernie supporters now do we?

I’m so tired of this ridiculous straw man, lumping national socialists with small government, more fiscal freedom people. Dishonest enough that it makes me barf a little in my mouth.

This pointing out the maybe 100 tiki torch carriers is an obvious deflection from the many riots, we’ve been seeing for half a decade now, made up of thousands each, with violence, with extensive property damage, clashes with police, all over the country, all from the left. It’s not even close to being comparable, even if one could fairly lump ethnic-state socialists with conservatives (which you can’t).

I got about a third of the way through your post before I had to expand my own previous post to see what the hell you were talking about as I can't remember bringing up anything you've got here.

And sure enough I didn't. No mention of "Nazis" or "nationalists" or "libertarians" or "Bernie" or any of --- whatever all that red herring is --- apparently to avoid the point. I simply pointed out several cases of violence and instigation of violence that you seem to bend over backward to avoid noticing. And apparently your response is to not only put on the blinders but to bring in "Nazis" and "libertarians" and gods know what else is coming.

It's really not necessary to go to such great lengths to avoid the point. Just address it on its own merits.

Well I got as far as “Jews will not replace us”, and the tiki torch carriers...and then skimmed the rest and didn’t recognize the instances you were referring too. Either those references are that obscure, or coming from before my time (or I misread/missed it). Anyway, I take it you are suggesting that the tiki torch carriers, and the “Jews will not replace us” chanters are characteristic and representative of the right? Further, that they aren’t neo-nazis, or white supremacists?

They are various entities and instances; some may or may not be neo-Nazis or white supremacists; some are simply bigots or racists or religious nuts or political partisans. Some of them are murderers and/or mass murderers.

Adkisson for example charged into a Unitarian church with the goal of shooting as many "Liberals" as he could. Christian for example stabbed two people to death after they intervened to calm him down when he was harassing a girl for wearing a "Muslim" head scarf. Giusti plotted to kill Nancy Pelosi; Wilson to kill Patty Murray. Wade Page, to cite yet another, went in guns a-blazing to a temple of Sikhs, not understanding that Sikhs are not Muslims. Roof murdered multiple people for being black and to start a race war; Roeder murdered a doctor for performing abortions. Burchard-Risch (there's a link) threw a drink in the face of a restaurant patron for the crime of speaking Swahili with her family. The Leader Brothers (also linked) viciously assaulted a homeless man after being incited to do so by the same bigoted Rump rhetoric that also led to numerous assaults at Rump Rallies such as the McGraws and Bambergers etc that I didn't even mention. "Break their windows-- break them NOW" (here's a link) was a battle cry that resulted in numerous acts of vandalism including a house gas line being cut and numerous office windows being smashed including that of Gabby Giffords who a short time later was shot in the head from which she's never recovered.

What all of them have in common is they all committed or incited violence and none of them are from "the Left".

Hence the assessment of selective memory. "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

 

[Pogo]

The final one a complete sham designed to cover up information instead of discover it.

Either we can trust the FBI or we can not. Since you have decided we can not I guess all those investigations into Trump are a farce too? Or is that DIFFERENT?

There have been a 1000 threads on this forum bashing the FBI, 90% of which have been from you Trump sheep.

How quickly you forget these things.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Actually the point is YOU forgot how much you INSISTED the FBI was above reproach. Now suddenly they are not.

Feel free to ever find such a post from me. You are just making shit up now


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And here you are pretending that your beloved left did not do EXACTLY as I said, standard denial by you, you make some claim then pretend when someone responds they are not talking about the left. You gotta quit carrying water for the deranged left it does not help them and in fact enables them.

You didn't cite the quote he asked for.

That means apparently you can't.

And that in turn must mean you pulled it out of your ass.

 

[Markle]

Uh nnnnnnnnnnno they were not. For one thing the Klan was never a political organization; for a second no lynching anywhere --- and there were a great many outside the purview of the Klan ---- had a requirement for any political affiliation, for a third thing such lynchings typically targeted black people and sometimes Jews, which means if there was a lynching all three of the names you just mentioned would have been on the receiving end.

Damn, that was the lowest-hanging fruit I've gulped down in a long time.

You need to do some actual research. The Ku Klux Klan started out as the radical wing of the Democrat Party.

Um.... no Sparkles I don't. I have yet to meet anyone on this board who knows a tenth of what I do about that history.

The KKK was (originally) founded Christmas 1865 by six ex-soldiers of the Confederate Army (specifically in alpha order (Maj) James Crowe, Calvin Jones, (Capt) John B. Kennedy, (Capt) John Lester, (Maj) Frank O. McCord and Richard R. Reed, in Jones' father's law office at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee. None of them had any known political affiliations nor did political parties even exist in that time and place, Tennessee being military-occupied territory after the CSA (which had no political parties) lost the War. These six were all in their twenties and founded a goof social club out of boredom, complete with silly names, rituals and K-alliterations (suggested by Kennedy) based on a popular college fraternity of the time called Kuklos Adelphon. This club had no political or for that matter racial objectives; it was very simply a college-age prank by college-age pranksters, complete with silly induction and hazing rituals adapted from Kuklos Adelphon. That's exactly why it generated all those silly K terms (klaverns, kleagles etc) -- because it was a joke.

Its garb and name were later taken over by pre-existing vigilantes in the region known as "night riders" or "slave patrols" that had been running since at least the eighteenth century (interestingly Abraham Lincoln's father had been part of one in Indiana) who in various states and regions formed at least twenty-five (that I know of) other similar vigilante groups that also visited violence in the cause of white supremacy and "tradition". One of these other groups, called the White League, orchestrated a coup d'êtat on the city government of New Orleans in order to boot out black people that had been duly elected, which act was commemorated for decades with an obelisk at the foot of Canal Street, the busiest spot in the city, and which marker was the first one taken down in the "Confederate statue removal" that city only last year -- and which David Duke had in the past sued the city to keep there.

That original iteration of the Klan lasted about seven years, although officially it was disbanded in January of 1869, before it dried up into oblivion and would have been swept into the dustbin of history along with those 25 other vigilante groups, had it not been for the Lost Cause Movement, which begat the novel "The Clansman" (1905 and part of a trilogy on a common theme), which begat a theater play, which begat a film called "Birth of a Nation" (1915), all of which depicted a version of the Klan of decades past as a glorious chivalrous force out to defend white womanhood and Southern culture from evil Northern aggression. This in turn begat William Joseph "Colonel Joe" Simmons, a huckster, salesman, former Methodist minister and inveterate club-starter, to charge up Stone Mountain Georgia on Thanksgiving night of 1915, figuring he could make money by making the Klan of the controversial film into a real thing that people could join --- which he did, laying out a bible, an American flag and an unsheathed sword and then setting the first cross on fire, an image invented by the film. Simmons also took elements of a lynch mob that had a few months prior murdered Leo Frank, a Jewish factory foreman accused on scant evidence of the murder of a white girl worker in his pencil factory.

This was the Klan that by far spread the widest, lasted the longest, built the biggest membership, invented the burning cross and the pointed hoods, and generated the bulk of any accounts of their activities we have and all of the photographs.

Simmons --- who also had no known political affiliation and pointedly described his venture as "the most powerful, secret, non-political organization in existence", succeeded beyond his own control after he hired an Atlanta PR firm that spread the Klan into every corner of the country by targeting whatever some particular region saw as a vulnerable scapegoat (blacks... Jews.... immigrants.... labor unions.... drunks.... adulterers.... gamblers.... labor unions.... and of course Catholics, which gained it huge memberships in Protestant enclaves like Maine and Indiana). Simmons' requirements for his members were: "native born"; "Christian"; "Protects "pure American womanhood"'; "Prevents "unwarranted strikes by foreign labor agitators"; "(believes in) the Sovereignty of States' Rights" and "Promotes "pure Americanism". Nothing about politics.

Further, once the KKK got so big in the 1920s that Simmons could no longer control it and it did get involved in backing or opposing, and sometimes even supplying* political candidates, it got governors elected in Indiana (Jackson), Colorado (Morley*), Maine (Brewster) and Kansas (Paulen) as well as a Senator in Colorado (Means), a mayor in Portland (Baker), most of the city council of Anaheim, all of whom were Republicans, as well as numerous local offices in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Maine and other states, and publicly endorsed Calvin Coolidge in 1924 and Herbert Hoover in 1928, and ran a vicious national smear campaign against Hoover's Democratic opponent (because he was Catholic). Not to mention the fact that Blacks, Jews, immigrants, Catholics and labor unions are traditional constituents of the Democratic Party, which is spelled with an IC on the end.

So no Hunior, forgive me if I don't think I need to "do some actual research" at this point. What's above is all summarized off the top of my head and I can flesh out further details, dates, names, places and stories 'til the sun comes down.

Can you?

I skimmed your rant as I have little time for folks who are so desperate and unsure of themselves that they feel forced to call names.

You don't appear to address the fact there have been three separate KKK organizations.

You also don't address these facts.

 

[Pogo]

Uh nnnnnnnnnnno they were not. For one thing the Klan was never a political organization; for a second no lynching anywhere --- and there were a great many outside the purview of the Klan ---- had a requirement for any political affiliation, for a third thing such lynchings typically targeted black people and sometimes Jews, which means if there was a lynching all three of the names you just mentioned would have been on the receiving end.

Damn, that was the lowest-hanging fruit I've gulped down in a long time.

You need to do some actual research. The Ku Klux Klan started out as the radical wing of the Democrat Party.

Um.... no Sparkles I don't. I have yet to meet anyone on this board who knows a tenth of what I do about that history.

The KKK was (originally) founded Christmas 1865 by six ex-soldiers of the Confederate Army (specifically in alpha order (Maj) James Crowe, Calvin Jones, (Capt) John B. Kennedy, (Capt) John Lester, (Maj) Frank O. McCord and Richard R. Reed, in Jones' father's law office at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee. None of them had any known political affiliations nor did political parties even exist in that time and place, Tennessee being military-occupied territory after the CSA (which had no political parties) lost the War. These six were all in their twenties and founded a goof social club out of boredom, complete with silly names, rituals and K-alliterations (suggested by Kennedy) based on a popular college fraternity of the time called Kuklos Adelphon. This club had no political or for that matter racial objectives; it was very simply a college-age prank by college-age pranksters, complete with silly induction and hazing rituals adapted from Kuklos Adelphon. That's exactly why it generated all those silly K terms (klaverns, kleagles etc) -- because it was a joke.

Its garb and name were later taken over by pre-existing vigilantes in the region known as "night riders" or "slave patrols" that had been running since at least the eighteenth century (interestingly Abraham Lincoln's father had been part of one in Indiana) who in various states and regions formed at least twenty-five (that I know of) other similar vigilante groups that also visited violence in the cause of white supremacy and "tradition". One of these other groups, called the White League, orchestrated a coup d'êtat on the city government of New Orleans in order to boot out black people that had been duly elected, which act was commemorated for decades with an obelisk at the foot of Canal Street, the busiest spot in the city, and which marker was the first one taken down in the "Confederate statue removal" that city only last year -- and which David Duke had in the past sued the city to keep there.

That original iteration of the Klan lasted about seven years, although officially it was disbanded in January of 1869, before it dried up into oblivion and would have been swept into the dustbin of history along with those 25 other vigilante groups, had it not been for the Lost Cause Movement, which begat the novel "The Clansman" (1905 and part of a trilogy on a common theme), which begat a theater play, which begat a film called "Birth of a Nation" (1915), all of which depicted a version of the Klan of decades past as a glorious chivalrous force out to defend white womanhood and Southern culture from evil Northern aggression. This in turn begat William Joseph "Colonel Joe" Simmons, a huckster, salesman, former Methodist minister and inveterate club-starter, to charge up Stone Mountain Georgia on Thanksgiving night of 1915, figuring he could make money by making the Klan of the controversial film into a real thing that people could join --- which he did, laying out a bible, an American flag and an unsheathed sword and then setting the first cross on fire, an image invented by the film. Simmons also took elements of a lynch mob that had a few months prior murdered Leo Frank, a Jewish factory foreman accused on scant evidence of the murder of a white girl worker in his pencil factory.

This was the Klan that by far spread the widest, lasted the longest, built the biggest membership, invented the burning cross and the pointed hoods, and generated the bulk of any accounts of their activities we have and all of the photographs.

Simmons --- who also had no known political affiliation and pointedly described his venture as "the most powerful, secret, non-political organization in existence", succeeded beyond his own control after he hired an Atlanta PR firm that spread the Klan into every corner of the country by targeting whatever some particular region saw as a vulnerable scapegoat (blacks... Jews.... immigrants.... labor unions.... drunks.... adulterers.... gamblers.... labor unions.... and of course Catholics, which gained it huge memberships in Protestant enclaves like Maine and Indiana). Simmons' requirements for his members were: "native born"; "Christian"; "Protects "pure American womanhood"'; "Prevents "unwarranted strikes by foreign labor agitators"; "(believes in) the Sovereignty of States' Rights" and "Promotes "pure Americanism". Nothing about politics.

Further, once the KKK got so big in the 1920s that Simmons could no longer control it and it did get involved in backing or opposing, and sometimes even supplying* political candidates, it got governors elected in Indiana (Jackson), Colorado (Morley*), Maine (Brewster) and Kansas (Paulen) as well as a Senator in Colorado (Means), a mayor in Portland (Baker), most of the city council of Anaheim, all of whom were Republicans, as well as numerous local offices in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Maine and other states, and publicly endorsed Calvin Coolidge in 1924 and Herbert Hoover in 1928, and ran a vicious national smear campaign against Hoover's Democratic opponent (because he was Catholic). Not to mention the fact that Blacks, Jews, immigrants, Catholics and labor unions are traditional constituents of the Democratic Party, which is spelled with an IC on the end.

So no Hunior, forgive me if I don't think I need to "do some actual research" at this point. What's above is all summarized off the top of my head and I can flesh out further details, dates, names, places and stories 'til the sun comes down.

Can you?

I skimmed your rant as I have little time for folks who are so desperate and unsure of themselves that they feel forced to call names.

So lemme get this straight.

