Antifa adherents — some armed with sticks and masked in bandannas — played a visible role in the running street battles in Charlottesville, but it is impossible to know how many people count themselves as members of the movement. Its followers acknowledge it is secretive, without official leaders and organized into autonomous local cells. It is also only one in a constellation of activist movements that have come together in the past several months to the fight the far right....That makes me think about that NYT article 2 days ago — "Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language" (blogged here) — that relied on the characterizations of Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, who deemed “alt-left" "just a made-up epithet" and "antifa" an "old left-wing extremist movement."
The new article today seems to acknowledge the inadequacy of the 2-day-old article. The older article seemed intent on pushing back Donald Trump for talking about the "alt-left" as well as the "alt-right." The term "false equivalence" — which was a big media talking point earlier in the week — appears in the older article. I thought "false equivalence" was being used to say, essentially: When one side is worse than the other side, you're not even allowed to compare them.
There was something false about saying "false equivalence." Strictly speaking, the label applies only when 2 things are said to be the same. It shouldn't work to exclude all comparisons when people are being clear about the similarities and differences.
In the case of Charlottesville, there was no logical fallacy in saying there were 2 opposing factions that arrived on scene ready to rumble as long as you're also clear that the 2 sides were different. One side wanted to exercise its free speech rights to express bad, ugly ideas. The other side wanted to interfere with the exercise of free speech rights and was motivated by hostility to ideas that deserved hostility.
In the new article, there's less concern about stepping on the "false equivalence" talking point. There's a recognition that people like Nauert are headed in a violent direction and are gaining adherents. Maybe acting like they're nothing (or nothing any good people dare speak about) is dangerous. Right after that quote from Nauert, there's this subtle discarding of the "false equivalence" talking point:
Others on the left disagree, saying antifa’s methods harm the fight against right-wing extremism and have allowed Mr. Trump to argue that the two sides are equivalent....Now, Trump never said "the 2 sides are equivalent." He didn't say "equivalent" and he didn't even say "2 sides." He said "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides." But those who were pushing the "false equivalence" idea needed to rely on the idea that one side is bad and the other is good, and they needed to minimize antifa. Now, the NYT admits the left has a violence problem. Good!
Posts
353 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 353 of 353Drudge is reporting Bannon out at White House.
Jim Treacher commented on the defacing of that bust of Lincoln in Chicago:
"It seems very strange to destroy a statue of Abraham Lincoln because you’re angry about Confederate monuments.
But then, I didn’t go to Chicago schools."
I kind of admire AntiFa. In general, lefties avoid professions that involve personal risk, e.g. military, police, border patrol, prison guard, etc. It's that kind of thing 'those other people do.'
AntiFa ,at times, actually risk personal injury not just pillow-fighting in the faculty lounge.
Bob Loblaw:
They are desperate and blind. Even the left of center recognizes the implications; but, it's not over, and unlike some better quality people in the Confederacy (e.g. Lee), today they are willing to fight a guerilla war.
ACLU backs down on "free speech", won't help people who "incite" antifa to violence.
"We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence."
“You need violence in order to protect nonviolence. That’s what’s very obviously necessary right now. It’s full-on war, basically.”
Didn't Cersei Lannister say this first?
They see Democrats and Republicans as indistinguishable and loathe them with equal passion.
Very true.
Like all revolutionary leftist/fascists, they save their greatest battles for those closest to themselves in philosophy.
Bolsheviks/mensheviks.
@Doc Weevil,
Good points!
Other historical police stand-downs:
1. In the South, during Jim Crow, when white mobs lynched black men.
2. In 1992, when blacks rioted in LA after the Rodney King verdicts. 63 people died -- 22 were unsolved.
Bad things happen when the police "stand-down" during riots.
I understand why you might think that based on media reports, but it's demonstrably false. I've watched Antifa's hatred and violence over the past twenty years in San Francisco, where Republicans are nonexistent. They see Democrats and Republicans as indistinguishable and loathe them with equal passion.
One of the things that got sprayed on a wall the last time they rioted was "liberals get the bullet too". I realize that's only one individual, but nobody in Antifa stopped him or made an effort to deface it.
Noam Chomsky, who's about as hard left as you can get without abandoning all respectability, describes Antifa as "a major gift to the right".
If “the Left” is responsible for the crimes of anarchists and communists and “the Right” is responsible for the crimes of neo-Nazis and the Klan, then everybody is responsible for something, which is another way of saying they are responsible for nothing.
Islamic Antifas have been quite busy the past few days in Spain.
Trump could win after all, because we can acquire predictions for how long it will take a large sample (voter base) of Trumponium to decay into ever more substanceless-ness, or into ever more national debt-loving bankruptcies, it’s just the single lifetime of a single Trumpian atom, the single element of Trump starring as Himself, that can only be statistically described, at least in advance and starting now. A single Trumponium @ RealTrump may sit calmly nearly forever before it decays. Or, it may decay in a nanosecond.
Earnest Prole:
It would be better if we classified people's orientations and behaviors by principles and actions, respectively; but, the loudest voices insist we use dislocated labels, and so people are forced to respond in kind. Maybe. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.
Noam Chomsky, who's about as hard left as you can get without abandoning all respectability, describes Antifa as "a major gift to the right".
Does Chomsky need bodyguards when he speaks on college campuses across the nation? I doubt it.
Milo and Ann Coulter do.
What does that say about the Left?
What shocks me about Romney is... don't they remember when they called HIM a Nazi?
That struck me too. The whole thing just makes him look weak, something that's already one of his, well, weaknesses.
Bob Boyd said...
Drudge is reporting Bannon out at White House.
Team KAOS is back, baby. Yeah.
Bay Area Guy (11:57am):
One reason I blame the politicians more than the police is that the Charlottesville PD did just what they were supposed to do five weeks before when the Klan showed up in full regalia at a different park in town. (I thought it was the same one, but looked it up and it was Stonewall Jackson statue.) The scorecard there was 22 arrested - all, as far as I could tell, for shoving or throwing things at the Klan - and three hospitalized, one for drunkenness, two for heat exhaustion. (It was a very hot day, Klan members tend to be really old, and their hoods and robes probably don't help.) That's exactly how this one should have been handled. Too bad the Mayor and Governor didn't find the previous uneventful event sufficiently helpful in riling up Democratic voters.
