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.
LOLNow you're deviating from your own idiot position; which is that they should be ignored.That's neither a strawman nor admission you're right. You idiotically stated they should be "ignored" and you blamed the left for not ignoring them.Wow. That is such a powerful example of someone, who knows they can't refute what their political enemy says, and so they not only make up an absurd strawman,
but take it to an absolute extreme.
Really demonstrates the depth of your fear of the truth.
ANywhooo, your use of a strawman is an admission that you know I am right.
THe difference in the way the media covered Obama's endorsement by the Communist Party compared to the way the media covered Trump's endorsement by the Klan, shows that they are engaged not is reporting
but in propaganda.
Report yes, massive over coverage to create the illusion of relevance and to use it to smear republicans, no.
I offered as a counter example the way the mainstream media covered the endorsement of Obama by the communists.
Would you like to address the massive differences?
Opps, sorry forgot you were a lawyer.
Let me translate from human speech to legalese.
"Ignore" does not mean ban reporting on them or zero mention. It means don't give them massive coverage, lying about their importance or numbers, or connection to significant people or organizations.
I have offered an example of the difference in reporting on the Communist endorsement of Obama, which the media had no interest in, compared to the media coverage of the Klan's "endorsement.
YOu have repeatedly replied to posts with that point in them, but avoided addressing it.
This is obvious evidence that you know it is a valid point.
Show some moral courage and admit it. You will feel better about yourself.
Not "good" but "better".
Now you're trying to redefine words?
Definition of ignore
1. to refuse to take notice of
LOLOLYou can keep repeating that mindless nonsense all you want; the fact remains, you have no position to argue about what the guy in that video said since you didn't hear his comment from his own lips. You have absolutely zero knowledge of the context in which he was speaking ... and worse, you're moronically basing your position on the misquote offered by The Original Tree, who was caught lying about what the guy actually said.LOLOLLOLOL
You're still trying to argue a quote you never heard???
YOur post addressed nothing in my post.
You simply repeated your previous position.
THat is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid and you lose.
Obviously you have no rebuttal to my last post and thus it stands as the final word, at least until you muster the courage to address it's argument.
Here it si again, so we avoid the common lefty tactic of burying the truth under bs.
I don't think it was a lie.
In real life, people drop or flip or misuse words sometimes. IN real life, real people, from context pick up on their actual intent. That is what the Original Tree did.
You are a lawyer aren't you? That would explain your not knowing this.
BUT, I pointed out that the phrase, as you heard it, makes absolutely no sense.
UNLESS you believe that this nazis considers "giving your daughter to a jew" as a sign of "more capable".
Which is utterly absurd.
But you will hold to that position because it serves your partisan purpose.
You have no point. You don't know what the guy said. You confessed you didn't watch the video.
Our post addressed nothing in my post.
You simply repeated your previous position.
THat is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid and you lose.
Obviously you have no rebuttal to my last post and thus it stands as the final word, at least until you muster the courage to address it's argument.
Here it si again, so we avoid the common lefty tactic of burying the truth under bs.
I don't think it was a lie.
In real life, people drop or flip or misuse words sometimes. IN real life, real people, from context pick up on their actual intent. That is what the Original Tree did.
You are a lawyer aren't you? That would explain your not knowing this.
BUT, I pointed out that the phrase, as you heard it, makes absolutely no sense.
UNLESS you believe that this nazis considers "giving your daughter to a jew" as a sign of "more capable".
Which is utterly absurd.
But you will hold to that position because it serves your partisan purpose.
I am not disputing the quote.
Thus all your talk about me not watching 20 plus minutes of nazis is irrelevant. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
My point is valid, and that is why you are so desperate to avoid it.
Your position on this is based on the absurdity that the Nazi likes Trump BECAUSE Trump "gave his daughter to a jew".
YOu know that is bullshit.
Knock it off.
Which consisted of Neo-nazi's, Alt-right and the KKKTrump defended the pro-statue protesters,
some of which he said were very fine people.
What point? You said they should be "ignored." I wholeheartedly disagree with that. Even you apparently now realized that was a moronic thing to say as you're now trying to redefine "ignore" to mean something it doesn't so that you can abandon that nonsense.LOLNow you're deviating from your own idiot position; which is that they should be ignored.That's neither a strawman nor admission you're right. You idiotically stated they should be "ignored" and you blamed the left for not ignoring them.
Report yes, massive over coverage to create the illusion of relevance and to use it to smear republicans, no.
I offered as a counter example the way the mainstream media covered the endorsement of Obama by the communists.
Would you like to address the massive differences?
