A Chart to Help Those on the Fence About Punching Nazis

I don't need to know what you do in your spare time.

That isn't the message, though. The message is rage against everyone who disagrees with them, including the more mainstream left, hence

I don't know what's posted on this last page here, but by work computer threw up the firewall and declared "adult material!" on everything after post 180!

No, I'm saying that people like yourself are intentionally overlooking the violence committed by them in favor of the sanitized "I don't like Nazis" shtick. After all, as this thread illustrates, this is being used to excuse violence on their part.

No, most are just idiots.

And you can't kill idiots.

Well, the Nazis tried.

"More qualified"=! "Good choice." I've said many times I wasn't sad that she lost. Even for all the lunacy of the past seven months, I'm still not.

But my God, how hard is it to say, unequivocally, that hate groups suck? Every other Republican has been clear on this, and these are the same people who advocate Getting Tuff and create policies that hurt minorities more often than not. Even a candidate that "was horrible in different ways" is preferable to one that all but actively courts hate groups.

No, it isn't good enough. What he did was equivocate.

When Disturbed White Boyz with Gunz were shooting up schools and theaters and malls, Obama didn't go on a rant pissing about police shooting black kids for "fitting the profile." When Treyvon Martin got shot, he didn't turn that about the mass shootings that we've all become numb to. When the Pulse shooting happened, he didn't go "Yeah, but what about the gangs in Detroit, they're killing people all the time."

There's a fucking time and place for everything. He can save his Alt-left crap for Twitter like the rest of his garbage thoughts, not a major press conference.

Seriously, this. If this march had been a bunch of Muslims and one of them had driven a car into a crowd, the usual suspects here would be screaming for glassing the whole Middle East. Yet we suggest punching the fuckers and WE'RE over-reacting?

I put up a cartoon of Philosopher Karl Popper saying we mustn't tolerate intolerance, and Anna put up a racist bingo card, and it had a lot of arguments that are in this thread.


There was a lot of light brown and reds in the Popper cartoon, maybe your scanner thought it was skin and pussy?

You mean you've seen anonymous people on the internet type things......

I'm honestly curious, do you think the Nazis are going to spare you if they win? That a mob of them wouldn't beat you to death or burn down your wigwam at the first opportunity?

"Obviously?" Kind of hard to tell given all the cheerleading going on for the people who actually do the punching.

I'm honestly curious how you can think defending free speech and advocating against violence somehow means I'm pro-Nazi, yet you defending a confessed child-rapist somehow doesn't make you a pedophile.

No, I'm not suggesting you're pro-Nazi, at least not intentionally. I'm seriously asking. What do you think the Nazis have planned for you specifically? I might be fine, since I was adopted by white people and I'm told I can pass for Italian, but what's your plan?

So you are honestly claiming that anyone who says all political violence is wrong and that the law should be strictly enforced against any group who breaks it is some how... Endorsing neo-Nazism?

That is not a very intelligent position.

I don't give a shit what they think they might have planned as long as they are in no position to to do anything. You seem to be under the fantasy world where letting idiots speak their idiot minds equates to letting them do whatever they want, which makes you the biggest idiot of them all.

1. So this is all just a game to you?
2. It seems like they're in a position to form angry mobs that assault and murder people with minimal legal consequences. NBD, right?
3. Is this your plan for if you ever get cancer? Wait until it reaches stage 4 before you actually go to the doctor? I know that's basically a Wordforge tradition at this point, but it doesn't have to be.

Unacceptable. They need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm not disputing that, but you once against misunderstand the constitutional structure. We're talking about the 1st Amendment, not laws. Think of how the Constitution is framed. Is it a document outlining powers and restrictions upon the Federal government and States, or is it a document outlining powers and restrictions upon individuals? The 1st Amendment specifically restricts the government from infringing upon that right to free speech--go read the text of that amendment and others, and this will become clear to you. Really it's only the 13th Amendment that restricts private actors (in addition to the government).

A constitutional challenge requires a state action. If you cannot meet that threshold criteria, a court won't hear your case. Courts have consistently said that constitutional violations only apply to state actions by the Federal government or in some cases by State governments. In rare cases, a private action can amount to a state action but only under certain circumstances (e.g. if the state facilitates the private action, among other things), but not with what we are talking about. But this is the nature of the constitution--it is a compact which imposes limits upon the government so that the government doesn't go out of control with the laws it passes. In contrast, laws impose limits upon the people, and those laws are passed under the constitutional framework.

You may be thinking about civil rights laws, which were passed thanks to the broad language of the 14th and 15th Amendments, or various civil or criminal laws which restrict free speech among private actors. In that case, it is the law operating on private actors, not the constitution. Some more tangible examples: if I were to steal your firearm, I would not be violating the 2nd Amendment, I would be violating the laws against theft of others' property. If I were to destroy your printing press, I would not be violating your 1st Amendment rights, I would be violating laws against destruction of property.

Wow. I can't stand Hilldog but even I think she was more qualified than Trump to run a government given she's been a senator, secretary of state and a first lady.

What the fuck is this guy smoking?

Assault is an imminent threat of bodily harm, which is exactly what these Nazis did. They then followed through on these threats by committing battery. I suggest you look up the definitions of these words which have precise legal meanings before you pretend to know what they mean.

Don't be stupid, you know exactly what I'm saying.

No I don't, because you're not using the same definitions of words.

Hey, all this said, you gotta feel sorry for this little punk.

Bwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!!!! No, ya don't. Fuck him. Fuck him right in his Nazi ear.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-neo-nazi-arrest-warrant-police-a7897841.html

Shut the fuck up.

Penis.

We interrupt the stupidity of @Captain X to bring you this awesome 80's song:



The tune really goes into 1980's overdrive at 3:12!

Bump to antidote the bullshit storm to bump it away.