antifa

[detbuch]

[wdmso]

When a milkshake to the face brought the spotlight on Andy Ngo, politicians and talking heads on both sides were happy to take on his cause: demonizing antifa

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ifa-real-enemy

your being played by another Grifter

[spence]

Actual photo of thousands of antifa terror troops massing at the Warwick lighthouse...this was just last night.

[JohnR]

Its just an idea

[Pete F.]

Pretty easy to find detailed, court-records based records for the 400+ charged in Capitol riots that left injured and dead. Big role: Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Sadly, former military/cops. Also unaffiliated folks.
MIA: Antifa.
But you found another YouTube video
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But you found another YouTube video
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, he's got a quota to make.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Pretty easy to find detailed, court-records based records for the 400+ charged in Capitol riots that left injured and dead.

It was easy to find that the "dead" were not caused by the rioters. One was killed by a capitol police officer, one from acute amphetamine intoxication, two from cardiovascular disease, and one from stroke.

And 400+ "charged"? It is estimated that 100,000 Trump supporters attended the rally. 400 out of 100,000--that sure is a very mostly peaceful rally.

Big role: Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Sadly, former military/cops. Also unaffiliated folks.
MIA: Antifa.
But you found another YouTube video

It was easy to find the video. Wasn't looking for it. Just browsing YouTube videos for entertainment, mostly videos on Canelo Alvarez defeating Billy Joe Saunders, or Agatha Christie murder mysteries.

Antifa not being part of the Jan. 6 DC riots does not detract from what Antifa is. Not sure why I have to mention the Capitol riots when I mention Antifa. Is there some pre-requisite that I must do so.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

When a milkshake to the face brought the spotlight on Andy Ngo, politicians and talking heads on both sides were happy to take on his cause: demonizing antifa

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ifa-real-enemy

your being played by another Grifter

Your article doesn't disprove anything that Ngo says in the video I posted. On the whole, your article is an obvious attempt to discredit Ngo. It tries to cast doubt on his actually having a severe brain injury by saying he "claims" it. He didn't make it up. It was the actual medical diagnosis. It plays down his actual injuries and tries to smear him as actually being complicit in his being attacked and in the rioting and damage caused by right wing extremists. It is as biased as it claims Ngo to be.

Here is a far more balanced view, and one which exposes the deceit in your article: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/a...e-of-andy-ngo/

It is a far more reasonable look at the "extremist" problem we have.
Read it and reconsider who is being played.

It also refers specifically to your article, explaining its deceitfulness in a couple of paragraphs including this salient bit of info:

"It was left to Robby Soave at Reason magazine to note that the 20-minute undercover video at the heart of this story 'does not even establish that the group of right-wing agitators planned an attack—let alone that Ngo was aware of such a plot.'"

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It was easy to find the video. Wasn't looking for it. Just browsing YouTube videos for entertainment, mostly videos on Canelo Alvarez defeating Billy Joe Saunders, or Agatha Christie murder mysteries.

Antifa not being part of the Jan. 6 DC riots does not detract from what Antifa is. Not sure why I have to mention the Capitol riots when I mention Antifa. Is there some pre-requisite that I must do so.

Antifa, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, CAIR, none of these strike me as groups interested in a free, safe and prosperous America for all Americans.

Try Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Antifa, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, CAIR, none of these strike me as groups interested in a free, safe and prosperous America for all Americans.

For sure, CAIR doesn't strike me as being interested in a free safe and prosperous America for all Americans. As for the other three groups, I don't know how their members view America and "all" Americans.

Antifa seems to have a hate for America and for many, if not most, Americans. Antifa types seem to view this country as being in need of a major cleansing and reconstruction on Marxist lines, which would also influence their view on "prosperity".

