Why aren't we having a National conversation about Leftist violence?

[TheSanityAnnex]

You already admitted in this thread that you wanted to participate in pedophilia with your teachers when you were a kid as reason why you post all the articles about teacher pedophilia. That you vicariously relive that still is extremely telling as to your disposition toward recent events: you don't see anything wrong with it.

In the most recent post when people criticized the teacher you defended her stating that they were just the statements of the sexually frustrated. That is defending a pedophile in and of itself, dimwit.

You also told us that you set expectations on others based on what you expected of yourself.

What then are we supposed to make of you saying that Hastert's victims were willing after you revel in other teachers having sex with willing teens? You obviously think consent exonerates the behavior. You can call it acquiesce or whatever but its there just the same.

Are you a registered sex offender?
Triggered

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You throw the term slave in knowing exactly what it implies.
Stop with your gibberish and need to one up.
You know exactly what I stated and exactly what I mean.

Stop with the juvenile distortions. I know exactly where the OP and others are coming from.
You are implying violence IN THIS CASE is a way. It's not. It's counterproductive and you know this.

"Turn the other cheek " just where the fck did I state this? This is a GD presidential election, not a revolution. Now I'm going to pull your shit: Is this how you make America better since it's so Fd up Mr. FuzzyTrump revolution? That article is shit. This is a presidential election.

I said slave morality which was termed by Nietzsche.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality

There is a wiki page to assuage your ignorance. He was in Prussia in the 18th century and while I'm sure that he was aware of the existence of US slaves, I doubt that he thought in terms of their dialect.

Don't tell me what I know. Speak for yourself. I don't think like you nor do I wish to. I take things on a case by case basis and judge on the merits of what actually happened. I refuse to paint that broad a brush so spare me your universals. Violence can be an effective solution in some cases.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Triggered

So this is the part where you think I am mad and get your jollies?

[pgardn]

I said slave morality which was termed by Nietzsche.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality

There is a wiki page to assuage your ignorance. He was in Prussia in the 18th century and while I'm sure that he was aware of the existence of US slaves, I doubt that he thought in terms of their dialect.

Don't tell me what I know. Speak for yourself. I don't think like you nor do I wish to. I take things on a case by case basis and judge on the merits of what actually happened. I refuse to paint that broad a brush so spare me your universals. Violence can be an effective solution in some cases.

Im am telling you what you know.

Violence is counterproductive in this situation.
Period.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Im am telling you what you know.

Violence is counterproductive in this situation.
Period.

Which situation? There have been several. You don't even seem to grasp anything beyond your blanket condemnation. I don't know enough to pass judgment myself.

[pgardn]

Which situation? There have been several. You don't even seem to grasp anything beyond your blanket condemnation. I don't know enough to pass judgment myself.

During Trump rallies. The ones democratic candidates have already condemned but you and others try to go on with the but, but, but...
Especially after the putrid article trying to excuse the violence and attempting to excuse the violence by bringing up cases that had little to nothing in common with the incidents referred to. Again, since you appear to like to slither and basically produce disingenuous arguments for the sake of arguing:

Violent attacks on Trump supporters at Trump rallies as we have seen during this presidential election are counterproductive.

Period.

Now go pull a SA by finding a video that shows Trump supporters throwing sucker punches at a Hillary rally so we can condemn this as well.

And if you don't know enough, don't post in the first place. You present a disingenuous argument by trying to widen the incidents referred to by myself and then claim to not know enough.... Jesus. Clean up the act.

[pgardn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZ-1EojoFM

He has a point about his rhetoric and the Civil Right era violence.

NYT piece was also cited in the article:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uByqMDn1kBc

How about Trump and the GOP take responsibility for the rhetoric as opposed to the narrative we are being fed here.

These snippets above are exactly why you don't react to this guy with violence. And yes, they are highly snipped for effect. Trump is constantly digging himself holes yet people want to give him a way to climb out by reacting violently? The juxtaposition with the civil rights movement is of course highly dubious as some of these demonstrators were attempting to interrupt the rally and letting the speaker speak. Let him speak. Let him walk off the ledge.

