TakeYouToTasker

That would be fair if this guy develops a multi-year history of board degrading nonsense like gatorman has.

And here we are again, with you seeking to criminalize thought. "The IDEAL itself is the enemy." Thoughts don't harm people, actions do, and the government is absolutely fantastic at !@#$ing Nazis, right along with anyone else, who engages in criminal activity. For instance, erecting and burning a cross on someone's lawn is a crime no matter who does it. It doesn't matter if the person erecting and burning is a Nazi, or if it's your grandmother, because it's not the idea behind the burning which dictates the criminality, but the action itself. There are acres of daylight between thought and action, and people are perfectly free to think and verbalize whatever terrible things they wish, so long as they don't act them out. Ideas don't kill people, actions do. And you know what? If Nazis start taking action outside of rhetoric, domestically we'll send in our Nazi !@#$ing units (you'll note that Dylan Roof and James Fields were both quickly apprehended, the former now on death row), and internationally we'll invade France. However, as a practical matter, no one in the West is in any real danger from Nazis. You are more likely to be killed by a vending machine than by a Nazi in the United States. The only reason this is even a conversation, is because the fringe left have received far too much deference from the government in recent years, and now radical militant Communist fronts, having not been smashed into the Earth by law enforcement for engaging in rampant vigilantism and violent activism, now believe that it's their business to engage in extra-legal !@#$ery. It isn't. Nazi !@#$ing is the government's business. In fact, it's the whole reason we even have a government.

To be fair to 34, this thread was already about stupid people. Simply adding one more didn't really change it's direction.

Tom's right. You're too stupid to argue with. Did you really just equate an entire canonized representitize system of law and self-governance enduring in a single nation for almost two and a half centuries with a few hundred barely organized morons, who themselves would have been victims of Hitler's purges, expressing generally hateful, politically non-specific, blather; some of whom cried when confronted with the the possibility of jail time?

I'm still curious which of the Charlottesville Nazis killed millions of people because of their race, and thousands us US servicemen.

Have you ever read a book? Like, any book? It's hard to imagine a person more ignorant of, well, anything really. With that said, given your hilarious equating of the neckbeards in Charlottesville with the Third Reich, why the militant Communists get a pass, given that their ideology has killed far more people than Nazism.

It's more like saying that your local Pop Warner team is the 1972 Dolphins.

LOL I just realized that this retard thinks he's fighting the SS in Welthauptstadt Germania in an alternative timeline circa 1953. He thinks these idiots are the same guys.

The most noteworthy thing about his list of Nazis and Klansmen is that it seemed to contain very few Nazis and Klansmen. One should note that it certainly contained some fringe libertarians and conservatives, which is interesting, because we're in a thread where 34 is advocating the suspension of First and Second Amendment rights for Nazis and Klansmen, and then immediately lumped in with Nazis and Klansmen a lot of people who aren't Nazis and Klansmen. So if you're following at home: - we should suspend the rights of Nazis - everyone I don't like is a Nazi

I can make anything anyone is about to say certain to incite imminent violence by making them aware that I'll assault them for saying it. That's an absurd standard.

No, the second is not, because it's not a specific call to action to do violence. Again, this is a recent unanimous SCOTUS decision, and more than 200 years of Stare Decisis supports my position. Further, it is your argument because you're calling for going against the interpretation of that law, as defined by the Supreme Court. Let's suppose we were having this conversation in person, and I was deeply offended by your political position, and it made me so mad that I punched you in the face, should your speech be censored?

Wrong. The decision, rendered less than two month ago, accounted for everything going on today. Specific threats used to incite violence like, "Let's kill the black guy over there in the blue shirt!" rise to that standard. "We should kick out all the Mexicans and blacks because they are subhuman animals." does not. This interpretation of the Law is resting on just about two and a half centuries of Stare Decisis. Further, your argument, in it's practical application is seeking to criminalize political thought on the grounds that the person who hears the speech might be offended and therefore compelled to violence. You asking to suspend one persons rights because another person isn't adult enough to control themselves and not perpetrate violence against the speaker[/i]. That's an absurd position to take.

There you go! It only took you three tries to correctly identify someone you seem to have formed opinions about. In the future, it might be wise to actually know who people are before forming opinions about them. It has the potential to be far less embarrassing for you.

Unsurprising.

Oh, you guys didn't think it would stop with the Confederacy, did you? Christian symbolism is next.

Are you making Robert E. Lee analogous to Nazis?

I would have thought it was a stupid thing to debate as well, yet a massive percentage of the country, being led around by their elected representatives and voices in the media have pushed the issue following the nonsense in Charlottesville, and so here we are.

That's what the majority of the back and forth on this topic has been here. Some individuals seem to think that it's desirable for individuals to be able to assault other individuals without repercussion, and confiscate their firearms, for expressing their views.

Let's go on record: are you also in favor of unilaterally suspending the rights of individuals for thought crimes?

You meant Barron? Trump's 11 year old son?

I think those things are the reality of the history of humanity. Humans, as we know them, have been on Earth for some 200,000 years (6 million years if you want to include our ancestors). We've been civilized for maybe 6000 of those. In all of human history, the concept of freedom as we understand it is only about 300 some odd years old, and has only been being practiced for less than 250. In this timeline, black Americans achieved their freedom roughly 100 years later than white Americans. In a historical timeline spanning 200,000 years that isn't a very large disparity, but more importantly slavery, in one form or another, is far more normal and common in human history than freedom is. Slavery was part of our evolution. Just about every race and ethnicity has been enslaved at some point or another, all across the world. Our history of slavery is not "evil", it simply is. Which isn't to say, of course, that slavery today wouldn't be evil. It would, but only because of our moral evolution from the Enlightenment forward, and the near universal adaptation, though gradual, of it's concepts of freedom. The same thing applies western expansion and colonialism. Only very recently has the globe adopted a more stable and peaceful tact in regards to conquest. It was the way the entire world functioned until very recently. You cannot judge the history of the world through the lens of 2017 social mores and retain any understanding of the history of the world, and anyone finding offense in our history isn't qualified to have an opinion on it.

Cut him open and test his brain for advanced CTE. He clearly thinks it's 1991.

You guys really want to throw Peterman to the wolves behind this line? Big David Carr fans are ya?

Heels out

I love being wrong about the catch