5 thoughts on “The Ungraspable-ness Of Antifa: When Righteousness Obliterates Logic and Language

  1. Tucker frequently, habitually, routinely, programmatically ruins, cheapens & delegitimizes his credibility by injecting bully-boy distortions/falsehoods regarding the guest’s stated position, thereby intending to create the appearance that his guest said something which the guest CLEARLY DID NOT say.

    The guest in the video did not say he believes someone should be beat up for speaking about positions he opposes. Tucker, in a sneaky, last-second ambush which does not give the guest a chance to refute Tucker’s falsehood, surgically ends the dialogue by severing the guest’s throat with a slashing lie.

    Tucker enjoys that. It’s part of his modus operandi.

    He does it regularly, fiendishly, pathologically.

    It’s part of his predictable signature method of stalking the guest, and, via ambush with falsehood, convincing himself that he has triumphed over someone whom he has not afforded the time to respond.

    It’s cowardly. It’s calculated. It’s predatory.

    And, it is pathetically obvious.
    _______________

    note: I make this observation objectively. I’m neither Republican nor Democrat. This observation is not an endorsement of Antifa positions, nor is this observation a critique or condemnation of anti-Antifa positions.

    1. “The guest in the video did not say he believes someone should be beat up for speaking about positions he opposes.”

      For any of what you just stated to make any sense, one would have to completely ignore Antifa’s long standing, well documented history of violence.

      1. “The guest in the video did not say he believes someone should be beat up for speaking about positions he opposes.”

        God forbid you go on record criticizing antifa.

        1. You, Mr. Ericson, are exhibiting yourself to be a paranoid, false-accusing demonizer.

          I, and God, are both glad to criticize anything and anyone, wheresoever and wherever there is good reason to do so.

          I, and God, are both quite certain that there are many good reasons to criticize Antifa.

          You would know that, if your aim was to acquire and consider that knowledge.

          Instead, your aim was to conjure false accusation, to give reign to your impulsive paranoid demonizing.

          That is your nature, Mr. Ericson.

          That nature is reformable, and I wish you luck at your reforming of it.

      2. Stephen Ericson, it appears that you deliberately distorted the point of Mr Powell’s comment. Mr. Powell was simply pointing out the unfair tactics of Tucker, who had the opportunity to let the spokesman speak for himself, but did not. This shows that Tucker and others in the Fox news crew are just as guilty at fueling civil war by feeding it from the other end.

        The featured spokesman is an ideologue – an intelligent one at that (in his own words he was once a “libertarian”) – and does not really represent (and may not know of, though there is no excuse, really) the agent-thugs being hired by Soros and run by the Deep State. There is nothing wrong in principle, with what he is saying about the right to demonstrate opposition to hostile speakers, though he does not condemn the excesses committed by thugs in his camp against attendees and bystanders in past events.

        Yet Tucker is not exempted from rules of common decency. He used ridicule and positioning (putting words into his opponent’s mouth to deliberately make him look bad) where he could have questioned for clarification.

        As for your lame shot at Powell here, it looks like partisans can be blind to their fellow partisans playing dirty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.