Anarchist/“Anti-Fascist” Attacks Detention Center - Page 6 - 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

#15018919
Palmyrene wrote:I don't think you know what I mean by hierarchy.

:roll: More semantic arguments. However, since apparently I have no idea what "semantics" means, I am unable to understand a 15-year old with his own set of definitions for everything.

Palymyrene wrote:Then what's the point of saying that you "live in California" as evidence of you knowing immigrants?

Everyone who lives in California has met an immigrant. California has 11 million immigrants--one quarter of the foreign-born people in the United States. Over 25% of California's population is foreign born. I would suggest that is evidence that you probably haven't been to California if that wasn't obvious to you.

Palmyrene wrote:Have you met any of the Hispanics you're actually complaininh about.

Naturally.

Palmyrene wrote:As I have said before, they either don't know that or are in hurry to get out of Mexico as quickly as possible.

You mean like fugitives?

Palmyrene wrote:Illegal immigrants or refugees don't vote.

The whole point of giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses and pushing motor voter was to get them to vote. There are more voters than citizens in California. That's why the Democrats do not want to restore the citizenship question on the 2020 Census forms that were there from 1870 until 2010 when Obama came into office.

Palmyrene wrote:Yes, California has a large Hispanic population but most of them were born in California or the US.

No. They aren't mostly born here. That will change soon though.

Palmyrene wrote:The article appears to have been written in 2019. Seperating kids at the border has been going on since the Obama administration. We've recently found out that children go to their court hearings alone. This may be the reason why refugees don't go to their court hearings

No. NGOs are trying to get SCOTUS precedents to keep the kids in the US on the idea that they are not criminals because they are minors and didn't have criminal intent to cross the border, and if the NGOs win that at SCOTUS, then they want to have a "reunite the family" campaign so that the parents who crossed illegally can stay. The left wing NGOs are many things, like incredibly mendacious, but they aren't completely stupid.
#15018927
blackjack21 wrote::roll: More semantic arguments. However, since apparently I have no idea what "semantics" means, I am unable to understand a 15-year old with his own set of definitions for everything.


In a sense it is. However it is necessary to understand what anarchism views as hierarchy.

I doubt you'll be interested however.

Everyone who lives in California has met an immigrant. California has 11 million immigrants--one quarter of the foreign-born people in the United States. Over 25% of California's population is foreign born. I would suggest that is evidence that you probably haven't been to California if that wasn't obvious to you.


I never said it wasn't. Just that not every Hispanic is an immigrant.

Naturally.


And all of the ones you've met are bad or disgusting?

You mean like fugitives?


No. Refugees. Fugitives are completely different. They have different motivations.

The whole point of giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses and pushing motor voter was to get them to vote. There are more voters than citizens in California. That's why the Democrats do not want to restore the citizenship question on the 2020 Census forms that were there from 1870 until 2010 when Obama came into office.


Mhmm.

No. They aren't mostly born here. That will change soon though.


I'm referring to children.

No. NGOs are trying to get SCOTUS precedents to keep the kids in the US on the idea that they are not criminals because they are minors and didn't have criminal intent to cross the border, and if the NGOs win that at SCOTUS, then they want to have a "reunite the family" campaign so that the parents who crossed illegally can stay. The left wing NGOs are many things, like incredibly mendacious, but they aren't completely stupid.


? So your evidence us a conspiracy theory?
#15019064
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to portray this man as a violent murderer, please provide evidence that he attacked anyone.

At this point, he still seems like the good guy in comparison to the border and immigration people,

I understand why you wish to reverse the burden of proof, but that's not how this works. You seem to no longer even try to defend your original position.

You have claimed that border/immigration officials deliberately let children die without evidence. You have also claimed that they have breached their duty of care without evidence. We are still waiting for an argument beyond "I don't like the family separation policy".

As for the attacker, I just repeat my question how you imagine he would be able to "save kids" without attacking people. Furthermore, how do you reconcile your claim that he wasn't prepared to hurt or kill people with the fact that he came armed with a rifle and tried to explode a propane tank?
#15019070
@Kaiserschmarrn

Hey, I fully support this man's actions. Everything he did was correct and it was a shame he couldn't save those children when he tried.

Laws and governments can go fuck themselves. The Western fascination with laws is hilarious. If the law said that every single person had to jump off of a cliff every year you'll find some Westerners defending it and Westerners will follow that law to the end.

You people are jokes. You and every other person who shies away in disgust whenever someone does something right.
#15019085
Palmyrene wrote:Hey, I fully support this man's actions. Everything he did was correct and it was a shame he couldn't save those children when he tried.

Laws and governments can go fuck themselves. The Western fascination with laws is hilarious. If the law said that every single person had to jump off of a cliff every year you'll find some Westerners defending it and Westerners will follow that law to the end.

I would expect nothing less from an anarchist, but I'd hope you don't pretend that this guy didn't have to be prepared to attack people in order to (what you regard as) save those children.

Palmyrene wrote:You people are jokes. You and every other person who shies away in disgust whenever someone does something right.

As far as I'm concerned, the joke's on you.
#15019144
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I would expect nothing less from an anarchist, but I'd hope you don't pretend that this guy didn't have to be prepared to attack people in order to (what you regard as) save those children.


