Goodbye Proud Boys

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The "Terror" of the Proud Boys, is limited to a church banner and some involvement in the 1/6 riot.

So, terrorizing churches and being in a criminal conspiracy to violently overthrow our democracy.

Nothing to see here. Except a desperate bootlicker.

 

[Correll]

Correll, you are wrong, and all you can do is yell. Go for it, if it makes you feel any better.

Dude. I'm the one making real, rational and coherent arguments, and you are the one just stonewalling.


You playing pretend, is just you playing pretend.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Dude. I'm the one making real, rational and coherent arguments, and you are the one just stonewalling.


You playing pretend, is just you playing pretend.

You are a whining bootlicker, nothing more.

 

[Correll]

You are a whining bootlicker, nothing more.

Good spamming.

Hey, remember when you were still trying to make an argument?

It must have sucked the way I just crushed them, and reduced you to this.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You didn't say it, but you are acting like it. You see "unlimited" and using that to justify a two million dollar punishment for a banner.

Thus, my counter point, that it was NOT required, so your justification is simply not true.




Wow. That really justifies the two million dollar fine, for the destruction of a banner.





Your goal is not to discourage repetition, it is just to destroy your enemies. Have the moral courage to admit it.




You can stop trying to rephrase the point to avoid addressing it.

You have a POLITICAL PROBLEM with them, and thus you support the use of state power against them. That is what your this is about. The dems using their state power against their political enemies.

Historically, such behavior is common in oppressive tryannies.





Yet, you support an clearly political court punishment against a political organization.




I didn't make any argument that it was, and it was shitty of you to pretend that I did.

Such behavior is common well libs lose an argument, as you are doing.


Your support of this absurd punishment for the destruction of a banner, is clearly you supporting the violation of the civil rights of your political enemies, the Proud Boys.





This issue isn't about the crime, it is about the way that the dems, with your support, used it as a justification to bring the power of the state down against their political enemies.

Please stop pretending to not get that, and address the point.

Defend your position in this issue, if you can.

You raise several points, I'll briefly address them.

The law stipulates unlimited punitive damages, therefore the fine is consistent with that.

The corporation was fined not the individuals, I don't see how fining a corporation is anything new, it happens all the time.

You keep speaking of "your goal" I wasn't the judge nor was I a juror, this is nothing to do with me.

You say "destroy your enemies" are you a proud boy? because you're getting emotional about this. A paltry fine would encourage copycats, that's surely not contentious?

You say I have a "POLITICAL PROBLEM" with them. I disapprove of them, I disapprove of the KKK, do you disapprove of the KKK? Does one have a "political problem" when they seek punishment of the KKK for their crimes?

Punishing violent racist organizations is not evidence that those doing the punishing are an "oppressive tyranny". In Germany it is illegal to parade the Swastika symbol, if any person wears a swastika armband they will be arrested and punished, would you say that was proof that Germany today is an oppressive tyranny?

How many times must I tell you that the punishment was not for the destruction of a banner, go and look at the case history, they were charged with more serious crimes and the jury saw the evidence found them guilty.

You insist on mischaracterizing the event as just a destroyed sign, you've done this several time and you did it again above.

You then start rambling about persecuting political enemies, well the thread is not about that, it's about the recent decision that's reported in my OP, that's the topic. You want to go off topic, well I'll go there if you want but start a thread yourself and state your case and I'll look and consider responding. If you want to discuss a broader political issue do so, but start a thread so we are all clear what you're position is.

State your case clearly and lets see how that goes.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The law permits unlimited damages.

Correll has every right to disagree.

But his disagreement is meaningless, period.

 

[Correll]

You raise several points, I'll briefly address them.

The law stipulates unlimited punitive damages, therefore the fine is consistent with that.

You did it again. YOu ignore my point that it is excessive. You instead focus on the fact that the law ALLOWS it, with no explaination of why it was JUST.

That is an implication that it is REQUIRED, which is not true.

The judgement could have been something like 50 bucks, or 10,000 dollars and that would have been more reasonable. 2 million is an attempt to destroy a corporation by bankrupting it. Which is a violation of the rights of the people involved.

The corporation was fined not the individuals, I don't see how fining a corporation is anything new, it happens all the time.

It's fine to punish a corporation with a fine. That was not a matter of dispute. But by pushing back on it, you create the illusion that you had a point to make.

You keep speaking of "your goal" I wasn't the judge nor was I a juror, this is nothing to do with me.

You clearly support this for political reasons. Thus, my speaking of your goal of desttroying your political enemies.

This is a simple point,, your pretending to not get it is not credible.

Your refusal to be honest about it, is you trying to gaslight me and any readers.

You say "destroy your enemies" are you a proud boy? because you're getting emotional about this. A paltry fine would encourage copycats, that's surely not contentious?

I say "destroy your enemies" becuase that is clearly why you are supporting this extreme fine, not to mention the bullshit with the name.

I am getting a bit pissed, becaseu you are being very rude with your dishonesty 0n the issue and your spamming of negs.

It is not a good faith discussion from your part. It is just you using troll like tactics.

You say I have a "POLITICAL PROBLEM" with them. I disapprove of them, I disapprove of the KKK, do you disapprove of the KKK? Does one have a "political problem" when they seek punishment of the KKK for their crimes?

A simple yes from yo on that would have been honest. It is clear from the way you keep trying to conflate them with the klan.


YOu oppose them politically, so you support using the courts to try to suppress them.

This is a violation of their rights.

Punishing violent racist organizations is not evidence that those doing the punishing are an "oppressive tyranny". In Germany it is illegal to parade the Swastika symbol, if any person wears a swastika armband they will be arrested and punished, would you say that was proof that Germany today is an oppressive tyranny?

What you are doing here, is justifying the violation of the rights of poeple and groups, based on them having politics that you do not like.

The fact that germany will arrest you for wearing a swastika is proof that they do not have freedom of speech.

The fact that you support this fine against the proud boys, and that the dems courtws are doing this, is a violation of their rights to a fair trial, and to their right to assemble.

How many times must I tell you that the punishment was not for the destruction of a banner, go and look at the case history, they were charged with more serious crimes and the jury saw the evidence found them guilty.

ALL that has been offered in this thread to justify the fine and the taking of the name, is the banner.

When lefties present one piece of evidence and are vague about other evidence, it means that the other evidence is ever weaker, or completely made up bullshit.

If not both.

You insist on mischaracterizing the event as just a destroyed sign, you've done this several time and you did it again above.

It is all that has been presented in this thread. ANd your behavior, the behavior of the other lefty posters, hell the behavior of the biden administartion,

shows that lawfare and the mass violation of civil rights, is normal and supported dem tactics today.

You then start rambling about persecuting political enemies, well the thread is not about that, it's about the recent decision that's reported in my OP, that's the topic. You want to go off topic, well I'll go there if you want but start a thread yourself and state your case and I'll look and consider responding. If you want to discuss a broader political issue do so, but start a thread so we are all clear what you're position is.

State your case clearly and lets see how that goes.

This bit where you talk shit about how I have not presented my case is you trying to gaslight me.

YOU have failed to make YOUR case. I have made my points, and supported them.

YOu have a banner, and a host of logical fallacies such as appeal to authority and spamming negs.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Correll did it again, insisting his nonsense overrides SCOTUS language and the overwhelming majority of the legal word.

 

[Correll]

Correll did it again, insisting his nonsense overrides SCOTUS language and the overwhelming majority of the legal word.

A nice vague post, expressing oppostion, but not really in any detail, so people might be fooled into thinking that you have a rebuttal.


BUt, you don't.


All that I have seen in this thread, is a banner, and a lot of libs pretending to misunderstand simple shit, like the difference between "allowed" and "required".

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

A nice vague post, expressing oppostion, but not really in any detail, so people might be fooled into thinking that you have a rebuttal.


BUt, you don't.


All that I have seen in this thread, is a banner, and a lot of libs pretending to misunderstand simple shit, like the difference between "allowed" and "required".

It is very clearn that you think you know better.

But you don't.

 

[Correll]

It is very clearn that you think you know better.

But you don't.

The thread title itself reveals that this is about ending an organization, that lefties oppose on political grounds.


That is a violation of the rights of the proud boys. They are not being judged based on the facts of the case, but are being attacked for a political purpose.


It doesn't matter who you get to LIE about that. It is clearly what is happening.


WE CAN SEE IT, in real time, with our own eyes.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Proud Boyz is over.

 

[Correll]

The Proud Boyz is over.

When you choose to spam your assertion, instead of making an argument.


That is you admitting that you lost the argument.


Everyone can see that.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You did it again. YOu ignore my point that it is excessive. You instead focus on the fact that the law ALLOWS it, with no explaination of why it was JUST.

If something has an unlimited range how can any value be deemed "excessive"? You're rambling now, all over the place, clutching at straws.

If you want to engage with me about the case do so but the case is over, the trial took place and the jury reached their decision, it's over.

That is an implication that it is REQUIRED, which is not true.

The judgement could have been something like 50 bucks, or 10,000 dollars and that would have been more reasonable. 2 million is an attempt to destroy a corporation by bankrupting it. Which is a violation of the rights of the people involved.





It's fine to punish a corporation with a fine. That was not a matter of dispute. But by pushing back on it, you create the illusion that you had a point to make.




You clearly support this for political reasons. Thus, my speaking of your goal of desttroying your political enemies.

This is a simple point,, your pretending to not get it is not credible.

Your refusal to be honest about it, is you trying to gaslight me and any readers.




I say "destroy your enemies" becuase that is clearly why you are supporting this extreme fine, not to mention the bullshit with the name.

I am getting a bit pissed, becaseu you are being very rude with your dishonesty 0n the issue and your spamming of negs.

It is not a good faith discussion from your part. It is just you using troll like tactics.





A simple yes from yo on that would have been honest. It is clear from the way you keep trying to conflate them with the klan.


YOu oppose them politically, so you support using the courts to try to suppress them.

This is a violation of their rights.





What you are doing here, is justifying the violation of the rights of poeple and groups, based on them having politics that you do not like.

The fact that germany will arrest you for wearing a swastika is proof that they do not have freedom of speech.

The fact that you support this fine against the proud boys, and that the dems courtws are doing this, is a violation of their rights to a fair trial, and to their right to assemble.





ALL that has been offered in this thread to justify the fine and the taking of the name, is the banner.

When lefties present one piece of evidence and are vague about other evidence, it means that the other evidence is ever weaker, or completely made up bullshit.

If not both.







It is all that has been presented in this thread. ANd your behavior, the behavior of the other lefty posters, hell the behavior of the biden administartion,

shows that lawfare and the mass violation of civil rights, is normal and supported dem tactics today.




This bit where you talk shit about how I have not presented my case is you trying to gaslight me.

YOU have failed to make YOUR case. I have made my points, and supported them.

YOu have a banner, and a host of logical fallacies such as appeal to authority and spamming negs.

This is the last time I will reply to you in this thread, if you really do want to discuss a political question start a thread and let me know, if it interests me I'll jump in.

 

[Correll]

If something has an unlimited range how can any value be deemed "excessive"?

Because the value should be appropriate for the crime or damages.

You ask that question like it's rhetorical, but it has a real answer. An OBVIOUS real answer.

You're rambling now, all over the place, clutching at straws.

Excempt, I'm not. I answered your question, easily and seriously, while you are the one playing silly games like declaring victory before the other side gets to answer.

If you want to engage with me about the case do so but the case is over, the trial took place and the jury reached their decision, it's over.

LOL. Like a court ruling has never been a matter of discussion after is was done. That is just you running away because you can't justify either the ruling nor your support of it.

This is the last time I will reply to you in this thread, if you really do want to discuss a political question start a thread and let me know, if it interests me I'll jump in.

EVERYTHING about this thread was political from the beginning. You are running away because you weren't prepared for anyone to speak any truth.

YOu wanted a lefty circle jerk as you celebrate your oppression and violation of the human rights of your enemies.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

When you choose to spam your assertion, instead of making an argument.


That is you admitting that you lost the argument.


Everyone can see that.

Says Mr. Opinion, "It's mine and despite the evidence, I will stand by it."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The thread title itself reveals that this is about ending an organization, that lefties oppose on political grounds.

Well that's super whiny and stupid.

They just have to choose a new name.

***** Boys seems appropriate.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Another idiot.

Show me the footage from even ONE of those four examples, that shows this gesture being made:



If you do that then I will agree that those other people made a Nazi salute - get to it, lets see what you come up with.

I'm curious, what exactly is the Sherlock Holmes 'approved method' of sharing one's heart with an audience? Do you mind demonstrating this for everyone?

 

[Hollie]

Who "allowed"? Palestine was under Ottoman rule, the British told the leaders of the various Arab clans that Britain would support the creation of an independent Palestinian state IF the Arabs helped take the territory from the Ottomans. But the British betrayed them and instead by the time the British had the mandate (from the league of nations) the Balfour agreement became public and this enraged the Arabs. The British treaty with the Arabs was abandoned, which the Arabs saw as treachery and it was, you can read about the promises Britain made, look for McMahon–Hussein Correspondence.

I have no idea what "war" you're speaking of. The Arabs were successful in displacing the Ottomans, they won.

You have a poor understanding, you can either educate yourself more about this or you can continue to parrot the cowboys and indians narrative that is the popular view espoused by the Zionist and United States, that's your choice.

A pretty good overview of this history is here, worth reading and cross checking against encyclopedias and so on, as I do.

How Britain Destroyed the Palestinian Homeland

100 years since Balfour's "promise", Palestinians insist that their rights in Palestine cannot be dismissed.

www.aljazeera.com

There was no Pal’istan under Ottoman rule. There was only a Sanjak or administrative district. You have been corrected on this before but you continue to be uneducated. Look at a map of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Lastamender]

I've regarded Musk as an idiot for many years, I'm a software engineer and scientist and I know a fake when I see one.

Now get back your personality cult.

How is life without mirrors?