81 year old assaulted in Supermaket, manners are deteriorating.

[Marion Morrison]

You know when the nazis started out, they weren't just wearing swastikas.


They were attacking people. And they had huge explanations as to why their violent attacks were actually justified. And they were constantly in people's face, telling them their bullshit. And they looked a lot like this.

Untrue since the Nazis was a small political party that began by meating in a beer hall, the violence didn't happen until later since Hitler was in the employ of the army to spy upon them.

They tried a violent coup in 1923. And they had all kind of "reasons" that they would be happy to rave about.

The party formed in 1919 and it was not Hitler who formed the party...It was Hitler who was sent to spy on them and liked their message so much he took over....

Just read that, very interesting.

But I've always had the impression that they started street violence very early on. Can't seem to find any documentation on that at this time.

most fights were against the communist at first.

Communists like ANTIFA in America today.

 

[Correll]

You know when the nazis started out, they weren't just wearing swastikas.


They were attacking people. And they had huge explanations as to why their violent attacks were actually justified. And they were constantly in people's face, telling them their bullshit. And they looked a lot like this.

Untrue since the Nazis was a small political party that began by meating in a beer hall, the violence didn't happen until later since Hitler was in the employ of the army to spy upon them.

They tried a violent coup in 1923. And they had all kind of "reasons" that they would be happy to rave about.

The party formed in 1919 and it was not Hitler who formed the party...It was Hitler who was sent to spy on them and liked their message so much he took over....

Just read that, very interesting.

But I've always had the impression that they started street violence very early on. Can't seem to find any documentation on that at this time.

most fights were against the communist at first.

Communists were a real power bloc, and the lefties were even then, experts at the use of street violence as political speech.


Or at least that has always been my understanding. I have no read up on this since well before the internet.

 

[LeftofLeft]

We have a president who says some Mexicans don’t rape. And Republicans wonder what happened to civility.

He said Mexico is sending US rapists, drug dealers, and criminals. Get it straight and or refute it with validation.

 

[Correll]

We have a president who says some Mexicans don’t rape. And Republicans wonder what happened to civility.

He said Mexico is sending US rapists, drug dealers, and criminals. Get it straight and or refute it with validation.

Deanrd, can't do either of those. And he knows it. So he won't even try. Instead he will attack you, but in a way that is so stupid, it will take your breath away, and then tell himself that he kicked your ass.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Leftists lecture US about tolerance yet lose their shit over a red baseball cap with a slogan they don’t like to the point of violence and physical assault. Flip the script and imagine if just one person was even verbally assaulted for wearing a “Hope and Change” or “Che” shirt?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Given how the press has leaped on stories like the Covington kids in D.C. and the Jussie Smollett case and completely misinterpreted the facts or blindly accepted the liberal's testimony without looking further into the matter or at least waiting for more facts to come to light, I'm inclined to agree that the press is, if not the enemy of the people, the enemy of objective and sound journalism.

Okay, let's look at that. In the Smollet case, everyone was kind of skeptical from the beginning. There were things that really didn't make sense.... and we had an investigation and found it to be untrue.

No one, and I repeat, no one on the left was skeptical. The media largely reported it as a "possible hate crime" but the wailing and screaming from celebrities and Democrat politicians like Booker, Harris and Pelosi suggests that they definitely believed it to be a hate crime, no "possible" about it. What's more, even after it's been determined that it was a hoax, actress Ellen Page is still preaching about hate crimes against LGBQT people even though by now, the hoaxes probably outnumber the actual attacks.

Covington, we had a case where the smug little Catholic Bastards got themselves a PR firm, got little shithead on TV in front of a sympathetic reporter and taught him how to emote and play the victim, so we totally forget the little bastard was rude to an elderly veteran.

How is standing there smiling and saying nothing being rude? Have you not yet grasped the fact that it was Phillips who approached him? Why are you persisting in demonizing and reviling this kid even though it's been ascertained that he was, in fact, not being disrespectful or provocative in any way?

No, the press is not the enemy of the people because it points out the ugliness of Trump and his brownshirts.

How about the ugliness of Antifa and their black shirts and masks? Do they have anything to say about that?

Ironically, the story about Trump making fun of the disabled or calling "people of certain ethnicity 'rapists' and 'animals'" is precisely why he calls the press enemy of the people. Neither of these stories is true.

Um, yeah, we got them on tape, dummy.

What you have on tape is him talking about the criminals that cross the border illegally. Since you're the one making the accusation, the onus is upon you to present evidence that Trump was referring to Mexicans or Hispanics in general. Thirty second sound bite videos do not count. Cite or link a video that is long enough to provide context. And who's "them" anyway?

The real problem with the press is that it treated Trump with respect he didn't deserve early on. He was good for ratings. Why listen to Jeb Bush talk about boring old "Common Core" when you can get Trump calling Mexicans rapists... that's much more entertaining.

From what you're saying here, it sounds like the media was not necessarily treating him with respect, they treated him as a ratings booster.

His supposedly making fun of the handicapped journalist has been debunked. It was shown that Trump often did this as a way to mock a person's attitude and demeanor and had done it before with other non-disabled people. Besides, I would bet that Trump did not even know the guy had a disability anyway. He is a newspaper journalist, not a visual media journalist or reporter.

Oh, really, this is what you are going with? come on, he was clearly mocking a person with cerebral palsy. Jesus fucking Christ, you Trump supporters are like fucking cultists.

It wasn't cerebral palsy, it was arthrogryposis, a condition that causes restricted movement in the joints. Furthermore, shaking and trembling is not a symptom of this disease.

As for his supposedly calling people of "certain ethnicity" rapists and animals, this is not true either. He was referring to MS-13 gang members and other ne'er-do-wells that come here illegally from Mexico and commit crimes.

MS13 doesn't come from Mexico, they come from El Salvador... And his racism is pretty clear to most normal people.

MS-13 got started right here in the U.S. in L.A. by native Salvadorans and consists of people from all over Central America. And where do they cross the border illegally? That's right, from Mexico.

The fact that Trump only ever talked about illegal immigrants and illegal immigration is an important distinction that just about everyone on the left has willfully and knowingly overlooked.

Well, no, since he is going after legal immigrants too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...49e5d4-d312-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html

He is even going after people who were born here by chalenging their birth certificates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a1991f075d5_story.html?utm_term=.c0a0734bbe1c

No. He's not going after legal immigrants, he's still trying to weed out illegal immigrants. At the very least we might be able to say they are being overzealous. But going after legal immigrants? No.

You know, Trump and ICE and the Border Patrol are not just spouting empty rhetoric; there are millions of illegal immigrants here and many of them are defrauding the immigration and welfare system to the tune of billions of dollars a year. This is a fact that cannot be ignored just because you don't like Trump's style.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Only small minded morons attack someone who's minding their own business just because they're wearing a hat. Down that road lies children dieing because they're wearing the wrong colors in gang territory. And the morons cheer.

They're really just allowing the butthurt from the heir apparent losing the throne to finally boil over.

Small minded morons.

Or they are simply offended by Nazis who want to do them harm.... imagine that.

Are you saying the old man intended harm? If so, how do you know this?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Are you saying the old man intended harm? If so, how do you know this?

These leftists ARE the Nazis of WWII.

When a German Nazi threw a rock through the window of a Jew, the new tried to seek justice in the court. The Nazi sympathizing judge said the New provoked the attack by being a Jew in Germany.

Same. Damn. Thing.

 

[hadit]

Only small minded morons attack someone who's minding their own business just because they're wearing a hat. Down that road lies children dieing because they're wearing the wrong colors in gang territory. And the morons cheer.

They're really just allowing the butthurt from the heir apparent losing the throne to finally boil over.

Small minded morons.

Or they are simply offended by Nazis who want to do them harm.... imagine that.

Hey, tell you what, why don't you walk around the South Side of Chicago with a Klan Hood.

Or maybe Skokie wearing a brownshirt and Swastika.

Let me know how it works out for you.

Small minded morons now afraid of an elderly man minding his own business. You're not helping your cause here.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Given how the press has leaped on stories like the Covington kids in D.C. and the Jussie Smollett case and completely misinterpreted the facts or blindly accepted the liberal's testimony without looking further into the matter or at least waiting for more facts to come to light, I'm inclined to agree that the press is, if not the enemy of the people, the enemy of objective and sound journalism.

Okay, let's look at that. In the Smollet case, everyone was kind of skeptical from the beginning. There were things that really didn't make sense.... and we had an investigation and found it to be untrue.

No one, and I repeat, no one on the left was skeptical. The media largely reported it as a "possible hate crime" but the wailing and screaming from celebrities and Democrat politicians like Booker, Harris and Pelosi suggests that they definitely believed it to be a hate crime, no "possible" about it. What's more, even after it's been determined that it was a hoax, actress Ellen Page is still preaching about hate crimes against LGBQT people even though by now, the hoaxes probably outnumber the actual attacks.

Covington, we had a case where the smug little Catholic Bastards got themselves a PR firm, got little shithead on TV in front of a sympathetic reporter and taught him how to emote and play the victim, so we totally forget the little bastard was rude to an elderly veteran.

How is standing there smiling and saying nothing being rude? Have you not yet grasped the fact that it was Phillips who approached him? Why are you persisting in demonizing and reviling this kid even though it's been ascertained that he was, in fact, not being disrespectful or provocative in any way?

No, the press is not the enemy of the people because it points out the ugliness of Trump and his brownshirts.

How about the ugliness of Antifa and their black shirts and masks? Do they have anything to say about that?

Ironically, the story about Trump making fun of the disabled or calling "people of certain ethnicity 'rapists' and 'animals'" is precisely why he calls the press enemy of the people. Neither of these stories is true.

Um, yeah, we got them on tape, dummy.

What you have on tape is him talking about the criminals that cross the border illegally. Since you're the one making the accusation, the onus is upon you to present evidence that Trump was referring to Mexicans or Hispanics in general. Thirty second sound bite videos do not count. Cite or link a video that is long enough to provide context. And who's "them" anyway?

The real problem with the press is that it treated Trump with respect he didn't deserve early on. He was good for ratings. Why listen to Jeb Bush talk about boring old "Common Core" when you can get Trump calling Mexicans rapists... that's much more entertaining.

From what you're saying here, it sounds like the media was not necessarily treating him with respect, they treated him as a ratings booster.

His supposedly making fun of the handicapped journalist has been debunked. It was shown that Trump often did this as a way to mock a person's attitude and demeanor and had done it before with other non-disabled people. Besides, I would bet that Trump did not even know the guy had a disability anyway. He is a newspaper journalist, not a visual media journalist or reporter.

Oh, really, this is what you are going with? come on, he was clearly mocking a person with cerebral palsy. Jesus fucking Christ, you Trump supporters are like fucking cultists.

It wasn't cerebral palsy, it was arthrogryposis, a condition that causes restricted movement in the joints. Furthermore, shaking and trembling is not a symptom of this disease.

As for his supposedly calling people of "certain ethnicity" rapists and animals, this is not true either. He was referring to MS-13 gang members and other ne'er-do-wells that come here illegally from Mexico and commit crimes.

MS13 doesn't come from Mexico, they come from El Salvador... And his racism is pretty clear to most normal people.

MS-13 got started right here in the U.S. in L.A. by native Salvadorans and consists of people from all over Central America. And where do they cross the border illegally? That's right, from Mexico.

The fact that Trump only ever talked about illegal immigrants and illegal immigration is an important distinction that just about everyone on the left has willfully and knowingly overlooked.

Well, no, since he is going after legal immigrants too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...49e5d4-d312-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html

He is even going after people who were born here by chalenging their birth certificates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a1991f075d5_story.html?utm_term=.c0a0734bbe1c

No. He's not going after legal immigrants, he's still trying to weed out illegal immigrants. At the very least we might be able to say they are being overzealous. But going after legal immigrants? No.

You know, Trump and ICE and the Border Patrol are not just spouting empty rhetoric; there are millions of illegal immigrants here and many of them are defrauding the immigration and welfare system to the tune of billions of dollars a year. This is a fact that cannot be ignored just because you don't like Trump's style.

The problem is the Left believes in Open Borders for US and that all immigration is legal.... to the point that invetted criminals coming into US is fin with the Left.

 

[Blackrook]

America has become so intolerant of those exercising their constitutional rights, shades of the brown shirts in Nazi Germany have become ever more apparent with the passage of each day. Leads one to ponder just how long the socialist progressives will deny culpability and admit they are what they clam not to be.

No, it’s you and others on the authoritarian right who have exhibited an intolerance for others’ Constitutional rights:

The equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans.

The privacy rights of women.

The due process rights of immigrants.

The First Amendment rights of Muslims.

The voting rights of minorities.

It’s the bane of conservativism that poses the greatest threat to the rights and protected liberties of the American people.

So, you're OK with people committing violence against people wearing MAGA hats? Because it sounds like you're defending the violence as justified.

 

[Blackrook]

But it's leftists who are committing violence against citizens for exercising their 1st amendment rights.

Walk into a biker bar some time and start insulting their mothers... then you can tell them about your First Amendment rights.

This isn't a first Amendment issue. You are perfectly free to wear a MAGA hat, or a Klan Hood, or a Swastika Armband... Congress won't stop you.

But someone will probably still kick your ass,and it will be your own damned fault.

^ On the record for supporting violence to suppress First Amendment activity.

 

[impuretrash]

But it's leftists who are committing violence against citizens for exercising their 1st amendment rights.

Walk into a biker bar some time and start insulting their mothers... then you can tell them about your First Amendment rights.

This isn't a first Amendment issue. You are perfectly free to wear a MAGA hat, or a Klan Hood, or a Swastika Armband... Congress won't stop you.

But someone will probably still kick your ass,and it will be your own damned fault.

^ On the record for supporting violence to suppress First Amendment activity.

Is anyone really surprised by this anymore? Don't you remember all the antifa violence leading up to and after Trump's election? Remember the excuses for their behavior coming from the highest levels of the Democrat party?

 

[Blackrook]

Sure as hell wouldnt walk up and punch him.

Given my grandparents had to flee Nazi Germany, I would in a New York minute.

You would be arrested and put in jail.

 

[Blackrook]

Old people getting punched is HILARIOUS.

There are far too many of them. They drive too slow and hold up traffic and they moan about everything all the fucking time. There was bound to be a reaction.

So you're OK with killing unborn and born babies, and now you're justifying violence against the elderly. Tommy you are a douchebag.

 

[Blackrook]

In other words, you only believe in the 1st Amendment insofar as it means Congress can't make a law taking it away. You have no problem infringing on a fellow American's right to free speech if he says (or wears) something you don't like. Does that about sum it up?

I'm saying if you get in my face and say something that offends me, you are going to regret your life choices that day.

Also, if the 1st Amendment only means that Congress cannot make a law prohibiting the exercise of free speech then why is it that "Most of them (liberals)" believe it? Why not all of them? To you, is it just a law or a matter of fact that the government can't take away free speech or is it a principle we all should adhere to?

Because I have this funny idea that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The 1A is a great principle, but you really have to temper it with a bit of reason. You can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. You can't let your cult leader molest kids because he's thinks he's Jesus. And if you are stupid enough to walk up to a bunch of black guys wearing a Klan Hood or a Swastika or a MAGA hat, you should kind of expect the resulting ass-kicking.

His being unarmed is irrelevant, it's against the law to commit murder. Just as it's against the law to assault someone in the first degree. Get it? The law is the law and applies to everyone. This means you don't get a free pass to assault someone because you don't like his fucking hat.

There is a distinction here that I'm not sure you're aware of. You're telling me that if one "mixes it up" with black people while wearing a MAGA hat then he should expect to get his ass kicked. You're absolutely correct. What you're not saying is that you think they should kick his ass and they would be justified in doing so, in spite of the law. Am I wrong?

I'm saying that the concept of "Fighting Words" is a concept in our law.

Fighting Words

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.


And this is my main problem with Trump overall. Other presidents have talk about the division of ideas. Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Keynesian Economics vs. Supply Side, Activist Government vs. Limited Government. These are good conversations, we should totally have them.

Trump has sought to divide people. He calls the press the enemy of the people, mocks the disabled, calls people of certain ethnicity "rapists" and "animals", and generally stirs up the nastiest hatreds, and then wonders why the small minded fool who goes out there with a MAGA hat gets his ass kicked.

You have identified yourself as a fascist with your fascist idea that a violent person has a right to interfere with First Amendment activity if it "offends" him.

 

[impuretrash]

In other words, you only believe in the 1st Amendment insofar as it means Congress can't make a law taking it away. You have no problem infringing on a fellow American's right to free speech if he says (or wears) something you don't like. Does that about sum it up?

I'm saying if you get in my face and say something that offends me, you are going to regret your life choices that day.

Also, if the 1st Amendment only means that Congress cannot make a law prohibiting the exercise of free speech then why is it that "Most of them (liberals)" believe it? Why not all of them? To you, is it just a law or a matter of fact that the government can't take away free speech or is it a principle we all should adhere to?

Because I have this funny idea that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The 1A is a great principle, but you really have to temper it with a bit of reason. You can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. You can't let your cult leader molest kids because he's thinks he's Jesus. And if you are stupid enough to walk up to a bunch of black guys wearing a Klan Hood or a Swastika or a MAGA hat, you should kind of expect the resulting ass-kicking.

His being unarmed is irrelevant, it's against the law to commit murder. Just as it's against the law to assault someone in the first degree. Get it? The law is the law and applies to everyone. This means you don't get a free pass to assault someone because you don't like his fucking hat.

There is a distinction here that I'm not sure you're aware of. You're telling me that if one "mixes it up" with black people while wearing a MAGA hat then he should expect to get his ass kicked. You're absolutely correct. What you're not saying is that you think they should kick his ass and they would be justified in doing so, in spite of the law. Am I wrong?

I'm saying that the concept of "Fighting Words" is a concept in our law.

Fighting Words

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.


And this is my main problem with Trump overall. Other presidents have talk about the division of ideas. Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Keynesian Economics vs. Supply Side, Activist Government vs. Limited Government. These are good conversations, we should totally have them.

Trump has sought to divide people. He calls the press the enemy of the people, mocks the disabled, calls people of certain ethnicity "rapists" and "animals", and generally stirs up the nastiest hatreds, and then wonders why the small minded fool who goes out there with a MAGA hat gets his ass kicked.

You have identified yourself as a fascist with your fascist idea that a violent person has a right to interfere with First Amendment activity if it "offends" him.

Not fascist. Communist.

 

[Papageorgio]

We have a president who says some Mexicans don’t rape. And Republicans wonder what happened to civility.

So it isn’t hate when Democrat assault others that are minding their own business?

 

[Papageorgio]

In other words, you only believe in the 1st Amendment insofar as it means Congress can't make a law taking it away. You have no problem infringing on a fellow American's right to free speech if he says (or wears) something you don't like. Does that about sum it up?

I'm saying if you get in my face and say something that offends me, you are going to regret your life choices that day.

Also, if the 1st Amendment only means that Congress cannot make a law prohibiting the exercise of free speech then why is it that "Most of them (liberals)" believe it? Why not all of them? To you, is it just a law or a matter of fact that the government can't take away free speech or is it a principle we all should adhere to?

Because I have this funny idea that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The 1A is a great principle, but you really have to temper it with a bit of reason. You can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. You can't let your cult leader molest kids because he's thinks he's Jesus. And if you are stupid enough to walk up to a bunch of black guys wearing a Klan Hood or a Swastika or a MAGA hat, you should kind of expect the resulting ass-kicking.

His being unarmed is irrelevant, it's against the law to commit murder. Just as it's against the law to assault someone in the first degree. Get it? The law is the law and applies to everyone. This means you don't get a free pass to assault someone because you don't like his fucking hat.

There is a distinction here that I'm not sure you're aware of. You're telling me that if one "mixes it up" with black people while wearing a MAGA hat then he should expect to get his ass kicked. You're absolutely correct. What you're not saying is that you think they should kick his ass and they would be justified in doing so, in spite of the law. Am I wrong?

I'm saying that the concept of "Fighting Words" is a concept in our law.

Fighting Words

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.


And this is my main problem with Trump overall. Other presidents have talk about the division of ideas. Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Keynesian Economics vs. Supply Side, Activist Government vs. Limited Government. These are good conversations, we should totally have them.

Trump has sought to divide people. He calls the press the enemy of the people, mocks the disabled, calls people of certain ethnicity "rapists" and "animals", and generally stirs up the nastiest hatreds, and then wonders why the small minded fool who goes out there with a MAGA hat gets his ass kicked.

If you think a MAGA hat is the same as a KKK hood or the swaztika symbol, I have only two words for you, FUCK OFF!

No, sorry, three words, FUCK OFF ASSHOLE!

He proves he is ignorant and clueless, bigots like him are a danger to America and our freedoms.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Old people getting punched is HILARIOUS.

There are far too many of them. They drive too slow and hold up traffic and they moan about everything all the fucking time. There was bound to be a reaction.

So you're OK with killing unborn and born babies, and now you're justifying violence against the elderly. Tommy you are a douchebag.

Whoooosh.............................................