Democrat Media Jimmy Kimmel Says “There’s No Antifa.”

[Eaton Beaver]

Originally Posted by Eaton Beaver

Fucking AWESOME!

Gateway Pundit AND Ana Paulina Luna....

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Lemme see if'n I got this right. Some 20 odd people, likely another 100+ behind the scenes, are showing the preliminary findings of a forensic accounting investigation and you focused on a hot chick in a bathing suit.

Your attempted misdirect is lame.

The focus was yours, when you linked to her X account:

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

....You can watch some it here....

And you posted it for the simple reason that you could not rise to my challenge to post anything credible showing existence of an organized Antifa. All you have is propaganda from a no-name on Gateway Pundit and a post on X by one of the most idiotic and disrespected Congressional Reps.

[Eaton Beaver]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

When the money trail is revealed, then we will know who Antifa is.

Sure! Let's wait for that! I'm perfectly fine with it.

We will wait a long time. Because it's not there to the extent that MAGA claims.

I'm willing to accept anything credible.

Nothing has been so far.

And none of that matters to you and most on here. The ridiculous investigations and hearings will continue. They will misrepresent the slightest findings. And MAGA will once again accept anything they tell them to.

This is just another continuation of MAGA grooming the public to accept further crackdowns on protests and the militarization of cities. And you are all enablers.

[Eaton Beaver]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Oh dear! Real desperation is - when you lash out hysterically and double down after being confronted with a mountain of evidence indicating you are wrong.

Oh please. Your only argument against me is to refer back to Gateway Pundit misrepresentation already offered here. That does not prove there is a large, organized "Antifa." Especially in the United States.

(note to others here who do not understand grammar and punctuation: "quotes" are sometimes used to demonstrate ambiguity and highlight a concept or idea. Thank you valued poster!)

"Mountain of evidence" my fucking ass. NOTHING here "indicates" that I am wrong. The burden of proof is not on me to show that there is no large organization. I cannot prove a negative. And so far, the proof of its existence offered here is biased, misrepresented MAGA propaganda.

Think for yourself, for once. MAGA is lying to you. Again. And you are about to accept a level of government action against Liberal groups and protesters that will probably escalate to the level of allowing Trump to declare a State of Emergency or worse. How do you think THAT is going to turn out. (though I have faith that many here will support that, actually! Patriots all)

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Eaton Beaver

...you could not rise to my challenge to post anything credible showing existence of an organized Antifa. All you have is propaganda...

Good grief! So now you want to triple down? Is wikipedia propaganda? Who knew?

Originally Posted by Eaton Beaver

"Mountain of evidence" my fucking ass. NOTHING here "indicates" that I am wrong.

Of course, if you put the word "nothing" in caps that makes you right, doesn't it?

Go back to post #3 in this thread. It lists what most of us would view as "evidence", i.e. facts - not propaganda.

1. Antifa has a logo.

2. Antifa has a flag.

3. Antifa activists wear similar uniforms, shields and masks in public. And march in formation.

5. Antifa has international chapters.

6. Antifa activists direct poster and flyer campaigns, protest marches, deliver speeches, harass and dox critics, and (per wikipedia) often engage in violence and inflict property damage.

And yet, you cling to the bizarre claim that none of this is real or true, even when the evidence is all over the internet. Why?

If you're smart and want to be taken seriously, you will admit the obvious and say antifa definitely exists, then argue why in your opinion it doesn't deserve to be designated as a terrorist organization.

[Eaton Beaver]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Good grief!

Yup. For sure. More manifesto.

Now, in addition to impeccable sources like Gateway Pundit and Luna, we've got poster #3. Nostradamus is going to be along any minute, I suspect.

You misrepresent my main points. I should be used to it by now. It is the only way MAGA can try to diffuse actual logic.

I never said "none of this is true."

Antifa has a logo! And, holy fuck, they even have a FLAG! Great googly moogly! Damn!! What's next??!!

I'll tell you what: if they get an Only Fans page, then I will admit defeat. Promise!

What I have said, time and again, is that there is no such thing as a large, organized, well-funded movement. It doesn't exist as such a thing. Not in the U.S.

Your own precious Wikipedia said "It is sometimes described as a highly decentralized array of autonomous groups in the United States."

Are there people and organizations that identify as Antifa? Certainly. Are they a well-organized, well-funded, prominent and influential group in the United States? That promotes violence? Nope.

Let me say that again in all caps so that you will know I am right: NOPE.

And asking if they "deserve" to be labelled as a Terrorist organization is ridiculous. There is no large group of "they." And there are already laws to prosecute people for violent political acts and for financial support of them.

You are being misled, lied to, bamboozled and distracted over a massive pile of lies and propaganda. Used. By experts. To further their agenda. Not yours.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Eaton Beaver

...Nostradamus is going to be along any minute, I suspect...

...Just because you are paddling upstream in De Nial, does not mean you are in Egypt.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Eaton Beaver

You misrepresent my main points. I should be used to it by now. It is the only way MAGA can try to diffuse actual logic.

I never said "none of this is true."

I'm not MAGA. I'm also not sure whether you are responsive to "actual logic".

But let's retrace how we got here.

The OP contains the following Jimmy Kimmel quote:

"There is no antifa. This is an entirely imaginary organization. There is not an antifa."

Here's what you said in your post #5:

Originally Posted by Eaton Beaver

Everyone with a brain and the slightest bit of objectivity knows Kimmel is correct.

So yeah, you did sorta say "none of this is true". Why would something that doesn't exist and is "entirely imaginary" have a logo, flag, uniforms, foreign chapters, funding sources, etc. Is it part of Mark Zuckerberg's imaginary metaverse lol?

You seem to have retained a smidgen of logic. When you realized you needed to crawfish on your original 100% concurrence with Kimmel's boldface lie, you walked it back and qualified it by declaring:

Originally Posted by Eaton Beaver

...there is no such thing as a large, organized, well-funded movement. It doesn't exist as such a thing. Not in the U.S.

Are there people and organizations that identify as Antifa? Certainly. Are they a well-organized, well-funded, prominent and influential group in the United States? That promotes violence? Nope.

^^^ So now you acknowledge Jimmy Kimmel was wrong. By golly, there really IS an antifa! Your big gripe, if I understand it correctly, is you don't think it is large ENOUGH, or organized ENOUGH, or well-funded ENOUGH, or violent ENOUGH to warrant all of this unwanted attention from trumpy and the feds. Well, that's a matter of opinion and judgment. And worth debating.

If you want to make your case, have at it. Use that "actual logic" you boast about possessing. What objective metrics or thresholds do you want us to apply to gauge size, org, funding, and inclination toward violence? When exactly does a wingnut group become large & threatening enough to be added to the FBI's watchlist? What the heck. Maybe we can even apply the same thresholds to other groups, such as the "white supremacists" that Joe Biden two years ago called "the most dangerous terrorist threat" the US has to worry about.

[Lantern2814]

Originally Posted by Eaton Beaver

Yup. For sure. More manifesto.

Now, in addition to impeccable sources like Gateway Pundit and Luna, we've got poster #3. Nostradamus is going to be along any minute, I suspect.

You misrepresent my main points. I should be used to it by now. It is the only way MAGA can try to diffuse actual logic.

I never said "none of this is true."

Antifa has a logo! And, holy fuck, they even have a FLAG! Great googly moogly! Damn!! What's next??!!

I'll tell you what: if they get an Only Fans page, then I will admit defeat. Promise!

What I have said, time and again, is that there is no such thing as a large, organized, well-funded movement. It doesn't exist as such a thing. Not in the U.S.

Your own precious Wikipedia said "It is sometimes described as a highly decentralized array of autonomous groups in the United States."

Are there people and organizations that identify as Antifa? Certainly. Are they a well-organized, well-funded, prominent and influential group in the United States? That promotes violence? Nope.

Let me say that again in all caps so that you will know I am right: NOPE.

And asking if they "deserve" to be labelled as a Terrorist organization is ridiculous. There is no large group of "they." And there are already laws to prosecute people for violent political acts and for financial support of them.

You are being misled, lied to, bamboozled and distracted over a massive pile of lies and propaganda. Used. By experts. To further their agenda. Not yours.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Piles of evidence, including accounting evidence and just scream that it's not true. Just sad....

[Eaton Beaver]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

...Just because you are paddling upstream in De Nial, does not mean you are in Egypt.

Again, dialog would have been a better option. This barely makes any sense. Please continue to make yourself look incapable of responding meaningfully.

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Piles of evidence, including accounting evidence and just scream that it's not true. Just sad....

You too on this trite "Egypt" thing? Holy fuck. You guys can't even be witty, let alone rational.

But at least you mentioned parts of the actual topic.

Show us this accounting evidence please. This "scream" you are talking about. These "piles." Not the lame, tenuous, misrepresented GP/Luna/poster #3 bullshit. Show me significant, meaningful evidence that "Antifa" is behind large, organized movements that are protesting violently, and that it is funded significantly by the Left.

I'm still waiting for the Antifa Only Fans page too. That's gonna be da bomb! Maybe a bikini pic of APL or three. One can hope.

[EdBeaver]

“Antifa” is a general term similar to “vegetable”. I didn’t bother reading any of the posts on this thread other than the first one because most of the people who posted can be considered “vegetables”. Have a nice day.

