Heroic Americans against facism: Antifa viciously attacks journalist in Portland who had previously chronicled their illegal activities

[Dan Druff]

Okay?

So it looks like Andy isn't a very good guy, and is aligned or at least sympathetic to violent alt-right groups.

But that wasn't known at the time he was attacked, and it's been acknowledged by most (even on the left) that this was an attack on him because of his views and outspokenness.

So my points all still stand.

[devidee]

In the ethno-state there will be no gay Asian bros.

Just say’n.

[JimmyG_415]

You RWer's just can't admit when you are wrong.

White nationalism deaths;
Charleston,SC 9
El Paso 22
Tree of Life 11, and many more, those are just off the top of my head

Antifa 0..........then add the fact that if there was no white supremacy, (no KKKish rallies), there would be no antifa??????????????????
Yeah antifa is the problem.

Stop watching Fox "news". They get you guy to hate the wrong people.

Okay?

So it looks like Andy isn't a very good guy, and is aligned or at least sympathetic to violent alt-right groups.

But that wasn't known at the time he was attacked, and it's been acknowledged by most (even on the left) that this was an attack on him because of his views and outspokenness.

So my points all still stand.

[sonatine]

You RWer's just can't admit when you are wrong.

White nationalism deaths;
Charleston,SC 9
El Paso 22
Tree of Life 11, and many more, those are just off the top of my head

Antifa 0..........then add the fact that if there was no white supremacy, (no KKKish rallies), there would be no antifa??????????????????
Yeah antifa is the problem.

Stop watching Fox "news". They get you guy to hate the wrong people.

Okay?

So it looks like Andy isn't a very good guy, and is aligned or at least sympathetic to violent alt-right groups.

But that wasn't known at the time he was attacked, and it's been acknowledged by most (even on the left) that this was an attack on him because of his views and outspokenness.

So my points all still stand.

the antifa = kkk angle is peak American Right Wing Dumb.

antifa = when the authorities enforce the same rules and privileges for the underclass as they do the privileged, our job is done and we go home. people advocating on the perpetual prosecution and abuse of the downtrodden are going to be treated like the villainous amoral sociopathic dirtbags they are.

right wing = blue lives matter, n-words and immigrants dont, and we will protect ourselves against the black menace seducing our white women and jews making us poor and making us feel stupid by driving cars into crowds of protesters and getting badges with which we can lynch blacks with impunity. also, the pillars of our culture are ben garrison, tucker carlson, and andrew brietbart.

i love how 'deliberately provoking violence against ones self for profit' has been juxtaposed into 'outspokenness', fox should take notes there.

[Dan Druff]

sonatine's post above is so intellectually dishonest, I won't even bother to start taking it apart.

It does bother me to see that guys like sonatine and JimmyG are defending Antifa, and basically portraying them as freedom fighters.

The "nobody has been killed by Antifa" argument is LOL. So them beating people and terrorizing them for their political beliefs is okay, as long as nobody dies? Is this the narrative the left has evolved to now?

It is very, very dangerous to support ideological-based violence supposedly under the banner of "fighting fascism" or "fighting racism". Either you support the right to free speech and free assembly, or you don't. You can't only support free speech when it's the "correct" speech, and then support people getting beaten, milkshaked, and harassed when you don't agree with what they're saying.

Antifa are a bunch of thugs who have decided that they're just going to physically hurt people on the right until they get their point across. If you don't feel we as a society have evolved way beyond that sort of behavior being acceptable, then you haven't learned a thing.

[gimmick]

Okay?

So it looks like Andy isn't a very good guy, and is aligned or at least sympathetic to violent alt-right groups.

But that wasn't known at the time he was attacked, and it's been acknowledged by most (even on the left) that this was an attack on him because of his views and outspokenness.

So my points all still stand.

Does this logic apply to Smollett as well? Everyone gets a pass because they didn't have the full picture.

Fairly sure the evil Antifa knew what he was about. Far right propagandist that was so cozy with one side that he was seen carrying a flag. Not a civilian nor a journalist. With that none of your points stand. This was by far the likeliest scenario. Reason being that there are so many far right scumbags that there's almost no reason to fish outside that pool.

The difference between Antifa and SJWs is that they don't care about minor regressions. This tends to happen when your tool is violence and not strongly worded letters.

Still, nice to know how you deal with your Jussies.

[sonatine]

sonatine's post above is so intellectually dishonest, I won't even bother to start taking it apart.

It does bother me to see that guys like sonatine and JimmyG are defending Antifa, and basically portraying them as freedom fighters.

The "nobody has been killed by Antifa" argument is LOL. So them beating people and terrorizing them for their political beliefs is okay, as long as nobody dies? Is this the narrative the left has evolved to now?

