Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
For once, I think conservatives have real reason to be afraid.

Of what?

What should anyone be afraid of in reference to this topic?

Conservatives who fear female empowerment.

I'm not sure it's just "female empowerment" thought that they're scared of.

I think some of these folks really have bought into the idea that we are living in some kind of post-apocalyptic hell-scape where roving bands of Leftists ride through the streets on war-wagons ... blowing things up, killing people, etc. vis-a-vis Mad Max style fantasies.

I think some of them are so out of touch with what I know as reality that they really believe that everyone whose politics don't agree with theirs is part of this monolithic terrorist group "the Leftists" that is coming for their guns and their lives.

It's sad and utterly unnecessary. There is no hope to bring our country back together until this kind of thing STOPS ...and the only way to make it stop is to confront it head on with facts and sympathy for the fears that people have.

And that's what I'm trying to do without falling back into mere partisanship myself.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Absolutely... women rights groups are now terrorists, black rights are terrorists, occupy wall street were terrorists...

I applaude you for your sympathy for these people. Be sweet to them. Hold their hand, tell them it'll be okay.

This terrorist silliness only means the women's march is having impact.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So you're saying the vipers have been defanged and we should cuddle up with them?

Thanks. No. They need to be denounced for their violent past and relegated to history's dustbin. That's not what US society accepts as the proper way to bring about political change.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think some of these folks really have bought into the idea that we are living in some kind of post-apocalyptic hell-scape where roving bands of Leftists ride through the streets on war-wagons ... blowing things up, killing people, etc. vis-a-vis Mad Max style fantasies.

Situation unfunny but I just lost my sht! hahahaha

Gryphon66

I honestly do respect your approach, your willingness to listen to their fears and talk them through their hysteria. It takes a tremendous amount of patience and understanding.

I just think they're so lame...

More marches?

Is this the new mall walking?

Reality check, these marches change nothing.

People have their sides and they aren't switching.

The government isn't listening, wont listen and isn't about to change anything.

So there will be a run on cardboard and markers, yay?

At least the economy will see a bump I craft supplies.

Streets will get crowded, cars will be stuck in traffic.

And the news will get about 48 hours of story time to run with.

I think it's really cool these people get so many days off work, i'm almost jealous.

People want to get something changed or accomplished, pull up a chair across from people you disagree with, and work it out.

Find middle ground.

Cause chanting about BLM, woman parts, get rid of trump , and this is what democracy looks like, is getting nobody anywhere.

But I guess inward and upward.

Although, the definition of insanity is repeating the same act over and over again expecting different results.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Gryphon66

I honestly do respect your approach, your willingness to listen to their fears and talk them through their hysteria. It takes a tremendous amount of patience and understanding.

I just think they're so lame...

Check back with me in a few weeks, LOL.

Thanks for your kind words. Here's to hope that we can all change for the better!

a reply to: Gryphon66

wow... So not only do you want to ignore the past of these women, and the fact that they are still in the present calling for a "women's militant struggle", but you want to ignore and dismiss the kind of violence which has been used by similar "socialist revolutionaries" such as the calls by BLM to murder police officers, as well as white people, which btw several BLM supporters did murder police officers. Not to mention that you ignore the statement I made that while not all women who will attend would participate on the type of violence these "organizers do want to see", but still the women that will attend to that March are in fact responding to a call for "feminist militarism".

I wonder, if actual KKK members, who have resorted to violence and terrorism in the past would be calling for a "militant white nationalist rally", would you also dismiss and ignore it if millions of white people decide to actually go to such a "militant rally"?...

As for what violence will come from this?... Are you out of your freaking mind?... It appears you are, otherwise you wouldn't ignore the several events of violence, and deaths by similar calls from other "socialist revolutionaries"... And I am not talking just about the violence from BLM supporters, but we have seen the violence several groups of radical leftists have resorted to in several cities throughout the U.S.

a reply to: Black_Fox

Yeah because Trump clearly is a guy willing to be reasonable. He only insults and disparages every person and institution that disagrees with him.

Get this through your head. He brought this. He did this. His f'd up divisive campaign and his f'd up attitude brought this. He's an enemy to the American people.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What are you even talking about??? Remind me again out of the whole women's march movement how many women are you singling out right now? So dumb. Let me try that again with empathy... fear not, little coward. The women are not here to hurt you.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Black_Fox

Yeah because Trump clearly is a guy willing to be reasonable. He only insults and disparages every person and institution that disagrees with him.

Get this through your head. He brought this. He did this. His f'd up divisive campaign and his f'd up attitude brought this. He's an enemy to the American people.

He's an enemy to the American people, as you say, is your opinion, not a proven fact.

And whether your right about the rest, in reality, does not matter.

You can either accept the fact he is president.

Or you can march or complain.

Either way, you will deal with it.

You don't have to like it.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You mentioned three out of seven.

You mention their pasts from 40+ years ago.

You are keyed on the word "militant" for some reason. It means "confrontive" in the context it is used in the article.

Did your read the Guardian article? or just take the Post's position on it.

You're still gesturing wildly at "violence" ... but you're not giving us the first concrete example of what you're actually referring to.

BLM are socialist now? You have any evidence for that? Or are you just lumping all your percieved enemies together.

What murders by BLM are you referring to? Be specific.

I ignored several of your statements because they have no basis in fact. Can you quote anything from the Guardian article about "feminist militarism" or are those YOUR words that you're trying to tag in with.

And now you're all over the place ... BLM, KKK, etc.

What violence are you talking about? I challenge you to describe the violence associated with the Women's March on Washington in January ... because with your wild vague claims ... you seem to be trying to say that this action being called for is equivalent to the Russian Revolution or ... something.

You really aren't making much sense to me. Tell us which acts of violence at which locations on which day you are associating with this newspaper article calling for a day of political action.

Because honestly, you're sounding like you're just spewing empty rhetoric at this point.

What violence, when and where are you comparing to what these women are calling for?

a reply to: Black_Fox

Glad you agree. Unfortunately he's destroyed any reason to respect him. He's f'd it all up by being the horrible human being he is. He's not just a sh#t president but a totally sh#tty awful human being. I don't care what title he has-- it's still a sh#tty awful person under that title.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Black_Fox

Glad you agree. Unfortunately he's destroyed any reason to respect him. He's f'd it all up by being the horrible human being he is. He's not just a sh#t president but a totally sh#tty awful human being. I don't care what title he has-- it's still a sh#tty awful person under that title.

He is the outcome of everyone's lack of give a $hit prior to the election.

Where was all the outrage, marches and energy, demanding better canidates to choose from?

The people made this happen,

And instead of marching against trump, all those people could go out and help people in this country who need it.

Or instead of marching, they themselves should make a run for office and enact the changes the want.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I see... First, these women are once again calling for a militant form of struggle from women... So tell us again Gryphon how in your dictionary calling for a militant revolution once again demonstrates these women are not ready to repeat their past?...

Tell us once again how the following is not coming from someone who obviously didn't repent from her past, but wants the past to be repeated?

Bhattacharya wrote an essay for International Socialist Review in which she praised Maoists by writing "Maoists are on the terrorist list of the US State Department, Canada, and the European Union...Maoists are back in the news and by all accounts they are fighting against all the right people."

But hey, I guess "revolutionary socialists" have always been so "peaceful".

a reply to: Black_Fox

Yeah it was a portion of the populace sh#tting in its own bed out of spite. I don't care the excuse. It was so wrong and you're seeing the reality of that play out every day.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So now you're a mind-reader? LOL

nah, just thought you'd have more common sense, i guess it's true a person can sound really intelligent, and put together a good sounding argument and not have a clue.

Did you bother to read the Guardian article?

i guess you missed where i used misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic and racist policies. you know their triggering words they used in the article.

I'm going to guess that the true answer there is no, as you don't seem to have any actual idea how many of these "Dangerous Old Ladies" even authored the article.

duh it's right there, 8, but the OP's article is just about three of em, and their questionable past and support of terrorist groups not all 8.

You have no reason to think that there's going to be violence done ... how much violence was done at the last women's march? Do you know anything concrete about that? Or are you just going off the eternally repeated mantra here that all "left" actions are violent.

well not necessarily, but you have to admit that many marches, protests, and demonstrations end up in violence, add to that three of the organizers/ authors questionable past, there is reason to give one pause.
and as far as i know, and been able to tell from the two articles in the OP, the last women's march was not organized by these 8.

I submit you're coming to all these stated conclusions based on nothing more than your own preconceptions and the NY Post fake news article. If you want to convince anyone otherwise say something specific rather than wild, baseless propaganda.

again i submit that you can make intelligent sounding arguments, and lack common sense or have a clue.
all we have is a published manifesto, we have no idea of what kind of talk goes on behind closed doors and considering the questionable past and the support of groups that are known terrorist organizations/groups by the 3 again it should give one pause.

a reply to: Gryphon66

BTW, if you actually think on making the excuse "but revolutionary movement doesn't mean violence" watch how Angela Davis makes exactly that same claim back in the 70s. You know, at the time when she was part of "violent terrorism".



That is exactly the same type of claim being made now. That interview was actually made in 1971 when she was in prison, at a time when she was a member of the Black Panthers.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I'm not interested in personal commentary.

I'm sorry you were triggered by the article you read.

RIght, Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, one of the most obvious sources of "fake" or slanted news available.

No, I don't have to admit that many protests for women's rights "end up" in violence. Again, give some examples.

A "published manifesto" that is calling on women to stand up for themselves?

Keep repeating "questionable past" as if that means something. Speaking of common sense, these women have been professors and community organizers for 40 plus years. It's blatant BS to speak as if they are criminal masterminds ...

But, again, I'm not interested in personal commentary.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Black_Fox

Yeah it was a portion of the populace sh#tting in its own bed out of spite. I don't care the excuse. It was so wrong and you're seeing the reality of that play out every day.

What reality is that?

The news acting like children?
People marching around to no effect?

Doesn't seem all that bad.

There have been worse presidents.

We will all survive,no worries.

But since all these people are together, maybe they could focus on other issues.

Like homeless and starving families, the non stop violence happening in Chicago, or even the starving people in Venezuela(who's problems make our look comedic)