Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

Aepervius said:
/devil advocate
Well isn't that the whole basis of the bombing campaign in Pakistan ? I mean, let us get real, how many of those bombed had done a crime against the US ? What could they have done which merit a death penalty without a judgement , a tribunal, and a jury of their peer ?
Click to expand...

There's no leg to stand on. You can't go around punching people just because they say things you find morally repugnant. If you condone that, it's a short hop to killing cartoonists because you find them morally reprehensible.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Gee, that's horrible.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/alt-...er-punched-in-the-face-during-live-interview/
Click to expand...

Maybe so....but it made me laugh.

However, I wouldn't have hit the guy in public no matter how satisfying it would have been. If I was the kind to do that sort of thing (speaking hypothetically) I would have waited until he was alone and no one was looking and then worked him over with a bat.

The people who own this country want the lower economic classes to be at each other's throat - and by "Lower Economic Classes" I mean anyone who has to work for someone else for a paycheck - whether they make $30,000 or $1,000,000 a year. For when the Lower Classes fight, it diverts attention from what they are doing - which is stealing the wealth of this country.
 
Fudbucker said:
Oh, I see. Violence against morally repugnant people is OK.
Click to expand...

Governments use violence against populations and individuals all the time, with claimed moral justification. Even a fine can be viewed as financial violence.:)

The attacker had a hoodie and it looks like a bandanna over his lower face, so is it likely he was an anarchist? If so, can his actions be viewed as a form of political expression?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Yes, the guy is an actual fascist, but really, is random violence the best way to deal with the situation?
Click to expand...

That's the route The Hair took, normalizing and encouraging political violence against protestors. We know how to hurt The Hair and his supporters and we don't need physical violence. Mockery works so much better on their kind.
 
Jules Galen said:
Maybe so....but it made me laugh.

However, I wouldn't have hit the guy in public no matter how satisfying it would have been. If I was the kind to do that sort of thing (speaking hypothetically) I would have waited until he was alone and no one was looking and then worked him over with a bat.
The people who own this country want the lower economic classes to be at each other's throat - and by "Lower Economic Classes" I mean anyone who has to work for someone else for a paycheck - whether they make $30,000 or $1,000,000 a year. For when the Lower Classes fight, it diverts attention from what they are doing - which is stealing the wealth of this country.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't serve the ends- I think it was to humiliate and rebuke him publicly, on camera.
 
MostlyDead said:
But that doesn't serve the ends- I think it was to humiliate and rebuke him publicly, on camera.
Click to expand...

When the Owners of this Country see the Lower Classes tear each other to shreds they are made to be quite pleased and motivated to stir up even more trouble.
 
MostlyDead said:
Governments use violence against populations and individuals all the time, with claimed moral justification. Even a fine can be viewed as financial violence.:)

The attacker had a hoodie and it looks like a bandanna over his lower face, so is it likely he was an anarchist? If so, can his actions be viewed as a form of political expression?
Click to expand...

I'm convinced. What's the next move? Shoot some cops? Torture a disabled guy on Facebook again?
 
Jules Galen said:
When the Owners of this Country see the Lower Classes tear each other to shreds they are made to be quite pleased and motivated to stir up even more trouble.
Click to expand...

True, but to a committed anarchist, every blow struck publicly helps to normalize that response...and they are more than willing to escalate uphill, theoretically with more public support.
 
MostlyDead said:
True, but to a committed anarchist, every blow struck publicly helps to normalize that response...and they are more than willing to escalate uphill, theoretically with more public support.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an Anarchist...and there never was. Please choose another description.

The term "Anarchist" is so ill-defined that it can be stretched to fit the needs of any suspect rhetoric. "Fascist" has also become such a term unless you specifically relate it back to Mussolini's definition of the term (which he defines well). Any time I see these "Plastic" words I just roll my eyes and groan.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Gee, that's horrible.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/alt-...er-punched-in-the-face-during-live-interview/
Click to expand...


This election shows the true colors of the left as being a party of hate, bigotry and divisiveness.

Ever notice how it's the left that does this **** w-a-a-a-a-a-y-y-y-y-y-y more that the right? Libs, if you still insist on identifying yourselves as open minded, progressive, forward thinking people, then you better get your collective heads and asses wired together.

p.s. this is not aimed in any way at the OP.
 
Last edited:
Jules Galen said:
There is no such thing as an Anarchist...and there never was. Please choose another description.

The term "Anarchist" is so ill-defined that it can be stretched to fit the needs of any suspect rhetoric. "Fascist" has also become such a term unless you specifically relate it back to Mussolini's definition of the term (which he defines well). Any time I see these "Plastic" words I just roll my eyes and groan.
Click to expand...

Noam Chomsky and others disagree with ya. If you are pulling rank on them, that's a whole nudder thread.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians
 
jakesteele said:
This election shows the true colors of the left as being a party of hate, bigotry and divisiveness.
Click to expand...

You mean like Hillary Clinton - who was also supported by the Wall-Stree Business Interests.

So...we have a party in this country that is owned by Corporate interests and full of hate, bigotry and divisivness - these are the Democrats and they are Leftists.

On the other hand, we also have another party in this country that is owned by Corporate interests and full of hate, bigotry and divisivness - these are the Republicans and they are Rightists.

So, in this country we have an entire political spectrum - from Left to Right - characterized by Corporate interests and full of hate, bigotry and divisivness. That's as much as out imagination will allow: it's the limits of Thinkable Thought. America is Doomed.
 
MostlyDead said:
Noam Chomsky and others disagree with ya. If you are pulling rank on them, that's a whole nudder thread.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians
Click to expand...

Thanks. I've read it before and it's the first thing (i.e., that article) that pops into my mind when I become disgusted at the word "Anarchism". For as much as I like Chomsky - and he's my favorite intellectual - he got sloppy on this one.

Hey...even the great Noam Chomsky misses a bit sometimes.
 
I'm opposed to violence, except when there are no options, even when the target is loathsome. It doesn't accomplish anything positive. If anything, it makes the target sympathetic.
 
I don't condone violence. On the other hand, I don't care that much when white supremacists get punched.

If the puncher can be identified, charge him with a crime; however, I would also suggest the police give it just as much (or little) attention as they would give any other single punch...which is likely very little.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom