Wednesday, August 16, 2017

The 3-Step Argument the Left Makes to Justify Violence Against Conservative Speakers

I ran across this article today which further clarifies a point I have been making for awhile now.  Let me state at the outset that most folks on the Left are good and decent folks and do not support nor advocate these type of tactics; however, there is a significant and growing number of other folks on the Left that think the ends justifies the means.  These are the folks that we should all unite against together to publicly denounce and marginalize them, just as we should do for the KKK, Neo-Nazi's and other hate groups from the Right.

We, as Americans, enjoy the constitutionally-enshrined right to free speech, even when that speech is deemed offensive by others.  Indeed, non-offensive speech with which everyone agreed would not ever need to be protected by a constitutional amendment.  That is not to say that we should accept or not challenge repugnant free speech.  We absolutely should and indeed have a moral duty to do so. That said, when we have become so tender as to not even want to hear opposing view points, are we not thereby weakening ourselves and our own convictions?

Enjoy!


The 3-Step Argument the Left Makes to Justify Violence Against Conservative Speakers

By Ben Shapiro

Free speech is under assault because of a three-step argument made by the advocates and justifiers of violence.
The first step is they say that the validity or invalidity of an argument can be judged solely by the ethnic, sexual, racial, or cultural identity of the person making the argument.
The second step is that they claim those who say otherwise are engaging in what they call “verbal violence,” and the final step is they conclude that physical violence is sometimes justified in order to stop such verbal violence.
So let’s examine each of these three steps in turn. First, the philosophy of intersectionality. This philosophy now dominates college campuses as well as a large segment, unfortunately, of today’s Democratic Party and suggests that straight, white Americans are inherently the beneficiaries of white privilege and therefore cannot speak on certain policies, since they have not experienced what it’s like to be black or Hispanic or gay or transgender or a woman.
This philosophy ranks the value of a view, not based on the logic or merit of the view, but on the level of victimization in American society experienced by the person espousing the view. Therefore, if you’re an LGBT black woman, your view of American society is automatically more valuable than that of a straight, white male.
 Read more...


43 comments:

TB3 said...

Oh, look. An article whining about people pulling out the victim card is, itself, pulling the victim card. You should add the 'Irony' label to this post, Mr. Paine.

And honestly, what we need to be 'uniting against' is the KKK and Neo-Nazis, not spending time trying to find a perceived left-leaning analogue so we can fall into an ourosboros of whataboutism/both sides do it arguements. A bunch of college kids wanting social justice on campuses is not on the same level as white nationalists marching in the streets with tiki torches.

Darrell Michaels said...

Thanks for your comment TB3.

And for what it is worth, I absolutely agree with you that we should ALL be uniting against the KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Westboro Baptist Church, and all other groups that espouse hate and/or violence. Do you think that Black Lives Matter, SEIU, Earth Liberation Front, and so forth should be exempt from our condemnation when they resort to hate, property destruction, and violence? Or are left wing groups exempt because you agree more with their ideology, sir?

Last, I have no problems with college kids protesting on campus for social justice or other perceived slights against them. What I have a problem with is the chilling effect against free speech, freedom of assembly, and simple law and order, when their protests turn to extreme vandalism, the throwing of Molotov cocktails like at Berkeley, and actual physical violence perpetrated against others when their "safe zones" are supposedly violated by someone with a different opinion. If one's views are so fragile that they cannot withstand an opposing view point from a college speaker, then that suggests to me that they are not getting the education they presumably think they are. It is sad when some of our leftist brothers and sisters espouse diversity in all things... except in ideological view points. So much for broadening their minds through education!

Cheers!

TB3 said...

BLM is a twitter campaign. SEIU is a labor union. And out of left field you bring up The Earth Liberation Front, which is a group of Eco-Terrorists. So a labor union and social justice advocacy campaign are lumped together with Eco-Terrorists in your book. I guess that's the only way you can make the collective as a whole be comparable to neo nazis and KKKers? What actions of the SEIU and BLM am I excempting that can compare to a man driving his Dodge into a group of counter protestors or to a group of people chanting about how the Jews won't replace them?

As far as Berkley U. is concerned, you're right. What happened when Mr. Yiannopoulos was going to speak there was terrible. Discourse should never flirt with that level is virtiol. It seems though in this instance it wasn't the college kids perpetrating the violence, but an outside group that came onto campus. Maybe you should have listed By Any Means Necessary to your list instead of ELF? It's terribly ironic/unfortunate that happened on the Campus where the Free Speech Movement was founded in the '60s. To your point; Who exempted/excused what happened at Berkley, though? It appears like it was universally condemned.

This event had nothing to do with Mr. Shapiro though, but I'm sure it influenced the cancellation of some appearances of his. My original point, stands. It's ironic that an individual is decrying people crying victim by crying victim themselves.

Majormajor said...

Golly, who would have thought?

Evidence is turning up from, of all places, the Southern Poverty Law Center, as well as Breitbart and others, that this character, Jason Kessler, who organized the suspicious and supposed Alt-Right demonstration in Charlottesville, Va. that blew up in everyone's face, is a cunning lefty holdover from the Occupy Wall Street movement and a former Barack Obama supporter. I smell Soros money, sabotage, and Democrat dirty tricks here.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/08/something_stinks_about_charlottesville.html#ixzz4q1JJtGK2
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

TB3 said...

MM,

You really have to step into the light of day. Take off the tin foil, uncoil the string from the pinboard, and just think about what you read.

Soros money? You sure the lizard people weren't involved? The Illuminati?

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jason-kessler

woodenman said...

You gotta admit that Liberals are crafty, all one of them has to do is convince a bunch of Conservatives to get together and they will make them selfs look like psychopaths by attacking and killing anyone not like them. Ha Ha!

It is interesting to note that people were peacefully protesting Trump a few months ago and 226 of them were arrested for Felony Riot, graciously signed by Obama just before he left office. Now they are facing 80 years in jail.

Meanwhile the police in this latest incident stood around and did nothing as as the Conservatives attacked the Liberal counter protesters and there were almost no arrest at an actual riot!

Darrell Michaels said...

I am trying to catch up with comments this morning. Things are busy, so I might not be able to do so though. Cheers to all!

BLM is a twitter campaign. Really? I think you need to look harder at all of the violence and incitement of violence that they have been responsible for from Ferguson to Baltimore, and to cop shootings to "get even" from Dallas to Baton Rouge. http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/author-black-lives-matter-encourages-kkk-like-violence/
https://www.infowars.com/video-black-lives-matter-rioters-target-whites-for-beat-downs/
http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/16/corporate-disavowal-black-lives-matter/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVdNMU1UazJNakExTkdObCIsInQiOiJFS3BYYVJqR0hkZTFuQXBrUlV1RHpJZ1V1T1lrcUVsNG93MUJPZklHNG1CVUVrR2p6QjVxZG14TlFjUGxEbVlrczdsblh2eXpURlwvNFFxcjltM1E5NmcwK0xabnliRmNXUVVMQjdwdTg0QkpsSkRKbzJIVEZtajVZZFJrUDQydE4ifQ%3D%3D


SEIU and some other unions regularly employ violence too.
http://www.redstate.com/diary/laborunionreport/2010/03/02/the-seiu-and-union-violence-when-will-the-violence-stop-mr-stern/
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/4/22/500786/-

And in the end, I don't care if there is one violent group on the left and twenty on the right. All of them need to be condemned and marginalized unequivocally by all of us.

I am not a victim. I am not a part of the snowflake agenda where everyone is offended and everyone is intimidated, and therefore must have safe spaces. I simply think we all need to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. And, when people act evilly, they should be called out for it... regardless of where they land on the political spectrum. Surely you will agree to such a reasonable suggestion, right?

Darrell Michaels said...

Majormajor, for what it is worth, I found the article to be quite interesting and bearing further investigation. I have found the American Thinker site to typically be very thoughtful in what it publishes and not simply a red meat site, so that frankly lends credibility in my eyes. We shall see.

As I noted elsewhere, there were four arrests made in Charlottesville. Two were protesters, and two were counter-protesters. For Dubya's edification, I condemn and blame the violent white racists as well as the violent counter-protesters.

Darrell Michaels said...

Woodeman, for the record, my brand of conservatism has no place for racists, nee-Nazi's, or KKK members in it. If that is truly what your definition of a conservative is, then by your definition, I am no longer one.

As for "peaceful protests" after Trump's election by non-violent leftists, do you mean like the ones in Portland, Oregon on May Day?

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/portland_may_day_demonstration.html

As for Charlottesville, the police should have made sure that the racist protesters and the counter protesters remained in separate areas of the city or at least physically separated from each other.

Majormajor said...

Mr. Paine,

You see in the responses by Woody and TB3 to the American Thinker article three of Alinsky 12 rules for radicals.. I doubt they are even aware of using them as they have become so embedded into the political speech of the left, that they are second nature.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

I find the American Thinker to be spot on 99% of the time, hence their use of Rule 5. What is happening is that anything that is remotely Conservative is labeled by the left as racist, Nazi, unAmerican, etc.

Rule 8 is what is being done to President Trump by the left, even with his faults, he is heads above HRC.

The left has one objective and that is the elimination of any view point other than their own to gain total unopposed political power and control.

As I've said before, liberalism can not compete in the free market place of ideas. I fear the left of today much more than the private sector taking our freedoms from us. Their reaction to this post will bare this out.

TB3 said...

Mr. Paine,

Thank you for those articles. Like you, today's busy, busy! So I'll rummage through those in due time.

But I feel compelled to respond to MM,

I haven't the slightest idea what those rules are referring to. Are you suggesting I'm following some kind of strategy or campaign when I comment on your ridiculous assertion that because one of the organizers of the Alt-Right/White Supremacy Rally in Charlottesville once may have vaguely supported Obama in some manner, that it's an indication of a grand Soros false-flag plot? I truly do not understand how you can not recognized how deranged that sounds.

"The left has one objective and that is the elimination of any view point other than their own to gain total unopposed political power and control. "

I find this attitude troubling and sad. I do not adhere to many points of view that T.Paine espouses, but if I wanted only one view point, I'd never venture outside and engage people like T.Paine.

"As I've said before, liberalism can not compete in the free market place of ideas. I fear the left of today much more than the private sector taking our freedoms from us. Their reaction to this post will bare this out."

Partisan word salad. I think much of what you have said may fall under Rule 5, 8, and 10 that you referenced above. If I understand the context of those "rules".

Majormajor said...

TB3

Here's a few links to help you learn about 12 Rules for Radicals.

https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/alinskys-daughter-heres-the-truth-about-hillary-the-media-wont-tell-you

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/03/14/how%20saul%20alinsky%20taught%20barack%20obama%20everything%20he%20knows%20about%20civic%20upheaval/

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Alinsky and his organizing plan.

After checking these links, tell us what you have learned please.


Darrell Michaels said...

Rules for Radicals was the tome created by the militant left winger Saul Alinsky. It was purported as a way for the hyper-partisan left to marginalize, demonize, and destroy their opposition and get their agenda passed. The original version was even dedicated by Alinsky to Lucifer - the first radical.

As for TB3, Woodenman, Jerry Critter, and other well-intentioned friends of ours on the left that frequent my blog, I welcome them in debate and in good humor. As TB3 stated, he has started coming here, even though he does not share all of my viewpoints. It is the same reason I travel to left-wing blogs. It is good to listen to and try to understand view points different than one's own. It is how we think and grow. Sometimes, if a good irrefutable argument is made, I am even willing to change my mind and concede the point from our brothers and sisters on the left. Sometimes their views only serves to strengthen my own argument from the right. Regardless, debating ideas instead of name calling and demonization, as some are wont to do, is the only way we can move society forward as a whole. With human nature being what it is, a society and government that is monolithically left wing or right wing will soon fall to excesses and eventually atrocities from either side. We need to find a good balance and keep each side honest. Of course that side falls definitely in the middle of the right wing spectrum, in my humble opinion. :)

I welcome friends from the left to debate and challenge me and my allies on the right. Sometimes I am even wrong and when that occurs, I need to re-examine what lead me to me original failed conclusion. Of course that happens very rarely these days. :)

Dave Dubya said...

"Seldom wrong?"

Infowars? WND? LOL! How Trumpian.

Educators are evil because facts contradict far Right dogma.

Keep up the demonizing.

Just for the record. Liberals are sick of your fascistic demonizing, lies and projection.

You're Alinsky obsession reeks of Goebbels.

Take that.

Darrell Michaels said...

And along comes our buddy Dave Dubya as if to provide himself as an example of the true Alinsky acolytes of which we speak.

You realize that to find anything that isn't rabidly left-wing partisan, one cannot typically go to mainstream "objective" media sources, Dave.

If the NY Times doesn't approve of the source, it must be "Trumpian" to you.

