Antifa again demonstrates its undemocratic nature - Page 26 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15034125
Pants-of-dog wrote:@BigSteve

Since you have no evidence, your argument that they are terrorists, and therefore your argument that they should not be afforded presumption of innocence, is dismissed.


By someone who's not been able to show that they shouldn't be considered terrorists.

Somehow, I don't think I'm going to lose much sleep over that.

See, I don't really care to convince you of anything. But, that notwithstanding, you've done nothing to demonstrate that my argument isn't accurate...
#15034129
Pants-of-dog wrote:And now you are assuming that your arguments are true unless I disprove them.


I see. So, it's fine when you do that, but no one else can.

Got it...

Please claim that I am a billionaire. I will then not disprove it, and according to your logic, it will magically come true.


What a typical lib. Wanting something, but unwilling to work for it...
#15034184
BigSteve wrote:"Antifa" are not terrorists

The fact that you and I disagree on this point renders the rest of your post completely meaningless...

No, I don't think you understand the rule of law. It would still be murder to kill a terrorist just for appearing in public with other terrorists. Your wish to ignore law and play to your base hatred of the left shows your undemocratic nature. Which is ironic, given the thread title.
#15034218
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:No, I don't think you understand the rule of law. It would still be murder to kill a terrorist just for appearing in public with other terrorists. Your wish to ignore law and play to your base hatred of the left shows your undemocratic nature. Which is ironic, given the thread title.


It would certainly be a homicide, which is simply the taking of a human life, justified or not.

Murder? No, I don't believe we charge people with murder for killing terrorists.

And I don't hate the left. I might find them to be, for the most part, ignorant and stupid, but I don't hate them. I do hate terrorists, though...
#15034238
BigSteve wrote:No, I don't believe we charge people with murder for killing terrorists.

And I don't hate the left. I might find them to be, for the most part, ignorant and stupid

There's a beautiful irony in the juxtaposition of these two lines. Steve, in countries with modern laws, you cannot declare that it's OK to kill groups of people just because you feel you don't like them. You can't do it even if they have had a connection to an act of terrorism (which, of course, antifa people haven't). As an example, people weren't allowed to just kill the Unabomber. If he were killed now, it would be murder.
#15034243
Prosthetic Conscience wrote: As an example, people weren't allowed to just kill the Unabomber. If he were killed now, it would be murder.


Of course it would, because he's in prison in Colorado serving eight consecutive life sentences. But, had he been killed while he was slipping one of his bombs into a mailbox, it would not have been murder.

Deadly force is authorized to stop the commission of a felony...
#15034252
Deadly force is not authorized to stop someone from existing. You are advocating killing these people for existing, not for imminent danger to someone else. You want to return to the tyranny of arbitrary execution of those whose politics are distasteful to another faction (ie you). And since a bomb in a letter box wouldn't actually be an imminent risk to anyone (it's on a box, not in someone's hands) that would arguably be murder in that case too - all you have to do is stop anyone else using the box, and get a bomb squad to attend to it.

We see again that you don't grasp the basic ideas of a lawful society.
#15034253
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Deadly force is not authorized to stop someone from existing. You are advocating killing these people for existing, not for imminent danger to someone else.


If that's what you inferred from what I've said, all I can say is that you're mistaken. I'm not suggesting that someone walk up to an antifa pussy and put a bullet in his head while he's having breakfast at Denny's.

When they clash with others, I would advocate the employment of deadly force, as they have a history of violence. In such a case, deadly force would be authorized...

You want to return to the tyranny of arbitrary execution of those whose politics are distasteful to another faction (ie you).


You'll die at an old age before you can find where I've said that. Again, you've inferred incorrectly. That's your problem, not mine...

And since a bomb in a letter box wouldn't actually be an imminent risk to anyone (it's on a box, not in someone's hands) that would arguably be murder in that case too - all you have to do is stop anyone else using the box, and get a bomb squad to attend to it.


Mailing an explosive device is a felony...

We see again that you don't grasp the basic ideas of a lawful society.


The opinions of sympathizers of antifa pussies are pretty meaningless to me. Accordingly, I will give yours all of the consideration they deserve...
#15034266
BigSteve wrote:If that's what you inferred from what I've said, all I can say is that you're mistaken. I'm not suggesting that someone walk up to an antifa pussy and put a bullet in his head while he's having breakfast at Denny's.

When they clash with others, I would advocate the employment of deadly force, as they have a history of violence. In such a case, deadly force would be authorized...

They are, however, dangerous when they gather so, yes, these terrorists should be eradicated whenever encountered...

As we can see, you weren't talking about 'when they clash'. You suggest deadly force would be authorized when they gather. This would be like saying "this football team's supporters took part in a fight last week, so we'll kill all their supporters who turn up to next week's game". It's murder. You know it is. Or ought to, since you've lived for many years in a country which does have laws.

Mailing an explosive device is a felony...

Again, you really ought to have learned, in many years on this planet, that you can't summarily execute people for committing a felony. Even in countries with the death penalty. How have you managed to get away without this basic knowledge?
#15034268
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Again, you really ought to have learned, in many years on this planet, that you can't summarily execute people for committing a felony. Even in countries with the death penalty. How have you managed to get away without this basic knowledge?

Yes you can. When someone commits a major crime, they get (and SHOULD) the death penalty.

How have you managed to get away without this basic knowledge?
#15034269
BigSteve wrote:I absolutely do, but that should not apply to terrorist organizations like the antifa pussies. They should be dispatched, at every opportunity, with violence due to their violent nature.

In your world, a police officer should never be able to shoot someone, say, who's on a shooting spree because that would deprive said criminal of Constitutional protections.

And that's just ridiculous...


And maybe you can show where Antifa have deliberately used terrorist type tactics?

Note that rioting and 'violence' is not the same as the mass shooting example you used. Sorry but antifa don't fit the NATO definition of terrorism.

Nope, you've got no argument as multiple posters have pointed out to you time and time again. But don't let that stop you from labelling everyone else as the ignoranti.. in complete blissful irony.
#15034270
SSDR wrote:Again, you really ought to have learned, in many years on this planet, that you can't summarily execute people for committing a felony. Even in countries with the death penalty. How have you managed to get away without this basic knowledge?
Yes you can. When someone commits a major crime, they get (and SHOULD) the death penalty.

How have you managed to get away without this basic knowledge?

You may not know that "summarily execute" means to kill without a trial. As BigSteve proposes for the "pussies" he's scared of.
#15034271
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:You may not know that "summarily execute" means to kill without a trial.

Good. Evil criminals should not get trials for their death penalties. They just twist words and manipulate their authorities.
As BigSteve proposes for the "pussies" he's scared of.

I propose that for potentially scary and dangerous criminals who beat up random people, and rape random women.

I would not want to live around dangerous people.
#15034312
SpecialOlympian wrote:Antifa are terrorists because they make nazis feel unsafe. I don't sympathize with nazis, I just hate the people who oppose nazis more than the nazis themselves.

Antifa makes any conservative without an AR-15 feel unsafe.
Long live the NRA.

Jesus said, "...if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" (Luke 22:36).

Today, I say an AR-15 is better than a sword.
#15034320
Luke 22:36 ...

These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them: the phrase is expressive of the danger they would be exposed to, and of their need of protection; and therefore it was wrong in them to be disputing and quarrelling about superiority, or looking out for, and expecting temporal pomp and grandeur, when this would be their forlorn, destitute, and afflicted condition; and they would quickly see the affliction and distress begin in himself.In "seven" ancient copies of Beza's, it is read in the future tense, "he shall take, he shall sell, he shall buy".
https://www.biblestudytools.com/comment ... 22-36.html

Context is important, but I'd expect you to take things out of context, when it comes to the Bible.
  • 1
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 39

Does make sense actually. Sexual attraction is, t[…]

Nonsense about the so-called rape trafficking hav[…]

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/11833803[…]

https://twitter.com/SaveManMedia/status/1183357222[…]