Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[pbrower2a]

(02-07-2020, 02:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yep. I felt bad about the daycare kids who died in Oklahoma and I felt bad about the kids who burned to death in Waco and I felt bad about the innocent mother and the kid who died at Ruby Ridge too. Evidently, McViegh didn't think the liberal media and the leaders of our primarily  left wing progressive government at the time had paid enough attention to lives of innocent people and decided to do something bigger to wake them up and bring them back down to earth so to speak. The dude was a cold blooded murderer who was caught, convicted by an American court and rightfully executed as a terrorist.

Except when no other recourse is possible, as under occupation of a totalitarian regime, there is no excuse for terroristic violence. Only when choices in life reduce at best to "comply or die" does terrorism become viable -- and that can lead to horrific reprisals (Lezaky and Lidice). 

If you want to talk about the Branch Davidian compound in contrast to the bombing of the Murrah building -- the only truly guilty person who was at the scene of the crime was Timothy McVeigh. People got no warning... and had there been even a remote suspicion of a bomb threat the Feds would have vacated the building. David Koresh got plenty of warning to get children out to safety -- and did not. What looked like a mighty fortress was in fact a firetrap.  

David Koresh was sought for illegal deeds involving weapons, but nailed for accusations of child abuse. Koresh used the children as hostages. Koresh could have complied with court orders and saved much trouble for people at his compound far more innocent than himself. I see more in common between McVeigh and Koresh than you do -- both harbored extreme ideas including contempt for the Laws of the Land. We will never know the full details on events at the Branch Davidian compound. McVeigh used the cataclysm at the Branch Davidian compound as a pretext for a horrific bombing. He had no excuse.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-07-2020, 01:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 01:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 12:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 10:52 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 07-Feb-2020 Eric Antifa M

(02-07-2020, 01:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: >   Quoting yourself now, are ya? Desperate for recognition as usual.
>   But since A is my middle initial, you could call me Eric Antifa M
>   Being anti-fascism is a good thing.  

Everyone is against fascism.  Nothing special or unusual about that.

Antifa is against free speech.

I suppose that puts you on the fascist side, in favor of the Neo Nazi and KKK's right to harass minorities?  They seem to get creative in their propaganda attempts anyway.

Hmmm...I assume that you must favor/support Antifa. Me, I'm not siding with either of them. Hint...A real  American liberal wouldn't side with either radical group. You see, who kills who and how many of them are   killed and injured by each other  in the process doesn't matter to me at all.

I sympathize with the Antifa a little more than the KKK and the Neo Nazi, but the games they play seem to be for a younger crowd.  Some people seem to enjoy a little violence and intimidation.  The history of racism is too horrible to not care at all, but I am not tempted to join any protests.  

I treat all three groups as a side show now, though.  After OKC and again after September 11, the two major parties declared that violence and terrorism was not to be decisive in American politics, and the people tended to agree.  The spiral of violence seemed to trail down after OKC.  The violent decisions of federal law enforcement were discouraged.  The incidents which were becoming common trailed off as both sides got second thoughts.  There was something about bombing a day care center to make a political point that encouraged second thoughts.

Those who intimidate, bully and make empty threats of violence today are disgraceful.  That does not mean it couldn't become important again should the extremists go too far.  That is so Industrial Age though.

I don't sympathize with either one of them and I have no preference as far as who wins or does what to who either.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-07-2020, 03:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 02:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yep. I felt bad about the daycare kids who died in Oklahoma and I felt bad about the kids who burned to death in Waco and I felt bad about the innocent mother and the kid who died at Ruby Ridge too. Evidently, McViegh didn't think the liberal media and the leaders of our primarily  left wing progressive government at the time had paid enough attention to lives of innocent people and decided to do something bigger to wake them up and bring them back down to earth so to speak. The dude was a cold blooded murderer who was caught, convicted by an American court and rightfully executed as a terrorist.

Except when no other recourse is possible, as under occupation of a totalitarian regime, there is no excuse for terroristic violence. Only when choices in life reduce at best to "comply or die" does terrorism become viable -- and that can lead to horrific reprisals (Lezaky and Lidice). 

