Givng it back to the thugs.

[leftysergeant]

After listening to a rousing speech by Joe Biden at (ironicly) Cheney Stadium in Tacoma, I cruised by some of the vendors' stands in the parking lot to look for a better-looking bumper sticker than the one I have on my vehicle. While there, two young males in wife beater shirts and blue-jeans came through, clapping their hands and chanting "Nobama! No Communism. No Socialism. Support the troops."

The way they were dressed was typical of the white nationalists in this area. They appeared to me to be looking for a fight. I decided that these fools presented a bit of a threat, since Biden and several other candidates were still in the area for VIP meet-and-greets, and the fools were headed toward the entrance to the stadium.

This seemed to me a bit less than acceptable.

I approached them and, in a voice that they could not drown out, chanted in their faces, "Nie wieder das Faschismus." They somehow got the impression that a rather hostile crowd was begining to close in around them and started back the way they had come from. I stayed with them, expressing to them what I thought of them, their parents who neglected to place them in a gunny sack and toss them over the nearest bridge at birth, and offered a tenative diagnosis of their sexual dysfunctions. The crowd began chanting pro-Obama chants to drown them out.

I've heard people called rednecks before, but these guys' necks actually did become kind of rosy as we went along. I could even see one jerk's carotid starting to throb.

Apparently the police were already on their way and used the ruckus to locate the punks they were looking for, thanked me for locating them, then offered them the choice to immediately depart the area on foot, by the shortest possible route, or to be transported to the County/City Building in shackles.

They avoided any further dicomfiture by departing.

And a wonderful time was had by all whose lives matter to the rest of the world.

Still, I worry about this kind of thing. The next lot may be just the racket to distract the cops from a triggerman.

[corplinx]

Yes, you did act like a thug. Grats. The brown shirts are working overtime this year.

[Gurdur]

Yes, you did act like a thug. Grats. The brown shirts are working overtime this year.


No offence, but you're being kinda overdrawn and getting things ass-backwards.

[DavidJames]

The brown shirts are working overtime this year.This is your second reference to "brown shirts" this morning, Can you explain what you mean by this?

[corplinx]

No offence, but you're being kinda overdrawn and getting things ass-backwards.

He posted a story saying that he started trying to shout down a couple of protesters and got so many other people riled up and shouting that the cops arrested the protesters. Mixed in with that was all sorts of accusations of the people perhaps being white supremacists. He also said that after they tried to retreat, he pursued them shouting like a moron.

What story did you read?

I thought the cute part where he thought about protesters being used to cover assassination was so far out in loony land that it scares me.

If theres a thugocracy on its way, people like lefty will be its useful idiots.

[corplinx]

This is your second reference to "brown shirts" this morning, Can you explain what you mean by this?

"All opposition must be stamped into the ground"

Obama is already going to win. I predicted as much over 6 months ago and the polls are still heavily in his favor along with other factors outside the polls. He doesn't need brown shirts acting in his name and I doubt he cares for that sort of thing.

It disturbs me that a few protestors wearing tank tops get chased and shouted at or that Joe the Plumber gets a rectal exam because Obama answered a question poorly.

Its brown shirt behavior.

[mr rosewater]

He posted a story saying that he started trying to shout down a couple of protesters and got so many other people riled up and shouting that the cops arrested the protesters. Mixed in with that was all sorts of accusations of the people perhaps being white supremacists. He also said that after they tried to retreat, he pursued them shouting like a moron.

What story did you read?

I thought the cute part where he thought about protesters being used to cover assassination was so far out in loony land that it scares me.

If theres a thugocracy on its way, people like lefty will be its useful idiots.

I agree, really poor form lefty.

[DavidJames]

Its brown shirt behavior.I'll ask a second time. What does that mean. Where does that reference come from?

[Phaedrus74]

I'll ask a second time. What does that mean. Where does that reference come from?

I think he's read this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76818) nonsense...

[Ausmerican]

I'll ask a second time. What does that mean. Where does that reference come from?

He cant answer that without Godwining the thread. Which he kinda obliquely did already.

[drkitten]

I'll ask a second time. What does that mean. Where does that reference come from?

"Brown shirts" was a colloquial term for the Sturmabteilung (SA) in 1930s Germany. Basically, they were Hitler's civilian shock troops; he used them to provide security and to bust the heads of counter-demonstrators (or to bust heads at party rallies run by other parties).

Basically, corplinx is trying very hard to lose this thread via Godwin's Law.

[corplinx]

"Brown shirts" was a colloquial term for the Sturmabteilung (SA) in 1930s Germany. Basically, they were Hitler's civilian shock troops; he used them to provide security and to bust the heads of counter-demonstrators (or to bust heads at party rallies run by other parties).

Basically, corplinx is trying very hard to lose this thread via Godwin's Law.

I wouldn't say lose it. Godwin's law doesn't state you "lose" a discussion if you compare to any policy or person in Germany from 1933 to 1945. How do you "lose" at a discussion anyway? Is this thread a competition of sorts? Will medals be passed out?

Lefty, in the depiction he posted, acted like a brown shirt.

[DavidJames]

He cant answer that without Godwining the thread. Which he kinda obliquely did already.I know, I was being disingenuous. It's a tough time for Republicans, I should have just let it drop and die under it's own weight.

[plumjam]

This is your second reference to "brown shirts" this morning, Can you explain what you mean by this?

The missus had trouble getting out the gravy stains this weekend. My missus shouts over that she recommends New Improved Militia-Gone, which is apparently Kind to the Environment, Tough on Nascent Grass Roots Fascism.

[Tailgater]

Funny. Unlike the other protestor threads, I guess you would have been ok with police arresting them for no reason. So what was the "threat" other than you didn't like what they were saying? At least you don't deny your overwhelming bias.

[Ziggurat]

So what was the "threat" other than you didn't like what they were saying?

That the protesters might so enrage Obama supporters that they wouldn't be able to control themselves and might commit violence (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-supporter-assaults-female-mccain-volunteer-in-new-york/) against those protesters. And that's just too grave a threat to Obama supporters to be tolerated. They're peace-loving, so don't make them hurt you.

[dudalb]

Funny. Unlike the other protestor threads, I guess you would have been ok with police arresting them for no reason. So what was the "threat" other than you didn't like what they were saying? At least you don't deny your overwhelming bias.


The idea that the militant Left is more tolerent of opposing opinion then the militant Right is just plain crap. I guess the old "No Free Speech For Fascists" days are coming back.

[Tailgater]

I can imagine the foaming at the mouth name-calling that would be spewed if this was two Obama supporters at a Mcain rally being chased down. OMG, look at those fascist pigs stopping free speech!!! What a joke.

FYI, This OP would be just as sad no matter which side of the aisle it was coming from.

[WildCat]

Way to go lefty, I see you take your screen name seriously and like all other leftists rather than tolerate dissenting opinions you try to eliminate them.

[Drysdale]

Another fine example of liberals being anything but.

What was it Lenny Bruce said?

“The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them”

[WildCat]

This thread reminds me of TheAtheist bragging how he spit in the face of an octagenerian WWII veteran in Japan.

[Drysdale]

double

[Peephole]

It disturbs me that a few protestors wearing tank tops get chased and shouted at or that Joe the Plumber gets a rectal exam.
Joe The "Plumber" gets a rectal exam because he's an *******. If he can't stand the heat, he should complain to McCain for making him the center of his campaign. Or just stop being a lying idiot would be pretty helpful too.

On topic: people going to rallies to stir up trouble are idiots.

[jj]

Way to go lefty, I see you take your screen name seriously and like all other leftists rather than tolerate dissenting opinions you try to eliminate them.

You have previously called me a leftist.

You have now taken on the obligation of proving, absolutely, incontrovertably that not only the OP, but myself, and every other individual you have accused of being a "leftist", tries to "eliminate" dissenting opinions.

The public record in my case stands clear, I have done no such thing, and as such, your claim is a formal, direct, personal insult to me.

[Bob Blaylock]

I approached them and, in a voice that they could not drown out, chanted in their faces, "Nie wieder das Faschismus."


Yelling “never again fascism” while acting exactly as a Fascist. I guess some peoples' hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Any reason you chose to use the language of a nation that has chosen to distance itself from its Nazi past by imposing Nazi-like violations of basic free-speech rights (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125636)?

[WildCat]

On topic: people going to rallies to stir up trouble are idiots.
So you agree with all those arrests at the RNC?

[DavidJames]

Yelling “never again fascism” while acting exactly as a Fascist. I guess some peoples' hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Huh, maybe I missed it, it sounds like lefty was using his free-speech rights to respond to the neo-nazi's expressing their free speech rights.

What did I miss?

[WildCat]

You have previously called me a leftist.
Where?

You have now taken on the obligation of proving, absolutely, incontrovertably that not only the OP, but myself, and every other individual you have accused of being a "leftist", tries to "eliminate" dissenting opinions.
Why don't you start by proving I ever called you a leftist? I rarely would call someone a leftist, in leftysergeant's case he identifies himself as one so the label is his, not mine. And while admittedly poorly written, my reference was to every leftist (and by that I mean Marxist) government ever has put severe restrictions on free speech.

The public record in my case stands clear, I have done no such thing, and as such, your claim is a formal, direct, personal insult to me.
:v:

Quite the persecution complex you have there jj...

[drkitten]

I wouldn't say lose it.

You don't need to. Others will -- and have -- said it for you.

How do you "lose" at a discussion anyway?

I rather doubt you need lessons in how to lose a thread.

[Ziggurat]

Huh, maybe I missed it, it sounds like lefty was using his free-speech rights to respond to the neo-nazi's expressing their free speech rights.

What did I miss?

What makes you believe that they were neo-nazis? Lefty didn't say they were. He used a number of descriptive terms, but neo-nazi wasn't actually among them.

[leftysergeant]

They were young,, muscular and loud. They were dressed in a way that was meant to be intimidating. They were trying to portray the people they harrassed as unpatriotic. They were on a power trip. Had anyone laid a hand on them, they would have won. Had they laid a hand on me, they would have lost, legally and morally, and probably have been incorporated into the tarmac by all the Army veterans standing around.

Instead of some younmg macho man challenging them to a fight, they got an old disabled guy calling attention to what utter rednecks they were, holding them up for ridicule, emphasizing the point that we are not going to just tolerate their attempts to be intimidating.

They said that they were just exercising their First ammendment rights to be annoying dirtbags. I exercised mine in their faces to call them the low-lifes they were. And they couldn't do a thing about it, because I did not allow them a legal opening.

Their discomfiture was obvious.

We are no longer in any way obligated to let bullies be bulies and walk away thinking they have won. That the cops ran them out of the area without their having made themselves look strong justruined their whole day. They need their day ruined. They need to know that they are obsolete.

They need to know that they are no longer able to intimidate.

The world would be a better place today had a few trade unionists in Munich figured out how to organize and break a few SA heads.

Can you imagine how those two tough little rednecks must feel, knowing that an old gimp pwned them?

[Augustine]

I feel like I'm reading some deranged "Dear Penthouse.." letter.

[Tailgater]

Huh, maybe I missed it, it sounds like lefty was using his free-speech rights to respond to the neo-nazi's expressing their free speech rights.

What did I miss?

Well, according to Lefty,

cops who stop protestors at RNC=fascist pigs

so, it makes sense that,

protestors at Obama rally=neo-nazis

[Shalamar]

People have freedom of speech. This does not make you immune to the consequences of said speech.

Leftysergent did the right thing by NOT laying a hand on them, and exercised his right to protest BACK at the protesters. The protesters did the right thing by leaving, and not making a tense situation worse.

[Tailgater]

I agree with what Lefty did, but I find it funny that he seems proud of the fact they might have been endangered by the crowd and made the comment of the police arresting those "punks" after we know his position in other threads about anyones rights being affected by fascist pigs.

[Tailgater]

I agree with what Lefty did, but I find it funny that he seems proud of the fact they might have been endangered by the crowd and made the comment of the police arresting those "punks" after we know his position in other threads about anyones rights being affected by fascist pigs.

[leftysergeant]

Well, according to Lefty,

cops who stop protestors at RNC=fascist pigs

so, it makes sense that,

protestors at Obama rally=neo-nazis

First of all, they were not leaving the area when the cops intercepted them. they were merely moving to another area of the parking lot, close to the point at which Biden would have left the stadium, possibly hoping that I would not be able to keep up with them. (My arthritis and phlebitis were really flairing up after three hours sitting on a cold plastic stadium seat and it showed.)

They were dressed in the manner of one of the local Nazi gangs. They were trying to rile people up. Is it a stretch to think that the little rednecks were Nazis?

They weren't arrested. They were told to leave. Big difference. Probably the only intelligent thing they had done in the last couple weeks.

You have the right peaceably to assemble. Reminding black people that there are still white nationalists who will fight back against all that the civil rights movement has accomplished over 55 years is not peaceable assembly. Calling Democrats Communists to their faces and expecting them to feel intimidated by your biceps is not peaceable assembly.

Nobody's rights were violated because we did not allow them to intimidate us, but mocked them and showed them how impotent they were.

It it hurt their feelings, this is a good thing.

[thaiboxerken]

Way to go lefty!

[boloboffin]

At the risk of committing a Whiplash, what the :rule10!

A couple of knuckleheaded punks strut around an Obama gathering, trying to intimidate people, and because Lefty stands up and defends HIS right to peacefully assemble, HE'S the Nazi?????

Some people here need to get lives.

[WildCat]

Reminding black people that there are still white nationalists who will fight back against all that the civil rights movement has accomplished over 55 years is not peaceable assembly.
So "Nobama! No Communism. No Socialism. Support the troops" is really nazi code for "there are still white nationalists who will fight back against all that the civil rights movement has accomplished over 55 years"?

I might believe you that they actually were nazis if you didn't have such a track record here of demonizing anyone who disagrees with you politically with hyperbolic rants.

[WildCat]

At the risk of committing a Whiplash, what the :rule10!

A couple of knuckleheaded punks strut around an Obama gathering, trying to intimidate people, and because Lefty stands up and defends HIS right to peacefully assemble, HE'S the Nazi?????

Some people here need to get lives.
Except there's been no evidence presented they were trying to intimidate anyone.

[leftysergeant]

So "Nobama! No Communism. No Socialism. Support the troops" is really nazi code for "there are still white nationalists who will fight back against all that the civil rights movement has accomplished over 55 years"?

Dressing like a Nazi and telling people that they are bad for America is acting like a Nazi.

They were dressed alike, in the manner of one of the local Nazi gangs.

Wide beak, webbed feet, oily feathers.

It aint an eagle.

[Nyarlathotep]

Dressing like a Nazi and telling people that they are bad for America is acting like a Nazi.

They were dressed alike, in the manner of one of the local Nazi gangs.

