Racist groups vs Free Speech, i've converted...

[Pumpkin Row]

If they feel that way, they aren't allies. Just like if they back ANTIFA, they're not rightists. ANTIFA are thugs, and deserve to be treated like thugs. You only only think they should be treated separately from the white supremacists because they're admitted leftists, and your kind assume the white supremacists are right wing.

I'm sure the polls are just as accurate as they were during the election. They interview whoever they want, and only accept the opinions they want.

Not everybody is a puppet excusist to the leader like you appear to be. There were plenty of political allies to Trump that recognized that he fucked up. Just because they spoke out against it l, that doesn't make them a leftist. That's about the dumbest logic I've heard today.

Before I address you ANTIFA comment I have to ask if you know the name of the main Nazi and white supremacists groups that were protesting and who aggravated all the violence in charlottsville? Please respond by posting the names of those groups

There's a difference between being a puppet and supporting a terrorist organization because of pressure from the left.

It's hard to recognize a screw-up that didn't occur. He called out ANTIFA because they deserved to be called out. They were there to cause trouble, and thus shouldn't have been there at all.

ANTIFA caused all of the violence, as they showed up specifically to harass the protestors who had permits, because they had views different from their own.

I know the Knights Party was there, the American Nazi Party, Neo-Confederates, and Traditional Workers party. To my knowledge, and I'm not actually sure if this number is accurate, the combined number was roughly 50.

Listen to yourself, you can't even get the facts straight. ANTIFA caused all the violence? Except of course the mowing down of downs of people and the murder of an innocent girl of course. You forgot about that little fact.

ANTIFA sucks, they are no good and from my limited knowledge of them I've only seen anarchist destruction and violence which is not the right way to protest. That can be said and it can also be said that the way trump handled his response was a complete fumble. If you were fair minded and weren't playing puppet then you would see that.

Of course ANTIFA caused the violence, they shouldn't have shown up to shut down another protest in the first place. They were there for a fight.

Yes, they do. How was it a fumble? What do you disagree with about his speech? Probably simply the fact that your leftist buddies were lumped together with the other thugs, where they should be, and the fact that Donald Trump was the one making the speech.

Both were there to fight and provoke. You obviously don't have a good handle on the events that happened nor do you have an objective viewpoint on Trumps speech when he minimized the condemnation of those hate groups. You don't seem to be aware of the shuttering reaction that it sent through the nation. You simply point blame at "leftists" without really looking at the people that reacted critically, many of whom were supporters of Trump that could objectively call him out on reacting inappropriately. Your immaturity and bias is very apparent.

The irony of saying one doesn't have an objective viewpoint while not having an objective viewpoint. Trump condemned those that needed to be, and that's what everyone wanted to see. You only think he minimized the role of the white supremacists because he also condemned ANTIFA when nobody was calling for it. Just because you and yours didn't ask for it, doesn't mean it wasn't the right course of action. Addressing all guilty parties doesn't minimize the role of one of said guilty parties.

I understand perfectly what happened, I'm just not looking at them through lefty goggles.

The only ones upset by his speech are those who sympathize with ANTIFA, who are in a permanent state of butthurt in the first place.

 

[Slade3200]

Not everybody is a puppet excusist to the leader like you appear to be. There were plenty of political allies to Trump that recognized that he fucked up. Just because they spoke out against it l, that doesn't make them a leftist. That's about the dumbest logic I've heard today.

Before I address you ANTIFA comment I have to ask if you know the name of the main Nazi and white supremacists groups that were protesting and who aggravated all the violence in charlottsville? Please respond by posting the names of those groups

There's a difference between being a puppet and supporting a terrorist organization because of pressure from the left.

It's hard to recognize a screw-up that didn't occur. He called out ANTIFA because they deserved to be called out. They were there to cause trouble, and thus shouldn't have been there at all.

ANTIFA caused all of the violence, as they showed up specifically to harass the protestors who had permits, because they had views different from their own.

I know the Knights Party was there, the American Nazi Party, Neo-Confederates, and Traditional Workers party. To my knowledge, and I'm not actually sure if this number is accurate, the combined number was roughly 50.

Listen to yourself, you can't even get the facts straight. ANTIFA caused all the violence? Except of course the mowing down of downs of people and the murder of an innocent girl of course. You forgot about that little fact.

ANTIFA sucks, they are no good and from my limited knowledge of them I've only seen anarchist destruction and violence which is not the right way to protest. That can be said and it can also be said that the way trump handled his response was a complete fumble. If you were fair minded and weren't playing puppet then you would see that.

Of course ANTIFA caused the violence, they shouldn't have shown up to shut down another protest in the first place. They were there for a fight.

Yes, they do. How was it a fumble? What do you disagree with about his speech? Probably simply the fact that your leftist buddies were lumped together with the other thugs, where they should be, and the fact that Donald Trump was the one making the speech.

Both were there to fight and provoke. You obviously don't have a good handle on the events that happened nor do you have an objective viewpoint on Trumps speech when he minimized the condemnation of those hate groups. You don't seem to be aware of the shuttering reaction that it sent through the nation. You simply point blame at "leftists" without really looking at the people that reacted critically, many of whom were supporters of Trump that could objectively call him out on reacting inappropriately. Your immaturity and bias is very apparent.

He did NOT minimize hate groups ---- in fact, he included ALL of them - from both sides.

Yeah well I guess it's just going over your head. It was pretty damn obvious to many hence the backlash

 

[Slade3200]

Wow, big surprise that you would say that. There are always going to be the overdramatic that keep pushing. Just like there will always be the hard headed "tough" guys that won't give an inch. The vast majority of this country lives in the middle and is capable of reasonable debate and decision making. How about we focus on those and stop bitching about the wingnuts to try and make our points stronger and demonize everybody that sympathizes with elements of that side.

I'm sorry but to me it's the truth. People complain that this offends, them, that offends them, this person won't bake a cake for them, this guy's microaggression has upset me, that girl is fat shaming that other girl, then that woman feels shamed by other women because she lost her baby belly in 3 weeks by working out just as hard as she did before she got pregnant. Everyone is offended, all the time. It used to be the purview of the social right to get butt hurt over things on TV or radio or said in the town square, Now the Left has taken over the puritanical need to never see anything that offends them,ever. And if they do, god help the person responsible because some government agency will be on your ass so fast the fine will leave a burn mark.

I beg to differ on your TV arguement. TV shows are worse than I've ever seen. Graphic violence, sexual scene and language is much less senators and much more grotesque than I ever remember seeing

The thing is the right has pretty much given up on changing that via legislative action, judicial action, or bullying government in general to go after it. They met the 1st amendment and the amendment won.

My point is that today's progressive has more in common with those moral majority idiots from the 80's than classical liberals, and ironically more in common with Bull Connor than MLK.

You complain the the left is overly sensitive and offended by everything but are also responsible for the uncensored offensive crap that is on TV. How does that logic work?

I am not blaming anyone for what's on TV. I love violent shows like Game of Thrones. If I ever have kids and I don't want them to watch it, it's up to me to figure it out.

I am comparing the old Moral Majority to today's progressives with regards to their tactics and their almost dogmatic demand that everyone like what they like, or at least do what they want to do hidden somewhere in a closet (ironic, no?)

I see that with some groups and I ignore them. I don't think it is as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. The taking down of the confederate flag makes sense, that taking down of some statues that are deemed inappropriate by the communities makes sense. Those that want Jefferson, Washington and Columbus statues torn down are going too far, in my opinion

 

[Slade3200]

Not everybody is a puppet excusist to the leader like you appear to be. There were plenty of political allies to Trump that recognized that he fucked up. Just because they spoke out against it l, that doesn't make them a leftist. That's about the dumbest logic I've heard today.

Before I address you ANTIFA comment I have to ask if you know the name of the main Nazi and white supremacists groups that were protesting and who aggravated all the violence in charlottsville? Please respond by posting the names of those groups

There's a difference between being a puppet and supporting a terrorist organization because of pressure from the left.

It's hard to recognize a screw-up that didn't occur. He called out ANTIFA because they deserved to be called out. They were there to cause trouble, and thus shouldn't have been there at all.

ANTIFA caused all of the violence, as they showed up specifically to harass the protestors who had permits, because they had views different from their own.

I know the Knights Party was there, the American Nazi Party, Neo-Confederates, and Traditional Workers party. To my knowledge, and I'm not actually sure if this number is accurate, the combined number was roughly 50.

Listen to yourself, you can't even get the facts straight. ANTIFA caused all the violence? Except of course the mowing down of downs of people and the murder of an innocent girl of course. You forgot about that little fact.

ANTIFA sucks, they are no good and from my limited knowledge of them I've only seen anarchist destruction and violence which is not the right way to protest. That can be said and it can also be said that the way trump handled his response was a complete fumble. If you were fair minded and weren't playing puppet then you would see that.

Of course ANTIFA caused the violence, they shouldn't have shown up to shut down another protest in the first place. They were there for a fight.

Yes, they do. How was it a fumble? What do you disagree with about his speech? Probably simply the fact that your leftist buddies were lumped together with the other thugs, where they should be, and the fact that Donald Trump was the one making the speech.

Both were there to fight and provoke. You obviously don't have a good handle on the events that happened nor do you have an objective viewpoint on Trumps speech when he minimized the condemnation of those hate groups. You don't seem to be aware of the shuttering reaction that it sent through the nation. You simply point blame at "leftists" without really looking at the people that reacted critically, many of whom were supporters of Trump that could objectively call him out on reacting inappropriately. Your immaturity and bias is very apparent.

The irony of saying one doesn't have an objective viewpoint while not having an objective viewpoint. Trump condemned those that needed to be, and that's what everyone wanted to see. You only think he minimized the role of the white supremacists because he also condemned ANTIFA when nobody was calling for it. Just because you and yours didn't ask for it, doesn't mean it wasn't the right course of action. Addressing all guilty parties doesn't minimize the role of one of said guilty parties.

I understand perfectly what happened, I'm just not looking at them through lefty goggles.

The only ones upset by his speech are those who sympathize with ANTIFA, who are in a permanent state of butthurt in the first place.

Trump didn't say ANTIFA, and I literally just posted about how they suck... you don't know what you're talking about

 

[martybegan]

I'm sorry but to me it's the truth. People complain that this offends, them, that offends them, this person won't bake a cake for them, this guy's microaggression has upset me, that girl is fat shaming that other girl, then that woman feels shamed by other women because she lost her baby belly in 3 weeks by working out just as hard as she did before she got pregnant. Everyone is offended, all the time. It used to be the purview of the social right to get butt hurt over things on TV or radio or said in the town square, Now the Left has taken over the puritanical need to never see anything that offends them,ever. And if they do, god help the person responsible because some government agency will be on your ass so fast the fine will leave a burn mark.

I beg to differ on your TV arguement. TV shows are worse than I've ever seen. Graphic violence, sexual scene and language is much less senators and much more grotesque than I ever remember seeing

The thing is the right has pretty much given up on changing that via legislative action, judicial action, or bullying government in general to go after it. They met the 1st amendment and the amendment won.

My point is that today's progressive has more in common with those moral majority idiots from the 80's than classical liberals, and ironically more in common with Bull Connor than MLK.

You complain the the left is overly sensitive and offended by everything but are also responsible for the uncensored offensive crap that is on TV. How does that logic work?

I am not blaming anyone for what's on TV. I love violent shows like Game of Thrones. If I ever have kids and I don't want them to watch it, it's up to me to figure it out.

I am comparing the old Moral Majority to today's progressives with regards to their tactics and their almost dogmatic demand that everyone like what they like, or at least do what they want to do hidden somewhere in a closet (ironic, no?)

I see that with some groups and I ignore them. I don't think it is as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. The taking down of the confederate flag makes sense, that taking down of some statues that are deemed inappropriate by the communities makes sense. Those that want Jefferson, Washington and Columbus statues torn down are going too far, in my opinion

The problem is the type of person that really really wants these things down doesn't draw a line. They keep pushing and pushing, finding more and more reasons to complain. They will never be satisfied. Removing history, even uncomfortable history is never a good idea when done at the demands of the mob. The mob is short sighted, and is only encouraged when you placate it.

When the Allies wiped Hitler and all the other Nazi leaders and their symbols off the map, they did it right away, and with a ruthlessness that was dictated by a desire to never see that type of German government ever happen again. Right now who except the most idiotic leftists and the brain dead white power morons themselves ever see American nazism/white identity/nationalism ever taking hold?

 

[Spare_change]

There's a difference between being a puppet and supporting a terrorist organization because of pressure from the left.

It's hard to recognize a screw-up that didn't occur. He called out ANTIFA because they deserved to be called out. They were there to cause trouble, and thus shouldn't have been there at all.

ANTIFA caused all of the violence, as they showed up specifically to harass the protestors who had permits, because they had views different from their own.

I know the Knights Party was there, the American Nazi Party, Neo-Confederates, and Traditional Workers party. To my knowledge, and I'm not actually sure if this number is accurate, the combined number was roughly 50.

Listen to yourself, you can't even get the facts straight. ANTIFA caused all the violence? Except of course the mowing down of downs of people and the murder of an innocent girl of course. You forgot about that little fact.

ANTIFA sucks, they are no good and from my limited knowledge of them I've only seen anarchist destruction and violence which is not the right way to protest. That can be said and it can also be said that the way trump handled his response was a complete fumble. If you were fair minded and weren't playing puppet then you would see that.

Of course ANTIFA caused the violence, they shouldn't have shown up to shut down another protest in the first place. They were there for a fight.

Yes, they do. How was it a fumble? What do you disagree with about his speech? Probably simply the fact that your leftist buddies were lumped together with the other thugs, where they should be, and the fact that Donald Trump was the one making the speech.

Both were there to fight and provoke. You obviously don't have a good handle on the events that happened nor do you have an objective viewpoint on Trumps speech when he minimized the condemnation of those hate groups. You don't seem to be aware of the shuttering reaction that it sent through the nation. You simply point blame at "leftists" without really looking at the people that reacted critically, many of whom were supporters of Trump that could objectively call him out on reacting inappropriately. Your immaturity and bias is very apparent.

He did NOT minimize hate groups ---- in fact, he included ALL of them - from both sides.

Yeah well I guess it's just going over your head. It was pretty damn obvious to many hence the backlash

Actually, it was more of the continued attempt to pervert statements in order to forward your own political agenda. Pretty damn dishonest, if you ask me, when you can't even find legitimate points of disagreement to discuss.

 

[Slade3200]

I beg to differ on your TV arguement. TV shows are worse than I've ever seen. Graphic violence, sexual scene and language is much less senators and much more grotesque than I ever remember seeing

The thing is the right has pretty much given up on changing that via legislative action, judicial action, or bullying government in general to go after it. They met the 1st amendment and the amendment won.

My point is that today's progressive has more in common with those moral majority idiots from the 80's than classical liberals, and ironically more in common with Bull Connor than MLK.

You complain the the left is overly sensitive and offended by everything but are also responsible for the uncensored offensive crap that is on TV. How does that logic work?

I am not blaming anyone for what's on TV. I love violent shows like Game of Thrones. If I ever have kids and I don't want them to watch it, it's up to me to figure it out.

I am comparing the old Moral Majority to today's progressives with regards to their tactics and their almost dogmatic demand that everyone like what they like, or at least do what they want to do hidden somewhere in a closet (ironic, no?)

I see that with some groups and I ignore them. I don't think it is as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. The taking down of the confederate flag makes sense, that taking down of some statues that are deemed inappropriate by the communities makes sense. Those that want Jefferson, Washington and Columbus statues torn down are going too far, in my opinion

The problem is the type of person that really really wants these things down doesn't draw a line. They keep pushing and pushing, finding more and more reasons to complain. They will never be satisfied. Removing history, even uncomfortable history is never a good idea when done at the demands of the mob. The mob is short sighted, and is only encouraged when you placate it.

When the Allies wiped Hitler and all the other Nazi leaders and their symbols off the map, they did it right away, and with a ruthlessness that was dictated by a desire to never see that type of German government ever happen again. Right now who except the most idiotic leftists and the brain dead white power morons themselves ever see American nazism/white identity/nationalism ever taking hold?

You make a good point. The German people were smart enough to reject Nazism right after the war, where it took the US over 100 years to accept blacks as equals. Something we actually are still struggling with. You know, Lee even advocated not to build statues and monuments for himself or the confederate because he knew it would be divisive... smart man.

 

[Slade3200]

Listen to yourself, you can't even get the facts straight. ANTIFA caused all the violence? Except of course the mowing down of downs of people and the murder of an innocent girl of course. You forgot about that little fact.

ANTIFA sucks, they are no good and from my limited knowledge of them I've only seen anarchist destruction and violence which is not the right way to protest. That can be said and it can also be said that the way trump handled his response was a complete fumble. If you were fair minded and weren't playing puppet then you would see that.

Of course ANTIFA caused the violence, they shouldn't have shown up to shut down another protest in the first place. They were there for a fight.

Yes, they do. How was it a fumble? What do you disagree with about his speech? Probably simply the fact that your leftist buddies were lumped together with the other thugs, where they should be, and the fact that Donald Trump was the one making the speech.

Both were there to fight and provoke. You obviously don't have a good handle on the events that happened nor do you have an objective viewpoint on Trumps speech when he minimized the condemnation of those hate groups. You don't seem to be aware of the shuttering reaction that it sent through the nation. You simply point blame at "leftists" without really looking at the people that reacted critically, many of whom were supporters of Trump that could objectively call him out on reacting inappropriately. Your immaturity and bias is very apparent.

He did NOT minimize hate groups ---- in fact, he included ALL of them - from both sides.

Yeah well I guess it's just going over your head. It was pretty damn obvious to many hence the backlash

Actually, it was more of the continued attempt to pervert statements in order to forward your own political agenda. Pretty damn dishonest, if you ask me, when you can't even find legitimate points of disagreement to discuss.

How was bob corker and other trump allies that spoke out trying to progress their agendas?

 

[Spare_change]

Of course ANTIFA caused the violence, they shouldn't have shown up to shut down another protest in the first place. They were there for a fight.

Yes, they do. How was it a fumble? What do you disagree with about his speech? Probably simply the fact that your leftist buddies were lumped together with the other thugs, where they should be, and the fact that Donald Trump was the one making the speech.

Both were there to fight and provoke. You obviously don't have a good handle on the events that happened nor do you have an objective viewpoint on Trumps speech when he minimized the condemnation of those hate groups. You don't seem to be aware of the shuttering reaction that it sent through the nation. You simply point blame at "leftists" without really looking at the people that reacted critically, many of whom were supporters of Trump that could objectively call him out on reacting inappropriately. Your immaturity and bias is very apparent.

He did NOT minimize hate groups ---- in fact, he included ALL of them - from both sides.

Yeah well I guess it's just going over your head. It was pretty damn obvious to many hence the backlash

Actually, it was more of the continued attempt to pervert statements in order to forward your own political agenda. Pretty damn dishonest, if you ask me, when you can't even find legitimate points of disagreement to discuss.

How was bob corker and other trump allies that spoke out trying to progress their agendas?

i will assume that is a satirical question - not intended for actual discussion.

They have a political agenda, which may or may not be in line with Trump's. Any question about whose political agenda they were trying to advance.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

There's a difference between being a puppet and supporting a terrorist organization because of pressure from the left.

It's hard to recognize a screw-up that didn't occur. He called out ANTIFA because they deserved to be called out. They were there to cause trouble, and thus shouldn't have been there at all.

ANTIFA caused all of the violence, as they showed up specifically to harass the protestors who had permits, because they had views different from their own.

I know the Knights Party was there, the American Nazi Party, Neo-Confederates, and Traditional Workers party. To my knowledge, and I'm not actually sure if this number is accurate, the combined number was roughly 50.

Listen to yourself, you can't even get the facts straight. ANTIFA caused all the violence? Except of course the mowing down of downs of people and the murder of an innocent girl of course. You forgot about that little fact.

ANTIFA sucks, they are no good and from my limited knowledge of them I've only seen anarchist destruction and violence which is not the right way to protest. That can be said and it can also be said that the way trump handled his response was a complete fumble. If you were fair minded and weren't playing puppet then you would see that.

Of course ANTIFA caused the violence, they shouldn't have shown up to shut down another protest in the first place. They were there for a fight.

Yes, they do. How was it a fumble? What do you disagree with about his speech? Probably simply the fact that your leftist buddies were lumped together with the other thugs, where they should be, and the fact that Donald Trump was the one making the speech.

Both were there to fight and provoke. You obviously don't have a good handle on the events that happened nor do you have an objective viewpoint on Trumps speech when he minimized the condemnation of those hate groups. You don't seem to be aware of the shuttering reaction that it sent through the nation. You simply point blame at "leftists" without really looking at the people that reacted critically, many of whom were supporters of Trump that could objectively call him out on reacting inappropriately. Your immaturity and bias is very apparent.

The irony of saying one doesn't have an objective viewpoint while not having an objective viewpoint. Trump condemned those that needed to be, and that's what everyone wanted to see. You only think he minimized the role of the white supremacists because he also condemned ANTIFA when nobody was calling for it. Just because you and yours didn't ask for it, doesn't mean it wasn't the right course of action. Addressing all guilty parties doesn't minimize the role of one of said guilty parties.

I understand perfectly what happened, I'm just not looking at them through lefty goggles.

The only ones upset by his speech are those who sympathize with ANTIFA, who are in a permanent state of butthurt in the first place.

Trump didn't say ANTIFA, and I literally just posted about how they suck... you don't know what you're talking about

In which case you would have no problem with how he addressed the issue.

 

[Slade3200]

Both were there to fight and provoke. You obviously don't have a good handle on the events that happened nor do you have an objective viewpoint on Trumps speech when he minimized the condemnation of those hate groups. You don't seem to be aware of the shuttering reaction that it sent through the nation. You simply point blame at "leftists" without really looking at the people that reacted critically, many of whom were supporters of Trump that could objectively call him out on reacting inappropriately. Your immaturity and bias is very apparent.

He did NOT minimize hate groups ---- in fact, he included ALL of them - from both sides.

Yeah well I guess it's just going over your head. It was pretty damn obvious to many hence the backlash

Actually, it was more of the continued attempt to pervert statements in order to forward your own political agenda. Pretty damn dishonest, if you ask me, when you can't even find legitimate points of disagreement to discuss.

How was bob corker and other trump allies that spoke out trying to progress their agendas?

i will assume that is a satirical question - not intended for actual discussion.

They have a political agenda, which may or may not be in line with Trump's. Any question about whose political agenda they were trying to advance.

Corker has been a supporter of trump from early on. They push the same agenda items. It serves him no political advantage as far as progressing his agenda to come out against Trump. He did it because it was an honest response. If you disagree then how about you tell me your theory about why he would lie to the American people to trash the president and how it helps his agenda...

 

[Slade3200]

Listen to yourself, you can't even get the facts straight. ANTIFA caused all the violence? Except of course the mowing down of downs of people and the murder of an innocent girl of course. You forgot about that little fact.

ANTIFA sucks, they are no good and from my limited knowledge of them I've only seen anarchist destruction and violence which is not the right way to protest. That can be said and it can also be said that the way trump handled his response was a complete fumble. If you were fair minded and weren't playing puppet then you would see that.

Of course ANTIFA caused the violence, they shouldn't have shown up to shut down another protest in the first place. They were there for a fight.

Yes, they do. How was it a fumble? What do you disagree with about his speech? Probably simply the fact that your leftist buddies were lumped together with the other thugs, where they should be, and the fact that Donald Trump was the one making the speech.

Both were there to fight and provoke. You obviously don't have a good handle on the events that happened nor do you have an objective viewpoint on Trumps speech when he minimized the condemnation of those hate groups. You don't seem to be aware of the shuttering reaction that it sent through the nation. You simply point blame at "leftists" without really looking at the people that reacted critically, many of whom were supporters of Trump that could objectively call him out on reacting inappropriately. Your immaturity and bias is very apparent.

The irony of saying one doesn't have an objective viewpoint while not having an objective viewpoint. Trump condemned those that needed to be, and that's what everyone wanted to see. You only think he minimized the role of the white supremacists because he also condemned ANTIFA when nobody was calling for it. Just because you and yours didn't ask for it, doesn't mean it wasn't the right course of action. Addressing all guilty parties doesn't minimize the role of one of said guilty parties.

I understand perfectly what happened, I'm just not looking at them through lefty goggles.

The only ones upset by his speech are those who sympathize with ANTIFA, who are in a permanent state of butthurt in the first place.

Trump didn't say ANTIFA, and I literally just posted about how they suck... you don't know what you're talking about

In which case you would have no problem with how he addressed the issue.

In any case where he didn't come off like a total douchebag. Where he came out with the same anger and pointed retribution about blantant racists groups as he does about the media or his political opponents.

 

[Rustic]

Of course ANTIFA caused the violence, they shouldn't have shown up to shut down another protest in the first place. They were there for a fight.

Yes, they do. How was it a fumble? What do you disagree with about his speech? Probably simply the fact that your leftist buddies were lumped together with the other thugs, where they should be, and the fact that Donald Trump was the one making the speech.

Both were there to fight and provoke. You obviously don't have a good handle on the events that happened nor do you have an objective viewpoint on Trumps speech when he minimized the condemnation of those hate groups. You don't seem to be aware of the shuttering reaction that it sent through the nation. You simply point blame at "leftists" without really looking at the people that reacted critically, many of whom were supporters of Trump that could objectively call him out on reacting inappropriately. Your immaturity and bias is very apparent.

The irony of saying one doesn't have an objective viewpoint while not having an objective viewpoint. Trump condemned those that needed to be, and that's what everyone wanted to see. You only think he minimized the role of the white supremacists because he also condemned ANTIFA when nobody was calling for it. Just because you and yours didn't ask for it, doesn't mean it wasn't the right course of action. Addressing all guilty parties doesn't minimize the role of one of said guilty parties.

I understand perfectly what happened, I'm just not looking at them through lefty goggles.

The only ones upset by his speech are those who sympathize with ANTIFA, who are in a permanent state of butthurt in the first place.

Trump didn't say ANTIFA, and I literally just posted about how they suck... you don't know what you're talking about

In which case you would have no problem with how he addressed the issue.

In any case where he didn't come off like a total douchebag. Where he came out with the same anger and pointed retribution about blantant racists groups as he does about the media or his political opponents.

He came across as not politically correct, refreshing. Political correctness is for fucked up pieces of shit

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

What hate, and Racism in those statues?

The Confederates were economic extreme Capitalists.

They saw slavery as a means of profit, nothing to do with hate, and racism.

For goodness sake, slavery was a business, which imported Blacks into their own backyards.

How is that racist?
How many racists do you know want to import Blacks into their own backyards?

What kind of racist would want to import blacks into their back yards? Uh, the kind that see blacks a subhuman work horses whose only purpose is to serve their master. Maybe use the women preparing the meals and for the occasional rape. Get the guys out in the fields to do the grunt work. Yeah, those kind of racists DID that. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?

Uh, why would Racists want to bring an inferior people into their own backyards?

Furthermore, why would they support the numbers of an inferior race to grow, in their backyards.

Wouldn't a real Racist want to avoid Blacks, rather than support them in their backyards?

The bottom-line is that Slavery was a business, it's sole purpose was to profit.

It's not a case of racism, it's a case of Capitalist greed.

The same reason people bought Black slaves to this country, is the same reason people bought Mexican illegals to this country.

It's all about mega profits.

I just explained it and you ask again? Not my problem if you can't understand

Just about all racists are against Blacks being in the U,S.

Confederate types bought Blacks here.

What's there to get about it not being racism, but rather a business?

Your having a hard time making sense aren't you? Confederate types brought Blacks here so they could own them as slaves. So they could work them, wipe them, rape them, buy them and sell them. They saw them as property. It as humans. Slavery is now illegal so all the racist douchebags don't want them here anymore. It's a disgusting act of humanity. You seem grossly unaware

No, it is you who are not making sense.

Confederates were multiculturalists, who bought Blacks here for profits.

Slavery was big business, they needed people to pick plants for cheaper, so they took slaves.
Sound familiar?
Sounds exactly like the business Capitalist Multiculturalists who hire illegal immigrants for cheap labor profits.


But, I know you're obviously a product of the failed U.S education system, and can't think for yourself due to your sub-Human Western European heritage.

 

[Rustic]

What kind of racist would want to import blacks into their back yards? Uh, the kind that see blacks a subhuman work horses whose only purpose is to serve their master. Maybe use the women preparing the meals and for the occasional rape. Get the guys out in the fields to do the grunt work. Yeah, those kind of racists DID that. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?

Uh, why would Racists want to bring an inferior people into their own backyards?

Furthermore, why would they support the numbers of an inferior race to grow, in their backyards.

Wouldn't a real Racist want to avoid Blacks, rather than support them in their backyards?

The bottom-line is that Slavery was a business, it's sole purpose was to profit.

It's not a case of racism, it's a case of Capitalist greed.

The same reason people bought Black slaves to this country, is the same reason people bought Mexican illegals to this country.

It's all about mega profits.

I just explained it and you ask again? Not my problem if you can't understand

Just about all racists are against Blacks being in the U,S.

Confederate types bought Blacks here.

What's there to get about it not being racism, but rather a business?

Your having a hard time making sense aren't you? Confederate types brought Blacks here so they could own them as slaves. So they could work them, wipe them, rape them, buy them and sell them. They saw them as property. It as humans. Slavery is now illegal so all the racist douchebags don't want them here anymore. It's a disgusting act of humanity. You seem grossly unaware

No, it is you who are not making sense.

Confederates were multiculturalists, who bought Blacks here for profits.

Slavery was big business, they needed people to pick plants for cheaper, so they took slaves.
Sound familiar?
Sounds exactly like the business Capitalist Multiculturalists who hire illegal immigrants for cheap labor profits.


But, I know you're obviously a product of the failed U.S education system, and can't think for yourself due to your sub-Human Western European heritage.

The original racist/slave owners of this country were American Indians… Shit for brains

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So, you sound like you hate diversity.
You seem to want to destroy the diversity of the World.

Why should we destroy diverse, and unique heritages when we can humanely just enforce immigration laws?

No, race is not really superficial.
There's clear sweeping disparities between the races in intelligence.

No, you can't just explain away the disparities of intelligence by only environmental explanations.

Man, you are really struggling to give direct answers... let's stop with the foolish assumptions and just talk straight shall we?

It appears you are making the argument that you care about heratage because you don't want to water down the intellect of the human race. Is that right?

Actually I don't support anyone's heritage to vanish.

I don't support the endangered San Bushman to vanish either, even though they're not smart.

However, I most certainly am also concerned with the watering down of the intellect of Humanity as well.

So you don't want the intellect watered down and that's why you're so concerned about heritage. Ok so what do you proposed we do about it

Actually I care about heritage point blank too, you don't because you don't have real Human feelings, and sentiments.

Of course I care about heritage, I find if fascinating and have done a ton of work and research about my own families lineage. The difference between you and I is I appreciate and celebrate the diversity of my ancestors and enjoy the traditions and history that has been passed down from my family through the generations. You see that as a threat for some crazy reason that you still haven't explained.

I've asked for this explaination from you multiple times and you keep bouncing around with indirect answers about intelligence and heritage, but you fail to intelligently explain yourself or present a clear argument to defend your position. So I'll ask AGAIN. Explain why a "pure" heratiage is so important to you and what it is you want to do with society.

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

What hate, and Racism in those statues?

The Confederates were economic extreme Capitalists.

They saw slavery as a means of profit, nothing to do with hate, and racism.

For goodness sake, slavery was a business, which imported Blacks into their own backyards.

How is that racist?
How many racists do you know want to import Blacks into their own backyards?

Hmm South Carolinas reason for secession was slavery was needed since "none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun"

Louisiana's wasn't just to preserve slavery but to preserve "AFRICAN slavery".

Alabama said no freedom because it would "gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans."

Texas' secession article said "ll white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both"

Jefferson Davis the president of the Confederacy said "white men have an equality resulting from a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race. The mechanic who comes among us, employing the less intellectual labor of the African, takes the position which only a master-workman occupies"

Alexander Stephens their Vice President said "With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. "

Joseph E Brown, Governor of Georgia said "The negro is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men."

Mississippi Senator Albert Brown when asking if they should try and make slaves Christians said "They are a stiff-necked and rebellious race, and I have little hope that they will receive the blessing"

Mississippi's other Senator John Williams said "This other thing for which we fought was the supremacy of the white man’s civilization in the country which he proudly claimed his own"

The Confederate Veteran (official paper of Confederate soldiers) 40 years after the war said "The kindliest relation that ever existed between the two races in this country, or that ever will, was the ante-bellum relation of master and slave"

James Henry Hammond, governor from South Carolina said in his reasonings for emancipation that "We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. "

Robert E Lee said "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race,"



So yes, if you want to burn A LOT of books, speeches, writings, letters, and articles of the time that slavery was about the dominance of the white race over the black race, then you can make your point. But you've got a WHOLE BUNCH of history you need to destroy first.

The Confederate types were Multiculturalists for goodness sake, they're the reason Blacks are in this nation.

That's not racism, slavery was all about mega profits for businesses.

 

[Slade3200]

Man, you are really struggling to give direct answers... let's stop with the foolish assumptions and just talk straight shall we?

It appears you are making the argument that you care about heratage because you don't want to water down the intellect of the human race. Is that right?

Actually I don't support anyone's heritage to vanish.

I don't support the endangered San Bushman to vanish either, even though they're not smart.

However, I most certainly am also concerned with the watering down of the intellect of Humanity as well.

So you don't want the intellect watered down and that's why you're so concerned about heritage. Ok so what do you proposed we do about it

Actually I care about heritage point blank too, you don't because you don't have real Human feelings, and sentiments.

Of course I care about heritage, I find if fascinating and have done a ton of work and research about my own families lineage. The difference between you and I is I appreciate and celebrate the diversity of my ancestors and enjoy the traditions and history that has been passed down from my family through the generations. You see that as a threat for some crazy reason that you still haven't explained.

I've asked for this explaination from you multiple times and you keep bouncing around with indirect answers about intelligence and heritage, but you fail to intelligently explain yourself or present a clear argument to defend your position. So I'll ask AGAIN. Explain why a "pure" heratiage is so important to you and what it is you want to do with society.

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

Seriously man, how many times do I need to ask a question before you can give a straight answer. This is becomeing a joke. Back up your idiotic statements with direct responses or stop spewing shit that you can't explain

 

[Rustic]

What hate, and Racism in those statues?

The Confederates were economic extreme Capitalists.

They saw slavery as a means of profit, nothing to do with hate, and racism.

For goodness sake, slavery was a business, which imported Blacks into their own backyards.

How is that racist?
How many racists do you know want to import Blacks into their own backyards?

Hmm South Carolinas reason for secession was slavery was needed since "none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun"

Louisiana's wasn't just to preserve slavery but to preserve "AFRICAN slavery".

Alabama said no freedom because it would "gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans."

Texas' secession article said "ll white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both"

Jefferson Davis the president of the Confederacy said "white men have an equality resulting from a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race. The mechanic who comes among us, employing the less intellectual labor of the African, takes the position which only a master-workman occupies"

Alexander Stephens their Vice President said "With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. "

Joseph E Brown, Governor of Georgia said "The negro is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men."

Mississippi Senator Albert Brown when asking if they should try and make slaves Christians said "They are a stiff-necked and rebellious race, and I have little hope that they will receive the blessing"

Mississippi's other Senator John Williams said "This other thing for which we fought was the supremacy of the white man’s civilization in the country which he proudly claimed his own"

The Confederate Veteran (official paper of Confederate soldiers) 40 years after the war said "The kindliest relation that ever existed between the two races in this country, or that ever will, was the ante-bellum relation of master and slave"

James Henry Hammond, governor from South Carolina said in his reasonings for emancipation that "We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. "

Robert E Lee said "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race,"



So yes, if you want to burn A LOT of books, speeches, writings, letters, and articles of the time that slavery was about the dominance of the white race over the black race, then you can make your point. But you've got a WHOLE BUNCH of history you need to destroy first.

The Confederate types were Multiculturalists for goodness sake, they're the reason Blacks are in this nation.

That's not racism, slavery was all about mega profits for businesses.

Original slaveowners in this country were American Indians, I don't think that was about profits. Get You're fucking head out of your ass

 

[Slade3200]

Man, you are really struggling to give direct answers... let's stop with the foolish assumptions and just talk straight shall we?

It appears you are making the argument that you care about heratage because you don't want to water down the intellect of the human race. Is that right?

Actually I don't support anyone's heritage to vanish.

I don't support the endangered San Bushman to vanish either, even though they're not smart.

However, I most certainly am also concerned with the watering down of the intellect of Humanity as well.

So you don't want the intellect watered down and that's why you're so concerned about heritage. Ok so what do you proposed we do about it

Actually I care about heritage point blank too, you don't because you don't have real Human feelings, and sentiments.

Of course I care about heritage, I find if fascinating and have done a ton of work and research about my own families lineage. The difference between you and I is I appreciate and celebrate the diversity of my ancestors and enjoy the traditions and history that has been passed down from my family through the generations. You see that as a threat for some crazy reason that you still haven't explained.

I've asked for this explaination from you multiple times and you keep bouncing around with indirect answers about intelligence and heritage, but you fail to intelligently explain yourself or present a clear argument to defend your position. So I'll ask AGAIN. Explain why a "pure" heratiage is so important to you and what it is you want to do with society.

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

People in those countries and every country should be able to mate with whoever the hell they want. It's called freedom