Fascist White Supremacist Rally in Portland Thwarted

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

The bus was stationary. But that doesn't answer my question. Do buses bleed?

Yes.

They bleed fuel.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

"I want violence, I want punching in the face. I'm disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough." - Gavin McInnes, the founder of the Proud Boys.
Try again. Also see here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/us/p ... .html?_r=0
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... proud-boys

Lol aside from having nothing to do with what went on now, Gavin doesn't even have anything to do with the proud boys anymore. And your two links don't debunk shit especially that piece of shit SPLC link.

Gavin is the "founding father" of the Proud Boys and one of its most prominent figures and associates, so he does exert a substantial amount of influence on the organization, even if he claims to have distanced himself from them. A founder remains a founder, regardless of whether or not he/she wants to distance themselves from a group they created.

And in what way is the SPLC a "piece of shit"? Are you mad at them for exposing extremist anti-democratic organizations and hate groups? Not to mention that every article of theirs is properly sourced and factually correct, and any mistake that is detected is automatically corrected, and consensus by academic scholars and analyses classify the SPLC as an authoritative and legitimate source on extremist organizations, on par with the Anti-Defamation League.

Their definition of hate groups also matches with the FBI's definition of a hate crime (The SPLC also worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on numerous occassions), so there is no discrepancy there in case you were concerned about that.

[Ifreann]

The bus was stationary. But that doesn't answer my question. Do buses bleed?

Yes.

Yes?

---

Yes.

They bleed fuel.

The truest blood.

[Kowani]

No?

Okay.

Do you acknowledge that throwing projectiles at a congregation of people is typically seen as an initiation of violence?

Only if one is actually endangered by it.

They were really in danger of being hit by rocks inside their armored bus.

I don’t just mean over the weekend, I mean since this whole thing began. Groups like BAMN and Antifa instigated the violence,

Citation needed.

[Torrocca]

Okay.

Do you acknowledge that throwing projectiles at a congregation of people is typically seen as an initiation of violence?

Only if one is actually endangered by it.

The Anti-Fascists on the underpass in Portland were actually using specialized Anti-Fascist Anti-Armor Rock Munitions provided by the patronage of George Soros himself to destroy the armored bus carrying a militia of Fascists, which is why the Fascists were definitely justified in exiting said armored bus and attacking random Anti-Fascist bystanders on the overpass - who had nothing to do with the rock-throwing - with hammers.

Luckily for them, it seems that the field experiments to infuse the mystical powers of soy into the Anti-Fascist Anti-Armor Rock Munitions caused them all to fail spectacularly at their designated job of destroying an armored vehicle and blowing it to hell and back.

[Ifreann]

Only if one is actually endangered by it.

The Anti-Fascists on the underpass in Portland were actually using specialized Anti-Fascist Anti-Armor Rock Munitions provided by the patronage of George Soros himself to destroy the armored bus carrying a militia of Fascists, which is why the Fascists were definitely justified in exiting said armored bus and attacking random Anti-Fascist bystanders on the overpass - who had nothing to do with the rock-throwing - with hammers.

Luckily for them, it seems that the field experiments to infuse the mystical powers of soy into the Anti-Fascist Anti-Armor Rock Munitions caused them all to fail spectacularly at their designated job of destroying an armored vehicle and blowing it to hell and back.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

[Rostavykhan]

Okay.

Do you acknowledge that throwing projectiles at a congregation of people is typically seen as an initiation of violence?

Only if one is actually endangered by it.

TIL I can swing the ole' Louisville Slugger at my neighbor and it not be initiating violence unless it actually reaches over the fence and smacks him.

[Kowani]

Only if one is actually endangered by it.

TIL I can swing the ole' Louisville Slugger at my neighbor and it not be initiating violence unless it actually reaches over the fence and smacks him.

Endangered. If your neighbor had a steel wall in between the two of you, that wouldn’t be inciting violence.

[Proctopeo]

TIL I can swing the ole' Louisville Slugger at my neighbor and it not be initiating violence unless it actually reaches over the fence and smacks him.