It is very, very dangerous to support ideological-based violence supposedly under the banner of "fighting fascism" or "fighting racism". Either you support the right to free speech and free assembly, or you don't. You can't only support free speech when it's the "correct" speech, and then support people getting beaten, milkshaked, and harassed when you don't agree with what they're saying.

Antifa are a bunch of thugs who have decided that they're just going to physically hurt people on the right until they get their point across. If you don't feel we as a society have evolved way beyond that sort of behavior being acceptable, then you haven't learned a thing.

sorry, your rebuttal to 'intellectual dishonesty' is that nobody dying is a moral equivalent to people being extrajudicially executed?

your 'dig myself a deeper hole' style of internet debate may be great entertainment but its getting you no closer to that coveted negraneu bracket poll status.

[gimmick]

Select quotes from Druff...

"But I'm not talking about the politicians who simply wished Jussie well, or commented the attack itself was terrible. I'm talking about the idiots on the left who then used it as evidence of "the rise of hate", "increased racism", "an example of Trump's America", etc.

That's where it bridges from the necessary political pleasantries to willfully ignorant idiocy."

"We are talking about something completely different here, where non-politicians have learned that they can play victim and easily manipulate the left into both making them famous and donating big money to them."

"Instead, she says she's "confused" about Jussie getting off, and then immediately launches into the typical left wing "but OMG hate crimes are increasing so much" rhetoric."

"Yes, there were some smart people on the left who smelled a rat with all of this and held back comment, but there were plenty of dummies who jumped on this, and then equated it to the Trump era of this country"

"Can you point to a similar situation occurring recently or semi-recently on the right, where a fairly obvious hoax was accepted as fact, yet many prominent right wing figures ran with it anyway?"

"I'm talking about a case where a very suspicious hoax occurs, and the right falls for it, and sanctimoniously uses it as an example as to why they've been correct all along. I don't recall that happening anytime recently"

"The left should have taken a realistic look at this one, realized it smelled funny, and avoid commentary until the facts came out. However, too many of them are trained like monkeys to jump at the first opportunity to vilify Trump and the right, so they threw caution to the wind. "

"The criticism here is of both Jussie himself (for obvious reasons) and the media/liberal politicians who jump on these "Trump supporter making racist attack" stories, without knowing the facts."

...just from the Smollet thread and i didn't really bother going through all of them.

[thesidedish]

lol @ shilling for Antifa based on their mission statement


the federal reserve is also "independent" cuz that's what they said. also "the great new deal" or whatever we told the Indians every time we took their land

[MumblesBadly]

Select quotes from Druff...

"But I'm not talking about the politicians who simply wished Jussie well, or commented the attack itself was terrible. I'm talking about the idiots on the left who then used it as evidence of "the rise of hate", "increased racism", "an example of Trump's America", etc.

That's where it bridges from the necessary political pleasantries to willfully ignorant idiocy."

“We are talking about something completely different here, where non-politicians have learned that they can play victim and easily manipulate the left into both making them famous and donating big money to them."

"Instead, she says she's "confused" about Jussie getting off, and then immediately launches into the typical left wing "but OMG hate crimes are increasing so much" rhetoric."

"Yes, there were some smart people on the left who smelled a rat with all of this and held back comment, but there were plenty of dummies who jumped on this, and then equated it to the Trump era of this country"

"Can you point to a similar situation occurring recently or semi-recently on the right, where a fairly obvious hoax was accepted as fact, yet many prominent right wing figures ran with it anyway?"

"I'm talking about a case where a very suspicious hoax occurs, and the right falls for it, and sanctimoniously uses it as an example as to why they've been correct all along. I don't recall that happening anytime recently"

"The left should have taken a realistic look at this one, realized it smelled funny, and avoid commentary until the facts came out. However, too many of them are trained like monkeys to jump at the first opportunity to vilify Trump and the right, so they threw caution to the wind. "

"The criticism here is of both Jussie himself (for obvious reasons) and the media/liberal politicians who jump on these "Trump supporter making racist attack" stories, without knowing the facts."

...just from the Smollet thread and i didn't really bother going through all of them.

Holy Christ! Did Druff completely sleep through the Bush Administration cooking the intelligence about WMD’s in Iraq, as well as Osama Bin Laden working with Saddam Hussein to pull off 9/11???

[Dan Druff]

Select quotes from Druff...

"But I'm not talking about the politicians who simply wished Jussie well, or commented the attack itself was terrible. I'm talking about the idiots on the left who then used it as evidence of "the rise of hate", "increased racism", "an example of Trump's America", etc.

