Let’s talk about Antifa.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mediumrarechicken
    replied
    Originally posted by decay
    and doesn't that beg the question WHY they are protecting white supremacists and only arresting the people there to counter-protest them?

    isn't "what the cops are actually doing" more relevant here than "what the supreme court says they are obligated to do"?
    Where were the white supremacists at? Ive never seen a real one in my life

    Leave a comment:


  • cale
    replied
    Originally posted by decay
    as much as you'd like to think so, you haven't disproven shit. of course everyone's subjective experience of such an event is going to be different. nobody can have eyes on everything when the area consists of city blocks.
    And you haven't proven shit, you've only provided anecdotes. Even your own linked news source from Vice shows that the left is choosing to respond to provocation with violence, so yes, those people are going to be arrested. It's childish to approach someone or a group simply to illicit a response such as violence to portray them in a bad light, but that doesn't excuse that violence was the response they chose.

    So beyond your own claims and media sources showing the left acting out violently, what do you have?

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    Originally posted by z31maniac
    Nice try at deflection while ignoring how your willfully ignorant.

    We've already all gone over how your story didn't match up with multiple local accounts.

    But keep your holding head high bro.
    i love how people distrust the media until it fits their narrative.

    do you think that maybe the reporters are keeping a safe distance and aren't seeing what's happening when three groups with different objectives are within feet of each other?

    as much as you'd like to think so, you haven't disproven shit. of course everyone's subjective experience of such an event is going to be different. nobody can have eyes on everything when the area consists of city blocks.

    Leave a comment:


  • z31maniac
    replied
    Originally posted by decay
    if that's what you think you've done, you have a massively over-inflated opinion of yourself.
    Nice try at deflection while ignoring how your willfully ignorant.

    We've already all gone over how your story didn't match up with multiple local accounts.

    But keep your holding head high bro.

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    he went with "dodge the question", cotton. bold strategy, let's see how it works out.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsleeve
    replied
    The counter protesters are the ones threatening violence, they are the ones destroying property, and coming up and sucker punching and running away while a cohort is pepper spraying the punchee.....

    And again its interesting to me how everyone to your group is a "white supremacist" or "nazi" when in many cases this is not the case, see my Washington post article from yesterday.

    As has been pointed out speech you disagree with hateful or not is protected speech. As ardent supporters of the 1st amendment your should be protecting everyone's right to speak, not trying to silence view points you find issue with. People in general can spot stupid hateful speech and ignore it accordingly, we dont need the likes of your group to point it out let alone stop it.

    FASCISM
    You keep using that word, I dont think it means what you think it means
    Last edited by mrsleeve; 08-08-2018, 08:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    Originally posted by mrsleeve
    ^
    The cases your looking for are both SCOTUS, Warren Vs DC. and. Gonzales Vs Castle Rock. Both of which affirm that the police have no legal, or Constitutional duty to protect any one from anything or anyone, their job is to respond to a crime and investigate, collect evidence, and detain or arrest those that perpetrated the crime.
    and doesn't that beg the question WHY they are protecting white supremacists and only arresting the people there to counter-protest them?

    isn't "what the cops are actually doing" more relevant here than "what the supreme court says they are obligated to do"?

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    Originally posted by z31maniac
    And if you're the voice of reason................well, you can tell by everyone's responses, especially after I took the 20 minutes to take your story and expose it for the bullshit it is.
    if that's what you think you've done, you have a massively over-inflated opinion of yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsleeve
    replied
    ^
    The cases your looking for are both SCOTUS, Warren Vs DC. and. Gonzales Vs Castle Rock. Both of which affirm that the police have no legal, or Constitutional duty to protect any one from anything or anyone, their job is to respond to a crime and investigate, collect evidence, and detain or arrest those that perpetrated the crime.

    Leave a comment:


  • z31maniac
    replied
    Originally posted by decay
    i'm telling you what i've seen happen in front of me, and you're saying i'm dishonest because "unpossible supreme court said so"?

    you have a lot more faith in law enforcement's tendency to follow the rules than i do.
    Keep up.

    You mentioned the police being there to protect.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that they are not bound to protect you from something happening to you, only to respond after.


    Thank you for proving my point about you being dishonest and/or inept.


    And if you're the voice of reason................well, you can tell by everyone's responses, especially after I took the 20 minutes to take your story and expose it for the bullshit it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    Originally posted by z31maniac
    I didn't realize the Police were bound to protect anyone?

    I realize that Supreme Court ruling was only 13 years ago.......

    It's kind of staggering to see just how dishonest and/or inept you are.
    i'm telling you what i've seen happen in front of me, and you're saying i'm dishonest because "unpossible supreme court said so"?

    you have a lot more faith in law enforcement's tendency to follow the rules than i do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powling
    replied
    Just think about all the good you could have done if you were out there in the streets protesting instead of arguing on here.

    Leave a comment:


  • cale
    replied
    Originally posted by decay
    i started this thread, you fucking retard.
    Way to miss the point, that your constant "herpderp what about the other guys" babble is getting tiring and nonsensical. As a retard I can come to the conclusion that in an Antifa thread started by an Antifa member, Antifa will receive the bulk of the criticisms.

    In the future when you complain about my lack of intelligence and unwillingness to have a civil discussion, ponder this response of yours as you apply your nail polish.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mediumrarechicken
    replied
    Originally posted by decay
    given your history of agitprop around here, i'm not even going to pretend to believe that happened.
    I knew you wouldn't. It
    I fully am aware that it goes against your belief that antifa incels arnt a fee beers shirt of a 6 pack

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    given your history of agitprop around here, i'm not even going to pretend to believe that happened.

    Leave a comment:

Working...