Endangered. If your neighbor had a steel wall in between the two of you, that wouldn’t be inciting violence.

Depends on the nature of the wall: its thickness, its quality, and if there's any convenient weak points or viewing ports.

[Telconi]

Endangered. If your neighbor had a steel wall in between the two of you, that wouldn’t be inciting violence.

Depends on the nature of the wall: its thickness, its quality, and if there's any convenient weak points or viewing ports.

It's really a foolish definition anyhow.

[Kowani]

Endangered. If your neighbor had a steel wall in between the two of you, that wouldn’t be inciting violence.

Depends on the nature of the wall: its thickness, its quality, and if there's any convenient weak points or viewing ports.

That’s a fair point.

[Bassoe]

Unless you’re some kind of one percenter executive or politician type, Bush-style conservatism has little to offer you. And considering how small a fraction of the total population said people are, statistically we probably don’t have any of them here.

I believe the saying is “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

Well, I'm not buying it. The chances that I'll become a millionaire are effectively low enough that it makes sense for me to support policies that screw millionaires in favor of non-millionaires. Why not? They've been doing the reverse for decades.

[Purgatio]

That would hold true, had not antifa drawn first blood

They were really in danger of being hit by rocks inside their armored bus.

The windows were open and at some point they had to disembark, they can't stay in the bus forever. I mean, at some point the Left and ANTIFA apologists need to admit they'd never take this same approach in any other situation if not for the fact that the Left dislikes the political views of the people in the Portland bus.

Like, if an angry mob started throwing and pelting rocks at a Starbucks causing peaceful civilians to fear leaving the Starbucks because they know they'd get attacked, I highly doubt anyone would be absurd enough to say 'oh the rock-pelters aren't doing anything wrong, Starbucks is shielded by windows and if the customers don't want to get hit by rocks they can just stay inside, no violence is being inflicted'. But if all the Starbucks customers were members of the far-right, well, then that handy excuse will magically find its way out of the Left's propaganda machine.

[Cekoviu]

They were really in danger of being hit by rocks inside their armored bus.

The windows were open and at some point they had to disembark, they can't stay in the bus forever. I mean, at some point the Left and ANTIFA apologists need to admit they'd never take this same approach in any other situation if not for the fact that the Left dislikes the political views of the people in the Portland bus.

Like, if an angry mob started throwing and pelting rocks at a Starbucks causing peaceful civilians to fear leaving the Starbucks because they know they'd get attacked, I highly doubt anyone would be absurd enough to say 'oh the rock-pelters aren't doing anything wrong, Starbucks is shielded by windows and if the customers don't want to get hit by rocks they can just stay inside, no violence is being inflicted'. But if all the Starbucks customers were members of the far-right, well, then that handy excuse will magically find its way out of the Left's propaganda machine.

I know this is fake because far-righters would never go to a Starbucks.

[Torrocca]

They were really in danger of being hit by rocks inside their armored bus.

The windows were open and at some point they had to disembark, they can't stay in the bus forever. I mean, at some point the Left and ANTIFA apologists need to admit they'd never take this same approach in any other situation if not for the fact that the Left dislikes the political views of the people in the Portland bus.

Like, if an angry mob started throwing and pelting rocks at a Starbucks causing peaceful civilians to fear leaving the Starbucks because they know they'd get attacked, I highly doubt anyone would be absurd enough to say 'oh the rock-pelters aren't doing anything wrong, Starbucks is shielded by windows and if the customers don't want to get hit by rocks they can just stay inside, no violence is being inflicted'. But if all the Starbucks customers were members of the far-right, well, then that handy excuse will magically find its way out of the Left's propaganda machine.

A Starbucks isn't a mobile, armored vehicle with the ability to relocate to a safer location and avoid an angry mob. Your analogy doesn't work.

