“This is just the beginning”: Alt-right rejoices as violent protests rock Berkeley

[rocket_surgery]

That shit again? They might have been "socialists" of a kind, but lefties they were not, nor is today's alt-right in any sense.

They were scum but if they were alive today they'd have as much right to march as anyone else without being physically attacked.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

In this case they are. Anyone is who IDs as "alt right."

The problem is that anyone that disagrees with progressives are labeled Alt Right/racists. White Nationalists (what I consider the real alt right) think that Milo Yiannopoulos is enemy number one. Same thing with Ben Shapiro.

I always thought it was strange when protesters would call Milo a racist, muslim-hating, homophobe. The dude is super gay and his last boyfriend was a gay, black muslim.

 

[rocket_surgery]

The problem is that anyone that disagrees with progressives are labeled Alt Right/racists. White Nationalists (what I consider the real alt right) think that Milo Yiannopoulos is enemy number one. Same thing with Ben Shapiro.

I always thought it was strange when protesters would call Milo a racist, muslim-hating, homophobe. The dude is super gay and his last boyfriend was a gay, black muslim.

It's his own fault for being an asshole. People may be wrong about him but it's pretty hard to care.

 

[petes478]

On a separate but related topic. The following from the palmer report

Last week we brought you the story of how Rudy Giuliani is in so much legal trouble that he’s been trying to get a deal in exchange for flipping on Donald Trump, but that the FBI rejected it because its Trump-Russia investigation is so far along that it doesn’t need his help (link). But now equally proven intel sources say that Giuliani has cut a deal after all, and is cooperating with law enforcement against Trump.



This latest information comes from Olga NYC, an online political pundit whose sources have a track record of being proven correct. She states that “A very reliable source has told me that R Giuliani is cooperating” (link). Scott Dworkin of the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, who has a strong track record in his own right, then chimed in to point out that Olga has been “100% reliable” with her inside sources (link). So where does this leave us?



There are two possible scenarios at play here. One is that, after the FBI initially rebuffed Rudy Giuliani, it’s now circled back and given him a deal after all. This tactic is sometimes used to try motivate a suspect to be more cooperative once they’re finally given the deal they’re asking for. The other possible scenario is that after the FBI rejected Giuliani’s request for a deal, the New York State Attorney General may have instead given him a deal. The source hasn’t stated whether Giuliani’s deal was with state or federal law enforcement.



The second scenario is given credibility by the fact that Rudy Giuliani’s most well-documented legal troubles stem from his attempt at interfering with a case that the New York State Attorney General’s office is bringing against a Turkish businessman named Reza Zarrab (source: NBC News). So it makes sense that he would be seeking leniency from the State of New York, and willing to give up Trump in the process. This serves to further demonstrate how far along both the state and federal Trump-Russia investigations are progressing behind the scenes. Contribute to Palmer Report

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

It's his own fault for being an asshole. People may be wrong about him but it's pretty hard to care.

Asshole or not, progressives just negatively label someone they hate because they can't debate their position if their lives depended on it. It doesn't matter if the label is true or not, that all they've got. They don't even believe in the first amendment. They have no problems stifling free speech that they don't agree with. That's what real fascism is.

 

[KingOrfeo]

They were scum but if they were alive today they'd have as much right to march as anyone else without being physically attacked.

Before the Nazis came to power, they marched mainly to seek out street fights with the Red Front.

 

[Parminderjeet]

They died for freedom which is why Nazis are allowed to march. Most would agree they have the right and should be allowed to. Everyone can and should be allowed to speack no matter what their views. You don't have to listen and are free to say whatever you want back. It's the violence part that isn't allowed and shouldn't be tolerated.

So you're okay with Muslims marching for sharia and chanting death to america?

 

[KingOrfeo]

The problem is that anyone that disagrees with progressives are labeled Alt Right/racists.

We disagree with the Tea Party, but we don't call them alt-right. (Racists they probably are, but not in such a systematic or ideological way as the alt-right.)

 

[rocket_surgery]

So you're okay with Muslims marching for sharia and chanting death to america?

I'm not ok with it personally but I absolutely believe they should be allowed to.

 

[rocket_surgery]

Before the Nazis came to power, they marched mainly to seek out street fights with the Red Front.

I think you're sorta missing the point here.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I think you're sorta missing the point here.

The point is that anyone consciously or unconsciously inspired by them is probably not marching with peaceful intentions.

 

[rocket_surgery]

Asshole or not, progressives just negatively label someone they hate because they can't debate their position if their lives depended on it. It doesn't matter if the label is true or not, that all they've got. They don't even believe in the first amendment. They have no problems stifling free speech that they don't agree with. That's what real fascism is.

I agree with that when it comes to the average guy online and for some of the major players but not all. Depends how far left they go.

 

[rocket_surgery]

The point is that anyone consciously or unconsciously inspired by them is probably not marching with peaceful intentions.

Again, it doesn't matter. They have a right to march and say whatever they want. If they don't do anything violent then nobody has a right to do anything violent to them.

 

[Parminderjeet]

I'm not ok with it personally but I absolutely believe they should be allowed to.

fair 'nuff

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

We disagree with the Tea Party, but we don't call them alt-right. (Racists they probably are, but not in such a systematic or ideological way as the alt-right.)

A lot of the Tea Party were originally fiscal conservatives like Ron Paul. They just wanted the government to stop spending money that they didn't have. That doesn't make them racists. I remember a youtube video from years ago that showed some Republican politician coming onto a stage in front of a bunch of republican tea partiers. They all stood up and faced away from the stage because they knew that guy was not fiscally conservative at all. He wrongly assumed that he could just spout off that he was for the tea party as well (probably in an attempt to score some votes). The crowd didn't give a shit that he was a Republican...they knew that he was full of shit. (I really wish I could find that vid again.)

Something happened later on from the original Ron Paul Tea Party where it was co-opted/shifted. I think it happened around Occupy Wall Street. It was strange how the new Tea Party tried to retcon the true origin of the modern day tea party. I remember that they tried rewriting the Tea Party Wikipedia multiple times but Ron Paul fans kept changing it back.

 

[KingOrfeo]

A lot of the Tea Party were originally fiscal conservatives like Ron Paul. They just wanted the government to stop spending money that they didn't have. That doesn't make them racists.

No, it doesn't, but Tea Partiers do tend to hold racist opinions based on studies I've seen, and their fiscal conservatism is probably based at least partly on perennial white-racist hostility to public funds going to help "the other," and on the persistent misconception that most public assistance goes to nonwhites (it doesn't, and it never has in this country).

 

[Hard_Rom]

Tolerance is a two way street. You don't go around yelling 'n*****, dirty Jew/Muslim, fucking faggot" and such. And I will tolerate you. Break that rule and pay the consequences.

If two countries have a peace treaty and one breaks it. Does the other respond in limited fashion? Or do they bring down the wrath of god so to ensure that it does not happen again.

If you have nothing nice to say about someone don't say anything at all.

Does anybody remember their mum telling them that?

 

[BotanyBoy]

That shit again? They might have been "socialists" of a kind,

Nationalist kind, we call it fascism.

but lefties they were not,

Yea....they were.

nor is today's alt-right in any sense.

You're right they support far more liberal things..... like free speech

 

[KingOrfeo]

If you have nothing nice to say about someone don't say anything at all.

And remember that, dipshits!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Tolerance is a two way street.

The law is not.

You don't go around yelling 'n*****, dirty Jew/Muslim, fucking faggot" and such. And I will tolerate you.

How about you'll tolerate me or you'll go to prison if you're lucky.

Break that rule and pay the consequences.

Assault is against the law, add a deadly weapon and attempted murder to the mix and I might just have to gut you like a fish

If you have nothing nice to say about someone don't say anything at all.

Sorry you fascist shithead....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Does anybody remember their mum telling them that?

My mom told me I was an American and it was my Gawd given and legal right to be an asshole.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And remember that, dipshits!

Or what? You'll throw a brick at me like your antiFa buddies?

So tolerant....

Much progress.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Or what? You'll throw a brick at me like your antiFa buddies?

No, I'll . . . I'll scold you! Tremble in fear and despair!

 

[Hard_Rom]

Congress doesn't or shouldn't have to make laws making being an asshole illegal. Society will punish them.

Loudmouthed assholes have always invited being punched in the head. No law will change that. And you're a fucking pussy assed bitch if you cower behind the law.

You Yanks are all so 1776 and the days of the wild west. What happened to settling it like men outside. Now its all 'oh he threatened my right to free speech. I'm going to sue you!'.

Humans are social animals. There is no Bog given right to be an asshole. On the contrary. Social animals have ways of punishing anti-social ones. Or you risk a break down on your society where civilization breaks down and the rule of the gun takes over from the rule of law.

So go ahead be a raving racist asshole. Just get medical insurance first because ain't no law going to save you from getting your nose broken. Or turtle up and call for your mommy.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

No, it doesn't, but Tea Partiers do tend to hold racist opinions based on studies I've seen, and their fiscal conservatism is probably based at least partly on perennial white-racist hostility to public funds going to help "the other," and on the persistent misconception that most public assistance goes to nonwhites (it doesn't, and it never has in this country).

Nope. They wanted domestic and foreign cuts. For example, originally they didn't think that the U.S. should be paying any country foreign aid (that included our allies like Israel and our enemies like Iran.) They also didn't want the U.S. military stationed in over 100 countries around the globe. They wanted other countries to step up and pay for their own defense. They also wanted to cut a lot of wasted bureaucracy from the Federal government because eventually, our massive debts would crush us.

There would be no public assistance, or anything else for that matter, if we collapse due to our debts.

 

[BotanyBoy]

and their fiscal conservatism is probably based at least partly on perennial white-racist hostility to public funds going to help "the other,"

Not wanting to pay for other peoples shit isn't racist.....it's American.

Trying to say that it is, and even better making it white, makes YOU the racist.