BAG, it says Chomsky is probably correct.
And this... the police were ordered to stand down.
"Charlottesville and Its Aftermath: What if It Was a Setup?"
"The ridiculous campaign by virtually every media outlet, every Democrat and far too many squishy Republicans to label Trump some kind of racist and Nazi sympathizer is beginning to have the stink of an orchestrated smear."
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/charlottesville_and_its_aftermath_what_if_it_was_a_setup.html#ixzz4q7xSwzCy
It would be better if we classified people's orientations and behaviors by principles and actions, respectively; but, the loudest voices insist we use dislocated labels, and so people are forced to respond in kind.
It's not a question of better. I'm saying the current classifications are worthless. If everyone on the Left is responsible for Antifa and everyone on the Right is responsible for the neo-Nazis, then no one is responsible for anything.
@Bob Loblaw, for a change.
One of the things that got sprayed on a wall the last time they rioted was "liberals get the bullet too".
In countless demonstrations in Oakland, Antifa would threaten and beat Democrats and progressives for the crime of promoting nonviolence. A common sentiment was "we're coming for you first." Republicans and conservatives obviously wouldn't be aware of this.
BGrear said...
The MSM still has no clue how/why 60 million people voted for Trump.
8/18/17, 11:24 AM
Sure they do, just ask them. Trump voters are racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, nationalistic, anti-migrant, bible thumping, gun toting hicks! They say so every day. It might not be true but that does not matter as it is what they believe in their "safe spaces".
Earnest Prole said...
If “the Left” is responsible for the crimes of anarchists and communists and “the Right” is responsible for the crimes of neo-Nazis and the Klan, then everybody is responsible for something, which is another way of saying they are responsible for nothing.
If you don't hold the left responsible for the for the crimes of fascists when they hold the right responsible for the crimes of white supremacists they will never acknowledge that extremists don't taint the mainstream. Once they are forced to pay the same price they will drop their smear campaign. Protecting that smear campaign is the motivation for the "false equivalence" mantra this week.
Bob & Lewis: It doesn't start at the university level. Try elementary school. These kids have been indoctrinated since kindergarten.
As Lewis says, 'science' is only about climate change and rain forests and saving the planet. I wonder if chemistry and physics are even taught in high school.
To say that the the Nazis and white supremacists at Charlottesville and the protesters were equally at fault, which president man baby said, is like saying the allies and Hitler were equally at fault over the deaths at Normandy on June 6, 1944. Instead of educating and bringing the country together, agent orange rends interest groups away from their common cause and distracts us from the kleptocracy looting the nation.
ARM: "Team KAOS is back, baby. Yeah."
Almost as chaotic as the staff shakeups during the campaign that led to Trump's historic upset victory.....
....oh. That's not what you were shooting for, was it?
Next up for ARM, why relieving McClellan was a strategic mistake for Lincoln.
If you don't hold the left responsible for the for the crimes of fascists when they hold the right responsible for the crimes of white supremacists they will never acknowledge that extremists don't taint the mainstream.
How's that "holding the left responsible" business working out for you?
EsoxLucius said...
To say that the the Nazis and white supremacists at Charlottesville and the protesters were equally at fault, which president man baby said,
This is false. Lying about what was said is an implicit admission what was actually said won't support your conclusion. Otherwise why lie and discredit your argument?
Earnest Prole said...
One of the things that got sprayed on a wall the last time they rioted was "liberals get the bullet too".
Again the history of the French Revolution is instructive, because it formed the template for every subsequent leftist revolution. In the beginning, many moderates supported the Revolution. But it didn't take long for the ratchet to move leftward, so people like Lafayette found themselves condemned as reactionaries.
What happened to the Mensheviks?
I probably shouldn't have mentioned Lincoln. The lefties are apparently triggered by him too. So much so that they are attacking statues of him.
I guess we should just ask the lefties which leftist revolutionary should replace the Linc*** Memorial. (*=to avoid leftist triggering)
Earnest Prole said...
How's that "holding the left responsible" business working out for you?
Confidence in the media is at its lowest point ever. Media house organs like the NYT and WAPO can no longer be run as profitable assets. Who knows how long they can last under the current model but the trend is strong. Skepticism of government is at such a high the country elected a game show host President. Meanwhile more and more people are coming to see the campus crazies have infected the broader world via Google and fascist protesters.
So pretty well I think.
"bringing the country together"
Hitting people with baseball bats, throwing acid in their eyes, waving Commie flags and tearing down a statue dedicated to children conscripted into the Confederate Army seems like an odd way of "bringing the country together."
On second thought, maybe it is a good way of bringing the country together - all the sane people vs. the left wing thugs and their idiot apologists.
@Rabel, for real??? Every time I think that the Left is despicable, it demonstrates that I don't really grasp the depths of despicability that they are capable of.
Commenters here (and Althouse) apparently think Antifa is simply Democrats on steroids. If someone told them Nazis are Republicans on steroids they would instantly understand the logical fallacy.
Drago, they are also triggered by Joan of Arc statues.
You'd think a woman with a sword would catch a break...
Earnest Prole said...
Commenters here (and Althouse) apparently think Antifa is simply Democrats on steroids."
I guess the reason we're thinking that is because so many Dems seem unwilling to condemn Antifa, or even admit they are violent. If I saw conservatives saying neo-Nazis are swell, well-meaning people, I'd call them out.
What conservatives are saying is: 1. Neo-Nazis are assholes and losers. 2. Even assholes and losers have the right to speak without being assaulted and 3. given their numbers, Antifa appears to be the greater threat.
There are Dems who have compared Antifa to the troops who landed on Omaha Beach.
To say that the the Nazis and white supremacists at Charlottesville and the protesters were equally at fault, which president man baby said, is like saying the allies and Hitler were equally at fault over the deaths at Normandy on June 6, 1944.
Nice try.
It's more like saying the Hitler and Stalin were equally at fault in invading Poland in 1939 -- albeit Stalin was savvy enough to stagger it 2 weeks later.
One reason for thinking "Antifa is simply Democrats on steroids" is that that is exactly how Democrats act. Thousands of people who would have liked to go to Charlottesville to support keeping the statue canceled their plans when they heard the Nazis were going to be there in force. No one on the left seems to have any trouble sharing the streets with black-masked goons carrying baseball bats and urine bottles, or cheering on out-and-out Maoists and supporters of North Korea (like the ringleader of the vandalism in Durham), or retweeting exhortations to "punch a Nazi" and "kill all white males". So which side is doing a better job of separating themselves from its lunatic fringe?