That's where it bridges from the necessary political pleasantries to willfully ignorant idiocy."

"We are talking about something completely different here, where non-politicians have learned that they can play victim and easily manipulate the left into both making them famous and donating big money to them."

"Instead, she says she's "confused" about Jussie getting off, and then immediately launches into the typical left wing "but OMG hate crimes are increasing so much" rhetoric."

"Yes, there were some smart people on the left who smelled a rat with all of this and held back comment, but there were plenty of dummies who jumped on this, and then equated it to the Trump era of this country"

"Can you point to a similar situation occurring recently or semi-recently on the right, where a fairly obvious hoax was accepted as fact, yet many prominent right wing figures ran with it anyway?"

"I'm talking about a case where a very suspicious hoax occurs, and the right falls for it, and sanctimoniously uses it as an example as to why they've been correct all along. I don't recall that happening anytime recently"

"The left should have taken a realistic look at this one, realized it smelled funny, and avoid commentary until the facts came out. However, too many of them are trained like monkeys to jump at the first opportunity to vilify Trump and the right, so they threw caution to the wind. "

"The criticism here is of both Jussie himself (for obvious reasons) and the media/liberal politicians who jump on these "Trump supporter making racist attack" stories, without knowing the facts."

...just from the Smollet thread and i didn't really bother going through all of them.

Not understanding your point here.

The attack on Andy Ngo was not a hoax. You can't compare this to Smollet. I stand by everything I said about this situation. Even the attackers weren't aware of these recently-exposed details about Ngo at the time. It was just standard-issue "we attacked him because he's a Nazi and a fascist" they say about every right wing figure they attack.

From everything I see, it appears that Andy Ngo was a right-wing journalist who was attacked for being a right-wing journalist, and then it turns out that, on top of that, he has some skeletons in his closet involving support for a bad alt-right group.

That can diminish any sympathy you might have for Ngo, but it doesn't make the attack a hoax, nor does it exonerate Antifa's actions.

[Dan Druff]

sonatine's post above is so intellectually dishonest, I won't even bother to start taking it apart.

It does bother me to see that guys like sonatine and JimmyG are defending Antifa, and basically portraying them as freedom fighters.

The "nobody has been killed by Antifa" argument is LOL. So them beating people and terrorizing them for their political beliefs is okay, as long as nobody dies? Is this the narrative the left has evolved to now?

It is very, very dangerous to support ideological-based violence supposedly under the banner of "fighting fascism" or "fighting racism". Either you support the right to free speech and free assembly, or you don't. You can't only support free speech when it's the "correct" speech, and then support people getting beaten, milkshaked, and harassed when you don't agree with what they're saying.

Antifa are a bunch of thugs who have decided that they're just going to physically hurt people on the right until they get their point across. If you don't feel we as a society have evolved way beyond that sort of behavior being acceptable, then you haven't learned a thing.

sorry, your rebuttal to 'intellectual dishonesty' is that nobody dying is a moral equivalent to people being extrajudicially executed?

your 'dig myself a deeper hole' style of internet debate may be great entertainment but its getting you no closer to that coveted negraneu bracket poll status.

This would be like if a right-wing spree killer ends up killing 20 people in a hate crime, someone says, "Yeah he killed 20 people, but did he kill 3000? You know who killed 3000 Americans in 2001? Muslim extremists."

It's an incredibly lame argument to claim that a group isn't bad because they didn't do something even worse done by other groups.

Again, it's very simple. Either you support freedom of speech and freedom to express political opinion without being attacked, or you believe that it's justified to physically attack people for holding what you deem to be the wrong views. If you believe the former, then you can't support Antifa.

I will say right now that I would never support any right wing group which seeks to suppress speech of the political left. Why can't people like you do the same, instead of defending these awful amoral extremists?

[sonatine]

It's an incredibly lame argument to claim that a group isn't bad because they didn't do something even worse done by other groups.

you are an absolute treasure.

[sonatine]

number of incidents antifa has provoked out of thin air:

zero


number of times druffs stormfront rock stars have provoked out of thin air:

thousands? tens of thousands? with a body count that goes back to the slave days.


do better druff.

[Dan Druff]

number of incidents antifa has provoked out of thin air:

zero


number of times druffs stormfront rock stars have provoked out of thin air:

thousands? tens of thousands? with a body count that goes back to the slave days.


do better druff.

lolwut?

So you're saying Antifa has never attacked someone who was peacefully stating their political views?



Oh, and regarding the deaths caused by 1860s white supremacists, let me know which of those murderers are still alive today and need to face justice for their actions, and I'm fully behind you.

[Dan Druff]

sonatine, do you or do you not support violence against people who are peacefully stating their political/social views, or assembling to do so?

Do you or do you not support violence against people who have written articles about their political views, once they're seen in public?

Do you or do you not support violence against people who write articles exposing groups like Antifa?

I do not support violence in any of these cases. Let's hear your direct answers to these questions.

[gimmick]

Select quotes from Druff...

"But I'm not talking about the politicians who simply wished Jussie well, or commented the attack itself was terrible. I'm talking about the idiots on the left who then used it as evidence of "the rise of hate", "increased racism", "an example of Trump's America", etc.

That's where it bridges from the necessary political pleasantries to willfully ignorant idiocy."

"We are talking about something completely different here, where non-politicians have learned that they can play victim and easily manipulate the left into both making them famous and donating big money to them."

"Instead, she says she's "confused" about Jussie getting off, and then immediately launches into the typical left wing "but OMG hate crimes are increasing so much" rhetoric."

"Yes, there were some smart people on the left who smelled a rat with all of this and held back comment, but there were plenty of dummies who jumped on this, and then equated it to the Trump era of this country"

"Can you point to a similar situation occurring recently or semi-recently on the right, where a fairly obvious hoax was accepted as fact, yet many prominent right wing figures ran with it anyway?"

"I'm talking about a case where a very suspicious hoax occurs, and the right falls for it, and sanctimoniously uses it as an example as to why they've been correct all along. I don't recall that happening anytime recently"

"The left should have taken a realistic look at this one, realized it smelled funny, and avoid commentary until the facts came out. However, too many of them are trained like monkeys to jump at the first opportunity to vilify Trump and the right, so they threw caution to the wind. "

"The criticism here is of both Jussie himself (for obvious reasons) and the media/liberal politicians who jump on these "Trump supporter making racist attack" stories, without knowing the facts."

...just from the Smollet thread and i didn't really bother going through all of them.

Not understanding your point here.

The attack on Andy Ngo was not a hoax. You can't compare this to Smollet. I stand by everything I said about this situation. Even the attackers weren't aware of these recently-exposed details about Ngo at the time. It was just standard-issue "we attacked him because he's a Nazi and a fascist" they say about every right wing figure they attack.

From everything I see, it appears that Andy Ngo was a right-wing journalist who was attacked for being a right-wing journalist, and then it turns out that, on top of that, he has some skeletons in his closet involving support for a bad alt-right group.

That can diminish any sympathy you might have for Ngo, but it doesn't make the attack a hoax, nor does it exonerate Antifa's actions.

The hoax part was that an innocent journalist was attacked unprovoked just because of his exquisite exposes of Antifa violence.

You have no way of knowing that the attackers didn't know more about him. He was from Portland, this happened in Portland and likely the attackers were from Portland. It's kinda likely they knew what he was about. It was them he was vilifying with creative editing and blatant lies.

[gimmick]

Patriot Prayer attacking a bar Antifa frequented was one these exposes. Journalism at it's finest.

[sonatine]

in fairness andy ngo orchestrates violence while calling it journalism at a slight loss.

[Dan Druff]

Not understanding your point here.

The attack on Andy Ngo was not a hoax. You can't compare this to Smollet. I stand by everything I said about this situation. Even the attackers weren't aware of these recently-exposed details about Ngo at the time. It was just standard-issue "we attacked him because he's a Nazi and a fascist" they say about every right wing figure they attack.

From everything I see, it appears that Andy Ngo was a right-wing journalist who was attacked for being a right-wing journalist, and then it turns out that, on top of that, he has some skeletons in his closet involving support for a bad alt-right group.

That can diminish any sympathy you might have for Ngo, but it doesn't make the attack a hoax, nor does it exonerate Antifa's actions.

The hoax part was that an innocent journalist was attacked unprovoked just because of his exquisite exposes of Antifa violence.

You have no way of knowing that the attackers didn't know more about him. He was from Portland, this happened in Portland and likely the attackers were from Portland. It's kinda likely they knew what he was about. It was them he was vilifying with creative editing and blatant lies.

You apparently don't know the definition of hoax.

And that's exactly why he was attacked -- because he was an unabashed right wing journalist, frequently exposing Antifa.

Had Antifa known about his less-than-stellar associations, this would have come out two months ago when the attacks occurred and Antifa was being vilified for it, rather than now.

And you know what? Even if Ngo associated with scumbag alt-right groups, that's still no reason to attack him in a public setting. Similarly, if right-wingers beat up Antifa sympathisers at a public event, who weren't doing anything other than showing up there, you'd be correct to cry foul (and I'm sure you would be).

It's very simple....

YOU

DON'T

BEAT

PEOPLE

UP

BECAUSE

OF

THEIR

POLITICS