As a wider topic I don't think people get why Trump has gained so much popularity. He has definitely mined the white male frustrated with low wages. He has tapped that mine which infuriates old guard Republicans. The very base uneducated populous reaction gained through the blaming Mexico, Muslims, etc... is evident and strong. This need to scapegoat a certain group of people gains steam when the blamed react back violently. Or the so called intellectuals compare this with a Nazi phenomena to rationalize the violence. This is not postwar WW1 Germany. If these so called intellectuals think it is post war Germany then they to have bought into the "make America great again" BS as well. Exactly what time periods was America great? At what point in the past are we aiming for now? Do we wish to reconstruct post WW2 50s? What?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

These snippets above are exactly why you don't react to this guy with violence. And yes, they are highly snipped for effect. Trump is constantly digging himself holes yet people want to give him a way to climb out by reacting violently? The juxtaposition with the civil rights movement is of course highly dubious as some of these demonstrators were attempting to interrupt the rally and letting the speaker speak. Let him speak. Let him walk off the ledge.

As a wider topic I don't think people get why Trump has gained so much popularity. He has definitely mined the white male frustrated with low wages. He has tapped that mine which infuriates old guard Republicans. The very base uneducated populous reaction gained through the blaming Mexico, Muslims, etc... is evident and strong. This need to scapegoat a certain group of people gains steam when the blamed react back violently. Or the so called intellectuals compare this with a Nazi phenomena to rationalize the violence. This is not postwar WW1 Germany. If these so called intellectuals think it is post war Germany then they to have bought into the "make America great again" BS as well. Exactly what time periods was America great? At what point in the past are we aiming for now? Do we wish to reconstruct post WW2 50s? What?

His rhetoric and policy propositions are more comparable to the European fascists than any other presidential candidates in the last 100 years. HE gets routinely compared to George Wallace The xenophobic racism, talk of national glory, and heavy handed treatment of political enemies are all hallmarks and Wallace was the tamest of the three. Trump and the fascists supporters are and were the uneducated dispossessed majority. Wallace had the poor white southerners.

You can pretend that that shit can never happen again but history repeats itself constantly particularly amongst the uneducated.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

During Trump rallies. The ones democratic candidates have already condemned but you and others try to go on with the but, but, but...
Especially after the putrid article trying to excuse the violence and attempting to excuse the violence by bringing up cases that had little to nothing in common with the incidents referred to. Again, since you appear to like to slither and basically produce disingenuous arguments for the sake of arguing:

Violent attacks on Trump supporters at Trump rallies as we have seen during this presidential election are counterproductive.

Period.

Now go pull a SA by finding a video that shows Trump supporters throwing sucker punches at a Hillary rally so we can condemn this as well.

And if you don't know enough, don't post in the first place. You present a disingenuous argument by trying to widen the incidents referred to by myself and then claim to not know enough.... Jesus. Clean up the act.

My point was to try and get you to look at a case by case basis rather than your blanket condemnation. I set a high standard of proof for condemnation and there are various disparate incidents. I am not without a clue to the specifics but have far less information than I require. Your standards of proof are poor. I am satisfied with the legal process however and as I pointed out many of the accused will ahve their day in court. The status quo suits me just fine.

And what on Earth do Democratic leaders positions have to do with anything? Of course they are going to say the politically correct thing to suit the LCD. I don't waste my time with posturing. I think for myself. You should try it.

You cannot even address what the article says. You just go with another blanket dismissal. The article particularly addresses the blanket dismissal and correctly points out that violence does work with empirical examples. He doesn't use a blanket statement but rather insists a more nuanced look at the issue. You aren't ready for that.

[DarrinS]

^Man, some people are just snotty little bitches.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

^Man, some people are just snotty little bitches.

And some people are intellectual cowards, sophists, and rely on deception. I'll take arrogant.

[DarrinS]

And some people are intellectual cowards, sophists, and rely on deception. I'll take arrogant.

:cry sophist? that hurts :cry

:lmao

[TheSanityAnnex]

So this is the part where you think I am mad and get your jollies?

No this is the part where I say you have no impulse control with your ignore list.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You know what's funny, and why you are a complete and total piece of shit?

You actually are so fucking blinded by the need for others to think for you, you think you have a point. It's like oj thinking after awhile he really didn't cut Nicole's head off.

The saddest part is there are so many of you, weak/scared/insecure/worthless, that it's ruined this country.

I showed you violence. I showed your hero candidate inciting said violence. You did exactly what I said you were going to do. Ignore what your eyes see and ears hear out of fear of upsetting the brain that you depend on to think for you. Don't want to have to take responsibility for thinking on your own, you're just as worthless as a hipster millennial.

