Attack on Alt-Right Leader Has Internet Asking: Is It O.K. to Punch a Nazi?

I disagree. It's no different than what Keith "X" Ellison advocated for, and he's about to become the DNC head chairman. Hypocrisy and double standards abound.

Thanks for that BLM perspective.

 

They dehumanized others because they didn't have the same skin tone or eye color or place of origin as they did and as a result the Holocaust happened. Stark difference sir, not made any better by you trying to deflect and try to downplay his views.

 

So, in other words, you don't support free speech. If you get to decide who gets to speak freely and who doesn't, guess what? That's not free speech.

 

It was more like 16 million allied soldiers.

Not in this country. We have the Constitution to protect us. We just have to stay on pukeman like stink on a rotting carcass. Write your representatives regularly with well written emails explaining your objections.

 

Both the Nazis and communists had their own specific reasons for viewing others as less human, and therefore worthy of violence. It's telling you want to split hairs on such differences. But the important take away is you are guilty of doing the same thing.

 

What ethnic cleansing is he talking about?

If those same people are skinheads or close to it then I stand by my statement. If not then I retract my statement.

 

They both want areas of the US reserved for their own race. Spencer's term is very loaded, but he's never called for violence against anyone that I'm aware of.

Lots of non-skinheads don't support multiculturalism and white genocide. Every group advocates on behalf of their own race. You're a great example of that.

 

Okay, so I'll put a disclaimer with what I said before. I think there should be a limit free speech reaches, such as hate speech, or deeds like the KKK does. As deplorable as Madonna's outburst was earlier this week, I don't think it reached that limit exactly. She's not lynching blacks, or technically committing a hate crime, so I don't believe as questionable as it is, it reached that limit, and this "limit" I speak off has no partisan background.

 

So a restricted, non-free "free speech", then?

Spencer isn't lynching anyone or committing a hate crime, either. You support violence against him and taking away his right to free speech. So much for your moral high ground, eh?

 

Those who fight against Nazis are gang members or gang crime as I live close with a member that I likes and don't likes depends what he wants with me but I say nothing about Nazism to the man and my voices is far away criminals and they want me to get slam after hard rock hits. I try to be a Nazi in old house according my voices they will knows from a distance so they can hit me. He's Finn in Gang and with Gang rule with his Gang friend. Or it is Communist a Swede guy how will destroy for me far away he promise ones Gang fight. But I dislike these with fight even talk ugly then gets hits from other person are better for me even I say not to them how are foreigner.

 

Okay, so you've convinced me that I should retract my original sentiment.

Still, I would not give the KKK the same protections, constitutionally, that say, Body Count has with their song, "Cop Killer."

 

Obama are Socialist and Sanders are same.

 

This is not about Trump.

No hypocrisy to be found. The question is clear and that is is it acceptable to use violence when one is faced with political disagreement?

 

He wants to forcibly remove people for not having the same physical traits as him, not unlike the old Nazis who went above and beyond and murdered millions for that same reason. I'm not trying to kill or cause to him at all, but he's not a respectable human being, by any stretch of the imagination and no amount of pleading or dissecting is going to make me think punching him was wrong.

Irrelevant. Ethnic cleansing, regardless of the means, is still just that.

So what? Is a section on non-skinheads being against something supposed to totally negate everything else?

 

So you AGREE that violence is an acceptable solution for thought crimes.

How very nazi like.

 

That's WAY more than a thought crime, a whole lot more.

 

Is it ok to punch a socialist?

 

Even many Nazi want crime we did not live in perfect world with no crime. Mafia in USA and Russia want kill Nationalists they knows before these guys then they re-action. Or who the Mafia is against more than Nationalists ? Where are the Mafia in USA ?

 

Didn't the Hillary campaign HIRE people to go to trump rallies with the intention of instigating conflict and violence?

 

California and Chicago land like 40/50/60 and 70's ?!

 

No it is not.

He has only expressed opinions which you disagree with or find repugnant.

Nothing more than a thought crime and like any good nazi you agree that these thoughts justify force.

- - - Updated - - -

It was not a prank it was assault.

You should deal with nazis here like any other person with a political view. Which does never include violence

 

It's very repugnant, it's downright threatening to other groups of people and has made calls for that multiple times. That's beyond a thought crime.

Nazis are here for the white race and that alone and, as history has shown, have no issue removing non-whites and they're ideals go way beyond just a simple political view.

 

It is no more than a thought crime period.

No you are wrong it is simply a political view.

I understand opposition to nazis and agree with it but their views do NOT justify violence. They have the same rights as anyone

 

You want funny, watch this. Especially at .55 second mark.
[video=youtube;t8wzgw0Gizo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8wzgw0Gizo[/video]

 

Once assault becomes OK on anyone than it will become OK on everyone. That is a slippery slope that we do not want to go down.