https://i.imgur.com/QUb6hIw.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/0TS1uoi.jpg
Absolute legend.
https://i.imgur.com/QUb6hIw.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/0TS1uoi.jpg
Absolute legend.
Obv he was brain damaged before.
Maybe it's for the same reason that Trump can't drink water with one hand.
I dropped a bowl of home made Chicken Laksa last night, went all over the rug.
Wasn’t because of brain damage though, I was just being laksadaisacal. Never mind, no point crying over spilt coconut milk.
sonatine trying to let us know that he supports physical assault upon those who have different political views than he does.
Reading comprehension my man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Throwing anything at anyone is assault, and shouldn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakReading comprehension my man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
That's what should be shamed here, not a guy exaggerating the aftermath for attention.
I was actually threatened to be milkshaked about 10 years ago, long before milkshaking was cool.
A guy owed my friend $2k and was refusing to pay. My friend is female and I guess he felt he didn't have much to worry about if he stiffed her.
Whenever I saw him on Pokerstars I trolled him about being a broke deadbeat and refusing to pay $2k he owed. I offered to e-mail screen shots proving it to anyone interested.
After about a week of this, he got tired of it and paid up the $2k. However, next time he saw me on Stars, he told me he was going to milkshake me next time he saw me.
As you might guess, it never happened.
:lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
2016 druff would've loled at the alt-right troll saying he got brain damage because someone threw a milk shake at him at a proud boys rally while they were fighting with antifa.
No version of Druff would have approved of any group which thinks it can assault people because they disagree with them, even if it's "just throwing a milkshake".Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
2016 druff would've loled at the alt-right troll saying he got brain damage because someone threw a milk shake at him at a proud boys rally while they were fighting with antifa.
So is that what you picked up from the professional victim thread from a year ago? Poor Andy got hit just from disagreeing with the evil Antifa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNo version of Druff would have approved of any group which thinks it can assault people because they disagree with them, even if it's "just throwing a milkshake".Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
You have to do almost no detective work to find out what Andy is about. He's a right wing propagandist that runs with various alt-right groups that are more or less directly connected to white supremacists. He enjoys their protection for favorable coverage and hit pieces about the violent left. He carries their flag. That makes him a target. What ever immunity you get for being a journalist you lose once you start fabricating "news".
I've been following him ever since that incident a year ago. I am not seeing any white supremacist pieces from him. He's not even white. I saw the evidence awhile back that he had some loose connection at one point to a white supremacist group. Obviously not something I approve of, and it made me think less of him personally, but most of his coverage of Antifa is factual and well-researched.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickSo is that what you picked up from the professional victim thread from a year ago? Poor Andy got hit just from disagreeing with the evil Antifa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You have to do almost no detective work to find out what Andy is about. He's a right wing propagandist that runs with various alt-right groups that are more or less directly connected to white supremacists. He enjoys their protection for favorable coverage and hit pieces about the violent left. He carries their flag. That makes him a target. What ever immunity you get for being a journalist you lose once you start fabricating "news".
Notice that my comments are not in defense of Ngo himself, but rather about Antifa's tactics of milkshaking people (and doing much, much worse than that).
Many of those they attack do not have any white supremacist connection whatsoever.
If I went to Portland and counter-protested Antifa, do you think there's a fair chance I would get milkshaked, beaten up, or worse?
Probably not by Antifa. Can't say too much about your fellow counter protestors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI've been following him ever since that incident a year ago. I am not seeing any white supremacist pieces from him. He's not even white. I saw the evidence awhile back that he had some loose connection at one point to a white supremacist group. Obviously not something I approve of, and it made me think less of him personally, but most of his coverage of Antifa is factual and well-researched.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Notice that my comments are not in defense of Ngo himself, but rather about Antifa's tactics of milkshaking people (and doing much, much worse than that).
Many of those they attack do not have any white supremacist connection whatsoever.
If I went to Portland and counter-protested Antifa, do you think there's a fair chance I would get milkshaked, beaten up, or worse?
Alt-Right and white supremacists are in a mutually agreeable affair at the moment. The traditional white supremacists get a reasonable cover and alt right gets their share of brawlers and certain legitimacy without fully committing to the cause. This is something that fine gentlemen like David Duke envisioned decades ago. I'm sure he had his eye on GOP proper, but it didn't play like that.
The most damning case for Andy Ngo is the Cider Riot brawl and related undercover footage. There no question who started the brawl, if it was planned ahead and if Andy was unaware about any of this.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that right-wing protesters have been responsible for more violence in the past 3 years than Antifa?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickProbably not by Antifa. Can't say too much about your fellow counter protestors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Alt-Right and white supremacists are in a mutually agreeable affair at the moment. The traditional white supremacists get a reasonable cover and alt right gets their share of brawlers and certain legitimacy without fully committing to the cause. This is something that fine gentlemen like David Duke envisioned decades ago. I'm sure he had his eye on GOP proper, but it didn't play like that.
