I'm Done With The Left's Nonsense

Yet another triggered cult member labelling antifa as being 50% of the US.

Are you KKK? Are you a Nazi? I suspect not. So stop making it all about alt left and alt right. There is a huge majority of people on the left, right, and centre, who aren't extremists. You're making the problem worse with your ridiculous labelling of 160 million people.

a reply to: fencesitter85

And what side are ou on...

...fencesitter85?

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Blarneystoner

The most vile human being on the planet? Wow, you haven't read much have you?

Just using the same vitriolic language as the OP... for effect.

And you don't know a god damned thing about me.

a reply to: FissionSurplus

While it really ticks me off for anyone to destroy historic monuments of any kind I can't help but chuckle at the irony of it all. The Left- especially the Far Left- have always been the biggest supporters of the arts (even what most would consider completely offensive works of art) and now they are going about destroying works of art that THEY have now considered offensive. They have always rallied and cried for support of Freedom of Speech (especially offensive speech) and now they rally and cry to ban any speech they find offensive.

Pot, meet kettle!

a reply to: Ridhya

I remember a time on ATS when threatening and demeaning your fellow members wasn't tolerated, but it's becoming the pathetic norm now. If you can't criticise actions without threats and insults then you're no better than your perceived enemies.

Look at you, contributing to the downfall of western civilization because you lack basic reading comprehension. I threatened nobody. I merely am raising the alarm that there are people on the right who are more than willing to shoot you if they get angry enough, and that time is almost here. This is a rant, BTW. Sometimes when people rant, they say stuff that might trigger the more sensitive among us (hint hint).

One minute to midnight. This destruction of history is a trigger on both sides, and, if I have to step back and observe globalist strategy, a darned good one. It's been used before. I just never thought it would happen in the United States.

a reply to: Fools

Well, I have no major argument with the Republican Party in general, as their actual platform (taken in total) is really sort of moderate. It may right of center, but not really that much. As is the official platform of the Democratic party (taken in total) just a little left of center.

That's not to say there are not radical ideas or radically far-left and far-right personalities on both sides.

Or in the case of the President, just whacked-out personalities. His antics would be entertaining if he wasn't the President. I can appreciate his message about changing the established ways of doing things in Washington, but he is his own worst enemy when it comes to conveying that message coherently to the world. His conveyance of any valid message he may have (and I think he has one somewhere) is decidedly incoherent.

Having said that, you are right that whomever the 2020 Republican nominee will be (and I bet it won't be President Trump) will most likely NOT have ever applauded a white nationalist group, but at the same time they may have never overtly disavowed them, either. That's something that needs to be done. If Mitt Romney is the nominee (really, I think he is angling toward another go at it) or Paul Ryan, I think either of them are moderate enough, and can attract enough moderate voters, that they would speak out strongly against "white power" groups.

Similarly, I wouldn't say that Kamala Harris has ever applauded any violent actions taken by BLM or Antifa...BUT ALSO SIMILARLY, I bet she hasn't overtly disavowed BLM or Antifa in regards to any violent actions they incited. She may have spoken out against those groups committing violence, but you are right in saying she hasn't gone as far as to publicly criticize the core of those groups (especially BLM) for incubating an environment for any violence that is committed in their name.


You may ask "why is it that the Republican nominee needs to 100% disavow white supremacy groups, but a Democratic nominee merely needs to disavow the violence enacted by BLM, and not the group itself?". That's because of moral equivalency.

While both white supremacists and BLM members have the equal constitutional rights to believe in the different ideologies that they both believe, and be a part of any legal group they want to be a part of, that's not the same as saying that there is a moral equivalency between the ideology of each group.

That's the important distinction that the President's Charlottesville message seemed to miss. And I think a distinction that either the President is oblivious to, or does not have the ability to articulate.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Ridhya
Well worth alerting mods... If this gets to the front page then I think the whole internet is rigged!

Yay! I control the internet, although I can barely turn on a computer. Quite the compliment, thank you.

Well at least the Taliban wont have to blow up your monuments imbeciles within your community will do that for them,the USA doesn't own all the worlds imbeciles though, 2 councils in my country have cancelled Australia day as it hurts aboriginal sensativities.As per the US the charge is being led by the greens and loony left.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: FissionSurplus

The time of tribulation is coming. Way to go, Marxist dummies. You pissed off the people who can put a bullet between your eyes from quite a ways away. Enjoy your revolution

Who we gonna shoot FissionSurplus?

I'm not going to shoot anybody. We have some neighbors around that have won world tournaments for shooting, I'll leave that to them.

I simply want the destruction STOPPED. Knee-jerk reactionaries destroying old art needs to stop until we sit down and decide, as a nation, which is our best course of action. I doubt that will happen though. This type of destruction is akin to locusts covering a field and stripping it clean, and then moving on, leaving nothing behind.

originally posted by: Tekaran
I was thinking the other day about - What if we righties just walk away from all this garbage and let them tear down all they want to without saying a word. Then I realized that, the lefties would just cry and complain - "The Right hates America and no longer cares!" You can't win arguments against weak minded children.

I thought I had walked away when I bugged out a few years ago. But I cannot stand destruction of 'antiquities' (here in the US, anything older than 100 years is an antiquity), even if I have negative views towards the subject matter. We have so few things in this country from the past, compared to other countries.

a reply to: Grambler

You are correct, as usual. I don't want ANY of this. I keep flashing back to some news I saw last week right before I went to sleep. An antifa member was being interviewed as she was marching, and she said, "Y'all better pick a side. NOW!"

I was a leftie, before they went all baseball batty, pepper sprayey, and destructive. Now I'm a Libertarian, but my feeling, whether or not it may be correct, is that we are being forced into two camps. If this occurs, I might as well align with the camp I am most comfortable with...and the one with more guns, bullets, and ways to snag forest interlopers.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Do you know how many on FB unfriended me because I didn't agree with their hatred of the president, and cried over Hillary losing? There may be only 1% on TV showing their violence, but many more hide in the shadows. My unscientific analysis...more like a feeling.....is that the country is solidly divided in half. Truly heartbreaking.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Your argument is interesting. In that same vein, we should erect new monuments to continue America's legacy of violence. Statues of Adam Lanza, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy. They can be works of art we can revere forever and ever. After all, most of us weren't affected by them personally, so it's okay.

For real? That's not the same vein at all, that's just ghoulish and weird. I think I made it very clear the last thing I feel for Columbus is reverence. I admire the art. You're in a vein somewhere by the backside, I'm in an artery by the heart.

How many people wore tee shirts with Che Guevara on them, even though he was a murderous thug? It's art, the pic is cool, although the person is not.

But whatever, thanks for your input. It gives me greater insight into excuses people will use to trash history's relics.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

BINGO. We HAVE to remember history. I believe that's why Auschwitz is a tourist attraction.....to remember atrocities, and not to repeat them. This is not rocket science.

For our UK readers:

Remember, remember,
the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder treason and plot;
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot!

a reply to: jephers0n

Fair enough. We are all humans, we all look the same on the inside. However, I am a bit of a nationalist, and I am probably a product of my own childhood indoctrination as a citizen of the United States. Not such a cool thing to be any more. My mother and her husband (from Portugal) travel around the world and will speak Portuguese, because Americans are treated really badly in many places.

We have so little history and so few old things. That is my own fondness for history and art. I do love this country so. To see this all going down is a bit much for me.

originally posted by: FissionSurplus
In 2017, we should be BEYOND DNA.....beyond what color we are......we should be all Americans. .

We should be...

all noble and perfect and pure.

But, it turns out, we ain't.

And when one side falters, the other side follows.

We are only as strong as our weakest link.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: FissionSurplus

This is what you get when outside influences like George Soros divides our nation. The next move is to come in amid the chaos and buy things for penny on the dollar.

This isn't an alt-right vs alt-left thing. This is an elite deep state taking us over thing.

Correct. However, a rose, by any other name...is still a rose. The point is to divide and conquer. Sadly, it's working.

