Antifa A Terrorist Organization

[JimmySpeaks]

15 minutes ago, red viking said:

He got absolutely wrecked by a lot of college students. Many clips on youtube. Was really exposed big tune as the fraud he is at oxford. Kids literally destroying him. He's an idiot and a liar, like Trump. 

Please produce any video where this happened. You won’t, can’t and know it’s a lie. 

[uncle bernard]

25 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

It’s interesting to hear someone say they know something because they read about it.  As if false statements or data has never been printed.  Here we are to believe the commercially made signs, the pallets of bricks, the supplies of frozen water bottles, the lawyers and the bail money, are all products of grassroots and coincidence.  
 

Experience, hands on experience, is the best teacher, the best source of knowledge.  It helps to have a bit (almost said degree) of what I consider a type of physics that applies to human activity, as well as material, pressure, etc.  Charlie Kirk had it in spades from a young age.  Some never obtain it over a lifetime.  Some might call it critical thinking and believe it can be taught.  I believe it can be presented to others, that they can be informed of it, but without a natural talent for it, even those with experience struggle to solve their cases. 

Right, this is where judgment comes in. You have to evaluate the source of information as well as the source's sources of information. This is basic critical thinking.

For example, I cited the Trump administration statement about Antifa, not some random youtuber or twitter account. That's why I "copy and paste" a lot here. I'm making it easy for you guys to read and evaluate the sources I'm using for yourselves. You can see exactly why I believe what I believe and address those claims directly. Unfortunately, none of you ever do that.

What you're advocating for is a type of solipsism where every source that disagrees with your prior assumptions has to be false and therefore you can ignore it. It's the opposite of thinking.

What are "commercially made" signs? Can you give ma an example. Every big protest I've been to is full of signs hand-written on cardboard.

Bricks and frozen water bottles are easily accessible. There are lots of public bail funds that people on the left donate to that help bail people out. There are non-profit organizations as well. Most of that funding has to be publicly disclosed if I'm not mistaken. Could you pull up some tax forms for us to look at? I will concede there could be some dark money funding those initiatives. Would be curious to see some reporting on it.

[uncle bernard]

5 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Please produce any video where this happened. You won’t, can’t and know it’s a lie. 

 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

 

Play the entire conversation. 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

 

Btw That kid is clueless. The house of reps is set up exactly like skippy was talking about.  He wants the senate set up that way too.   

[uncle bernard]

11 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Please produce any video where this happened. You won’t, can’t and know it’s a lie. 

 

 

[JimmySpeaks]

6 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Bhahahahahahahahaha

[JimmySpeaks]

15 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

You can google Gabriel Nadales just as easily as I can.  

????????? Uncle Rv did you look him up?  He actually exists 

[uncle bernard]

7 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Play the entire conversation. 

 

 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

 

 

Yep watched one. Charlie destroyed them all 

[JimmySpeaks]

6 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

 

 

Ben Gleibis a colleges student still??????????

[uncle bernard]

5 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Btw That kid is clueless. The house of reps is set up exactly like skippy was talking about.  He wants the senate set up that way too.   

Yes, that's exactly his point. The Senate is set up as a DEI initiative to give smaller, less powerful (read minority/underprivileged in DEI terms) states more power to balance out larger state's power in the House.

That is explicitly DEI. If you take the anti-DEI claim seriously, you should want to get rid of the Senate and just have the House. Same thing applies to the Electoral College. Any electoral system that does not award the winner based on raw vote totals is DEI. It's like saying the 2nd finisher in a 100M dash is the winner because he has shorter legs than the first finisher.

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Yep watched one. Charlie destroyed them all 

Yep watched one. They all destroyed Charlie. 

Now what? Seems like we have to actually address the substance, right?

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

Yes, that's exactly his point. The Senate is set up as a DEI initiative to give smaller, less powerful (read minority/underprivileged in DEI terms) states more power to balance out larger state's power in the House.

That is explicitly DEI. If you take the anti-DEI claim seriously, you should want to get rid of the Senate and just have the House. Same thing applies to the Electoral College. Any electoral system that does not award the winner based on raw vote totals is DEI. It's like saying the 2nd finisher in a 100M dash is the winner because he has shorter legs than the first finisher.

One is set up equally with no population involved while the other is set up based on population to offset each other.  How is the house DEI related ? 

[JimmySpeaks]

5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Yes, that's exactly his point. The Senate is set up as a DEI initiative to give smaller, less powerful (read minority/underprivileged in DEI terms) states more power to balance out larger state's power in the House.