Opps, sorry forgot you were a lawyer.
Let me translate from human speech to legalese.
"Ignore" does not mean ban reporting on them or zero mention. It means don't give them massive coverage, lying about their importance or numbers, or connection to significant people or organizations.
I have offered an example of the difference in reporting on the Communist endorsement of Obama, which the media had no interest in, compared to the media coverage of the Klan's "endorsement.
YOu have repeatedly replied to posts with that point in them, but avoided addressing it.
This is obvious evidence that you know it is a valid point.
Show some moral courage and admit it. You will feel better about yourself.
Not "good" but "better".
Now you're trying to redefine words?
Definition of ignore
1. to refuse to take notice of
YOu are still doing that lawyer thing.
My point stands.
I have offered an example of the difference in reporting on the Communist endorsement of Obama, which the media had no interest in, compared to the media coverage of the Klan's "endorsement.
YOu have repeatedly replied to posts with that point in them, but avoided addressing it.
This is obvious evidence that you know it is a valid point.
Show some moral courage and admit it. You will feel better about yourself.
Not "good" but "better".
They died the same when Trump claimed his inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama's. If the facts don't support you, bring in "alternative facts"What point? You said they should be "ignored." I wholeheartedly disagree with that. Even you apparently now realized that was a moronic thing to say as you're now trying to redefine "ignore" to mean something it doesn't so that you can abandon that nonsense.
They're nothing if not entertaining.They died the same when Trump claimed his inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama's. If the facts don't support you, bring in "alternative facts"What point? You said they should be "ignored." I wholeheartedly disagree with that. Even you apparently now realized that was a moronic thing to say as you're now trying to redefine "ignore" to mean something it doesn't so that you can abandon that nonsense.
LOLOLYou can keep repeating that mindless nonsense all you want; the fact remains, you have no position to argue about what the guy in that video said since you didn't hear his comment from his own lips. You have absolutely zero knowledge of the context in which he was speaking ... and worse, you're moronically basing your position on the misquote offered by The Original Tree, who was caught lying about what the guy actually said.LOLOLYOur post addressed nothing in my post.
You simply repeated your previous position.
THat is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid and you lose.
Obviously you have no rebuttal to my last post and thus it stands as the final word, at least until you muster the courage to address it's argument.
Here it si again, so we avoid the common lefty tactic of burying the truth under bs.
I don't think it was a lie.
In real life, people drop or flip or misuse words sometimes. IN real life, real people, from context pick up on their actual intent. That is what the Original Tree did.
You are a lawyer aren't you? That would explain your not knowing this.
BUT, I pointed out that the phrase, as you heard it, makes absolutely no sense.
UNLESS you believe that this nazis considers "giving your daughter to a jew" as a sign of "more capable".
Which is utterly absurd.
But you will hold to that position because it serves your partisan purpose.
You have no point. You don't know what the guy said. You confessed you didn't watch the video.
Our post addressed nothing in my post.
You simply repeated your previous position.
THat is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid and you lose.
Obviously you have no rebuttal to my last post and thus it stands as the final word, at least until you muster the courage to address it's argument.
Here it si again, so we avoid the common lefty tactic of burying the truth under bs.
I don't think it was a lie.
In real life, people drop or flip or misuse words sometimes. IN real life, real people, from context pick up on their actual intent. That is what the Original Tree did.
You are a lawyer aren't you? That would explain your not knowing this.
BUT, I pointed out that the phrase, as you heard it, makes absolutely no sense.
UNLESS you believe that this nazis considers "giving your daughter to a jew" as a sign of "more capable".
Which is utterly absurd.
But you will hold to that position because it serves your partisan purpose.
I am not disputing the quote.
Thus all your talk about me not watching 20 plus minutes of nazis is irrelevant. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
My point is valid, and that is why you are so desperate to avoid it.
Your position on this is based on the absurdity that the Nazi likes Trump BECAUSE Trump "gave his daughter to a jew".
YOu know that is bullshit.
Knock it off.
You have no position because you don't know what he actually said.
And you don't have to watch 20 minutes. That exchange with the interviewer lasted maybe 30 seconds.
Of course I do. You're claiming the intent of The Original Tree's misquote is technically correct based on what you think the guy in the video meant -- only you're in no position to say what the guy meant because you don't know what he actually said because you're too lazy to listen to a 30 second exchange that guy had with the interviewer.LOLOLYou can keep repeating that mindless nonsense all you want; the fact remains, you have no position to argue about what the guy in that video said since you didn't hear his comment from his own lips. You have absolutely zero knowledge of the context in which he was speaking ... and worse, you're moronically basing your position on the misquote offered by The Original Tree, who was caught lying about what the guy actually said.LOLOL
You have no point. You don't know what the guy said. You confessed you didn't watch the video.
Our post addressed nothing in my post.
You simply repeated your previous position.
THat is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid and you lose.
Obviously you have no rebuttal to my last post and thus it stands as the final word, at least until you muster the courage to address it's argument.
Here it si again, so we avoid the common lefty tactic of burying the truth under bs.
I don't think it was a lie.
In real life, people drop or flip or misuse words sometimes. IN real life, real people, from context pick up on their actual intent. That is what the Original Tree did.
You are a lawyer aren't you? That would explain your not knowing this.
BUT, I pointed out that the phrase, as you heard it, makes absolutely no sense.
UNLESS you believe that this nazis considers "giving your daughter to a jew" as a sign of "more capable".
Which is utterly absurd.
But you will hold to that position because it serves your partisan purpose.
I am not disputing the quote.
Thus all your talk about me not watching 20 plus minutes of nazis is irrelevant. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
My point is valid, and that is why you are so desperate to avoid it.
Your position on this is based on the absurdity that the Nazi likes Trump BECAUSE Trump "gave his daughter to a jew".
YOu know that is bullshit.
Knock it off.
You have no position because you don't know what he actually said.
And you don't have to watch 20 minutes. That exchange with the interviewer lasted maybe 30 seconds.
I am not disputing your claim on the quote.
do you understand that?
Which consisted of Neo-nazi's, Alt-right and the KKKTrump defended the pro-statue protesters,
some of which he said were very fine people.
As I said, Trump defended the KKK and Neo-Nazi's, who make up Trumps base.
At 35% job approval, Trump can't afford to lose even one racist
What point? You said they should be "ignored." I wholeheartedly disagree with that. Even you apparently now realized that was a moronic thing to say as you're now trying to redefine "ignore" to mean something it doesn't so that you can abandon that nonsense.LOLNow you're deviating from your own idiot position; which is that they should be ignored.Report yes, massive over coverage to create the illusion of relevance and to use it to smear republicans, no.
I offered as a counter example the way the mainstream media covered the endorsement of Obama by the communists.
Would you like to address the massive differences?
Opps, sorry forgot you were a lawyer.
Let me translate from human speech to legalese.
"Ignore" does not mean ban reporting on them or zero mention. It means don't give them massive coverage, lying about their importance or numbers, or connection to significant people or organizations.
I have offered an example of the difference in reporting on the Communist endorsement of Obama, which the media had no interest in, compared to the media coverage of the Klan's "endorsement.
YOu have repeatedly replied to posts with that point in them, but avoided addressing it.
This is obvious evidence that you know it is a valid point.
Show some moral courage and admit it. You will feel better about yourself.
Not "good" but "better".
Now you're trying to redefine words?
Definition of ignore
1. to refuse to take notice of
YOu are still doing that lawyer thing.
My point stands.
I have offered an example of the difference in reporting on the Communist endorsement of Obama, which the media had no interest in, compared to the media coverage of the Klan's "endorsement.
YOu have repeatedly replied to posts with that point in them, but avoided addressing it.
This is obvious evidence that you know it is a valid point.
Show some moral courage and admit it. You will feel better about yourself.
Not "good" but "better".
Of course I do. You're claiming the intent of The Original Tree's misquote is technically correct based on what you think the guy in the video meant -- only you're in no position to say what the guy meant because you don't know what he actually said because you're too lazy to listen to a 30 second exchange that guy had with the interviewer.LOLOLYou can keep repeating that mindless nonsense all you want; the fact remains, you have no position to argue about what the guy in that video said since you didn't hear his comment from his own lips. You have absolutely zero knowledge of the context in which he was speaking ... and worse, you're moronically basing your position on the misquote offered by The Original Tree, who was caught lying about what the guy actually said.Our post addressed nothing in my post.
You simply repeated your previous position.
THat is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid and you lose.
Obviously you have no rebuttal to my last post and thus it stands as the final word, at least until you muster the courage to address it's argument.
Here it si again, so we avoid the common lefty tactic of burying the truth under bs.
I don't think it was a lie.
In real life, people drop or flip or misuse words sometimes. IN real life, real people, from context pick up on their actual intent. That is what the Original Tree did.
You are a lawyer aren't you? That would explain your not knowing this.
BUT, I pointed out that the phrase, as you heard it, makes absolutely no sense.
UNLESS you believe that this nazis considers "giving your daughter to a jew" as a sign of "more capable".
Which is utterly absurd.
But you will hold to that position because it serves your partisan purpose.
I am not disputing the quote.
Thus all your talk about me not watching 20 plus minutes of nazis is irrelevant. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
My point is valid, and that is why you are so desperate to avoid it.
Your position on this is based on the absurdity that the Nazi likes Trump BECAUSE Trump "gave his daughter to a jew".
YOu know that is bullshit.
Knock it off.
You have no position because you don't know what he actually said.
And you don't have to watch 20 minutes. That exchange with the interviewer lasted maybe 30 seconds.
I am not disputing your claim on the quote.
do you understand that?
The Original Tree lied about what the guy said and you, coming from a position of ignorance, bought into it because he's on the same side of the fence as you.
Which consisted of Neo-nazi's, Alt-right and the KKK.Trump defended the pro-statue protesters,
You have a full list of everyone that attended and demonstrating they were all KKK or neo nazis? Interesting. LInk please..
Your "point" was built on the foundation you yourself established. And that foundation was premised on the idiocy the alt-right should be ignored. I understand you regret saying that as you now attempt to redefine the word, "ignore," because even you realize how that weak foundation destroys your own point; but I am under no obligation to ignore just because you want to.What point? You said they should be "ignored." I wholeheartedly disagree with that. Even you apparently now realized that was a moronic thing to say as you're now trying to redefine "ignore" to mean something it doesn't so that you can abandon that nonsense.LOLNow you're deviating from your own idiot position; which is that they should be ignored.
Opps, sorry forgot you were a lawyer.
Let me translate from human speech to legalese.
"Ignore" does not mean ban reporting on them or zero mention. It means don't give them massive coverage, lying about their importance or numbers, or connection to significant people or organizations.
I have offered an example of the difference in reporting on the Communist endorsement of Obama, which the media had no interest in, compared to the media coverage of the Klan's "endorsement.
YOu have repeatedly replied to posts with that point in them, but avoided addressing it.
This is obvious evidence that you know it is a valid point.
Show some moral courage and admit it. You will feel better about yourself.
Not "good" but "better".
Now you're trying to redefine words?
Definition of ignore
1. to refuse to take notice of
YOu are still doing that lawyer thing.
My point stands.
I have offered an example of the difference in reporting on the Communist endorsement of Obama, which the media had no interest in, compared to the media coverage of the Klan's "endorsement.
YOu have repeatedly replied to posts with that point in them, but avoided addressing it.
This is obvious evidence that you know it is a valid point.
Show some moral courage and admit it. You will feel better about yourself.
Not "good" but "better".
I have offered an example of the difference in reporting on the Communist endorsement of Obama, which the media had no interest in, compared to the media coverage of the Klan's "endorsement.
YOu have repeatedly replied to posts with that point in them, but avoided addressing it.
This is obvious evidence that you know it is a valid point.
Show some moral courage and admit it. You will feel better about yourself.
Not "good" but "better".
I know we've beaten this topic to death here and there must be at least a few dozen threads on the topic at least, but I feel like there is a profound point or two that needs to be made. You can agree with me or disagree, I don't really care. This is simply my viewpoint on the situation as a whole.
First of all, to view this as a binary left/right issue is patently stupid. In fact, to view this as a singular issue is equally foolish. This is actually several issues rolled into one and it's being promoted as a binary narrative by the media and the liberal left, as well as many on the right who've fallen for the trap.
Let's get some things in order so we have clarity. Charlottesville had proposed removing a Confederate monument citing it's offensiveness to certain citizens. A group of people who opposed this obtained a permit to peacefully protest the removal. The group was "Unite the Right" ...not a hate group, not white supremacists. However, several neo-nazi and KKK hate groups showed up to join the protest. Also showing up was Antifa, a radical extremist left organization who came to violently protest the protesters. The police, whether overtly or passively, were instructed to not intervene and violence erupted between the fringe extremist elements at the protest. It quickly got out of control and resulted in a slimeball white supremacist killing someone with his car.
Since then, the left has exploited the tragedy to score political points and bash Trump, Republicans, the right, Conservatives and everyone who is not a left wing liberal. The right, for the most part, have condemned the actions of the white supremacists and the violence from both sides while questioning where the police were. Trump made the statement that "there were good people on both sides." This was immediately attacked by the left and media who are fully invested in a binary narrative.
Trump was correct. There were good people on both sides. Not both sides of the violent extremist groups, but both sides of the issue regarding the removal of the statue. The peaceful protesters who didn't engage in violence. They were there to exercise their First Amendment rights. And this is where the left (and some on the right) are completely missing the point. There is more than one issue here!
First there is the issue of whether or not a Confederate statue is appropriate. Some say yes, some say no, and it doesn't have anything to do with racism or white supremacy. No doubt, there are some who favor keeping the statues who are white supremacists. There are also some who favor tearing down the statues because they hold a racist view toward white people. But these elements do not represent the vast majority of the general public. Most people who favor keeping the statues are viewing it as a historical thing that we shouldn't change because some may be offended. Most people opposed are doing so in deference to sensitivities of those who are offended. Both sides have a valid and compelling point that has nothing to do with white supremacy.
In a free society, we should be able to engage in these kind of debates without things devolving into violence. We cannot condemn violence from one side while turning a blind eye to violence from the other. We have to consistently condemn ALL the violence because that's how free society operates.
So now we see there is a clear secondary issue here. It's the right of free people to peacefully protest. Whether you agree or disagree with the right or left on this issue or any other, you should support their right to peacefully demonstrate. Violence is totally unacceptable... right OR left! It doesn't matter if you view one side as abhorrent and intolerable, they still have the right to peacefully demonstrate and you don't have the right to violently attack them.
Some on the Left have attempted to argue that "Hate Speech" isn't protected by the First Amendment. This is patently absurd. So-called "Hate Speech" is exactly what IS protected! Non-offensive speech doesn't require protection. The Left has concocted this "Hate Speech" label to apply to any speech they disagree with politically, and that's a very dangerous thing to do. You can denounce what you consider "hate speech" but you don't have any right to shut it down, especially not with violence. Once you've crossed that line into violent acts, you've lost your freedom of speech and you need to go to jail.
Which consisted of Neo-nazi's, Alt-right and the KKK.Trump defended the pro-statue protesters,
You have a full list of everyone that attended and demonstrating they were all KKK or neo nazis? Interesting. LInk please..
I posted three groups, you cut that down to two groups.
You either can't even read, or don't care what was posted before lying about what I said.
Your "point" was built on the foundation you yourself established. And that foundation was premised on the idiocy the alt-right should be ignored. I understand you regret saying that as you now attempt to redefine the word, "ignore," because even you realize how that weak foundation destroys your own point; but I am under no obligation to ignore just because you want to.What point? You said they should be "ignored." I wholeheartedly disagree with that. Even you apparently now realized that was a moronic thing to say as you're now trying to redefine "ignore" to mean something it doesn't so that you can abandon that nonsense.LOLOpps, sorry forgot you were a lawyer.
Let me translate from human speech to legalese.
"Ignore" does not mean ban reporting on them or zero mention. It means don't give them massive coverage, lying about their importance or numbers, or connection to significant people or organizations.
I have offered an example of the difference in reporting on the Communist endorsement of Obama, which the media had no interest in, compared to the media coverage of the Klan's "endorsement.
YOu have repeatedly replied to posts with that point in them, but avoided addressing it.
This is obvious evidence that you know it is a valid point.
Show some moral courage and admit it. You will feel better about yourself.
Not "good" but "better".
Now you're trying to redefine words?
Definition of ignore
1. to refuse to take notice of
YOu are still doing that lawyer thing.
My point stands.
I have offered an example of the difference in reporting on the Communist endorsement of Obama, which the media had no interest in, compared to the media coverage of the Klan's "endorsement.
YOu have repeatedly replied to posts with that point in them, but avoided addressing it.
This is obvious evidence that you know it is a valid point.
Show some moral courage and admit it. You will feel better about yourself.
Not "good" but "better".
I have offered an example of the difference in reporting on the Communist endorsement of Obama, which the media had no interest in, compared to the media coverage of the Klan's "endorsement.
YOu have repeatedly replied to posts with that point in them, but avoided addressing it.
This is obvious evidence that you know it is a valid point.
Show some moral courage and admit it. You will feel better about yourself.
Not "good" but "better".
Your attempt to conflate the Alt Right with the Klan and nazis is noted and held against you. YOu should be ashamed..
I see no separation between the alt-right, the KKK of neo-Nazi's. The term, "alt-right" was coined by Richard Spencer, a neo-nazi himself.Which consisted of Neo-nazi's, Alt-right and the KKK.Trump defended the pro-statue protesters,
You have a full list of everyone that attended and demonstrating they were all KKK or neo nazis? Interesting. LInk please..
I posted three groups, you cut that down to two groups.
You either can't even read, or don't care what was posted before lying about what I said.
Your attempt to conflate the Alt Right with the Klan and nazis is noted and held against you. YOu should be ashamed.
And my request for you source on the full list of everyone who attended stands. AND your evidence that Trump had the same data.