Wide beak, webbed feet, oily feathers.

It aint an eagle.


Really? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126476)

It is my understanding from various sources that although the set of nazis and the set of skinheads does indeed have a lot of overlap, it isn't 100% either way.

Now if they were hurling racial epithets, or physically intimidating people I might agree with your actions. But it sounds like they were just protesting, same as Obama supporters might at a Palin rally.

[thaiboxerken]

So "Nobama! No Communism. No Socialism. Support the troops" is really nazi code for "there are still white nationalists who will fight back against all that the civil rights movement has accomplished over 55 years"?


Yes, it is.

[boloboffin]

Except there's been no evidence presented they were trying to intimidate anyone.

Two young males in wife beater shirts and blue-jeans came through [the vendors stands], clapping their hands and chanting "Nobama! No Communism. No Socialism. Support the troops."

The scene is a Biden rally, with vendors outside. Vendors implies a crowd was there. Being a Biden rally, it would have been catering to a Democratic crowd.

And two punks are clapping their hands and chanting "Nobama! No Communism. No Socialism. Support the troops."

Something's impairing your objectivity, Wildcat.

[The Painter]

The scene is a Biden rally, with vendors outside. Vendors implies a crowd was there. Being a Biden rally, it would have been catering to a Democratic crowd.

And two punks are clapping their hands and chanting "Nobama! No Communism. No Socialism. Support the troops."Something's impairing your objectivity, Wildcat.


So except for the Nobama part, are you saying Biden supports communism, socialism and does NOT support the troops? I would like to think the Democrats are against Communism and socialism and that they DO support the troops. Maybe I need to rethink this. Thanks blobo for opening my eyes.

[leftysergeant]

I also identified myself as an Army NCO and cast aspersions on their manhood for not being in Iraq, suffering under the mis-management of the Rummy DoD.

I'm a better judge than they are of what is supportive of the troops. They were advocating for a man who, militarily, is pretty much useless.

I have no reason to feel any concern for their feelings.

As for their safety, we all knew better than to let them play the victim card. Having your face scarred by a mob of angry black veterans would be a badge of honor. Being told off by a limping old white veteran just doesn't get you any status in their circles.

[plumjam]

People arguing that this was a case of Leftysergeant wrongfully limiting someone's rights to free speech cannot willfully ignore context.
Take a parallel example from policing - British football hooligans/fans. If you get a group of obvious away fans turning up at the stadium and purposefully, knowingly, hanging out at the home end in order to try to intimidate/verbally instigate trouble with the home fans, then it would be standard police practice to ask them to move on / force them to move on /... and if neither of those worked they'd be detained/arrested (very probably without charge) just in order to move them away and defuse the possibility of a dangerous confrontation, during those couple of hours.
Is that a restriction of their rights to free speech? Well, technically yes. But they are actually abusing those rights to free speech in order to get their rocks off in a bit of a bust up which they can boast about later to their buddies.
So.. context is crucial. And Leftysergeant possibly prevented things escalating.

[Cobalt]

So, because you thought they might start trouble, you decide to...shout in their faces and tail them yelling incredibly unnecessarily rude statements because you thought they might be neo-Nazis? And you figured that if you start trouble, it's perfectly OK since you already know everything about them and who they are?

And what trouble did they actually start again, beside demonstrating that they dislike the political candidate you do?

Do tell, would you be happy if the crowd decided to beat the hell out of them just because they might have been Nazis and were politically opposed to your candidate of choice? What if they didn't just "look" like Nazis? What if they were in suits and ties? Would you still feel okay about this?

You made your decisions based on pure assumption and feel completely justified in it. Your actions were vile, and would be regardless of what side of the political fence you happen to be on. I see no reason anyone should give you even an ounce of respect for your actions.

Had you thought they were a threat, why not just call the police and point them out?


So.. context is crucial. And Leftysergeant possibly prevented things escalating.
By shouting in their faces and tailing them while yelling things that may or may not start an actual fight. Got it.

[leftysergeant]

Again, peaceable assembly does not include trying to start a fight or attempting to intimidate people. They were dressed to intimidate and to show their supposed machismo. Nobody laid a hand on them. I just let them know what it felt like to have someone trying to tell you that you are not a good American and perhaps less a man. Difference is, I had some realistic basis for my opinion.

[dirtywick]

Again, peaceable assembly does not include trying to start a fight or attempting to intimidate people.

Irony? Anyone?

[mrn838]

Again, peaceable assembly does not include trying to start a fight or attempting to intimidate people. They were dressed to intimidate and to show their supposed machismo. Nobody laid a hand on them. I just let them know what it felt like to have someone trying to tell you that you are not a good American and perhaps less a man. Difference is, I had some realistic basis for my opinion.
Chanting and screaming about fascism in other peoples' faces hardly seems like peaceable assembly.

[leftysergeant]

Not a bit of it, Dirtywick. They thought they were going to get someone to turn violent. They just got back what they handed out, within the limits of the law. And they couldn't do a thing about it. They didn't impress anybody with anything other than their depravity. They dsidn't scare anybody. They couldn't even intimidate a disabled man three times their age. They wanted someone to feel discomfitted and put upon. too bad for them that it was they.

More people should do this when thugs try to push them around, especially this sort of redneck gang. Larry S ought to hire people to do it to the WACoffs.

[dudalb]

Irony? Anyone?

That seems to be lacking here today.
And some of the people who seem to say intimidating Right Wing Demonstrators is justifed have been very vocal in screaming when they see the same thing happening to Left Wing Demonstrators.
In between the militants on both dies, for the first time in my life I fear for the future of free speech in America. I have nightmares about the only choice being what flavor of Authoritarian Government we want.

[boloboffin]

So except for the Nobama part, are you saying Biden supports communism, socialism and does NOT support the troops? I would like to think the Democrats are against Communism and socialism and that they DO support the troops. Maybe I need to rethink this. Thanks blobo for opening my eyes.

Awww, you're almost precious.

[dirtywick]

Not a bit of it, Dirtywick. They thought they were going to get someone to turn violent. They just got back what they handed out, within the limits of the law. And they couldn't do a thing about it. They didn't impress anybody with anything other than their depravity. They dsidn't scare anybody. They couldn't even intimidate a disabled man three times their age. They wanted someone to feel discomfitted and put upon. too bad for them that it was they.

More people should do this when thugs try to push them around, especially this sort of redneck gang. Larry S ought to hire people to do it to the WACoffs.

I just want to put this in context. You, perhaps trying to gain the noteriety necessary to participate in the MDC with your power to psychically identify, what, two people in tank tops as neo-nazi rednecks and additionally deduce their intentions to show up at a rally of thousands and fist fight them all, protected your right to assemble freely without intimidation by inciting a crowd to intimidate said neo-nazi redneck thugs that, at no point, had actually interfered with your right to assemble freely.

I especially like calling the cops on them afterwards, nothing like kicking a guy when he's down.

Well, I guess that's that then. I am going to go make fun of Joe the Plumber, so I'll see you later.

[boloboffin]

It's a pity the logic you guys are displaying here couldn't have been communicated to the people aboard United 93.

[dudalb]

It's a pity the logic you guys are displaying here couldn't have been communicated to the people aboard United 93.

So now you are comparing McCain supporters to Hijackers....Nice.

[Nyarlathotep]

It's a pity the logic you guys are displaying here couldn't have been communicated to the people aboard United 93.

The hijackers aboard flight 93 actually did something before the passengers jumped them.

The logicof the OP is more akin to getting on a plane and seeing a guy who is obviously a Muslim, hearing the guy say that he doesn't like Bush and deciding that the guy MUST therefore be a hijacker.

[dirtywick]

It's a pity the logic you guys are displaying here couldn't have been communicated to the people aboard United 93.

haha

[thaiboxerken]

So, because you thought they might start trouble,

They WERE trying to start trouble.

[Cobalt]

They WERE trying to start trouble.

Evidence, please?

Because this:
The way they were dressed was typical of the white nationalists in this area. They appeared to me to be looking for a fight. I decided that these fools presented a bit of a threat, since Biden and several other candidates were still in the area for VIP meet-and-greets, and the fools were headed toward the entrance to the stadium.

Isn't evidence. It's an assumption.

[thaiboxerken]

Evidence, please?


They were shouting at a crowd of Obama supporters derogatory comments about Obama.

[WildCat]

They WERE trying to start trouble.
Were all the demonstrators at the RNC trying to start trouble?

lefty's shown no evidence at all that they were starting trouble, other than differing with him politically.

[WildCat]

They were shouting at a crowd of Obama supporters derogatory comments about Obama.
Except lefty hasn't even claimed they were. Do you know something that hasn't been said in this thread?

[thaiboxerken]

Were all the demonstrators at the RNC trying to start trouble?

Not all. Some of the demonstrators were there to support the RNC, the KKK was there to show support.

[Cobalt]

They were shouting at a crowd of Obama supporters derogatory comments about Obama.
What, exactly, directly references Obama here, aside from "Nobama?"

While there, two young males in wife beater shirts and blue-jeans came through, clapping their hands and chanting "Nobama! No Communism. No Socialism. Support the troops."


Why is voicing their belief that Obama/Biden are socialists or communists (wrong or not) starting trouble? Where still did they say they were actually those things directly?

Please explain how in the blue hell what lefty said isn't starting trouble. I'll refresh your memory.

I approached them and, in a voice that they could not drown out, chanted in their faces, "Nie wieder das Faschismus." They somehow got the impression that a rather hostile crowd was begining to close in around them and started back the way they had come from. I stayed with them, expressing to them what I thought of them, their parents who neglected to place them in a gunny sack and toss them over the nearest bridge at birth, and offered a tenative diagnosis of their sexual dysfunctions

[boloboffin]

So now you are comparing McCain supporters to Hijackers....Nice.

These particular ones, yes. It's not a comparison of equivalence, but yes, I view them as people trying to terrorize in their own way.

The hijackers aboard flight 93 actually did something before the passengers jumped them.

And so did these guys. Read the OP again.

The logicof the OP is more akin to getting on a plane and seeing a guy who is obviously a Muslim, hearing the guy say that he doesn't like Bush and deciding that the guy MUST therefore be a hijacker.

Nope. These guys were walking through the middle of a bunch of Obama supporters, drawing attention to themselves by clapping their hands and chanting derogatory statements about Obama.

ETA: Oh, and be good enough to explain to us all what "obviously a Muslim" looks like.

Except lefty hasn't even claimed they were. Do you know something that hasn't been said in this thread?

I don't see how you consider the neologism "Nobama" a compliment. It seems to be a derogatory statement to me. Also, the implication that Obama is a communist or a socialist was intended to be an insult. All of that is in the OP.

Unless, of course, you don't consider the OP something that was said in this thread.

[mortimer]

I guess not all bigots reside in the Republican party. The Democrats have at least one.

[Cobalt]

Why is voicing their belief that Obama/Biden are socialists or communists (wrong or not) starting trouble? Where still did they say they were actually those things directly?


Allow me to rephrase my question. Where did they say that Obama or Biden was a communist or socialist?

[thaiboxerken]

What, exactly, directly references Obama here, aside from "Nobama?"


Besides calling him a communist, socialist and nonsupporter of American troops? There is a difference between protesting and trying to pick a fight. These guys walking into the middle of a crowd of people they KNOW would be offended and yelling offenses is not a protest, it's people trying to pick a fight or be martyred. A person doing the same at a republican event would be also picking a fight. Protesting outside of such events is peaceful. Protesting from inside the event is picking a fight. I can protest a church from the sidewalk, but if I walk into the church and start yelling that they believe in mythology, I'd be "starting trouble."

[WildCat]

I don't see how you consider the neologism "Nobama" a compliment. It seems to be a derogatory statement to me. Also, the implication that Obama is a communist or a socialist was intended to be an insult. All of that is in the OP.

Unless, of course, you don't consider the OP something that was said in this thread.
"Nobama" is now a derogatory statement? So what if they made references to communism and socialism? lefty, after all, is an unabashed Marxist when it comes to economics, I fail to see how he could think it's derogatory.

No evidence in any newspaper report about nazi thugs intimidating the crowds at the Biden rally, no evidence of anything at all in fact except that some people showed up to protest and whose crime was they didn't support Obama! The horror, we can't allow this in America!

[Cobalt]

Besides calling him a communist, socialist and nonsupporter of American troops? There is a difference between protesting and trying to pick a fight. These guys walking into the middle of a crowd of people they KNOW would be offended and yelling offenses is not a protest, it's people trying to pick a fight or be martyred. A person doing the same at a republican event would be also picking a fight. Protesting outside of such events is peaceful. Protesting from inside the event is picking a fight. I can protest a church from the sidewalk, but if I walk into the church and start yelling that they believe in mythology, I'd be "starting trouble."

Yet all they actually did was offend a few people who are overly sensitive about their political leanings. If I recall correctly, they're more than free to say those things in public.

Now if you might answer the question I had earlier, why isn't what lefty said trying to start trouble?

[thaiboxerken]

Allow me to rephrase my question. Where did they say that Obama or Biden was a communist or socialist?

Let's not play the semantics game.:rolleyes:

Reasonable people know what they meant when they yelled "Nobama, no communism, no socialism...support the troops." The issue isn't the semantics, it's whether or not they were trying to start a fight in yelling such things in the middle of a crowd of Biden/Obama supporters.

[dirtywick]

You know, you'd have to get really loose with the definition of deragatory that combining "no" with someone's name is considered an insult. But what the heck, we're on a roll here with not wearing sleeves as a sign you hate black people, so why not.

[thaiboxerken]

Yet all they actually did was offend a few people who are overly sensitive about their political leanings.

Yes, isn't it great. Because of people like lefty, they did not succeed in getting the fight they were itching for.


If I recall correctly, they're more than free to say those things in public.

Sure, and people are more than free to say things back at them.


Now if you might answer the question I had earlier, why isn't what lefty said trying to start trouble?

How could it be? He was responding, in order to get those people to leave, not to cause trouble.

[thaiboxerken]

You know, you'd have to get really loose with the definition of deragatory that combining "no" with someone's name is considered an insult.

Not at all. It's reasonable to assume that the connotation is derogatory, just like calling GW Bush "the Shrub" is derogatory.

[dirtywick]

Not at all. It's reasonable to assume that the connotation is derogatory, just like calling GW Bush "the Shrub" is derogatory.

I'm sure it wasn't meant as a compliment, but derogatory? It's a stretch to me.

[Cobalt]

Yes, isn't it great. Because of people like lefty, they did not succeed in getting the fight they were itching for.
Yet you still haven't proven they wanted to fight.


Sure, and people are more than free to say things back at them.
I never argued that, I argued that his actions were vile and pathetic.


How could it be? He was responding, in order to get those people to leave, not to cause trouble.

So, one of those kids, (remember, still no proof they wanted a fight) gets sick of it and kicks lefty square in the balls, a fight erupts, that kid dies. Would you say lefty was not at fault for what he did? If they were a real threat, why wouldn't the more reasonable response be to, y'know, contact the police instead of yelling back with the possibility of having a fight break out?

[thaiboxerken]

Yet you still haven't proven they wanted to fight.

They were trolling, whether they wanted a physical fight or not, they were looking to cause trouble.


I never argued that, I argued that his actions were vile and pathetic.

I disagree. He did not handle the situation violently.


So, one of those kids, (remember, still no proof they wanted a fight) gets sick of it and kicks lefty square in the balls, a fight erupts, that kid dies. Would you say lefty was not at fault for what he did?

Lefty would not be at fault.

If they were a real threat, why wouldn't the more reasonable response be to, y'know, contact the police instead of yelling back with the possibility of having a fight break out?

No. Sometimes just yelling at a few a-holes gets them to leave.



If I walked into a KKK rally and yelled "Jesus was gay" I'd be doing the same thing as these two jack-holes that lefty described.

[dudalb]

"Nobama" is derogatory, but that is not the same as being racist. It's no worse then "Sarah Barracuda" or "Mc Same" or "Mc Bush".

The double standard around here is amazing.
I wonder if some GOP guy did what Lefty did to a bunch of equivilent Left wing demonstrators at a McCain rally if the people backing Lefty would be just as supportive.

[dudalb]

I am voting for Obama, but I admit some of his followers scare me, as do some of McCain's followers.

[thaiboxerken]

I would be, dudalb. And no one insinuated that calling Obama "Nobama" is racist.

[leftysergeant]

Except lefty hasn't even claimed they were. Do you know something that hasn't been said in this thread?

Dressing in gang colors and calling Obama a Communist and an abuser of the troops is not trying to incite hostile reactions? Strange world you reason in.

They got a hostile reaction, as they wished. Just not the sort that would help them earn street cred with their fellow gang members.

I base my identification of them as Nazi on my personal contact with them in this area. They wore the typical regalia of one of the gangs. Their uniform is more suited for going out to pick a fight than for hanging around a political rally in Tacoma in the middle of October. No shirt in 50F and intermittent rain? Huh? They are obviously dim bulbs, thus more dangerous. Had we just ignored them and let them try to look intimidated, they might have gotten the idea that they actually intimidated someone. Unacceptable.

[Cobalt]

They were trolling, whether they wanted a physical fight or not, they were looking to cause trouble.
If they'd said things like "I screwed Obama's mother, and yours too," sure, I could see that train of thought being applied. Not justified in the response, still, though. They were chanting 8 words. None of which were just vitriolic such as lefty's gems were.

If they were looking for reactions, they got one. A pathetic, vile one.

Yet again, though, still no proof that they just wanted to make their beliefs heard, as is their right.


I disagree. He did not handle the situation violently.
So it's more than okay to suggest that someone's parents should have killed them when they were born because they're disagreeing with you politically? You're just yanking my chain, right?


Lefty would not be at fault.
Not entirely, maybe, but how you can say his actions didn't have a large part of what played out in this hypothetical is amazing.


No. Sometimes just yelling at a few a-holes gets them to leave.
So I should have just told the loud, obnoxious guy at the Colts/Falcons game to go F himself and quit shouting all the time to resolve the situation. Fight idiocy with idiocy! Yeah, that would go over marvelously.


If I walked into a KKK rally and yelled "Jesus was gay" I'd be doing the same thing as these two jack-holes that lefty described.
Really? So if you had your ass handed to you in this scenario you'd be okay with it?

[leftysergeant]

I wonder if some GOP guy did what Lefty did to a bunch of equivilent Left wing demonstrators at a McCain rally if the people backing Lefty would be just as supportive.

Not a problem.

Nor is your scenario as likely to occur as it is that the nazi gangs will come out and be abusive. One of the local talk-show hosts organizes gangs to harrass Democratic events and anti-war demonstrations here in the Seattle market.

[mortimer]

Dressing in gang colors and calling Obama a Communist and an abuser of the troops is not trying to incite hostile reactions? Strange world you reason in.
What are your feelings on racial profiling? Also, by your account, they did not call Obama a Communist, nor accuse him of abusing troops.
I base my identification of them as Nazi on my personal contact with them in this area. They wore the typical regalia of one of the gangs. Their uniform is more suited for going out to pick a fight than for hanging around a political rally in Tacoma in the middle of October. No shirt in 50F and intermittent rain? Huh?
Did you ask them their political affiliation? Or were you just profiling them?
They are obviously dim bulbs, thus more dangerous. Had we just ignored them and let them try to look intimidated, they might have gotten the idea that they actually intimidated someone. Unacceptable.
People who are not smart are more prone to violence? Evidence?

[WildCat]

One of the local talk-show hosts organizes gangs to harrass Democratic events and anti-war demonstrations here in the Seattle market.
So now you claim a local radio station organizes nazi gangs to harass Dems?

Fascinating!

[leftysergeant]

What are your feelings on racial profiling? Also, by your account, they did not call Obama a Communist, nor accuse him of abusing troops.

How else are you going to interpret "Nobama, No Communism, No Socialism, Support the tropps?"

Did you ask them their political affiliation? Or were you just profiling them?

Their gang regalia is proof enough of that. They were obviously dressed as they were to make a statement. Wife beater shirts in late fall in Tacoma is not just a casual choice of costume.

People who are not smart are more prone to violence? Evidence?

I have never met a reall bright Nazi.

[leftysergeant]

So now you claim a local radio station organizes nazi gangs to harass Dems?

Fascinating!

Not all of them are Nazis, but they do lean toward violent confrontation.

[mortimer]

How else are you going to interpret "Nobama, No Communism, No Socialism, Support the tropps?"
That they are against Obama, Communism, and Socialism, and they are pro-troops?
Their gang regalia is proof enough of that. They were obviously dressed as they were to make a statement. Wife beater shirts in late fall in Tacoma is not just a casual choice of costume.
So, profiling? I went to a high school football game here in my town last Friday, wearing shorts and a t-shirt. It turned cold after the sun went down. Does that make me a Nazi?[/quote]
I have never met a reall bright Nazi.
That's not what you said. You said they were dumb, and because of their lack of intelligence, more prone to violence.

[WildCat]

Note how the anti-war protestors declare all counter-protestors to be fascists, nazis, etc and also physically attack them.

5uZxKO0ePNw

Needless to say, I really doubt lefty et al were actually confronting nazi gang members, but merely people opposed to Obama politically which makes them nazis to lefty.

[leftysergeant]

That they are against Obama, Communism, and Socialism, and they are pro-troops?

Their insinuation was that people who don't vote for a dried up sorry excuse for an airplane driver are not supporting the troops. This is not going to endear you much to a bunch of retired soldiers who see what a sorry excuse for a war planner your candidate is.

So, profiling? I went to a high school football game here in my town last Friday, wearing shorts and a t-shirt. It turned cold after the sun went down. Does that make me a Nazi?

No, staging a demonstration in gang regalia is a pretty good indication of that. Where you were, it is probably not gang colors. Here it is.

That's not what you said. You said they were dumb, and because of their lack of intelligence, more prone to violence.

Dim-witted people with a need to show their manhood are more violence-prone. Bright people know there are better ways to prove your manhood.

[Cobalt]

Dim-witted people with a need to show their manhood are more violence-prone. Bright people know there are better ways to prove your manhood.

Like yelling at them to show 'em who's boss. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

No, staging a demonstration in gang regalia is a pretty good indication of that. Where you were, it is probably not gang colors. Here it is.
Funny how all of your local papers missed the story of nazi gangs intimidating the attendees at a Biden rally. You'd think that would be a newsworthy event...

[gtc]

Reminding black people that there are still white nationalists who will fight back against all that the civil rights movement has accomplished over 55 years is not peaceable assembly.

What did they say or do to make you think that?

[gtc]

The scene is a Biden rally, with vendors outside. Vendors implies a crowd was there. Being a Biden rally, it would have been catering to a Democratic crowd.

And two punks are clapping their hands and chanting "Nobama! No Communism. No Socialism. Support the troops."

What evil, evil people they were. How dare they protest against Obama.



Again, peaceable assembly does not include trying to start a fight

What were they doing to make you think they were trying to start a fight?

[mr rosewater]

What evil, evil people they were. How dare they protest against Obama.





What were they doing to make you think they were trying to start a fight?


lefty said so.`

[gtc]

They thought they were going to get someone to turn violent.

What did they say or do to make you think that?

They didn't impress anybody with anything other than their depravity.

What did they do that was depraved?

They wanted someone to feel discomfitted and put upon.

What made you think that?

[boloboffin]

What evil, evil people they were. How dare they protest against Obama.

Yes, they were evil. There is a way to protest Obama that isn't confrontational and intimidating. This is not what those two were doing, and like most evil people, when they saw that no one was afraid of them, they tucked tails and ran.

[gtc]

Nope. These guys were walking through the middle of a bunch of Obama supporters, drawing attention to themselves by clapping their hands and chanting derogatory statements about Obama.

I think the people of UA93 would much rather have come across a bunch of people yelling Nobama than hijackers.



Dressing in gang colors

They wore singlets and blue jeans.

Driving while black isn't a good reason for a cop to pull someone over and this is just as superficial.

[boloboffin]

I think the people of UA93 would much rather have come across a bunch of people yelling Nobama than hijackers.

If pretending I was making an argument of equivalence gets you through the night...

[gtc]

Their insinuation was that people who don't vote for a dried up sorry excuse for an airplane driver are not supporting the troops. This is not going to endear you much to a bunch of retired soldiers who see what a sorry excuse for a war planner your candidate is.


Ah, now this sounds more like the real reason leftysargeant wanted to bully them into leaving.

[dirtywick]

Yes, they were evil. There is a way to protest Obama that isn't confrontational and intimidating. This is not what those two were doing, and like most evil people, when they saw that no one was afraid of them, they tucked tails and ran.

How could you possibly know this?

[gtc]

lefty said so.`

Indeed, but he hasn't said why.

If pretending I was making an argument of equivalence gets you through the night...

You didn't say exactly equivalent but you did say you were comparing them:

These particular ones, yes. It's not a comparison of equivalence, but yes, I view them as people trying to terrorize in their own way.

And then you went on to accuse them of being evil.

Yes, they were evil.

The hyperbole and vitirol you are directing at these people is quite incredible.

[boloboffin]

How could you possibly know this?

And then you went on to accuse them of being evil.

Simple. I trust lefty's account of what happened. I also agree with the judgments he made, considering the facts he presented. Now you can prove that lefty's account is wrong by presenting evidence that no such event ever occurred or you can accept the facts as he's presented them as well. Your judgments as to their evil is up to you, of course.

[gtc]

Now you can prove that lefty's account is wrong by presenting evidence that no such event ever occurred or you can accept the facts as he's presented them as well.

Do you think they were neo-nazis?

[dirtywick]

Simple. I trust lefty's account of what happened. I also agree with the judgments he made, considering the facts he presented. Now you can prove that lefty's account is wrong by presenting evidence that no such event ever occurred or you can accept the facts as he's presented them as well. Your judgments as to their evil is up to you, of course.

Facts?

All I see is a poorly typed story from his point of view and some logical acrobatics about how wearing a wife beater is gang regalia (have to remember that next time I mow my grass...) and how expressing political views in public is tantamount to terrorism and inciting fist fights and how he heroically gathered a crowd to bully two people from attending a public event.

What the ****.

So it's up to me to prove a negative or accept his story as the one and only truth. Wonderful.

I'll pass.

[Amapola]

You know, it's pretty easy to second-guess things, and that's all I'm seeing here. Unless one of the other posters was also there?

No?

Many times humans communicate things by body posture. If you are there, you can see this. If you are not there, you can not see it.

The OP felt these individuals were being aggressive. No one here has presented any evidence to show they were NOT aggressive. Whether I agree with the actions of the OP or not, that is immaterial. If you have some evidence to show that these individuals intended NO harm and were merely PEACEFULLY protesting, please present the evidence.

Christ of the Andes. I had to read through 3 pages and there is no evidence of peaceful intentions by these guys? If that's what you people are claiming, get with it and prove it.

You might want to let the cops on the scene know, too.

[WildCat]

The OP felt these individuals were being aggressive. No one here has presented any evidence to show they were NOT aggressive.
You want evidence lefty's alleged nazis weren't aggressive? :boggled:

Whether I agree with the actions of the OP or not, that is immaterial. If you have some evidence to show that these individuals intended NO harm and were merely PEACEFULLY protesting, please present the evidence.
Isn't it on the person aking the positive claim to prove it? Oh yeah, right, this is the bizarro world of skepticism - politics.

Christ of the Andes. I had to read through 3 pages and there is no evidence of peaceful intentions by these guys? If that's what you people are claiming, get with it and prove it.
Where is lefty's evidence they were violent? Chanting "Nobama"?

You might want to let the cops on the scene know, too.
And in the age where nearly everyone has a video camera on them at all times (their cell phone) no one thinks to take a video of the nazi gang violently crashing the Biden rally. It just slipped everyone's minds, and the dozens of reporters on the scene all missed this attempted violence by a gang of nazis, or just didn't bother to report it.

BTW Amapola, there was a nazi bigfoot in my back yard today, and it killed and ate a pink unicorn right before my eyes! Prove it didn't happen.

[gtc]

Many times humans communicate things by body posture.

So which posture lets people know that someone is in a neo-nazi gang?


If you have some evidence to show that these individuals intended NO harm and were merely PEACEFULLY protesting, please present the evidence.

It is not up to us to prove that they had peaceful intentions. It is up to him to prove that they didn't. Skepticism and the law both agree on this point.

[gtc]

Where is lefty's evidence they were violent? Chanting "Nobama"?

Now, now. They were also wearing jeans. And a singlet.

:)

[BeAChooser]

I stayed with them, expressing to them what I thought of them, their parents who neglected to place them in a gunny sack and toss them over the nearest bridge at birth, and offered a tenative diagnosis of their sexual dysfunctions.

As I've noted before, you truly are a piece of work, lefty.

[Amapola]

...snip...

BTW Amapola, there was a nazi bigfoot in my back yard today, and it killed and ate a pink unicorn right before my eyes! Prove it didn't happen.

Exactly my point. You have no evidence. The person with the most evidence (the person participating in this little escapade) did whatever he did... but you were not there, I was not there... we don't know. This is a "he said, he said" situation. Why throw your heart away on this? For all you know, the OP saved somebody's life. Or not. Either way it is pointless to argue. Why go on for 3 pages about this? Local law enforcement felt these individuals should be asked to leave, and they did. End of story.

@gtc: You have never seen a human behave aggressively, and can't tell when a human is being friendly or aggressive? (And why put words in my mouth? Did I say these people were "in a neo-nazi gang"? I can't remember that part.) And in this particular instance, law enforcement agreed with the OP, apparently. In any event the LE were there.

[NobbyNobbs]

I wouldn't say lose it. Godwin's law doesn't state you "lose" a discussion if you compare to any policy or person in Germany from 1933 to 1945. How do you "lose" at a discussion anyway? Is this thread a competition of sorts? Will medals be passed out?

Lefty, in the depiction he posted, acted like a brown shirt.


There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law.


Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law)

[Shalamar]

Remember Folks. If evil atheistic liberals protest at Republican conventions, they are unpatriotic, and don't deserve to be there, and should be rounded up and 'put away'.

If good decent god fearing patriots protest at evil liberal gatherings, they should be praised, and any attempt to stop them is morally wrong.

[SezMe]

In between the militants on both dies, for the first time in my life I fear for the future of free speech in America. I have nightmares about the only choice being what flavor of Authoritarian Government we want.
While I think dudalb has maybe exaggerated a bit here, I agree with his basic point. The polarization of political discourse has worsened to a point where it endangers civil dialog. It's an extension of Bush's "you're either with us or against us" doctrine. We need to get back to the idea that disagreement is not equivalent to being unpatriotic.

[corplinx]

It's a pity the logic you guys are displaying here couldn't have been communicated to the people aboard United 93.

The reply I want to make to this can't be toned down in any way and still be forum legal.

[shuize]

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of an Obama presidency. But if this is the sort of "if you disagree with him you must be a fascist" crap that we're going to hear for the next few years, I think I'll make a point of staying in Japan.

[maxfrost]

What other reason could there have been for these two guys to have been where they were, shouting what they were shouting, but to intimidate? Do you think they were Obama supporters from some foreign country and what they were saying was the result of an imperfect command of English?

[SnuggleSmacks]

So...here's (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/20/muslim-mccain-fans-confro_n_136203.html) a story about a similar event at a McCain rally...and those who were asked to leave were actually McCain supporters.

I am all for opposing those who are clearly intending to incite trouble, regardless of which side they are on.

Kudos, OP!!

[Walter Wayne]

Exactly my point. You have no evidence. The person with the most evidence (the person participating in this little escapade) did whatever he did... but you were not there, I was not there... we don't know. This is a "he said, he said" situation. Why throw your heart away on this? For all you know, the OP saved somebody's life. Or not. Either way it is pointless to argue. Why go on for 3 pages about this? Local law enforcement felt these individuals should be asked to leave, and they did. End of story.

@gtc: You have never seen a human behave aggressively, and can't tell when a human is being friendly or aggressive? (And why put words in my mouth? Did I say these people were "in a neo-nazi gang"? I can't remember that part.) And in this particular instance, law enforcement agreed with the OP, apparently. In any event the LE were there.Generally we expect some evidence for the charges that the OP makes. Not on any intellectually burden of proof, but on grounds of common decency. This isn't a case of "he said, he said"; we are only given one description of the event. The thing is, even by leftysergeant's own narrative, he didn't stoop to their level, he dove down below it.

Walt

[boloboffin]

The reply I want to make to this can't be toned down in any way and still be forum legal.

Your plight speaks to me.

[MarkCorrigan]

Way to go lefty, I see you take your screen name seriously and like all other leftists rather than tolerate dissenting opinions you try to eliminate them.

Oh good, wide ranging slander.

I am a "leftist". Heck, I am a Socialist, and proud of it, my politics are pretty damn blood red (no, I am not a communist) and I consider Obama to be the better man, but a bit too far to the right for my tastes.

However I have no issue with fascists voicing their views. I have absolutely no problem with you and I, and Joe Nazi standing up in public with our friends and voicing our opinions to the people. I would never suppress the free speech of another unless they were calling for direct violence or massive civil unrest. I have no issue with people stating what they want, when they want to do it, and I think that lefty here was in very very poor form (although the rest of the crowd were well within their rights to drown the two idiots out).

I find it incredible that there are people who seriously believe that Socialists, or in your case Wildcat, all of the left wing, want to drown out dissenting voices because of a few hotheads, a few idiots, and what was effectively a far right regime that pretended that it was Socialistic (that is another discussion). Your attitude is similar to but not the same as a McCarthyite brand of lunacy. The lefties are evil, they want to take away our rights and they really hate the poor.

I would expect this kind of puerile, blatantly incorrect tripe from moron supporters of the vile demagogues in American political commentary (I would say on both sides, but I can't name any left wing ones right now. I do however think they certainly must exist, so do not accuse me of pretending that my "side" is perfect) like O'Riley, Coulter and Limbaugh. ETA: Rosie O'Donnell is one. My god there is a woman who can talk for hours and say bugger all. Do not like.

I have seen you before on a number of the sub forums (obviously, you are a visible and active member of the site) and while I do not always agree with you (in politics only, to my recollection) I respect you as a very intelligent and clear thinking man. That is why I am exceptionally disappointed to see utter nonsense like this posted by you. I am certain that I do not matter to you at all, and I do not expect to, but I certainly hope that I can impart to you what a total and utter jackass you are being by posting this kind of inflammatory, insane, tarring-with-a-wide-brush tripe. I always wonder why you do it.

As a counter point, I do not agree with any right wing politics. At all. I simply do not agree with it. I understand the needs behind some of it, and I can rationally accept a number of people find it the ideal. I do not agree with one inch of it. So, why am I not calling all right wingers fascists? Why am I not decrying the suppression of ideas from the right and the steady decline of freedom in Western Liberal Democracies and stating that this is because all right wingers hate everyone but themselves? I could even cite examples.
Because I am not so caught up in political back biting and warring that my political ideals define what I think of others (barring Nazis, but again, I would give them open forum so long as they don't actually try to incite violence).

So you are wrong. Not all "leftists" want to suppress opposition, and in fact, I would contend that any who actually do (rather than providing a counterpoint to them) are about as left wing as Stalin. They pay lip-service, but they do not agree. The only people who want to suppress opposition are fascists, pure and simple. Anyone else who wants to is not what they claim, because suppression of ideas is a fascistic (or imperialistic, to be fair) concept, something held by a very VERY small segment of the social right wing.

End rant.

Addendum: I only read as far as Wildcat's post I quoted, so apologies if this has been dealt with in a more eloquent way than I did here.

[leftysergeant]

Actually, the cop was not required to suggest that they leave. He was entirely within his authority to cite them right there for tresspassing and disorderly conduct. They simply were not authorized to be there in the first place. They were hooligans there to annoy people. The venue was city-owned but leased by the Tacoma Rainiers and rented to the Democrats. The nearest street was half a mile away. They were not exercising any sort of right by coming into the venue and being nasty little thugs, any more than Mark dice or AJ or Luke Rudkowski would be if they came into Bill Maher's venue while taping a show to bull horn him. They were committing a misdemeasnor from the instant i saw them.

Too many times in this area, protestors in public places have been shoved around by thugs, often dressed in the same colors as these two, more often in normal street clothes. The gang members are usually the most aggressive in trying to shove protestors away from the places they assemble. Sometimes it is on the instigation of Kirby Wilbur, sort of our equivalent out here of the Rushblob, but without the pills or the common sense. Some times they just show up on their own.

Time for them to realize they are obsolete. Time for them to know that they no longer intimidate people.

I'm still laughing at times, thinking of how red the one fool's neck got and how visibly his carotid artery throbbed.

Thugs have power only when people let them have power. I see no rerason to do so.

[The Painter]

Actually, the cop was not required to suggest that they leave. He was entirely within his authority to cite them right there for tresspassing and disorderly conduct. They simply were not authorized to be there in the first place. They were hooligans there to annoy people. The venue was city-owned but leased by the Tacoma Rainiers and rented to the Democrats. The nearest street was half a mile away. They were not exercising any sort of right by coming into the venue and being nasty little thugs, any more than Mark dice or AJ or Luke Rudkowski would be if they came into Bill Maher's venue while taping a show to bull horn him. They were committing a misdemeasnor from the instant i saw them.

Too many times in this area, protestors in public places have been shoved around by thugs, often dressed in the same colors as these two, more often in normal street clothes. The gang members are usually the most aggressive in trying to shove protestors away from the places they assemble. Sometimes it is on the instigation of Kirby Wilbur, sort of our equivalent out here of the Rushblob, but without the pills or the common sense. Some times they just show up on their own.

Time for them to realize they are obsolete. Time for them to know that they no longer intimidate people.

I'm still laughing at times, thinking of how red the one fool's neck got and how visibly his carotid artery throbbed.

Thugs have power only when people let them have power. I see no rerason to do so.

You have become exactly what you say you won't tolerate. You think you are right to physically confront them because they were ( according to you ) breaking the law. Congratulations, now your are a thug for the state. Don't forget your Jack Boots.

[Shadowdweller]

Regardless of Leftysergeant's appraisal of their motives, what really happened here: Two individuals came to event, which consists largely of shouting support for one's candidate, and started screaming insults at the crowd. And got shouted down.

Breach of rule 2 removed.

[leftysergeant]

Being nice to thugs does not deter them from thuggery. Fighting them on their terms gives them street cred. Treating them like punks and not letting them gain anything is the only way to strike back. The way that these creeps act, normally, it may have been just a matter of time before someone less in control of himself than I might have given them a fight. Had anyone laid hands on them, they would have probably eventually gotten punched up rather thoroughly, but then they would have had street cred. Had we ignored them, they might have gone away thinking that they had succeded in intimidating us, high-fiving like twoofer morons. I think they walked away with the one thing they least wanted or expected. They had no right to be there, thus no right to walk away feeling good about themselves, as though they had accomplished something.

Nor does America need such thugs feeling good about themselves. Time for them to clean up their acts.

[Tailgater]

If I walked into a KKK rally and yelled "Jesus was gay" I'd be doing the same thing as these two jack-holes that lefty described.

Ya, because the mindset of both people pretty much seem to be the same.

Some of you really need to go read the Amy Goodman thread. The parallels of hypocrisy are mind-blowing.

For the record, Lefty did not stop their rights. They could have stood ground and yelled back, but chose to run. It's not infringing rights till the beatdown starts.

[Tailgater]

Not at all. It's reasonable to assume that the connotation is derogatory, just like calling GW Bush "the Shrub" is derogatory.

I don't see the term "dumb woman" as a slur against women at all. I think you conservatives are really digging deep just to be offended.

WAAAAAAA!

Who cares if it's derogatory? That's what people shout when they are protesting. As long as they are not throwing out racial slurs, actually telling people they are gonna kick their ass, and pysically advancing on an individual or police, they should be allowed to say what they want. Watch the asshats at ground zero on 911 for a good example.

[boloboffin]

WAAAAAAA!

Who cares if it's derogatory? That's what people shout when they are protesting. As long as they are not throwing out racial slurs, actually telling people they are gonna kick their ass, and pysically advancing on an individual or police, they should be allowed to say what they want. Watch the asshats at ground zero on 911 for a good example.

Speaking of them, is that where you learned your goalpost-shifting techniques?

[Tailgater]

Speaking of them, is that where you learned your goalpost-shifting techniques?

Uh, your post on flight 93 makes your response void.;)

[boloboffin]

Uh, your post on flight 93 makes your response void.;)

And that post was shifting the goalposts of a previous position I had held how exactly? Please show your work.

[Tailgater]

And that post was shifting the goalposts of a previous position I had held how exactly? Please show your work.

It was a great argument for racial profiling at best.

[WildCat]

Oh good, wide ranging slander.
It's not slander - lefty says he's a leftist. Do you think maybe, just maybe, that's why his handle is leftysergeant? :rolleyes:

I am a "leftist". Heck, I am a Socialist, and proud of it, my politics are pretty damn blood red (no, I am not a communist) and I consider Obama to be the better man, but a bit too far to the right for my tastes.
So are you now slandering yourself?

Anyone else who wants to is not what they claim, because suppression of ideas is a fascistic (or imperialistic, to be fair) concept, something held by a very VERY small segment of the social right wing.
So now you think lefty is right-wing? :confused:

[boloboffin]

It was a great argument for racial profiling at best.

Put. Down. The bong.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Tailgater]

Put. Down. The bong.

It's funny how everyone who posted after you in response to your post understood, but you don't get it. You don't need pot to be dense.

[Tailgater]

You know what bolo, after re-reading that page,I understand how derogatory you think "Nobama" is. You better start patroling the streets and tearing down the hate signs, because according to some people in this thread it might be comparable to putting a sign that says "Jesus is gay" next to a church.

[boloboffin]

Racial profiling? Really? Really?

Again, I say, put down the bong. I would be dismayed to think you didn't require pot to be that dense. There is no racial profiling in either situation, United 93 or lefty's stand against loud idiots. You and anyone else on that tack are distracting from this conversation. Get real

[Tailgater]

Racial profiling? Really? Really?

Again, I say, put down the bong. I would be dismayed to think you didn't require pot to be that dense. There is no racial profiling in either situation, United 93 or lefty's stand against loud idiots. You and anyone else on that tack are distracting from this conversation. Get real

I said "at best", which tells you how bad that post really was. I can just say profiling and make it all-inclusive if that makes you feel better. Otherwise, cry me a river to AAH.

[WildCat]

Being nice to thugs does not deter them from thuggery. Fighting them on their terms gives them street cred. Treating them like punks and not letting them gain anything is the only way to strike back. The way that these creeps act, normally, it may have been just a matter of time before someone less in control of himself than I might have given them a fight. Had anyone laid hands on them, they would have probably eventually gotten punched up rather thoroughly, but then they would have had street cred. Had we ignored them, they might have gone away thinking that they had succeded in intimidating us, high-fiving like twoofer morons. I think they walked away with the one thing they least wanted or expected. They had no right to be there, thus no right to walk away feeling good about themselves, as though they had accomplished something.

Nor does America need such thugs feeling good about themselves. Time for them to clean up their acts.
I never suggested that the protestors couldn't have been forced to leave by the police. After all, it's a private event on private property. It's the characterization of anyone who disagrees with you politically being branded as thugs, nazis, fascists, etc and the whole mindless mob mentality I take issue with.

There has been absolutely no evidence at all offered in this thread that these 2 guys were nazis, or in a gang, were intimidating anyone, nor that they were there to fight the civil rights of blacks.

[boloboffin]

It's the characterization of anyone who disagrees with you politically being branded as thugs, nazis, fascists, etc and the whole mindless mob mentality I take issue with.

But lefty didn't do that.

[boloboffin]

More like this:

Gl2EndLZv7w

This is a video of McCain supporters (many of whom are Muslim) confronting an anti-Obama idiot at their own rally. The discussion is lively, but not openly intimidating because the idiots think they have a receptive audience. When they find out they don't, they turn around and leave.

The same message at an Obama rally would be much more confrontational. If they'd tried to pull the same crap there, or even emulated the thugs Lefty headed off by advancing into an Obama rally, spewing their hatred, it would have been reasonably interpreted as an attempt to intimidate and harrass the Obama supporters. It would have been as welcome as if the Phelps clan did not stick to their sidewalk antics but openly advanced into a funeral procession or ceremony.

These thugs were disturbing the peace. They were trying to intimidate people who were exercising their right to peacefully assemble. They were rebuffed and sent packing by peaceful means.

Now go ahead and continue your thinly veiled attacks on Lefty. Moderators should judge whether it's a violation of your MAs.

[WildCat]

But lefty didn't do that.
Have you actually read any of lefty's posts in this thread? Do I really have to go back and find every instance where he used "nazi", "thug", "punk" "gang" etc?

I'm dumbfounded how you can claim he didn't do that.

These thugs were disturbing the peace.
I suppose you'll claim you didn't do that either... must be thugs from a nazi gang hacking your account.

[thaiboxerken]

Who cares if it's derogatory?

Someone made the claim that it wasn't derogatory. Since I showed that it was, now you start crying "who cares?" Interesting.


That's what people shout when they are protesting. As long as they are not throwing out racial slurs, actually telling people they are gonna kick their ass, and pysically advancing on an individual or police, they should be allowed to say what they want. Watch the asshats at ground zero on 911 for a good example.

Sure thing. And lefty and the rest of the crowd are allowed to yell as well.

[thaiboxerken]

I never suggested that the protestors couldn't have been forced to leave by the police. After all, it's a private event on private property. It's the characterization of anyone who disagrees with you politically being branded as thugs, nazis, fascists, etc and the whole mindless mob mentality I take issue with.

There has been absolutely no evidence at all offered in this thread that these 2 guys were nazis, or in a gang, were intimidating anyone, nor that they were there to fight the civil rights of blacks.

He characterized the 2 guys as thugs, not "anyone who disagrees" with him.

[Tailgater]

Have you actually read any of lefty's posts in this thread? Do I really have to go back and find every instance where he used "nazi", "thug", "punk" "gang" etc?

I'm dumbfounded how you can claim he didn't do that.


I suppose you'll claim you didn't do that either... must be thugs from a nazi gang hacking your account.

Keep in mind that he's using a special filter.

http://obamaeyewear.com/

You can help out as much as you like: make a couple calls, hold a sign at a rally or do more such as becoming a Obama Precinct Captain.

[Tailgater]

Sure thing. And lefty and the rest of the crowd are allowed to yell as well.

Which is why I stated as such in more than one post.

[Giz]

What other reason could there have been for these two guys to have been where they were, shouting what they were shouting, but to intimidate? Do you think they were Obama supporters from some foreign country and what they were saying was the result of an imperfect command of English?

Yeah, what reason could anyone have to protest! Away with any protesting at [democrat] political events!

[MarkCorrigan]

It's not slander - lefty says he's a leftist. Do you think maybe, just maybe, that's why his handle is leftysergeant? :rolleyes:
Umm...nice way to completely dodge my point! I was stating you were slandering "leftists" as a group, not LeftY. I stated, explicitly in fact, that I think he was out of line. Nice strawman fallacy. An almost ludicrous example.

So are you now slandering yourself?
Wha'? Seriously, what the hell? How on Earth is anything I stated even close to be a slander on myself? ARe you deliberately being obtuse or do you really not understand what I said?

So now you think lefty is right-wing? :confused:
Ahh, this you have me on, I was totally sleep deprived so I said something which made sense at the time but was not what I actually meant to say. I MEANT to say that they are no different from fascists in their belief that other opinions should be suppressed, not that they were actual socially right wing to that degree. Maxima mea culpa.

[thaiboxerken]

I agree, there is no good reason to protest at a Democrat Political event.

[boloboffin]

It's the characterization of anyone who disagrees with you politically being branded as thugs, nazis, fascists, etc and the whole mindless mob mentality I take issue with.
But lefty didn't do that.
Have you actually read any of lefty's posts in this thread? Do I really have to go back and find every instance where he used "nazi", "thug", "punk" "gang" etc?

I went back and got all of the pertinent quotes to demonstrate either your complete shoddiness in constructing an argument or your complete lack of good faith here.

Clearly you said, as I've emphasized in your post, that it was Lefty's alleged characterization of anyone who disagrees with him as a nazi that you took issue with. But Lefty has done no such thing, and your threatened enumeration of the many times he has called these two individuals "nazis," etc. will not prove your original slander a single whit. Either you don't know what you said, or you do and you're arguing in bad faith to troll both Lefty and myself. Cease and desist this behavior right now.

And that goes for you, too, Tailgater. Wildcat's sophistry isn't an indictment of either Lefty or me at all. If you don't see that, perhaps you should check your own face for blinders.

[WildCat]

Umm...nice way to completely dodge my point! I was stating you were slandering "leftists" as a group, not LeftY. I stated, explicitly in fact, that I think he was out of line. Nice strawman fallacy. An almost ludicrous example.
No, it's a fact. Every Marxist (leftists by most any definition) government to date has restricted free speech and stifled dissent. Do you know of any which haven't?

Wha'? Seriously, what the hell? How on Earth is anything I stated even close to be a slander on myself? ARe you deliberately being obtuse or do you really not understand what I said?
It appears to be you who's being obtuse.

[jj]

Once again, we see that the voice of the people is unimportant, and that a majority of people in a parking lot do not, according to a Republican neo-Nazi, have the right to drown out an unpopular opinion WITHOUT VIOLENCE OR THREAT.

The nazi chumps had the right to go demonstrate. LS had the right to shout right back at them, and follow them along singing "Lili Marlene" if he wanted to (off key and in a derisive fashion, so that's clear). If 888 other people agree and join in, PEACEFULLY, well, we have two choices, either remove all of their rights, or keep the peace without squashing either group's right to speak. After all, the right to speak does not include the "right to be listened to". There is a limit, of course, because when such behavior turns into systematic exclusion, a line is crossed. Here, these people were not excluded, not denied a right to speak in public, but simply protected from the public when their message turned out to be extremely unpopular.

It seems quite clear to me that some folks are demanding that only the neoNazis have the right to speak and demonstrate, and are arguing that people like Lefty Sergeant have no right to reply. Apparently, some people are directly, completely opposed to Lefty Sergeant's civil rights.

That's hideously un-American.

[thaiboxerken]

No, it's a fact. Every Marxist (leftists by most any definition) government to date has restricted free speech and stifled dissent. Do you know of any which haven't?

Can you name any right-wing government that hasn't done the same?

Marxism may be left.......but it doesn't comprise of all of the left.

[WildCat]

Clearly you said, as I've emphasized in your post, that it was Lefty's alleged characterization of anyone who disagrees with him as a nazi that you took issue with. But Lefty has done no such thing, and your threatened enumeration of the many times he has called these two individuals "nazis," etc. will not prove your original slander a single whit. Either you don't know what you said, or you do and you're arguing in bad faith to troll both Lefty and myself.
The only evidence lefty brought to the table is that 2 anti-Obama men showed up at the rally. They weren't shouting nazi epithets, weren't wearing swastikas, weren't wearing SS indignia, etc etc. Merely being anti-Obama was enough for lefty to call them nazis, thugs, racists, etc. since there is no evidence at all that they actually were nazis. Certainly none of the what must have been dozens of reporters on the scene mentioned nazi gang members intimidating the crowd. There's no evidence at all the men in question were nazis.

Cease and desist this behavior right now.
Ah, once again a dissenting opinion is requested to be silenced. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Maybe you and lefty can accuse me of being a nazi gang member now. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Oh look, jj's back. Find where I called you a leftist yet jj?

[thaiboxerken]

Why not, Wildcat? After all, you just accused all leftists of being Marxists.

[WildCat]

Can you name any right-wing government that hasn't done the same?
Nope, but I certainly don't call myself right-wing, nor do I identify with those who are.

Marxism may be left.......but it doesn't comprise of all of the left.
It does, however, comprise lefty's economic view of the world. Go ahead, ask him, he will freely admit it. And it is lefty who is the subject of this thread.

[Toke]

I like the OP, nice work.

Great way to stop the thugs.

[jj]

Merely being anti-Obama was enough for lefty to call them nazis, thugs, racists, etc. since there is no evidence at all that they actually were nazis.

So, just because they act, look, and behave like Neo-Nazi's we're not allowed to conclude that they are what they pretend to be?

That's beyond lame, and is borderline apologetics.

[WildCat]

Why not, Wildcat? After all, you just accused all leftists of being Marxists.
Really? Where? Must be the post after I called jj a leftist!

[WildCat]

So, just because they act, look, and behave like Neo-Nazi's we're not allowed to conclude that they are what they pretend to be?

That's beyond lame, and is borderline apologetics.
So far all that has been established is they chanted "Nobama! No Communusts. No Socialism. Support the troops."

See the bolded part? Do you realize that real nazis (as opposed to lefty's imaginary ones) are Socialists? It's part of the name Nationalsozialismus. So we have anti-nazi nazis... :boggled:

Though I have no doubt that's enough for you to think they're nazis. You like labeling people, in fact you labeled me a right-wing nutter (http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=366479#366479). :p

But you know what? I never did call you a leftist, I leave the labeling to you jj.

[jj]

So far all that has been established is they chanted "Nobama! No Communusts. No Socialism. Support the troops."

See the bolded part? Do you realize that real nazis (as opposed to lefty's imaginary ones) are Socialists? It's part of the name Nationalsozialismus. So we have anti-nazi nazis... :boggled:


Nicely disingenious.

The only problem with your preposterious apologia is that I've met this kind of person, and I know exactly what kind of "socialism" they mean when the shout that kind of slogan.

[thaiboxerken]

Umm...nice way to completely dodge my point! I was stating you were slandering "leftists" as a group, not LeftY. I stated, explicitly in fact, that I think he was out of line. Nice strawman fallacy. An almost ludicrous example.


No, it's a fact. Every Marxist (leftists by most any definition) government to date has restricted free speech and stifled dissent. Do you know of any which haven't?


You responded to MarkCorrigan's post about leftists as a group with "it's a fact. Every Marxists........"

Thanks for playing and acknowledging that not all leftists are Marxists even though you insinuated it.

[MarkCorrigan]

So far all that has been established is they chanted "Nobama! No Communusts. No Socialism. Support the troops."

See the bolded part? Do you realize that real nazis (as opposed to lefty's imaginary ones) are Socialists? It's part of the name Nationalsozialismus. So we have anti-nazi nazis... :boggled:

Though I have no doubt that's enough for you to think they're nazis. You like labeling people, in fact you labeled me a right-wing nutter (http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=366479#366479). :p

But you know what? I never did call you a leftist, I leave the labeling to you jj.

Actually, no. The Nazi party were indeed National Socialists....to begin with. Then Hitler decided that promoting his own, distinctly FASCIST agenda was more important. This upset Joseph Goebbels, who was very much a Socialist, and absolutely disgusted by Hitler abandoning the supposed political views of the party.

Goebbels was convinced to go and talk to Hitler personally about it, and left the meeting so convinced that Hitler was the powerful, charismatic man he was not, that he did not mind the party selling out it's original stated intentions for the racist bile we see in history texts.

Incidentally, I do not know what Lefty's economic views have to do with the price of fish. I quite clearly stated I consider the actions of one who wants only to oppress opposition to be socially extreme-right, you can be economically anything you like, doesn't make a difference to your social views, more or less.

The fact you are dancing around making wide statements about "liftISTS" (emphasis mine) and then claiming all you are doing is attacking leftY shows that in this argument you do not care that you display poor argumentative skills and display a lack of character.

Incidentally, could you please explain why this section you quoted in your first reply to me:

I am a "leftist". Heck, I am a Socialist, and proud of it, my politics are pretty damn blood red (no, I am not a communist) and I consider Obama to be the better man, but a bit too far to the right for my tastes. led you to ask if I was slandering myself? I seriously, seriously don't understand.

[Tailgater]

Not to mention, most neo nazis are organized and not afraid to show colors. More likely, if they were neo-nazis, there would be more of them and probably dressed in black with armbands and possibly signs. The jump from two idiots to two neo-nazis is a stretch. Absolutely no evidence has been introduced to assume anything else. Leftys opinion of them on instinct is bias. No offense to Lefty personally, but he has a track record of namecalling anyone politically right of left of center, so it automatically makes any carictature suspect.

I'll say for the third time that what he did wasn't violating any ones rights and those arguing that are dead wrong. A more clever thing would be to engage their ideas in front of everyone. I know Lefty has enough information to embarass them with a duel of the mind instead of chasing them down with namecalling, but unfortunately, that seems to be his nature.

There is quite a difference in this thread with the attitudes about protesting as compared to more recent protest threads where people basically argued that anyone had the right to protest anywhere, anyhow, anytime with no personal resonsibility of the consequences.

[dudalb]

I agree, there is no good reason to protest at a Democrat Political event.


Someone tell me this guy is being Ironic. Please?

[boloboffin]

The only evidence lefty brought to the table is that 2 anti-Obama men showed up at the rally. They weren't shouting nazi epithets, weren't wearing swastikas, weren't wearing SS indignia, etc etc. Merely being anti-Obama was enough for lefty to call them nazis, thugs, racists, etc. since there is no evidence at all that they actually were nazis. Certainly none of the what must have been dozens of reporters on the scene mentioned nazi gang members intimidating the crowd. There's no evidence at all the men in question were nazis.

Could you point out here where you demonstrate that Lefty labels anyone he disagrees with politically an Nazi? Because so far, you haven't done it.

A simple "I went too far and I apologize" isn't going to be easy for you to say, is it?

[Tailgater]

Nicely disingenious.

The only problem with your preposterious apologia is that I've met this kind of person, and I know exactly what kind of "socialism" they mean when the shout that kind of slogan.

What are you saying? If you are against more socialism, you are a nazi? If you are against communism, you are a nazi? If you are against Obama, you are a Nazi? What do you think they mean? Anyone saying they are nazis based of those three statements are as dumb as these two idiots saying Obama believes in Communism in the first place.

[dudalb]

There is quite a difference in this thread with the attitudes about protesting as compared to more recent protest threads where people basically argued that anyone had the right to protest anywhere, anyhow, anytime with no personal resonsibility of the consequences.

"Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee" seems to be the new rage here.

[Tailgater]

Could you point out here where you demonstrate that Lefty labels anyone he disagrees with politically an Nazi? Because so far, you haven't done it.

A simple "I went too far and I apologize" isn't going to be easy for you to say, is it?

I would apologize only because that statement is too absolute, and absolute statements are usually wrong. In marriage counseling, they tell you to never use the word "always" in an argument.

Replace "anyone" with "many" and replace "nazi" with "generally foul names" and he would probably be right on. I also think Lefty wouldn't have a problem with that either.

[boloboffin]

Someone tell me this guy is being Ironic. Please?

thaiboxerken was responding to this post, dudalb:

Yeah, what reason could anyone have to protest! Away with any protesting at [democrat] political events!

However, he didn't quote it and the page change made it hard to understand this. thaiboxerken is being sarcastic here, as he's pointing out the common idiocy employed by too many talk radio Republicans of cutting off the "ic" from the Democratic Party name. Banning someone from the Democrat Political events is meaningless, since such things aren't in existence.

[MarkCorrigan]

"Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee" seems to be the new rage here.

Which I think is a great shame.

Frankly, I may utterly disagree with your economic and social politics. I may bitterly argue with you in debate and consider your ieas to be indefensible, according to my view of the world, but so long as you accept that everyone, no matter how repugnant to you their ideas may be deserves a place to state them freely without oppression (including the right to counter them) then I will stand by you on that issue.

[WildCat]

You responded to MarkCorrigan's post about leftists as a group with "it's a fact. Every Marxists........"

Thanks for playing and acknowledging that not all leftists are Marxists even though you insinuated it.
Now I see where the confusion is coming from. When I use the term "leftist" I am not talking about the Democrats. Nor do I use it to refer to anyone on the left of wherever the middle of your political spectrum is. I use "leftists" to refer to Marxists and Communists or adherence to either of those philosophies. This guy, for example (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/IMG_3353.JPG). (lefty if that's you let me know and I'll remove it. :D) Or this woman (http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/135-3575_2IMG.JPG). Or these guys (http://www.zombietime.com/9-11_truth_march_power_to_peaceful/IMG_5789.JPG).

And it's a funny thing about leftists - they tend to see everyone they disgree with politically as nazis (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/IMG_3378.JPG).

Which is why I question lefty's judgement on this matter.

[MarkCorrigan]

No, it's a fact. Every Marxist (leftists by most any definition) government to date has restricted free speech and stifled dissent. Do you know of any which haven't?


Moldova. It isn't perfect, but it's hardly Stalinoid. Indeed, it's far better than the Russian Federation, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World_(report)

ETA: It's also an electoral democracy.

[MarkCorrigan]

Now I see where the confusion is coming from. When I use the term "leftist" I am not talking about the Democrats. Nor do I use it to refer to anyone on the left of wherever the middle of your political spectrum is. I use "leftists" to refer to Marxists and Communists or adherence to either of those philosophies. This guy, for example (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/IMG_3353.JPG). (lefty if that's you let me know and I'll remove it. :D) Or this woman (http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/135-3575_2IMG.JPG). Or these guys (http://www.zombietime.com/9-11_truth_march_power_to_peaceful/IMG_5789.JPG).

And it's a funny thing about leftists - they tend to see everyone they disgree with politically as nazis (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/IMG_3378.JPG).

Which is why I question lefty's judgement on this matter.
In which case, I have o MAJOR disagreement here. I may not agree with you on the whole, but my original issue with you is based on a misunderstanding. I retract my negative comments about you I have made (well, mostly;)).

[boloboffin]

Now I see where the confusion is coming from. When I use the term "leftist" I am not talking about the Democrats. Nor do I use it to refer to anyone on the left of wherever the middle of your political spectrum is. I use "leftists" to refer to Marxists and Communists or adherence to either of those philosophies. This guy, for example (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/IMG_3353.JPG). (lefty if that's you let me know and I'll remove it. :D) Or this woman (http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/135-3575_2IMG.JPG). Or these guys (http://www.zombietime.com/9-11_truth_march_power_to_peaceful/IMG_5789.JPG).

And it's a funny thing about leftists - they tend to see everyone they disgree with politically as nazis (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/IMG_3378.JPG).

Which is why I question lefty's judgement on this matter.

So your argument is:

Leftists tend to see everyone they disagree with politically as nazis.

Lefty called two people who he disagreed with politically (and who were harassing a lot of Obama supporters and were dressed in gang clothes similar to neoNazi gangs) Nazis.

Therefore, Lefty absolutely calls anyone he disagrees with Nazis.

Maybe you should work on that. Even your attempted logical fallacies are incomplete.

Of course, if you're just trolling to attack Lefty, I could understand the shoddy nature of the argument. As long as you get your licks in, right? :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

. I use "leftists" to refer to Marxists and Communists or adherence to either of those philosophies.

I see. I made the silly mistake of not using your own personal definition of common slang.:rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Could you point out here where you demonstrate that Lefty labels anyone he disagrees with politically an Nazi? Because so far, you haven't done it.
Here he says "ambush journalism" is a Nazi tactic: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3161635#post3161635

Here he calls Alex Jones a Nazi: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2960604&postcount=5

He doesn't lable anyone he disagrees with a Nazi, but he will for some people who may well be kooks but aren't actual Nazis.

[WildCat]

I see. I made the silly mistake of not using your own personal definition of common slang.:rolleyes:
I've never in my life heard anyone but those on the extreme right use "leftist" to refer to Democrats. I think the connotation most people have is the same one I use.

[Tailgater]

I was always under the impression that leftist had that Latin American Communist weight to it. Liberal or left-winger was more for the US political left. I'll admit I didn't get that's what WC was saying in context of this thread though.

[WildCat]

So your argument is:

Leftists tend to see everyone they disagree with politically as nazis.

Lefty called two people who he disagreed with politically (and who were harassing a lot of Obama supporters and were dressed in gang clothes similar to neoNazi gangs) Nazis.

Therefore, Lefty absolutely calls anyone he disagrees with Nazis.

Maybe you should work on that. Even your attempted logical fallacies are incomplete.

Of course, if you're just trolling to attack Lefty, I could understand the shoddy nature of the argument. As long as you get your licks in, right? :rolleyes:
Actually my argument is much simpler: I don't trust lefty's version of events, particularly with no other corroborating evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

You don't trust his story, ok. You also use a different language of slang. You also claim not to be a right-winger. Considering your logic and usage of common slang, I don't think your posts are relevant.

You could've saved us the effort of picking apart your posts and just typed "I think Lefty is a liar!!"

[Toke]

Actually my argument is much simpler: I don't trust lefty's version of events, particularly with no other corroborating evidence.

Any good reason not to write that in your first post, instead of weaving away?

[Tailgater]

Any good reason not to write that in your first post, instead of weaving away?

This thread has an underlying argument from previous threads woven into it coupled with some over the top comments in the op and on. I'd like to especially note the distraction for the triggerman comment, that wifebeater shirts are equated with neo-nazis (my brother is a flaming Dem and he looks like a skinhead), and yelling "Nobama" is some horribly taboo thing to say (quite funny that the kkk is used as a comparison for an Obama rally). Reading this thread with no prior reading history of the posters involved can be confusing. Throw in the fact that WC and JJ kind of have a thing going from another forum altogether and it can seem like everyone is all over the map here.

[jj]

Not to mention, most neo nazis are organized and not afraid to show colors.


Then you haven't met the same ones I've met. Organized, yes. Very careful NOT to show their colors, in fact willing to hide them behind a variety of other things from anti-Communism to anti-Atheism to Christianity, in fact, is how I've seen quite a few such creeps.


I'll say for the third time that what he did wasn't violating any ones rights and those arguing that are dead wrong. A more clever thing would be to engage their ideas in front of everyone. I know Lefty has enough information to embarass them with a duel of the mind instead of chasing them down with namecalling, but unfortunately, that seems to be his nature.


That's hard in a parking lot.


There is quite a difference in this thread with the attitudes about protesting as compared to more recent protest threads where people basically argued that anyone had the right to protest anywhere, anyhow, anytime with no personal resonsibility of the consequences.

One can protest. One can't step on others' rights while doing so.

And the right to free speech is NOT the right to make others listen.

(N.B. I'm not particularly disagreeing with you, I think, on that issue.)

[jj]

What are you saying? If you are against more socialism, you are a nazi? If you are against communism, you are a nazi?


Tailgater propaganda courtsey of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Not worthy of a reasoned response.

If you are against Obama, you are a Nazi?


Ditto.


What do you think they mean? Anyone saying they are nazis based of those three statements are as dumb as these two idiots saying Obama believes in Communism in the first place.


Did you read the part about intent to intimidate, dress, etc? Yes, I think you did.

As to "showing colors" and "socialism" vs. fascism, that's been addressed.

[Giz]

It seems quite clear to me that some folks are demanding that only the neoNazis have the right to speak and demonstrate, and are arguing that people like Lefty Sergeant have no right to reply. Apparently, some people are directly, completely opposed to Lefty Sergeant's civil rights.

That's hideously un-American.

I dont think anyone said that Lefty shouldn't remonstrate with them. Or even that if they were trespassing that they be escorted away by the cops.

What raised eyebrows was that he jumped to label those who disagreed with his politics as evil, fascist, pro jim crow racists (and engaged in "yo moma shoulda drowned you at birth" type insults). Basically, it seems like - when it comes to demonizing the "other" and supressing their speech - he ended up out doing them.

[leftysergeant]

They would not have gotten past the Secret Service if they had had one swastika or crossed hammer tatoo, applique or button showing. There was only one way in and that was being watched pretty well by the Tacoma PD and Secret Service.

Gang colors are a little more subtle, and, in the absence of behavioral clues, would not always trip any registers. It is unlikely that any of the Secret Service or TPD people had ever stood in a demonstration agaisnt the war and seen how particular people act face-to-face with demonstrators.

At demonstrations I have attended, nearly all of the people dressed as I described are highly aggressive, compared to others in the crowd, more likely to make physical contact with demonstrators.

When they don't have top sneak into the area, they are more likely to wear additional regalia. Those who have done something to give them street cred tend to incorporate that into tatoos. That's part of the reason for the wife beater shirts. They show their "honors" that way.

I guess I am just a little more sensitive to that sort of thing because, of the two instances in which I have been directly targetted by terrorists, one of them was by KKK. I can easily forgive the Libyan, in Libya, who tried to get me. (BLEEP) happens during a war. The KKKook has earned my undying enmity.

[maxfrost]

Yeah, what reason could anyone have to protest! Away with any protesting at [democrat] political events!

If that's your pov, fine, in which case the protestors were then protested against. Case closed. Unless that's only allowed at (republic) political events.

[gtc]

@gtc: Did I say these people were "in a neo-nazi gang"? I can't remember that part.)

OK. Do you think they were neo-nazis?


The nazi chumps had the right to go demonstrate.

How do you know they were nazis?


So, just because they act, look, and behave like Neo-Nazi's we're not allowed to conclude that they are what they pretend to be?

That's beyond lame, and is borderline apologetics.

Their actions were to protest against Obama at a Democrat rally. Their look was jeans and a singlet, their behaviour was to protest Obama at a Democrat rally. I think you are jumping to conclusions to think that hey were 'pretending' to be anything; let alone nazis.

Those who have done something to give them street cred tend to incorporate that into tatoos. That's part of the reason for the wife beater shirts.

So where these people wearing tats?

Actually, the cop was not required to suggest that they leave. He was entirely within his authority to cite them right there for tresspassing and disorderly conduct. They simply were not authorized to be there in the first place.

This all seems enormously hypocritical given your reaction to Amy Goodman's arrest. Then you thought that the cops had no right to arrest Amy even though she had no authorisation to be where she was.

[leftysergeant]

[QUOTE]So where these people wearing tats?

You have to earn the right to wear some of the tats. One way is to give or take a stomping for the cause. These thugs were pretty young.

It could be that they are active-duty military. It is part of the over-all strategy of the white nationalists to infiltrate the military. Some tats will get you into trouble, or at least could in the pre-Rummy military.



This all seems enormously hypocritical given your reaction to Amy Goodman's arrest. Then you thought that the cops had no right to arrest Amy even though she had no authorisation to be where she was.

Amy Goodman was actually exercising what she percieved as her DUTY under the 1st Ammendment, on a city street to find out what was going on and to protest the wrongful arrest of her camera crew.

I saw the video of the police operation and they suck. Bad operations step on people's rights. Round-ups and roughing up suspects who offer no violence is criminal.

Throwing a thug out of a venue in which he has no right to be is just good public order. You don't have a right to act like a pig to spoil someone else's celebration in a venue that the celebrants have rented. The rednecks had no right to feel good about themselves. They were wrong when they walked onto the grounds.

The way I and the witnesses treated them was totally within the law and, given that it gave them the one thing they least wanted from the action, without illegally or immorally harming them, was the right thing to do.

Depriving an obnoxious redneck of gratification at a political rally is not a violation of his rights. Several people even complimented me for shouting them down. They all used the word "redneck" to describe them.

The colors are pretty widely recognized around here, among people who have been harrassed by their kind. Wearing colors that some people will recognize and fear is terrorism, in this context.

[jj]

The colors are pretty widely recognized around here, among people who have been harrassed by their kind. Wearing colors that some people will recognize and fear is terrorism, in this context.

And this is the heart of the issue. Around here, yes, we DO recognize such people, from news reports as well as personal experience in my case.

I've also had at least one group of 3 people who seem to almost exactly match LS's description of the 2 attempt to give me a ration of (crap) for wandering around with a person who wasn't white (who I've been married to for, um, err, 24 years, give or take). Interestingly they waited until the spouse wandered into the bookstore to start ranting. Their initial attempt was racial insult, and I just pulled out my cell phone and started to dial. Now, Redmond Town Centre (walking mall) is not exactly jackboot central. One thing I do recall is big workboots with red shoelaces.

They shouted a few insults and left. One of them, which the rules here prohibit me from repeating, concerned the issue of our (potential, since the offsprong were nowhere to be seen) offspring's presence in the human race. What's somewhat entertaining is that they had the wrong race, and wrong ethnic. Ignorance and bigotry is like that.

These people exist. Just because one individual never met any of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

[leftysergeant]

And this is the heart of the issue. Around here, yes, we DO recognize such people, from news reports as well as personal experience in my case.

And their activities make the news more readily because it is so far outside the norm. You may have noticed there are a few liberals out our way.

One thing I do recall is big workboots with red shoelaces.

Hammerskins. Nasty critters, and dangerous Their existance is a good reason for our concealed carry law.


What's somewhat entertaining is that they had the wrong race, and wrong ethnic. Ignorance and bigotry is like that.

I never suggested that that sort were bright enough to function outside a tight organization.

[technoextreme]

I also identified myself as an Army NCO and cast aspersions on their manhood for not being in Iraq, suffering under the mis-management of the Rummy DoD.