[Purgatio]

The windows were open and at some point they had to disembark, they can't stay in the bus forever. I mean, at some point the Left and ANTIFA apologists need to admit they'd never take this same approach in any other situation if not for the fact that the Left dislikes the political views of the people in the Portland bus.

Like, if an angry mob started throwing and pelting rocks at a Starbucks causing peaceful civilians to fear leaving the Starbucks because they know they'd get attacked, I highly doubt anyone would be absurd enough to say 'oh the rock-pelters aren't doing anything wrong, Starbucks is shielded by windows and if the customers don't want to get hit by rocks they can just stay inside, no violence is being inflicted'. But if all the Starbucks customers were members of the far-right, well, then that handy excuse will magically find its way out of the Left's propaganda machine.

I know this is fake because far-righters would never go to a Starbucks.

I'm not far-right by any stretch, but I am pretty conservative and right-wing and I study in Starbucks basically every day. I like having copious amounts of coffee handy when I'm going over long, boring legal judgments.

[Cekoviu]

I know this is fake because far-righters would never go to a Starbucks.

I'm not far-right by any stretch, but I am pretty conservative and right-wing and I study in Starbucks basically every day. I like having copious amounts of coffee handy when I'm going over long, boring legal judgments.

Are you an undercover communist?

[Purgatio]

The windows were open and at some point they had to disembark, they can't stay in the bus forever. I mean, at some point the Left and ANTIFA apologists need to admit they'd never take this same approach in any other situation if not for the fact that the Left dislikes the political views of the people in the Portland bus.

Like, if an angry mob started throwing and pelting rocks at a Starbucks causing peaceful civilians to fear leaving the Starbucks because they know they'd get attacked, I highly doubt anyone would be absurd enough to say 'oh the rock-pelters aren't doing anything wrong, Starbucks is shielded by windows and if the customers don't want to get hit by rocks they can just stay inside, no violence is being inflicted'. But if all the Starbucks customers were members of the far-right, well, then that handy excuse will magically find its way out of the Left's propaganda machine.

A Starbucks isn't a mobile, armored vehicle with the ability to relocate to a safer location and avoid an angry mob. Your analogy doesn't work.

The point of the analogy is that you cannot threaten unlawful violence to intimidate someone into avoiding an action they are lawfully-entitled to do. A person in Starbucks could avoid getting pelted by rocks by staying inside, but it doesn't change the fact that he's under no obligation to do so because he's entitled to leave the Starbucks and access a public street like anyone else. You can't threaten someone with violence for being somewhere he's lawfully entitled to be, then blame him for the violence when he stays in that location. In the same way as I can't go up to you in a restaurant and say "leave or I'll punch you in the face" and then, when you don't leave, and I punch you, go "well if he wanted to avoid the violence he could just have left, you know".

[Torrocca]

I'm not far-right by any stretch, but I am pretty conservative and right-wing and I study in Starbucks basically every day. I like having copious amounts of coffee handy when I'm going over long, boring legal judgments.

Are you an undercover communist?

Has the market demand for bridges increased recently? Because I've got a few bridges I desperately need to sell.

[Torrocca]

A Starbucks isn't a mobile, armored vehicle with the ability to relocate to a safer location and avoid an angry mob. Your analogy doesn't work.

The point of the analogy is that you cannot threaten unlawful violence to intimidate someone into avoiding an action they are lawfully-entitled to do. A person in Starbucks could avoid getting pelted by rocks by staying inside, but it doesn't change the fact that he's under no obligation to do so because he's entitled to leave the Starbucks and access a public street like anyone else. You can't threaten someone with violence for being somewhere he's lawfully entitled to be, then blame him for the violence when he stays in that location. In the same way as I can't go up to you in a restaurant and say "leave or I'll punch you in the face" and then, when you don't leave, and I punch you, go "well if he wanted to avoid the violence he could just have left, you know".

The point you've continually missed this entire thread is that the Fascists were under no obligation to leave the safety of their armored vehicle to start attacking unarmed bystanders with hammers.

Also, nice job with the misgendering in your second flawed analogy.

