A Bit Of Hitting Back At Portland And Antifa

[Kathianne]

I don't know if anyone else has been following what this reporter went through covering Antifa in Portland, but it was a disgrace. Good on Cruz.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/30/ted-cruz-seeks-probe-ted-wheeler-portland-antifa-a/

[Kathianne]

The struggle to find some good guys.

One doesn't have to like Trump to know that the other side-at least the very far left-is as bad or worse:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-anti-trump-fever-takes-threatening-turn

[STTAB]

The struggle to find some good guys.

One doesn't have to like Trump to know that the other side-at least the very far left-is as bad or worse:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-anti-trump-fever-takes-threatening-turn

As bad or worse? Come on Kath that is so unfair Trump has not done anything to stifle free speech and outside of a few unfortunate tweets during his first campaign he hasn't said anything about being violent . Meanwhile sitting members of Congress are actually out there calling for violence against people who say things they don't like.

[Kathianne]

As bad or worse? Come on Kath that is so unfair Trump has not done anything to stifle free speech and outside of a few unfortunate tweets during his first campaign he hasn't said anything about being violent . Meanwhile sitting members of Congress are actually out there calling for violence against people who say things they don't like.

Actually I'd put the extremes of both as being very, very bad people. Right now I'd say that the violence in general if from the left, but there's no doubt in my mind that there are many on the extreme right equally capable of doing some violence of their own. Both sides would easily curtail the civil rights of the other side-no need that it be 'extremists' on the other side, indeed anyone who disagrees with their declarations would be grand targets.


The right sees the calls from violence from the left, for the simple reason the right media gins it up as much as the left media tones it down. (See above.) Likewise, the right media is not focusing on the nutcases on the right, cause what would be the fun in that?

[jimnyc]

Actually I'd put the extremes of both as being very, very bad people. Right now I'd say that the violence in general if from the left, but there's no doubt in my mind that there are many on the extreme right equally capable of doing some violence of their own. Both sides would easily curtail the civil rights of the other side-no need that it be 'extremists' on the other side, indeed anyone who disagrees with their declarations would be grand targets.


The right sees the calls from violence from the left, for the simple reason the right media gins it up as much as the left media tones it down. (See above.) Likewise, the right media is not focusing on the nutcases on the right, cause what would be the fun in that?

I'm happy to post them if I find them, but to be honest, it's been quite rare to find the right out there in any type of similar violence. Yes, some have done whack shit like the left, but not nearly as much. And I check all the left sites daily and would post about stuff like that if found. And the calls for truly bad things from politicians, and the things even said by some.... while we hear a lot from pundits (although I don't think again nearly as much, nor nearly as harsh), but nothing near the same coming from politicians on the right that I have seen.

And while Trump isn't innocent by any means, and is a provoker of the left - I never even saw the level of racism from him that the left claims. Well, none at all unless they are things drawn out of context and a collusion reached about others... aka wanting to ban from certain countries doesn't equate to racist, but one can make that argument). And other than doing similar from the left, I don't see him either out there saying the things we have read and heard from left politicians, the truly bad crap, looking for violence and or degradation of folks in masses). This is NOT absolving him from the bad shit he offers and says that often get things going, I just mean I don't see the same amount of vitriol from him, nor outright calls for doing things to lefty politicians).

Oh, and believe me, reading CNN/MSNBC alone daily, they would give their arms to catch the right doing things like politicians on the left have said, or if the level of violence from the right supporters was equal, or nearly equal. I just don't see the violence out there the same at all. There ARE fringe groups that go out there, and will willingly fight with antifa if pushed, and I acknowledge that and those assholes. But I compare the president with major leaders in congress, than equal members of congress on both sides, then newbies & then of course left supporters and right supporters. And of COURSE I am biased, but I'd like to think I am an honest person. If something happens in politics, and it's factually happened - I will post about it and discuss it, left or right.

Ok, coffee rambling again. Not really back AT you, but replying and giving thoughts. :)

[jimnyc]

Ad this stuff too, from the media. They both often suck - but the left is MUCH worse about it and don't even tell the facts within their stories, they will just lie or lie by omission.

---

CNN’s Brian Stelter Downplays Antifa’s Brutal Beating of Andy Ngo

CNN’s Brian Stelter deliberately downplayed the brutal beating of journalist Andy Ngo at the hands of the left-wing terrorist group Antifa.

Ngo, a reporter and editor for Quillette, a site that champions free expression, was physically assaulted by a gang of Antifa thugs in Portland, Oregon, Saturday while covering a protest that — as is almost always the case with Antifa — turned into a violent riot.

Video shows that while doing nothing more provocative than covering the event, Ngo was sucker-punched in the face by a masked thug. Then, as he covered his injured face, Ngo was swarmed by black-clad hooligans who viciously kicked and pushed Ngo while throwing containers of liquid at him.

As he walks away in retreat, two more terrorists hurl objects at him.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/07/01/nolte-cnns-brian-stelter-downplays-antifas-brutal-beating-of-andy-ngo/

[Kathianne]

I'm happy to post them if I find them, but to be honest, it's been quite rare to find the right out there in any type of similar violence. Yes, some have done whack shit like the left, but not nearly as much. And I check all the left sites daily and would post about stuff like that if found. And the calls for truly bad things from politicians, and the things even said by some.... while we hear a lot from pundits (although I don't think again nearly as much, nor nearly as harsh), but nothing near the same coming from politicians on the right that I have seen. I agree with the preponderance of violence so far. On the right it seems much more individuals than groups, then again, the age of those doing 'violence' on the right is considerably older than those on the left. The left extreme are very good at using social media to gather their groups; while the right has been blocked off thus far on the same medium, since the biggies are left leaning. Does anyone really think we're more than months away from a right leaning media for just such purpose? In everything the extreme right justifies all, as 'reactionary.'


And while Trump isn't innocent by any means, and is a provoker of the left - I never even saw the level of racism from him that the left claims. Well, none at all unless they are things drawn out of context and a collusion reached about others... aka wanting to ban from certain countries doesn't equate to racist, but one can make that argument). And other than doing similar from the left, I don't see him either out there saying the things we have read and heard from left politicians, the truly bad crap, looking for violence and or degradation of folks in masses). This is NOT absolving him from the bad shit he offers and says that often get things going, I just mean I don't see the same amount of vitriol from him, nor outright calls for doing things to lefty politicians). I've never thought Trump racist, not at all. It's why there are all those anecdotes about how he has helped blacks, individually and as far as groups. What he does though is to attract the racists by both his manners and his very carefully selected words. I doubt he even likes these people, but a win is a win. He won with them. He also associates with media that's known for race baiting, but is very pro-Trump. He's very careful to keep the context ambiguous, no one is going to nail him, proof positive, that he's whistling for racist support. Yet, he has it.


Oh, and believe me, reading CNN/MSNBC alone daily, they would give their arms to catch the right doing things like politicians on the left have said, or if the level of violence from the right supporters was equal, or nearly equal. I just don't see the violence out there the same at all. There ARE fringe groups that go out there, and will willingly fight with antifa if pushed, and I acknowledge that and those assholes. But I compare the president with major leaders in congress, than equal members of congress on both sides, then newbies & then of course left supporters and right supporters. And of COURSE I am biased, but I'd like to think I am an honest person. If something happens in politics, and it's factually happened - I will post about it and discuss it, left or right.

Ok, coffee rambling again. Not really back AT you, but replying and giving thoughts. :)

Again, harkening back to the beginning, we agree. There are not the numbers on the right committing violence, but the desire is there. Indeed, there's been several here that I think would enjoy joining up for 'payback,' but mostly those people are gone. We do disagree with the politicians and their hate mongering, both sides have their wackos, but the left seems proud of theirs, while the right distance themselves from theirs. So there is that.

[Kathianne]

Ad this stuff too, from the media. They both often suck - but the left is MUCH worse about it and don't even tell the facts within their stories, they will just lie or lie by omission.

---

CNN’s Brian Stelter Downplays Antifa’s Brutal Beating of Andy Ngo

CNN’s Brian Stelter deliberately downplayed the brutal beating of journalist Andy Ngo at the hands of the left-wing terrorist group Antifa.

Ngo, a reporter and editor for Quillette, a site that champions free expression, was physically assaulted by a gang of Antifa thugs in Portland, Oregon, Saturday while covering a protest that — as is almost always the case with Antifa — turned into a violent riot.

Video shows that while doing nothing more provocative than covering the event, Ngo was sucker-punched in the face by a masked thug. Then, as he covered his injured face, Ngo was swarmed by black-clad hooligans who viciously kicked and pushed Ngo while throwing containers of liquid at him.

As he walks away in retreat, two more terrorists hurl objects at him.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/07/01/nolte-cnns-brian-stelter-downplays-antifas-brutal-beating-of-andy-ngo/

And that's what my op was about. ;)

[jimnyc]

I agree with the preponderance of violence so far. On the right it seems much more individuals than groups, then again, the age of those doing 'violence' on the right is considerably older than those on the left. The left extreme are very good at using social media to gather their groups; while the right has been blocked off thus far on the same medium, since the biggies are left leaning. Does anyone really think we're more than months away from a right leaning media for just such purpose? In everything the extreme right justifies all, as 'reactionary.' I've never thought Trump racist, not at all. It's why there are all those anecdotes about how he has helped blacks, individually and as far as groups. What he does though is to attract the racists by both his manners and his very carefully selected words. I doubt he even likes these people, but a win is a win. He won with them. He also associates with media that's known for race baiting, but is very pro-Trump. He's very careful to keep the context ambiguous, no one is going to nail him, proof positive, that he's whistling for racist support. Yet, he has it.

Again, harkening back to the beginning, we agree. There are not the numbers on the right committing violence, but the desire is there. Indeed, there's been several here that I think would enjoy joining up for 'payback,' but mostly those people are gone. We do disagree with the politicians and their hate mongering, both sides have their wackos, but the left seems proud of theirs, while the right distance themselves from theirs. So there is that.

Just the one part I slightly disagree with, and it's what I mentioned, hearing things and we all draw our own conclusions from - and that's Trump supposed race baiting and whistling for racist support. I have little doubt that he likes to disrupt things, and even get his supporters rallying around him and/or causes. And I do think he even mentions such things too much thought - just disassociate ones self by staying away period. I think there are things ambiguous, so that he can enhance himself and increase popularity and/or support, and not caring much where it comes from. He does give them such material to run with. But I've seen no outright racism at all from him... and it's not like he's out there at anything involving racism. If anything, the most there is is this supposed code and/or whistling. And while I agree he doesn't pick and choose and should outright condemn certain things, I don't think he's a closet racist propping up racist groups nor trying to get them out there supporting and/or going after the left.

Other than those - I equally do know that BOTH sides have assholes, both sides have folks that likely break/broke laws, folks who are a little on that fringe & folks who are career politicians that completely ignore their constituents and the purpose of representation. I just think that 'right now', it's the left more guilty of "all the above".

[jimnyc]

And that's what my op was about. ;)

Yep, I always post multiple stories on a subject if I can, even more. :)

[Kathianne]

Just the one part I slightly disagree with, and it's what I mentioned, hearing things and we all draw our own conclusions from - and that's Trump supposed race baiting and whistling for racist support. I have little doubt that he likes to disrupt things, and even get his supporters rallying around him and/or causes. And I do think he even mentions such things too much thought - just disassociate ones self by staying away period. I think there are things ambiguous, so that he can enhance himself and increase popularity and/or support, and not caring much where it comes from. He does give them such material to run with. But I've seen no outright racism at all from him... and it's not like he's out there at anything involving racism. If anything, the most there is is this supposed code and/or whistling. And while I agree he doesn't pick and choose and should outright condemn certain things, I don't think he's a closet racist propping up racist groups nor trying to get them out there supporting and/or going after the left.

Other than those - I equally do know that BOTH sides have assholes, both sides have folks that likely break/broke laws, folks who are a little on that fringe & folks who are career politicians that completely ignore their constituents and the purpose of representation. I just think that 'right now', it's the left more guilty of "all the above".


Actually, I'm pretty sure you just agreed with what I wrote. I was clear:
I've never thought Trump racist, not at all. It's why there are all those anecdotes about how he has helped blacks, individually and as far as groups. What he does though is to attract the racists by both his manners and his very carefully selected words. I doubt he even likes these people, but a win is a win. He won with them. He also associates with media that's known for race baiting, but is very pro-Trump. He's very careful to keep the context ambiguous, no one is going to nail him, proof positive, that he's whistling for racist support. Yet, he has it.

[jimnyc]

Actually, I'm pretty sure you just agreed with what I wrote. I was clear:


I've never thought Trump racist, not at all. It's why there are all those anecdotes about how he has helped blacks, individually and as far as groups. What he does though is to attract the racists by both his manners and his very carefully selected words. I doubt he even likes these people, but a win is a win. He won with them. He also associates with media that's known for race baiting, but is very pro-Trump. He's very careful to keep the context ambiguous, no one is going to nail him, proof positive, that he's whistling for racist support. Yet, he has it.

My bad on half. :)

I thought the 2nd part, you were agreeing with the left that he is "whistling for racist support", and I don't believe he does, so I'm glad we see the same there.

But I also don't think he tries to attract racists - and I assumed when you wrote 'what he "does" though is attract the racists with his words'. - and I believe that he says what he says - but I see no intent in his words to attract racists or to be racist. If that's what I'm reading wrong, then we agree on that too.

I think the left has pushed "racist" on anyone they disagree with, and did the same with Trump from the get go based on his stance against ILLEGAL immigration, which the MSM and left called racist and never mentioned the illegal part he said from the get go. But they have been pulling the race thing for as long as I can remember, and even do to their own if they can advance from - now in Biden, who I also see no racism in or from, but the left using things as a tool against him.

[Kathianne]

My bad on half. :)

I thought the 2nd part, you were agreeing with the left that he is "whistling for racist support", and I don't believe he does, so I'm glad we see the same there.

But I also don't think he tries to attract racists - and I assumed when you wrote 'what he "does" though is attract the racists with his words'. - and I believe that he says what he says - but I see no intent in his words to attract racists or to be racist. If that's what I'm reading wrong, then we agree on that too.

I think the left has pushed "racist" on anyone they disagree with, and did the same with Trump from the get go based on his stance against ILLEGAL immigration, which the MSM and left called racist and never mentioned the illegal part he said from the get go. But they have been pulling the race thing for as long as I can remember, and even do to their own if they can advance from - now in Biden, who I also see no racism in or from, but the left using things as a tool against him.

We do disagree on his wanting the extreme right support, which includes racists-not all are racists however. Saying the 'right extreme' has racists, does NOT preclude the left from having racists too, just different ones. Not only does the left have them, it's not just the 'extreme.' I gladly concede that the left has many more racists than the right. Jews, whites, Asians, are a few of their targets.

With that concession, that doesn't stop the use of the chosen words; carefully chosen with interesting facial language, that Trump uses masterfully at rallies. We don't have to agree, but it's what I've seen with my own eyes. Then there are the outlets such a Breitbart, National Enquirer, and lesser sites, that add to the idea. Just because one can truthfully say, "The blacks hate whites and the Democrats are turning into anti-Semites," doesn't change what is occurring on the right. It's all in the eye of the beholder and they are all appealing to the ones they want to reach.

[jimnyc]

We do disagree on his wanting the extreme right support, which includes racists-not all are racists however. Saying the 'right extreme' has racists, does NOT preclude the left from having racists too, just different ones. Not only does the left have them, it's not just the 'extreme.' I gladly concede that the left has many more racists than the right. Jews, whites, Asians, are a few of their targets.

With that concession, that doesn't stop the use of the chosen words; carefully chosen with interesting facial language, that Trump uses masterfully at rallies. We don't have to agree, but it's what I've seen with my own eyes. Then there are the outlets such a Breitbart, National Enquirer, and lesser sites, that add to the idea. Just because one can truthfully say, "The blacks hate whites and the Democrats are turning into anti-Semites," doesn't change what is occurring on the right. It's all in the eye of the beholder and they are all appealing to the ones they want to reach.

Oh, I agree that he wants support from anyone that will support him - and should likely swat away any such groups. I just don't think his words are said in a manner to seek them out in any manner.

The Enquirer is a gossip rag - and Breitbart is a news media site that leans heavily to the right - but they base their opinions and such, and their articles, are based on fact. I visit them daily and would stop visiting them entirely if I saw they were in fact a lying site, non-stop anonymous site, conspiracy and of course lying about the facts and/or omitting the facts. --- what they ARE guilty of, is then taking such facts in many op-ed articles and their opinions are always to the right. Sometimes I enjoy simply reading a righty opinion, as admittedly it's more along the lines of what I agree and believe in. Other times, and those usually the times I post it here, those opinions offer lot, IMO, and usually factually and truthfully. And of course I read because the facts are there too. But not who I rely on for news... nor does any one site do that for me though.

[Kathianne]

Oh, I agree that he wants support from anyone that will support him - and should likely swat away any such groups. I just don't think his words are said in a manner to seek them out in any manner.

The Enquirer is a gossip rag - and Breitbart is a news media site that leans heavily to the right - but they base their opinions and such, and their articles, are based on fact. I visit them daily and would stop visiting them entirely if I saw they were in fact a lying site, non-stop anonymous site, conspiracy and of course lying about the facts and/or omitting the facts. --- what they ARE guilty of, is then taking such facts in many op-ed articles and their opinions are always to the right. Sometimes I enjoy simply reading a righty opinion, as admittedly it's more along the lines of what I agree and believe in. Other times, and those usually the times I post it here, those opinions offer lot, IMO, and usually factually and truthfully. And of course I read because the facts are there too. But not who I rely on for news... nor does any one site do that for me though.

I used to like Breitbart, it's changed. A lot. Always was right, but now it does cater to and call to arms the extreme right. It's editorials put the most disgusting of the NYT to shame. Which. is. saying. a. lot.

Yes, just like the MSM, Breitbart has the facts, it's how it spins those facts, just like the left. As I said earlier, it's all 'reactionary,' code for 'the same.'

[Kathianne]

Too true:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/334762/



JULY 1, 2019
ANALYSIS: TRUE. If You Don’t Stand Up for Andy Ngo, You Could Be Next. (https://pjmedia.com/trending/if-you-dont-stand-up-for-andy-ngo-you-could-be-next/) “What you just saw was a pack of privileged white dudes in masks beating up a smaller guy who’s a minority (Ngo is Vietnamese-American) and a member of the LGBTQ community (he’s gay). These cowards punched him and threw things at him in the middle of the street, in broad daylight, because they knew the cops wouldn’t stop them. It might as well be Alabama in the ’50s. The only difference between Antifa and the Klan is fashion.”


Plus: “Jim Acosta gets a microphone taken away by a female White House aide, and they make a martyr of him. Andy Ngo gets beaten up by a mob of leftists, and they shrug. It all depends on how useful you are to the #Resistance. You will say the things you’re supposed to say, or you’re on your own.”


Remember, the press has taken sides here. View them accordingly.

Meanwhile, Harmeet Dhillon is on the case: Lawyer For Journalist Beaten During Portland Riot Posts Brutal Message To Antifa. (https://www.dailywire.com/news/49028/lawyer-journalist-beaten-during-portland-riot-amanda-prestigiacomo)

[pete311]

The antifa attack on the journalist was totally reprehensible and it made me very angry watching it.

[jimnyc]

The antifa attack on the journalist was totally reprehensible and it made me very angry watching it.

NEITHER side, not even folks like Acosta that I detest. Not even milkshakes - and certainly not with quick drying cement in them!!

Glad to see you agree, and it's non political IMO.

[Kathianne]

Yes:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/antifa-violence-anti-masking-laws/


Unmask Antifa and Watch the Cowards RetreatBy DAVID FRENCH
July 1, 2019 8:22 PM


...

There is, however, a simple and well-known legal reform that will go a long way towards deterring Antifa violence — even when police aren’t close by, but iPhones are. It’s called an anti-masking law. They’ve long existed in the South as a check on Klan violence, and they not only make it easier for police to immediately identify and arrest criminals, they also allow witnesses to preserve the pictures and videos of violent attackers for later criminal or civil action.


When I tweeted over the weekend in support of an anti-masking ordinance in Oregon, a number of correspondents asked me if the laws were consistent with First Amendment protections for anonymous speech. The answer is generally (though not always) yes, and there’s relatively recent on-point case law in the Second Circuit saying so. While court of appeals cases aren’t nationally dispositive, the panel in Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik included Sonia Sotomayor, and its reasoning is instructive.

...

[STTAB]

I agree with the preponderance of violence so far. On the right it seems much more individuals than groups, then again, the age of those doing 'violence' on the right is considerably older than those on the left. The left extreme are very good at using social media to gather their groups; while the right has been blocked off thus far on the same medium, since the biggies are left leaning. Does anyone really think we're more than months away from a right leaning media for just such purpose? In everything the extreme right justifies all, as 'reactionary.' I've never thought Trump racist, not at all. It's why there are all those anecdotes about how he has helped blacks, individually and as far as groups. What he does though is to attract the racists by both his manners and his very carefully selected words. I doubt he even likes these people, but a win is a win. He won with them. He also associates with media that's known for race baiting, but is very pro-Trump. He's very careful to keep the context ambiguous, no one is going to nail him, proof positive, that he's whistling for racist support. Yet, he has it.

Again, harkening back to the beginning, we agree. There are not the numbers on the right committing violence, but the desire is there. Indeed, there's been several here that I think would enjoy joining up for 'payback,' but mostly those people are gone. We do disagree with the politicians and their hate mongering, both sides have their wackos, but the left seems proud of theirs, while the right distance themselves from theirs. So there is that.

Did you just say that the right in this country has a longer history of violence than the left?

[Kathianne]

Did you just say that the right in this country has a longer history of violence than the left?
No, I was referring to chronological age. i.e., there's a lot of 18-25 year old males that consider themselves 'left.' Age of boys most likely to do violence?

On the right, more of the 'violent' folks seem to be 35 and older. Antifa thugs appear to mostly be in that first group.

[STTAB]

No, I was referring to chronological age. i.e., there's a lot of 18-25 year old males that consider themselves 'left.' Age of boys most likely to do violence?

On the right, more of the 'violent' folks seem to be 35 and older. Antifa thugs appear to mostly be in that first group.

Ok, I'm with you there. I thought you were saying the right has been violent for longer than the left.


As an aside, I don't know if you ever watch Jesse Waters, but he had some moron from the left on last night who kept calling this an alleged attack, Jesse was like "man it happened, it's right there on video" and this moron was just "well you call the smollet attack alleged, so you gotta be fair"

Dopes like that are destroying this country.

[Kathianne]

Ok, I'm with you there. I thought you were saying the right has been violent for longer than the left.


As an aside, I don't know if you ever watch Jesse Waters, but he had some moron from the left on last night who kept calling this an alleged attack, Jesse was like "man it happened, it's right there on video" and this moron was just "well you call the smollet attack alleged, so you gotta be fair"

Dopes like that are destroying this country.


How PC of you! :laugh2: Got to use the 'correct words' for the right and the left. Soon it will be a bird in the hand...

[STTAB]

How PC of you! :laugh2: Got to use the 'correct words' for the right and the left. Soon it will be a bird in the hand...

As you obviously know I've no problem calling out a conservative moron when I see one too LOL