If you want to talk about the Branch Davidian compound in contrast to the bombing of the Murrah building -- the only truly guilty person who was at the scene of the crime was Timothy McVeigh. People got no warning... and had there been even a remote suspicion of a bomb threat the Feds would have vacated the building. David Koresh got plenty of warning to get children out to safety -- and did not. What looked like a mighty fortress was in fact a firetrap.  

David Koresh was sought for illegal deeds involving weapons, but nailed for accusations of child abuse. Koresh used the children as hostages. Koresh could have complied with court orders and saved much trouble for people at his compound far more innocent than himself. I see more in common between McVeigh and Koresh than you do -- both harbored extreme ideas including contempt for the Laws of the Land. We will never know the full details on events at the Branch Davidian compound. McVeigh used the cataclysm at the Branch Davidian compound as a pretext for a horrific bombing. He had no excuse.

Evidently, they must have believed that they were under an oppressive liberal regime at the time. Unless you're lying and here seeking attention or self promoting, you should be able to relate to their feelings at the time. Yes, McViegh used them (Waco and Ruby Ridge) as the moral justification for his action and the moral justification for the revolution that he tried to start with the bombing of the Murrah federal building.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 07-Feb-2020 Antifa

(02-07-2020, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: > Well, I just meant going along with him calling me names, of
> course.

> But I fear Antifa a lot less than the militant gun toters and
> neo-nazis. However, I note how thoroughly the right wing is able
> to pounce on Antifa and use them to their advantage. So Antifa's
> tactics play right into the hands of their neo-Nazi opponents and
> those of the right-wing politicians and their fans like John
> X.

This has really gotten out of hand. I was simply making a little joke
that apparently misfired. You were banning me from your thread
because the cartoons in this thread are permitted to be only
anti-Trump, and a couple of times I posted something like this:



And you said (paraphrasing): "No, no, no, that's not anti-Trump, so that's
not allowed here."

Which is the kind of thing that Antifa does, demanding that free
speech must be killed, and the only speech that should be allowed is
the stuff they agree with. And so I called you "Antifa Eric" as a
joke, because you're blocking free speech like Antifa does. I wasn't
being serious because I don't really think you're a member of Antifa
(though I don't know). I was just making a little joke that misfired.

If I had known that you would take it seriously as an accusation that
you were really in Antifa, and that it would result in all this
crosstalk, then I wouldn't have said it. Actually, I should realize
that I should never make that kind of joke with people on the left,
since Trump Derangement Syndrome kicks in and you retaliate and start
calling other people random names like "teabagger" or "white
supremacist" or anything in Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables
-- racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name
it."

So I apologize for making the joke, and I aver that I wasn't being
serious, and I'll try to resist doing it again.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-07-2020, 02:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yep. I felt bad about the daycare kids who died in Oklahoma and I felt bad about the kids who burned to death in Waco and I felt bad about the innocent mother and the kid who died at Ruby Ridge too. Evidently, McViegh didn't think the liberal media and the leaders of our primarily  left wing progressive government at the time had paid enough attention to lives of innocent people and decided to do something bigger to wake them up and bring them back down to earth so to speak. The dude was a cold blooded murderer who was caught, convicted by an American court and rightfully executed as a terrorist.

Nitpick.  While OKC occurred during the early Clinton years, McVeigh was in part motivated by things that happened in the prior Bush 41 administration.  Regardless, the second thoughts happened.  The reverse of the at the time aggressive law enforcement practices was overdue.  That doesn’t prevent me from agreeing with your feelings towards McViegh.

[pbrower2a]

(02-07-2020, 04:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 03:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 02:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yep. I felt bad about the daycare kids who died in Oklahoma and I felt bad about the kids who burned to death in Waco and I felt bad about the innocent mother and the kid who died at Ruby Ridge too. Evidently, McViegh didn't think the liberal media and the leaders of our primarily  left wing progressive government at the time had paid enough attention to lives of innocent people and decided to do something bigger to wake them up and bring them back down to earth so to speak. The dude was a cold blooded murderer who was caught, convicted by an American court and rightfully executed as a terrorist.

Except when no other recourse is possible, as under occupation of a totalitarian regime, there is no excuse for terroristic violence. Only when choices in life reduce at best to "comply or die" does terrorism become viable -- and that can lead to horrific reprisals (Lezaky and Lidice). 

If you want to talk about the Branch Davidian compound in contrast to the bombing of the Murrah building -- the only truly guilty person who was at the scene of the crime was Timothy McVeigh. People got no warning... and had there been even a remote suspicion of a bomb threat the Feds would have vacated the building. David Koresh got plenty of warning to get children out to safety -- and did not. What looked like a mighty fortress was in fact a firetrap.  

David Koresh was sought for illegal deeds involving weapons, but nailed for accusations of child abuse. Koresh used the children as hostages. Koresh could have complied with court orders and saved much trouble for people at his compound far more innocent than himself. I see more in common between McVeigh and Koresh than you do -- both harbored extreme ideas including contempt for the Laws of the Land. We will never know the full details on events at the Branch Davidian compound. McVeigh used the cataclysm at the Branch Davidian compound as a pretext for a horrific bombing. He had no excuse.

Evidently, they must have believed that they were under an oppressive liberal regime at the time. Unless you're lying and here seeking attention or self promoting, you should be able to relate to their feelings at the time. Yes, McViegh used them (Waco and Ruby Ridge) as the moral justification for his action and the moral justification for the revolution that he tried to start with the bombing of the Murrah federal building.

"Oppressive regime" does not mean that one simply dislikes it. It means instead that the regimes takes harsh measures to suppress dissent, rivalry, or opposition; holds only meaningless, rigged elections if at all; persecutes minorities for origin or faith; enforces slavery or peonage; or has the economy running to prevent competition.   

It is clear that rather few Americans thought Obama a good-to-great President and think Trump a good-to-great President. Evidence that the USA is not yet an oppressive regime is that we have plenty of demonstrations against the President. Most people are convinced that the November election will be meaningful. 

I do not understand what Tim McVeigh thought. The focus of the trial was upon the deed, and not on giving McVeigh a forum for venting his beliefs. Because he did not issue a manifesto after his crimes as did Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski we can only piece together what he believed in by asking people who knew him. Terry Nichols' wife told her husband to stay clear of McVeigh out of concern that McVeigh could lead him into great legal and personal problems.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-07-2020, 01:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 12:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 10:52 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 07-Feb-2020 Eric Antifa M

(02-07-2020, 01:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: >   Quoting yourself now, are ya? Desperate for recognition as usual.
>   But since A is my middle initial, you could call me Eric Antifa M
>   Being anti-fascism is a good thing.  

Everyone is against fascism.  Nothing special or unusual about that.

Antifa is against free speech.

I suppose that puts you on the fascist side, in favor of the Neo Nazi and KKK's right to harass minorities?  They seem to get creative in their propaganda attempts anyway.

Hmmm...I assume that you must favor/support Antifa. Me, I'm not siding with either of them. Hint...A real  American liberal wouldn't side with either radical group. You see, who kills who and how many of them are   killed and injured by each other  in the process doesn't matter to me at all.

Yes, Antifa is a violent group.  I think the term, terrorist applies.  Terrorism - the use of violence to achieve a political aim.


This definition is what I use to assign any group or individual. And of course the term applies to any right wing groups who do this crap as well.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-07-2020, 10:54 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Yes, Antifa is a violent group.  I think the term, terrorist applies.  Terrorism - the use of violence to achieve a political aim.

This definition is what I use to assign any group or individual. And of course the term applies to any right wing groups who do this crap as well.

That is a fair definition.  The quibble is that the Neo Nazi, KKK and Antifa are not into lethal or large scale violence.  Fistfights and scuffles with other violent protesters I can live with.  I am over 65 and handicapped.  I assume I will be forgiven for not participating.  As one who has trained in the martial arts, I was sort of disqualified anyway.  It is certainly a young person’s game.  

But the above organizations as they currently act do not compare with what the Middle Eastern organizations have done recently, or McVeigh, or what Hitler’s Nazi and Stalin’s  communists did.  It cheapens the word terrorist a little.

But let me try another definition.  A racist harasses minorities or supports other organizations that harass minorities.  By this definition, a person who does not at least renounce the KKK and Neo Nazi would be racist.  

It is sort of a litmus test.  It is hard to tell the racists in the middle of the country from those who favor small government and low taxes for economic reason.  Calling someone short viewed or ignoring the collapses of the economic system after a few years of Republican voodoo economic policies does not quite have the same cachet as supporting racism does.  One way to tell is support for those who do go out and actively harass minorities.  For that reason, I would consider it impolite to be absolutely neutral in the three sorta terrorist group case.  You have to make at least a token objection to continuing the history of harassment, which is past its peak but was persistent during the slaver and Jim Crow years.  That tradition needs to be sat on.