And educators are not all evil. When they push forth and teach according to leftist agendas instead of teaching unadulterated science, un-revised history, economics, and civics, then they become suspect, yes!

I am married to an educator. She teaches at the local community college, and while she is assuredly more to the left than I am, she readily admits to the leftist bias she sees inserted into the curriculum of classes that are supposed to be apolitical in nature.

When people insist that our first grade kids should be taught "Heather has Two Mommies" and that eighth grade science students are taught the THEORY of anthropogenic global warming as if it is a scientific law, then yes, the political has overcome objective truth. While that may not initially be evil, it sure as hell always ends up that way when left to its own devices.

Last, I am pretty good anymore at not lumping all liberals into the same bucket. Most of the ones I have scorn for are the most hyper-partisan Leftists that refuse to even accept anyone to the right of Che Guevara as deserving of any respect. I will leave it up to you to decide where that places you, Mr. Dubya.

Majormajor said...

Look who is calling the lid black, it's DD fresh from his latest radical socialistic training class.

Hey DD, how's that Russian connection thing work for you? Is Uncle Bernie the richest socialist in the USA? Go Bernie go. LOL

Truth be told DD you are scared to death that the truth about your radical liberal agenda being exposed for what it is. So you call anything shinning the light of truth on you as "fascistic demonizing, lies and projection". I call you and your positions dangerous to America liberty.

Published any more attacks on Rain Truex, a moderate?

Show us some more of what you learned from good ole Saul A.

LOL!!

Majormajor said...



"BLM is a twitter campaign"

That's crazy talk.

TB3 said...

Ok, I've been able to dive into those articles. Not the Infowars article, though. They are too intellectually dishonest for me. It's like posting an article from The Onion as a source. In my opinion. Honestly all the sources are dubious (I'm not excluding Daily Kos from this). However, I wanted to discuss this using the sources you provided in good faith.

World Net Daily Article:

This article and the shooting it references doesn't prove your point. The shooter in this particular example was apparently a Sovereign Citizen and not a "member" of the BLM and there was no indication he was acting on something directly from BLM.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-lives-matter-sued-police-deadly-ambush-baton-rouge-deray-mckesson/

Daily Signal:

I had to grit my teeth to get through this one. Michelle Malkin? Really? In typical Michelle Malkin fashion, she neglects to cite sources to her assertions, so I went digging. This whole article was an indulgence in Whataboutism. She's attempting to minimize the tragedy in Charlottesville with her perceived hypocricies elsewhere. At the beginning about Taylor Lorenz getting assaulted in Charlottesville; I honestly can not find how she's I.D.ed him as ANTIFA. Seems like, at best, conjecture on her part. Further down where she's actually talking about BLM and connecting them to the shooting death of a Kentucky Trooper. Again, I had to go digging for information on this case. And again, in this example, no where is it reported the shooter was a "member" of or directed by BLM. Are we just assuming association with BLM because these people are black? She references the Baton Rouge incident, which I have already addressed.

I kinda really just want someone to point me to BLM ACTUALLY advocating for violence, rather than a bunch of right-wingers blog posts simply saying that BLM does this. I want to see them actually doing it rather than taking the word of someone with an agenda.

Your SEIU Links:

Unfortunately I couldn't dive too deep into the Redstate page, likely due to its age. Most of the hyperlinks they source don't work anymore, :(. I tried to google and research the incidents they referenced to look further into it, but failed to find them. Not arguing that they didn't happen, simply saying with the little info I had, I couldn't Sherlock my way past the dead links.

I'd just like to know, though, is when is violence perpetrated by members of a Union not condemned? You feel them exempt but, I'm confused with your addition of that Daily Kos article... which kinda shows a lot of condemnation for some of what the Red State article was describing.

We can condemn what happened in Charlottesville, T.Paine. It's ok. It doesn't mean other things perpetrated by others aren't getting condemned. We can say what happened in Charlottesville was horrendous and not resort to following that with, '....but, remember when these guys on the opposite side of the spectrum did this thing?' like we're playing some ideological game of Connect Four (Boringest version of Connect Four, btw).

And, I feel like I need to say this based on your last paragraph; I did not intend to imply that you were crying victim. If it was unclear, I was referring to the author of the article you posted, Ben Shapiro.

Majormajor said...

The Southern Poverty Law Center is no longer believable.

The end really does justify the means, even if it means throwing your allies under the bus.

TB3 said...

Re: Rules for Radicals,

Thank you. I have been oblivious to this. I was kind of wondering why I kept seeing Saul Alinsky's name getting dropped like I was supposed to know who that was. Only ever saw the name mentioned on right-leaning sites I frequent.

I guess I'll have to read the book in order to understand what MM was getting at in his response about me. Kind of ironic I learn about a source for the rules for hyper-partisan left from folks squarely not on the left side.

TB3 said...

Re: SPLC,

MM, why do you think this?

Dave Dubya said...

As I've said before, liberalism can not compete in the free market place of ideas.

Sounds like "Just the facts".

Poll after poll shows most Americans support progressive policies from unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security, marriage equality, universal health care, taxing the rich. cannabis decriminalization, and most of all, opposing Trump.

However cons have greater per-capita representation in the federal government. Because of this they think they are a majority. Sorry. Trump is our nation's reward for this flaw in American democracy.

But we all know Major shops only in a very small and narrow "marketplace of ideas".

Again, facts, who needs 'em when you are con-servative.

Majormajor said...

TB#

I'm glad I was able to further your education about the left. I have no idea why both a conservative and liberal publication would agree on something like the radical left shock troops presence at Charlottesville, VA. But taking how far apart they are on the political spectrum, that they both agree, well, kind of says something doesn't it?

DD, sounds just like the truth.
BTW who is "we", got a mouse in your pocket?

TB3 said...

MM,
You should probably tone down on the rhetoric. Shock troops?

Majormajor said...

Mr. Paine

Should we start listing again the hate and violence of the left towards anyone to the right of them?

A Missouri state senator said in a now-deleted Facebook post that she hopes President Donald Trump is assassinated.

Maria Chappelle-Nadal acknowledged on Thursday that she wrote a post which read: “I hope Trump is assassinated!”

She made the comment in an exchange with a left-wing activist who claimed that his cousin is a Secret Service agent.

Majormajor said...

TB3,
Sure, I'll tone down the rhetoric, except what would you call Antifa, the liberal left wing Peace Core members?

Any name you prefer, just let me know.

TB3 said...

Antifa? I suppose you could call them whatever it is the name that they are called normally? I don't quite understand the question.

I also do no understand how Peace Corps is now involved in this conversation...? You're pretty much all over the place aren't you?

Majormajor said...

TB3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

Antifa is a far-left militant[2] political movement of autonomous, self-described anti-fascist groups in the United States.[3][4][5] The term is loosely used to refer to anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobia, as well as anarchist and anti-capitalist groups.[6] Unlike the traditional left, the over-riding aim of self-described Antifa groups is to oppose fascism. These groups are usually anti-government and anti-capitalist, and their methodologies are often perceived as more closely aligned with anarchists than the mainstream left.[2]

According to The Economist, the "word Antifa has its roots in Anti-Fascist Action, a name taken up by European political movements in the 1930s" and which was revived in the 1990s, particularly in Germany.[7][8] Peter Beinart writes that "In the late ’80s, left-wing punk fans in the United States began following suit, though they initially called their groups Anti-Racist Action, on the theory that Americans would be more familiar with fighting racism than fascism."[9] Antifa groups are known for militant protest tactics, including property damage and, sometimes, physical violence.[10][11][12][3] Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy.[2]

So what would you call them if not shock troops for the militant left?

woodenman said...

This is not looking too good, we have Brownshirts in the streets, a president that supports them and the police look the other way as the they run amuck. Is this the beginning of 1939 all over again?

The Conservatives are predisposed to support the Brownshirts because they share similar goals, they both want to take their country back from brown people. Since Liberals are not of the same mindset, we are the enemy also. Of course there are many other differences between the Cons and the Libs but through out the South if you are against the Black man you will get a pat on the back.

Ever since the year 2000 the US has been turning into a hell hole, we kill more people in more countries than all the countries of the world. Now the hell we exported abroad is coming home and I can not say we do not deserve it.


Majormajor said...

Woody,

How many times does President Trump have to disavow and in the harshest terms the neo Nazis? How many times?


"The Conservatives are predisposed to support the Brownshirts because they share similar goals, they both want to take their country back from brown people."
Playing the race card 1.1

Majormajor said...


The Rise of the Violent Left

Antifa’s activists say they’re battling burgeoning authoritarianism on the American right. Are they fueling it instead?


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

TB3 said...

I know what Antifa is. I was answering your question on what to call them. They have a name. Calling them shock troops is hyperbolic and not helpful to discourse and discussion.

Also, I find it surprising that you're referring to an organization with the words 'Anti-Fascist' in their name disparagingly. I am comforted to know my relatives who fought against fascists aren't alive to see 'Anti-fascist' trying to be used as a slur.

Majormajor said...

TB3

So you agree then that Antifa is a violent radical left wing group who attacks anyone and any group they disagree with under the disguise of calling them Nazis or Fascist? ANTIFA’s main tactic is chaos, shouting down anyone with whom they disagree with calls of fascist, racist, bigot, etc.

The problem is it is they are breaking the law, do the ends really justify the means? Whats your take in the article from the Atlantic?

While doing research on Antifa I found that their funding comes mainly from George Soros, and thus, they get paid to be a “fly in the ointment.”

"The problem with ANTIFA is, by and large, they are representing the new face of the Democratic Party. There is no longer disagreement on issues. You are allowed to agree with the left, or you are immediately shouted down as a racist, bigot, or the like. There is no middle ground. They are totalitarian in their efforts. It’s victory or death with them." (AFA.net)

This is an address to websites that list the money and people behind Antifa.

https://www.google.com/search?q=whjo+funds+antifa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Look, I understand the shock and dismay liberals felt after HRC and the DNC cheated Bernie out of the nomination. (plus there are the rumors that the DNC/HRC bought Bernie off) Blame the DNC Establishment for that not Conservatives or the GOP. President Trump beat HRC because she was the worse candidate of a major party since Carter or Dole. In a word, she was awful.

As time goes on the depth of the Clinton Machine criminal behavior will become known, as will the help the Obama administration provided HRC. (Can you say tarmac meeting)

Here's the problem now facing liberals, the left, the DNC, and progressives.
As I quoted above, Antifa is becoming their collective face, and regardless of their claim to be against fascism, their actions are worse than any Nazi, WS group's actions in the past 75 years. Middle America knows this. It's on the news.

Darrell Michaels said...

Woodenman, your last comment is a little over the top. There has always been a very small minority of folks that identify with the KKK and white supremacists. That number in these days has reached a level that is truly insignificant were it not for the coverage that our "objective" media gives them. They really are very small fringe groups, thank God!
Their ascendancy, despite all of the fervor being whipped up, truly is not gaining.

Most conservatives do NOT want to "take our country back from brown people". We want a reform of our immigration laws and to ensure that everyone that is here has come here legally and not for nefarious purposes. Is that really so awful? When folks are here illegally hiding in the shadows they are easily exploited and abused. Their options for work are either in labor intensive low paying jobs, often under the table, or to resort to criminality. If we revised our immigration laws so that otherwise law-abiding folks could work here legally with a green card doing the jobs that the rest of us lazy Americans will no longer do, then we could bring them out of the shadows and prevent their exploitation. The status quo and establishment of sanctuary cities is certainly not the best answer. We certainly need to secure our borders far better than we do. The poor people being smuggled into America who are seeking a better economic opportunity are nothing compared to the ISIS vermin that have sneaked in with evil intent. That will absolutely come back to haunt us in a major way eventually.

And while the wisdom of some of our overseas military campaigns can be reasonably debated, there were some situations that if we didn't address would only fester and become bigger "hell holes" for that area and for us eventually. This whole Jeremiah Wright "chickens coming home to roost" thing is nothing more than bovine excrement, sir. Those evil bastards that target innocent civilians will continue to do so whether we leave them alone or not. I give you the attacks in Spain yesterday as the most recent example, my friend.

Darrell Michaels said...

"How many times does President Trump have to disavow and in the harshest terms the neo Nazis? How many times?" ~ Majormajor

Woodenman and TB3, this is a good point brought up by Majormajor. I have repeatedly heard it reported and seen the interviews where Trump has always disavowed racists and such even back into his campaign days where he disavowed David Duke repeatedly. That said, why do so many folks, particularly on the left, think he is a racist? I am not being sarcastic with this question but truly want to know. Is there something I have missed along the way? Some event or statement or action by Trump that causes this accusation? Can you direct me to a legitimate source documenting his racism? I truly would like to investigate this. I don't know if Trump is a racist in truth or he is simply being characterized as such because he calls himself a conservative and is thus branded as a racist accordingly by the fringe left. I have seen enough, from the right and left, where a lie repeatedly told will take on the air of truth for those that want to believe it.

As I have said, I did not vote for Trump and frankly despise his arrogant and foolish behavior. I am certainly not emotionally invested in defending him, but would simply like to understand if there is a truthful basis for this accusation that is repeated ad nauseum.

Darrell Michaels said...

"I find it surprising that you're referring to an organization with the words 'Anti-Fascist' in their name disparagingly. I am comforted to know my relatives who fought against fascists aren't alive to see 'Anti-fascist' trying to be used as a slur." ~ TB3

I think it is safe to say that all of us in this current debate are truly against fascism. That said, some of the anti-fascists sure do seem to be willing to use fascist techniques to promote their own agenda. Simply calling ones' self antifa does not necessarily make it so. A name can be highly inaccurate as to the truth of the matter. I give you the Affordable Care Act as a prime example.

Darrell Michaels said...

Folks, I am probably going to be very busy for the remainder of this weekend so any comments or questions directed to me will have to wait for Tuesday probably before I can get back to them. I simply didn't want to "disappear" and appear uninterested in the current discussion. Cheers to you all and if I don't get back here today, have a great weekend!

Dave Dubya said...


why do so many folks, particularly on the left, think he is a racist?

This has been answered and met with outright hate and lies by Major.

Nobody heard of antifa before Trump. They are not the problem. And YOU KNOW IT. The dead bodies tell the tale of which is the worst of humanity.

Blindness and hate rule those who cannot see that fact.

False equivalence insults Heather and her injured companions. Antifa AND LIBERALS get more bile from you Righties than the frickin KILLER!!!!

"Values"?? Right. Those Nazis share your hate of liberals.

“ ...damn the racists, neo-Nazis, fascist authoritarians, and... the violent antifa movement. “

Something is bit slanted here. Note the attachment of “violent” to the least violent group mentioned. Note that the most violent are the loudest of Trump supporters.

Let me help for moral and reality grounding. “Damn the property destruction by the antifa, and damn the hate, and long history of deadly violence, from the Trump supporting racists, neo-Nazis, fascist authoritarians.”

And damn Trump and anyone who says there is no difference between the hate groups and counter protesters and victims. That is emboldening and sympathizing with the hate groups.

One more point of reality:

Poll after poll shows most Americans support progressive policies from unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security, marriage equality, universal health care, environmental protection, taxing the rich, cannabis decriminalization, and most of all, opposing Trump.

It is fascistic to overrule the will of the people. But con-servatives know better. They have all the alternative facts on their side.

I bet Major wants to kill me by now. His hate has reached the boiling point.

woodenman said...

Dave, I do not think Chuck wants to kill anybody. I learned not to take anything on these blogs personally and it is more fun and pleasant that way.

Nobody is going to change anybodies mind here, I know because I debated Conservatives on other sites for years and I am not talking about the Rant.

Since the Rant is almost useless nowadays this is the place to hang out but we are not going to solve the worlds problems at all.

Majormajor said...

Woody,
Trying to reason with DD is akin to stopping the sun from effecting our climate.

Majormajor said...


"I bet Major wants to kill me by now. His hate has reached the boiling point."

Actually DD, I'm LMAO at you. For someone who works in prison system in MI, and has claimed to have been trained in profiling people, your posts here, on Tom and your blog, show a total lack of ability to reason, and a deep unfounded fear of anything other that socialism as a form of economy.

Darrell Michaels said...

Majormajor made a very good point, Mr. Dubya. With your background and implied training, one would think you would be better at reading and profiling people than what you seem to be. Perhaps your skills work in a prison environment with more of the worst of society's people, but that evidently doesn't translate as well to the "civilized world" when people simply disagree on political policies or issues, sir. You definitely seem to resort to ascribing the very worst of motives and values to those with whom you disagree.

That said, Mr. Dubya, you are free to comment here and by all means debate; however, I really do wish you would quit with the ad hominem attacks and trying to turn my blog into the equivalent of the Jerry Springer Show, sir.

Dave Dubya said...


Mr. Paine,

I see you haven't read any of Major's flattering comments about corrections officers. (He thinks I'm one, so guess how that went.)

Forgive me for misrepresenting Major. I should follow Major's upstanding example of refraining from ad hominem attacks.

What else can a "radical black socialist liberal" do?