[Purgatio]

I'm not far-right by any stretch, but I am pretty conservative and right-wing and I study in Starbucks basically every day. I like having copious amounts of coffee handy when I'm going over long, boring legal judgments.

Are you an undercover communist?

Busted, I'm a radical Marxist who joins right-wing conservative organisations to spy on the opposition in preparation for the upcoming workers' revolution. And I'd have gotten away with it too if not for my Starbucks addiction.

[Purgatio]

The point of the analogy is that you cannot threaten unlawful violence to intimidate someone into avoiding an action they are lawfully-entitled to do. A person in Starbucks could avoid getting pelted by rocks by staying inside, but it doesn't change the fact that he's under no obligation to do so because he's entitled to leave the Starbucks and access a public street like anyone else. You can't threaten someone with violence for being somewhere he's lawfully entitled to be, then blame him for the violence when he stays in that location. In the same way as I can't go up to you in a restaurant and say "leave or I'll punch you in the face" and then, when you don't leave, and I punch you, go "well if he wanted to avoid the violence he could just have left, you know".

The point you've continually missed this entire thread is that the Fascists were under no obligation to leave the safety of their armored vehicle to start attacking unarmed bystanders with hammers.

And the point you've continually missed this entire thread is that its still illegal to throw rocks at people who dismount from a bus because dismounting from a bus is not a physical attack against which you are entitled to respond in self-defense. Sorry but you can't keep justifying ANTIFA violence with this ridiculous excuse of 'why didn't they stay in the bus' because throwing rocks at someone for the audacity of dismounting from a bus is still assault and battery in basically every legal jurisdiction, because of course it is

[Torrocca]

The point you've continually missed this entire thread is that the Fascists were under no obligation to leave the safety of their armored vehicle to start attacking unarmed bystanders with hammers.

And the point you've continually missed this entire thread is that its still illegal to throw rocks at people who dismount from a bus because dismounting from a bus is not a physical attack against which you are entitled to respond in self-defense. Sorry but you can't keep justifying ANTIFA violence with this ridiculous excuse of 'why didn't they stay in the bus' because throwing rocks at someone for the audacity of dismounting from a bus is still assault and battery in basically every legal jurisdiction, because of course it is

The rocks were thrown before the Fascists dismounted from their armored bus on the OVERPASS. The rocks were thrown by people standing on an underpass. The Fascists dismounted onto the OVERPASS, armed with hammers, after the last rock had been thrown. The Fascists attacked the nearest bystanders on the OVERPASS immediately afterward.

You can stop playing apologetics for Fascists any day now.

[New Democratic Republic of Russia]

While I'll gladly condemn any sort of fascist/National Socialist/white power group, Antifa is no better. They assault people that are not even part of the protest, people trying to break it up, vandalize property, and overall hate anyone who is not Antifa.

[Purgatio]

And the point you've continually missed this entire thread is that its still illegal to throw rocks at people who dismount from a bus because dismounting from a bus is not a physical attack against which you are entitled to respond in self-defense. Sorry but you can't keep justifying ANTIFA violence with this ridiculous excuse of 'why didn't they stay in the bus' because throwing rocks at someone for the audacity of dismounting from a bus is still assault and battery in basically every legal jurisdiction, because of course it is

The rocks were thrown before the Fascists dismounted from their armored bus on the OVERPASS. The rocks were thrown by people standing on an underpass. The Fascists dismounted onto the OVERPASS, armed with hammers, after the last rock had been thrown. The Fascists attacked the nearest bystanders on the OVERPASS immediately afterward.

You can stop playing apologetics for Fascists any day now.

It works both ways you know. I've yet to hear you condemn ANTIFA for throwing rocks from the underpass at a bus full of people whose political views they disagreed with even though they weren't under any imminent attack. Why am I an 'apologist for fascists' for condemning the violence inflicted on them but you're not 'an apologist for ANTIFA violence' for refusing to condemn ANTIFA's unprovoked attacks when they weren't under any imminent threat of suffering any violence whatsoever?