Neo Nazis Are Wonderful People: Here is proof.

[Bush92]

Because Trumps a fascist that believes in many of the same things as neo-nazis.

Please elaborate.

 

[Bush92]

Because Trumps a fascist that believes in many of the same things as neo-nazis.

Show me a quote from Trump to eliminate the Jewish people. I thought he was 100%pro-Israel last time I checked? Show me where he has said blacks, Hispanics, or liberals should be eliminated from society? Don’t use border security and national sovereignty as a race issue either.

 

[Bush92]

Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan hate Jews...but they get free pass...they’re black.
Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Clinton Accused

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, at least they were not victims of a hate crime...white people cannot be victims of hate crimes.

Yes they can be.

Not according to Eric Holder and Barry Sotoro.

Pay attention and listen carefully. Holder is saying that attacking someone for what they say or the position that they take is not covered under the hate crime statute. That is different than attacking someone for who or what they are. And while the law is intended to protect minorities who historically have been victimized, if a white person, or a straight person, or a Christian were attacked, and the motive could be established as hate, I'm willing to be that they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. I don't know if you and Sessions are just being pig headed or playing a sick game. Read the damned law: Hate Crime Laws | CRT | Department of Justice

Knockout game...Holder DoJ went after the white-on-black crime...but fuck the numerous whites attacked by blacks.
White man charged with 'knockout game' hate crime. Racial hypocrisy?

You're confusing issues here. My point was that the laws can be applied equally to any group, including majorities when the motive is hate. You response is that it was not applied equally. That may or may not be the case but it does hat you have done is to use a "moving the goal post" type of logical fallacy, because that is all you have.

PS: It is also a straw man argument because you're inventing an argument that I did not make because you could not refute the argument that I did make. You really should study up on logical fallacies- you might become halfway decent at debating.

 

[harmonica]

blacks commit more hate crimes per capita
and this is not counting the many hate crimes by blacks that are not prosecuted as such
such as:
Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward - Wikipedia

 

[Bush92]

Well, at least they were not victims of a hate crime...white people cannot be victims of hate crimes.

Yes they can be.

Not according to Eric Holder and Barry Sotoro.

Pay attention and listen carefully. Holder is saying that attacking someone for what they say or the position that they take is not covered under the hate crime statute. That is different than attacking someone for who or what they are. And while the law is intended to protect minorities who historically have been victimized, if a white person, or a straight person, or a Christian were attacked, and the motive could be established as hate, I'm willing to be that they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. I don't know if you and Sessions are just being pig headed or playing a sick game. Read the damned law: Hate Crime Laws | CRT | Department of Justice

Knockout game...Holder DoJ went after the white-on-black crime...but fuck the numerous whites attacked by blacks.
White man charged with 'knockout game' hate crime. Racial hypocrisy?

You're confusing issues here. My point was that the laws can be applied equally to any group, including majorities when the motive is hate. You response is that it was not applied equally. That may or may not be the case but it does hat you have done is to use a "moving the goal post" type of logical fallacy, because that is all you have.

PS: It is also a straw man argument because you're inventing an argument that I did not make because you could not refute the argument that I did make. You really should study up on logical fallacies- you might become halfway decent at debating.

The original post was refuted by exposing the hypocrisy that looney liberals like you are afflicted with. But, you used this post to attempt to masturbate your liberal ego because you feel you are smarter than everyone else. In reality your just a homosexual with too much time on his hands.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Well, at least they were not victims of a hate crime...white people cannot be victims of hate crimes.

Yes they can be.

Not according to Eric Holder and Barry Sotoro.

Pay attention and listen carefully. Holder is saying that attacking someone for what they say or the position that they take is not covered under the hate crime statute. That is different than attacking someone for who or what they are. And while the law is intended to protect minorities who historically have been victimized, if a white person, or a straight person, or a Christian were attacked, and the motive could be established as hate, I'm willing to be that they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. I don't know if you and Sessions are just being pig headed or playing a sick game. Read the damned law: Hate Crime Laws | CRT | Department of Justice

Knockout game...Holder DoJ went after the white-on-black crime...but fuck the numerous whites attacked by blacks.
White man charged with 'knockout game' hate crime. Racial hypocrisy?

You're confusing issues here. My point was that the laws can be applied equally to any group, including majorities when the motive is hate. You response is that it was not applied equally. That may or may not be the case but it does hat you have done is to use a "moving the goal post" type of logical fallacy, because that is all you have.

PS: It is also a straw man argument because you're inventing an argument that I did not make because you could not refute the argument that I did make. You really should study up on logical fallacies- you might become halfway decent at debating.

In your last post you said the law was intended to protect minorities. Now you claim it is intended not to. Which is it.

 

[Bush92]

Yes they can be.

Not according to Eric Holder and Barry Sotoro.

Pay attention and listen carefully. Holder is saying that attacking someone for what they say or the position that they take is not covered under the hate crime statute. That is different than attacking someone for who or what they are. And while the law is intended to protect minorities who historically have been victimized, if a white person, or a straight person, or a Christian were attacked, and the motive could be established as hate, I'm willing to be that they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. I don't know if you and Sessions are just being pig headed or playing a sick game. Read the damned law: Hate Crime Laws | CRT | Department of Justice

Knockout game...Holder DoJ went after the white-on-black crime...but fuck the numerous whites attacked by blacks.
White man charged with 'knockout game' hate crime. Racial hypocrisy?

