Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How many posts in a row are you going to continue to not read the content?
It's NOT a contrast between (a) "Muslims" and (b) "white supremacists". It simply does not say that. Never did. Pretending it does say that --- when the words plainly contradict that pretense --- just isn't honest.
I'm still asking what the point is of this fake point ---- just to somehow twist this into a racial thing?
And who the hell is "the admin"?
never said it "contrasted"...
I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...
And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?
You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?
What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?
oh stop..you sound like a 1st year law student trying to play word games....reminds me of clinton playing word games and trying to weasel out of the lewinsky scandal
Other does NOT mean "any OTHER crimes we can think of to blame on "white supremacists"..
the article and the premise is fraudulent and its only purpose is to disparage white people...
The article doesn't even mention "white people". Nor does it mention "black people" or "brown people" or race at all, except in the context of "white supremacist groups" -- which is an ideological agenda.
You sure are bending over backward to insert a racial component to a story that doesn't have one. Why the obsession?
it blames "white supremacists", pogo, and you know it...you're being purposely obtuse and trying to muddy up clear water because that's the only way you can pretend not to understand...
never said it "contrasted"...
I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...
And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?
You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?
What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?
oh stop..you sound like a 1st year law student trying to play word games....reminds me of clinton playing word games and trying to weasel out of the lewinsky scandal
Other does NOT mean "any OTHER crimes we can think of to blame on "white supremacists"..
the article and the premise is fraudulent and its only purpose is to disparage white people...
The article doesn't even mention "white people". Nor does it mention "black people" or "brown people" or race at all, except in the context of "white supremacist groups" -- which is an ideological agenda.
You sure are bending over backward to insert a racial component to a story that doesn't have one. Why the obsession?
it blames "white supremacists", pogo, and you know it...you're being purposely obtuse and trying to muddy up clear water because that's the only way you can pretend not to understand...
"Obtuse"?
Look, I'm not the one pretending the phrase "and others" doesn't exist or has no function here. You're embarrassing yourselves.
Look, if I say "John, Mary and others were there" ----- that doesn't mean the "others" were also John and Mary.
---- Does it?
What, are these "others" some sort of clones?
I mean think about it. This ain't exactly rocket surgery.
Holy SHIT.
And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?
You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?
What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?
oh stop..you sound like a 1st year law student trying to play word games....reminds me of clinton playing word games and trying to weasel out of the lewinsky scandal
Other does NOT mean "any OTHER crimes we can think of to blame on "white supremacists"..
the article and the premise is fraudulent and its only purpose is to disparage white people...
The article doesn't even mention "white people". Nor does it mention "black people" or "brown people" or race at all, except in the context of "white supremacist groups" -- which is an ideological agenda.
You sure are bending over backward to insert a racial component to a story that doesn't have one. Why the obsession?
it blames "white supremacists", pogo, and you know it...you're being purposely obtuse and trying to muddy up clear water because that's the only way you can pretend not to understand...
"Obtuse"?
Look, I'm not the one pretending the phrase "and others" doesn't exist or has no function here. You're embarrassing yourselves.
Look, if I say "John, Mary and others were there" ----- that doesn't mean the "others" were also John and Mary.
---- Does it?
What, are these "others" some sort of clones?
I mean think about it. This ain't exactly rocket surgery.
Holy SHIT.
it also doesn't mean that "white supremacists" are there with john and mary, like they're trying to imply with their anti white article......but..people playing word games can try to make that connection...
oh stop..you sound like a 1st year law student trying to play word games....reminds me of clinton playing word games and trying to weasel out of the lewinsky scandal
Other does NOT mean "any OTHER crimes we can think of to blame on "white supremacists"..
the article and the premise is fraudulent and its only purpose is to disparage white people...
The article doesn't even mention "white people". Nor does it mention "black people" or "brown people" or race at all, except in the context of "white supremacist groups" -- which is an ideological agenda.
You sure are bending over backward to insert a racial component to a story that doesn't have one. Why the obsession?
it blames "white supremacists", pogo, and you know it...you're being purposely obtuse and trying to muddy up clear water because that's the only way you can pretend not to understand...
"Obtuse"?
Look, I'm not the one pretending the phrase "and others" doesn't exist or has no function here. You're embarrassing yourselves.
Look, if I say "John, Mary and others were there" ----- that doesn't mean the "others" were also John and Mary.
---- Does it?
What, are these "others" some sort of clones?
I mean think about it. This ain't exactly rocket surgery.
Holy SHIT.
it also doesn't mean that "white supremacists" are there with john and mary, like they're trying to imply with their anti white article......but..people playing word games can try to make that connection...
There simply IS NO SUCH implication. The presence of the phrase "and other non-Muslim groups" specifically prevents that implication.
Yet you're sitting there trying to infer that in spite of the text sitting there preventing such an association. If that ain't word games, there's no such damn thing.
My question remains, as it has been all day --- why are you doing that?
And again (also) --- where do you see "anti-white" content? Where?
Where in fact does the article mention anybody's race at all?
pogo said:The article doesn't even mention "white people". Nor does it mention "black people" or "brown people" or race at all, except in the context of "white supremacist groups" -- which is an ideological agenda.
The article doesn't even mention "white people". Nor does it mention "black people" or "brown people" or race at all, except in the context of "white supremacist groups" -- which is an ideological agenda.
You sure are bending over backward to insert a racial component to a story that doesn't have one. Why the obsession?
it blames "white supremacists", pogo, and you know it...you're being purposely obtuse and trying to muddy up clear water because that's the only way you can pretend not to understand...
"Obtuse"?
Look, I'm not the one pretending the phrase "and others" doesn't exist or has no function here. You're embarrassing yourselves.
Look, if I say "John, Mary and others were there" ----- that doesn't mean the "others" were also John and Mary.
---- Does it?
What, are these "others" some sort of clones?
I mean think about it. This ain't exactly rocket surgery.
Holy SHIT.
it also doesn't mean that "white supremacists" are there with john and mary, like they're trying to imply with their anti white article......but..people playing word games can try to make that connection...
There simply IS NO SUCH implication. The presence of the phrase "and other non-Muslim groups" specifically prevents that implication.
Yet you're sitting there trying to infer that in spite of the text sitting there preventing such an association. If that ain't word games, there's no such damn thing.
My question remains, as it has been all day --- why are you doing that?
And again (also) --- where do you see "anti-white" content? Where?
Where in fact does the article mention anybody's race at all?
the article specified that it included non muslim killings (OTHERS) as being done by white supremacists.
go read it again....you've tried every angle you can think of to defend an article that is a fraud on the very face of it...
you even denied that "white supremacists" are white!...you allege it's an "ideology" LMFAO!....
pogo said:The article doesn't even mention "white people". Nor does it mention "black people" or "brown people" or race at all, except in the context of "white supremacist groups" -- which is an ideological agenda.
...c'mon man...I know you have a lot of self worth and ego tied up in being "right" and it's hard for you to admit it in public when you aren't, but I've been down this road with you before and seen all your semantic tricks....you just got jacked up, bro...
"...and other..." are weasel words so they can purposely mischaracterize ANY attacks that aren't "muslim" as "white supremacist"...
LMAO..you really gonna run with that? So EVERY crime committed in the us that wasn't by confirmed muslims, was therefore committed by "white supremacists"..too funny!
pogo..you're a hyperpartisan and I understand you have a lot of ego involved in supporting the admin, but this is so blatantly obvious that all the equivocating you can cook up can't hide it.
Might as well say that all white crimes will now be included as black crime data too since it was committed by blacks "and others"...LMAO..
it's fraudulent and anti white propaganda.
How many posts in a row are you going to continue to not read the content?
It's NOT a contrast between (a) "Muslims" and (b) "white supremacists". It simply does not say that. Never did. Pretending it does say that --- when the words plainly contradict that pretense --- just isn't honest.
I'm still asking what the point is of this fake point ---- just to somehow twist this into a racial thing?
And who the hell is "the admin"?
never said it "contrasted"...
I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...
And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?
You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?
What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?
When they lump others in with White Supremacist to make their point.
Than they are not treating others as others but as part of the another group.
As was pretty obvious from the OP.
Holy shit it's pea-soup dense in here...
When you say "white supremacist groups and other non-Muslim extremists" .... which is in fact what it does say.... then you have TWO different entities.
Not one -- TWO.
TWO entites that are not related. Apples plus oranges equals one group of fruit.
This is basic Engrish, dood.
How many posts in a row are you going to continue to not read the content?
It's NOT a contrast between (a) "Muslims" and (b) "white supremacists". It simply does not say that. Never did. Pretending it does say that --- when the words plainly contradict that pretense --- just isn't honest.
I'm still asking what the point is of this fake point ---- just to somehow twist this into a racial thing?
And who the hell is "the admin"?
never said it "contrasted"...
I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...
And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?
You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?
What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?
When they lump others in with White Supremacist to make their point.
Than they are not treating others as others but as part of the another group.
As was pretty obvious from the OP.
Holy shit it's pea-soup dense in here...
When you say "white supremacist groups and other non-Muslim extremists" .... which is in fact what it does say.... then you have TWO different entities.
Not one -- TWO.
TWO entites that are not related. Apples plus oranges equals one group of fruit.
This is basic Engrish, dood.
Actually 3.
Muslims, white supremacist, and OTHERs, which includes all others, lumped together.
And yet, they don't give a third number, for ALL OTHERS.
They lumped it in with the White Supremacist numbers.
never said it "contrasted"...
I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...
And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?
You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?
What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?
When they lump others in with White Supremacist to make their point.
Than they are not treating others as others but as part of the another group.
As was pretty obvious from the OP.
Holy shit it's pea-soup dense in here...
When you say "white supremacist groups and other non-Muslim extremists" .... which is in fact what it does say.... then you have TWO different entities.
Not one -- TWO.
TWO entites that are not related. Apples plus oranges equals one group of fruit.
This is basic Engrish, dood.
Actually 3.
Muslims, white supremacist, and OTHERs, which includes all others, lumped together.
And yet, they don't give a third number, for ALL OTHERS.
They lumped it in with the White Supremacist numbers.
Yes, exactly. Because both non-Muslim white supremacists, and non-Muslim non-white-supremacists, are by definition non-Muslim.
Wheras Muslims are, by definition, Muslim.
The entire distinction here is between "Muslim radicals" and "non-Muslim radicals". The subset "white supremacist groups" simply happens to be a subset of the latter. A significant subset, which is why it's noted as an example -- it's a set the general public would likely be familiar with.
That still doesn't make "and others" a subset of "white supremacist groups". If it did ....... there would be no reason to differentiate any "others".
I mean, think about it.
And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?
You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?
What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?
When they lump others in with White Supremacist to make their point.
Than they are not treating others as others but as part of the another group.
As was pretty obvious from the OP.
Holy shit it's pea-soup dense in here...
When you say "white supremacist groups and other non-Muslim extremists" .... which is in fact what it does say.... then you have TWO different entities.
Not one -- TWO.
TWO entites that are not related. Apples plus oranges equals one group of fruit.
This is basic Engrish, dood.
Actually 3.
Muslims, white supremacist, and OTHERs, which includes all others, lumped together.
And yet, they don't give a third number, for ALL OTHERS.
They lumped it in with the White Supremacist numbers.
Yes, exactly. Because both non-Muslim white supremacists, and non-Muslim non-white-supremacists, are by definition non-Muslim.
Wheras Muslims are, by definition, Muslim.
The entire distinction here is between "Muslim radicals" and "non-Muslim radicals". The subset "white supremacist groups" simply happens to be a subset of the latter. A significant subset, which is why it's noted as an example -- it's a set the general public would likely be familiar with.
That still doesn't make "and others" a subset of "white supremacist groups". If it did ....... there would be no reason to differentiate any "others".
I mean, think about it.
The thread title, the OP, the linked article all make the distinction between WHite Supremacists and Muslims radicals.
What is the number of killings by just White Radicals?
HInt that information is not in the linked article.
Doesn't that seem odd to you considering the article heading?
"
Statistics Show White Supremacy is a Bigger Threat to the U.S. Than Radical Muslims"
The OP and the linked article are designed to mislead the reader. It is a lie, and you are a willful dupe because it tells you what you want to hear.