If it were up to me, I would just tell everybody to go home, love their families or even their pets if they have them, and stop tearing stuff up. But that's not how stuff works in real life. The game is afoot, the chess pieces are moving, and the pawns (whether paid or unpaid) are doing exactly as they are told.

I sit on the mountain and watch.....and wait.....in the mean time, the idiocy has infected many people. I still maintain so many are so consumed with hatred towards Trump that they took a hard left into Looney Town without realizing it.

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: Fools

Well, I have no major argument with the Republican Party in general, as their actual platform (taken in total) is really sort of moderate. It may right of center, but not really that much. As is the official platform of the Democratic party (taken in total) just a little left of center.

That's not to say there are not radical ideas or radically far-left and far-right personalities on both sides.

Or in the case of the President, just whacked-out personalities. His antics would be entertaining if he wasn't the President. I can appreciate his message about changing the established ways of doing things in Washington, but he is his own worst enemy when it comes to conveying that message coherently to the world. His conveyance of any valid message he may have (and I think he has one somewhere) is decidedly incoherent.

Having said that, you are right that whomever the 2020 Republican nominee will be (and I bet it won't be President Trump) will most likely NOT have ever applauded a white nationalist group, but at the same time they may have never overtly disavowed them, either. That's something that needs to be done. If Mitt Romney is the nominee (really, I think he is angling toward another go at it) or Paul Ryan, I think either of them are moderate enough, and can attract enough moderate voters, that they would speak out strongly against "white power" groups.

Similarly, I wouldn't say that Kamala Harris has ever applauded any violent actions taken by BLM or Antifa...BUT ALSO SIMILARLY, I bet she hasn't overtly disavowed BLM or Antifa in regards to any violent actions they incited. She may have spoken out against those groups committing violence, but you are right in saying she hasn't gone as far as to publicly criticize the core of those groups (especially BLM) for incubating an environment for any violence that is committed in their name.


You may ask "why is it that the Republican nominee needs to 100% disavow white supremacy groups, but a Democratic nominee merely needs to disavow the violence enacted by BLM, and not the group itself?". That's because of moral equivalency.

While both white supremacists and BLM members have the equal constitutional rights to believe in the different ideologies that they both believe, and be a part of any legal group they want to be a part of, that's not the same as saying that there is a moral equivalency between the ideology of each group.

That's the important distinction that the President's Charlottesville message seemed to miss. And I think a distinction that either the President is oblivious to, or does not have the ability to articulate.

The error in that logic, is in you thinking that "moral equivalency" can be anything other than subjective.

Morals are different from person to person, so therefore they cannot be a standard to judge by.

Violence is universal. So that's all you CAN condemn, and be truly honest about it.

What the President did was 100% correct. He did in fact walk the middle ground. Condemn both, and you've condemned each. It was absolutely ridiculous he had to come out two days later and clarify. No, SINGLE OUT, for the sake of the left.

If I was President, I would have walked out there on my 2nd statement, and said :

"I cannot believe that I'm actually being asked to clarify my previous statement. So, I'm not going to. I said what I said, and that's all I'm going to say. I'm not going to coddle any of you. You all know what I said was correct, yet it's not good enough for you. Too bad. They were both wrong. Have a good day"

Press conference over in 2 minutes, and free press for the next month.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: FissionSurplus

Done with this and that, so done I'm starting a thread about it.

Jealousy is an ugly thing. I'm sorry you missed my message.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

His racially charged rhetoric

Huh? I have never heard the president say anything negative about race. This is one of many accusations that the left uses to excuse their hatred. You are told by the Bobble-Head Dem politicians that he is a racist, and y'all run with it. I HAVE heard Hillary say negative things about blacks, and I just LOVE the picture of her and Bill when he was governor of Arkansas in black face for Halloween.

If you hate him, that's your business. But to parrot lies.....yikes.

This is the key to the globalist agenda. So nazi-esque. If you repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it to be a fact.

How many people are running around fretting because some ignoramus politician here in Georgia said that we shouldn't put too much on the island of Guam because it'll tip over from the weight?