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.
So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
Who is being dramatic now?
As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names, or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
That is interesting.
What really should matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
Who is being dramatic now?
As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names, or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
That is interesting.
What really should matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
The country is not being "torn apart" over this old news. But feel free to elaborate on what you wish to.
As far as you attempting to make a point, and others resorting to name calling over it, maybe you should go back and read some of your own previous posts.
It is your right to have an opinion, just as acceptance or non acceptance of it is the right of others.
So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
Who is being dramatic now?
As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names, or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
That is interesting.
What really should matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
The country is not being "torn apart" over this old news. But feel free to elaborate on what you wish to.
As far as you attempting to make a point, and others resorting to name calling over it, maybe you should go back and read some of your own previous posts.
It is your right to have an opinion, just as acceptance or non acceptance of it is the right of others.
Sure, they can accept or not accept it.
IF they refuse to accept it for a stupid or self serving reason, or just because "wacism", or,
say they just refuse to admit the truth, even when shown the full original transcripts that clearly show that they are wrong,
then I will comment as appropriate.
Probably based more on how they behaved, than actual disagreement.
So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
Who is being dramatic now?
As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names, or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
That is interesting.
What really should matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
The country is not being "torn apart" over this old news. But feel free to elaborate on what you wish to.
As far as you attempting to make a point, and others resorting to name calling over it, maybe you should go back and read some of your own previous posts.
It is your right to have an opinion, just as acceptance or non acceptance of it is the right of others.
Sure, they can accept or not accept it.
IF they refuse to accept it for a stupid or self serving reason, or just because "wacism", or,
say they just refuse to admit the truth, even when shown the full original transcripts that clearly show that they are wrong,
then I will comment as appropriate.
Probably based more on how they behaved, than actual disagreement.
Lots of "ifs and hypotheticals" there. I'm certain that in the not too distant future some topic will arise that "both sides" as you call them, will have an opportunity to be measured by their civilty........or lack of.
Which of these are very fine people...?Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.
Which of these are very fine people...?Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.
Were they? What percentage were locals? How many outsiders were really moved to travel and stomp around to "support" the non-movement of statues to less in-yer-face locations? Would they have somehow become less "historical" elsewhere?As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
Who is being dramatic now?
As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names, or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
That is interesting.
What really should matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
The country is not being "torn apart" over this old news. But feel free to elaborate on what you wish to.
As far as you attempting to make a point, and others resorting to name calling over it, maybe you should go back and read some of your own previous posts.
It is your right to have an opinion, just as acceptance or non acceptance of it is the right of others.
Sure, they can accept or not accept it.
IF they refuse to accept it for a stupid or self serving reason, or just because "wacism", or,
say they just refuse to admit the truth, even when shown the full original transcripts that clearly show that they are wrong,
then I will comment as appropriate.
Probably based more on how they behaved, than actual disagreement.
Lots of "ifs and hypotheticals" there. I'm certain that in the not too distant future some topic will arise that "both sides" as you call them, will have an opportunity to be measured by their civilty........or lack of.
Which of these are very fine people...?Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.
What part of "not the nazis" do you not understand?
I'm not sure how to dumb this down for you anymore. DO you have a friend who is only half retarded, that could interpret for you?
Were they? What percentage were locals? How many outsiders were really moved to travel and stomp around to "support" the non-movement of statues to less in-yer-face locations? Would they have somehow become less "historical" elsewhere?As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
Which of these are very fine people...?Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.
What part of "not the nazis" do you not understand?
I'm not sure how to dumb this down for you anymore. DO you have a friend who is only half retarded, that could interpret for you?
So the white supremacists were the very fine people? Thanks for clarifying.
[ QUOTE="Correll, post: 24395314, member: 53993"]
So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
Who is being dramatic now?
As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names, or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
That is interesting.
What really should matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
The country is not being "torn apart" over this old news. But feel free to elaborate on what you wish to.
As far as you attempting to make a point, and others resorting to name calling over it, maybe you should go back and read some of your own previous posts.
It is your right to have an opinion, just as acceptance or non acceptance of it is the right of others.
Sure, they can accept or not accept it.
IF they refuse to accept it for a stupid or self serving reason, or just because "wacism", or,
say they just refuse to admit the truth, even when shown the full original transcripts that clearly show that they are wrong,
then I will comment as appropriate.
Probably based more on how they behaved, than actual disagreement.
Lots of "ifs and hypotheticals" there. I'm certain that in the not too distant future some topic will arise that "both sides" as you call them, will have an opportunity to be measured by their civilty........or lack of.
Have you any complaints about my civility in this thread?
The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless, he was alluding to "them."But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
LOLThe other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
If they actually believe the shit they say,
but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
Then according to the transcript what? He watched both sides carefully, right? Then your man is a clown at best.The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
LOLThe other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
If they actually believe the shit they say,
but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
Then according to the transcript what? He watched both sides carefully, right? Then your man is a clown at best.The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.LOLThe other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
If they actually believe the shit they say,
but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.LOLThe other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
If they actually believe the shit they say,
but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
