2 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

It's only a matter of time before they trace the planning of this attack to me....errrr...I mean to George Soros.

But you're a Brit living in Thailand ............

Just now, novacova said:

Mind reading? You’re joking right? You’ve been blatantly showing your hand here under several guises for quite awhile now, not much to read into when it’s plain as day.

Maybe reasserting something seems to you like some sort of evidence or rational argument. But it's just another indication that you've got nothing.

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

But you're a Brit living in Thailand ............

New Jersey hasn't been part of the UK for well over 200 years.

42 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

What evidence do you have to show that I support their violent acts?

Denounce them then here and now. Say ANTIFA are both radical and violent and need to be stopped. Say that those financing them need to be held to account.

18 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

 

I think they can relax.......Newsom will pardon them all soon enough.......that's how it works now.

He can't pardon Federal charges. lol

7 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Maybe reasserting something seems to you like some sort of evidence or rational argument.

You are absolutely correct, there are those of us who have had many discussions with all sorts of individuals from all sorts of backgrounds throughout our lives, and then there are those who have not. People are predictable and easy to read, your number is too easy.

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Denounce them then here and now. Say ANTIFA are both radical and violent and need to be stopped. Say that those financing them need to be held to account.

It's clear why you are asking this. Such a blanket denunciation would mean that I accept the reality of antifa as an overarching organization. Also, it would imply that I consider this alleged organization to be a serious threat to the social order and not a very minor menace magnified to support right wing overreach. And finally, it would be to accept the allegation that they are being financed in some conspiratorial way. Now, if you want me to denounce people who have been convicted of violent acts and call themselves antifa, I've got no problem with that. Or even to provisionally denounce them in the event they get convicted.

4 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

He can't pardon Federal charges. lol

 

Oh yes.....I was reading about that yesterday re: Rudi, Sydney, et al........all still face fairly draconian State charges.....even after Trump's pardon.

3 minutes ago, novacova said:

You are absolutely correct, there are those of us who have had many discussions with all sorts of individuals from all sorts of backgrounds throughout our lives, and then there are those who have not. People are predictable and easy to read, your number is too easy.

Kaking unproveable claims about your experience? Just another meretricious way of making it personal. You're anonymous. I'm anonymous. Such personal claims are valueless as evidence or argument.

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Ba Bye , you're misspelling again!

Oh so sorry, paedophile, is that better???

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Ba Bye , you're misspelling again!

you should check your own spelling before commenting on another’s spelling

5 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

It's clear why you are asking this. Such a blanket denunciation would mean that I accept the reality of antifa as an overarching organization. Also, it would imply that I consider this alleged organization to be a serious threat to the social order and not a very minor menace magnified to support right wing overreach. And finally, it would be to accept the allegation that they are being financed in some conspiratorial way. Now, if you want me to denounce people who have been convicted of violent acts and call themselves antifa, I've got no problem with that. Or even to provisionally denounce them in the event they get convicted.

Nope. This is simply more deflection.  Just say if you think they are violent radical lefists or not. Quite simple and only needs a three word answer. Yes, they are or No, they aren't. No more deflections please. My answer is Yes, they are. What's your answer?

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

More like McCarthyism's communist conspiracies. Or the USSR's conspiracy theories. Or the Nazis' conspiracy theories. There is no evidence of any kind of hierarchy that would qualify antifa as some kind of conspiracy. As the Justice Dept in saner days said, it's an ideology not an organization.

Let the MAGAs have their fun. They're scared to death of a handful of young people who wear black clothes and every six months or so show up at a protest.

 

Like any cult---including religion---they need an enemy. Religion has the devil. In Orwell's 1984, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, and MAGAs have brown people (all are either MS-13 members or rapists and murderers) and antifa. Oh, and us "deranged Democrats and lefties". MAGAs are sheeple, like QAnons, marching to the tune of Q or Trump.

 

Let the cultists pretend they're warriors, despite most of them being obese and out of shape.

20 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You're anonymous. I'm anonymous. 

Absolutely correct, empirically not.

20 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Kaking unproveable claims about your experience?

As to your above comment, no person is obligated to prove themselves, though you have proven yourself to be lacking credibility.

20 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Just another meretricious way of making it personal.

Why is that whenever someone has a disagreement with a leftist they take it personally? Something is fundamentally wrong with the Marxist ideology.

20 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Such personal claims are valueless as evidence or argument.

Again, nothing personal. Try not to take it so hard. And again, in case you have forgotten, you were proven that you have trouble deciphering raw data empirically comprehending and conceptualizing all linear data. You’re just a mainstream media reiterator focusing only on what is presented and fed to you. Simple.

2 minutes ago, Wingate said:

Let the MAGAs have their fun. They're scared to death of a handful of young people who wear black clothes and every six months or so show up at a protest.

 

Like any cult---including religion---they need an enemy. Religion has the devil. In Orwell's 1984, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, and MAGAs have brown people (all are either MS-13 members or rapists and murderers) and antifa. Oh, and us "deranged Democrats and lefties". MAGAs are sheeple, like QAnons, marching to the tune of Q or Trump.

 

Let the cultists pretend they're warriors, despite most of them being obese and out of shape.