First you start whining that I "need to do some actual research", then as soon as I demonstrate that I've already done exactly that you start whining because I've "done actual research" while "skimming through" that research for fear of learning something that conflicts with your mythology. And to dig even deeper after that level of detail you want to pretend I'm "unsure of myself".

Oh and leave us not forget, while disputing/refuting absolutely nothing in the history I laid out. Even after I gave you specific names, dates and places you could look up at will. Which means simply that any of those you did look up would have immediately revealed that my details are completely accurate.

Sure you wanna plant your flag on this gaping hole?

Again --- it doesn't look like I'm the one who "needs to do some actual research" ------- does it.

You don't appear to address the fact there have been three separate KKK organizations.

Indeed. Because there were TWO (2) separate KKK organizations. Officially the first existed from December 1865 to January 1869 and the second from November 25th 1915 to April 23rd 1944 when, in both cases, it was disbanded, its offices vacated and its paraphernalia ordered destroyed. In both cases some hangers-on continued to play dress-up in the absence of an official organization, where fans of bigotry emulated the past organization and started their own "chapters", although they were independent of any national organization and often competed or outright fought with each other. This in fact is what David Duke did in Louisiana --- voluntarily created his own "chapter" out of nothing but past ideas and models, on the approval of no one.

In 1949 one Samuel Green started to try to create a third Klan. After being confronted with back taxes the IRS would have come after him for, if he purported to be re-starting the same organization, he thankfully grabbed his chest and fell over dead from a heart attack before he could get any traction with that project. Oh and Green too --- all together now --- had no political affiliation.

That is the grand sum and totality of the Klan's existence as an organization. Here you have tried to claim a 'third' one yet cited no facts about it nor have you disputed anything I laid down about the other two.

Talk is cheap. Put some flesh on those bones or you have no point.

You also don't address these facts.

That's got nothing to do with the Klan, nor is photoshopping related to "facts". Nor did anyone even bring them up. But if you want to we can go there because your Googly Image "fact sheet" is as polluted as the photoshop.

You DO know that's a photoshop ---- right?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The final one a complete sham designed to cover up information instead of discover it.

Either we can trust the FBI or we can not. Since you have decided we can not I guess all those investigations into Trump are a farce too? Or is that DIFFERENT?

There have been a 1000 threads on this forum bashing the FBI, 90% of which have been from you Trump sheep.

How quickly you forget these things.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Actually the point is YOU forgot how much you INSISTED the FBI was above reproach. Now suddenly they are not.

Feel free to ever find such a post from me. You are just making shit up now


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And here you are pretending that your beloved left did not do EXACTLY as I said, standard denial by you, you make some claim then pretend when someone responds they are not talking about the left. You gotta quit carrying water for the deranged left it does not help them and in fact enables them.

One more time for the learning impaired, you are to the left of me, so I cannot tell you what the left is doing or what they did. I do not care what they did, all I care bout is what I do.

So, again, fell free to find an example of me saying that the FBI was above reproach, or any government agency for that matter.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Christine Blasey Ford Can’t Return Home Due To ‘Unending’ Threats, Lawyers Say

We are told on here daily that only the left engages in such actions...yet here we are.


Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who publicly accused now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, has not been able to return to her home and faces a near-constant stream of threats, her attorneys said in an interview on Sunday.

Once the GOP took over the mantle of "Confederates", they became the party of the lynch.

When did Booker, Frankenstein and Harris join the repubs? Because they wanted to go back to
their roots and lynch Kavanaugh.

"Roots"?

What are you talking about?

Democrats were the ones who used to lynch under the guise of the KKK, remember?

Yes, conservatives are truly this stupid, dishonest, and reprehensible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Christine Blasey Ford Can’t Return Home Due To ‘Unending’ Threats, Lawyers Say

We are told on here daily that only the left engages in such actions...yet here we are.


Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who publicly accused now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, has not been able to return to her home and faces a near-constant stream of threats, her attorneys said in an interview on Sunday.

But how many on the left have actually been accosted by mobs? I’m sure she’s receiving death threats, sadly that’s the double edged sword aspect of social media...But the GOP just got doxed...by a democratic employee in Washington. 300 rioters got arrested in one weekend alone. There are a handful of GOP senators out there who haven’t been accosted by mobs. That’s not even including right leaning figure heads whether they work for the administration, or just pundits, or whatever. They don’t even have to be on the right anymore to face the wrath of the left. We’ve seen plenty of people on the left have to face down mobs for not going with the current dogma. A freaking Bernie Sanders supporting professor (Brett Weinstein) was mobbed by his own students for saying that making white students stay home for the day was racist. If you’re on the left, and say anything remotely redeeming about the right, they’re coming after you. We’ve even seen full grown men throw drinks on kids for the sin of wearing a MAGA hat. Mind you, basically everyone on the right, in any way involved with the Kavanaugh vote (including his family), is receiving death threats too. And if someone were to do an analysis, I’m sure they are receiving a great deal more than Ford. That would be totally consistent with anytime anyone has done analysis on this sort of thing.

It’s not a good trend to see these death threats...however, NO ONE ON THE RIGHT IS CALLING FOR HARRASING ANYBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE. No one on the right is calling for the intensification of the mobs, they are not excusing or turning a blind eye to clearly violent rioters. There is nothing of that sort that we are seeing from left, to a very scary degree. The left is actually paying for people to do this. CNN anchors are excusing this. Legislators on the left are calling in their constituents to do this. So with that in mind, I think it’s pretty dishonest to point out death threats against Ford (which are bad, but you can’t control everyone), vs what the left is actually calling for.

Conservatives don’t need mobs – they use cars to kill while uniting the right.

 

[sakinago]

It isn’t isolated, for sure. But the disparity between the sides is astounding, both in frequency and degree. And what is also astounding is how much it’s being condoned and even called for by major figure heads on the left. There are some on the left who condemn, I can think of two (Schumer, Beto), but almost universally everywhere else it’s ignored, excused, or promoted. There was this whole civil war hubbub going around about 4 months ago or so. I discounted that pretty quickly. After this weekend, I am actually concerned. I only saw calls from the left to turn up the intensity, and I don’t see a way to do that without it turning into criminal harassment, and even flat out violence. Rand Paul’s wife wrote a very good op-Ed appealing to civility, asking questions like what happens if GOP retains control of the house + senate, and RBG croaks...it is not going to be pretty. This was over a judge, with 36 year old sexual assault allegations without any corroborating evidence. Just hearing the nonsensical rhetoric alone, I don’t think I’ve ever been this concerned.

Also, that pizza guy didn’t shoot up the place, he just went in armed. As misguided, and as incredibly stupid it was...it was at least a nobal thing he tried to attempt, even if it was vigilantism. I mean he was convinced there was a child sex ring going on, and nobody was doing anything about it. If there was an event to go vigilante on, if that was a real thing, we’d probably be calling him a hero. Also, no one got hurt in that (I’m pretty sure). Again, extremely stupid (why anybody still listens to Jones now is beyond my comprehension)...but there was at least better justification for taking those measures than what we see coming from the left, either through the riots, mobs, antifa, whatever. Especially more so than the psycho who almost killed 15 or so members of the gop legislature. Had what’s his name not been in the line of succession, they all would have most likely been killed. Imagine that scenario for a second.