That is explicitly DEI. If you take the anti-DEI claim seriously, you should want to get rid of the Senate and just have the House. Same thing applies to the Electoral College. Any electoral system that does not award the winner based on raw vote totals is DEI. It's like saying the 2nd finisher in a 100M dash is the winner because he has shorter legs than the first finisher.

It would have been easy to back that little punk into a corner.  He supports DEI while wanting the senate to go the way of the house of reps.  The aha moment he wanted makes him look completely stupid.  Oh the hypocrisy.  

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

One is set up equally with no population involved while the other is set up based on population to offset each other.  How is the house DEI related ? 

See, you can't even follow the basic argument. 

The House IS NOT DEI related. It's correctly based on population where the representation matches the actual amount of people in each state.

The Senate IS DEI because it artificially gives more power to smaller states, not because those states have earned it (via population), but because our founders thought it would be more fair to give the minority more power. That is the definition of DEI.

There's no actual need for the Senate. The House is already checked by the power of the Judiciary and Executive. It's purely a DEI initiative.

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, JimmySpeaks said:

It would have been easy to back that little punk into a corner.  He supports DEI while wanting the senate to go the way of the house of reps.  The aha moment he wanted makes him look completely stupid.  Oh the hypocrisy.  

That exact hypocrisy applies to Charlie (and you), who oppose DEI, but support the Senate (which is DEI). 

That's how debating works. You find a flaw in your opponent's argument and exploit it. The student's point isn't that "DEI = Bad", it's that Charlie's position on DEI is inconsistent and incoherent. He needs to explain why it would be right to support DEI in the case of the Senate, but not affirmative action because the principle he uses to attack affirmative action is discredited by his position on the Senate.

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

See, you can't even follow the basic argument. 

The House IS NOT DEI related. It's correctly based on population where the representation matches the actual amount of people in each state.

The Senate IS DEI because it artificially gives more power to smaller states, not because those states have earned it (via population), but because our founders thought it would be more fair to give the minority more power. That is the definition of DEI.

There's no actual need for the Senate. The House is already checked by the power of the Judiciary and Executive. It's purely a DEI initiative.

There is 100% a need for both the house and the senate.  The senate (DEI) is balanced by the house (not DEI).  It’s not that hard to see that the founding fathers were smart enough to prevent either side from taking control.  That kid supports DEI or doesn’t he.   

[JimmySpeaks]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

That exact hypocrisy applies to Charlie (and you), who oppose DEI, but support the Senate (which is DEI). 

That's how debating works. You find a flaw in your opponent's argument and exploit it. The student's point isn't that "DEI = Bad", it's that Charlie's position on DEI is inconsistent and incoherent. He needs to explain why it would be right to support DEI in the case of the Senate, but not affirmative action because the principle he uses to attack affirmative action is discredited by his position on the Senate.

I support checks and balances which is what the house and senate are set up for. 

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, JimmySpeaks said:

There is 100% a need for both the house and the senate.  The senate (DEI) is balanced by the house (not DEI).  It’s not that hard to see that the founding fathers were smart enough to prevent either side from taking control.  That kid supports DEI or doesn’t he.   

Great! Now that we've established that DEI is not inherently bad, you can address the hole in Charlie's argument. Answer this question:

Why is DEI good in the case of the Senate and bad in the case of Affirmative Action?

[uncle bernard]

Just now, JimmySpeaks said:

I support checks and balances which is what the house and senate are set up for. 

The House is already checked and balanced by the Executive and Judiciary. Checks and balances would still exist without the Senate.

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

That exact hypocrisy applies to Charlie (and you), who oppose DEI, but support the Senate (which is DEI). 

That's how debating works. You find a flaw in your opponent's argument and exploit it. The student's point isn't that "DEI = Bad", it's that Charlie's position on DEI is inconsistent and incoherent. He needs to explain why it would be right to support DEI in the case of the Senate, but not affirmative action because the principle he uses to attack affirmative action is discredited by his position on the Senate.

He’s affirming a system of checks and balance of which both the house and senate are a part of.  Neither works the way it does without the other.  Wow. 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

Great! Now that we've established that DEI is not inherently bad, you can address the hole in Charlie's argument. Answer this question:

Why is DEI good in the case of the Senate and bad in the case of Affirmative Action?

DEI needs checks and balances or it will never work.  Which is what corporate America just found out. 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

The House is already checked and balanced by the Executive and Judiciary. Checks and balances would still exist without the Senate.

Wrong.  The house and senate balance each other. The other two balance them. Other wise why have any states at all ?????  Wow. 

[JimmySpeaks]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

The House is already checked and balanced by the Executive and Judiciary. Checks and balances would still exist without the Senate.

Are you advocating we get rid of states?