Proud Boys seem to have a love for this country. They believe in the supremacy of Western Civilization, the Constitution, individual freedom, are multi racial, are not discriminatory on race or sexual preference. They disavow Nazis and racists. They are traditional in their view of women, honoring the housewife and viewing women as the creators of life, shaping it as well as the communities in which we live--so, relegating women to those traditional roles, they are considered to be sexist and demeaning of women, denying their equal status in all areas of public and market interaction. They honor entrepreneurs as one of the foundations in creating prosperity. How they live up to their entire code may be arguable. I am not in favor of their desire to engage in brawls against those who oppose what they believe in. Nor do I care for creating a group outside of the mainstream of society in order to illegally engage in street fights against leftist, Marxist groups.

I don't know much about Oath Keepers, nor care to find out.
They seem to primarily be about an oath to the Constitution.
Not sure if their tactics would be Constitutional.

Try Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf

I don't watch YouTube golf for entertainment. For me, golf must be played to enjoy. I would probably enjoy attending an actual tournament, at least for a while. Probably would not care to walk around for hours to see basically the same thing over and over but by different players.

But I do love the game. Love playing the game. And I do watch various instructional YouTube videos. You can learn a lot from them. Probably the only better instruction would be one of those expensive and intensive personal training sessions with a top flight golf guru on the whole, A to Z, of the golf swing, including a round with the master.

Did watch a few Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf videos. But I was mostly interested in learning rather than being entertained.

[Pete F.]

Just like political thinking, nothing will #^&#^&#^&#^& up your swing more than a YouTube instructional video.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just like political thinking, nothing will #^&#^&#^&#^& up your swing more than a YouTube instructional video.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Any instruction (or indoctrination) can #^&#^&#^&#^& up your swing if you don't first arrive at a basic principle. Do you want a one plane or two plane swing? Do you believe in the Moe Norman swing? Mixing together the principles of various types of swings creates confusion, inconsistency, uncertain mediocrity, and ultimate failure.

As well, the lack of a core principal in political thought leads to trying nice sounding politics but confused, inconsistent, failure in government. Do you want the security of a centralized government with unlimited power to direct your life? Or do you want a government powerful enough only to do the few tasks granted to it which will protect your personal pursuits in your brief adventure on this earth?

As in golf, mixing or abandoning core principles in politics leads to the erosion of principle and to ultimate collapse.

[PaulS]

Just saw a picture of the clown GOP lawmaker who has said there was no insurrection barricading a door to the House on January 6.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Just saw a picture of the clown GOP lawmaker who has said there was no insurrection barricading a door to the House on January 6.

It is amazing how those who insist that the the second amendment right to bear arms in order to resist a tyrannical government is antiquated and rendered useless because the U.S. military is too powerful to resist and not even a hundred million Americans armed with semi-automatic weapons including so-called "assault rifles" could defeat it. But they can claim that a few hundred ill equipped, poorly armed rioters ("insurrectionists!!") supposedly came within a whisper of bringing down the government. Yeah . . . right.

And, of course, the Seattle Capitol Hill Autonomous zone (CHAZ), a secessionist attempt to create a cop free “Property of the People . . . Leaving USA” is not called an insurrection. More like a, block party." And the continued rioting with many dead and millions of dollars of ongoing property destruction and an attempt to create a similar autonomous zone in Portland is not referred to as an "insurrection"--a riot at worst.

The Jan. 6 riot used to be called a riot. That has been changed to an "insurrection." Mhmm . . .

[Pete F.]

Just a bunch of vacationers or is it as one of their lawyers claimed: they were "Short Bus people", And at the same time, the lawyer labeled Trump’s ongoing lies about the election, Democrats, and more, as “four-plus years of goddamn propaganda the likes of which the world has not seen since f***ing Hitler.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just a bunch of vacationers or is it as one of their lawyers claimed: they were "Short Bus people", And at the same time, the lawyer labeled Trump’s ongoing lies about the election, Democrats, and more, as “four-plus years of goddamn propaganda the likes of which the world has not seen since f***ing Hitler.”

The selected clips look a lot like the various riots that occurred in the US over the past year. Except they don't look as destructive, and no fires, no burning buildings or burning cars. Don't see a lot of beating and kicking people on the ground by mobs. Lots of confusion with some of the citizens looking like they're caught up in something they don't want to be, but can't tell what is being shouted at each other. Overall, it seemed far less destructive than the other riots we've had and didn't last anywhere near as long. Lots of expressed anger and hate, but no attempt to create a cop free autonomous zone separate from the state or federal government.