I'm a better judge than they are of what is supportive of the troops. They were advocating for a man who, militarily, is pretty much useless.

I have no reason to feel any concern for their feelings.

As for their safety, we all knew better than to let them play the victim card. Having your face scarred by a mob of angry black veterans would be a badge of honor. Being told off by a limping old white veteran just doesn't get you any status in their circles.
I have to say just when I thought you couldn't get any less rational you hit the baseball out of the park. I never knew a man who was willing to tempt fate with his life before when it came to politics. Sometimes when it comes to calling someones bluff they just might have the full house and be perfectly willing to stab you in the heart. You gambled with your life and you act like they had everything to loose. Grow up.
So your argument is:

Leftists tend to see everyone they disagree with politically as nazis.

Lefty called two people who he disagreed with politically (and who were harassing a lot of Obama supporters and were dressed in gang clothes similar to neoNazi gangs) Nazis.

Therefore, Lefty absolutely calls anyone he disagrees with Nazis.

Maybe you should work on that. Even your attempted logical fallacies are incomplete.

Of course, if you're just trolling to attack Lefty, I could understand the shoddy nature of the argument. As long as you get your licks in, right? :rolleyes:
This is Lefty we are talking about. He probably managed to singlehandedly knock the level of political discourse in this forum to :hb: proportions.

[leftysergeant]

I have to say just when I thought you couldn't get any less rational you hit the baseball out of the park.

Well, that's pretty subjective. The most fun I ever had was dragging a charged foam line into 20000 gallons of burning jet fuel just for drill. I know a lot of people who freak at the thought of that. In the context of my job at the time, it makes sense. I knew I was in danger of becoming a crispy critter if I or someone nearby screwed up. Rule ten happens.

I never knew a man who was willing to tempt fate with his life before when it came to politics.

I have. They're called Hammerskins.

Sometimes when it comes to calling someones bluff they just might have the full house and be perfectly willing to stab you in the heart.

The way they were dressed allowed me to ascertain that they were not armed. The fact that we out-numbered them by about a hundred to one helped. I didn't think I was taking any unreasonable risk. I might havbe been injured, but it takes more time to beat a man to death than it takes at least five combat veterans (and there were a lot of them in the crowd) to run ten or twenty feet to adjust the attitude of the beaters.

Rational thinking has left the building people or at least it left lefty's head a long time ago.

I am a firm believer in Sun Tzu's dictum, "Know both your enemy and yourself." I know what button's to push to make the rednecks angry. I know what it does to them to be angry and not be able to do anything about it. I needed to hurt their feelings to deprive them of any feeling that they had gained anything. To allow them to win would just encourage them to do the same again somewhere.

The one man in the crowd least able to harm them physically was challenging them, and they could do nothing about it that would get them the street cred they wanted. The people they most wanted to annoy were enjoying the show of an old geezer standing up to them. A good time was had by all who mattered.

[technoextreme]

The way they were dressed allowed me to ascertain that they were not armed. The fact that we out-numbered them by about a hundred to one helped. I didn't think I was taking any unreasonable risk. I might havbe been injured, but it takes more time to beat a man to death than it takes at least five combat veterans (and there were a lot of them in the crowd) to run ten or twenty feet to adjust the attitude of the beaters.



********. Stop deluding yourself. You had not clue if they were armed or not. You just pretended that you did. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you acted recklessly.
I am a firm believer in Sun Tzu's dictum, "Know both your enemy and yourself."
You didn't know your enemy though. You just made 20 leaps of logic that would rival the ones a truther makes unless they were naked. And Sun Tzu also said:
All warfare is based on deception.

[leftysergeant]

********. Stop deluding yourself. You had not *********** clue if they were armed or not.[QUOTE]

I saw them from front and back before I got within arm's reach. I have worked in security and in detainee operations training. I had the skill set to determine the risks. The only thing i saw that they had over me was that the were probably ten times more capable of stomping me into the tarmack.

[QUOTE]You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you acted like a reckless moron.

No. I took a calculated risk. That's what soldiers are trained to do. Even if i got hurt, two rednecks who could later be a threat to the life of my son or grandson failed to get the street cred they needed to be effective in their movement. It was worth the risk. Mathematicly, there was little probability that I would have been hurt worse than they.

How much street cred would they have sitting in prison for stomping a hobbling old fart who could barely walk and cannot raise his left arm above shoulder level. They would probably be somebody's sex toy from day one.

[dirtywick]

The possibility has never even crossed your mind that they weren't nazi's.

[thaiboxerken]

The possibility has never even crossed your mind that they weren't nazi's.

It does not matter. He dealt with them appropriately.

[jj]

********. Stop deluding yourself. You had not clue if they were armed or not. You just pretended that you did. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you acted recklessly.

You didn't know your enemy though. You just made 20 leaps of logic that would rival the ones a truther makes unless they were naked. And Sun Tzu also said:

Stuff and nonsense. I get a distinct impression that you have neither police work experience or military experience.

If you do, say so, and we'll dissect why you have this particular delusion about skinheads.

Now I'll try to put this into perspective. They weren't wearing tats, but they were wearing the uniform. You don't think, do you, that they were there to get their stomping cred, do you? Of course, you don't get stomping cred by beating up an old military white guy...

[jj]

The possibility has never even crossed your mind that they weren't nazi's.

Mindreading, were you? I presume that either you'll simply retract the load of baloney quoted above, or you'll go for the million dollar prize.

I await your application for the million dollars on the basis of mindreading. Barring that, I think it's entirely atrocious to insinuate that you read minds.

[dirtywick]

Mindreading, were you? I presume that either you'll simply retract the load of baloney quoted above, or you'll go for the million dollar prize.

I await your application for the million dollars on the basis of mindreading. Barring that, I think it's entirely atrocious to insinuate that you read minds.

More of a conclusion based off of reading his continued accusations than mindreading. I'm getting something else though...I think you knew that when you read that.

Tell you what, I'll put a question mark on it and let lefty answer. Then, if I was right, maybe I'll go apply.



The possibility has never even crossed your mind that they weren't nazi's?

[leftysergeant]

The possibility has never even crossed your mind that they weren't nazi's.

There was a remote possibility of that, but little doubt that they were racists. Wife beater shirts in October in Tacoma is clearly a statement of more than just neglecting to check the weather report.

They also did not act like the Republican goon squads that usually show up around here.

The probability that they were either Nazi or KKK, given their behavior and colors runs pretty high.

[KoihimeNakamura]

You know. After reading the replies, I find myself /comforted/ I was at work during this rally. And I find that odd.'

(I also love everyone going 'well, it's a liberal perosn, they can do it and conseratives can't, but I doubt you'd find many people here praising someone who went to a McCain rally dressed as a nazi official either. Oh, wait, did I just poke a hole in the attempt to slam Lefy via strawman?)


Also: Re: WildCat

The Tacoma News Tribune (I read it somewhat often) doesn't tend to cover protests from what I've seen.

HOWEVER.

.. I work in a store in Puyallup closer to Graham. And my roommate (a Korean-American) works near Lakewood. And has lived in the area near Spanaway/Puyallup on the outer edge of Graham...

.. and we're both going 'Wait, what? What gangs are you talking about?'

[leftysergeant]

I guess you have to be looking for them to notice them. Or doing something they don't like people doing.

I have been at protests of various sorts around the area to which Kirby Wilbur responded on his show on KVI. He calls the loyalists to action, to go out and show them libruls who's boss around here. It was he who organized the booing of Hillary Clinton in Seattle a few years back when she was first pushing her health care plan as First Lady. He also organized a counter-demonstration when a local anti-war veterans' group organized a protest against the deployment of the 81st Combat Brigade to Iraq, and again when Patty Murray made her whistle-stop tour for the Congressional races.

And, mixed in with the crowd, were the white nationalists looking for a fight. We never gave them an opening.

I did see, while I was on active duty, quite a few signs of white natiojnalist organizing and recruiting on post. I was even approached by a few of them who knew nothing of my family make-up. ( I hope some of them never learn who tipped CID off to their drug-dealing operations.)

Those meth labs that you hear so much of in Pierce County are largely manned by white nationalists.

You almost have to be looking for them to see them, unless you are a white woman hooked up in some way with a black man.

I see signs of them at a lot of the gun shows, too. Subtle, but clear signals give them away.

As I mentioned earlier, I have a particular interest in them because of an attempt on my life back in 1968. I hardly think that all of them have reformed or ever will, in my lifetime.

But the main reason I brought the subject up is that, when Obama wins, these fools will be outraged, and they will be energized. You can expect them to become more active, because they will know they are fighting their own obsolescence. I wanted to offer a tip on how to fight back when they decide to go all Sturmabteilung on public events. Slamming them down will just give them street cred. Sending out a champion works, to some degree. Confront them, but don't give them an opening. Want to really rile them? Send out someone even they would be embarrassed to smack down. It's actually fun to be able to laugh at their impotence.

[WildCat]

lefty, next time why not just take them bowling?

UDB9oCgVHGw

[Tailgater]

Amy Goodman was actually exercising what she percieved as her DUTY under the 1st Ammendment, on a city street to find out what was going on and to protest the wrongful arrest of her camera crew.

I saw the video of the police operation and they suck. Bad operations step on people's rights. Round-ups and roughing up suspects who offer no violence is criminal.

Throwing a thug out of a venue in which he has no right to be is just good public order. You don't have a right to act like a pig to spoil someone else's celebration in a venue that the celebrants have rented. The rednecks had no right to feel good about themselves. They were wrong when they walked onto the grounds.

The way I and the witnesses treated them was totally within the law and, given that it gave them the one thing they least wanted from the action, without illegally or immorally harming them, was the right thing to do.

Depriving an obnoxious redneck of gratification at a political rally is not a violation of his rights. Several people even complimented me for shouting them down. They all used the word "redneck" to describe them.

The colors are pretty widely recognized around here, among people who have been harrassed by their kind. Wearing colors that some people will recognize and fear is terrorism, in this context.

The goodman thread and the thread about the journalist being escorted across the street was all over the map with other examples of out of control protestors. My issues come with singling out who will be "violent" and who will not. You seem to have a problem with cops stopping anyone not actually caught doing something wrong even if intent seems likely, someone with no intent running in a group of thugs causing disorder, or someone just not listening to police orders. There were videos of masked kids running around with obvious intent to cause trouble, but when police organized to steer them away (along with everyone else), there was no middle ground with you. No responsibility was layed on the fact that there were many thugs and "innocents" who were more than willing to mix in with them. yet you would have been perfectly ok with these two being hauled off by the cops based on two things. 1:They were shouting opposition to your candidate 2:They "might" be from a gang because they were wearing wifebeater shirts (no tats is interesting because even if they don't have gang tats, they usually have some personal ones started).

You could easily confuse me with a gang member. I shave my head in the summer and usually wear cut off sleeves when I'm working outside so I don't get a "farmers tan". I have 3 tats that cover my upper arms and shoulders. My brother is a white blonde, full sleeves on legs and arms and for some reason likes to wear the white wifebeater shirts and blasts punk music from his car. He's a rabid Republican hater and I can't seem to find a party that suits me. I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Obama just based on the Palin VP pick. The thing that gives us away is our Latin wives.

I really don't have a problem with most things you say, only that it always has to be "absolute". I rarely find objectivety or shared responsibility. The police did some stupid things in dealing with alot of violent acts and violent intent, but that made them fascist pigs. The two guys you confronted were idiots. No doubt about that, and maybe they were from a gang, but no one has the right to assume this is true. Chasing them and telling them they should be dead might have been legal and made you a hero to the crowd, but I'll tell my sons to deal with it another way. Becoming a thug to deal with a thug is not showing anyone how to be a better man. Anyway, that my last .02 for this thread. I have respect for you Lefty in your passion, but sometimes I just shake my head at what I read.
------------------------------------------------------------

JJ,

me=If you are against Obama, you are a Nazi?

jj=Ditto.

That is a sad mindset.

[jj]

JJ,

me=If you are against Obama, you are a Nazi?

jj=Ditto.

That is a sad mindset.

While what you're saying is rather poorly phrased and ambiguous, I've not said or agreed with either of the contradictory interpretations one could place on your statement.

I know reasonable people FOR McCain. I know a FEW reasonable people AGAINST Obama. Most of the people AGAINST Obama are either saying 'I got mine, and (rule10) you' or "he's different, no way" or they're drinking the bongwater that the RNC and the fundies have been pouring.

[Cicero]

I
I see signs of them at a lot of the gun shows, too. Subtle, but clear signals give them away.

But the main reason I brought the subject up is that, when Obama wins, these fools will be outraged, and they will be energized.

When Obama wins, will there still be gun shows? If Obama ever decides to do anything that interferes with the second amendment, including raising the NFA $200 tax on Class II weapons, will you be outraged?

[leftysergeant]

When Obama wins, will there still be gun shows?

If McCain is elected, will anyone other than a CEO be able to afford ammo?

Paranoid much?

The GOP is relying on fear and intimidation to win, whether it is trying to scare voters away from the polls with mailers informing people that they might be arrested if they show up to vote, or sending in goons to harrass rallies.

It may get nasty in the last days of the election season. I am suggesting that it might be wise to be prepared to respond, but not violently, and in a weay that will show the thugs that they are not scaring anyone

[Cicero]

If McCain is elected, will anyone other than a CEO be able to afford ammo?

Paranoid much?



Come on. McCain is no longer an issue since Obama will win, so why not go on the record as saying Obama will not pass any laws that restrict 2nd Amendment rights?

[Toke]

There is a very old question of how a democracy defends itself against facism without becomming one.
I don´t think anyone have come up with a good answer yet.


I fear that the financial trouble you are getting deeper into will give rise to political and religius extremists. That means more thugs at political rallies, and more influence to your christian loonies.

[leftysergeant]

Come on. McCain is no longer an issue since Obama will win, so why not go on the record as saying Obama will not pass any laws that restrict 2nd Amendment rights?

He would have to get any gun control measures through Congress. Too many Dems are gun owners themselves.

Gun bans are not going anywhere in the forseeable future. Washington is one of the more liberal states and strict gun-control measures get laughed at at county and state conventions.

Stop being so paranoid.

[Cicero]

He would have to get any gun control measures through Congress. Too many Dems are gun owners themselves.

Gun bans are not going anywhere in the forseeable future. Washington is one of the more liberal states and strict gun-control measures get laughed at at county and state conventions.

Stop being so paranoid.

So your only defense against Obama attempting to pass new firearm regulation is that the Democratic congressional majority will stop him? What planet are you living on. Even Reagan passed the 1986 Act. But you can't bring yourself to admit that Obama would go along with additional firearm regulations?

Why are you so paranoid?

[jj]

So your only defense against Obama attempting to pass new firearm regulation is that the Democratic congressional majority will stop him? What planet are you living on. Even Reagan passed the 1986 Act. But you can't bring yourself to admit that Obama would go along with additional firearm regulations?

Why are you so paranoid?

So, you make something up, ask LS to defend what YOU MADE UP, and then call him "paranoid"?

Um, something's wrong with that. I think most of us can see what.

[Bob Blaylock]

Come on. McCain is no longer an issue since Obama will win, so why not go on the record as saying Obama will not pass any laws that restrict 2nd Amendment rights?


Because he'd be lying if he said that, not that that's stopped him very much before.

From the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Gun_control

Gun control
As a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

In 1996, during Obama's run for the Illinois State Senate, he was surveyed by a Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois about criminal justice and other issues. Obama's questionnaire showed that he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. Subsequently, Obama denied that his writing was on the document and said that he never favored a ban on the sale and possession of handguns. In 1999, he urged prohibiting the operation of any gun store within five miles of a school or park, which according to gun-rights advocates would eliminate gun stores from most of the inhabited portion of the United States. He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month.

As state senator, he voted against a 2004 measure that allowed self-defense as an affirmative defense to those charged with violating local laws making it otherwise unlawful for such persons to possess firearms. He also voted against allowing persons who had obtained domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their protection.

From 1994 through 2002, Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation, which amongst other non-gun related activities provides funds for gun control organizations in the United States.

While in the US Senate, Obama has supported several gun control measures, including restricting the purchase of firearms at gun shows and the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Obama voted against legislation protecting firearm manufacturers from certain liability suits, which gun-rights advocates say are designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. Obama did vote in favor of the 2006 Vitter Amendment to prohibit the confiscation of lawful firearms during an emergency or major disaster, which passed 84-16.

During a February 15, 2008 press conference, Obama stated, "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation." Obama has also stated his opposition to allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms and supports a national law outlawing the practice.

Obama is rated F by the National Rifle Association. The NRA describes the recipient of its F grade as a "true enemy of gun owners’ rights." He is also rated F by Gun Owners of America who stated that Obama will "Get the Dems 'Barack' into the Business of Gun Control".

Obama initially voiced support of Washington DC's handgun ban. Following the Supreme Court decision on the ban, he voiced support of the decision overturning the law, saying, "Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe." He also said, in response to the ruling, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms... The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view."

Obama can be seen making the occasional attempt, on this subject, to speak out of both sides of his mouth, but his record is very clear. He is very solidly an enemy of the people's rights under the Second Amendment.

[Toke]

I admire your abillity to focus on the important issues, and not getting derailed by stuff like "where did the money go"

[leftysergeant]

[indent][i]Gun control
As a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

I haven't been able to find any official record of that. Linky?

In 1996, during Obama's run for the Illinois State Senate, he was surveyed by a Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois about criminal justice and other issues. Obama's questionnaire showed that he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. Subsequently, Obama denied that his writing was on the document and said that he never favored a ban on the sale and possession of handguns. In 1999, he urged prohibiting the operation of any gun store within five miles of a school or park, which according to gun-rights advocates would eliminate gun stores from most of the inhabited portion of the United States.

Linky?

He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month.

This is not utterly unreasoanble. It is aimed at preventing situations like that in Virginia, in which non-FFL holders can buy a trunkload of cheap handguns and resell them, without paperwork, in NYC. Guess who buys them.

As state senator, he voted against a 2004 measure that allowed self-defense as an affirmative defense to those charged with violating local laws making it otherwise unlawful for such persons to possess firearms.

What's wrong with that?

Obama did vote in favor of the 2006 Vitter Amendment to prohibit the confiscation of lawful firearms during an emergency or major disaster, which passed 84-16.['QUOTE]

Shows that he thinks logically, I would say.

[QUOTE]He is also rated F by Gun Owners of America who stated that Obama will "Get the Dems 'Barack' into the Business of Gun Control".

GOA is a white nationalist front.

Obama can be seen making the occasional attempt, on this subject, to speak out of both sides of his mouth, but his record is very clear. He is very solidly an enemy of the people's rights under the Second Amendment.

Your concerns would be valid if Obama was a dictator.

[Cicero]

So, you make something up, ask LS to defend what YOU MADE UP, and then call him "paranoid"?

Um, something's wrong with that. I think most of us can see what.

What is made up? The likelihood of Obama instituting more firearm regulations? Hardly a leap of faith. Just look at Bob Blaylock's post.

For LS to feign incredulity about Obama's position on this issue is truly transparent.

LS is paranoid that by admitting Obama's positon on the 2nd Amendment, Obama is all of a sudden going to lose the election. otherwise, why deny the obvious?

[Cicero]

Your concerns would be valid if Obama was a dictator.

A Democrat President and a Democrat controlled congress may not be a dictatorship, but it sure makes it so much more easy to pass one of the favorite liberal pieces of legislation; additional firearm regulations.

[leftysergeant]

Start a thread on that and stop derailing.

I was talking about ways to deal with the fear that extremists try to instill on gatherings they don't like.

The GOP's best weapon seems to be fear, and they open the door for some unsavory characters to act out.

[gtc]

Paranoid much?

The GOP is relying on fear and intimidation to win, whether it is trying to scare voters away from the polls with mailers informing people that they might be arrested if they show up to vote, or sending in goons to harrass rallies.

So the alleged neo-nazis were sent by the Republicans now?

[dudalb]

This thread has now entered into the "Left and Right Wing Fanatics Shouting At Each Other" zone.
Frankly, anybody who does not have partisan blinders on will take on look at some of the people on both sides in this thread and come away with the very proper conclusion "Your're Both Nuts".

[dudalb]

The possibility has never even crossed your mind that they weren't nazi's.

They were against Obama, and ,in Lefty's eyes that made them enemies of the Working Class and therefore fascist and fair game.

[boloboffin]

This thread has now entered into the "Left and Right Wing Fanatics Shouting At Each Other" zone.
Frankly, anybody who does not have partisan blinders on will take on look at some of the people on both sides in this thread and come away with the very proper conclusion "Your're Both Nuts".

They were against Obama, and ,in Lefty's eyes that made them enemies of the Working Class and therefore fascist and fair game.

If only these two would sit down and work it out...

[Shalamar]

This thread has now entered into the "Left and Right Wing Fanatics Shouting At Each Other" zone.
Frankly, anybody who does not have partisan blinders on will take on look at some of the people on both sides in this thread and come away with the very proper conclusion "Your're Both Nuts".

Pretty much. I've watched the election forums degenerate over the past couple months. As I'm fond of telling people 'I'm glad I can't vote'. (And I DO live in the USA. Legally.)

[jj]

So the alleged neo-nazis were sent by the Republicans now?

Again, I see that you are trying to define LS's words. He didn't say that, you made it up and lied when you insinuated he said such a thing.

I think your own completely misleading, illicit, and baldly unethical behavior makes LS's point all the more clear.

Just like Cicero wants to derail the thread, having lost the debate over the OP issue.

[jj]

They were against Obama, and ,in Lefty's eyes that made them enemies of the Working Class and therefore fascist and fair game.

Do you have any evidence for this extraordinary claim?

LS has made it clear why he presume that these particular individuals were fascists. He's not the only one to run into such a bunch of critters up here in Washingtoon, either.

Given that, your assertion is quite extraordinary, and would appear to be claiming again that you can actually read LS"s mind.

I see two options, prove you can read his mind and go take the TEST, or back down and admit you have no justification for your assertion.

[Shalamar]

Should be noted that Tacoma, WA DOES have a gang problem. I believe at one point the city was planning to appoint a gang task force. could be wrong.

[KoihimeNakamura]

afaik, tacoma does, and has a gang task force.

[gtc]

Again, I see that you are trying to define LS's words. He didn't say that, you made it up and lied when you insinuated he said such a thing.

WTF?

He said 'The GOP is relying on fear and intimidation to win, whether it is ..., or sending in goons to harrass rallies'.


I think your own completely misleading, illicit, and baldly unethical behavior makes LS's point all the more clear.

Illicit? What are you talking about and what point are you claiming this makes?

Just like Cicero wants to derail the thread, having lost the debate over the OP issue.

I am sorry, but you are the one who is currently derailing this thread.

This thread is about supposed goons allegedly harrassing a rally and LS' reaction. I fail to see what your personal attack on me has to do with the OP.

[thaiboxerken]

They weren't goons harassing people at a rally. They were very polite individuals harassing people at a rally.

[WildCat]

Should be noted that Tacoma, WA DOES have a gang problem. I believe at one point the city was planning to appoint a gang task force. could be wrong.
Apparently they do: http://www.tacomaweekly.com/article/1641/

Nothing about Nazi gangs though.

This document is more in-depth: http://media.bethelsd.org/website/resources/pdf/gang_culture.pdf

The usual Crips and Bloods stuff, no Nazi gangs. But I have a real problem with that doc because for some bizarre reason it has a few pages on the Insane Clown Posse, not a gang but a band! :boggled:

[Walter Wayne]

You almost have to be looking for them to see them, unless you are a white woman hooked up in some way with a black man.

I see signs of them at a lot of the gun shows, too. Subtle, but clear signals give them away.
Have you tested this objectively, or do you implicitly trust your KKKdar.

[BeAChooser]

Juxtapose these two statements folks:

leftysergeant - "The GOP's best weapon seems to be fear, and they open the door for some unsavory characters to act out."

leftysergeant - "I stayed with them, expressing to them what I thought of them, their parents who neglected to place them in a gunny sack and toss them over the nearest bridge at birth, and offered a tenative diagnosis of their sexual dysfunctions."

:rolleyes:

[jj]

WTF?

He said 'The GOP is relying on fear and intimidation to win, whether it is ..., or sending in goons to harrass rallies'.


Indeed. And it is your own rhetoric, not his, that connects the goons he met to the goons you imagine he meant.


Illicit? What are you talking about and what point are you claiming this makes?


Your false accusation is at best suborned logic.


I am sorry, but you are the one who is currently derailing this thread.


Evidences?


This thread is about supposed goons allegedly harrassing a rally and LS' reaction. I fail to see what your personal attack on me has to do with the OP.

If you think I am making "personal attacks" I suggest that you complain to the moderators.

The fact that I am dismembering YOUR WRETCHED, DECEPTIVE rhetoric does not mean that I am insulting you. If you do not wish to see your wretched propaganda dismembered, stop writing it.

[jj]

Juxtapose these two statements folks:

leftysergeant - "The GOP's best weapon seems to be fear, and they open the door for some unsavory characters to act out."

leftysergeant - "I stayed with them, expressing to them what I thought of them, their parents who neglected to place them in a gunny sack and toss them over the nearest bridge at birth, and offered a tenative diagnosis of their sexual dysfunctions."

:rolleyes:

So, Leftyseargeant does not have the right to his own opinion, you say?

I find that rather un-American! Is there some reason you take this hideously un-American position?

[leftysergeant]

Juxtapose these two statements folks:

leftysergeant - "The GOP's best weapon seems to be fear, and they open the door for some unsavory characters to act out."

leftysergeant - "I stayed with them, expressing to them what I thought of them, their parents who neglected to place them in a gunny sack and toss them over the nearest bridge at birth, and offered a tenative diagnosis of their sexual dysfunctions."

:rolleyes:

Tit-for-tat is sometimes the best response. They wanted to start a fight. They wanted to make people angry or fearful.

The Biden crowd got a good laugh out of it. They were faced with an unknown quantity, an old geezer who defied them to show their supposed masculinty. This was not supposed to happen.

I figure it was proably only a matter of time before someone became angry enough to smack one of them. That would have been a victory for the thugs. The last thing they wanted was to be laughed at.

If these two were, as I suspect, Hammerskins, they would have used any violent attack as an excuse to do harm to whoever laid a hand on them. It is a standard technique taught by organizers of the various white nationalist groups. They make somebody mad, the mark responds by punching one of them, they whomp him. Sometimes they kill him. Then they claim self-defense.

They can't claim self-defense if they throw the first punch, nor can they press charges on anyone who gives them an attitude adjustment in return, no matter how many retaliate or how vigorously.

I would not be surprised to see other attempts to disrupt rallies in the last few weeks of the campaign. The white nationalists need McCain to win and to keep the country in a down-ward spiral. Don't give them any help if they show up at an event that you attend. Send them home with an embarrassed blush, not bruises. Let gaffer and gammer handle the light work.

[gtc]

Indeed. And it is your own rhetoric, not his, that connects the goons he met to the goons you imagine he meant.

Wow. You are really getting worked up about this.

This thread is about (alleged) goons disrupting a Democrat rally. LS suggested that the GOP is sending out goons to disrupt Democrat rallies.

It is entirely reasonable to assume that he is talking about the 'goons' and the rally that is the topic of this thread.

The choices are, either he was suggesting that these goons were sent by the GOP (in which case he needs to provide evidence that they were sent by the GOP) or he was suggesting that some other goons were sent by the GOP to some other rally. If so, he needs to provide evidence that they actually existed and were sent by the GOP. In both cases you should be asking him to provide evidence to support his claims, not attacking me for assuming that he was posting on topic in his own thread.

Your false accusation is at best suborned logic.

What? Suddenly assuming someone is posting on topic in their own thread is 'suborned logic'? Assuming that someone talking about goons being sent to disrupt a rally would be talking about the 'goons' and the rally that is the topic of their own thread is 'suborned logic'? You really need to take a breath and think about what you are suggesting.

Evidences?

Um. The next paragraph was the evidence.

If you think I am making "personal attacks" I suggest that you complain to the moderators.

You most certainly are attacking me and I have no idea why. I think it is off topic and probably bordering on an attack that would violate the MA. However, at present I have no intention of reporting you.

The fact that I am dismembering YOUR WRETCHED, DECEPTIVE rhetoric does not mean that I am insulting you. If you do not wish to see your wretched propaganda dismembered, stop writing it.

Do you realise how over the top you are sounding?


Look. It is simple. If LS was suggesting that the 'goons' at this rally were sent by the GOP then he needs to provide some evidence that they were. If LS was suggesting that some other 'goons' at some other rally were sent by the GOP then he needs to provide some evidence too. However, that might be another thread.

[gtc]

So, Leftyseargeant does not have the right to his own opinion, you say?

Come on, you accused me of lying about leftysergeant's statements and now you are completely misinterpreting what BeAChooser wrote.

He was obviously suggesting that leftysergeant was using 'fear as a weapon' and 'acting out' in an unsavoury way. A pot meet kettle argument.

You can suggest that leftysergeant wasn't using fear as a weapon or acting out or you can suggest (as leftysergeant himself did) that leftysergeant was justified in his actions but there is no way that you can reasonably conclude that BeAChooser was suggesting that leftysergeant doesn't have a right to his opinion.