You're confusing issues here. My point was that the laws can be applied equally to any group, including majorities when the motive is hate. You response is that it was not applied equally. That may or may not be the case but it does hat you have done is to use a "moving the goal post" type of logical fallacy, because that is all you have.

PS: It is also a straw man argument because you're inventing an argument that I did not make because you could not refute the argument that I did make. You really should study up on logical fallacies- you might become halfway decent at debating.

In your last post you said the law was intended to protect minorities. Now you claim it is intended not to. Which is it.

Watch out for PP...he/she has awesome “logical fallacy” skills. Lmfao.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes they can be.

Not according to Eric Holder and Barry Sotoro.

Pay attention and listen carefully. Holder is saying that attacking someone for what they say or the position that they take is not covered under the hate crime statute. That is different than attacking someone for who or what they are. And while the law is intended to protect minorities who historically have been victimized, if a white person, or a straight person, or a Christian were attacked, and the motive could be established as hate, I'm willing to be that they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. I don't know if you and Sessions are just being pig headed or playing a sick game. Read the damned law: Hate Crime Laws | CRT | Department of Justice

Knockout game...Holder DoJ went after the white-on-black crime...but fuck the numerous whites attacked by blacks.
White man charged with 'knockout game' hate crime. Racial hypocrisy?

You're confusing issues here. My point was that the laws can be applied equally to any group, including majorities when the motive is hate. You response is that it was not applied equally. That may or may not be the case but it does hat you have done is to use a "moving the goal post" type of logical fallacy, because that is all you have.

PS: It is also a straw man argument because you're inventing an argument that I did not make because you could not refute the argument that I did make. You really should study up on logical fallacies- you might become halfway decent at debating.

The original post was refuted by exposing the hypocrisy that looney liberals like you are afflicted with. But, you used this post to attempt to masturbate your liberal ego because you feel you are smarter than everyone else. In reality your just a homosexual with too much time on his hands.

The OP was refuted. ? Really? The Neo Nazi did not kill the parents? Or he was not a Nazi? And now I'm a hypocrite? Another logical fallacy...this time a

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

I'm not smarter than everyone else but I'm damned sure smarter that you, otherwise I would not be able to keep trapping you like this. And your making an assumption about my sexuality does nothing to convince anyone that you are not a moron.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes they can be.

Not according to Eric Holder and Barry Sotoro.

Pay attention and listen carefully. Holder is saying that attacking someone for what they say or the position that they take is not covered under the hate crime statute. That is different than attacking someone for who or what they are. And while the law is intended to protect minorities who historically have been victimized, if a white person, or a straight person, or a Christian were attacked, and the motive could be established as hate, I'm willing to be that they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. I don't know if you and Sessions are just being pig headed or playing a sick game. Read the damned law: Hate Crime Laws | CRT | Department of Justice

Knockout game...Holder DoJ went after the white-on-black crime...but fuck the numerous whites attacked by blacks.
White man charged with 'knockout game' hate crime. Racial hypocrisy?

You're confusing issues here. My point was that the laws can be applied equally to any group, including majorities when the motive is hate. You response is that it was not applied equally. That may or may not be the case but it does hat you have done is to use a "moving the goal post" type of logical fallacy, because that is all you have.

PS: It is also a straw man argument because you're inventing an argument that I did not make because you could not refute the argument that I did make. You really should study up on logical fallacies- you might become halfway decent at debating.

In your last post you said the law was intended to protect minorities. Now you claim it is intended not to. Which is it.

It is intended to protect minorities- but if your read the wording, you will see that it could be used to protect anyone who is a victim of a crime motivated by hate

 

[Aba Incieni]

Not according to Eric Holder and Barry Sotoro.

Pay attention and listen carefully. Holder is saying that attacking someone for what they say or the position that they take is not covered under the hate crime statute. That is different than attacking someone for who or what they are. And while the law is intended to protect minorities who historically have been victimized, if a white person, or a straight person, or a Christian were attacked, and the motive could be established as hate, I'm willing to be that they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. I don't know if you and Sessions are just being pig headed or playing a sick game. Read the damned law: Hate Crime Laws | CRT | Department of Justice

Knockout game...Holder DoJ went after the white-on-black crime...but fuck the numerous whites attacked by blacks.
White man charged with 'knockout game' hate crime. Racial hypocrisy?

You're confusing issues here. My point was that the laws can be applied equally to any group, including majorities when the motive is hate. You response is that it was not applied equally. That may or may not be the case but it does hat you have done is to use a "moving the goal post" type of logical fallacy, because that is all you have.

PS: It is also a straw man argument because you're inventing an argument that I did not make because you could not refute the argument that I did make. You really should study up on logical fallacies- you might become halfway decent at debating.

In your last post you said the law was intended to protect minorities. Now you claim it is intended not to. Which is it.

