the leftist fascist hate parade thread-The latest news on violence and other despicable behavior by the left

[Anonymous]

Fair enough.  I might condone misdemeanor vandalism in some cases, but felony vandalism is not something I approve of.  I've had lots of practice around here observing this distinction because there's a national forest and a lot of logging contracts, and some tree hugger protests involving chains and padlocks but not extending to setting shit on fire or pouring sugar in fuel tanks.



On the other hand, even felony vandalism doesn't rise to the levels of "violence" the state will bring to bear on people exercising their constitutional rights to protest...but that is for another conversation.

In this country, we have no "constitutional right" to damage private or public property, punch people in the face for having a different opinion or harassing off duty peace officers.

That's nice, but I thought we were talking about people in southern California which for better or worse is not part of your country.

I think Seoul knows that.

 :001_rolleyes:

I'm virtually certain he does.  I'm asking him politely to connect the dots for me, because I'm sure he has a deeper point than what meets the eye.  People on this forum don't typically make nice with me with "that's not the way we do things here" when it's not my OP or my topic, and I haven't suggested they should.

[Anonymous]

I'm virtually certain he does. I'm asking him politely to connect the dots for me, because I'm sure he has a deeper point than what meets the eye.  People on this forum don't typically make nice with me with "that's not the way we do things here" when it's not my OP or my topic, and I haven't suggested they should.

You don't need Seoul to do that for you.

[Anonymous]

I'm virtually certain he does. I'm asking him politely to connect the dots for me, because I'm sure he has a deeper point than what meets the eye.  People on this forum don't typically make nice with me with "that's not the way we do things here" when it's not my OP or my topic, and I haven't suggested they should.

You don't need Seoul to do that for you.

Nor do I need to reply to his post at all, even if it's addressed to me.  I can be discourteous just as others do.

[Anonymous]

I'm virtually certain he does. I'm asking him politely to connect the dots for me, because I'm sure he has a deeper point than what meets the eye.  People on this forum don't typically make nice with me with "that's not the way we do things here" when it's not my OP or my topic, and I haven't suggested they should.

You don't need Seoul to do that for you.

For a "scientist", Peaches sure acts stupid.

[Bricktop]

I might condone misdemeanor vandalism in some cases.

Thus you condone breaking the law for political purposes.



Which other laws will you accept are breakable in order to promote your ideology?



How about assault? Theft? Arson?



What is the point and purpose of this thuggery?

[Anonymous]

I might condone misdemeanor vandalism in some cases.

Thus you condone breaking the law for political purposes.



Which other laws will you accept are breakable in order to promote your ideology?



How about assault? Theft? Arson?



What is the point and purpose of this thuggery?

To silence people he disagrees with.

[Bricktop]

Then they need another tactic. Its far from effective.

[Anonymous]

I might condone misdemeanor vandalism in some cases.

Thus you condone breaking the law for political purposes.



Which other laws will you accept are breakable in order to promote your ideology?



How about assault? Theft? Arson?



What is the point and purpose of this thuggery?

I draw important distinctions between crimes against people and crimes against property.  That stems from an awareness of Anglo-Saxon common law.  But unlike much common law (and most cops) I hold no more reverence for the property of the rich than for the property of the poor.



Law is in many cases a tool of the elite, and I'm not just speaking of the US.  Thus I never ever respect a law simply because it's a law.



"There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress."  (Mark Twain)



~~~



I just saw SB's comment.  Inasmuch as my opinions about political action have nothing at all to do with silencing anyone, I reject the comment out of hand but I'd probably like some of whatever he's smoking.



~~~



I saw IHJ's comment earlier, but inasmuch as it's just an example of the kind of "ooh, a dogpile, let me pile on too" vapidity I didn't reply to it.  And now I have.

[Bricktop]

I draw important distinctions between crimes against people and crimes against property.  

By what authority do you get to distinguish what constitutes a crime, and what doesn't? Are you implying that you feel free to damage property, but not to assault a police officer arresting you for that non-crime?

That stems from an awareness of Anglo-Saxon common law.  But unlike much common law (and most cops) I hold no more reverence for the property of the rich than for the property of the poor.

No common law excludes criminal acts simply because you disagree with the law. I fail to see what "common law" (a subject which I am very familiar with for obvious reasons) has to do with obeying any law, common or statutory.

Law is in many cases a tool of the elite, and I'm not just speaking of the US.  Thus I never ever respect a law simply because it's a law.

So, you will determine which "case" of criminal conduct is an elitist tool and which is not? Is speeding an elitist tool? What constitutes elitist law?

"There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress."  (Mark Twain)

As with all of Twain's quotes, that one is trite, illogical and deceptive. Perhaps Mr Twain could be forgiven for being unaware of the Mafia, the Crips, the Bloods, M13, Hells Angels and a plethora of career, recidivist criminals. The combined weight of these gangs create what I would call a criminal class. True, at law there is no such thing, but in practice there certainly IS a category, or class, of citizens who's lifestyle is based on defying the law.



You have no right, reason or justification to select which law you will comply with and which you will not. Civil disobedience is a 2 edged sword, Peach...what might be reasonable when your man is not in power becomes unreasonable when your side IS in power. Your philosophy is a pathway to anarchy.

[Frood]

People are their own property. There is no legitimate difference in property rights. It works both ways.

[Anonymous]

I draw important distinctions between crimes against people and crimes against property.  

By what authority do you get to distinguish what constitutes a crime, and what doesn't? Are you implying that you feel free to damage property, but not to assault a police officer arresting you for that non-crime?

[size=150]#A[/size]

That stems from an awareness of Anglo-Saxon common law.  But unlike much common law (and most cops) I hold no more reverence for the property of the rich than for the property of the poor.