[detbuch]

Here is a selected video that tells a different story. I guess you can make something look entirely how you want to make it look by selecting what you show:

https://rumble.com/vh52u9-watch-u.s....r-capitol.html

[Pete F.]

Sure
Imagine swearing an oath to the Constitution and to defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic and then refusing to investigate an attempted coup against said country. The GOP is currently doing that, the party that wanted to “make America great again.” Whew.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sure
Imagine swearing an oath to the Constitution and to defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic and then refusing to investigate an attempted coup against said country. The GOP is currently doing that, the party that wanted to “make America great again.” Whew.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whew. You blow a lot of gas.

[Pete F.]

Asking Republicans to investigate 1.6 is like asking Al-Qaeda to investigate 9.11. The people who helped plan/promote the attack aren’t going to be partners in the investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Asking Republicans to investigate 1.6 is like asking Al-Qaeda to investigate 9.11. The people who helped plan/promote the attack aren’t going to be partners in the investigation.

Why do Republicans have to investigate it? Why does Congress have to do it? Why do we have agencies in place specifically to do such investigations? Congressional investigations are mostly political smoke and mirrors. The FBI is investigating. But even the FBI seems to have become politicized. Politically driven investigations can be more dangerous to the stability and integrity of the nation than the crime they investigate.

[Pete F.]

Sure, the same people who spent years on Benghazi and a BJ say this is just political.

Don’t think the House Republicans who vote against the January 6 commission are confused or intimidated. They know what they’re doing. A commission wouldn’t be in the interest of the GOP because of what would be revealed. So they’re against it. Because for them party comes first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sure, the same people who spent years on Benghazi and a BJ say this is just political.

Those were political, divisive, and a waste of time. Just like this one that you want.

Don’t think the House Republicans who vote against the January 6 commission are confused or intimidated. They know what they’re doing. A commission wouldn’t be in the interest of the GOP because of what would be revealed. So they’re against it. Because for them party comes first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are always so sure of what you think you know. You still claim that Trump is guilty of treasonous things that investigations have failed to prove. And you will probably always think you know the real truth. Once again, you think you've got it all figured out.

Have you figured out that in party politics, "party comes first" regardless of which party, Democrat or Republican. And that there are often renegades in either party who want to kick up a fuss. Republicans have certainly had their share of renegades--even now.

Thanks (not really), BTW, from swerving away from Antifa, the supposed topic, into whatever else you have an urgent need to flush out of the bowels of your Angst.

[Pete F.]

Well actually, Paul strayed into the wrong thread and you then took the train down another track.

On that track: Remember that Trump needs an informational vacuum, where the truth remains hidden, in order to fabricate his own reality. He has done this his whole life: with his wealth, his education, his health, his women. Any public and documented accounting of Jan. 6 spoils his M.O.

On the former track

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well actually, Paul strayed into the wrong thread and you then took the train down another track.

Paul did stray, which he doesn't do as persistently as you do, and I made a courtesy reply, staying on his "insurrection" track. But, as you are wont to do, you took it to another level.

On that track: Remember that Trump needs an informational vacuum, where the truth remains hidden, in order to fabricate his own reality. He has done this his whole life: with his wealth, his education, his health, his women. Any public and documented accounting of Jan. 6 spoils his M.O.

This is your standard spiel of intellectual vapor--the blowing of gas I referred to earlier in this thread.

On the former track

Started to watch. He started right away throwing out labels, I guess assuming that we all agreed on what they meant--Nazism, white supremacism, far right, fascism, anti-fascism, but he admitted that "fascism" was a difficult idea to pin down and declined to definitively say what fascism is. That pretty much lost me. If he can't define Fascism, then his label "anti-fascism" loses useful meaning--giving the use of it a claim of righteousness to violence against a broad umbrella of groups by claiming that those people are "fascists" and "fascism" is bad and must forcibly be stopped, not by civil authority, but by groups of "anti-fascists."