• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Any Antifa members here?

apdst said:
You do know that Joe McCarthy was a senator, right?
Click to expand...
No kidding...really!

Is the context of "McCarthy era" really that tough to understand...or do you need a picture?

"era" = to: age, period, phase, time...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No kidding...really!

Is the context of "McCarthy era" really that tough to understand...or do you need a picture?

"era" = to: age, period, phase, time...
Click to expand...

We're talking about the HUAC. That has zero to do with Joe McCarthy.
 
apdst said:
But, they're communist scum.
Click to expand...
Says the guy so confused about about the context.

now yer operating with some absolute about their demographics, yet you have zero reference.
 
apdst said:
Are you trying to claim that the "McCarthy Era" started in 1938?
Click to expand...
I don't think it matters whut I say, yer gonna keep on building strawmen, lose the context and not prove any claim you make. Yer a waste of time.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I don't think it matters whut I say, yer gonna keep on building strawmen, lose the context and not prove any claim you make. Yer a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Your usual schtick when you've been caught lying.
 
apdst said:
Your usual schtick when you've been caught lying.
Click to expand...
Oh FFS, whut, EXACTLY, did I "lie" about?

Why are you incapable of making any sort of complete point?
 
apdst said:
What year did the "McCarthy Era" start?
Click to expand...
I never said "when", so how in the hell could I "lie" about it?

Why can't you make a complete, logical, point?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I never said "when", so how in the hell could I "lie" about it?

Why can't you make a complete, logical, point?
Click to expand...

You claimed there was a McCarthy Era. What years make up that period?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Well I would consider myself an anti-fascist, just as my father before me, and his father and much of my extended family for generations. Simply being a red blooded American with a respect for our rights and principles should make you sympathetic to anti-fascists and antagonistic towards fascists.
Click to expand...

What an utterly intellectually dishonest response. You know that's what what he was asking.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
When you advocate for the genocide of your fellow countrymen, you lose your right to tolerance. I have no sympathy for nazis.

Yeah, that's a super unbiased source for such a description. It's a bit like posting a description of the Catholic church by Richard Dawkins.
Click to expand...

Rofl...yeah. Don't trust your lying eyes and all the police reports.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Right after you show me one time trump has advocated for fascism.
ANTIFA supports communism... do you need the visual aid again?
You are wrong. ANTIFA is a group with several chapters around the world. This has been explained to you. why you purposefully want to look ignorant is your business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
It's amazing how you resort to lying to prop up the ignorance in your posts.
Click to expand...

So then you don't have a quote of me supporting communism or being a hypocrite?

Fishking said:
What an utterly intellectually dishonest response. You know that's what what he was asking.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
Absentglare said:
If you threaten to physically harm someone, that qualifies as assault. It might not be battery, but it is assault.

When words are threats of physical violence, they are their own assault.
Click to expand...

I agree, condemn them. Hell, I'll join ya in that condemnation with in less than a heartbeat.

But no, even words of advocating for physical violence are not assaults. Unless, and only IF, the person making those threats intends to carry those threats out or encourages others to do so. Then and only then can they be considered as an assault. For instance if someone is coming at you with a baseball bat saying "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!" or says "Go out and kill them!" ...that is an assault. Simply spouting off your beliefs that all Jews/blacks/whites or whatever other ethnicity or race should be exterminated is not an assault.

Absentglare said:
When i condemn assaults, i condemn both actual violence and the threat of violence. I do not believe that this is an example of speaking out of two sides of my mouth.
Click to expand...

Alright then, why do you have a problem with Trump not calling out the white supremacists and nazi's in Charlottesville but instead calling out both sides? (assuming that you do)
 
Kal'Stang said:
I agree, condemn them. Hell, I'll join ya in that condemnation with in less than a heartbeat.

But no, even words of advocating for physical violence are not assaults. Unless, and only IF, the person making those threats intends to carry those threats out or encourages others to do so. Then and only then can they be considered as an assault. For instance if someone is coming at you with a baseball bat saying "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!" or says "Go out and kill them!" ...that is an assault. Simply spouting off your beliefs that all Jews/blacks/whites or whatever other ethnicity or race should be exterminated is not an assault.
Click to expand...

I agree that words have to go really far to qualify as assault, but some of those things the crowd chanted came close.

About as close as that disgusting "pig chant" from a crowd of angry BLM supporters. Though i recognize a key difference here: those BLM supporters weren't exactly picking up their anti-police message from BLM's core principles. The chanting of not being replaced by Jewish people can be traced back to the core ideology of white supremacy.

So while i think we have a problem with extremists who do horrible things all over the spectrum, i think there's an even more specific issue in the white supremacy case where the ideology, itself, is despicable. You don't have to be an extremist of a white supremacist to be worthy of condemnation.

My belief is that white supremacists are people who are suffering. They embrace the ideology perhaps because it helps them to feel better, and we need to find a better way to reach them. When we meet them with violence, we are likely to make the conditions which brought them there even worse.

Kal'Stang said:
Alright then, why do you have a problem with Trump not calling out the white supremacists and nazi's in Charlottesville but instead calling out both sides? (assuming that you do)
Click to expand...

The problem i have is that he seemed to be claiming that a crowd of white supremacists and a crowd of counter-protesters are on equal moral ground. I realize you can focus on various parts of his multiple public statements to get either narrative: (1) that he supported the white supremacists or (2) that he condemned the white supremacists.

However, we can look at the responses by white supremacists, they seem to think he supports them. That's because he's sending them mixed signals, and it's hard to argue that he's not doing it on purpose. I think that's, at best, irresponsible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom