Um, because there are very few people here who aren't right-wingers willing to swallow whatever zerohedge dishes out? That makes for a fairly small sampling of posters from which you could choose.
Because you don't know what came before or what came after. What's being said in class. What the class even is. That's how.
I'm going to say this as kindly as I can because care about you as a person. You see a lot of things that aren't there, perhaps because your mindset sees them as present even when they're not. I've seen you do this many times, and you did it in this thread. You saw words that weren't in the Vice article, you heard "guns" from Beto when he said "AR-15." I don't think you realize you're doing it, but by pointing it out I hope you'll consider what I'm trying to tell you.
And there you go again. Nothing I said should've led you to that conclusion. It's a disorder, that may or may not be acted on, upon which action it becomes a crime. The disorder itself isn't a crime.
No one has said otherwise.
You're telling me what I think about antifa? I can't remember when or if I've discussed antifa here, so how would you know?
What? I don't understand what you're saying. It's vigilantism when people take the law into their own hands.
Where is your proof he hasn't? Where's your respect for due process?
My "defense of this all?" There you go again, seeing what isn't there.
Again:
1. Do you know the difference between having a pedophilic disorder and child molestation or possessing child pornography? The disorder isn't criminal, the actions are. Or are you into state control over our thoughts?
2. Nowhere in the article is there any mention of "right wing extremism." Or "conservatives." Nothing. I wonder why you saw it?
3. Do you think vigilantes should "take someone off the streets" if they haven't committed a crime?
It would be great if you'd be willing to answer these.
