Comments (28)
sorted by:
4
BestOfTheMidwest 4 points ago +5 / -1

Do you even read this shit before you post it? I swear to god you people...

1.This was in 2012-2014, long before proudboys was even conceived and long before Enrique became leadership.

  1. Proudboys are pro law enforcement. Working with the FBI to take down drug dealers and human traffickers is not "Controlled opposition" to our movement. These are good things.

Do you honestly oppose working with law enforcement in any capacity or are you one of those faggy boogaloo BLM anarchist types?

2
FluhanWu 2 points ago +2 / -0

^ this deserves a sticky. I read the article and he helped get some illegal drugs off the street. I don’t agree with war on drugs, and I don’t agree with drugs being illegal. Nonetheless, law is the law and needs changing. He did nothing wrong. And nothing he did back then is related to his current activities. The purpose of bringing that up was likely to demonstrate he is a law abiding citizen with a good record of doing the right thing (by the book by the book by the book). Seriously, nothing in article is bad.

-1
swifty123456 -1 points ago +1 / -2

law is not law! stop with that bullshit

jim crowe laws where laws but i would say fuck that law!

if you agree drug laws are uncosntituional stand for it!

is like saying slavery is illegal but law is law now return slaves to their masta!! because muh law muh optics! fuck the war on drugs

1
FluhanWu 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did you really just bring up Jim Crow? Go to hell with your racist garbage. This has nothing to do with Jim Crow.

Do you understand Jim Crow laws have been changed for the same reason that you are trying to argue against? Law is law, changes have been made for good reason.

Enrique snitching on human trafficking is not the same as Jim Crow laws. Gtfo. You pulled the race card for no reason at all. Liberal tactic! Stay on topic! Enrique is not our enemy!

1
swifty123456 1 point ago +1 / -0

law is law right?

i dont live by the law i live by morality

throughout history laws have been on the wrong side of morality!

him snitching on human slavery is good! but fuck druglaws and drugwar

1
ColonelCottonHill [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

So your defense of the guy is that he was just a useful idiot who helped the FBI?

1
BestOfTheMidwest 1 point ago +1 / -0

He was an informant that helped bust drug dealers and human traffickers... This is a noble thing to do.

I don't fucking understand your thought process. Are you against law enforcement? Okay, then the proudboys aren't your friend.

1
ColonelCottonHill [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Are you against law enforcement?

I'm against traitors and the law enforcement agencies are FULL of them.

1
Gyromancer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Beat me to it:)

1
TwistedSister 1 point ago +1 / -0

You do realize Biggs was arrested after they arrested Tarrio. It's not even crossing your mind as to who "snitched" on him? Because I'm betting Biggs is wondering.

1
BestOfTheMidwest 1 point ago +1 / -0

Joe biggs is on video inside the capital. Nobody needed to "rat" on him to get him arrested.

1
TwistedSister 1 point ago +1 / -0

Really? The only video I've seen of Biggs is the one where he just revealed his face to the camera. Perhaps you have a video linking him to all three charges against him. Love to see it.

1
BestOfTheMidwest 1 point ago +1 / -0

Listen, I'm not saying biggs deserves to be jailed for what he did. Just saying that I don't think Enrique had to rat him out. I mean Enrique wasn't even there lol

1
TwistedSister 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do we know for a fact that Tarrio did rat him out? I know Tarrio needs to answer that question. Did he?

3
Gyromancer 3 points ago +3 / -0

Tarrio said he didn't recall, because this information is probably supposed to be sealed in some way. You don't usually see news articles throwing informants under the bus like this.

1
TwistedSister 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think Tarrio has some explaining to do, but I'd wait on him to respond to this before I break out the ropes.

2
ColonelCottonHill [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

He is using the 'I don't recall' defense despite there being evidence that he definitely helped them.

1
TwistedSister 1 point ago +1 / -0

It does raise significant questions, but I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth instead of taking the word of Reuters.

2
BestOfTheMidwest 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why don't you read the fucking article. This is such a shallow attempt to sow distrust I can't believe you guys are taking the bait.

He doesn't have any explaining to do. He worked with law enforcement in 2012 to get drug dealers and human traffickers. I mean WTF how is that bad?

1
Gyromancer 1 point ago +1 / -0

The lack of critical thinking of some people is why the left keeps winning.

1
TwistedSister 1 point ago +1 / -0

I read the fucking article. That's why I said what I said.

1
BestOfTheMidwest 1 point ago +1 / -0

So you read that he helped arrest drug dealers and human traffickers and that led you to think about "breaking out the ropes"? WTF?

Three options, either you didn't read the article, you're a shill, or you're a fucking moron. Which is it?

1
TwistedSister 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe you should have read the entire article, then, and you wouldn't make half-true statements.

They had pleaded guilty in a fraud case related to the relabeling and sale of stolen diabetes test kits.

The prosecutor said Tarrio’s information had led to the prosecution of 13 people on federal charges in two separate cases, and had helped local authorities investigate a gambling ring.

He turned on his cohorts over "mislabeling." If he turns on his cohorts on something like this just to save his own hide, what makes you think he won't turn on you too?

And that's just one...

1
party12 1 point ago +2 / -1

Sounds rather like they circular leaks between the FBI and the media during the Trump campaign and Trump administration.

Government plants the leak in the media, media reports the anonymous leak and government uses the information to get a desired outcome.

1
DoubleEagle 1 point ago +2 / -1

Maybe.

What's more likely? Proudboys glow in the dark or the media are filthy liars?

0
Cpl_McMerica_1775 0 points ago +1 / -1

I can safely say unequivocally and without fear of contradiction that judging by the amount of lefty vitriol hurled towards proud boys they must be alright. In math it's called the trump proof.

0
mharr1s 0 points ago +1 / -1

Reuters... lol. Come on Man

0
Pickles76 0 points ago +1 / -1

This is all such gaslighting bullshit. The language of this writer is meant to coerce the reader into believing political nonsense. I'm so tired of these types of articles/writers. Just report the news and leave the biased views out!