Can't disagree with that at all ninfan.
Because we're not all Corbyn fans you know...
It's not really absolute though, hence why there's incitement to hatred laws for example, there's plenty of restriction on what people can say or protest about.Absolute freedom of speech is a myth.
Yes, if only I had provided some form of 'caveat' within brackets saying that....
What's so special about 2007? Sounds a lot like the type of cherry picking climate change deniers do, why not expand it to another randomly picked date like, well, oh, how about august 2001?
because one event distorts the entire trend.
How many White Christian Americans have killed other Americans this year?
How many are killed by guns each year?
How many terrorism deaths?
As for your IRA broken record give it a rest. It was put to bed very early on with simple reasoning and logic. Corbyn wouldn't single out the IRA.
How is Darling Donald doing, Monday condemm one side, Tuesday after his BFF and AltRight chum Bannon reminded him that those rednecks and Nazi's are the last of his core support so he had better not upset them too much. By the time I land tomorrow morning we don't know who's fault it will be but I'm sure some golf will be getting planned.
Have we done that even Ps M*n thinks he's in the wrong now?
No, No, NO, Mr President @realDonaldTrump.
There is NO defence for neo-Nazis.
None.
Zero.
Zilch.
So stop pandering to these vile scum.
ninfan - Member
I'm not saying that The IRA strongly influenced the election, but Corbyn is definitely their guy, there's plenty of evidence of that, from direct quotes to statements on their own filthy websites. Also note Corbyns difficulties saying that The IRA are bad, which went down a storm with, you guessed it, The IRA
Odd what happens when you point to someone's supporters as proof of their beliefs and affiliations, isn't it?
I think it's fairly obvious that corbyn has sympathies towards a united ireland. So while he may not support their methods, he definitely agrees with their aims.
So taking your logic to it's conclusion.
Which nazi/white supremacist/kkk aims does trump agree with?
Which nazi aims does trump agree with?
i think the only thing that donald j trump believes in is donald j trump....
What's so special about 2007? Sounds a lot like the type of cherry picking climate change deniers do, why not expand it to another randomly picked date like, well, oh, how about august 2001?
Because to get an accurate picture of trends, you sometimes have to trim an anomalous outlier - as others have mentioned.
The cluster, in terms of attacks carried out or attempted, even including 9/11 would still heavily skew towards the right.
You're a terrorist apologist as well as a Nazi now, Ninfan.
so taking your logic to it's conclusion.Which nazi/white supremacist/kkk aims does trump agree with?
Ooh, ooh, let me guess, Is it the ones who want to gas his Jewish grandchildren?
jam bo - Member
Which nazi aims does trump agree with?
i think the only thing that donald j trump believes in is donald j trump....
I disagree, he's got a clear agenda of enrichment of him and his buddies.
Btw i don't actually believe trump has nazi/kkk/white supremacist sympathies.
It's fairly obviously though that there's a tacit encouragement of this type of group though. For what reason. Well fairly simple, it's yet another cloud obscuring what he and the republicans up to in the background.
> Do you agree with the President's statement
yesI think I've been very clear that the issue is freedom of speech
You haven't (some may say deliberately so) which is why people were concluding you were a nazi sympathiser.
If your motivation is purely as a libertarian then you could easily have inserted a little qualifier like: [i]"I agree that racism, nazis, KKK and white supremacists are repugnant and against everything America is founded on, but I believe they have the right to free speech and legal gatherings"[/i].
You're answer will be of course be [i]"Why should I?"[/i], but what you really mean is [i]"I get more bites if I don't make that clear"[/i].
ninfan - Member
so taking your logic to it's conclusion.
Which nazi/white supremacist/kkk aims does trump agree with?Ooh, ooh, let me guess, Is it the ones who want to gas his Jewish grandchildren?
I'm just taking your ridiculous point and putting it back on ye.
No, I don't believe he has nazi sympathies, see above.
How is Darling Donald doing..
You missed the bit where, after condemning hate and violence where someone was run over and killed he then tweeted a cartoon of a CNN reporter being run over by a Trump train. 🙄
I think I've been very clear that the issue
Whilst you are being very clear could you elaborate on the claims you made about credible sources saying the poor nazi was fleeing from those nasty lefties when he drove into the crowd.
Do you still think this is the case and can you list those credible sources?
If your motivation is purely as a libertarian then you could easily have inserted a little qualifier like: "I agree that racism, nazis, KKK and white supremacists are repugnant and against everything America is founded on, but I believe they have the right to free speech and legal gatherings".
He doesn't believe in freedom of speech or expression anyway, as we have seen with his views on the Burqa.
Two things.
1) Trump deliberately says directly contradictory things depending on the phase of the moon, sometimes in the same sentence. The logic is that people have selective hearing, they'll latch on to the bits that reinforce their world view and conveniently forget the things they disagree with. It's how you win elections.
2) WTF has Corbyn got to do with Charlottesville? Talk about agenda-pushing, that's weapons-grade whataboutery.
I really like how ninfan disappears for a bit while the random lefty-hating troll generator warms up its next post after the last one failed to stick.
Nah there's a pattern there. He generally disappears when a good point is made and comes back later when he doesn't need to answer it.
Nah there's a pattern there. He generally disappears when a good point is made and comes back later when he doesn't need to answer it.
It's almost as if he lacks conviction in his "opinions"...
Ban Toryboi?
Nah, but he's one of the few posters who I'd consider blocking.
The fact that he even trolls on a subject like this I find leaves a bad taste in my mouth....
Ugggghhh, now I feel unclean.
Fing heathen.
I really like how ninfan disappears for a bit while the random lefty-hating troll generator warms up its next post after the last one failed to stick.
I really like how the random lefties spend forever campaigning against violence and intolerance whilst being intolerant of, and violent towards, anyone who disagrees with them.
If you want to get upset because you think I'm 'defending' Nazis, then why the hell shouldn't I? You're the ones who are defending and justifying political violence, not me. You're the ones who get upset when a whole group is castigated for the actions of an individual or tiny minority (Muslim ban anyone?)... except when it's you doing the castigating
"Punch a nazi in the face" they cry, then recoil in horror when it turns out that Nazis actually punch back.
"But they didn't just punch back" you cry, "they actually killed people"
Well? What on earth did you expect? They're Nazis FFS!
A good rule of thumb here - if ninfan ignores your post it's generally a sign that he's lost that particular argument. I'm still waiting for a clarification of who he was suggesting was retaliating...
[quote=ninfan ]"But they didn't just punch back" you cry, "they actually killed people"
Well? What on earth did you expect? They're Nazis FFS!
and you're defending them...
Free speech and all that, you're quite entitled to defend them. Free speech also means other people are entitled to call you a dick when you do.
(though there's an interesting difference in how free speech is protected in the forum rules - I'm hoping I've tiptoed just the right side of the line there).
and you're defending them
Yes, and I've managed to do it without calling people names, comparing them with men's, or ladies (or whatever non-cisgendered identity you prefer) genitalia or telling them to kill themselves.
there's plenty of people on here who think it's acceptable to punch people on the face as long as you don't like their opinions
But can't see that that works both ways
[quote=ninfan ]Yes
It wasn't a question BTW, though thanks for the clarification - in which case I'm inclined to agree with what other people on here might suggest you are [tiptoeing]
Still waiting for a clarification on who was retaliating...
I've managed to do it without calling people names, comparing them with ladies genitalia or telling them to kill themselves.
It's an obnoxious enough opinion to hold with requiring any of that. I'll just compare you with Justin Moore, though you're probably flattered by that comparison http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article167303682.html
Ninfan ,you can't just dismiss me by calling me a lefty. I'm not a lefty. Murder is exactly the sort of behaviour I expect from Nazis, that's kind of their thing, which is why I wholeheartedly condone violence towards them wherever necessary and that their filth be resisted as loudly as possible whenever spouted in public.
You are still talking as if he ran people over in response to violence against him, of which there is no proof at all, unless you have some. If you have proof of this threat he was so desperate to drive through a crowd to escape, maybe you should be giving the Virginia DA a call, rather than moaning on an internet forum, then your mate can go free...
Yes, and there's plenty of people on here who think it's acceptable to punch people on the face as long as you don't like their opinions
I'm not saying I'd punch anyone who's opinion I didn't like.
But.... know ..... Nazi's 🙄
A [b]bit[/b] more than just a slight "difference of opinion" there for most people.
Also, I totally understand that it works both ways, I fully understand that Nazis wish me and many millions like me dead and would, given the right set of circumstances, have me killed. so, yes, I tend towards supporting violence against them.
[b]Because they're ****ing NAZIS!!![/b]
You are still talking as if he ran people over in response to violence against him, of which there is no proof at all, unless you have some.
Hahahahaha. 😆
Of course he doesn't! 🙂
Yes, and I've managed to do it
You really haven't!
You are still talking as if he ran people over in response to violence against him, of which there is no proof at all,
Does he need a reason? He's a nazi remember. If he was a Muslim you'd be saying that he had been provoked by Donald Trumps ban on immigration, so yeah, let's say he was provoked by the left trying to tear down a statue and turning up at the protest to try to punch him in the face
(We'll see what comes out at court.)
Also, I totally understand that it works both ways, I fully understand that [s]Nazis[/s] muslims wish me and many millions like me dead and would, given the right set of circumstances, have me killed. so, yes, I tend towards supporting violence against them.Because they're **** [s]NAZIS!!![/s] muslims
Are you getting it yet?
So are you suggesting he was retaliating?
[quote=ninfan ]Well? What on earth did you expect? They're Nazis FFS!
actually, hang on a minute, what exactly did you mean by this?
If he was a Muslim you'd be saying that he had been provoked by Donald Trumps ban on immigration
No I wouldn't, how ridiculous...
[quote=ninfan ]Also, I totally understand that it works both ways, I fully understand that [s]Nazis[/s] [s]muslims[/s] white men wish me and many millions like me dead and would, given the right set of circumstances, have me killed. so, yes, I tend towards supporting violence against them.
Because they're **** [s]NAZIS!!![/s] [s]muslims[/s] white men
For a better comparison with muslims. Are you getting any yet?
Explain how you managed that?ninfan - Member
and you're defending them
Yes, and I've managed to do it
The extent to which a large number of posters on this thread are making it about ninfan, rather than the events in Charlottesville and USA is depressing.
I find some of ninfan's posts irritating in that he constantly uses the same debating technique of turning around people's own statements against them, which done repeatedly just becomes wearing and destroys meaningful debate. Howevever, there is only one of him, and he is responding to a lot of people on this thread posting some fairly stupid/poorly thought out remarks, e.g. "it's OK to punch Nazis". That sort of statement is just pathetic internet keyboard warrior 'virtue signalling'.
A lot of people who have criticised ninfan for his absolutist approach to the right to freedom of speech and freedom of protest probably need to ask themselves some hard questions about what it is that they really believe in, rather than keep asking ninfan what he believes in and calling him a Nazi apologist etc.
Many people on this thread probably like to think of themselves as being fairly liberal, but in reality they are showing themselves as being quite authoritarian, and there is a long history of the left wing believing it has a moral superiority and that that justifies it taking action 'for the greater good' to restrict people's freedoms in ways that would never be accepted from right wing governments, e.g. the Blair Labour government's attempts to extend the police power to detain suspects for up to 90 days without charge and to introduce ID cards.
I get a feeling from some of the comments on this thread, that some people do feel morally superior in being able to call someone else a Nazi or a Nazi apologist. If so they are incredibly shallow.
I doubt Bernard Kenny wasted his time arguing on internet forums, and for all I know he was a UKIP voter who wanted to deport all immigrants, but when it really mattered he showed that he was a far better man than probably most of us.
I really like how the random lefties spend forever..
Well if nothing else at least you've moved on from "[i]all[/i] lefties" as if the left is some homogeneous groupthink.
As inconvenient for you as it is, I consider myself left leaning and have agreed with your points on free speech and violence.
"But they didn't just punch back" you cry, "they actually killed people"
Well? What on earth did you expect? They're Nazis FFS!
You argued that running someone over in a car was a perfectly reasonable response to the [i]suggestion[/i] of being punched in the face.
That does sound a [i]bit[/i] like you are defending nazi violence, which we have established you think is repugnant.
ninfan? ninfan? no edits of your posts for the last 10 minutes, are you OK hun?
aracer, Nazis are neither a race or religion, they are an ideology based on mass murder, therefore the comparison doesn't really stand up. Most Muslims don't wish anyone dead and neither do most white men. Nazis, on the other hand, definitely want a lot of people to die.
ninfan » Also, I totally understand that it works both ways, I fully understand that [s]Nazis muslims white men[/s] communists wish me and many millions like me dead and would, given the right set of circumstances, have me killed. so, yes, I tend towards supporting violence against them.
Because they're **** [s]NAZIS!!! muslims white men[/s] communists
The game can go on all day, once you begin to justify violence based on someone's political, racial or religious affiliations then it's only a matter of time before it comes back on you.
they are an ideology based on mass murder,
Totally not like a religion then 😆
Good point
[quote=ninfan ]ninfan » Also, I totally understand that it works both ways, I fully understand that [s]Nazis muslims white men communists[/s] ninfans wish me and many millions like me dead and would, given the right set of circumstances, have me killed. so, yes, I tend towards supporting violence against them.
Because they're **** [s]NAZIS!!! muslims white men communists[/s] ninfans
OK, I'm going to simplify it.
[b]Anyone who belongs to a group whose stated primary aim is to murder large groups of people deserves a punch in the face.[/b]
Totally not like a religion then
I get your point, and I am no great fan of organised religion. But there are those within organised religion who promote peace and tolerance.
There are literally no Nazis doing that.
whose stated primary aim is to murder large groups of people
Have you read Mein Kampf?
Have you read Mein Kampf?
Is this like when a Jehovah's Witness knocks the door and asks you if you've read the bible?
[quote=ninfan ]Have you read Mein Kampf?
I hope you're not about to post spoilers