No common law excludes criminal acts simply because you disagree with the law. I fail to see what "common law" (a subject which I am very familiar with for obvious reasons) has to do with obeying any law, common or statutory.

[size=150]#B[/size]

Law is in many cases a tool of the elite, and I'm not just speaking of the US.  Thus I never ever respect a law simply because it's a law.

So, you will determine which "case" of criminal conduct is an elitist tool and which is not? Is speeding an elitist tool? What constitutes elitist law?

[size=150]#C[/size]

"There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress."  (Mark Twain)

As with all of Twain's quotes, that one is trite, illogical and deceptive. Perhaps Mr Twain could be forgiven for being unaware of the Mafia, the Crips, the Bloods, M13, Hells Angels and a plethora of career, recidivist criminals. The combined weight of these gangs create what I would call a criminal class. True, at law there is no such thing, but in practice there certainly IS a category, or class, of citizens who's lifestyle is based on defying the law.

[size=150]#D[/size]



You have no right, reason or justification to select which law you will comply with and which you will not. Civil disobedience is a 2 edged sword, Peach...what might be reasonable when your man is not in power becomes unreasonable when your side IS in power. Your philosophy is a pathway to anarchy.

[size=150]#E[/size]

[size=150]#A[/size]

I'll give this rant the courtesy of breaking it down inside one post, but in future if you and I are having a spirited discussion I'll suggest that each point be handled in a single post --lest the chore of HTML formatting wear us both down.

I claim no "authority" as you put it beyond my own good sense, and the spirit of Jefferson and Adams... when I say I live in Greater Appalachia evidently you don't fully grok the implications, which include civil disobedience, jury nullification, and other such notions.  You're welcome to draw your own inferences but I'm not trying to "imply" anything beyond what I specifically say.  In the case of your examples, I do NOT feel free to damage property without incurring consequences to myself, and I don't assault LEOs no matter what they may do.



[size=150]#B[/size]

Perhaps to be clear I should have said it "stems from an awareness of what is settled and generally reasonable in Anglo-Saxon common law."  But don't presume to lecture me about your deep familiarity with common law, as my own familiarity no doubt equals yours even though your course of study was different than mine.  



[size=150]#C[/size]

I'm speaking of law, whether statute law or administrative law, being a tool of the elite.  And evidently you're unable to conceptualize the law as an edict subject to evaluation or criticism, but must instead think I'm speaking of INFRACTIONS of said law...which I would never suggest were an elitist tool.

===As to what constitutes an elitiist law, it's one enacted at the behest of those who bribe legislators, to benefit the bribers or their cronies, rather than to benefit the society generally.  One example would be a particular exception somewhere in the federal income tax code that specifically says that if you are a corporation chartered in New Jersey on August 25, 1958, this subsection does not apply to you.  And even better, this exclusion sunsets every two years and has to be renewed -- which will not happen unless the right Congressman's re-election fund receives the right size check.



[size=150]#D[/size]

Trite, illogical, deceptive ???  I'll suggest that Twain has sold far more books and made far more paid speeches than you have.  Further, I assure you that organized gangs in the US are hardly a recent invention.  They also existed in the post-Civil War era, side by side with the great Robber Barons of that age.  



[size=150]#E[/size]

You may not know that I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the US.  The oath did not have an expiration date.



The SCOTUS is not protected under my oath when it issues a decision that corporations are people.  Any fool can see that if corporations were people they would be taxed like people, and would go to jail when they broke the law.  So in reaching that decision I am free indeed to conclude that either the court erred or else there were five justices "in the tank."



Contrary to your assertion, I have EVERY right to make my own decisions about which laws I will obey.  There was a time when in this state I would have been looking at ten years in the joint for passing a single joint to a narc, but apparently I exercised good judgment in my choices about whom to pass a joint to.  I don't dispute your comment on civil disobedience, but in my case "my man" has never been in power regardless of which candidate won the office.  It's always a choice between the Thief and the Idiot.  And sometimes I get both in one.  



As for anarchy, it has a long and varied history.  In a case of societal collapse, the people most scared of anarchy will be the ones who blink first.

[Wazzzup]

[size=150]Sen. Cory Booker Pleads for Supporters to 'Get Up in the Face of Congresspeople'[/size]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/28/cory-booker-pleads-supporters-get-face-congresspeople">http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/28/c ... resspeople">http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/28/cory-booker-pleads-supporters-get-face-congresspeople



Not as bad as "auntie Maxine" but still "get up in the face" of people?  he's not saying call your congressman, write them an email, or a letter, or go to their office and try to talk to them.  No its "get in their faces"



This s a sneaky way for booker to pour more gasoline on the fire and encourage leftist thugs and their brownshirt tactics, while still trying to maintain plausible deniability.  But I think most people know what he really means (harass, threaten, scream, yell, make their lives more difficult-BULLY THEM INTO SUBMISSION)



Whatever happened to try and make a good argument for your views, and try and convince people you are right?  Boy, that idea is long gone on the left it seems

[Anonymous]

Most people know "what getting up in people's faces means. Booger does too.

[Wazzzup]

"Kristen Welker, how do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her (Sarah Sander's) neck?" [/quote]
Washington Post editorialist says Sarah Sanders should be harassed for life for working for trump

"We're not going to let these people go through life unscathed. Sarah Huckabee has no right to live a life of no fuss, no muss, after lying to the press, after inciting against the press. These people should be made uncomfortable, and I think that's a life sentence, frankly.

More prognazi behavior on display

[Chuck Bronson]

Maybe time to construct a 24 unit subsidized building right next door to them...  Then we can watch them screech and howl bloody murder.