Kill yourself asap, you've stolen oxygen long enough.

You know what's funny, you still haven't backed your claim up. You claimed that violence at Trump rallies, by Trump supporters was far more prevalent. Back it up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:cry sophist? that hurts :cry

:lmao

Posturing is droll your impudence rings hollow. You stopped arguing on merit and are afraid to discuss the science on climate issues because you've been made to look stupid so many times. Your tailing and whinging serves to point to cause.

Post another smilie if it makes you feel better.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No this is the part where I say you have no impulse control with your ignore list.

You've been desperate to try and pin that on me since I equated you to a dog. I don't use the ignore list for avoidance, dimwit. I use it for control.

You get off to the immediate attention when you spam. I took that away from you. It was amusing when I first did it and it remains amusing now. You obviously don't like it and that suits me just fine.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You've been desperate to try and pin that on me since I equated you to a dog. I don't use the ignore list for avoidance, dimwit. I use it for control.

You get off to the immediate attention when you spam. I took that away from you. It was amusing when I first did it and it remains amusing now. You obviously don't like it and that suits me just fine.

More lack of impulse control

[pgardn]

My point was to try and get you to look at a case by case basis rather than your blanket condemnation. I set a high standard of proof for condemnation and there are various disparate incidents. I am not without a clue to the specifics but have far less information than I require. Your standards of proof are poor. I am satisfied with the legal process however and as I pointed out many of the accused will ahve their day in court. The status quo suits me just fine.

And what on Earth do Democratic leaders positions have to do with anything? Of course they are going to say the politically correct thing to suit the LCD. I don't waste my time with posturing. I think for myself. You should try it.

You cannot even address what the article says. You just go with another blanket dismissal. The article particularly addresses the blanket dismissal and correctly points out that violence does work with empirical examples. He doesn't use a blanket statement but rather insists a more nuanced look at the issue. You aren't ready for that.

And I gave you a SPECIFIC scenario. Go back and read.

Just stop.

[pgardn]

And some people are intellectual cowards, sophists, and rely on deception. I'll take arrogant.

You just described yourself.
Congrats.

[pgardn]

My point was to try and get you to look at a case by case basis rather than your blanket condemnation. I set a high standard of proof for condemnation and there are various disparate incidents. I am not without a clue to the specifics but have far less information than I require. Your standards of proof are poor. I am satisfied with the legal process however and as I pointed out many of the accused will ahve their day in court. The status quo suits me just fine.

And what on Earth do Democratic leaders positions have to do with anything? Of course they are going to say the politically correct thing to suit the LCD. I don't waste my time with posturing. I think for myself. You should try it.

You cannot even address what the article says. You just go with another blanket dismissal. The article particularly addresses the blanket dismissal and correctly points out that violence does work with empirical examples. He doesn't use a blanket statement but rather insists a more nuanced look at the issue. You aren't ready for that.

Bs

The article clearly tries to link this with the shit at Trump rallies. Otherwise it would have been written at a different time.

The big picture view outside of the Trump rallies has always been a salient morality question. This is not something new. You think this is some sort of eye opener? Good for you, it's been discussed for ages.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You just described yourself.
Congrats.

:lol Thanks Pee Wee.

What argument for a conclusion as opposed to allowing the facts determine the truth have I made?
What argument have I run away from rather than admit that I was wrong?
What have I intentionally mislead people about?

You just seem upset frankly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bs

The article clearly tries to link this with the shit at Trump rallies. Otherwise it would have been written at a different time.

The big picture view outside of the Trump rallies has always been a salient morality question. This is not something new. You think this is some sort of eye opener? Good for you, it's been discussed for ages.

You need to learn what mutually exclusive means. Your attempt at deduction fails that test. He still makes the case I stated. Your interpretation does not exclude it in the least.

You espoused slave morality of moral relativism before and as I already said, I reject that methodology. I don't bother with such things as most often they boil down to personal preferences. Case by case basis determined by objective fact. Your blanket ideology is very droll to me. Just because it is salient to you doesn't mean its salient to me.

Tell me more about what "I already know."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And I gave you a SPECIFIC scenario. Go back and read.

Just stop.

You again miss the point. I get you are trying to conflate the rock throwers with the rest. I told you before I don't think like that and instead a case by case basis. Perhaps one day you will catch up.