Anyway, I’m honestly concerned now, and that’s not a fake “just trying to exaggerate emotion to make a point” thing either. The right shouldn’t ignore the bad actors on their side, but they certainly do not encourage it, and ALL of the rights major figure heads have condemned such actions. I’ll put it this way, I’m not going to exert too much energy bailing water (on the stupid from the right ignoring such things) when the ship is headed straight for an iceberg.

You seem to have quite the selective memory. Have you already forgotten Tiki Torches and "Jews will not replace us" and "fire the sumbitches" and the Leader Brothers and Jeremy Christian Jodie Burchard-Risch and "beat the crap out of 'em" and "very fine people" and an actual Presidential candidate threatening "riots" and suggesting his opponent be shot if he didn't win, let alone "break their windows -- break them NOW" and "if ballots don't work, bullets will" and Jim David Adkisson and Scott Roeder and Dylann Roof and James Fields and Greg Giusti and Byron Williams and Charles Wilson, not to mention all the hyperracist photoshopping of O'bama with a bone through his nose and his wife with a penis, which is still going on two years after he's out of office? Any of that ring a bell?

Nope, you can’t have libertarians be “far right” along side national socialist white supremacists. Conservatives and Nazis are polar opposites. The only thing they have remotely in common is stronger boarders, one wants a socialist ethno-state (we’ll call that a stupid extreme stance), vs “we can’t have open boarders, we have laws we need to enforce.” THATS IT, still wildly different stances in that case. Nazis have waaaay more overlapping policy with Bernie supporters than they do conservatives, but loathe each other for their ethno views. But you don’t have one side unfairly lumping in those whole 24 deluded losers chanting about Jews in with Bernie supporters now do we?

I’m so tired of this ridiculous straw man, lumping national socialists with small government, more fiscal freedom people. Dishonest enough that it makes me barf a little in my mouth.

This pointing out the maybe 100 tiki torch carriers is an obvious deflection from the many riots, we’ve been seeing for half a decade now, made up of thousands each, with violence, with extensive property damage, clashes with police, all over the country, all from the left. It’s not even close to being comparable, even if one could fairly lump ethnic-state socialists with conservatives (which you can’t).

I got about a third of the way through your post before I had to expand my own previous post to see what the hell you were talking about as I can't remember bringing up anything you've got here.

And sure enough I didn't. No mention of "Nazis" or "nationalists" or "libertarians" or "Bernie" or any of --- whatever all that red herring is --- apparently to avoid the point. I simply pointed out several cases of violence and instigation of violence that you seem to bend over backward to avoid noticing. And apparently your response is to not only put on the blinders but to bring in "Nazis" and "libertarians" and gods know what else is coming.

It's really not necessary to go to such great lengths to avoid the point. Just address it on its own merits.

Well I got as far as “Jews will not replace us”, and the tiki torch carriers...and then skimmed the rest and didn’t recognize the instances you were referring too. Either those references are that obscure, or coming from before my time (or I misread/missed it). Anyway, I take it you are suggesting that the tiki torch carriers, and the “Jews will not replace us” chanters are characteristic and representative of the right? Further, that they aren’t neo-nazis, or white supremacists?

They are various entities and instances; some may or may not be neo-Nazis or white supremacists; some are simply bigots or racists or religious nuts or political partisans. Some of them are murderers and/or mass murderers.

Adkisson for example charged into a Unitarian church with the goal of shooting as many "Liberals" as he could. Christian for example stabbed two people to death after they intervened to calm him down when he was harassing a girl for wearing a "Muslim" head scarf. Giusti plotted to kill Nancy Pelosi; Wilson to kill Patty Murray. Wade Page, to cite yet another, went in guns a-blazing to a temple of Sikhs, not understanding that Sikhs are not Muslims. Roof murdered multiple people for being black and to start a race war; Roeder murdered a doctor for performing abortions. Burchard-Risch (there's a link) threw a drink in the face of a restaurant patron for the crime of speaking Swahili with her family. The Leader Brothers (also linked) viciously assaulted a homeless man after being incited to do so by the same bigoted Rump rhetoric that also led to numerous assaults at Rump Rallies such as the McGraws and Bambergers etc that I didn't even mention. "Break their windows-- break them NOW" (here's a link) was a battle cry that resulted in numerous acts of vandalism including a house gas line being cut and numerous office windows being smashed including that of Gabby Giffords who a short time later was shot in the head from which she's never recovered.

What all of them have in common is they all committed or incited violence and none of them are from "the Left".

Hence the assessment of selective memory. "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Now you’re being purposefully dishonest. “I never mentioned nazis”...If you’re chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” You’re a neo-nazi. Everybody who is in the “alt-right” wants a socialist ethno-state, A.K.A national socialism. They don’t cite hitler, but they wish to emulate the third riech. Spencer Re-branding neo-nazis as “alt right”, was exactly that, a re-branding marketing move. I pay attention to actions, not words, especially when it comes to national socialist.

All of the instantces you cited, are all lone actors. Lone actors that the right has condemned. No one (at least no one prominent) on the right blamed Bernie or his rhetoric for his psycho supporter who almost killed over a dozen GOP legislators. So why is it ok to do that to the right? The left, on the other hand, are not condemning the concerning behavior I cited earlier. They are either ignoring it, excusing it, and even promoting it. This is coming from very prominent figure heads on the left. Do you see the difference in what you cited, and what I cited?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Either we can trust the FBI or we can not. Since you have decided we can not I guess all those investigations into Trump are a farce too? Or is that DIFFERENT?

There have been a 1000 threads on this forum bashing the FBI, 90% of which have been from you Trump sheep.

How quickly you forget these things.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Actually the point is YOU forgot how much you INSISTED the FBI was above reproach. Now suddenly they are not.

Feel free to ever find such a post from me. You are just making shit up now


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And here you are pretending that your beloved left did not do EXACTLY as I said, standard denial by you, you make some claim then pretend when someone responds they are not talking about the left. You gotta quit carrying water for the deranged left it does not help them and in fact enables them.

You didn't cite the quote he asked for.

That means apparently you can't.

And that in turn must mean you pulled it out of your ass.

Ahh yes the left after making statements as reported pretend otherwise and demand PROOF. Provide me with some proof Kavanaugh attempted to rape Ford please.

 

[whitehall]

Interesting to note that the left acknowledges the fact that usually TDS lefties are capable of such hateful insanity.

 

[Pogo]

You seem to have quite the selective memory. Have you already forgotten Tiki Torches and "Jews will not replace us" and "fire the sumbitches" and the Leader Brothers and Jeremy Christian Jodie Burchard-Risch and "beat the crap out of 'em" and "very fine people" and an actual Presidential candidate threatening "riots" and suggesting his opponent be shot if he didn't win, let alone "break their windows -- break them NOW" and "if ballots don't work, bullets will" and Jim David Adkisson and Scott Roeder and Dylann Roof and James Fields and Greg Giusti and Byron Williams and Charles Wilson, not to mention all the hyperracist photoshopping of O'bama with a bone through his nose and his wife with a penis, which is still going on two years after he's out of office? Any of that ring a bell?

Nope, you can’t have libertarians be “far right” along side national socialist white supremacists. Conservatives and Nazis are polar opposites. The only thing they have remotely in common is stronger boarders, one wants a socialist ethno-state (we’ll call that a stupid extreme stance), vs “we can’t have open boarders, we have laws we need to enforce.” THATS IT, still wildly different stances in that case. Nazis have waaaay more overlapping policy with Bernie supporters than they do conservatives, but loathe each other for their ethno views. But you don’t have one side unfairly lumping in those whole 24 deluded losers chanting about Jews in with Bernie supporters now do we?

I’m so tired of this ridiculous straw man, lumping national socialists with small government, more fiscal freedom people. Dishonest enough that it makes me barf a little in my mouth.

This pointing out the maybe 100 tiki torch carriers is an obvious deflection from the many riots, we’ve been seeing for half a decade now, made up of thousands each, with violence, with extensive property damage, clashes with police, all over the country, all from the left. It’s not even close to being comparable, even if one could fairly lump ethnic-state socialists with conservatives (which you can’t).

I got about a third of the way through your post before I had to expand my own previous post to see what the hell you were talking about as I can't remember bringing up anything you've got here.

And sure enough I didn't. No mention of "Nazis" or "nationalists" or "libertarians" or "Bernie" or any of --- whatever all that red herring is --- apparently to avoid the point. I simply pointed out several cases of violence and instigation of violence that you seem to bend over backward to avoid noticing. And apparently your response is to not only put on the blinders but to bring in "Nazis" and "libertarians" and gods know what else is coming.

It's really not necessary to go to such great lengths to avoid the point. Just address it on its own merits.

Well I got as far as “Jews will not replace us”, and the tiki torch carriers...and then skimmed the rest and didn’t recognize the instances you were referring too. Either those references are that obscure, or coming from before my time (or I misread/missed it). Anyway, I take it you are suggesting that the tiki torch carriers, and the “Jews will not replace us” chanters are characteristic and representative of the right? Further, that they aren’t neo-nazis, or white supremacists?

They are various entities and instances; some may or may not be neo-Nazis or white supremacists; some are simply bigots or racists or religious nuts or political partisans. Some of them are murderers and/or mass murderers.

Adkisson for example charged into a Unitarian church with the goal of shooting as many "Liberals" as he could. Christian for example stabbed two people to death after they intervened to calm him down when he was harassing a girl for wearing a "Muslim" head scarf. Giusti plotted to kill Nancy Pelosi; Wilson to kill Patty Murray. Wade Page, to cite yet another, went in guns a-blazing to a temple of Sikhs, not understanding that Sikhs are not Muslims. Roof murdered multiple people for being black and to start a race war; Roeder murdered a doctor for performing abortions. Burchard-Risch (there's a link) threw a drink in the face of a restaurant patron for the crime of speaking Swahili with her family. The Leader Brothers (also linked) viciously assaulted a homeless man after being incited to do so by the same bigoted Rump rhetoric that also led to numerous assaults at Rump Rallies such as the McGraws and Bambergers etc that I didn't even mention. "Break their windows-- break them NOW" (here's a link) was a battle cry that resulted in numerous acts of vandalism including a house gas line being cut and numerous office windows being smashed including that of Gabby Giffords who a short time later was shot in the head from which she's never recovered.

What all of them have in common is they all committed or incited violence and none of them are from "the Left".

Hence the assessment of selective memory. "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Now you’re being purposefully dishonest. “I never mentioned nazis”...If you’re chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” You’re a neo-nazi. Everybody who is in the “alt-right” wants a socialist ethno-state, A.K.A national socialism. They don’t cite hitler, but they wish to emulate the third riech. Spencer Re-branding neo-nazis as “alt right”, was exactly that, a re-branding marketing move. I pay attention to actions, not words, especially when it comes to national socialist.

All of the instantces you cited, are all lone actors. Lone actors that the right has condemned. No one (at least no one prominent) on the right blamed Bernie or his rhetoric for his psycho supporter who almost killed over a dozen GOP legislators. So why is it ok to do that to the right? The left, on the other hand, are not condemning the concerning behavior I cited earlier. They are either ignoring it, excusing it, and even promoting it. This is coming from very prominent figure heads on the left. Do you see the difference in what you cited, and what I cited?

What I see here is not just the incessant red herring of "neo-Nazis" but more fundamentally an addiction to what I'll call a "Collective Fallacy", that being the bizzaro idea that "the left" or "the right" is each some kind of Borg entity that has (presumably) an office in Kansas City with a board of governors and an official position on everything.

There's no such thing. I absolutely guarantee you there's no such thing. "The right" has neither "condemned" anything nor has it failed to; "The left" has neither condemned anything nor has it failed to. Neither of those are possible acts. There are no such entities to do that.

Again, what you have here that was put under the microscope was selective memory. That is, your citation of a various laundry list that "came from the left", citing a -- your term -- "disparity between the sides". That's why I posted another laundry list that dispels that idea of disparity. Again, because you're taking into account what you wish to take into account ... selectively.

So --- sorry, the fact that you may hear a comment here or not hear a comment there, does not somehow create "The Right Inc" or "The Left Inc" to support or refute any act. There's literally no such thing. No collective, left right or center, is responsible for what you choose to notice or not-notice.

And (edit) interestingly BOTH of the two posts that were put up while I was writing this one tried to sell the exact same bullshit. I don't get it. It's as if some people are literally incapable of processing the difference between an individual and a collective.

 

[Pogo]

There have been a 1000 threads on this forum bashing the FBI, 90% of which have been from you Trump sheep.

How quickly you forget these things.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Actually the point is YOU forgot how much you INSISTED the FBI was above reproach. Now suddenly they are not.

Feel free to ever find such a post from me. You are just making shit up now


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And here you are pretending that your beloved left did not do EXACTLY as I said, standard denial by you, you make some claim then pretend when someone responds they are not talking about the left. You gotta quit carrying water for the deranged left it does not help them and in fact enables them.

You didn't cite the quote he asked for.

That means apparently you can't.

And that in turn must mean you pulled it out of your ass.

Ahh yes the left after making statements as reported pretend otherwise and demand PROOF. Provide me with some proof Kavanaugh attempted to rape Ford please.

Dipweed Doubles Down. Now you've got two ass-sertions to back up.

I've never made such a claim. PROVE I HAVE. Because it ain't my job to prove your strawman.

 

[sakinago]

Nope, you can’t have libertarians be “far right” along side national socialist white supremacists. Conservatives and Nazis are polar opposites. The only thing they have remotely in common is stronger boarders, one wants a socialist ethno-state (we’ll call that a stupid extreme stance), vs “we can’t have open boarders, we have laws we need to enforce.” THATS IT, still wildly different stances in that case. Nazis have waaaay more overlapping policy with Bernie supporters than they do conservatives, but loathe each other for their ethno views. But you don’t have one side unfairly lumping in those whole 24 deluded losers chanting about Jews in with Bernie supporters now do we?

I’m so tired of this ridiculous straw man, lumping national socialists with small government, more fiscal freedom people. Dishonest enough that it makes me barf a little in my mouth.