The most damning case for Andy Ngo is the Cider Riot brawl and related undercover footage. There no question who started the brawl, if it was planned ahead and if Andy was unaware about any of this.
if so...
:lol
Correct but sonatine didn't say he thought someone should be assaulted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThrowing anything at anyone is assault, and shouldn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
That's what should be shamed here, not a guy exaggerating the aftermath for attention.
I'm sure you can come up with some numbers. Or stuff shaped as kinda numbers. Though i do appreciate the view to a mind that's been bombarded with the stupidest shit imaginable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffWait a minute. Are you saying that right-wing protesters have been responsible for more violence in the past 3 years than Antifa?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
if so...
:lol
The reality of Antifa is that they aren't even remotely organized to do anything. There are no Antifa leaders. Never has been and likely never will be. They are a very loosely "organized" reactionary group. By some weird coincidence they only appear when there's a spike in white supremacists activity. And when it's gone, so are they. That's how it's been about 80+ years.
No but seriously where does assassinating police officers to incite a race war register? Does it eek out to top 10 most fucked up things that happened in the Floyd protests? Obv somewhere behind property damage, hurt feelings, inconvenience and lowering the covid infections.
How many right wingers are "assassinating police officers to start a race war"?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
And are you actually trying to equate white supremacist groups with right wingers?
It's sad how much you stretch to make your points these days.
I should also point out that leftists like gimmick go out of their way to defend Antifa and paint them as nonviolent.
At the same time, the vast majority of right wingers condemn white supremacists and say they don't represent our party or our beliefs.
Which party is more extreme again?
I'll just leave this here...
Violence by far-right is among US’s most dangerous terrorist threats, study finds
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...hreat-analysis
So you're talking about terrorist actions by a fringe segment of the right which almost every right winger disavows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Snead
I'm talking about which party can have its members go to protests and do so peacefully, and which one has large mobs of people loot, riot, vandalize, burn things down, beat people up, block roads, and kill people.
When was the last time massive right-wing protests broke out, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, and nationwide curfews?
When was the last time right-wingers rioted, destroyed nearby businesses, and beat people up because a left-wing speaker was coming to a college campus?
When have i said they are non-violent. They are the literal opposite of that. It's the continuum when non violence isn't enough. That's their sole existence. And i have no problem with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Trump has put himself squarely in the camp of violent racist hate groups. Anyone who supports him is guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffHow many right wingers are "assassinating police officers to start a race war"?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
And are you actually trying to equate white supremacist groups with right wingers?
It's sad how much you stretch to make your points these days.
I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickWhen have i said they are non-violent. They are the literal opposite of that. It's the continuum when non violence isn't enough. That's their sole existence. And i have no problem with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
So now you're at the point where you feel violent suppression of speech is the right play.
That's worked out great for other societies in the past.
gimmick apparently doesn't understand what fascism really is, and how violent suppression of "dangerous" speech is a hallmark of it.
He also apparently doesn't know much about 1960s US history, when the whole "the people gotta rise up even if it's violent" line was trotted out by idiot leftist extremists. This accomplished nothing but killing and hurting lots of innocent people, and history looks upon this radical violence as wrongheaded and dangerous.
Where you come up with the now part?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI see.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
So now you're at the point where you feel violent suppression of speech is the right play.
That's worked out great for other societies in the past.
I'm not the one who is confused what Antifa is and always has been.
In Europe we don't allow inciting racial hatred for a few reasons. About six million reasons to be exact. We don't believe that you can't manipulate every day citizens to do most horrible imaginable things to each other while feeling righteous about their actions. The other option would have been quite a bit more bleak. It would have involved termination of every German and Italian citizen for start. It might have extended to Finns and Austrians. We chose otherwise.
Wait so now you're using the holocaust as an example to make your point? I thought you posted something awhile back saying Jews were weak to allow it to happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickWhere you come up with the now part?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I'm not the one who is confused what Antifa is and always has been.
In Europe we don't allow inciting racial hatred for a few reasons. About six million reasons to be exact. We don't believe that you can't manipulate every day citizens to do most horrible imaginable things to each other while feeling righteous about their actions. The other option would have been quite a bit more bleak. It would have involved termination of every German and Italian citizen for start. It might have extended to Finns and Austrians. We chose otherwise.