[pgardn]

His rhetoric and policy propositions are more comparable to the European fascists than any other presidential candidates in the last 100 years. HE gets routinely compared to George Wallace The xenophobic racism, talk of national glory, and heavy handed treatment of political enemies are all hallmarks and Wallace was the tamest of the three. Trump and the fascists supporters are and were the uneducated dispossessed majority. Wallace had the poor white southerners.

You can pretend that that shit can never happen again but history repeats itself constantly particularly amongst the uneducated.

Repeats itself. WTF does that even mean?

Oh shit, people disagree and kill each other, history has exactly replicated itself once again. People are wary of other cultures, big news. History repeats itself, xenophobia exists.

And you are the one who accused me of making simpleton blanket statements...

[pgardn]

:lol Thanks Pee Wee.

What argument for a conclusion as opposed to allowing the facts determine the truth have I made?
What argument have I run away from rather than admit that I was wrong?
What have I intentionally mislead people about?

You just seem upset frankly.

You refer to me as Pee Wee and then claim I am upset..

Seriously.


And Frankly? Like you have been holding back and now you need to reveal your earthshaking Dr. Phil psychoanalysis?
Christ.

Please stop.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You refer to me as Pee Wee and then claim I am upset..

Seriously.


And Frankly? Like you have been holding back and now you need to reveal your earthshaking Dr. Phil psychoanalysis?
Christ.

Please stop.

Being frank means being direct to the point. You do seem upset to me.

And the Pee Wee reference was about the "I know you are but what am I" reasoning. I won't tell you that you should know that though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Repeats itself. WTF does that even mean?

Oh shit, people disagree and kill each other, history has exactly replicated itself once again. People are wary of other cultures, big news. History repeats itself, xenophobia exists.

And you are the one who accused me of making simpleton blanket statements...

I was talking about how fascists came to power. Hitler was elected. He went to jail for violence and wrote Mein Kampf. When he came out he claimed to have turned over a new leaf and tried nonviolent means to power. He didn't take long to revert burning the reichstag in the days after the election. I would say Mussolini with his bombast and claims to Italian greatness are the more apt comparison. You really need stormtroopers to be compared to Hitler. Benito was elected too.

We are talking about the specific presidential election. Youre hardly coherent anymore. Maybe you should just stop.

[pgardn]

I was talking about how fascists came to power. Hitler was elected. He went to jail for violence and wrote Mein Kampf. When he came out he claimed to have turned over a new leaf and tried nonviolent means to power. He didn't take long to revert burning the reichstag in the days after the election. I would say Mussolini with his bombast and claims to Italian greatness are the more apt comparison. You really need stormtroopers to be compared to Hitler. Benito was elected too.

We are talking about the specific presidential election. Youre hardly coherent anymore. Maybe you should just stop.

Now you are just running in circles.

Therefore I am not coherent.
Excellent.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now you are just running in circles.

Therefore I am not coherent.
Excellent.

You not being able to follow along is not my problem. As I stated before the racist xenophobia, calls for violent response to protest, and stark nationalism are similar to the rhetoric used by European fascists coming to power in the early 20th century. It's important to remember that in light of recent events because history does have a tendency to repeat itself. This is doubly concerning due to the fact of the uneducated nature of Trump supporters as a whole.

You seem too obtuse to piece it together so I helped. AT least you stopped putting that slave morality on me.

[pgardn]

Being frank means being direct to the point. You do seem upset to me.

And the Pee Wee reference was about the "I know you are but what am I" reasoning. I won't tell you that you should know that though.

No it means being candid. Which implies you could have been holding back something before.

"I know you are but what am I?" Wtf?

I said you understand what I am pointing out but diverting. Which you were. And I said we both know this. This is name calling? Cmon. Just stop already.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No it means being candid. Which implies you could have been holding back something before.

"I know you are but what am I?" Wtf?

I said you understand what I am pointing out but diverting. Which you were. And I said we both know this. This is name calling? Cmon. Just stop already.

Words have many definitions. That you pigeonhole down to one and insist denotes your scope.

I asked you to justify the "I know you are but what am I" response to how I characterize the Darrin account and you failed already.

[pgardn]

You not being able to follow along is not my problem. As I stated before the racist xenophobia, calls for violent response to protest, and stark nationalism are similar to the rhetoric used by European fascists coming to power in the early 20th century. It's important to remember that in light of recent events because history does have a tendency to repeat itself. This is doubly concerning due to the fact of the uneducated nature of Trump supporters as a whole.

