MEDIA advocates for violence... again.

[Martymark]

Resorting to violence means that your ideas are bad and can't convince anyone any other way but terrorism. Antifa's bad ideas for example.

[Doctor Amadeus]

How are they trying to incite civil war?

So I need to pull up the one with the Good Looking raven haired woman talking about taking up arms and enough being enough. Do I have to do your homework for you?




This Nut Job

[Ghostpanther]

So I need to pull up the one with the Good Looking raven haired woman talking about taking up arms and enough being enough. Do I have to do your homework for you?




This Nut Job

Not only do I think she is hot, but right. They are pushing for the Second Amendment and the right of the people to defend themselves with firearms. In no way inciting a civil war. That is fear mongering at the best.

[Elba]

Resorting to violence means that your ideas are bad and can't convince anyone any other way but terrorism.

Washington should just have petitioned King George. Stauffenberg should just have had a nice chat with Hitler.

Antifa's bad ideas for example.

Fascism is wrong is a bad idea?

[Ghostpanther]

Resorting to violence means that your ideas are bad and can't convince anyone any other way but terrorism. Antifa's bad ideas for example.

Ohh...Great example! Thanks, good to see a poster here with some common sense.

[Elba]

So I need to pull up the one with the Good Looking raven haired woman talking about taking up arms and enough being enough. Do I have to do your homework for you?

Snip

This Nut Job

Oh hey, it's white ISIS.

[Doctor Amadeus]

More accurate, more choices, etc.

- - - Updated - - -



It is the search engine I use. If you are thinking of other motives, well, you should not let your imagination run away if that is the case.

And you do know Bing is run by Microsoft. A well known left liberal organization. lol

No, I am just saying a bunch of people standing around in black and masks does not a major threat of any kind make. I am in no way diminishing the kind of idiotic tactics that have been called out.

But if you are going to preface do your homework and then suggest what search engine to use for it, then you aren't even sort of coming off objective, because if you google any information you find in bing will be in google, except google has better results and clearly defined context for what you are seeing.


It's not just some BS footage of some guy in MAGA hat politely going about his way. It's typically instigators on the far right agitating fights and then flipping on a camera trying to create a narrative.

[Elba]

Ohh...Great example! Thanks, good to see a poster here with some common sense.

If you think this way, why didn't you give that example when I asked you?

[Tiwack]

Resorting to violence means that your ideas are bad and can't convince anyone any other way but terrorism. Antifa's bad ideas for example.

Because violence never occurred out of sheer anger and frustration at the situation... Meaning that 1 guy can tarnish the image of a group of thousands protesting peacefully because he got worked up and lost his temper to a taunt. Violence doesn't benefit or detract from the message. It merely underlines the problem at hand and that "sitting on it" won't be acceptable much longer without action.

[Ghostpanther]

No, I am just saying a bunch of people standing around in black and masks does not a major threat of any kind make. I am in no way diminishing the kind of idiotic tactics that have been called out.

But if you are going to preface do your homework and then suggest what search engine to use for it, then you aren't even sort of coming off objective, because if you google any information you find in bing will be in google, except google has better results and clearly defined context for what you are seeing.


It's not just some BS footage of some guy in MAGA hat politely going about his way. It's typically instigators on the far right agitating fights and then flipping on a camera trying to create a narrative.

The narrative they are creating is there are many who would take that right away if they could. You see it all the time. Their objective is to be a advocate for the Second Amendment rights. Just as other groups are for different parts of the Constitution.

[Citizen T]

Pretty surprising, always figured they got special treatment and protection like that.

The cost of providing this would be quite exorbitant. A minimum of a 3 man detail would be required and likely 5 to allow for sickness/vacation, etc. Somewhere between 300 and 500 protective detail agents would be required. Then of course the House would cry and say they need protective details as well and then they cost would skyrocket as that would require another 1300 to 2000 agents. This would come pretty close to doubling the current number of special agents in the Secret Service. Some would say that a single bodyguard would suffice but that would be little more than creating a dog and pony show. It would only prevent something like a confrontation at a restaurant with almost no protection against someone that actually intends to harm the protectee.

[Ghostpanther]

Because violence never occurred out of sheer anger and frustration at the situation... Meaning that 1 guy can tarnish the image of a group of thousands protesting peacefully because he got worked up and lost his temper to a taunt. Violence doesn't benefit or detract from the message. It merely underlines the problem at hand and that "sitting on it" won't be acceptable much longer without action.

Then those who resort to violence can suffer the consequences of it. The sad truth is, too many times, it is the innocent who suffer because of their actions.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The narrative they are creating is there are many who would take that right away if they could. You see it all the time. Their objective is to be a advocate for the Second Amendment rights. Just as other groups are for different parts of the Constitution.

Not from that video they aren't and it goes right to the point, you can condone that video then cry murder about Face the Nation.

[Tiwack]

Then those who resort to violence can suffer the consequences of it. The sad truth is, too many times, it is the innocent who suffer because of their actions.

and standing-by in silence often benefits the tormentor instead of the tormented.

[Daelak]

Then those who resort to violence can suffer the consequences of it. The sad truth is, too many times, it is the innocent who suffer because of their actions.

Same was said when black people started marching and rioting in the south in the face of extreme police and white civilian brutality. When you are discrediting the legitimacy of a social movement or defend "law and order" over fellow citizens redressing their government, you are on the wrong side.

[Ghostpanther]

Not from that video they aren't and it goes right to the point, you can condone that video then cry murder about Face the Nation.

I disagree. You are seeing in that video what you want to see. I guess you can claim the same for me, but so be it. I like it, you hate it.

- - - Updated - - -

and standing-by in silence often benefits the tormentor instead of the tormented.

I was not advocating not doing anything. There are many options available under the Constitution. One thing which comes to mind is the upcoming Congressional Mid terms elections.

[Daelak]

I was not advocating not doing anything. There are many options available under the Constitution. One thing which comes to mind is the upcoming Congressional Mid terms elections.

And if you lived in Jim Crow south, or a more apt comparison, the gerrymandered south, your voice is minimized and suppressed via voter ID laws. The same segregationist pressure still exists, and will use unconstitutional means to get their results.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The cost of providing this would be quite exorbitant. A minimum of a 3 man detail would be required and likely 5 to allow for sickness/vacation, etc. Somewhere between 300 and 500 protective detail agents would be required. Then of course the House would cry and say they need protective details as well and then they cost would skyrocket as that would require another 1300 to 2000 agents. This would come pretty close to doubling the current number of special agents in the Secret Service. Some would say that a single bodyguard would suffice but that would be little more than creating a dog and pony show. It would only prevent something like a confrontation at a restaurant with almost no protection against someone that actually intends to harm the protectee.

Nice break down and detail, never knew the size of the Secret Service either. Although in addition to what I said, I would always suppose like making idiotic death threats to the president, or injuring or killing a cop, assaulting an elected representatives elected to serve the people I would imagine in and of itself in addition to the serious issues one would have with assaulting anybody especially premeditated, that year a Senator would probably a kiss the rest of your life goodbye action.

The point being that any lunatic attempting to attack Rand Paul especially for political reasons, is likely not well, or has a serious axe to grind, maybe both. So considering the circumstances and Paul is likely to have access that everyone else doesn't to protect himself, I think the question put to him on Face the Nation are completely with in line and in no way a threat or anyone suggesting it is A Ok to assault anybody much less Rand Paul.

[Deleted]

In b4 all the lefties on the forum come up with excuses for "hurr durr nazis deserve to be punched"...

...oh wait. I'm late again. Just read the first reply.

[Tiwack]

I was not advocating not doing anything. There are many options available under the Constitution. One thing which comes to mind is the upcoming Congressional Mid terms elections.

I was merely saying not to dismiss people or their ideas over the fact that violence has already ensued because of them. If anything it should make you open your mind to consider what they're really saying.