I know it's almost impossible, but you might be mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffWait so now you're using the holocaust as an example to make your point? I thought you posted something awhile back saying Jews were weak to allow it to happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Among other things i said to counter your argument of the wealth of Jews in USA, was unexpected consequences of antisemitism. Such as being ousted from traditional banking to investment banking. It just happened that investment banking became the most profitable sector of banking.
Oh and they didn't receive the funding to set up their own banks by being the gods chosen people or really hard work. It was wealthy European families such as the Rothchilds. Best know as jewish boogeymen. With or without Bavarian Illuminati. It really is just basic history.
lol gimmick running his stupid mouth again. "I could show numbers" he says, yet never provides any, typical fascist leftist
Same thing happened in the 1760s. And the 1860s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
There is insufficient focus here on what really matters, my fucking loss of a Laksa.
There's that part. Also i don't know what Druff is talking about. Civil rights, Vietnam or MLK assassination it just never was a thing in any major protest movement around the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanSame thing happened in the 1760s. And the 1860s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
It was a thing in Europe around 60-70, but in US i think it was late 70 early 80 with some fringe elements. Also about the only time in 50ish years there was anything resembling left wing terrorism.
gimmick is a gimmick. amirite.
tine obv taking the passive aggressive approach to posting now.
Again, we aren't talking about terrorism here.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickThere's that part. Also i don't know what Druff is talking about. Civil rights, Vietnam or MLK assassination it just never was a thing in any major protest movement around the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
It was a thing in Europe around 60-70, but in US i think it was late 70 early 80 with some fringe elements. Also about the only time in 50ish years there was anything resembling left wing terrorism.
In the late 60s, there were lots of violent left wing protests. Same BS excuses were trotted out defending the reasoning for the violence. "It's the only way to get through", "This country was founded on violent protest", "This is how the oppressed make change happen", etc.
There was also the same "abusive police" rhetoric, except the complaints were much less racially-based back then. Sometimes the police really were overstepping their authority and attacking peaceful protests. Other times the protests were anything but peaceful, and people cried foul when the police finally clamped down. Other times it was a mixture of both. You know... much like 2020.
There was also the same generation gap element going on as today, with the young people in 1968 really believing they were the enlightened ones who would right the wrongs committed by their ignorant parents. Today, these kids are the "boomers" derided for being responsible for the country's problems. How fitting. The generation gap issue was more prominent in the late 60s than today, because much of it had to do with opposition to the Vietnam draft. There is no such factor now.
This was also the time when a lot of more liberal cities were trying out social programs as a solution to violent crime. It was a complete failure. Crime escalated all the way through the early 90s, at which point everyone was long tired of the "let's understand the criminals and help them" strategy, and instead just wanted them locked up. That actually worked, but here we are again with the kiddies believing that trying social programs instead of policing is a novel idea.
As we've gotten farther from those days, and most adults either weren't alive or were too young to remember, we are seeing a lot of attempts to repeat the mistakes of the past.
It's not just in social issue and politics.
Look at the Uber and Airbnb revolution. Many decades ago, it was discovered that taxi services and hotels will screw people and repeatedly scam them if there isn't some sort of regulation. Then in the 2010s, the geniuses in Silicon Valley decided all of that regulatory shit was just a waste of time and money, and we could do it better by cutting out the government middleman and introduce an app as the new middleman. Now we read story after story about bad experiences, scams, and danger which could have been prevented if we didn't have the wild wild west of ride hailing and makeshift hotels. You know... it's almost like people back in the 1900s learned some things from experience, and we're undoing that.
But hey... let's take money away from already-cash-strapped law enforcement and try social programs instead because... it worked so great from the late 60s through early 90s. The record growth in violent crime was just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Yea still have no idea what protests you're talking about. It's like it was the only question i asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffAgain, we aren't talking about terrorism here.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
In the late 60s, there were lots of violent left wing protests. Same BS excuses were trotted out defending the reasoning for the violence. "It's the only way to get through", "This country was founded on violent protest", "This is how the oppressed make change happen", etc.
There was also the same "abusive police" rhetoric, except the complaints were much less racially-based back then. Sometimes the police really were overstepping their authority and attacking peaceful protests. Other times the protests were anything but peaceful, and people cried foul when the police finally clamped down. Other times it was a mixture of both. You know... much like 2020.
There was also the same generation gap element going on as today, with the young people in 1968 really believing they were the enlightened ones who would right the wrongs committed by their ignorant parents. Today, these kids are the "boomers" derided for being responsible for the country's problems. How fitting. The generation gap issue was more prominent in the late 60s than today, because much of it had to do with opposition to the Vietnam draft. There is no such factor now.