This pointing out the maybe 100 tiki torch carriers is an obvious deflection from the many riots, we’ve been seeing for half a decade now, made up of thousands each, with violence, with extensive property damage, clashes with police, all over the country, all from the left. It’s not even close to being comparable, even if one could fairly lump ethnic-state socialists with conservatives (which you can’t).

I got about a third of the way through your post before I had to expand my own previous post to see what the hell you were talking about as I can't remember bringing up anything you've got here.

And sure enough I didn't. No mention of "Nazis" or "nationalists" or "libertarians" or "Bernie" or any of --- whatever all that red herring is --- apparently to avoid the point. I simply pointed out several cases of violence and instigation of violence that you seem to bend over backward to avoid noticing. And apparently your response is to not only put on the blinders but to bring in "Nazis" and "libertarians" and gods know what else is coming.

It's really not necessary to go to such great lengths to avoid the point. Just address it on its own merits.

Well I got as far as “Jews will not replace us”, and the tiki torch carriers...and then skimmed the rest and didn’t recognize the instances you were referring too. Either those references are that obscure, or coming from before my time (or I misread/missed it). Anyway, I take it you are suggesting that the tiki torch carriers, and the “Jews will not replace us” chanters are characteristic and representative of the right? Further, that they aren’t neo-nazis, or white supremacists?

They are various entities and instances; some may or may not be neo-Nazis or white supremacists; some are simply bigots or racists or religious nuts or political partisans. Some of them are murderers and/or mass murderers.

Adkisson for example charged into a Unitarian church with the goal of shooting as many "Liberals" as he could. Christian for example stabbed two people to death after they intervened to calm him down when he was harassing a girl for wearing a "Muslim" head scarf. Giusti plotted to kill Nancy Pelosi; Wilson to kill Patty Murray. Wade Page, to cite yet another, went in guns a-blazing to a temple of Sikhs, not understanding that Sikhs are not Muslims. Roof murdered multiple people for being black and to start a race war; Roeder murdered a doctor for performing abortions. Burchard-Risch (there's a link) threw a drink in the face of a restaurant patron for the crime of speaking Swahili with her family. The Leader Brothers (also linked) viciously assaulted a homeless man after being incited to do so by the same bigoted Rump rhetoric that also led to numerous assaults at Rump Rallies such as the McGraws and Bambergers etc that I didn't even mention. "Break their windows-- break them NOW" (here's a link) was a battle cry that resulted in numerous acts of vandalism including a house gas line being cut and numerous office windows being smashed including that of Gabby Giffords who a short time later was shot in the head from which she's never recovered.

What all of them have in common is they all committed or incited violence and none of them are from "the Left".

Hence the assessment of selective memory. "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Now you’re being purposefully dishonest. “I never mentioned nazis”...If you’re chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” You’re a neo-nazi. Everybody who is in the “alt-right” wants a socialist ethno-state, A.K.A national socialism. They don’t cite hitler, but they wish to emulate the third riech. Spencer Re-branding neo-nazis as “alt right”, was exactly that, a re-branding marketing move. I pay attention to actions, not words, especially when it comes to national socialist.

All of the instantces you cited, are all lone actors. Lone actors that the right has condemned. No one (at least no one prominent) on the right blamed Bernie or his rhetoric for his psycho supporter who almost killed over a dozen GOP legislators. So why is it ok to do that to the right? The left, on the other hand, are not condemning the concerning behavior I cited earlier. They are either ignoring it, excusing it, and even promoting it. This is coming from very prominent figure heads on the left. Do you see the difference in what you cited, and what I cited?

What I see here is not just the incessant red herring of "neo-Nazis" but more fundamentally an addiction to what I'll call a "Collective Fallacy", that being the bizzaro idea that "the left" or "the right" is each some kind of Borg entity that has (presumably) an office in Kansas City with a board of governors and an official position on everything.

There's no such thing. I absolutely guarantee you there's no such thing. "The right" has neither "condemned" anything nor has it failed to; "The left" has neither condemned anything nor has it failed to. Neither of those are possible acts. There are no such entities to do that.

Again, what you have here that was put under the microscope was selective memory. That is, your citation of a various laundry list that "came from the left", citing a -- your term -- "disparity between the sides". That's why I posted another laundry list that dispels that idea of disparity. Again, because you're taking into account what you wish to take into account ... selectively.

So --- sorry, the fact that you may hear a comment here or not hear a comment there, does not somehow create "The Right Inc" or "The Left Inc" to support or refute any act. There's literally no such thing. No collective, left right or center, is responsible for what you choose to notice or not-notice.

And (edit) interestingly BOTH of the two posts that were put up while I was writing this one tried to sell the exact same bullshit. I don't get it. It's as if some people are literally incapable of processing the difference between an individual and a collective.

Well this is an easily solvable disagrement... who on the right (major figure head, pundit, lawmaker, etc.) ever justified or promoted the incidences you cited? NONE, they all condemned it. Vs the other side, Waters, Cuomo, Booker, Hillary, just off the top of my head have justified it.

There’s also a gap in frequency and amount of participation between the instances I cited and the ones you cited, that’s larger than the Grand Canyon. So, no, both sides are not equally as bad, not even close. I don’t ignore Nazis either, they’re assholes, they’re 100% wrong, and evil.

 

[Pogo]

I got about a third of the way through your post before I had to expand my own previous post to see what the hell you were talking about as I can't remember bringing up anything you've got here.

And sure enough I didn't. No mention of "Nazis" or "nationalists" or "libertarians" or "Bernie" or any of --- whatever all that red herring is --- apparently to avoid the point. I simply pointed out several cases of violence and instigation of violence that you seem to bend over backward to avoid noticing. And apparently your response is to not only put on the blinders but to bring in "Nazis" and "libertarians" and gods know what else is coming.

It's really not necessary to go to such great lengths to avoid the point. Just address it on its own merits.

Well I got as far as “Jews will not replace us”, and the tiki torch carriers...and then skimmed the rest and didn’t recognize the instances you were referring too. Either those references are that obscure, or coming from before my time (or I misread/missed it). Anyway, I take it you are suggesting that the tiki torch carriers, and the “Jews will not replace us” chanters are characteristic and representative of the right? Further, that they aren’t neo-nazis, or white supremacists?

They are various entities and instances; some may or may not be neo-Nazis or white supremacists; some are simply bigots or racists or religious nuts or political partisans. Some of them are murderers and/or mass murderers.

Adkisson for example charged into a Unitarian church with the goal of shooting as many "Liberals" as he could. Christian for example stabbed two people to death after they intervened to calm him down when he was harassing a girl for wearing a "Muslim" head scarf. Giusti plotted to kill Nancy Pelosi; Wilson to kill Patty Murray. Wade Page, to cite yet another, went in guns a-blazing to a temple of Sikhs, not understanding that Sikhs are not Muslims. Roof murdered multiple people for being black and to start a race war; Roeder murdered a doctor for performing abortions. Burchard-Risch (there's a link) threw a drink in the face of a restaurant patron for the crime of speaking Swahili with her family. The Leader Brothers (also linked) viciously assaulted a homeless man after being incited to do so by the same bigoted Rump rhetoric that also led to numerous assaults at Rump Rallies such as the McGraws and Bambergers etc that I didn't even mention. "Break their windows-- break them NOW" (here's a link) was a battle cry that resulted in numerous acts of vandalism including a house gas line being cut and numerous office windows being smashed including that of Gabby Giffords who a short time later was shot in the head from which she's never recovered.

What all of them have in common is they all committed or incited violence and none of them are from "the Left".

Hence the assessment of selective memory. "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Now you’re being purposefully dishonest. “I never mentioned nazis”...If you’re chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” You’re a neo-nazi. Everybody who is in the “alt-right” wants a socialist ethno-state, A.K.A national socialism. They don’t cite hitler, but they wish to emulate the third riech. Spencer Re-branding neo-nazis as “alt right”, was exactly that, a re-branding marketing move. I pay attention to actions, not words, especially when it comes to national socialist.

All of the instantces you cited, are all lone actors. Lone actors that the right has condemned. No one (at least no one prominent) on the right blamed Bernie or his rhetoric for his psycho supporter who almost killed over a dozen GOP legislators. So why is it ok to do that to the right? The left, on the other hand, are not condemning the concerning behavior I cited earlier. They are either ignoring it, excusing it, and even promoting it. This is coming from very prominent figure heads on the left. Do you see the difference in what you cited, and what I cited?

What I see here is not just the incessant red herring of "neo-Nazis" but more fundamentally an addiction to what I'll call a "Collective Fallacy", that being the bizzaro idea that "the left" or "the right" is each some kind of Borg entity that has (presumably) an office in Kansas City with a board of governors and an official position on everything.

There's no such thing. I absolutely guarantee you there's no such thing. "The right" has neither "condemned" anything nor has it failed to; "The left" has neither condemned anything nor has it failed to. Neither of those are possible acts. There are no such entities to do that.

Again, what you have here that was put under the microscope was selective memory. That is, your citation of a various laundry list that "came from the left", citing a -- your term -- "disparity between the sides". That's why I posted another laundry list that dispels that idea of disparity. Again, because you're taking into account what you wish to take into account ... selectively.

So --- sorry, the fact that you may hear a comment here or not hear a comment there, does not somehow create "The Right Inc" or "The Left Inc" to support or refute any act. There's literally no such thing. No collective, left right or center, is responsible for what you choose to notice or not-notice.

And (edit) interestingly BOTH of the two posts that were put up while I was writing this one tried to sell the exact same bullshit. I don't get it. It's as if some people are literally incapable of processing the difference between an individual and a collective.

Well this is an easily solvable disagrement... who on the right (major figure head, pundit, lawmaker, etc.) ever justified or promoted the incidences you cited? NONE, they all condemned it. Vs the other side, Waters, Cuomo, Booker, Hillary, just off the top of my head have justified it.

There’s also a gap in frequency and amount of participation between the instances I cited and the ones you cited, that’s larger than the Grand Canyon. So, no, both sides are not equally as bad, not even close. I don’t ignore Nazis either, they’re assholes, they’re 100% wrong, and evil.

You continue to cherrypick. The entire poinit just sailed blthely over your head.

 

[sakinago]

Well I got as far as “Jews will not replace us”, and the tiki torch carriers...and then skimmed the rest and didn’t recognize the instances you were referring too. Either those references are that obscure, or coming from before my time (or I misread/missed it). Anyway, I take it you are suggesting that the tiki torch carriers, and the “Jews will not replace us” chanters are characteristic and representative of the right? Further, that they aren’t neo-nazis, or white supremacists?

They are various entities and instances; some may or may not be neo-Nazis or white supremacists; some are simply bigots or racists or religious nuts or political partisans. Some of them are murderers and/or mass murderers.

Adkisson for example charged into a Unitarian church with the goal of shooting as many "Liberals" as he could. Christian for example stabbed two people to death after they intervened to calm him down when he was harassing a girl for wearing a "Muslim" head scarf. Giusti plotted to kill Nancy Pelosi; Wilson to kill Patty Murray. Wade Page, to cite yet another, went in guns a-blazing to a temple of Sikhs, not understanding that Sikhs are not Muslims. Roof murdered multiple people for being black and to start a race war; Roeder murdered a doctor for performing abortions. Burchard-Risch (there's a link) threw a drink in the face of a restaurant patron for the crime of speaking Swahili with her family. The Leader Brothers (also linked) viciously assaulted a homeless man after being incited to do so by the same bigoted Rump rhetoric that also led to numerous assaults at Rump Rallies such as the McGraws and Bambergers etc that I didn't even mention. "Break their windows-- break them NOW" (here's a link) was a battle cry that resulted in numerous acts of vandalism including a house gas line being cut and numerous office windows being smashed including that of Gabby Giffords who a short time later was shot in the head from which she's never recovered.

What all of them have in common is they all committed or incited violence and none of them are from "the Left".

Hence the assessment of selective memory. "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Now you’re being purposefully dishonest. “I never mentioned nazis”...If you’re chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” You’re a neo-nazi. Everybody who is in the “alt-right” wants a socialist ethno-state, A.K.A national socialism. They don’t cite hitler, but they wish to emulate the third riech. Spencer Re-branding neo-nazis as “alt right”, was exactly that, a re-branding marketing move. I pay attention to actions, not words, especially when it comes to national socialist.

All of the instantces you cited, are all lone actors. Lone actors that the right has condemned. No one (at least no one prominent) on the right blamed Bernie or his rhetoric for his psycho supporter who almost killed over a dozen GOP legislators. So why is it ok to do that to the right? The left, on the other hand, are not condemning the concerning behavior I cited earlier. They are either ignoring it, excusing it, and even promoting it. This is coming from very prominent figure heads on the left. Do you see the difference in what you cited, and what I cited?

What I see here is not just the incessant red herring of "neo-Nazis" but more fundamentally an addiction to what I'll call a "Collective Fallacy", that being the bizzaro idea that "the left" or "the right" is each some kind of Borg entity that has (presumably) an office in Kansas City with a board of governors and an official position on everything.

There's no such thing. I absolutely guarantee you there's no such thing. "The right" has neither "condemned" anything nor has it failed to; "The left" has neither condemned anything nor has it failed to. Neither of those are possible acts. There are no such entities to do that.

Again, what you have here that was put under the microscope was selective memory. That is, your citation of a various laundry list that "came from the left", citing a -- your term -- "disparity between the sides". That's why I posted another laundry list that dispels that idea of disparity. Again, because you're taking into account what you wish to take into account ... selectively.

So --- sorry, the fact that you may hear a comment here or not hear a comment there, does not somehow create "The Right Inc" or "The Left Inc" to support or refute any act. There's literally no such thing. No collective, left right or center, is responsible for what you choose to notice or not-notice.

And (edit) interestingly BOTH of the two posts that were put up while I was writing this one tried to sell the exact same bullshit. I don't get it. It's as if some people are literally incapable of processing the difference between an individual and a collective.

Well this is an easily solvable disagrement... who on the right (major figure head, pundit, lawmaker, etc.) ever justified or promoted the incidences you cited? NONE, they all condemned it. Vs the other side, Waters, Cuomo, Booker, Hillary, just off the top of my head have justified it.

There’s also a gap in frequency and amount of participation between the instances I cited and the ones you cited, that’s larger than the Grand Canyon. So, no, both sides are not equally as bad, not even close. I don’t ignore Nazis either, they’re assholes, they’re 100% wrong, and evil.

You continue to cherrypick. The entire poinit just sailed blthely over your head.

I am not cherry picking. I am making a very clear distinction. We’re talking about dozens of riots, attended by thousands of people, that have turned violent, have cause property damage, and have aggressively harassed perceived opponents and uninterested bystanders alike. We also see “protests” that are somehow deemed non violent, all because a conservative is coming to town to give a speech, that cost the cities hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep under control. These all have either justified or encouraged by multiple left leaning pundits and lawmakers. This is in contrast to the lone actors that you have cited, who do not even come close to aligning with mainstream conservatism, are NEVER justified by right leaning pundits/lawmakers and are always condemned by the right. Furthermore, when lone acting psychos on the left go out and commit murder, e.g. baseball practice shooter or the Dallas police shooter, you do not hear the right lumping them in as run of the mill democrats, much like you are lumping in the likes of Dylan roof in with republicans. There are pretty big disparities to point out here. That’s not cherry picking. This is pointing out reality. Yet hear I am, being reminded about Dylan roof, and those who hold similar beliefs, which those beliefs do not even come close to aligning with conservative values.

Do I need to look up all the articles and clips characterizing the Tea Party as a dangerous movement, and as rhetoric that is going to lead to violence? Antifa, a group made up of millions, LITERALLY came out of the gate swinging, and you’re giving me some whataboutism with Dylan roof.

 

[Pogo]

They are various entities and instances; some may or may not be neo-Nazis or white supremacists; some are simply bigots or racists or religious nuts or political partisans. Some of them are murderers and/or mass murderers.

Adkisson for example charged into a Unitarian church with the goal of shooting as many "Liberals" as he could. Christian for example stabbed two people to death after they intervened to calm him down when he was harassing a girl for wearing a "Muslim" head scarf. Giusti plotted to kill Nancy Pelosi; Wilson to kill Patty Murray. Wade Page, to cite yet another, went in guns a-blazing to a temple of Sikhs, not understanding that Sikhs are not Muslims. Roof murdered multiple people for being black and to start a race war; Roeder murdered a doctor for performing abortions. Burchard-Risch (there's a link) threw a drink in the face of a restaurant patron for the crime of speaking Swahili with her family. The Leader Brothers (also linked) viciously assaulted a homeless man after being incited to do so by the same bigoted Rump rhetoric that also led to numerous assaults at Rump Rallies such as the McGraws and Bambergers etc that I didn't even mention. "Break their windows-- break them NOW" (here's a link) was a battle cry that resulted in numerous acts of vandalism including a house gas line being cut and numerous office windows being smashed including that of Gabby Giffords who a short time later was shot in the head from which she's never recovered.

What all of them have in common is they all committed or incited violence and none of them are from "the Left".

Hence the assessment of selective memory. "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Now you’re being purposefully dishonest. “I never mentioned nazis”...If you’re chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” You’re a neo-nazi. Everybody who is in the “alt-right” wants a socialist ethno-state, A.K.A national socialism. They don’t cite hitler, but they wish to emulate the third riech. Spencer Re-branding neo-nazis as “alt right”, was exactly that, a re-branding marketing move. I pay attention to actions, not words, especially when it comes to national socialist.

All of the instantces you cited, are all lone actors. Lone actors that the right has condemned. No one (at least no one prominent) on the right blamed Bernie or his rhetoric for his psycho supporter who almost killed over a dozen GOP legislators. So why is it ok to do that to the right? The left, on the other hand, are not condemning the concerning behavior I cited earlier. They are either ignoring it, excusing it, and even promoting it. This is coming from very prominent figure heads on the left. Do you see the difference in what you cited, and what I cited?

What I see here is not just the incessant red herring of "neo-Nazis" but more fundamentally an addiction to what I'll call a "Collective Fallacy", that being the bizzaro idea that "the left" or "the right" is each some kind of Borg entity that has (presumably) an office in Kansas City with a board of governors and an official position on everything.

There's no such thing. I absolutely guarantee you there's no such thing. "The right" has neither "condemned" anything nor has it failed to; "The left" has neither condemned anything nor has it failed to. Neither of those are possible acts. There are no such entities to do that.

Again, what you have here that was put under the microscope was selective memory. That is, your citation of a various laundry list that "came from the left", citing a -- your term -- "disparity between the sides". That's why I posted another laundry list that dispels that idea of disparity. Again, because you're taking into account what you wish to take into account ... selectively.

So --- sorry, the fact that you may hear a comment here or not hear a comment there, does not somehow create "The Right Inc" or "The Left Inc" to support or refute any act. There's literally no such thing. No collective, left right or center, is responsible for what you choose to notice or not-notice.

And (edit) interestingly BOTH of the two posts that were put up while I was writing this one tried to sell the exact same bullshit. I don't get it. It's as if some people are literally incapable of processing the difference between an individual and a collective.

Well this is an easily solvable disagrement... who on the right (major figure head, pundit, lawmaker, etc.) ever justified or promoted the incidences you cited? NONE, they all condemned it. Vs the other side, Waters, Cuomo, Booker, Hillary, just off the top of my head have justified it.

There’s also a gap in frequency and amount of participation between the instances I cited and the ones you cited, that’s larger than the Grand Canyon. So, no, both sides are not equally as bad, not even close. I don’t ignore Nazis either, they’re assholes, they’re 100% wrong, and evil.

You continue to cherrypick. The entire poinit just sailed blthely over your head.

I am not cherry picking. I am making a very clear distinction. We’re talking about dozens of riots, attended by thousands of people, that have turned violent, have cause property damage, and have aggressively harassed perceived opponents and uninterested bystanders alike. We also see “protests” that are somehow deemed non violent, all because a conservative is coming to town to give a speech, that cost the cities hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep under control. These all have either justified or encouraged by multiple left leaning pundits and lawmakers. This is in contrast to the lone actors that you have cited, who do not even come close to aligning with mainstream conservatism, are NEVER justified by right leaning pundits/lawmakers and are always condemned by the right. Furthermore, when lone acting psychos on the left go out and commit murder, e.g. baseball practice shooter or the Dallas police shooter, you do not hear the right lumping them in as run of the mill democrats, much like you are lumping in the likes of Dylan roof in with republicans. There are pretty big disparities to point out here. That’s not cherry picking. This is pointing out reality. Yet hear I am, being reminded about Dylan roof, and those who hold similar beliefs, which those beliefs do not even come close to aligning with conservative values.

Do I need to look up all the articles and clips characterizing the Tea Party as a dangerous movement, and as rhetoric that is going to lead to violence? Antifa, a group made up of millions, LITERALLY came out of the gate swinging, and you’re giving me some whataboutism with Dylan roof.

There is no "whataboutism" when you started the false comparison via cherrypicking. I simply corrected it.

All I can do is lead you to the water. It's up to you to stare at the water and declare you don't see it.

You're wasting my time. Dismissed.