[corona]

If Antifa doesn't exist, why are so many people mad about them being declared a terrorist organization?? It's like declaring the Easter Bunny as a terrorist. Doesn't really change anything.


So why you mad?

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Eaton Beaver

Again, dialog would have been a better option. This barely makes any sense. Please continue to make yourself look incapable of responding meaningfully...

Posts #3, 6, 7 and 14 in this here thread. Though I think 22 and a couple others apply as well. The former are my posts, the latter are from someone else.

Yours? Not so much.
Thank you for your meaningful attention to this matter.

The AIYs have it: You may rest assured that many eyes and consoles are, in fact, paying attention and looking deeply into following the money trail already.

So how's it going? They have already shutdown the USAID pipeline and applying the Eye of Sauron to the ActBlue smurfing operation.

[Eaton Beaver]

Originally Posted by EdBeaver

“Antifa” is a general term similar to “vegetable”. I didn’t bother reading any of the posts on this thread other than the first one because most of the people who posted can be considered “vegetables”. Have a nice day.

I fucking love this and will gladly agree. I am a fool for spending any time on it.

But that doesn't mean I have learned my lesson. Please reference below.

(you have a nice day, too, Ed! Can't wait to see you at the Beaver family reunion!)

[Eaton Beaver]

Originally Posted by Eaton Beaver

Again, dialog would have been a better option. This barely makes any sense....

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Posts 3, 6, 7 and 14 in this here thread. Though I think 22 and a couple others apply as well. The former are my posts, the latter are from someone else....

The "barely makes any sense" remark applies there also. Those posts were already discredited in posts 5, 9, and 14. Nothing new from Anna today that you could re-hash?

[Eaton Beaver]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I'm not MAGA. I'm also not sure whether you are responsive to "actual logic".

But let's retrace how we got here....

What is your actual main intent here?

To just tear me down over inconsistencies in the way I have worded my posts? Cast doubt on my overall credibility and critical thinking skills?

Or to actually discuss the point, i.e. the size/prevalence/influence of "Antifa"?

Because I'm going to make this easy and give you the first one. Of course, when you collect my statements all together and out of context, I could argue that it is a bit misrepresentative. But whatever. It's yours!!

I was not careful, not consistent, mis-spoke.

It doesn't matter. My "actual logic skills" surpass anyone's here so far in this baiting, clickbait thread. And they will prevail over yours also, though you will no doubt disagree. For the rest here: Queue the Eaton Derangement Syndrome.

But again, YOU WIN ON YOUR FIRST POINT! But it is one you will not get again, I assure you. Lesson learned.

And fuck Jimmy Kimmel too, BTW! He was wrong, wrong, WRONG! God damn Beardo. Antifa exists! Whatever. You know damn well what his real point was.

But that doesn't really matter either. And probably no one other than us is reading this.

So let's get back on topic.

I re-focus on this statement for consideration and debate. This is the one I stand by, fuck the others. Let's talk about this specifically:

"Antifa" is not a formally recognized, large, structured and organized group within the United States of America. There are no formal membership roles and no real leadership or management. There is no direct funding to any group calling itself "Antifa", and most funds that others claim are paid to the "movement" are funds actually paid to other groups and then misrepresented. Certainly, there is no large-scale funding that promotes violence. The "movement" as a whole is non-violent and poses little actual threat to civil disorder."

And this whole thing about "they have a flag and a logo" is truly preposterous. The Rhinoceros Party of Canada has those too, and those fuckers want to repeal the law of gravity! THAT is some bad shit.

So that's my clarified point of view over this. Criticize/refute/twist anything you want. Or discuss logically.

But then, let's examine a bit of your logical argument:

Originally Posted by lustylad

....What objective metrics or thresholds do you want us to apply to gauge size, org, funding, and inclination toward violence? When exactly does a wingnut group become large & threatening enough to be added to the FBI's watchlist? What the heck. Maybe we can even apply the same thresholds to other groups, such as the "white supremacists" that Joe Biden two years ago called "the most dangerous terrorist threat" the US has to worry about.

You have, once AGAIN, as you did earlier, overlooked my most logical argument of all: I cannot prove a fucking negative! This is on you and yours. You are the ones making the charge that "Antifa" is this big, ominous threat. Yet you have virtually no "objective metrics" regarding "size, org, funding" and certainly no "thresholds" proving that people aligned with this amorphous ideology have become "large and threatening enough" to be considered dangerous or inclined towards violence.

Comparing them to the white supremacy movement is cheap. You probably should resist continuing that thread.

The simple language that you use - wingnut - tips your hand to your bias. You have truly not considered the actual facts in a logical manner. And your attempt to twist my linguistic carelessness does not change that. You scored there. But like others, offered no PROOF. And I repeat - because it is the most important point here - I can't prove a negative. Asking me to do so is a serious logical error.