Earnest Prole said...
Commenters here (and Althouse) apparently think Antifa is simply Democrats on steroids. If someone told them Nazis are Republicans on steroids they would instantly understand the logical fallacy.
The fallacy is presuming two sides must form and function in the same way, but they don't. Antifa supports left policies and wants to use violence to get them. White supremacists support policies different from what the right wants.
Further there are no institutions which protect white supremacists. Meanwhile effectively all left institutions protect antifa: campus police by not apprehending them, campus administrations by allowing this and supporting their faux justifications of needing to feel "safe" from speech, and media by addressing them only when not doing so begins to harm their own credibility and presenting them in the best possible light.
"To say that the the Nazis and white supremacists at Charlottesville and the protesters were equally at fault, which president man baby said, is like saying the allies and Hitler were equally at fault over the deaths at Normandy on June 6, 1944."
No, it's not really like this at all. Not even a little bit. Talk about a privileged perspective. Indeed, saying something like this is highly offensive to the people who landed on the beaches of Normandy. Shameful even.
And I agree, Earnest Prole, that the Antifas hate liberals with a passion. Liberals, however, don't see it. "No enemies on the Left."
A few days back, I linked to a BLM website which denounced "white allies" as the "most evil people in the world." I did that because a few of the resident white liberals could not believe that any black radical could hate them. Their response? "That's just one person." They apparently didn't read the comments.
They're in for an unpleasant surprise.
Earnest Prole said...
Commenters here (and Althouse) apparently think Antifa is simply Democrats on steroids. If someone told them Nazis are Republicans on steroids they would instantly understand the logical fallacy.
I do instantly understand the logical fallacy of that statement.
When someone on the left criticizes the Nazis, you don't immediately get significant numbers of people on the right defending them. When the right criticizes Antifa, the left rushes to their defense, comparing them to WWII vets, and claiming they were defending peaceful protestors.
I sounds like Bannon is really out. I think that is a mistake but Trump is now surrounded by advisors who do not share his, or the voters' values.
His center of balance is gone.
Fools and enemies will celebrate this.
The swamp slowly closes over the head of the only one who wanted to drain it.
Except, of course the voters,
There are Dems who have compared Antifa to the troops who landed on Omaha Beach.
That's because their only knowledge of the group comes from the New York Times, which has failed to do the most basic reporting. Today's article is a perfect example: "You need violence in order to protect nonviolence” says Emily Rose Nauert, a statement that is laughable to anyone with the slightest knowledge of Antifa's twenty-year history of beating up nonviolent progressives for the express reason that they are nonviolent.
Earnest Prole said...
Commenters here (and Althouse) apparently think Antifa is simply Democrats on steroids. If someone told them Nazis are Republicans on steroids they would instantly understand the logical fallacy.
Watch this video, note the non-antifa people easily mixing with them making no effort to separate themselves. When antifa attacks the conservative do the other people intervene? Or do they view them as their brownshirts - the people who fight on their behalf?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/08/student-attacked-at-charlottesville-vigil-in-syracuse-for-wearing-yaf-cap/
It is always said that 'there are two sides to every issue'. I've always asked, 'Why only two?' I refuse to side with White Supremacists or Left-wing extremists. And I'm sure those who also refuse represent the majority.
Remember the 'Moral Majority'? Maybe we are the Sane Majority. [Noted is the lack of alliteration but maybe we can come up with something better].
Ignorance is Bliss (12:38pm):
As someone put it on Twitter (quoted from memory):
"How come you never hear anyone say the only problem with Nazis is that true Nazism has never been tried?"
so many Dems seem unwilling to condemn Antifa, or even admit they are violent. If I saw conservatives saying neo-Nazis are swell, well-meaning people, I'd call them out.
I haven't see a whole lot of explicit condemnation of neo-Nazis around here lately -- almost as though commenters are . . . what's that word . . . unwilling. But that doesn't make them Nazis, it merely makes them like so many Dems.
Ann wrote: "The other side wanted to interfere with the exercise of free speech rights and was motivated by hostility to ideas that deserved hostility."
As these are the same group of people that attacked Charles Murray at Middlefield College, no, they are NOT "motivated by hostility to ideas that deserved hostility."
They're just vile leftwing scum.
Maryland took down the statue of Chief Justice Roger Taney -- author of the horrendous Dred Scot decision.
A few thoughts:
1. They pretty much did it the right way - no riots, some administrative decision, although there was a tad bit of criticism.
2. I don't expect Professor Althouse to scroll thru this morass, but I would bet she'd find this interesting.
3. And, of course, Name that Party!
4. And, let's actually talk about why Dred Scott was bad judicial reasoning, analogous to .......Roe v. Wade! Finding rights where they don't exist in the Constitution can be a bad thing.
"I haven't see a whole lot of explicit condemnation of neo-Nazis around here lately"
-- Look harder; I've been pretty clear on several threads: Nazis and Neo-Nazis are assholes. Several other people have too. In fact, the point generally has been, it isn't enough *just to want to beat up assholes to not make you an asshole.*
Random thoughts:
@Henry, here's a thought experiment. What if the police were ordered not to provide security for Beth Israel? What if the entire idea was to hope (expect?) that the neo-Nazis would attack Beth Israel or the orthodox Eitz Chayim Minyan? What if Mr. Zimmerman and his fellow congregants were viewed as potential "collateral damage" worth risking in the name of the narrative?
@mockturtle, if you're not already familiar with firearms please go take a class with a certified NRA instructor, and don't spend your money until you get a chance to fire something at a range.
@Rusty, a concealed carry class is good even if you eventually decide not to carry, because they also teach you the applicable laws. A while back Althouse linked to a video of an Asian woman who charged out of her bedroom shooting at the three home invaders who had broken into her house. In some states it is illegal for her to leave the relative safety of her bedroom. In other states she is acting within the law until the three men have left her home, because in every state I'm aware of, it is illegal to keep shooting once the threat has been removed. That's the sort of thing you need to be aware of.
@Bay Area Guy, +1 on everything you wrote.
@Balfegor, you are right about the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia being adamant that they do not support the neo-Nazis. So who invited them? Was it Kessler? Prior to this event Jason Kessler was active in the Occupy movement, and, like the despicable Terry McAuliffe, he has received money from George Soros. And Governor McAuliffe is, famously, the man who ordered the police to stand down. Are some dots trying to connect themselves?
Watch this video, note the non-antifa people easily mixing with them making no effort to separate themselves.
As I said, most of the Democratic Left has no idea that Antifa has spent the last twenty years in militant, violent opposition to liberalism and nonviolence.
I wonder how much of the mass removal of memorials/statues is that the politicians wanted to do it the whole time, that they think it is a good idea, and how much of it is: "We don't want that Charlottesville crap happening here."
EsoxLucius said...
To say that the the Nazis and white supremacists at Charlottesville and the protesters were equally at fault, which president man baby said, is like saying the allies and Hitler were equally at fault over the deaths at Normandy on June 6, 1944. Instead of educating and bringing the country together, agent orange rends interest groups away from their common cause and distracts us from the kleptocracy looting the nation.
Lulz. One of the chief characteristics of the left is the complete abandonment of history as example. History always begins when they arrive on the scene. Year One and all that, doncha know. Nowadays, it's become fashionable among them to invoke the World War Two fight against the Nazis, and wouldn't those fine men be ashamed of President Chump? They were fine men, indeed, despite their being virtually all white males belonging to a segregated military. This fact is conveniently overlooked, but they punched Nazis, so they were cool!
The lesson is, do not apply today's standards to the people of the past. In every way, they could not help being who they were. Most of those kids hitting Omaha Beach believed the Army should be segregated. Some of them lived long enough to change their minds, others didn't. The soldiers of the Confederacy deserve the same latitude. When you imbibe a certain paradigm with your mother's milk, you really can't help believing that what you know is what is right. It doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes it understandable.
The monuments to Confederates were mostly erected in the twentieth century. They were symbols of reconciliation, of finally burying the hatchet. Destroying them is merely an effort to reverse a long-accepted peace. It is immoral, and ignorant in the extreme. EsoxLucius, for God's sake actually learn some history. Don't just parrot it.
Dear Earnie, does each and every one of us who voted for Trump have to begin each day explicitly condemning the neo-Nazis in order to keep you happy?
Seattle apparently choosing to split the baby, get rid of Lenin and Confederate statues.
(says to) get rid of both
Earnest Prole:
If you "I haven't see a whole lot of explicit condemnation of neo-Nazis around here lately", you haven't been paying attention. Here's something I wrote Saturday: "No matter how revolting someone's politics are, it's not illegal for them to demonstrate, to carry disgusting signs, or even to carry torches. Assaulting them is still wrong."
Is "revolting" and "disgusting" strong enough for you? (I remembered saying something like that and found that very quickly by Binging "site:althouse.blogspot.com weevil disgusting".) We could easily find you dozens more such remarks. How many can you find in which any of the Althouse hillbillies say anything positive about the political beliefs of the Nazis or the Klansmen, as opposed to defending their Constitutional right to express their filthy moronic ideas without being assaulted?
As I said, most of the Democratic Left has no idea that Antifa has spent the last twenty years in militant, violent opposition to liberalism and nonviolence.
You're mistaken in believing the break is significant. They argue against nonviolence and 90s liberal moderation (Seattle WTOs) but so do liberals (Bernie, anti-Hillary). Both now argue much of that moderation is racist - which is why their Bill Clinton nostalgia is so amusing. The entire American polity has moved significantly left and "liberals" disproportionately so. The fact that antifas argue against Democratic positions from 25 years ago doesn't demonstrate a distinction between them and the average left leaner or Democrat today.
Antifas believe liberals are too politically cowardly and are too ready to compromise. It's a difference in tactics.
Blogger Earnest Prole said...
I haven't see a whole lot of explicit condemnation of neo-Nazis around here lately
I condemn persons who believes that their racial or ethnic (or sexual identity) gives them a right to social privilege.
That includes a whole lot more people than Nazis and the KKK these days. Why, some people, even college professors, believe the Justice Department should spend more resources investigating reports of police misconduct against favored ethnic groups than against other, "non-special" interest groups!
Some people even think that favored ethnic groups should get special assistance in college admissions!
Commenters here (and Althouse) apparently think Antifa is simply Democrats on steroids. If someone told them Nazis are Republicans on steroids they would instantly understand the logical fallacy.
Commenters here (and elsewhere) think Republicans are Nazis, full stop.
That they turn around and acknowledge any division between the Democrats and Antifa is to be admired, not derided.
Commenters here (and Althouse) apparently think Antifa is simply Democrats on steroids.
Earnie, I see a Democrat Party that has gleefully driven centrists and moderates from the center-left out of their party. I see the Democrat allies in the media glorifying the antifa. I note that the Obama administration dropped the lawsuit against the New Black Panthers who used the threat of violence to interfere in the 2008 presidential election in Philadelphia after they had admitted their guilt! Therefore I conclude that the Democrats are morphing into a fringe party that seeks power not through the ballot box but by violence and the threat of violence.
Meanwhile I see the GOP welcoming socially moderate but fiscally conservative people like me as much as they welcome the "down with Roe v. Wade" people who don't care how much the government spends or how deeply we are in debt. I conclude that Ryan and McConnell have a serious "herding cats" problem, but they lead the more inclusive party.
I condemn persons who believes that their racial or ethnic (or sexual identity) gives them a right to social privilege.
Applause.
a few Nazi sympathizers might advocate for non-violence...but they would still be Nazi Sympathizers.... This is the Democrats' new replacement for their Jim Crow phrase n* lovers.
I sympathize with everybody. I don't advocate lynch mobs for child molesters, for example. Everybody gets the protection of our laws. At least that's what Republicans think. The Democrats, most recently sunsong, seem to think that there are human beings who are beneath the protections of our constitution. That's why they can't be given control of the awesome power of government.
Suggesting that groups like the brownshirt AntiFa, that create violence as "counter demonstrations," for example, the way they smashed shop windows during Trump's inauguration, makes you a "Nazi sympathizer."
But they are not "brownshirts" ARM will tell us, because they wear black!
Matthew Sablan said...
I wonder how much of the mass removal of memorials/statues is that the politicians wanted to do it the whole time, that they think it is a good idea, and how much of it is: "We don't want that Charlottesville crap happening here."