[David Horn]

(02-07-2020, 10:54 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Yes, Antifa is a violent group.  I think the term, terrorist applies.  Terrorism - the use of violence to achieve a political aim.

This definition is what I use to assign any group or individual. And of course the term applies to any right wing groups who do this crap as well.

My problem with assigning anything to "Antifa" is the lack of cohesiveness. It isn't really a group in any classic sense of the word. In fact, it's a loose association of somewhat likeminded groups and individuals who cooperate, or not, at various times. I'm not sure how you classify that as anything more identic than calling all liberals, well, liberals.

[pbrower2a]

Except for fascists themselves... everybody is an anti-fascist. A reactionary traditionalist like Sir Winston Churchill could see nothing good in Hitler. He was right.

I would burn a flag in the presence of fascists. A Nazi flag or a Confederate flag, depending upon the sensibilities of the fascist, of course. I'd proudly display Old Glory, though. Forty-eight stars and thirteen stripes must have been welcome sights to victims of Buchenwald (the US Army got that far before retreating in accordance with the arrangement with the Soviet Union), Dachau and Mauthausen.

Fascism must hide its ugliness, much as a child molester must create a benign facade. Nobody could molest a child by promising shame and pain that the molester seeks to inflict; first come benign promises. So we tell children to not accept treats or adventures from complete strangers.

[pbrower2a]

(02-08-2020, 09:26 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 10:54 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Yes, Antifa is a violent group.  I think the term, terrorist applies.  Terrorism - the use of violence to achieve a political aim.

This definition is what I use to assign any group or individual. And of course the term applies to any right wing groups who do this crap as well.

That is a fair definition.  The quibble is that the Neo Nazi, KKK and Antifa are not into lethal or large scale violence.  Fistfights and scuffles with other violent protesters I can live with.  I am over 65 and handicapped.  I assume I will be forgiven for not participating.  As one who has trained in the martial arts, I was sort of disqualified anyway.  It is certainly a young person’s game.  

But the above organizations as they currently act do not compare with what the Middle Eastern organizations have done recently, or McVeigh, or what Hitler’s Nazi and Stalin’s  communists did.  It cheapens the word terrorist a little.

But let me try another definition.  A racist harasses minorities or supports other organizations that harass minorities.  By this definition, a person who does not at least renounce the KKK and Neo Nazi would be racist.  

It is sort of a litmus test.  It is hard to tell the racists in the middle of the country from those who favor small government and low taxes for economic reason.  Calling someone short viewed or ignoring the collapses of the economic system after a few years of Republican voodoo economic policies does not quite have the same cachet as supporting racism does.  One way to tell is support for those who do go out and actively harass minorities.  For that reason, I would consider it impolite to be absolutely neutral in the three sorta terrorist group case.  You have to make at least a token objection to continuing the history of harassment, which is past its peak but was persistent during the slaver and Jim Crow years.  That tradition needs to be sat on.

The libertarians mean well. The contemporary GOP is as much a big-government party as the Democrats. Republicans are for using the government to enforce raw deals -- monopoly, privatization of the public sector to monopolistic gougers, and wars for profit. Libertarians recognize that a government that can do things for people can just as easily do things to the same people. 

Whatever we ask of government we must ask whether such is efficacious and just. "Others will pay" is a malign pitch. Maybe people are wise enough now to ask whether racial or ethnic bigotry can result in sound social policy. That the German people did not ask what was so horrible about the Jews that they deserved to be robbed, beaten, and killed is a warning to us all. If one must choose between limited government that leaves people to their own resources and abilities or Big Government that does horrible things, then the libertarian option is the right one. 

On the other side, I see a transition to a social market economy, a system of high taxes but great opportunity, as an unambiguous improvement for most Americans. It is pay-as-you-go, which is traditionally acceptable. People expect that if they get education that prepares them for better roles in society that they will pay for such as taxes. I also believe that we will need to restore the role of undergraduate education to that of improving the student (yes, there is more to life than "sex and drugs and rock-and-roll"... and luxury, ease, and bureaucratic power; and woe is it to the person who cannot find a pretext for sacrificing those). I prefer thrift to "luxury", recognizing that savings can do me far more good than can ostentatious display. Ease is over-rated. Bureaucratic power ideally ideally implies as much the responsibility to do good for those "below" as "above".

I am reminded that verbal power is far more likely to cultivate love than is the sex drive. Just think of the romance between Winston and Julia in 1984 that cannot develop because neither can express themselves verbally because the system has gutted language of its power to express anything other than propaganda. Drugs? I can think of better, like art. "Rock-and-roll"? There is good rock-and-roll, but it clearly takes some experimentation to figure that instrumental music with a banal title ("String of Pearls")  or even so generic as  Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, String Quartet No. 18 in A major, K. 464, Op. 10, No. 5 (from 1785, so it must have a huge layer of dust upon it) is worthy of attention. 


Don't believe me? Just listen:









Knowing what the good stuff is takes some intellectual inquiry, and such is true whatever position one is in the economic hierarchy.

[pbrower2a]

And for the sick joke of rewarding "Rash Libel" with a Congressional Medal of Honor...

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-08-2020, 09:26 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 10:54 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Yes, Antifa is a violent group.  I think the term, terrorist applies.  Terrorism - the use of violence to achieve a political aim.

This definition is what I use to assign any group or individual. And of course the term applies to any right wing groups who do this crap as well.

That is a fair definition.  The quibble is that the Neo Nazi, KKK and Antifa are not into lethal or large scale violence.  Fistfights and scuffles with other violent protesters I can live with.  I am over 65 and handicapped.  I assume I will be forgiven for not participating.  As one who has trained in the martial arts, I was sort of disqualified anyway.  It is certainly a young person’s game.  

But the above organizations as they currently act do not compare with what the Middle Eastern organizations have done recently, or McVeigh, or what Hitler’s Nazi and Stalin’s  communists did.  It cheapens the word terrorist a little.

But let me try another definition.  A racist harasses minorities or supports other organizations that harass minorities.  By this definition, a person who does not at least renounce the KKK and Neo Nazi would be racist.  

It is sort of a litmus test.  It is hard to tell the racists in the middle of the country from those who favor small government and low taxes for economic reason.  Calling someone short viewed or ignoring the collapses of the economic system after a few years of Republican voodoo economic policies does not quite have the same cachet as supporting racism does.  One way to tell is support for those who do go out and actively harass minorities.  For that reason, I would consider it impolite to be absolutely neutral in the three sorta terrorist group case.  You have to make at least a token objection to continuing the history of harassment, which is past its peak but was persistent during the slaver and Jim Crow years.  That tradition needs to be sat on.

I'm thinking of how say Antifa and the KKK now use social media to coordinate activities. Violence, regardless of source must be denounced wholly. I don't really care for some sort of cause to promote violence or justify being soft on one sort and not equally as forceful on some other. IOW, violence is one of Rag's red lines. We all, I suppose have them, so there's that. It is also for that reason I've despised US foreign policy. I'm beginning to think all those wars of choice were not fought to "promote democracy", but upon reflecting  things, that's all been a lie to cover up that our foreign policy is to wrest resources owned by others for our own gain.  As for the voodoo stuff, yup. I also see that it's time is coming to an end. The upcoming destruction of globalism will see to that. We will not get the future we ordered because karma will see to that.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-08-2020, 02:39 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: I'm thinking of how say Antifa and the KKK now use social media to coordinate activities. Violence, regardless of source must be denounced wholly. I don't really care for some sort of cause to promote violence or justify being soft on one sort and not equally as forceful on some other. IOW, violence is one of Rag's red lines. We all, I suppose have them, so there's that. It is also for that reason I've despised US foreign policy. I'm beginning to think all those wars of choice were not fought to "promote democracy", but upon reflecting  things, that's all been a lie to cover up that our foreign policy is to wrest resources owned by others for our own gain.  As for the voodoo stuff, yup. I also see that it's time is coming to an end. The upcoming destruction of globalism will see to that. We will not get the future we ordered because karma will see to that.

If we all have red lines, I personally renounce racists, renounce elites, renounce autocratic governments, and we can work from there.  Violence?  You could say fistfights don’t count.  You can say that as long as there are autocratic governments considering expanding by force, the democracies cannot fully disarm, must play some variant of the Domino Theory game.

