Disgusted with Progressives

• gut

  iclfan2;1869259 wrote:The media today is complaining that Melania wore stiletto's on the plane into Texas. You can't make this shit up.

  I can't help but wonder what the media would be like if Trump has run as a Democrat. I'm guessing they'd still be pretty tough on him, but Melania would probably be the new Jackie 'O.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  iclfan2;1869259 wrote:The media today is complaining that Melania wore stiletto's on the plane into Texas. You can't make this shit up.

  lolwut
• Heretic

  

  iclfan2;1869259 wrote:The media today is complaining that Melania wore stiletto's on the plane into Texas. You can't make this shit up.

  Kind of humorous since so many people seem to be currently bringing up that time three years ago when some people got pissed off because Obama was wearing a tan suit.
• QuakerOats

  O-Trap;1869241 wrote:Replacing one brand of governance with another brand of governance is not lawlessness. Wishing to overthrow a democratic election in order to institute a different authority structure or person is not lawlessness.
  
  They don't disregard authority. They want to change the authority.
  
  Anarchism adheres to self-ownership and the NAP as philosophical foundations. That doesn't mean they oppose violence if it's in defense of liberty, person, or property, but it does mean they oppose violence for any other reason, because violence for any other reason is the application of force, which creates a hierarchy, and anarchism opposes hierarchy.

  
  Holy shit; wow.
  
  
  
  
  I will kindly refer you to an important sentence in the article:
  
  "A group of more than 100 masked antifa, with shields emblazoned with the words'no hate' and waving a flag identifying themselves as anarchists, then broke through police barricades, avoiding security checks by officers to take away possible weapons. "
  
  
  
  Perhaps you should direct your opinion to the reporter, the Daily Mail, and the AP.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Heretic;1869263 wrote:Kind of humorous since so many people seem to be currently bringing up that time three years ago when some people got pissed off because Obama was wearing a tan suit.

  I don't remember that one. But I do remember the time Michelle Obama wore $500 tennis shoes to a 'feed the poor' event.
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/michelle-obama-wears-silv_n_193138.html
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1869260 wrote:I can't help but wonder what the media would be like if Trump has run as a Democrat. I'm guessing they'd still be pretty tough on him, but Melania would probably be the new Jackie 'O.

  I've thought the same.
  
  I don't know too much about her, but from what I'm told, she's reasonably intelligent, speaks something like six languages, and is far more self-built than her Cheeto-colored counterpart.
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1869264 wrote:Holy shit; wow.
  
  
  
  
  I will kindly refer you to an important sentence in the article:
  
  "A group of more than 100 masked antifa, with shields emblazoned with the words'no hate' and waving a flag identifying themselves as anarchists, then broke through police barricades, avoiding security checks by officers to take away possible weapons. "
  
  
  
  Perhaps you should direct your opinion to the reporter, the Daily Mail, and the AP.

  Apparently, my recitation of the formal definition is an opinion? Do you know what an opinion is?
  
  Either way, it's also apparently the opinion of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, as well. Perhaps, I should direct the Antifa knuckleheads to that, as they wouldn't appear to like it. I will certainly kindly refer you to it.
  
  I'll highlight some relevance.
  

  Definition of anarchism
  
  1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be
  unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on
  voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
  
  
  2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

  They can identify themselves as anarchists, Leninists, flying spaghetti monster acolytes, or Captain America. Their actions don't reflect anarchism, so I don't give a shit what they call themselves. They're socialist authoritarians, which is about as far as you can get from "voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups."
• QuakerOats

  Even a cursory review of the definition confirms their anarchist activities. The author of the article is correct.
  
  
  Good luck.
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1869273 wrote:Even a cursory review of the definition confirms their anarchist activities. The author of the article is correct.
  
  
  Good luck.

  The author of the article is probably correct by saying they carried flags with the anarchism logo on them. That is, however, all the further the article went, or at the very least, it's all the further your citation of the article went.
  
  "Free association" allows for discrimination, based on essentially anything. They oppose that.
  
  "Free association" is also an absence of forced interaction, which a violent attack (not defense) is. They obviously aren't opposed to violent attacks.
  
  They've supported the notion that thoughts and opinions are force, and should therefore be policed. That's antithetical to "free association."
  
  You can try to fit the round peg into the square hole all you want, and you can say it fits, but it doesn't.
  
  Like I said, they're socialistic authoritarians. Just because they don't like this government, it doesn't mean they don't supported government. If they were anarchists, they would have been out in full force against anything "big government," since big government is so staunchly opposite of no government. Yet they were relatively quiet during the Obama administration.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I think the groups of various flags are often more than happy to create a black bloc with groups like antifa. Strength in numbers and all of that. After all, numbers impress and get the attention.
  
  Very similar to the women's march. They invited people like Linda Sarsour to join them lol
• like_that

  

  Heretic;1869263 wrote:Kind of humorous since so many people seem to be currently bringing up that time three years ago when some people got pissed off because Obama was wearing a tan suit.

  That was the first thing to came to my mind when I read that post, but it's probably humorous to me for another reason. The fact that apparently a lot of people think that is Obama's only "scandal" is laughable at best.
• O-Trap

  

  CenterBHSFan;1869284 wrote:I think the groups of various flags are often more than happy to create a black bloc with groups like antifa. Strength in numbers and all of that. After all, numbers impress and get the attention.
  