As long as by "Charlottesville crap" you mean "city leaders are criticized from the left" I think you're right.
Almost all big cities are controlled by the left and politicians cannot be seen as behind the times of "progress".
"Meanwhile I see the GOP welcoming socially moderate but fiscally conservative people."
-- Log Cabin Republicans exist the same party as super conservative Baptists. The tent, however argumentative, is growing.
I haven't see a whole lot of explicit condemnation of neo-Nazis around here lately
There have been a ton of them, many made by me, but since you insist on one further loyalty oath, I fucking hate neo-Nazis!
You know what would be more convincing? If AntiFa burned Nazi flags instead of American ones.
"As long as by "Charlottesville crap" you mean "city leaders are criticized from the left" I think you're right."
-- I think city leaders are afraid, honestly. They've seen Ferguson. They remember Occupy. And now they saw Charlottesville. Most governors/mayors want none of that crap.
The fact that antifas argue against Democratic positions from 25 years ago doesn't demonstrate a distinction between them and the average left leaner or Democrat today.
"Argue against Democratic positions from 25 years ago"?! Until last year Antifa's reason for existence was smashing windows and burning buildings in exclusively Democratic cities and beating up nonviolent progressives and liberals. The focus on Trump supporters is a very recent development (obviously). And Antifa has never engaged anyone, right or left, in "argument," to use your quaint but naive word.
AntiFa is a gift to the right, and "Unite the Right" an oxymoron only a leftie could come up with, is a gift to the left. It was a lefty who founded Unite the Right, just in January... After the "resistance" was declared....
Having seen the real Nazis in action, I am not much impressed by a small group of American social misfits too ignorant to know what the Nazi insignia should look like.
ARM was harping yesterday, endlessly, it. seemed, on the idea that having these whackos come to a town was going to drive the middle class away from Trump in a law and order sense. Except that the alt-left is coming to. town after town, indiscriminately destroying monuments that memorialize our history. History which we should not forget.
"God this is stupid."
ARM,
Sometimes you actually sound reasonable to me.
Be careful. It might become a habit and your lefty friends will stop inviting you to parties.
Having seen the real Nazis in action, I am not much impressed by a small group of American social misfits too ignorant to know what the Nazi insignia should look like.
How are you going to scare liberals into sending money to politicians and showing up to vote with an attitude like that? Eyes on the prize, sir!
Careful what you wish for, leftists.
You just might get it.
I think city leaders are afraid, honestly.
Right, but afraid of what?
In Baltimore and the current City Attorney (Marilyn Moseby - a political neophyte) greatly increased her support and profile by attaching herself to the Freddie Gray protests. BLM activist DeRay McKesson ran for mayor in 2016 and after his loss was placated with a sinecure in the Baltimore City Schools (surely that will prepare students for college!).
The mayor (Rawlings-Blake) and city council are all desperately afraid history will repeat itself and the next protest will produce another high-profile activist to challenge them. They can best prevent these challenges by acting quickly so criticism they didn't act falls flat.
Moseby shows protests don't risk your career as long as you're understood to be a supporter. Nor did the protests damage any other politico except Martin O'Malley who was uniquely accountable to outsiders.
Commenters here (and Althouse) apparently think Antifa is simply Democrats on steroids.
Perhaps we wouldn't think so if Antifa wasn't behaving like a group of brownshirts attacking people Democrats don't like.
"You need violence in order to protect nonviolence."
So the antifa's are against violence?
Hahahahahahahaha.
That's funny.
Until last year Antifa's reason for existence was smashing windows and burning buildings in exclusively Democratic cities and beating up nonviolent progressives and liberals.
Sure they claimed the IMF and Worldbank etc were bad. But the entire party turned anti-trade, that's why Bernie rose and Hillary lagged. Some Democrats may disagree but they're seen as extensions of the Democrats anti-corporation rhetoric rather than fundamental differences.
Antifas also believe the welfare reform and essentially every anti-crime measure was racist. And most public democrats now believe that also.
Earnest Prole proved himself on this one issue a fucking liar. I don't care if the lie was caused by inattention or hatred. It's a lie.
Everybody in these threads is highly critical of the ass holes who followed a Democrat to march in Charlottesville. These neo-Nazi shits have no fans in conservative ranks. The National Socialists and the International Socialists are equally abhorrent.
Leftist Collectivists are all welcome to kiss my ass, no matter how they define their collectivism.
Perhaps we wouldn't think so if Antifa wasn't behaving like a group of brownshirts attacking people Democrats don't like.
Apparently you're unaware that for the past twenty years they've behaved like a group of brownshirts attacking Democrats themselves.
Earnest Prole said...
Commenters here (and Althouse) apparently think Antifa is simply Democrats on steroids. If someone told them Nazis are Republicans on steroids they would instantly understand the logical fallacy.
Both sides in Charlottesville were Nazi's who were national socialists. The Nazi's pushed both racial and ideological purity.
"Unite the Right" was organized by Clinton staffer and Occupy Protester Jason Kessler was based on racial purity.
Antifa, which is a Soros funded hate group paid for by money Soros got from Jews he turned over to the Nazi's, is based on ideological purity.
Both are democrat front groups pushing leftist agendas.
Apparently you're unaware that for the past twenty years they've behaved like a group of brownshirts attacking Democrats themselves.
Then why are Democratic politicians and Democrats in the media running interference for them?
Earnest Prole quoted...
so many Dems seem unwilling to condemn Antifa, or even admit they are violent. If I saw conservatives saying neo-Nazis are swell, well-meaning people, I'd call them out.
then said...
I haven't see a whole lot of explicit condemnation of neo-Nazis around here lately...
As many others have pointed out, there has been a whole lot. And since it would be boring for everyone to make the same comment, I don't blame commenters who didn't pile on. But you fail to address ( or carefully avoid addressing ) the second half. There are many, many people on the left who are openly supporting Antifa. Comparing them to WWII vets, or liking such comparisons on facebook. THERE IS NOBODY OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE on the Republican side who treats the Nazis or the KKK that way.
It doesn't matter that the people doing this are ignorant of the Antifa's history over the past 25 years. They are supporting their readily apparent violence in Charlottesville. Antifa has the active, publicly stated approval, of the mainstream left.