I agree that our foreign policy especially under Bush 43 was Neo colonialism,  It was backed by voodoo economics.  Neither is ideal.  I concur much of conservative era government is eventually going to be hit by a karma.

[Eric the Green]

(02-07-2020, 10:54 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 01:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 12:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 10:52 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 07-Feb-2020 Eric Antifa M

(02-07-2020, 01:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: >   Quoting yourself now, are ya? Desperate for recognition as usual.
>   But since A is my middle initial, you could call me Eric Antifa M
>   Being anti-fascism is a good thing.  

Everyone is against fascism.  Nothing special or unusual about that.

Antifa is against free speech.

I suppose that puts you on the fascist side, in favor of the Neo Nazi and KKK's right to harass minorities?  They seem to get creative in their propaganda attempts anyway.

Hmmm...I assume that you must favor/support Antifa. Me, I'm not siding with either of them. Hint...A real  American liberal wouldn't side with either radical group. You see, who kills who and how many of them are   killed and injured by each other  in the process doesn't matter to me at all.

Yes, Antifa is a violent group.  I think the term, terrorist applies.  Terrorism - the use of violence to achieve a political aim.


This definition is what I use to assign any group or individual. And of course the term applies to any right wing groups who do this crap as well.

I think Antifa is violent, and that's not cool. I sympathize with them, because the fascists really are making a comeback in the Trump era, and they are just saying no and offering resistance. They disrupt speakers, and that's against "free speech." But there's a line between free speech and hate speech, and I don't know just where the proper line is. Ideally, the authorities should not allow hate speech that incites violence. There'd at least theoretically be no need for Antifa's violent actions then.

I wouldn't call antifa terrorists, because they are not attacking innocent people, but resisting neo-nazi thugs. Antifa tactics obviously provide food for the anti-left propagandists, so it's not a wise tactic. On the other hand, resistance to neo-nazis in some way is needed. These latter are not doing the same crap; they are far worse, and we've been down this road before in Nazi Germany. A visit to Auschwitz would seem in order for those who think antifa and neo-nazis are "doing the same crap."

Here is a little reminder of this danger of Nazi hate from ABC News and the children of Auschwitz this week, broadcast after the debate:









Respect all people as our fellow humans, regardless of religion, race or nationality. That's the lesson.
https://youtu.be/w-Ji1e2NVQA?t=8061

I know. This is not making fun of anything. But it's where we're going under the current conman in charge.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-08-2020, 03:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 10:54 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 01:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 12:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 10:52 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 07-Feb-2020 Eric Antifa M


Everyone is against fascism.  Nothing special or unusual about that.

Antifa is against free speech.

I suppose that puts you on the fascist side, in favor of the Neo Nazi and KKK's right to harass minorities?  They seem to get creative in their propaganda attempts anyway.

Hmmm...I assume that you must favor/support Antifa. Me, I'm not siding with either of them. Hint...A real  American liberal wouldn't side with either radical group. You see, who kills who and how many of them are   killed and injured by each other  in the process doesn't matter to me at all.

Yes, Antifa is a violent group.  I think the term, terrorist applies.  Terrorism - the use of violence to achieve a political aim.


This definition is what I use to assign any group or individual. And of course the term applies to any right wing groups who do this crap as well.

I think Antifa is violent, and that's not cool. I sympathize with them, because the fascists really are making a comeback in the Trump era, and they are just saying no and offering resistance. They disrupt speakers, and that's against "free speech." But there's a line between free speech and hate speech, and I don't know just where the proper line is. Ideally, the authorities should not allow hate speech that incites violence. There'd at least theoretically be no need for Antifa's violent actions then.

I wouldn't call antifa terrorists, because they are not attacking innocent people, but resisting neo-nazi thugs. Antifa tactics obviously provide food for the anti-left propagandists, so it's not a wise tactic. On the other hand, resistance to neo-nazis in some way is needed. These latter are not doing the same crap; they are far worse, and we've been down this road before in Nazi Germany. A visit to Auschwitz would seem in order for those who think antifa and neo-nazis are "doing the same crap."

