Jump to content

No Opinions on Trump Reaction to White Supremacists?


AUbritt

Recommended Posts

On 8/15/2017 at 0:37 PM, aujeff11 said:

I'm curious about the events that led up to the rally. 

The white supremacist group applied months ago for a permit and it was eventually granted.

The counter-protestors decided to crash their rally much like they've done recently before. 

So the question is were there internet messages anongst the two groups that said something like  "it's going down." Because it seems like both sides were prepared and showed up ready to fight. 

I saw Faith Goldys video which included the death. That s*** was crazy. 

Ha!! Antifa's own website is called itsgoingdown.org

I've been barking up the right tree for three days now and kicking ass and taking names. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
16 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Ha!! Antifa's own website is called itsgoingdown.org

I've been barking up the right tree for three days now and kicking ass and taking names. :)

One of their websites, true.

Have you read any of the stuff there? There's not a ton of incitement to violence. Funny that you self-describe as kicking ass, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

There's not a ton of incitement to violence.

Yeah there is. It's called itsgoingdown.org after all

I can't help if it if it's also cluttered with other junk such as kids begging for legal defense funds

11 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

Funny that you self-describe as kicking ass, though.

Funny that obvious light humor doesn't sit very well with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Ha!! Antifa's own website is called itsgoingdown.org

I've been barking up the right tree for three days now and kicking ass and taking names. :)

Seems pretty straightforward to me. 

Guidelines for their submissions:

Content:

  • Does the analysis come from an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist perspective?
  • Is the action self-organized and put forward outside the hands of top-down groups?
  • Is the activity in conflict with an institution of power?
  • Was there any real risk in its performance or was the symbolism powerful enough to manifest a deeper resonance with liberatory struggle?
  • Does the piece place itself in a larger context or history of revolt?
  • Was the action or analysis based in North America or does it have a strong relationship to here?
  • Calls to action are currently only being accepted by networks or groups and prisoners that have the ability to pull others in.
  • Publications are accepted that include a PDF for free download and printing (feel free to upload onto IGD) or articles from the pages inside. We do not accept ads for books and magazines.

If you feel as though your submission does not ante up, then IGD might not be the right place. Not all submissions are accepted. These guidelines certainly will adapt as needed. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

Seems pretty straightforward to me. 

Guidelines for their submissions:

Content:

  • Does the analysis come from an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist perspective?
  • Is the action self-organized and put forward outside the hands of top-down groups?
  • Is the activity in conflict with an institution of power?
  • Was there any real risk in its performance or was the symbolism powerful enough to manifest a deeper resonance with liberatory struggle?
  • Does the piece place itself in a larger context or history of revolt?
  • Was the action or analysis based in North America or does it have a strong relationship to here?
  • Calls to action are currently only being accepted by networks or groups and prisoners that have the ability to pull others in.
  • Publications are accepted that include a PDF for free download and printing (feel free to upload onto IGD) or articles from the pages inside. We do not accept ads for books and magazines.

If you feel as though your submission does not ante up, then IGD might not be the right place. Not all submissions are accepted. These guidelines certainly will adapt as needed. Thanks!

You're so busy congratulating yourself that you forgot a few things.

First, there is no incitement to violence there.

Second, these are guidelines for submission of publications. Maybe IGD is more in line with 'The pen is mightier than the sword'? I don't see them saying anything about killing white supremacists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AUbritt said:

You're so busy congratulating yourself that you forgot a few things.

First, there is no incitement to violence there.

Second, these are guidelines for submission of publications. Maybe IGD is more in line with 'The pen is mightier than the sword'? I don't see them saying anything about killing white supremacists.

Don't bother. He's on a roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

Well, I'm certainly not going to take the time with him you have.

;)

It's been an illuminating few days. Certainly moved the needle on my opinion of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

You're so busy congratulating yourself that you forgot a few things.

First, there is no incitement to violence there.

Second, these are guidelines for submission of publications. Maybe IGD is more in line with 'The pen is mightier than the sword'? I don't see them saying anything about killing white supremacists.

Did you expect the guidelines to explicitly ask people to incite violence in their posts? The website is literally called "its going down." And in real life, that's what they do. 

 

"You're so busy congratulating yourself that you forgot a few things."

What have I done to you? Nothing? Ok.

29 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

I don't see them saying anything about killing white supremacists.

Are you putting words in my mouth? Using violence and murdering are two different things. Please take this unethical use of debate that is so highly pervasive in Ben's and Homer's arsenal out of your own. 

 

With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if they did mention killing supremacists. They did send a thread to the google protestors that they would mow them down with a vehicle after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aujeff11 said:

Did you expect the guidelines to explicitly ask people to incite violence in their posts? 

 

"You're so busy congratulating yourself that you forgot a few things."

What have I done to you? Nothing? Ok.

Are you putting words in my mouth? Using violence and murdering are two different things. Please take this unethical use of debate that is so highly pervasive in Ben's and Homer's arsenal out of your own. 

 

With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if they did mention killing supremacists. They did send a thread to the google protestors that they would mow them down with a vehicle after all. 

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not going to take a whole lot of time doing this.

No, I didn't expect the publication guidelines to ask people explicitly to incite violence. My expectation is completely irrelevant, however. You used the guidelines to support your claim that antifa is a violent terrorist organization. The guidelines do not, in fact, support that claim. So, your argument is weak.

Either provide a strong argument that antifa is a terrorist organization or spare us your continued, unsupported insistence on that claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

Either provide a strong argument that antifa is a terrorist organization or spare us your continued, unsupported insistence on that claim.

How many videos and pictures must I provide? How can you support a terrorist organization so bent on suppressing free speech with violence? 

Pull your head out of the sand, apparent Alt- left apologist. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

How many videos and pictures must I provide? How can you support a terrorist organization so bent on suppressing free speech with violence? 

Pull your head out of the sand, apparent Alt- left apologist. 

 

I'm asking for a strong argument. You've failed to provide one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

I'm asking for a strong argument. You've failed to provide one.

He's not interested in providing one. Since Raptor's been banished and Blue's disappeared I assume he is just picking up the slack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

I'm asking for a strong argument. You've failed to provide one.

I've provided videos of the group terrorizing their own citizens. 

Mans I also showed where they threatened to terrorize a protest via mowing them down. That is terrorism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

He's not interested in providing one. Since Raptor's been banished and Blue's disappeared I assume he is just picking up the slack.

Totally forgot about them two. Y'all just might get an echo chamber after all. 

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

He's not interested in providing one. Since Raptor's been banished and Blue's disappeared I assume he is just picking up the slack.

Just goes to prove that nature abhors a vacuum.  ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I've provided videos of the group terrorizing their own citizens. 

Mans I also showed where they threatened to terrorize a protest via mowing them down. That is terrorism. 

Nope, not a strong argument. 

It would help if you first defined terrorism, then moved on to defining a terrorist organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AUbritt said:

Nope, not a strong argument. 

It would help if you first defined terrorism, then moved on to defining a terrorist organization.

Well we both know if I went through all of that, the findings would still indicate Antifa is a terrorist organization because they do try to instill fear into the public. I also know that the FBI, CIA, and DHS have separate definitions. 

You can make the argument that Antifa isn't a terrorist organization I guess? Have fun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Well we both know if I went through all of that, the findings would still indicate Antifa is a terrorist organization because they do try to instill fear into the public. I also know that the FBI, CIA, and DHS have separate definitions. 

You can make the argument that Antifa isn't a terrorist organization I guess? Have fun. 

You refuse to make the case that antifa is a terrorist organization. (I assume you know that the burden of proof is on you to show that they are, rather than on me to show that they are not terrorists. So, I will also assume you were simply being snarky in asking me to do so.). You also refuse to answer questions. 

I don't see how a rational discussion is possible with you.

So, if you want to keep littering threads with your unsupported assertions, you have fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senator Corker comes out against Trump.

Quote

"The president has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability, nor some of the competence, that he needs to demonstrate in order for him to be successful — and our nation and our world needs for him to be successful, whether you are Republican or Democrat,” the Chattanooga Republican said at a Rotary Club meeting in Chattanooga.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

You refuse to make the case that antifa is a terrorist organization. (I assume you know that the burden of proof is on you to show that they are, rather than on me to show that they are not terrorists. So, I will also assume you were simply being snarky in asking me to do so.). You also refuse to answer questions. ( also an assumption- again, I'm at work, I only see the latest posts even though I have 10-15 notifications a pop..

You assume a lot. 

Again, the video at Seattle correctly depicts Antifa as a terrorist organization. And them suppressing free speech with death threats only affirms that video. Only the sickest of the POS's would deny that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aujeff11 said:

You assume a lot. 

If you didn't know that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the affirmative, now you do.

Here's a link where you can download a poster, apparently, with lots of fallacies on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

If you didn't know that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the affirmative, now you do.

Here's a link where you can download a poster, apparently, with lots of fallacies on it.

I made a claim. You denied it. You give your opinion, actually. 

 

And I already stated that Antifa suppressed free speech by violence, made death threats, and worked to instill fear into the public ( as evidenced by unbiased videos.). That's enough of a justification in my opinion to get the convo started already.

Your turn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...