It is clear that the extreme Left on OLO is happy to have anybody who disagrees with them beaten up or sprayed - perhaps terminated? - and also blame them for being attacked. What lovely people they are.

Dear ttbn,

The "extreme left" on OLO?

What about the "extreme right?"

As far as I know most people who post here have
a variety of views depending on the issues.
They can be liberal in some cases and conservative
in others.

Of course we do have people who
tend to harp on the same themes all the time and
that gets a bit dull, boring and predictable after
a while but even then their views are not usually
set in concrete. Thinking people usually tend to
be flexible. Therefore putting labels on people
is not a good idea. Especially, if their views
happen to disagree with ours. The fault then lies
with us, not them.

"Extreme Left/Extreme Right?"

Labels belong on clothes not people.

Argue and disprove their views. Don't label.
It achieves nothing productive and only results
in counter-labelling and a breakdown in communication.

Now I'll get off my soap box, and go sit in the
"naughty corner".

Foxy,

Yes. What about the extreme Right? Do you have something to say about them? If so, go ahead. Can I not criticise the extreme Left without mentioning the extreme Right who, if they exist here, have not indulged in blaming the victim (Andrew Bolt) as have the extreme Left. I cannot blame the extreme Right or anyone else for something the extreme Left does, no matter how even-handed or 'fair' I wish to be.

Could you point out the extreme Right comments (or commentators) for me, please. (on OLO, that is).

As for labels, they are a fact of life. There has always been a Left, a Right - and a Centre for the indecisive. Very few of them extreme, in my view.

The only extremists we have to worry about – because they have got themselves into parliament – are the Greens. Ratbag with shaven heads and placards might, like Atifa, the goons who attacked Bolt, be extremists, but they are of no consequence because they have no power. We have laws and police to deal with hooligans.

We have had a good example of Rancid extreme right person haven't we, and keeps carrying on like a filthy little runt that he is today. No one wants that repeated any time soon.
Bolt is one of them, he is short om publicity.

One or two here may have been absent coughing up a fur ball at the time, but this appeared in an earlier post. The leftists (I dispute they have anything in common with the Left tradition of yesteryear, make that 30 years ago), ARE the modern day totalitarians who deny others freedom of speech and are prepared to assault journalists in the street and in broad daylight:

<Bolt and other commentators told Fairfax Media they feared conservatives faced an increasing threat to their safety from far-left activists, especially in the Victorian capital.

"It is ridiculous how dangerous it is for conservatives in this town to speak out," Bolt said. "The right to free speech has to be better protected – everywhere but particularly in Melbourne."

Troy Whitford, history and politics lecturer at Charles Sturt University, said political violence in Melbourne was "nothing new" but it had been a long time since violence from the far-left had been as prominent.
..
Antifa takes its inspiration from the German Antifaschistische Aktion network that arose prior to World War II. Dr Whitford described the Australian version as a loosely-assembled "reactionary group" that seeks to combat the alternative-right, with a particular focus on defending multiculturalism, anti-racism and feminism.

"They're basically taking on that very militant approach to fostering left-wing, progressive views," he said. "If you don't subscribe to them, they kick you in the head. Anti-fascism is what they go under but they're actually practising fascist techniques.">

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/is-melbourne-too-dangerous-for-conservatives-behind-the-leftwing-antifa-movement-that-attacked-andrew-bolt-20170608-gwnb6h.html

While it was not mentioned in the quoted article, the leftist 'Progressives' (Regressives) side with toxic fundamentalism such as Islam and are themselves corrosive to freedom of speech, democracy, traditional institutions (such as marriage) and Australian Law. What about the female union heavy who arrogantly declared that she will break whatever laws she likes and she encourages others of her ilk to do the same?

Dependable Dorg,

Right on cue ! A bloke gets assaulted, defends himself, with a third bloke coming up for all he knows, and you can find him guilty of ....... hmmm ...... guilty of what, Dorg ?

Ah, being a right-winger. There you go. Different laws for different folks, is it ? Left-wingers of all rancid shapes and sizes can assault, that's okay, but no right-winger should be allowed to defend himself. Is that it ?

In Australia, anybody who is attacked - extreme rat-bag left-wing or right-wing, has the right not to be assaulted. They have the right to defend themselves. Given that, on the spur of the moment, not all factors, pro and con, can be immediately processed, when one perceives that one is being attacked, one is perfectly entitle to defend oneself.

If you think otherwise, you're obviously nothing much more than a bigot. Which is legal, since who defines a bigot ? Never mind, you can be both a bigot AND a moron simultaneously.

Joe