Here is a little reminder of this danger of Nazi hate from ABC News and the children of Auschwitz this week, broadcast after the debate:









Respect all people as our fellow humans, regardless of religion, race or nationality. That's the lesson.
https://youtu.be/w-Ji1e2NVQA?t=8061

I know. This is not making fun of anything. But it's where we're going under the current conman in charge.

Antifa does attack innocents. That is why I have an issue with them. If they attacked only Nazis, I wouldn't care.  That would just be a pox on both houses.

Here is a search list that has evidence. Feel free too peruse the list. Ain't got no'thuntahide, ya know.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antifa+attacks...&ia=videos

[Classic-Xer]

(02-07-2020, 05:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 02:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yep. I felt bad about the daycare kids who died in Oklahoma and I felt bad about the kids who burned to death in Waco and I felt bad about the innocent mother and the kid who died at Ruby Ridge too. Evidently, McViegh didn't think the liberal media and the leaders of our primarily  left wing progressive government at the time had paid enough attention to lives of innocent people and decided to do something bigger to wake them up and bring them back down to earth so to speak. The dude was a cold blooded murderer who was caught, convicted by an American court and rightfully executed as a terrorist.

Nitpick.  While OKC occurred during the early Clinton years, McVeigh was in part motivated by things that happened in the prior Bush 41 administration.  Regardless, the second thoughts happened.  The reverse of the at the time aggressive law enforcement practices was overdue.  That doesn’t prevent me from agreeing with your feelings towards McViegh.

Rudy Ridge occurred just before Clinton took office. Waco and OKC occurred while Clinton was in office at a time when the Fed's were viewed by most as being to aggressive. Waco was mishandled and dragging out for to long and becoming an embarrassment to higher ups. I was actually threatened by some lady working for the IRS at the time. They didn't receive a payroll tax payment on time that had been mailed a few weeks before it was due. I'm sorry but I had no control over the US Postal Service. She called me a liar and accused me of not sending it and threatened me with all kinds of legal actions. You don't call me a liar. I contacted them about the notice that I had received from them about a late payment penalty fee that I owed for a tax payment that they should have received a week before it was due. I told her that she couldn't threaten me like that or do what she claimed she would do and she told me that she could because due process didn't apply to tax collection which I thought was wrong because I mailed the god damn thing myself. So, I asked her at what point did this country become a communist country. She didn't like that response but it woke her up and made her start questioning the serious position she had taken with me and forced he into thinking she back it down with me and check into it further because if was there someplace like I had suggested to her and postmarked well in advance as I expected it would be then she was wrong and guilty of falsely accusing and threatening an innocent US Taxpayer who her government job relied on and was directly associated with who had demonstrated to her that they had enough clout to directly challenge her and not back down. My official complaint which would have included her name would have been filed with the millions of other official complaints that were being filed in district courts all over the country at the time.

Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head when he notified those on the left during a State of the Union Address after the Republicans took the House for the first time in over a hundred years that the era of big government was over. You guys should have taken that to heart and began to adjust expectations vs clinging to hopes for major crisis's to occur that would rekindle and revive it and continuing to support adding more responsibilities on top of existing responsibilities and adding more problems related to people than progressive systems and government institutions can handle for to many years.

[David Horn]

(02-09-2020, 01:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head when he notified those on the left during a State of the Union Address after the Republicans took the House for the first time in over a hundred years that the era of big government was over. You guys should have taken that to heart and began to adjust expectations vs clinging to hopes for major crisis's to occur that would rekindle and revive it and continuing to support adding more responsibilities on top of existing responsibilities and adding more problems related to people than progressive systems and government institutions can handle for to many years.

Well, that was then and this is now. We're all here because we believe that politics, culture and the economy operate on cycles. The "era of big government is over" is now passing as well. It was foreshadowed by Nixon and Carter, but started in earnest with Reagan. That's half-a-saeculum ago; it's time for a change.

We should be a bit humble and realize that we always fix what's broken by breaking something else. That 'something else' takes a while to do damage and be noticed, but that's the reason the cycle exists. It's also the human condition. Perfection is unachievable, so the pursuit of it is eternal.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-09-2020, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-09-2020, 01:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head when he notified those on the left during a State of the Union Address after the Republicans took the House for the first time in over a hundred years that the era of big government was over. You guys should have taken that to heart and began to adjust expectations vs clinging to hopes for major crisis's to occur that would rekindle and revive it and continuing to support adding more responsibilities on top of existing responsibilities and adding more problems related to people than progressive systems and government institutions can handle for to many years.

Well, that was then and this is now.  We're all here because we believe that politics, culture and the economy operate on cycles.  The "era of big government is over" is now passing as well.  It was foreshadowed by Nixon and Carter, but started in earnest with Reagan.  That's half-a-saeculum ago; it's time for a change.  

We should be a bit humble and realize that we always fix what's broken by breaking something else.  That 'something else' takes a while to do damage and be noticed, but that's the reason the cycle exists.  It's also the human condition.  Perfection is unachievable, so the pursuit of it is eternal.

Nitpick:  I am a fan of spirals rather than cycles.  After kings, slaves, then nazi, then… Who knows?   Problems get solved, then four scores and seven years later you go on to the next thing that you can't tolerate any more.  Always there are some who want to continue the old pattern, arguing correctly that this is how it always has been done, but remembered poorly by history according to the new values.  It is less that we break things in the process of fixing them, which does happen often enough, but more that the Agricultural Age autocratic systems were awful.

[Eric the Green]

(02-08-2020, 09:04 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 03:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 10:54 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 01:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 12:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I suppose that puts you on the fascist side, in favor of the Neo Nazi and KKK's right to harass minorities?  They seem to get creative in their propaganda attempts anyway.

Hmmm...I assume that you must favor/support Antifa. Me, I'm not siding with either of them. Hint...A real  American liberal wouldn't side with either radical group. You see, who kills who and how many of them are   killed and injured by each other  in the process doesn't matter to me at all.

Yes, Antifa is a violent group.  I think the term, terrorist applies.  Terrorism - the use of violence to achieve a political aim.


This definition is what I use to assign any group or individual. And of course the term applies to any right wing groups who do this crap as well.

I think Antifa is violent, and that's not cool. I sympathize with them, because the fascists really are making a comeback in the Trump era, and they are just saying no and offering resistance. They disrupt speakers, and that's against "free speech." But there's a line between free speech and hate speech, and I don't know just where the proper line is. Ideally, the authorities should not allow hate speech that incites violence. There'd at least theoretically be no need for Antifa's violent actions then.

I wouldn't call antifa terrorists, because they are not attacking innocent people, but resisting neo-nazi thugs. Antifa tactics obviously provide food for the anti-left propagandists, so it's not a wise tactic. On the other hand, resistance to neo-nazis in some way is needed. These latter are not doing the same crap; they are far worse, and we've been down this road before in Nazi Germany. A visit to Auschwitz would seem in order for those who think antifa and neo-nazis are "doing the same crap."

Here is a little reminder of this danger of Nazi hate from ABC News and the children of Auschwitz this week, broadcast after the debate:









Respect all people as our fellow humans, regardless of religion, race or nationality. That's the lesson.
https://youtu.be/w-Ji1e2NVQA?t=8061

I know. This is not making fun of anything. But it's where we're going under the current conman in charge.

Antifa does attack innocents. That is why I have an issue with them. If they attacked only Nazis, I wouldn't care.  That would just be a pox on both houses.

Here is a search list that has evidence. Feel free too peruse the list. Ain't got no'thuntahide, ya know.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antifa+attacks...&ia=videos

I don't see that antifa attacks innocents. Maybe a few bystanders in the way? They are dedicated to resisting fascists, as their name indicates. They confront them at their rallies. They disrupt speakers whom they consider fascist. A terrorist attacks people randomly, just to create terror. That's not antifa.

Your quotes and videos claim antifa attacks right-wingers. I don't agree with such tactics and attacks. But these people that they attack are not innocent or random. They are fascists.

Your video seemed to show antifa people saying "let him out" after some of them attacked a Trump supporter. No doubt when groups confront each other, some get carried away. And Trump supporter? Is a Trump supporter a fascist? Well, Trump is a fascist, so.... I don't think they should be attacked. But a few antifa hitting one Trump supporter a few times at a rally where an antifa group counter-demonstrates against the Trumpists, and then other antifas say let him go, is not terrorism.

Antifa is not cool. I am not a member of or supporter of them. But they are not equal to neo-Nazis. Again, if you think so, watch the ABC video.