This was also the time when a lot of more liberal cities were trying out social programs as a solution to violent crime. It was a complete failure. Crime escalated all the way through the early 90s, at which point everyone was long tired of the "let's understand the criminals and help them" strategy, and instead just wanted them locked up. That actually worked, but here we are again with the kiddies believing that trying social programs instead of policing is a novel idea.
As we've gotten farther from those days, and most adults either weren't alive or were too young to remember, we are seeing a lot of attempts to repeat the mistakes of the past.
It's not just in social issue and politics.
Look at the Uber and Airbnb revolution. Many decades ago, it was discovered that taxi services and hotels will screw people and repeatedly scam them if there isn't some sort of regulation. Then in the 2010s, the geniuses in Silicon Valley decided all of that regulatory shit was just a waste of time and money, and we could do it better by cutting out the government middleman and introduce an app as the new middleman. Now we read story after story about bad experiences, scams, and danger which could have been prevented if we didn't have the wild wild west of ride hailing and makeshift hotels. You know... it's almost like people back in the 1900s learned some things from experience, and we're undoing that.
But hey... let's take money away from already-cash-strapped law enforcement and try social programs instead because... it worked so great from the late 60s through early 90s. The record growth in violent crime was just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Is it the uppity negroes wanting their shit? Or hippies dodging killing gooks? Or uppity negroes having their leader assinated? All of the above or maybe just pick one.
In case you're not aware, rest of the world views your governments reactions to all of the above slightly less damning as the Chinese government and Tienanmen square. Playing great all around.
You're so quiet every time the right shoots up a school or drives their car into a pack of democrats but flip a shit when the left pisses on a statue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNo version of Druff would have approved of any group which thinks it can assault people because they disagree with them, even if it's "just throwing a milkshake".Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content..._Terrorism.pdfQuote:
The extremist-related murders in 2018 were overwhelmingly linked to right-wing extremists. Every one of the perpetrators had ties to at least one right-wing extremist movement, although one had recently switched to supporting Islamist extremism. White supremacists were responsible for the great majority of the killings, which is typically the case.
Deadly shooting sprees were a major factor in the high death toll. Five of the 17 incidents involved shooting sprees that caused 38 deaths and injured 33 people.
https://www.csis.org/ground-combatti...ht-wing-terrorQuote:
Violence committed by right-wing extremists continues to account for most domestic terrorism in the United States, as opposed to left-wing violence, which only accounted for 3.2 percent of all domestic terrorism between 2009 and 2018.
look, the right posed for a picture before sending out a couple dozen bombs in the mail:
I guess its not as bad as what the right did in 1996 when it blew up that building in oklahoma.
Oh wait. I sound pretty ignorant now don't I?
but it's still okay to assault people with milkshakes, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanYou're so quiet every time the right shoots up a school or drives their car into a pack of democrats but flip a shit when the left pisses on a statue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content..._Terrorism.pdfQuote:
The extremist-related murders in 2018 were overwhelmingly linked to right-wing extremists. Every one of the perpetrators had ties to at least one right-wing extremist movement, although one had recently switched to supporting Islamist extremism. White supremacists were responsible for the great majority of the killings, which is typically the case.
Deadly shooting sprees were a major factor in the high death toll. Five of the 17 incidents involved shooting sprees that caused 38 deaths and injured 33 people.
https://www.csis.org/ground-combatti...ht-wing-terrorQuote:
Violence committed by right-wing extremists continues to account for most domestic terrorism in the United States, as opposed to left-wing violence, which only accounted for 3.2 percent of all domestic terrorism between 2009 and 2018.
look, the right posed for a picture before sending out a couple dozen bombs in the mail:
I guess its not as bad as what the right did in 1996 when it blew up that building in oklahoma.
Oh wait. I sound pretty ignorant now don't I?
fucking n-word lover
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickProbably not by Antifa. Can't say too much about your fellow counter protestors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Alt-Right and white supremacists are in a mutually agreeable affair at the moment. The traditional white supremacists get a reasonable cover and alt right gets their share of brawlers and certain legitimacy without fully committing to the cause. This is something that fine gentlemen like David Duke envisioned decades ago. I'm sure he had his eye on GOP proper, but it didn't play like that.
The most damning case for Andy Ngo is the Cider Riot brawl and related undercover footage. There no question who started the brawl, if it was planned ahead and if Andy was unaware about any of this.
Guessing Gimmick doesnt live in any sort of big city, and just gets his news from approved lefty sources.
The left extremists are equally as prone to violence as the right. Here in Portland, Antifa and Proud Boys are equal level assholes.
baaammmmmm..jordan done rightQuote:
Originally Posted by gutQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmick