Video: riot police applauded for arresting ANTIFA traffic blockers

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

But they're violent Communists Westwall.

And if they are so stupid as to attack me when I am at a demonstration, I will kill them. But I will not advocate for a government to round them up and kill them out of hand.

What about rounding them up and putting them on trial for being the criminal subversives that they are?

If they are committing crimes? By all means yes. Prosecute them for actual crimes they have committed. Not for crimes they "might" commit.

Subversive activities are crimes.

They CAN be. Not all are. That's the point.

These leftists have done all of this:

"Chapter 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

• Search by Keyword or Citation

0 22

• Section 2381 Treason
• Section 2382 Misprision of treason
• Section 2383 Rebellion or insurrection
• Section 2384 Seditious conspiracy
• Section 2385 Advocating overthrow of Government
• Section 2386 Registration of certain organizations
• Section 2387 Activities affecting armed forces generally
• Section 2388 Activities affecting armed forces during war
• Section 2389 Recruiting for service against United States
• Section 2390 Enlistment to serve against United States"

 

[JimBowie1958]

Benito Mussolini was a life long socialist. Corporatism is a form of National syndicalism. Syndicalism is leftist, not right wing. All you leftists have to prove your claim that he was right wing is "He was a nationalist"... Well nationalism isn't solely a right wing thing...black nationalists are left wing for example.

No, there really isn't any confusion or disagreement about Big F, Italian Fascism being right wing. If someone doesn't agree with that, then there really isn't a lot to talk about. It would be like me pointing to a cow and saying "That's a cow", and you saying "No, it's just a really big mouse".

The standard Marxist bullshit about socialism - if you dont want state ownership of all means of production, then it isnt socialism. That is a huge detestable lie.

Socialism existed for a long time before Marxism and it is basically a community view of economics at a national level. From Fabian socialists to National Socialists, Socialism exists in many forms other than Marxism of any kind.

The most popular forms of socialism today are the forms that give the government the absolute right to limit, regulate and control the free markets for the good of the people of these nations. That does not require the government to literally own each and every industry, but it does give the government to say that you cannot consume certain products, to impose safety standards and to protect the environment. Some say that environmentalism is a form of socialism itself.

Certainly Fascism falls into that very broad category of economics as they practiced crony capitalism that tolerated only those corporations that complete supported the central state and the state had all powers of a totalitarian government to regulate, limit and even confiscate their entirety of their property.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, this is Marxist Leninism vrs everybody else who wants freedom. Mass slaughtering totalitarians vrs everybody who wants the right to think for themselves.
And since about the only thing that Marxists do in fact do well is to connive, conspire and organize cells, you have to dig them up by the roots, by any means necessary.

I respectfully disagree.

Have you read "The Black Book of Communism"?

IT might change your mind after reading the galactic evil that communism is.

 

[westwall]

No, this is Marxist Leninism vrs everybody else who wants freedom. Mass slaughtering totalitarians vrs everybody who wants the right to think for themselves.
And since about the only thing that Marxists do in fact do well is to connive, conspire and organize cells, you have to dig them up by the roots, by any means necessary.

I respectfully disagree.

Have you read "The Black Book of Communism"?

IT might change your mind after reading the galactic evil that communism is.

I read it before you were probably born.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

No, this is Marxist Leninism vrs everybody else who wants freedom. Mass slaughtering totalitarians vrs everybody who wants the right to think for themselves.
And since about the only thing that Marxists do in fact do well is to connive, conspire and organize cells, you have to dig them up by the roots, by any means necessary.

I respectfully disagree.

Have you read "The Black Book of Communism"?

IT might change your mind after reading the galactic evil that communism is.

I read it before you were probably born.

Very good book.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Have you read "The Black Book of Communism"?
IT might change your mind after reading the galactic evil that communism is.

I read it before you were probably born.

That book was written in 1997.

I was born in 1958.

Try again?