Antifa, which is a Soros funded hate group paid for by money Soros got from Jews he turned over to the Nazi's
Soros has been funding a hate group whose exclusive purpose the previous twenty years has been to beat up Democrats and progressives and destroy exclusively Democratic cities? Now that's some sneaky shit!
Juxtapositions:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“You need violence in order to protect nonviolence,” said Emily Rose Nauert, a 20-year-old antifa member “That’s what’s very obviously necessary right now. It’s full-on war, basically."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell [Ben Tre city] regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orwell (1984):
War is peace Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
To all commenters who condemned neo-Nazis here, congratulations. From my perspective that’s unnecessary, because Republicans and conservatives hold beliefs that are fundamentally opposed to fascism. And by the same token, Democrats and progressives hold beliefs that are fundamentally opposed to Antifa’s: the proof is how Antifa treated Democrats and progressives as a bitter enemy for the past twenty years. The fact that Republicans, conservatives, Democrats, and progressives don’t know that simply makes them ignorant, not wrong.
Pfhht, it's just one group channeling their inner Hitler versus another group channeling their inner Mao.
It struck me that the Charlottesville authorities were encouraging the violence and are equally culpable for the death and injuries.
Is that an explicit repudiation of Pro-Fa? No, Earnest Prole pretends that a lack of (alleged) violence by Pro-Fa is a reason to criticize the Right.
Prole? Maybe.
Earnest? No. A liar. A mealy mouthed liar.
"...One side wanted to exercise its free speech rights to express bad, ugly ideas. The other side wanted to interfere with the exercise of free speech rights and was motivated by hostility to ideas that deserved hostility...."
One reason I so enjoy this site, Ms. Althouse, is the interest and light you shed on rhetoric, words and the actual 'meaning' of words, albeit intentional, perceived, or imagined. So...
I find myself engrossed with the 'meaning' of your words above - intentional or otherwise. I hope-don't 'imagine' you intentionally meant the above to say you believe "hostility"(what a loaded word!!) to an idea that is "bad-ugly" (by individual judgment), is simply giving that "idea" what it justifiably 'deserves' even when directed at the speech rights of others? Or, even more significantly, such ideas 'deserve' the violence that this 'hostility' came armed for? Clubs' helmets, etc etc. What they - it seems to me - came for was physical confrontation and they got it.
If so, the other side could conceivably make the same limp case, no?.....that their hostility was deserved-justified by the "ugly" racial epithets of the 'far left'?
Anyway, it seems to me that both sides in this matter sounded 'ugly' and acted 'ugly' - IMHO the behavior of neither party was in anyway 'justified', in theory or in reality.
Soros has been funding a hate group whose exclusive purpose the previous twenty years has been to beat up Democrats and progressives and destroy exclusively Democratic cities? Now that's some sneaky shit!
They'll Make Us All Beggars Cause We'll Be Easier To Please
Congratulate us for your lies? Piss off.
The soul of the Left is about control. The Leftist Collectivists want to exercise their Will to Power over their fellow man. I have dozens of examples internationally and domestically.
Find anybody on the conservative side that favors individual rights and an expansive freedom supporting Collectivists or recognize your lies.
Shorter version: blah blah blah
Any further lies to tell?
@Earnie, "blah, blah, blah"?!? Them's fighting words!
One side came armed with guns. That side was the Right. No guns were discharged however. One side came with bottle of urine, feces, astringents and hardened concrete. That side was the Left. A great many of these missiles were loosed. No, there is no equivalence. The Left were the aggressors. The Right, at least as far as their weapons are concerned, demonstrated restraint in the face of grievous bodily assault. Only one side employed a flame thrower. Who dat?
Seattle apparently choosing to split the baby, get rid of Lenin and Confederate statues.
Next up, Starbucks! Those sexist bastards used the image of a bare-breasted woman to sell coffee that commoners can't afford!
Earnest Prole said...
Democrats and progressives hold beliefs that are fundamentally opposed to Antifa’s: the proof is how Antifa treated Democrats and progressives as a bitter enemy for the past twenty years. The fact that Republicans, conservatives, Democrats, and progressives don’t know that simply makes them ignorant, not wrong.
In the here and now, Antifa is using violence to suppress the Constitutional rights of people they disagree with. The mainstream left is embracing them not in spite of this, nor in ignorance of this, but because of this.
Sure, the mainstream left might disagree with them on other policies. But not on tactics.
my friend was there and she and her group were attacked by these antifa goons. one speaker for UtR was probably blinded for life by some noxious substance those people threw.
Earnest Prole said...
To all commenters who condemned neo-Nazis here, congratulations. From my perspective that’s unnecessary...
Earnest Prole previously said...
I haven't see a whole lot of explicit condemnation of neo-Nazis around here lately -- almost as though commenters are . . . what's that word . . . unwilling
Interesting to see that such condemnation is unnecessary only after its supposed absence is no longer useful to you.
"The other side wanted to interfere with the exercise of free speech rights and was motivated by hostility to ideas that deserved hostility."
They're pretty hostile to ideas which should be beyond reproach as well. They're just as angry at the most reasonable and cognizant arguments when they disagree with them.
The "Prole" may make it one day to the Bourgeois:)
Hey, I thought it was funny!
Since we are in the era of righting past wrongs by removing images from our past that should not be allowed to remain, I call on the Pulitzer Prize committee to withdraw the prize that they gave to Walter Durante who whitewashed Stalin's crimes as he starved the Russian farmers to death. And demand that the Times, currently run by a man who sided with the Communists in Vietnam take down the plaque.
It's the least that we can do. And if they resist we are entitled to take action.
It wasn't just Pro-Fa that wanted to interfere with rights.
The city of Charlottesville tried to unconstitutionally deprive people of a civil right. When that didn't work, Pro-Fa Leftists were at the ready.
Interesting to see that such condemnation is unnecessary only after its supposed absence is no longer useful to you.
You'll see I was testing another commenter's proposition, not my own. As I said, Republicans and conservatives have the same obligation to denounce Nazis as Democrats and progressives have to denounce communists: none.
Birkel said...
It wasn't just Pro-Fa that wanted to interfere with rights.
There were also peaceful counter-protesters who attempted to block the road by linking arms in a human chain. If the police were doing their job those people would have been arrested before the alt-right people made contact.
EsoxLucius said...
To say that the the Nazis and white supremacists at Charlottesville and the protesters were equally at fault, which president man baby said, is like saying the allies and Hitler were equally at fault over the deaths at Normandy on June 6, 1944.
You are entirely correct. The Nazis were peaceful, law abiding demonstrators attacked by violent thugs from the antifa, who then used violence in self defense because the Democrats in charge of the local and State police ordered the police to allow the antifa to attack.
So long as you map the antifa to the Nazis at normandy, and the Nazis to the allies at Normandy, your analogy works.
Earnest Prole said...
You'll see I was testing another commenter's proposition, not my own.
But you weren't testing it fairly, because when fairly tested, it passed.
As I said, Republicans and conservatives have the same obligation to denounce Nazis as Democrats and progressives have to denounce communists: none.
Agreed. But the issue is not the lack of denouncement, one-sided though that may be. It is active support, which is abundant on the mainstream left, and non-existent on the mainstream right.
"Careful what you wish for, leftists.
You just might get it."
Chomsky said the same thing in different words!
The first rule of ANTIFA is don't talk about ANTIFA...
Consider some of the people that ANTIFA finds so reprehensible that they have to protest, they are not radical, they are not really far right at all. Just because ANTIFA calls a particular person, group, idea FASCIST, doesn't mean the othering will hold up to facts.
Granted, I'd love to see ANTIFA, et al, and neo-nazi, white supremacists, et al, put into a football stadium, and have at each other Anyone who wants to brawl, have at it, get it out of your system. There are no crimes inside the arena during purge-dome 2017. First aid not provided. No one can enter or leave during purge-dome.
$24.99 on pay per view, live 24 hour coverage. View at your own risk. Would go towards paying off the national debt.
gregq said...
The Nazis were peaceful, law abiding demonstrators attacked by violent thugs from the antifa, who then used violence in self defense...
I certainly wouldn't bet on this, but I don't have proof one way or the other on who threw the first punch(es).
But either way, only one side came to the event for the purpose of depriving the other of their Constitutional rights.
"I certainly wouldn't bet on this, but I don't have proof one way or the other on who threw the first punch(es)."
-- There were multiple skirmish lines. I'd gamble that, mattering where you looked would determine who threw the first punch in a given encounter.
Sure, Earnest Prole, you liar.
How many Democrats have denounced the unconstitutional abridgement of civil rights that the mayor of Charlottesville undertook?
Do Democrats need to condemn Democrats?
when fairly tested, it passed
Your mileage varies
Sure, Earnest Prole, you liar.
Your face is red and spittle dots your beard.
Who is afraid of Nazi's in 2017? I never met one. Have asked around, and nobody I know has ever met one. They hold no office. They don't even have a candidate for office. They are roundly condemned by everyone on all sides. They mostly hide except for occasionally popping their heads up for a day. I don't know what the alt-left hopes to do to them that isn't already done and has been for 70 years. Since this has been the case all their lives and continues to be the case, the people making a big stink about them can't be believed that this is what motivates them. Either they are paranoid and delusional or it's a cover for the fact that they really want to attack Trump and his support by trying to attach this to them. They are desperately trying to do that. That is the motivation: losing the election, thinking that means something terrible, and then panicking over the false belief. It's mass hysteria, it's based on lies and it's dangerously violent because of the extreme nature of the delusion. They see monsters in their fellow Americans who do anything less than share their delusion. It's like those unhinged communist purges seen over and over in the last century.
There's nothing shameful about the fact that you are as ignorant of Antifa as the New York Times, but you shouldn't consider that ignorance a point of pride.
Matthew Sablan said...
-- There were multiple skirmish lines. I'd gamble that, mattering where you looked would determine who threw the first punch in a given encounter.
That is my assumption. And I want the Nazis ( and other Unite-the-Right people ) to receive all the blame associated with every fight they started, and every bit of violence they committed that was not in reasonable self-defense ( including the guy who drove his car into people. ) And I want the Antifa ( and any other counter-protesters ) held to the same standard.
I am not angry that you lied. But you did lie. And liars should be called liars.
Democrats cannot even call out Democrats for abridging constitutional rights. If Democrats did call out the mayor for trying to cancel a lawful (and stupid) assembly, show me where that happened.
I will spot you the ACLU, the federal judge and Ann Althouse.
Earnest Prole, I've read a zillion comments here calling the neo-Nazis losers and assholes. I've written a few of them myself. For the 100th time, even losers and assholes have the right to speak in America.
You live in the Bay area, do you not? Of course, the antifa are going to target liberals there - there aren't that many conservatives around and the few who are are, I would imagine, rather careful in their speech in public. That antifa hates liberals in blue cities is not surprising. But both groups have a common enemy - the deplorables who voted for Trump. The libs are providing cover for the antifas now because nothing matters as much as delegitimizing Trump and his followers and smearing them with the neo-Nazi brush. The libs might think they can ride the tiger without being eaten, but history tells us that is not so.
Both factions deny individual dignity, and the Antifa sect also denies intrinsic value. Both groups are part of the problem.
"Your speech is violence, my violence is speech" is the claim. So, what's new?
Since Trump became President, "you lied" is simply the new way of saying "I vehemently disagree with you and my face is really red."
These Antifa wankers may be in for a surprise. Most people of the right will not resort to violence to protect Trump or his agenda. They certainly won't do so for the KKK or the Nazis, or even for statues.
But our First Amendment? That's another story.
I was interested to note my own positive reaction to the description of the militia in Charlottesville as disciplined, well-armed and neutral. As a prosecutor I would have considered them adversaries. No more. In the face of conniving electeds like McCauliffe and their toady, cowardly cops standing down while our First Amendment is illegally denigrated by masked, mace and club wielding leftist goons, I see them as potential allies.
"You need violence to protect non-violence.... Its a full-on war, basically." Ms. Nauert and her ilk need to be careful what they wish for.
Regardless of the subtleties of moral equivalence, I for one would rather endure a Nazi speech than an antifa beatdown.
Just me. YMMV.
No, when a person asserts a thing contrary to all evidence, it is a lie. You lied. Not a single poster (unless I missed troll droppings somewhere - but surely no regular poster) said a single thing supportive of the neo-Nazis. Everybody was critical of their beliefs. You lied about that. You're a liar on that issue.
Meanwhile, Democrats don't even call out Democrats who in their official capacity try to infringe constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. The mayor of Charlottesville has faced no criticism. Hell, I've invited you to do so with my comments multiple times but you haven't yet.
You're dishonest on this issue. You should own your dishonesty.
I'm a First Amendment absolutist, so you don't need to waste your time making the case for anyone's right to speak. Antifa is a group of anarchists and communists from a handful of liberal cities including, obviously, the Bay Area. For the past twenty years, 99 percent of their violence and hatred has been directed toward Democrats and progressives in those cities. Now that they've turned their attention to Trump in the past year, I think it's great that people like you can learn about their unique brand of evil.
And not one word of that excuses your lying about the posters on this website.
Many of us are familiar because we've read ZombieTime for some while. We know what Pro-Fa is and we know their support comes from Leftist cities. One must wonder why those Leftist cities are such hotbeds of Pro-Fa conspirators.
And not one word of that excuses your lying.
Not only has no one said anything defending the ideas (as opposed to the Constitutional rights) of the neo-Nazis, no one has tried to apply the left's own principles to the extremists on the left. The woman arrested for leading the vandalization of the statue in Durham is reported to be a Maoist and a supporter of North Korea. That is, she supports the greatest mass murderer in history (Hitler's only #3) and the government that was threatening to nuke the U.S. just last week. Yet no one - absolutely no one - has suggested that it would permissible to 'punch a Maoist' simply for having political opinions that are by any measure just as revolting as neo-Nazism, and no one has tried to get her fired from her job (if she has one), expelled from her university (NCCU), or banned from the web, which is exactly what the left is doing to the neo-Nazis and some innocent bystanders they mistakenly thought were Nazis. Does the left want even their own disgusting political extremists treated that way? Or are they just filthy unashamed hypocrites?
Earnest Prole said...
Now that they've turned their attention to Trump in the past year, I think it's great that people like you can learn about their unique brand of evil.
I agree. And I think it's even better that everyone can learn that the mainstream left fully supports that unique brand of evil.
Earnest Prole said...
I haven't see a whole lot of explicit condemnation of neo-Nazis around here lately -- almost as though commenters are . . . what's that word . . . unwilling. But that doesn't make them Nazis, it merely makes them like so many Dems.
8/18/17, 12:47 PM
This post is the lie.
It's false and demonstrably so.
It's not arguably true or merely some interesting interpretation of facts from a different point of view.
It's a scandalous lie.
exiled reminds us: For the 100th time, even losers and assholes have the right to speak in America.
Which explains why Chuck is still here.
What the fuck is wrong with Earnest Prole? A bit early to be demanding loyalty oaths from blog commenters, isn't it?
For avoidance of doubt I think neo-Nazis are total assholes who would probably engage in group hugs with Antifa once they realize how much they both hate Jews (and Israelis in particular).
And for avoidance of doubt I think Earnest Prole is an asshole too. Go hook up with the neo-Nazis or Antifa or whichever hate group - left or right - makes your nethers tingle, you schmuck.
And also, for avoidance of doubt, ARM makes me laugh. Seriously, he just does.
Color diversitists and color supremacists are a variation on a theme. Both groups deny individual dignity. They should both be sent to Planned Parenthood for processing, or perhaps something humane.
I think it's great that people like you can learn about their unique brand of evil.
Translation: How's about you hicks from flyover country give these pains in the ass a terminal 9mm headache so we can feel righteous and they can be gone.
Who is afraid of Nazi's in 2017?
KittyM
I don't get much of a chance to watch the news on TV, so I may be late to this party. Counter-demonstrators were " masked in bandannas " ? Okay, that definitely tells you the police were told to 'stand down'. It is illegal to go abroad masked in Virginia, unless they've changed the law in the last fifteen years, it's a felony. If the Charlottesville authorities had just started arresting masked demonstrators, I think that would have definitely racheted down the situation (or at the least brought things to a head at a time and in a manner of their own choosing). http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc1802000/18.2-422.html Professor, can you confirm the statute ... ?
They were calling it a "false equivalence" because to them the alt-right and any white person is evil just by existing, and it is ok to attack evil. They view themselves in a heroic role, oblivious to the fact that they are destroying the country, breaking laws, putting people in the hospital all in the process of attacking something that is a figment of their imagination. Show me one thing Trump has done that has hurt any minority except illegal immigrants. They are so delusional that they believe their own propaganda that all republicans are racists, even those with minorities as spouses (or who are black themselves). Besides the desire of the protesters to prevent a statue from coming down (and southern pride is pretty widespread), the claims of racism are simply claims--yeah yeah a few white supremacists were there but many were there simply to prove they have a right to protest. But has no one noticed the antifa carrying communist flags, burning the US flag, saying fuck the police? No one?
Translation: How's about you hicks from flyover country give these pains in the ass a terminal 9mm headache
I was raised in the hickiest of flyover country and still spend half my time there, so that dog won't hunt.
Since Trump became President, "you lied" is simply the new way of saying "I vehemently disagree with you and my face is really red."
Well at least it's a change from the "You're a racist" we had to put up with during the Obama years.
NYT finally admits that the left has a violence Robles. May be next they can admit that the left had a violence problem....in charlotte.
NYT finally admits that the left has a violence problem. May be next they can admit that the left had a violence problem....in charlotte.
If both sides committed violence the. Both sides were respinsible for the violence. Trump right, yet again.
In fact if all the people who commented trump was the ONLY one who was even handed. All the people who called him out for being soft on Nazis were practically calling antifa D-day soldiers. It aS so over the top it was sickening.
So you plan take care of the antifa problem yourself, Earnie?
I hadn't known that the antifa has spent twenty years fighting other leftists, but I can file that under "so what"? They're your problem; fix it.
soleproprietorPatriot said...
my friend was there
Why?
Chuck said...
"Dear Professor Althouse,
This is a terrific post. Kudos to you in continuing to post these things."
Oh! Dear God! Thank you! Now our esteemed hostess and Meade can finally get some rest. Your approval means everything to them.
Michael K.
Are you saying that Charlottesville was simply more progressive agiprop? Because it sounds like Soros was paying for both sides.
Oh! Dear God! Thank you! Now our esteemed hostess and Meade can finally get some rest. Your approval means everything to them.
Chuck is the Eddie Haskell to Ann's June Cleaver. And I'm sure she know that.
Mock
Most of the time I think Ann and Meade are sitting there laughing at us.
With a good merlot.
Post a Comment