We don't need a million thread on this topic. We like one thread per topic. We merged several others into this thread including one called "Alex Pretti was a deranged lunatic." and one called "New York Times reports that Pretti attacked ICE cars 11 days before his death" and one called "LeBron James: Why hasn't he commented on the Alex Pretti killing?"
It’s been obvious for a while what he is and who he likely works for. From looking at the time-stamps it’s likely he’s part of a boiler room tag team. Either way, the behaviors are always the same, every single time, as the saying goes.
I’ve auspected the same. Probably has a “local chapter” that supplies the actual rules for the site and the mods.
Hmmm.. Sooo wrong. If the governor and mayor turned over illegal criminals in jail to ICE this wouldn't have happened. If the governor and mayor didn't promote protests this wouldn't have happened. If this guy hadn't been violently harassing ICE while carrying a gun this wouldn't have happened. Stay home and let ICE do their job.
Why would agents have to go on the street if they guys they were looking for were in jail?
Because retards like Walz and Frey won't let local law enforcement notify ICE when they release illegal criminals to the streets to violate more victims. Please devise a more perfect system for criminals to keep perpetuating crime than sanctuary city Minneapolis.
Weissmann as a source? 🤡 You folks can’t help promoting each other, can you? 🥸😂
It’s been obvious for a while what he is and who he likely works for. From looking at the time-stamps it’s likely he’s part of a boiler room tag team. Either way, the behaviors are always the same, every single time, as the saying goes.
I am a free speech advocate, but obviously for only speech that I agree with. That's why evil doers like Charlie Kirk need to get shot for words and for speaking out. And I'm allowed to speak out and celebrate his death because obviously silence is violence. And if we are all silent about evil law enforcement arresting peaceful rapist illegal criminals, then we are all being violent. So to not be violent, I condemn evil people speaking out not being silent i.e. Charlie Kirk and celebrate protestors who don't speak but instead non violently violently protest in the streets against law enforcement and to non violently bite their fingers off.
This post was edited 23 seconds after it was posted.
Everyone knows a good Libertarian advocates being able to force your beliefs upon the masses. People obviously don't strive for individual freedom, but instead welcome being told what to do by Government officials. This is why everyone should be forced to wear a mask except for ICE agents who should be forced to not wear one. ICE agents, just like everyone else, need the freedom to be forced what to do, like take untested vaccines that are safe and effective that cause clots and don't stop COVID
This post was edited 51 seconds after it was posted.
I am a free speech advocate, but obviously for only speech that I agree with. That's why evil doers like Charlie Kirk need to get shot for words and for speaking out. And I'm allowed to speak out and celebrate his death because obviously silence is violence. And if we are all silent about evil law enforcement arresting peaceful rapist illegal criminals, then we are all being violent. So to not be violent, I condemn evil people speaking out not being silent i.e. Charlie Kirk and celebrate protestors who don't speak but instead non violently violently protest in the streets against law enforcement and to non violently bite their fingers off.
I put this into ChatGPT:
Hey—I'm going to slow this down a bit, because what you're describing crosses from heated rhetoric into explicit endorsement of violence. I can’t agree with or celebrate harming or killing people for their speech, and I won’t help promote violence, even rhetorically.
That said, I do hear a few real tensions underneath all the sarcasm and hyperbole:
Free speech vs. accountability. It’s common to feel that some speech is harmful and should have consequences. The line is that consequences can be social, legal, or political—not physical harm. Anger at power and hypocrisy. You’re pointing at contradictions: who gets protected, who gets punished, and how “nonviolence” gets selectively defined. That frustration is understandable. “Silence is violence.” Many people use that phrase to push moral urgency, but it doesn’t actually justify violence. It’s about encouraging speech and action, not replacing them with harm.
Where this goes off the rails is equating: speech with violence, and then violence with moral purity if it’s aimed at people you consider evil.
That logic collapses fast, because it turns whoever decides “evil” into the final authority on who deserves to be hurt. Historically, that never ends well—for anyone.
If your goal is to oppose ideas or systems you believe are harmful, there are effective, forceful, and morally consistent options that don’t involve hurting people:
ruthless criticism (satire, debate, exposés), organizing and voting, lawsuits and watchdog journalism, protests that disrupt systems (boycotts, strikes, civil disobedience), refusing platforms, funding, or legitimacy.
Those approaches actually weaken bad ideas. Violence usually strengthens them by turning perpetrators into martyrs and shifting attention away from the harm you’re trying to highlight.
You’re clearly smart enough to see the contradictions you’re playing with here. If you want, we can unpack:
where free speech does have limits without sliding into violence, how protest can be genuinely nonviolent and disruptive, or how to argue against people like Charlie Kirk in ways that actually reduce their influence instead of amplifying it.
I’m in for a real conversation—but not one that normalizes hurting people.
I am a free speech advocate, but obviously for only speech that I agree with. That's why evil doers like Charlie Kirk need to get shot for words and for speaking out. And I'm allowed to speak out and celebrate his death because obviously silence is violence. And if we are all silent about evil law enforcement arresting peaceful rapist illegal criminals, then we are all being violent. So to not be violent, I condemn evil people speaking out not being silent i.e. Charlie Kirk and celebrate protestors who don't speak but instead non violently violently protest in the streets against law enforcement and to non violently bite their fingers off.
I put this into ChatGPT:
Hey—I'm going to slow this down a bit, because what you're describing crosses from heated rhetoric into explicit endorsement of violence. I can’t agree with or celebrate harming or killing people for their speech, and I won’t help promote violence, even rhetorically.
That said, I do hear a few real tensions underneath all the sarcasm and hyperbole:
Free speech vs. accountability. It’s common to feel that some speech is harmful and should have consequences. The line is that consequences can be social, legal, or political—not physical harm. Anger at power and hypocrisy. You’re pointing at contradictions: who gets protected, who gets punished, and how “nonviolence” gets selectively defined. That frustration is understandable. “Silence is violence.” Many people use that phrase to push moral urgency, but it doesn’t actually justify violence. It’s about encouraging speech and action, not replacing them with harm.
Where this goes off the rails is equating: speech with violence, and then violence with moral purity if it’s aimed at people you consider evil.
That logic collapses fast, because it turns whoever decides “evil” into the final authority on who deserves to be hurt. Historically, that never ends well—for anyone.
If your goal is to oppose ideas or systems you believe are harmful, there are effective, forceful, and morally consistent options that don’t involve hurting people:
ruthless criticism (satire, debate, exposés), organizing and voting, lawsuits and watchdog journalism, protests that disrupt systems (boycotts, strikes, civil disobedience), refusing platforms, funding, or legitimacy.
Those approaches actually weaken bad ideas. Violence usually strengthens them by turning perpetrators into martyrs and shifting attention away from the harm you’re trying to highlight.
You’re clearly smart enough to see the contradictions you’re playing with here. If you want, we can unpack:
where free speech does have limits without sliding into violence, how protest can be genuinely nonviolent and disruptive, or how to argue against people like Charlie Kirk in ways that actually reduce their influence instead of amplifying it.
I’m in for a real conversation—but not one that normalizes hurting people.
I am a free speech advocate, but obviously for only speech that I agree with. That's why evil doers like Charlie Kirk need to get shot for words and for speaking out. And I'm allowed to speak out and celebrate his death because obviously silence is violence. And if we are all silent about evil law enforcement arresting peaceful rapist illegal criminals, then we are all being violent. So to not be violent, I condemn evil people speaking out not being silent i.e. Charlie Kirk and celebrate protestors who don't speak but instead non violently violently protest in the streets against law enforcement and to non violently bite their fingers off.
Why would agents have to go on the street if they guys they were looking for were in jail?
Because retards like Walz and Frey won't let local law enforcement notify ICE when they release illegal criminals to the streets to violate more victims. Please devise a more perfect system for criminals to keep perpetuating crime than sanctuary city Minneapolis.
You mean release violent criminals like the 1500 pardoned from the January 6th insurrection?
Troubling video of that alex pretti guy kicking the back of a police suv and damaging the taillight. Believe I saw him spit on the car too. Peaceful protester? I think not. Agitator. Then he decides to show up armed, no doubt he was being an agitator then too. What an angry Little guy.
Today’s news is that DHS has been tracking the guy for a while. There is a chance the shooting is a planned assassination rather than an incident stemming from some random encounter. Kristi Noem must be a fan of Kill Bill and wants to be The Bride herself.
Troubling video of that alex pretti guy kicking the back of a police suv and damaging the taillight. Believe I saw him spit on the car too. Peaceful protester? I think not. Agitator. Then he decides to show up armed, no doubt he was being an agitator then too. What an angry Little guy.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
