Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "CNBC Television" channel.

@Aboertmann Rioting, looting, destruction and defacing of private and public property, etc. is not free speech. It's not peaceably assembling.
16
@elizabethhenning778 Why are you assuming I'm a right-winger?
6
@danielcorrales3391 I'm a local as well. They BURNED AND DAMAGED OUR ELK STATUE. It's an ELK. Am I unaware of the racist nature of ELK?!
6
@TheCrazisheep Black bagging? This is not peaceable assemblage. They're lucky they're not getting the full riot treatment. Selectively arresting people who've committed crimes or other infractions during a riot is valid. When Shays' Rebellion was suppressed, all the people who picked up arms against the government were pardoned except for two who were hanged... because they looted. This is not an honorable rebellion.
5
@I BZ Antifa fly two flags: a red flag and a black flag. The red flag symbolizes communism. The black flag symbolizes anarchy. Both are inconsistent with the founding principles of the nation, with the former fighting against the natural right to property and the latter fighting against the existence of the nation.
4
They're protecting federal property and its easements downtown, so it's not unconstitutional.
1
No they aren't necessarily synonymous. An MoU has its validity determined in international court only after an interested party contests it as opposed to being legally binding up front.
1
@YouReadMyName FDR-Keynesian* liberalism, Randian libertarians, Buckley conservatism are bastardizations of Enlightenment libertarian philosophies from the likes of Locke and Rousseau. They are highly subjective, irrational and unworkable extremities. *Note: Keynes had an excellent and workable economic model for assisting with hard economic times, but modern liberals in the US treat it as though it's the perfect economic model for all occasions.
1
An MoU is only considered legally binding AFTER an interested party contests it. That's a very good reason to avoid them.
1
@elizabethhenning778 1. They're not required to tell them why. 2. Videos don't show preceding facts. 3. Feds have the jurisdiction to protect federal property and its easements. 4. After dealing with antifa asshats for the last several years here in Portland, I can confidently say that you'd more likely be right than wrong to assume they did something deserving of arrest.
1
@dknowles60 The first amendment didn't qualify "assembly" with "peaceably?" You clearly need to read the Constitution.
1
@jaytuberr You never have to be read the Miranda warning. The only requirement for a Miranda warning is to have anything answered in response to direct questioning be admissible in court. You really need to learn the law before you begin to act like you know it.
1
@elizabethhenning778 There's no post visible to me that shows a link. Assumption of innocence is missing the point. They very likely knew those individuals did something worthy of arrest, and it's a safe assumption of those who weren't there that they did. Childish dumb asses is all antifa are.
1
@danielcorrales3391 They burned and damaged our elk statue downtown. Am I unaware of the racist, fascist nature of elk or something?
1
@dknowles60 Exactly. And the same with Shays' Rebellion. In both cases, people almost all were pardoned, and I'd support the same here, but they need to be suppressed regardless.
1