It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boston let's have a conversation or mb not Foul Language Alert

page: 12
19
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert


No. But you are denying that he clarified that position, with a reasonable caveat that even you would agree with, and yet are still pushing your nonsense.


The mantra of faux outrage must be maintained.




posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Grambler

Here are a few examples:

If Trump gets legislation past the Senate and Congress which redefines the concept of protest or freedom of association, to bar counter-protest, the anti-fascist movement will have to go underground and adopt the guise of insurgency, for the purpose of tearing down the government and eliminating the now empowered fascist groups, wherever they are to be found.

The president doesn't write legislation--all legislation must originate in the House of Representatives. This example is based on either ignoring this reality of a lack of understanding this reality. Also, said rights are guaranteed in our constitution, therefore it would (or, at least, should...you never know these days) require a constitutional amendment to expand or limit the definitions of these rights.


If fascist groups become more numerous or their membership grows, or their rallies increase in size and armament, and the threat they pose therefore increases, then the anti-fascist movement will necessarily have to be more proactive in ridding areas of their fascist populations.

But, they have a right to their beliefs, to hold LAWFUL rallies, to own firearms, etc. Just these things does not necessarily make them a threat that is appropriately countered with "ridding areas of their fascist populations." In America, we don't employ the idea of "Minority Report," where we take legal action against people doing nothing illegal.


Any attempt to redefine what is meant by certain phrases in the constitution, on the part of a fascist led government, should cause a citizen uprising which results in the termination of the current administrations employment, and their replacement with people who oppose fascist, supremacist ideology.

As I already stated, redefining anything in the constitution would require the lengthy process of amending the constitution--the president can't just do that with the stroke of a pen. But, IF that happened, it wouldn't pass mustard with the legislative or judicial branches, which is why we have the checks/balances system, even if it is imperfect.


Any sign that fascist, White Supremacist ideals and the ideals of their apologists, are becoming normalised in the media, or indeed in the White House, should result in civil war.

Well, when you're completely off your rocker in characterizing things that the president recently said as being apologists for these groups, your argument and call for a civil war is utterly ridiculous. But, remember, we all, including our president, have an absolute right to our own views and opinions. I would hope that we never elect an outright racist president, but history shows that that has happened before, even if it was relatively unknown at the time. The U.S. didn't die because of it.

In fact, the only true Civil War that we've had was because the president wasn't racist enough for some people...go figure. (well, that, amongst other things)


During these times, people will be expected to either punch, shoot or otherwise defeat fascism, or get out of the way.

I notice that you prefer to talk a big game and approach things with a perceived moral high ground quite often when it comes to things happening in the States about which you can do nothing. See, the difference between a moralist, which I'm calling you, and realist is that a realist takes into account whether or not what an individual is doing is illegal and is creating any victims with said crimes--if so, appropriate action should be taken, starting with law enforcement and moving from there, eventually reaching the individual citizen if necessary. A moralist, as you are doing here, disregards whether or not said actions are legal (under unchanging laws), but advocates (in this case) violence and irradication based on an ideology that goes against your morals.

The reality is that, as my Jefferson quote below states, I would rather have these idiots out rallying and protesting (legally) with their ignorant racist rhetoric and just point and laugh at them than I would live in a nation that outlawed such things. A LOT of things said in America, from the top down, go against my personal morals, but I acknowledge the right for them to be said and acted upon within the confines of rights and laws.

To get back to the topic of this thread, it is abhorrent that people in a "free-speech rally" shout down and have removed someone who is talking to them. What you are arguing with Grambler is exactly this, but to a more dramatic degree. You are advocating the silencing, seemingly by any means necessary, of a certain set of beliefs. You mistakenly attempt to speak for all families with veterans of WWI--well, my grandfather drove the M7 Priest tank over there fighting in that war, and he was one of the biggest advocates of free speech that there was.

See, here in America, we tend to fight for preservation of freedoms first and foremost, even if associate with that is a fight against an ideology. But freedoms come first, and the First Amendment to our constitution was purposefully put at number one for a reason--we will fight to defend free speech to the death, even if we don't like what's being said.

What you are spouting in this thread really is un-American, but then, I wouldn't expect a Brit to worry too much about that while they're telling Americans how to live and react to things.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Agreed, that would be laughable indeed.

You know what sophistry means, right? Right? ... Right?



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
There must not be enough globalist voters then huh?

How so?

It is the unpopular position.


On immigration is he a globalist?

No


On Trade is he a globalist?

He might have a public and private stance on that. He was the head of a multinational corporation.


Pick an area where you think he is more globalist that nationalist?

Just decided to keep troops in Afghanistan.

Sending americans to die in foreign lands serving as world police might be considered globalist.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



And he says his definition would be enough Trump supporters surfacing.


And if the threat warrants it.

Context man....context.



Are you denying that he is saying Trump supporters are fascists, and they must be fought by any means neccessary?


No. But you are denying that he clarified that position, with a reasonable caveat that even you would agree with, and yet are still pushing your nonsense.


he makes no distinction in the need to deal with fascists and fascists apologist with any means neccessary.

He then says that if enough fascists types have rallies, or increase n number, it would lead to a need for civil war.

You are discussing if actual Nazis gassing people came into power, then yes I agree we should fight back.

The problem is using the idea that we have to stop the holocaust, and then linking Trump supporters with the actual people that committed the holocaust, and saying we have to fight those supporters in any way necessary, and saying if enough of them gather, annihilation of all of them in another civil war.

He says this in black and white; and you defend it.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

He also said it wasn't black and white. That was in what you re-posted but didn't highlight.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Grambler

He also said it wasn't black and white. That was in what you re-posted but didn't highlight.


he says violence is not black and white, as in right or wrong.

The very next sentence shows what he means, to be violent to dissenters of white supremacy is wrong, but against white supremacy is right.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Exactly. There is a time and place to use violence.

You might not agree but in no way does it mean that every Trump supporter should be killed.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



he makes no distinction in the need to deal with fascists and fascists apologist with any means neccessary.


Wouldn't you agree, up to and including violence, depending on the level of the threat?



You are discussing if actual Nazis gassing people came into power, then yes I agree we should fight back.


See. You do agree.



The problem is using the idea that we have to stop the holocaust, and then linking Trump supporters with the actual people that committed the holocaust, and saying we have to fight those supporters in any way necessary, and saying if enough of them gather, annihilation of all of them in another civil war.


If enough of them gather in order to perpetuate atrocities that we as a society will not tolerate, which would be the level of threat Truebrit was referring to, it should not be a problem if we try to stop them.



He says this in black and white; and you defend it.


Yes, because he is right. But he did not put it out there in simple black and white. He provided much more context. The problem is that you see it as black and white and are using it to push your silly agenda.

You even created your own thread on the issue to push it further.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

If enough of them gather in order to perpetuate atrocities that we as a society will not tolerate, which would be the level of threat Truebrit was referring to, it should not be a problem if we try to stop them.


Thats not what he said. he specifically says that things like "normalizing fascism" by enough supporters of it existing, or attending a rally.

He made it quite clear that he meant Trump supporters were lumped in on being necessary to attack.

He is saying if there are enough trump supporters that are fascist apologists, that is the atrocity, and people will have to be taken out.

He wrote this down aas plain as day.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Thats not what he said. he specifically says that things like "normalizing fascism" by enough supporters of it existing, or attending a rally.


Yes, that is how it grows but that would not be a level in which violence is needed.



He made it quite clear that he meant Trump supporters were lumped in on being necessary to attack. He is saying if there are enough trump supporters that are fascist apologists, that is the atrocity, and people will have to be taken out. He wrote this down aas plain as day.


Funny. You've had multiple chances to quote him saying that and yet you have not provided one. What you have posted from him only shows there is much more to that context than you are considering.

Remember, he said if the threat warrants it and that is something you agree with.

Stop being intentionally obtuse for partisan reasons.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



And he says his definition would be enough Trump supporters surfacing.


And if the threat warrants it.

Context man....context.



Are you denying that he is saying Trump supporters are fascists, and they must be fought by any means neccessary?


No. But you are denying that he clarified that position, with a reasonable caveat that even you would agree with, and yet are still pushing your nonsense.


he makes no distinction in the need to deal with fascists and fascists apologist with any means neccessary.

He then says that if enough fascists types have rallies, or increase n number, it would lead to a need for civil war.

You are discussing if actual Nazis gassing people came into power, then yes I agree we should fight back.

The problem is using the idea that we have to stop the holocaust, and then linking Trump supporters with the actual people that committed the holocaust, and saying we have to fight those supporters in any way necessary, and saying if enough of them gather, annihilation of all of them in another civil war.

He says this in black and white; and you defend it.


I have read your posts, along with the others...your line in the above that says..."you are discussing if actual Nazi's gassing people came into power, then yes I agree we should fight back".....tell me, don't you think that would be too late? ....wouldn't any patriotic American fight against them BEFORE it ever reached that point? apparently you wouldn't......Poland recently elected a far-right leader, having sentiments similar to trump's views and passing laws that go against democratic policies set up by Walesa and michnik under the "solidarity" government......here is the article, it's rather long, but it does go into detail as to how Poland's government is becoming more of an authoritarian dictatorship, from the democracy achieved by Walesa and Michnik......
www.nytimes.com...

Trump and his various cronies have eerily espoused similar authoritarian views, like jailing your political enemies, or jailing members of the press, not allowing ANY M.E. refugees into the country, etc...



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



And he says his definition would be enough Trump supporters surfacing.


And if the threat warrants it.

Context man....context.



Are you denying that he is saying Trump supporters are fascists, and they must be fought by any means neccessary?


No. But you are denying that he clarified that position, with a reasonable caveat that even you would agree with, and yet are still pushing your nonsense.


he makes no distinction in the need to deal with fascists and fascists apologist with any means neccessary.

He then says that if enough fascists types have rallies, or increase n number, it would lead to a need for civil war.

You are discussing if actual Nazis gassing people came into power, then yes I agree we should fight back.

The problem is using the idea that we have to stop the holocaust, and then linking Trump supporters with the actual people that committed the holocaust, and saying we have to fight those supporters in any way necessary, and saying if enough of them gather, annihilation of all of them in another civil war.

He says this in black and white; and you defend it.


I have read your posts, along with the others...your line in the above that says..."you are discussing if actual Nazi's gassing people came into power, then yes I agree we should fight back".....tell me, don't you think that would be too late? ....wouldn't any patriotic American fight against them BEFORE it ever reached that point? apparently you wouldn't......Poland recently elected a far-right leader, having sentiments similar to trump's views and passing laws that go against democratic policies set up by Walesa and michnik under the "solidarity" government......here is the article, it's rather long, but it does go into detail as to how Poland's government is becoming more of an authoritarian dictatorship, from the democracy achieved by Walesa and Michnik......
www.nytimes.com...

Trump and his various cronies have eerily espoused similar authoritarian views, like jailing your political enemies, or jailing members of the press, not allowing ANY M.E. refugees into the country, etc...


Just about every extremist group in the history of the world has made the exact same argument.

How far are you willing to push this idea?

One poster here seems to think that if fascists supporters like Trump and his supporters get too much power, we need to annihilate them.

Doesn't that sound exactly what the nazis were saying, or stalin, or Mao, or hussein, or castro, or Paul pot, or isis, or North Kore, and so on?

Yes, with hindsight being 20/20, people say they would kill hitler before he had power.

But without knowing the future, how many people are you willing to kill on the chaance they may be hitler?



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: pavil



Quite the delicate dance there Introvert. Ok I still support Trump and voted for him.......am I a Fascist or Nazi or White Supremacist?


You support fascism.





....and since I'm that, what is TrueBrits answer for that? Come on....you can do this!


Ask him.
I'm not going to play stupid games.


Ha!
You take your usual course of action when confronted by something you know the answer to but it doesn't agree with you. Slink away......



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: pavil



Quite the delicate dance there Introvert. Ok I still support Trump and voted for him.......am I a Fascist or Nazi or White Supremacist?


You support fascism.





....and since I'm that, what is TrueBrits answer for that? Come on....you can do this!


Ask him.
I'm not going to play stupid games.


Ha!
You take your usual course of action when confronted by something you know the answer to but it doesn't agree with you. Slink away......


I cannot answer for Truebrit.

He made a very specific statement saying it was based on the level of threat. Therefore I am not in any position to assume what he would do.

Again, context.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pavil

Agreed, that would be laughable indeed.

You know what sophistry means, right? Right? ... Right?


But is is pretty easy. We have their statements on this thread. Go read them and tell me what they say? The hard part for you is to admit what was said. Your problem not mine.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

I don't have a problem with anything of this, we have my statements as well.

Everybody is free to make up his own mind, right?

#FreeSpeech
#???



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pavil

Agreed, that would be laughable indeed.

You know what sophistry means, right? Right? ... Right?


But is is pretty easy. We have their statements on this thread. Go read them and tell me what they say? The hard part for you is to admit what was said. Your problem not mine.

I have read through from page 4.
What I have gathered is that there are people in the world that want to kill me because of what political ideas that I support.
There are also people out there that will defend them.

Head on a swivel would be a tip to follow, I suppose.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pavil

Agreed, that would be laughable indeed.

You know what sophistry means, right? Right? ... Right?


But is is pretty easy. We have their statements on this thread. Go read them and tell me what they say? The hard part for you is to admit what was said. Your problem not mine.

I have read through from page 4.
What I have gathered is that there are people in the world that want to kill me because of what political ideas that I support.
There are also people out there that will defend them.

Head on a swivel would be a tip to follow, I suppose.


All of these people making all of these excuses, and he fully admits to endorsing genocide, and calling for the elimination of all Nazi apologists (which he says Trump and his supporters are).

Me.

"Congratulations on being the first person on ATS I have seen openly call for the genocide of all supporters of a politician. "

His direct answer.


Wow... you have not been paying any attention if you think I am the first.


Admits he is calling for genocide, but says he is not the first.




I may be the first to openly call for the elimination of all Nazi apologists, but hardly the first to call for the destruction of an entire support base. You might want to look again.


Admits to openly call for the elimination of all trump supporters who he claims are nazi apologists. Adnits he is not the first to call for the destruction of an entire support base.

And look at how people try to justify this comment in any way possible, when the poster tells us blatantly that he is calling for the elimination of all Nazi apologists (which again he admits all trump supporters are nazi apologists).
edit on 22-8-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It was clear enough to me.
Defenders can do all the gymnastic pretzel-twisting that they want to, I know what I read and I am not comfortable with it.
So much for tolerance and love that lefties seem to espouse so often.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join