Lol, at least you read it, but how you can still tolerate the activities of these vermin is beyond me.

Free speech rights should not extend to those who advocate the direct or indirect harm of the public, IMO.

 

[westwall]

Have you read "The Black Book of Communism"?
IT might change your mind after reading the galactic evil that communism is.

I read it before you were probably born.

That book was written in 1997.

I was born in 1958.

Try again?

Lol, at least you read it, but how you can still tolerate the activities of these vermin is beyond me.

Free speech rights should not extend to those who advocate the direct or indirect harm of the public, IMO.

Because the COTUS of this country specify's that the PEOPLE can do what they want so long as they don't harm someone else. I believe, and support that document. The second they go beyond talking, and implement action, then I have no problem dealing with them. It's as simple as that. You either hold to the values of the Founding Fathers, or you don't. I do.

 

[westwall]

Have you read "The Black Book of Communism"?
IT might change your mind after reading the galactic evil that communism is.

I read it before you were probably born.

That book was written in 1997.

I was born in 1958.

Try again?

Lol, at least you read it, but how you can still tolerate the activities of these vermin is beyond me.

Free speech rights should not extend to those who advocate the direct or indirect harm of the public, IMO.

There is a much earlier version published back in the 1930's. My grandfather (who was a big time American Communist Party member) had a copy of it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That book was written in 1997.
I was born in 1958.

There is a much earlier version published back in the 1930's. My grandfather (who was a big time American Communist Party member) had a copy of it.

I think that that was a different book about the Nazi persecution and murder of Jews in Europe. Black Book (World War II) - Wikipedia

The Black Book of Communism is a similar take off that focuses on Communism instead of fascism and was published in 1997.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Free speech rights should not extend to those who advocate the direct or indirect harm of the public, IMO.

Because the COTUS of this country specify's that the PEOPLE can do what they want so long as they don't harm someone else. I believe, and support that document. The second they go beyond talking, and implement action, then I have no problem dealing with them. It's as simple as that. You either hold to the values of the Founding Fathers, or you don't. I do.

Then if we are speaking about communists, as you should well know, they are all about nothing other than revolution, violence and the use of conspiracy and sedition.

By your own definition they should not be covered under the First Amendment.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Free speech rights should not extend to those who advocate the direct or indirect harm of the public, IMO.

Because the COTUS of this country specify's that the PEOPLE can do what they want so long as they don't harm someone else. I believe, and support that document. The second they go beyond talking, and implement action, then I have no problem dealing with them. It's as simple as that. You either hold to the values of the Founding Fathers, or you don't. I do.

Then if we are speaking about communists, as you should well know, they are all about nothing other than revolution, violence and the use of conspiracy and sedition.

By your own definition they should not be covered under the First Amendment.

They're not covered under the 1A, all Marxist organizationa should be busted up and tried for their subversion. Any white supremacist organization that advocates the overthrow of the government should receive the same treatment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They're not covered under the 1A, all Marxist organizationa should be busted up and tried for their subversion. Any white supremacist organization that advocates the overthrow of the government should receive the same treatment.

This idea that if a criminal announces an intent and he is capable of committing a crime in question, that that does not constitute actionable circumstances is just nonsense.

If the Secret Service gets wind of you saying that you are going to shoot the President, they dont wait for you to try and for good reason. Their job is to PREVENT attacks on the President, not have a 100% conviction rate in court.

This is what is wrong, in part, with our justice system today. The cops should be the first line of that system, and in effect they really are anyway, and they should have the freedom to knock heads and bust some ass if it serves the preservation of law and order and the idiots in question are breaking the law or stating their intention of breaking the law. Holding the cops back until the morons actually make the attempt does not serve the public good, it does not keep the public safer or more secure.

That is the difference though; our cops are limited by the DAs and the DAs are thinking only of their career win percentages not public safety.

 

[westwall]

That book was written in 1997.
I was born in 1958.

There is a much earlier version published back in the 1930's. My grandfather (who was a big time American Communist Party member) had a copy of it.

I think that that was a different book about the Nazi persecution and murder of Jews in Europe. Black Book (World War II) - Wikipedia

The Black Book of Communism is a similar take off that focuses on Communism instead of fascism and was published in 1997.

Nope. It was their little book of dirty tricks and propaganda methods.

 

[westwall]

Free speech rights should not extend to those who advocate the direct or indirect harm of the public, IMO.

Because the COTUS of this country specify's that the PEOPLE can do what they want so long as they don't harm someone else. I believe, and support that document. The second they go beyond talking, and implement action, then I have no problem dealing with them. It's as simple as that. You either hold to the values of the Founding Fathers, or you don't. I do.

Then if we are speaking about communists, as you should well know, they are all about nothing other than revolution, violence and the use of conspiracy and sedition.

By your own definition they should not be covered under the First Amendment.

Political speech by definition is protected under the First Amendment. According to your broad interpretation many here, myself included, could have been arrested and incarcerated by the obummer admin were the First Amendment not in place. There's a big difference between talking about your grievances, and actually plotting to blow up buildings and kill people. When they cross THAT line, then they are fair game.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

People have the right to protest, yes, but if they choose to disrupt the business of other people, the protesters best be ready to be given the same treatment in return.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Free speech rights should not extend to those who advocate the direct or indirect harm of the public, IMO.

Because the COTUS of this country specify's that the PEOPLE can do what they want so long as they don't harm someone else. I believe, and support that document. The second they go beyond talking, and implement action, then I have no problem dealing with them. It's as simple as that. You either hold to the values of the Founding Fathers, or you don't. I do.

Then if we are speaking about communists, as you should well know, they are all about nothing other than revolution, violence and the use of conspiracy and sedition.

By your own definition they should not be covered under the First Amendment.

Political speech by definition is protected under the First Amendment. According to your broad interpretation many here, myself included, could have been arrested and incarcerated by the obummer admin were the First Amendment not in place. There's a big difference between talking about your grievances, and actually plotting to blow up buildings and kill people. When they cross THAT line, then they are fair game.

Subversion is not political speech.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nope. It was their little book of dirty tricks and propaganda methods.

The commies or the Nazis?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Political speech by definition is protected under the First Amendment. According to your broad interpretation many here, myself included, could have been arrested and incarcerated by the obummer admin were the First Amendment not in place. There's a big difference between talking about your grievances, and actually plotting to blow up buildings and kill people. When they cross THAT line, then they are fair game.

And plotting to conduct a bloody violent revolution does not sound like 'expressing intent' to you?

That is grounds for removing them from polite company.

 

[MindWars]

"One dimensional thinking is always one dimensional."

I'm not meaning one dimensional thinking.

I'm meaning the Blue Pilled can continue to keep their hands in the sand about these violent Communists and the Agitators and those who finance them or they can become Red Pilled and wake up to reality that this isn't a Children's Tea Party and these subversive and dangerous parasites to Western Civilisation cannot be dealt with with a slap on the wrist and a fine and a few years in prison.

Red/blue=Black/White. It IS one dimensional thinking. It is I wish to kill all those i don't like. About as one dimensional as you can get.

But they're violent Communists Westwall.

And if they are so stupid as to attack me when I am at a demonstration, I will kill them. But I will not advocate for a government to round them up and kill them out of hand.

What about rounding them up and putting them on trial for being the criminal subversives that they are?

If they are committing crimes? By all means yes. Prosecute them for actual crimes they have committed. Not for crimes they "might" commit.

We have pre crime prosecutions now, well at least under Obama not sure if Trump will do away with that one or not.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL I do not approve of property destruction as a form of protest. However, I do not think that is what most on this thread object to in the 'antifa's'. You see, the full interpretation of the German phrase that is taken from is Anti-Fascist Action. Which well explains your kinds opposition to them, peaceful or not.