You seem too obtuse to piece it together so I helped. AT least you stopped putting that slave morality on me.

Yes. History repeats itself. There will be more human conflict.
Simplistic BS.

Quit trying to stretch those links to make a point I'm not debating.

No violence at Trump rallies. Just leave the idiots alone or protest peacefully. But you wanna extend this continuously.

I can't stop you. so keep going, I will just paste this back in I guess.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes. History repeats itself. There will be more human conflict.
Simplistic BS.

Quit trying to stretch those links to make a point I'm not debating.

No violence at Trump rallies. Just leave the idiots alone or protest peacefully. But you wanna extend this continuously.

I can't stop you. so keep going, I will just paste this back in I guess.

That is not what I said. I am more concerned about an authoritarian regime taking over the country. I am not talking about conflict. Nuance is hard for you.

I am not going to say that there is never a reason to become violent at a political rally. Sorry I won't use that type of slave morality.

[pgardn]

Words have many definitions. That you pigeonhole down to one and insist denotes your scope.

I asked you to justify the "I know you are but what am I" response to how I characterize the Darrin account and you failed already.

What?

I said the article was shit in bringing this up as a very clear response to the violence at Trump rallies. That subject could be addressed in many different cases. It's not some new insightful debate and also used at an inappropriate moment IMO.

[pgardn]

That is not what I said. I am more concerned about an authoritarian regime taking over the country. I am not talking about conflict. Nuance is hard for you.

I am not going to say that there is never a reason to become violent at a political rally. Sorry I won't use that type of slave morality.

Well then don't respond to my point with your extensions into other subject areas. You responded to my post. Go back and read again. Keeping on subject is difficult for you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What?

I said the article was shit in bringing this up as a very clear response to the violence at Trump rallies. That subject could be addressed in many different cases. It's not some new insightful debate and also used at an inappropriate moment IMO.

Please quote the part of the article that states that. He starts off the article discussing Trumps provocations and then talks about people like you with your blanket dismissals. He then talks about multiple times where violent protest ended up in change stating that blanket statements such as yours are unfounded. He gets what I am talking about. You cannot apparently.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well then don't respond to my point with your extensions into other subject areas. You responded to my post. Go back and read again.

:lol if it applies it applies. not my fault you struggle to keep up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What?

I said the article was shit in bringing this up as a very clear response to the violence at Trump rallies. That subject could be addressed in many different cases. It's not some new insightful debate and also used at an inappropriate moment IMO.


You just described yourself.
Congrats.

Damn you cannot even keep up with yourself. Are you drinking or something?

[pgardn]

Please quote the part of the article that states that. He starts off the article discussing Trumps provocations and then talks about people like you with your blanket dismissals. He then talks about multiple times where violent protest ended up in change stating that blanket statements such as yours are unfounded. He gets what I am talking about. You cannot apparently.

No.

Its simple.

Dont respond with violence given the Trump events.

Then stop.
Simple.

Again. This article could be used for a myriad of events that occur everyday around the world. This is not a revolution.

[pgardn]

Damn you cannot even keep up with yourself. Are you drinking or something?

Ahh now you play AA counselor.
Stellar.

Keep chasing your tail. The irony of your responses is amusing.

[pgardn]

:lol if it applies it applies. not my fault you struggle to keep up.

Thats the problem.

It does not address what I have stated and your extensions.
And now we got the emoticons.
Reaching new levels of rubbish.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No.

Its simple.

Dont respond with violence given the Trump events.

Then stop.
Simple.

Again. This article could be used for a myriad of events that occur everyday around the world. This is not a revolution.

There is no similar blanket condemnation. Given that was a central point of his article you're just wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thats the problem.

It does not address what I have stated and your extensions.
And now we got the emoticons.
Reaching new levels of rubbish.

I just quoted what you said. Your ability to keep up is what is rubbish. I used the emoticon because it's reaching comic levels.

[pgardn]

There is no similar blanket condemnation. Given that was a central point of his article you're just wrong.

No you are wrong.

Again, this article could be used much more usefully for other events and bottom line it has implies the use of violence should be used in certain cases (but condemns it) Speaking out of both sides of the mouth. It's obvious and fraudulent. It's linked to the Trump events.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No you are wrong.

Again, this article could be used much more usefully for other events and bottom line it has implies the use of violence should be used in certain cases (but condemns it) Speaking out of both sides of the mouth. It's obvious and fraudulent. It's linked to the Trump events.

Again he doesn't subscribe to your slave morality of a universal answer but instead says each case must be looked at individually because sometimes violence does work for the greater good. He does so with examples.

You are blinded by your ego's own worldview and fail to anticipate that of others.

[pgardn]

I just quoted what you said. Your ability to keep up is what is rubbish. I used the emoticon because it's reaching comic levels.

The keeping up is not the problem. It's you being disingenuous.

[pgardn]

Again he doesn't subscribe to your slave morality of a universal answer but instead says each case must be looked at individually because sometimes violence does work for the greater good. He does so with examples.

You are blinded by your ego's own worldview and fail to anticipate that of others.

You are simply blinded by your ego.
Thats enough. You keep rehashing the same crap.

But don't let that stop you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is the thesis of the article:


As a result, a litany of think-pieces and condemnations from liberal media and politicians are making their rounds to make it clear how unacceptable and counterproductive any violence or rioting is, urging people to “listen to the other side,” and to use “legitimate means“ to fight Trump’s rise—ignoring the possibility of fascism in the US rising with it. Those who stray from this nonviolent narrative, like Emmet Rensin, an editor at Vox who tweeted that people should riot when Trump comes to town, face swift and punitive redress, urging them to fall back in line. Amidst the hot takes and denunciations from liberals, they all seem to miss a few key points. First, they misplace the blame. Second, they misunderstand the desired outcome from violent resistance and those protesting Trump in general. And third, they ignore the history of successful violent insurrection in the US, instead favoring the elementary school version of history in which nonviolence is the only means of struggle that’s ever achieved a thing.

:lol and you were complaining about my discussion of fascism as an aside.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Point 1


Point one. These denunciations of violence from anti-Trump protestors rest on the misguided view that the divide Trump’s exposed is a typical political disagreement between partisans, and should be handled as such. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Trump might not be a fascist in the 20th century European sense of the term—though many of his supporters are—but he might represent its 21st century US version. There’s no doubt he’s expanded the Overton Window to include rhetoric previously well outside its bounds. His calls for a “deportation force“ to expel 11+ million people from the country, his claims that most Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals, his calls to keep databases of Muslims and to enact a total ban on Muslims entering the country, his rampant sexism, his mocking people with disabilities, and his propensity for lying have brought the already pathetic state of US political discourse to astoundingly precarious lows. Treating this like politics as usual allows it to become politics as usual, and those who do so risk complicity ushering in a new era of fascist politics in the United States.

You at no point address his point that this isn't politics as usual where your blanket statements make sense. That last line I find particularly compelling. Trump becoming status quo is a real danger and worth fighting against.

[pgardn]

Fuzzman
Fuzzman
Fuzzman







Violence is counterproductive During Trump rallies.
Period.

Now you can continue with the but, but...
You act like I want the man elected.
I am telling you this violence is part of how you get him elected.

End of story.

If you wish to go through the French Revolution with me and discuss when violence was necessary and when violence was counterproductive we can create another thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzman
Fuzzman
Fuzzman






Now you can continue with the but, but...
You act like I want the man elected.
I am telling you this violence is part of how you get him elected.

End of story.

If you wish to go through the French Revolution with me and discuss when violence was necessary and when violence was counterproductive we can create another thread.


they ignore the history of successful violent insurrection in the US, instead favoring the elementary school version of history in which nonviolence is the only means of struggle that’s ever achieved a thing.

You're slave moralising again. How is that going to get him elected particularly when he obviously brought this upon himself? Since the violence started he has done worse in the polls empirically.

You would be Chamberlain following the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Naive in your moral delusion.

[pgardn]

You're slave moralising again. How is that going to get him elected particularly when he obviously brought this upon himself? Since the violence started he has done worse in the polls empirically.

You would be Chamberlain following the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Naive in your moral delusion.

Fuzz

This is not a revolution. This is not the beginning of an apocalypse. This is NOT a NAZI invasion. "Ignoring the history of violent INSURRECTION" Insurrection?
Really?

Explain how sucker punching innocent people (albeit naive IMO) in the back of the head is akin to a violent INSURRECTION?
This is the problem. This is not some fight for freedom. It's simple cowardice. It's punks finding a way to have some summer fun by way of protesters getting too nasty. You can see it in the videos. Some of the protesters actually realize by throwing shit, pulling hats off, screaming face to face, they created a mess, Some even attempt to hold the punks back. It's not a mass movement of violence as SA wants people to believe. Liberals are buying into this. Incredible...

This would not have occurred with a peaceful counterprotest. Period end of story. Don't give punks an avenue to act out. This is not a blanket statement, this is specifically concerning the Trump protesters allowing punks to act out. Keep protesting but please get rid of the spitting hat pulling screaming. Use less aggressive tactics. Simple.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzz

This is not a revolution. This is not the beginning of an apocalypse. This is NOT a NAZI invasion. "Ignoring the history of violent INSURRECTION" Insurrection?
Really?

Explain how sucker punching innocent people (albeit naive IMO) in the back of the head is akin to a violent INSURRECTION?
This is the problem. This is not some fight for freedom. It's simple cowardice. It's punks finding a way to have some summer fun by way of protesters getting too nasty. You can see it in the videos. Some of the protesters actually realize by throwing shit, pulling hats off, screaming face to face, they created a mess, Some even attempt to hold the punks back. It's not a mass movement of violence as SA wants people to believe. Liberals are buying into this. Incredible...

This would not have occurred with a peaceful counterprotest. Period end of story. Don't give punks an avenue to act out. This is not a blanket statement, this is specifically concerning the Trump protesters allowing punks to act out. Keep protesting but please get rid of the spitting hat pulling screaming. Use less aggressive tactics. Simple.

Yeah violent insurrection. The gay bar in California, the LA riots, the St Louis riots, the American revolution, the Harper rebellion leading up to the Civil War, all kinds of shit during the 1960s for all the MLK handwaving, and all manner of violent insurrection has led to change for the better in the history of this country alone.

People see him as an authoritarian unto Mussolini and a racist unto George Wallace, David Duke, and the nazis. He wants to oppress people setting up camps for immigrants, banning muslims, and blaming the poor. He tells his people to 'punch them in the face' and that 'he will cover their legal fees.' And you're surprised people come looking for a fight.

And despite it coming back the other way, I suggest you go back to March when the violence was directed the other way. Prior to that they simply would be loud and try to interrupt the rallies with chants. Trump supporters started attacking them with Trump encouragement. That was when Trump started talking about paying legal fees and how things 'used to be' after they were arrested. Now that things have escalated you want to point the finger because people don't want to take the Salt March?

It's a group of about 700 people. That you are surprised and carrying on that it escalated in the Bay area last week is hilarious considering the area. You don't call out people there as a general rule. I guess you identify as liberal and are scared to be conflated with the protesters. That's what you see as counterproductive. I don't see pluralism having to work like that.

[pgardn]

Yeah violent insurrection. The gay bar in California, the LA riots, the St Louis riots, the American revolution, the Harper rebellion leading up to the Civil War, all kinds of shit during the 1960s for all the MLK handwaving, and all manner of violent insurrection has led to change for the better in the history of this country alone.

People see him as an authoritarian unto Mussolini and a racist unto George Wallace, David Duke, and the nazis. He wants to oppress people setting up camps for immigrants, banning muslims, and blaming the poor. He tells his people to 'punch them in the face' and that 'he will cover their legal fees.' And you're surprised people come looking for a fight.

And despite it coming back the other way, I suggest you go back to March when the violence was directed the other way. Prior to that they simply would be loud and try to interrupt the rallies with chants. Trump supporters started attacking them with Trump encouragement. That was when Trump started talking about paying legal fees and how things 'used to be' after they were arrested. Now that things have escalated you want to point the finger because people don't want to take the Salt March?

It's a group of about 700 people. That you are surprised and carrying on that it escalated in the Bay area last week is hilarious considering the area. You don't call out people there as a general rule. I guess you identify as liberal and are scared to be conflated with the protesters. That's what you see as counterproductive. I don't see pluralism having to work like that.

Sorry Fuzz.

This is not anything like the events you named.

So basically you agree with SA. This is a violent leftist uprising. Only you say it is in reaction to legitimate threats made by the other side. So you side with SA on his call but also go further with a call to violence. This is not the 60s and George Wallace. No way no how. We have not sent nor lost large numbers of drafted young men. You can't talk 60s without Vietnam. And we are in no way close to post WW1 and the hardships it caused resulting in horrid economic conditions required for real authoritarian leaders.

Basically there is no way in hell I categorize what I commented on with the events listed above. I think people choose to think the time the live they live in is as extraordinary as others in history. I am going to say IMO you are off on this.

I would be called liberal by some, conservative by others. Depends on which group of friends I'm with.

Aside: In fact I would say Trump is actually garnering many votes from neutrals who see a giant establishment boogie man because of the unique nature of the primaries and the current lack of cleaner candidates.

[pgardn]

Fuzz

Do you have relatives or friends/acquaintances who plan to vote for Trump?

I do.

[RandomGuy]

It will be impossible, over the long term, to maintain peace and even national unity if elite media and the Democratic party continue to condone and even encourage political violence and the systematic violation of individual rights by its radical progressive base. From Occupy to Ferguson to Baltimore to the unrest on campus, Americans have watched the liberal establishment trip over itself to express solidarity and sympathy with protesters who’ve burned, looted, shut down roads and parks, and violated the fundamental rights of American citizens. As Trump supporters are fond of pointing out on Twitter, this didn’t happen at a Trump event:

For the better part of two years, millions of Americans have watched as violence and disruption actually work. At college campuses, radical students and allied professors and administrators will shout down dissenters, intimidate fellow students, disrupt the educational process, and win.

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=-webkit-standard]In the streets of American cities, protesters will riot, vandalize, block traffic, and invade shops and restaurants, and they win. When the narratives (“Hands up, don’t shoot,” or “It’s open season” on black males) are debunked by facts, protesters still prevail. Police tactics change even as the national murder rate seems set for its largest spike in 25 years. In the nation’s 50 largest cities, 770 more people were murdered in 2015 than in the previous year. Yet with the exception of a few courageous progressives, the Left largely hails this unrest. Even riots are excused or minimized by leading figures in the liberal intelligentsia, and mob actions that violate the free-speech rights of fellow citizens — by shouting down or shutting down events the Left doesn’t like — are whitewashed as “peaceful protest.”



Blocking traffic good now.

[TSA]

Blocking traffic good now.

what does it feel like to wake up everyday and have me on your mind? You live a pathetic life :lol

[ChumpDumper]

what does it feel like to wake up everyday and have me on your mind? You live a pathetic life :lol

He just searched for block ambulance and your redassing came up. You sure don't want to talk about it now.:lol

[RandomGuy]

He just searched for block ambulance and your redassing came up. You sure don't want to talk about it now.:lol

Actually it was "block traffic".

But close enough. :D

[RandomGuy]

what does it feel like to wake up everyday and have me on your mind? You live a pathetic life :lol

Nope. Didn't search for you specifically.

Did a thread search for "block traffic" because I remember this being a big thing you morons were bitching about a few years back when it was lefty protesters doing it. Your old account came up as one of the mentions. Don't flatter yourself.

Now is your chance to say "blocking traffic is bad no matter who does it".

Or be a fucking hypocritical piece of shit. Which is it? "Blocking traffic is bad, even when right-wingers do it?" or "I am a hypocritical piece of shit"

Your call.

[TSA]

Nope. Didn't search for you specifically.

Did a thread search for "block traffic" because I remember this being a big thing you morons were bitching about a few years back when it was lefty protesters doing it. Your old account came up as one of the mentions. Don't flatter yourself.

Now is your chance to say "blocking traffic is bad no matter who does it".

Or be a fucking hypocritical piece of shit. Which is it? "Blocking traffic is bad, even when right-wingers do it?" or "I am a hypocritical piece of shit"

Your call.

Of course blocking traffic is bad no matter who does it. And in your attempt of a gotcha you whatabout bumped a 4 year old thread with no one even discussing blocking traffic as being a big thing. You live a pathetic life :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Of course blocking traffic is bad no matter who does it. And in your attempt of a gotcha you whatabout bumped a 4 year old thread with no one even discussing blocking traffic as being a big thing. You live a pathetic life :lolpizza and Q

[TSA]

Speaking of pathetic lives...imagine following someone around everyday constantly quoting them begging for attention even though they haven't responded to you in a year and doing it thousands of times :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Speaking of pathetic lives...imagine following someone around everyday constantly quoting them begging for attention even though they haven't responded to you in a year and doing it thousands of times :lmaoIt's fun because I can tell it gets to you when you have to write passive-aggressive bitch posts about it.:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Of course blocking traffic is bad no matter who does it. And in your attempt of a gotcha you whatabout bumped a 4 year old thread with no one even discussing blocking traffic as being a big thing. You live a pathetic life :lol

Yay. You are not a hypocritical piece of shit.











in this case.