You have lost it

14 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

You have lost it

Perhaps you, the guy who has posted probably 100,000 times under a long list of names, can tell me where to "find it".

 

LOL.

 

 

Just now, Wingate said:

Perhaps you, the guy who has posted probably 100,000 times under a long list of names, can tell me where to "find it".

 

LOL.

 

 

Trump is Hitler 

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Wrapping yourself in the flag again?

Well yeah I love it. Hows your Hammer and Sickle or Hakenkreuz? You burn candles to George Soros, the man you want to be?

37 minutes ago, stupidfarang said:

you should check your own spelling before commenting on another’s spelling

 

 

His mom will be out.

 

You can tell....she's actually quite literate.

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 

Did you watch that video 2:50  of Antifa  destroying the police in Chicago ,pelted by rocks frozen water bottles , man made spears, over 50 cops went to the hospital that day with various injuries.

Well, what do you know: violence begets violence...

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 

Did you watch that video 2:50  of Antifa  destroying the police in Chicago ,pelted by rocks frozen water bottles , man made spears, over 50 cops went to the hospital that day with various injuries.

 

 

Was this one of them?

 

Nope....whoops....my mistake.....this is one of the cops from the J6 riot.

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

Was this one of them?

 

Nope....whoops....my mistake.....this is one of the cops from the J6 riot.

 

 

 

Someone that looks like that shouldn't be a cop!

39 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Someone that looks like that shouldn't be a cop!

 

 

You mean he should be transferred (and promoted?) to ICE?

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Someone that looks like that shouldn't be a cop!

Or defense secretary!  Pete Kegbreath

8 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Nope. This is simply more deflection.  Just say if you think they are violent radical lefists or not. Quite simple and only needs a three word answer. Yes, they are or No, they aren't. No more deflections please. My answer is Yes, they are. What's your answer?

Who do you mean by "they"? The specific persons charged with the crimes mentioned above? If they are convicted, sure, my answer is  yes they're terrorists.  If they are acquitted, will they still be terrorists to you?

But if you're not referring to those people, then the question you're asking is what's called a loaded question. A common example of such a question is 'When did you stop beating your wife?" It's a question based on implicit assumptions that may be dubious or even false. It's a transparent rhetorical ploy and not one I'm going to fall for.

32 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Who do you mean by "they"? The specific persons charged with the crimes mentioned above? If they are convicted, sure, my answer is  yes they're terrorists.  If they are acquitted, will they still be terrorists to you?

But if you're not referring to those people, then the question you're asking is what's called a loaded question. A common example of such a question is 'When did you stop beating your wife?" It's a question based on implicit assumptions that may be dubious or even false. It's a transparent rhetorical ploy and not one I'm going to fall for.

Nope. Deflection again. I have made it clear before. Do you think ANTIFA are violent radical leftists? 

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Nope. Deflection again. I have made it clear before. Do you think ANTIFA are violent leftists? 

Define ANTIFA. Let's see if what you think ANTIFA is agrees with what various agencies have said it is.

10 hours ago, novacova said:

Absolutely correct, empirically not.

As to your above comment, no person is obligated to prove themselves, though you have proven yourself to be lacking credibility.

Why is that whenever someone has a disagreement with a leftist they take it personally? Something is fundamentally wrong with the Marxist ideology.

Again, nothing personal. Try not to take it so hard. And again, in case you have forgotten, you were proven that you have trouble deciphering raw data empirically comprehending and conceptualizing all linear data. You’re just a mainstream media reiterator focusing only on what is presented and fed to you. Simple.

"Absolutely correct, empirically not."

What does "absolutely correct, empirically not" even mean? If something is "absolutely correct" that leaves no room for it to be "empirically not"

 

"As to your above comment, no person is obligated to prove themselves, though you have proven yourself to be lacking credibility."

You missed the point. You made claims about your personal experience. There is no way of verifying whether your claim is true or false. So, no, you're not obligated to provide proof of your experience. By the same token, no one is obligated to take your word for it. But there are ways to

provide evidence that doesn't depend on personal claims. You seem to have no use for them. And you claim that I have proven proven myself to lack credibiility. But you offer no evidence. No reasoned analysis of what I have written. Just another cheap shot from you.

 

"Why is that whenever someone has a disagreement with a leftist they take it personally? Something is fundamentally wrong with the Marxist ideology."

You misunderstand what about personal. You made a claim about me personally supported only by your phrase " People are predictable and easy to read, your number is too easy." It's also true that biases are easy to succumb to. Why should I believe that your take on me or anyone isn't a product of biases?. Of course, if you are unwilling or unable to provide corroboratable evidence, then I guess you have to resort to such cheap shots

from you.  As for Marxist ideoloogy? This shows how empty are your arguments. Where have I ever argued for the state or workers to control the means of production? What stances have I taken that a political scientist or historian would understand to be Marxist. Another cheap shot from you.

 

Finally, more personal comments from you as in "try not to take it so hard" Another cheap and empty shot. You claim that ," in case you have forgotten, you were proven that you have trouble deciphering raw data empirically comprehending and conceptualizing all linear data."

Where is this the case? I will note that since you rarely if ever provide data, your grasp of it remains an open question.

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Define ANTIFA.

Just now, dinsdale said:

Deflecting much?