I'm not and I fully support attacking ICE officers just like how I support killing ISIS soldiers, breaking Egyptian protesters from prison, assassinating high ranking Syrian government officials, and fighting for the rights of kafala workers in the Gulf. And of course, if we were to get cheesy, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (which French anarchists actual did mind you)

I have no contradictions in my beliefs. You may see me as monstrous or dangerous in my opposition of tyranny but that doesn't matter for me. What matters is curbing capitalism and the state while building up the society we want to see.

As far as I'm concerned, the joke's on you.


What? Are you not that kind of person. If it makes you feel better I was generally referring to the people in the thread who go "He broke the law! That's so bad! He deserved it!".
#15019148
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:You have claimed that border/immigration officials deliberately let children die without evidence. You have also claimed that they have breached their duty of care without evidence. We are still waiting for an argument beyond "I don't like the family separation policy".


I am not going t9 go over the evidence and argument si already presented just because you wish to interpret my arguments in a way I did not intend them.

These kids died while in US government custody, when the US government was responsible for them after forcibly separating them from their families.

As for the attacker, I just repeat my question how you imagine he would be able to "save kids" without attacking people. Furthermore, how do you reconcile your claim that he wasn't prepared to hurt or kill people with the fact that he came armed with a rifle and tried to explode a propane tank?


This man did not attack anyone and never even fired a shot. He attacked a few vehicles and his intentions were to free families.

Unless you have evidence that he attacked someone, your characterisation of him is based on speculation.

And again, he seems like the most moral actor in this entire thing.
#15019188
Doug64 wrote:Meanwhile, Andy Ngo—the journalist assaulted by AntiFA and sent to the hospital with a brain hemorrhage—has linked to AntiFA’s response to the firebomber’s claim to be AntiFA. Apparently, they’re fine with it. He also found video of Van Spronsen at an AntiFA rally in 2018.

The facts surrounding the incident of Ngo being assaulted is uncertain . https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys And at any rate a simple misdemeanor assault is not equivalent to an act of terrorism .
#15019190
Pants-of-dog wrote:This man did not attack anyone and never even fired a shot. He attacked a few vehicles and his intentions were to free families.

Unless you have evidence that he attacked someone, your characterisation of him is based on speculation.

And again, he seems like the most moral actor in this entire thing.


I'm glad he's dead. It's clear to any thinking individual that he was escalating towards violence.

Fuck him. I only wish he'd died in front of his family...
#15019202
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your opinion is irrelevant.

There is no evidence that he attacked anyone, so those people who are characterising him as a violent murderer are making a dishonest portrayal.


Aren't you leftists the ones who are always afraid of guns, and believe that guns have but one purpose?

He tried to blow up a propane tank. He threw indcendiary devices. When police arrived they radioed in "shots fired". That's not something they do when they fire on someone. That's something they do when they're fired upon. So, yeah, he did attack people.

But you think he wasn't trying to hurt anyone?
#15019206
BigSteve wrote:Aren't you leftists the ones who are always afraid of guns, and believe that guns have but one purpose?


Your incorrect ideas about leftists are irrelevant.

He tried to blow up a propane tank. He threw indcendiary devices. When police arrived they radioed in "shots fired". That's not something they do when they fire on someone. That's something they do when they're fired upon. So, yeah, he did attack people.

But you think he wasn't trying to hurt anyone?


Please present evidence that he attacked someone.

By evidence, I mean a link to a news article and a quote from said article that says that he attacked someone.

Thank you.
#15019215
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please present evidence that he attacked someone.

By evidence, I mean a link to a news article and a quote from said article that says that he attacked someone.

Thank you.


https://abcnews.go.com/US/rifle-toting-man-throwing-incendiary-devices-ice-detention/story?id=64316579

"Upon arriving on the scene and locating the man, "officers called out shots were fired," according to the Tacoma Police statement."

That's something police do when they're fired upon, not when they open fire on someone else...
#15019218
Palmyrene wrote:@BigSteve

I can convince you to oppose guns with one simply sentence.

Blacks get to have guns too.

How fucking stupid.

I have a lot of friends; good Americans, who own plenty of guns and who happen to be black.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there, but you didn't...
#15019222
BigSteve wrote:How fucking stupid.

I have a lot of friends; good Americans, who own plenty of guns and who happen to be black.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there, but you didn't...


Hey, it convinced Reagan to add stricter gun laws to California so why not see if it works on you.

Although I do think it'll work on Suntzu.
#15019224
BigSteve wrote:https://abcnews.go.com/US/rifle-toting-man-throwing-incendiary-devices-ice-detention/story?id=64316579

"Upon arriving on the scene and locating the man, "officers called out shots were fired," according to the Tacoma Police statement."

That's something police do when they're fired upon, not when they open fire on someone else...


So, your only piece of evidence is one of several possible interpretations of something someone said about what was happening. This is not even hearsay. It is hearsay with a generous helping of bias.

There is no physical evidence that he shot his gun.
#15019228
Palmyrene wrote:Hey, it convinced Reagan to add stricter gun laws to California so why not see if it works on you.


Can you show where "blacks having guns" led Reagan to add stricter gun laws in California?
#15019229
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, your only piece of evidence is one of several possible interpretations of something someone said about what was happening. This is not even hearsay. It is hearsay with a generous helping of bias.

There is no physical evidence that he shot his gun.


The police stated they were being fired upon.

That's good enough for me...
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 15
Moscow Mitch violates his oath of office

@BigSteve Dude, Trump sold the country's natio[…]

EU-BREXIT

Labour doesn't need to get rid of Corbynism. Who d[…]

I didn't talk about that case, and I am not going[…]

The Irishman...

The only difference between you and I is that I h[…]