CharlesWT, thank you for responding, and thank you for the content of your response. It's a good start toward civility when we can agree that "Trump shouldn’t be mobilizing the National Guard".
Without intending to criticize you in the least, I'd ask you and everybody else to think about what "an excuse" means. ISTM that "an excuse" implies an audience. There must be somebody to whom the "excuse" is offered as a valid justification. In the present context, I doubt it's He, Trump's conscience, for He seems to have none. I doubt it's the MAGAts, for they need none. So, the corporate media, maybe?
--TP
2025-10-05 19:18:58
wj, I don't know about you, but "20-30 years from now" there's a good chance I will not be around to "look back". One might say I don't really have a "stake" in what 2055 America will look like. For many of "we" here, the long run is becoming less relevant every day.
GftNC, sometimes it's not true that "nobody forces you to interact with" people whose views are "morally repugnant". And I'm not talking about the obvious case of fascist ICE "agents" vis a vis anti-fascist protesters. I'm talking about ordinary social situations in which you'd be called uncivil if you argue with the MAGAts present, and uncivil if you decline to attend. The shameless can always take advantage of "civility".
CharlesWT, if "two wrongs don't make a right" does that mean that 3 wrongs do? In the Portland context, I ask you again: what would you want the Guard or the Army to actually do? And, not incidentally, what do you imagine Herr Trump wants them to do? (P.S. the "forum similar to this one" 10-15 years ago wasn't the old ObWi, was it?)
--TP
2025-10-03 20:03:44
Like Marty during the first He, Trump regime, CharlesWT now freely denounces He, Trump while supporting His anti-anti-fascist actions. The Libertarian(TM) attitude is getting awfully close to the MAGAt position on free speech: "I will defend to the death your right to agree with me."
Speaking of defending rights, russell pointed out upthread that those who insist they need guns to defend against government tyranny never seem to get around to defending other people's rights with them.
I ask CharlesWT in all seriousness: what does he want National Guard or even Regular Army troops to actually do in "war-ravaged" American cities?
--TP
2025-10-01 21:22:42
In some old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon, a colonel rushes into the general's office and reports "Sir! Sir! Our anti-anti-missile missile just shots itself down, sir!" I am reminded of that whenever some anti-anti-fascist talk pops up.
Of course "Antifa"(TM) is a brand name like "X" or "Truth Social" -- not a descriptor. It's much less ... risible? contemptible? ... to be anti-Antifa(TM) than to be anti-anti-fascist, especially if you are Libertarian(TM) or just plain pro-liberty.
I understand the motivation behind the sentiment that protest must never inconvenience anybody. It's one way to make sure that protest goes unnoticed, so that those who support the status quo can feel righteous. Any protest that's loud or annoying is tantamount to war, right?
--TP
2025-10-01 18:13:17
CharlesWT trolls by day, presumably because he's busy thinking serious Libertarian(TM) thoughts at night. Thoughts like Antifa(TM) Headquarters being a hotbed of "activists" dedicated to overthrowing the Libertarian(TM) and other pro-fascist parties.
Or maybe CharlesWT has inside dope (and I use the word advisedly) that Portland is in fact a violent hellscape at night. If I could be sure of that I might turn pro-fascist myself. Not libertarian, though; that would be a bit too much.
CharlesWT, thank you for responding, and thank you for the content of your response. It's a good start toward civility when we can agree that "Trump shouldn’t be mobilizing the National Guard".
Without intending to criticize you in the least, I'd ask you and everybody else to think about what "an excuse" means. ISTM that "an excuse" implies an audience. There must be somebody to whom the "excuse" is offered as a valid justification. In the present context, I doubt it's He, Trump's conscience, for He seems to have none. I doubt it's the MAGAts, for they need none. So, the corporate media, maybe?
--TP
wj, I don't know about you, but "20-30 years from now" there's a good chance I will not be around to "look back". One might say I don't really have a "stake" in what 2055 America will look like. For many of "we" here, the long run is becoming less relevant every day.
GftNC, sometimes it's not true that "nobody forces you to interact with" people whose views are "morally repugnant". And I'm not talking about the obvious case of fascist ICE "agents" vis a vis anti-fascist protesters. I'm talking about ordinary social situations in which you'd be called uncivil if you argue with the MAGAts present, and uncivil if you decline to attend. The shameless can always take advantage of "civility".
CharlesWT, if "two wrongs don't make a right" does that mean that 3 wrongs do? In the Portland context, I ask you again: what would you want the Guard or the Army to actually do? And, not incidentally, what do you imagine Herr Trump wants them to do? (P.S. the "forum similar to this one" 10-15 years ago wasn't the old ObWi, was it?)
--TP
Like Marty during the first He, Trump regime, CharlesWT now freely denounces He, Trump while supporting His anti-anti-fascist actions. The Libertarian(TM) attitude is getting awfully close to the MAGAt position on free speech: "I will defend to the death your right to agree with me."
Speaking of defending rights, russell pointed out upthread that those who insist they need guns to defend against government tyranny never seem to get around to defending other people's rights with them.
I ask CharlesWT in all seriousness: what does he want National Guard or even Regular Army troops to actually do in "war-ravaged" American cities?
--TP
In some old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon, a colonel rushes into the general's office and reports "Sir! Sir! Our anti-anti-missile missile just shots itself down, sir!" I am reminded of that whenever some anti-anti-fascist talk pops up.
Of course "Antifa"(TM) is a brand name like "X" or "Truth Social" -- not a descriptor. It's much less ... risible? contemptible? ... to be anti-Antifa(TM) than to be anti-anti-fascist, especially if you are Libertarian(TM) or just plain pro-liberty.
I understand the motivation behind the sentiment that protest must never inconvenience anybody. It's one way to make sure that protest goes unnoticed, so that those who support the status quo can feel righteous. Any protest that's loud or annoying is tantamount to war, right?
--TP
CharlesWT trolls by day, presumably because he's busy thinking serious Libertarian(TM) thoughts at night. Thoughts like Antifa(TM) Headquarters being a hotbed of "activists" dedicated to overthrowing the Libertarian(TM) and other pro-fascist parties.
Or maybe CharlesWT has inside dope (and I use the word advisedly) that Portland is in fact a violent hellscape at night. If I could be sure of that I might turn pro-fascist myself. Not libertarian, though; that would be a bit too much.
--TP