It is intended to protect minorities- but if your read the wording, you will see that it could be used to protect anyone who is a victim of a crime motivated by hate

They are contrived laws based on lobbying groups. For example, what if a child kills his parents because he hates them? Or someone kills old people because he hates old people?

Please don't tell me they're based on historical wrongs. If they were wrong then, they're wrong now.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Sounds more like a mentally ill and troubled kid committed a crime of passion than a neo-nazi attack.

 

[Bush92]

Not according to Eric Holder and Barry Sotoro.

Pay attention and listen carefully. Holder is saying that attacking someone for what they say or the position that they take is not covered under the hate crime statute. That is different than attacking someone for who or what they are. And while the law is intended to protect minorities who historically have been victimized, if a white person, or a straight person, or a Christian were attacked, and the motive could be established as hate, I'm willing to be that they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. I don't know if you and Sessions are just being pig headed or playing a sick game. Read the damned law: Hate Crime Laws | CRT | Department of Justice

Knockout game...Holder DoJ went after the white-on-black crime...but fuck the numerous whites attacked by blacks.
White man charged with 'knockout game' hate crime. Racial hypocrisy?

You're confusing issues here. My point was that the laws can be applied equally to any group, including majorities when the motive is hate. You response is that it was not applied equally. That may or may not be the case but it does hat you have done is to use a "moving the goal post" type of logical fallacy, because that is all you have.

PS: It is also a straw man argument because you're inventing an argument that I did not make because you could not refute the argument that I did make. You really should study up on logical fallacies- you might become halfway decent at debating.

The original post was refuted by exposing the hypocrisy that looney liberals like you are afflicted with. But, you used this post to attempt to masturbate your liberal ego because you feel you are smarter than everyone else. In reality your just a homosexual with too much time on his hands.

The OP was refuted. ? Really? The Neo Nazi did not kill the parents? Or he was not a Nazi? And now I'm a hypocrite? Another logical fallacy...this time a

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

I'm not smarter than everyone else but I'm damned sure smarter that you, otherwise I would not be able to keep trapping you like this. And your making an assumption about my sexuality does nothing to convince anyone that you are not a moron.

OMG...you “trapped”me. Not making an “assumption” about your sexuality. Just admit it. Your just another whining LBGT poster that wants to connect Trump to neo Nazis.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I know a few "neo nazis", all of them are good, hardworking family men in my experience. It's not like every other political movement doesn't have crazy people.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Most neo nazis I've met are just frustrated young men letting off steam with extreme rhetoric....they would hardly be the type to randomly attack people for their race or sexual proclivities physically.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/bor...sually-reserves-for-child-molesters-and-Nazis



WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In comments to reporters at the White House on Friday, Donald J. Trump stirred controversy by lavishing an alleged wife beater with praise that he historically has reserved for child molesters and Nazis.

Reporters who heard the President’s comments were taken aback since, in the past, the President had given no indication that he held wife beaters in the same high esteem in which he holds supporters of child abuse and white supremacy.

 

[JGalt]

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/bor...sually-reserves-for-child-molesters-and-Nazis



WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In comments to reporters at the White House on Friday, Donald J. Trump stirred controversy by lavishing an alleged wife beater with praise that he historically has reserved for child molesters and Nazis.

Reporters who heard the President’s comments were taken aback since, in the past, the President had given no indication that he held wife beaters in the same high esteem in which he holds supporters of child abuse and white supremacy.

Wait...what? Nazis beat their wives?

 

[Correll]

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/bor...sually-reserves-for-child-molesters-and-Nazis



WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In comments to reporters at the White House on Friday, Donald J. Trump stirred controversy by lavishing an alleged wife beater with praise that he historically has reserved for child molesters and Nazis.

Reporters who heard the President’s comments were taken aback since, in the past, the President had given no indication that he held wife beaters in the same high esteem in which he holds supporters of child abuse and white supremacy.

And liberals think this crap is funny?


What a bunch of hateful assholes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/bor...sually-reserves-for-child-molesters-and-Nazis



WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In comments to reporters at the White House on Friday, Donald J. Trump stirred controversy by lavishing an alleged wife beater with praise that he historically has reserved for child molesters and Nazis.

Reporters who heard the President’s comments were taken aback since, in the past, the President had given no indication that he held wife beaters in the same high esteem in which he holds supporters of child abuse and white supremacy.

And liberals think this crap is funny?


What a bunch of hateful assholes.

Do you understand what satire is?

 

[Correll]

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/bor...sually-reserves-for-child-molesters-and-Nazis



WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In comments to reporters at the White House on Friday, Donald J. Trump stirred controversy by lavishing an alleged wife beater with praise that he historically has reserved for child molesters and Nazis.

Reporters who heard the President’s comments were taken aback since, in the past, the President had given no indication that he held wife beaters in the same high esteem in which he holds supporters of child abuse and white supremacy.

And liberals think this crap is funny?


What a bunch of hateful assholes.

Do you understand what satire is?

Yes, and the message carried by this satire, ie that President Trump supports child molesters and Nazis, is very hateful, turning Americans against each other and tearing this nation apart.


What happened to unity?