  Very similar to the women's march. They invited people like Linda Sarsour to join them lol

  Oh, I don't disagree. Anarchists, minarchists, and libertarians tend to all be close enough to get along.
  
  However, what we'd be talking about is closer to Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow teaming up to combat Trump. IF they ever did it, they still wouldn't be identifying as one another agreeably.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  O-Trap;1869287 wrote:Oh, I don't disagree. Anarchists, minarchists, and libertarians tend to all be close enough to get along.
  
  However, what we'd be talking about is closer to Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow teaming up to combat Trump. IF they ever did it, they still wouldn't be identifying as one another agreeably.

  Agreed. But... wouldn't that be just the funniest thing? XD
• O-Trap

  

  CenterBHSFan;1869294 wrote:Agreed. But... wouldn't that be just the funniest thing? XD

  I was imagining it even as I wrote it, and I couldn't help but chuckle.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  So apparently, GWTW is just too controversial with it's portrayal's of black people so a theater in Memphis has decided to discontinue the screenings of it.
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/27/movies/memphis-theater-cancels-gone-with-the-wind-screening.html?mcubz=0
  
  I wonder if any other theaters will take this step. And if so, what other movies might be deemed as too controversial for the advancement of intersectionality?
• QuakerOats

  From the Washington Times:
  
  The leftist violence so far has not killed anybody, but it has resulted in numerous injuries and property damage, including an estimated $100,000 hit to the University of California Berkeley from the Feb. 1 rioting against conservative Milo Yiannopoulos.
  
  
  At Sunday’s melee, about 100 black-masked protesters jumped police barricades and chased down and attacked a small number of Trump supporters, resulting in 13 arrests and injuries to six people, including a police officer.
  
  
  Berkeley police reported that protesters threw paint at officers and that two of the six people hurt were transported to hospitals for treatment.
  
  
  The chaotic protest erupted even though organizers canceled both events — Saturday’s Patriot Prayer in San Francisco and the No to Marxism in America event Sunday in Berkeley — over concerns about violence from counter protesters.
  
  
  Both groups denied any connection to white supremacists. Patriot Prayer’s Joey Gibson is half-Asian, and his event included mostly nonwhite speakers. The No to Marxism event was organized by transgender Trump supporter Amber Cummings.
  
  
  Ms. Cummings was outraged after Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin denounced the event as an attempt to send a “racist and hate-filled message.”
  
  
  “That is an outright lie that this mayor is propagating,” Ms. Cummings said on the website Berkeleyside. “White supremacy is not allowed at my rally. We do not want racist people there. We do not want hateful people there.”
  
  
  Mr. Arreguin did not respond immediately Monday to a request for comment about the leftist violence.
• QuakerOats

  Over the weekend, Antifa anarchists draped in black masks and carrying home-made weapons disrupted a peaceful demonstration and counter-demonstration in Berkeley, CA. The violence from the alt-Left group was so obvious and one-sided that even the Washington Post framed their article with no uncertain condemnation of the thugs in their headline: Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley.
  
  So why is this group, whose political ties clearly lean in synchronicity with the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party, not being condemned by Democrats for their thuggery and violence? And, more importantly, why isn’t the media demanding Democrats do so in the same way they demanded Republicans condemn neo-Nazis and White Nationalists?
  
  https://www.mediaite.com/columnists/why-wont-media-demand-dems-condemn-antifa/
• majorspark

  

  
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1869438 wrote:[...] Antifa anarchists [...] whose political ties clearly lean in synchronicity with the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party [...]

  In a nutshell:
  
  Anarchism: no government
  
  Bernie Sanders: As much government as possible
  
  So, which is it? Are they associated with a group that believes government is evil and unnecessary, or are they associated with a group that believes government should essentially regulate as much as possible? The two are de facto opposites.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Gotta love Charlie Hebdo!
• iclfan2

  

  CenterBHSFan;1869598 wrote:Gotta love Charlie Hebdo!

  Lol it's kind of funny. Scared shitless to draw Muhammad again from the religion of peace, but know nothing will come of making fun of the jackass Nazi's and White supremacists "people" are "so cared" of
• CenterBHSFan

  

  iclfan2;1869599 wrote:Lol it's kind of funny. Scared shitless to draw Muhammad again from the religion of peace, but know nothing will come of making fun of the jackass Nazi's and White supremacists "people" are "so cared" of

  I actually don't blame them that much to be scared. They've already been shot up a few times from drawing muhammad.
  What I actually find cowardly is that because of what happened at the Hebdo offices and Rushdie, everybody else in the world is bent over and will not stand up.
• Automatik

  

  iclfan2;1869599 wrote:Lol it's kind of funny. Scared shitless to draw Muhammad again from the religion of peace, but know nothing will come of making fun of the jackass Nazi's and White supremacists "people" are "so cared" of

  Wut? They depicted Muhammad again on the cover a few years after the attack.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Well. I wish that there was a funny intro to this, but there's not.
  
  http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2017/08/dear_prudence_my_girlfriend_won_t_donate_to_harvey_victims_because_some.html
• iclfan2

  

  Automatik;1869603 wrote:Wut? They depicted Muhammad again on the cover a few years after the attack.

  I was just trying to say the whole nazi thing is dumb and overblown. 2,000 people rallying and some jackass killing a person shouldn't be international news.
  
  
  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk