White Nationalist Epithet Is A Smear

[Slade3200]

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

Not true. Theres much more to it than that

 

[depotoo]

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

Not true. Theres much more to it than that

Only in your dreams, dear.

 

[dudmuck]

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

 

[depotoo]

As a matter of fact, no. Because that is what I said on here, back when, then got taken for a a nazi, when I wasn’t. You guys have turned to the term into nazi, for your own personal benefit, to degrade others, as you wish to make someone that loves their own country as being perverse, when it’s not. I could call myself a sovereigntist, and you would still try to make it out to mean something it doesn’t.

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

 

[bripat9643]

Then what are the ethical limits on government?

There are no ethical limits beyond the system and what’s written into our laws.

ROFL! So herding Jews into gas ovens is perfectly OK so long as the majority approves? Why are you whining about the so-called "refugees" if you believe it's OK for us to mow them down with machine guns?

In case you didn’t get the memo it used to be legal to own, beat and murder other humans. So no there are no ethical limits in our government beyond what we write into our laws

So you believe whatever the government does is ethical, by definition. In that case, what would be your objection to bringing back slavery?

No that’s not what I believe nor is it what I said. I understand why your so obnoxious now, you have an extremely difficult time understanding what other people say. You constantly misrepresent what I say and I find myself self wasting time reexplaining things to you. Not sure if that’s a tactic you use to be irritating or if you are really that dumb

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

Trump is using the actual meaning of the word, not the lie definition that the left has conjured up.

 

[dudmuck]

As a matter of fact, no. Because that is what I said on here, back when, then got taken for a a nazi, when I wasn’t. You guys have turned to the term into nazi, for your own personal benefit, to degrade others, as you wish to make someone that loves their own country as being perverse, when it’s not. I could call myself a sovereigntist, and you would still try to make it out to mean something it doesn’t.

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

As a matter of fact, no. Because that is what I said on here, back when, then got taken for a a nazi, when I wasn’t. You guys have turned to the term into nazi, for your own personal benefit, to degrade others, as you wish to make someone that loves their own country as being perverse, when it’s not. I could call myself a sovereigntist, and you would still try to make it out to mean something it doesn’t.

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

If nationalism involvess hatred or fear of other countries, its not good.

Ok, if you want to move to the nazi subject.
That accusation doesnt originate from the left, it comes from the leading holocaust historian. Also from Steve King himself.

 

[boedicca]

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

Nationalist is not a smear when used by normal people in the proper sense of the word. It's a smear when you loons use the following bogus logic;

1. Some people are racists
2. Some people are white
3. Some people believe in Natinalism instead of Globalism.
4. There for white people are Racist White Nationalists (who believe in racial segregation).

 

[Slade3200]

There are no ethical limits beyond the system and what’s written into our laws.

ROFL! So herding Jews into gas ovens is perfectly OK so long as the majority approves? Why are you whining about the so-called "refugees" if you believe it's OK for us to mow them down with machine guns?

In case you didn’t get the memo it used to be legal to own, beat and murder other humans. So no there are no ethical limits in our government beyond what we write into our laws

So you believe whatever the government does is ethical, by definition. In that case, what would be your objection to bringing back slavery?

No that’s not what I believe nor is it what I said. I understand why your so obnoxious now, you have an extremely difficult time understanding what other people say. You constantly misrepresent what I say and I find myself self wasting time reexplaining things to you. Not sure if that’s a tactic you use to be irritating or if you are really that dumb

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

 

[boedicca]

ROFL! So herding Jews into gas ovens is perfectly OK so long as the majority approves? Why are you whining about the so-called "refugees" if you believe it's OK for us to mow them down with machine guns?

In case you didn’t get the memo it used to be legal to own, beat and murder other humans. So no there are no ethical limits in our government beyond what we write into our laws

So you believe whatever the government does is ethical, by definition. In that case, what would be your objection to bringing back slavery?

No that’s not what I believe nor is it what I said. I understand why your so obnoxious now, you have an extremely difficult time understanding what other people say. You constantly misrepresent what I say and I find myself self wasting time reexplaining things to you. Not sure if that’s a tactic you use to be irritating or if you are really that dumb

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

And yet you support a leftwing ideology that has an end result of turning the masses into slaves of the state.

What's up with that?

 

[Slade3200]

In case you didn’t get the memo it used to be legal to own, beat and murder other humans. So no there are no ethical limits in our government beyond what we write into our laws

So you believe whatever the government does is ethical, by definition. In that case, what would be your objection to bringing back slavery?

No that’s not what I believe nor is it what I said. I understand why your so obnoxious now, you have an extremely difficult time understanding what other people say. You constantly misrepresent what I say and I find myself self wasting time reexplaining things to you. Not sure if that’s a tactic you use to be irritating or if you are really that dumb

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

And yet you support a leftwing ideology that has an end result of turning the masses into slaves of the state.

What's up with that?

Well “what’s up with that” is easy. Its a bullshit statement. I support issues that I think are smart, beneficial to my community, and those that align with my values. Some of those issues I agree with “left” wing solutions and for others I agree with “right” wing solutions. You like to paint me on one side and call it like it’s black and white, but that isn’t true or honest. I don’t think that’s the case for most people.

 

[boedicca]

So you believe whatever the government does is ethical, by definition. In that case, what would be your objection to bringing back slavery?

No that’s not what I believe nor is it what I said. I understand why your so obnoxious now, you have an extremely difficult time understanding what other people say. You constantly misrepresent what I say and I find myself self wasting time reexplaining things to you. Not sure if that’s a tactic you use to be irritating or if you are really that dumb

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

And yet you support a leftwing ideology that has an end result of turning the masses into slaves of the state.

What's up with that?

Well “what’s up with that” is easy. Its a bullshit statement. I support issues that I think are smart, beneficial to my community, and those that align with my values. Some of those issues I agree with “left” wing solutions and for others I agree with “right” wing solutions. You like to paint me on one side and call it like it’s black and white, but that isn’t true or honest. I don’t think that’s the case for most people.

If you support policies that use the power of the government to take away from one person to give to another, and to force a person to work against his will for another...you support the values of slavery.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! So herding Jews into gas ovens is perfectly OK so long as the majority approves? Why are you whining about the so-called "refugees" if you believe it's OK for us to mow them down with machine guns?

In case you didn’t get the memo it used to be legal to own, beat and murder other humans. So no there are no ethical limits in our government beyond what we write into our laws

So you believe whatever the government does is ethical, by definition. In that case, what would be your objection to bringing back slavery?

No that’s not what I believe nor is it what I said. I understand why your so obnoxious now, you have an extremely difficult time understanding what other people say. You constantly misrepresent what I say and I find myself self wasting time reexplaining things to you. Not sure if that’s a tactic you use to be irritating or if you are really that dumb

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

Yes, you answered. You said there are no ethical limitations on government. In other words, you condone slavery. So much for your personal ethics.

 

[Slade3200]

No that’s not what I believe nor is it what I said. I understand why your so obnoxious now, you have an extremely difficult time understanding what other people say. You constantly misrepresent what I say and I find myself self wasting time reexplaining things to you. Not sure if that’s a tactic you use to be irritating or if you are really that dumb

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

And yet you support a leftwing ideology that has an end result of turning the masses into slaves of the state.

What's up with that?

Well “what’s up with that” is easy. Its a bullshit statement. I support issues that I think are smart, beneficial to my community, and those that align with my values. Some of those issues I agree with “left” wing solutions and for others I agree with “right” wing solutions. You like to paint me on one side and call it like it’s black and white, but that isn’t true or honest. I don’t think that’s the case for most people.

If you support policies that use the power of the government to take away from one person to give to another, and to force a person to work against his will for another...you support the values of slavery.

Well you just described exactly what taxation does. So does that mean if you support taxation which funds our military then you support slavery? Come on man you are off the rails.

 

[bripat9643]

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

And yet you support a leftwing ideology that has an end result of turning the masses into slaves of the state.

What's up with that?

Well “what’s up with that” is easy. Its a bullshit statement. I support issues that I think are smart, beneficial to my community, and those that align with my values. Some of those issues I agree with “left” wing solutions and for others I agree with “right” wing solutions. You like to paint me on one side and call it like it’s black and white, but that isn’t true or honest. I don’t think that’s the case for most people.

If you support policies that use the power of the government to take away from one person to give to another, and to force a person to work against his will for another...you support the values of slavery.

Well you just described exactly what taxation does. So does that mean if you support taxation which funds our military then you support slavery? Come on man you are off the rails.

There's nothing in inherent in taxation that mandates government to give the proceeds to someone who did nothing to earn it.

 

[Slade3200]

In case you didn’t get the memo it used to be legal to own, beat and murder other humans. So no there are no ethical limits in our government beyond what we write into our laws

So you believe whatever the government does is ethical, by definition. In that case, what would be your objection to bringing back slavery?

No that’s not what I believe nor is it what I said. I understand why your so obnoxious now, you have an extremely difficult time understanding what other people say. You constantly misrepresent what I say and I find myself self wasting time reexplaining things to you. Not sure if that’s a tactic you use to be irritating or if you are really that dumb

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

Yes, you answered. You said there are no ethical limitations on government. In other words, you condone slavery. So much for your personal ethics.

I’m sorry if my responses go over your head. You obviously aren’t understanding. Maybe instead of drawing false conclusions you should ask more questions and make sure you are following what’s going on.

Our government operates on laws that are based on the constitution and written by elected officials. Not on ethics. It doesn’t take a genius to know that the morals and values of the people are reflected in our laws and elected leaders... if they don’t follow the will of the people they lose power. Of the laws don’t reflect the will of the people they get changed.

Jim Crow wasn’t moral or ethical so it was changed. LGBT rights is a more recent example. The will of the majority determines what our government and laws do... not ethics

How do you not understand this?

 

[bripat9643]

So you believe whatever the government does is ethical, by definition. In that case, what would be your objection to bringing back slavery?

No that’s not what I believe nor is it what I said. I understand why your so obnoxious now, you have an extremely difficult time understanding what other people say. You constantly misrepresent what I say and I find myself self wasting time reexplaining things to you. Not sure if that’s a tactic you use to be irritating or if you are really that dumb

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

Yes, you answered. You said there are no ethical limitations on government. In other words, you condone slavery. So much for your personal ethics.

I’m sorry if my responses go over your head. You obviously aren’t understanding. Maybe instead of drawing false conclusions you should ask more questions and make sure you are following what’s going on.

Our government operates on laws that are based on the constitution and written by elected officials. Not on ethics. It doesn’t take a genius to know that the morals and values of the people are reflected in our laws and elected leaders... if they don’t follow the will of the people they lose power. Of the laws don’t reflect the will of the people they get changed.

Jim Crow wasn’t moral or ethical so it was changed. LGBT rights is a more recent example. The will of the majority determines what our government and laws do... not ethics

How do you not understand this?

On the one hand, you claim Jim Crow was changed because it wasn't ethical. On the other hand you just said that ethics do not determine our laws, the mob does.

Have you really ever thought about this issue?

 

[Slade3200]

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

And yet you support a leftwing ideology that has an end result of turning the masses into slaves of the state.

What's up with that?

Well “what’s up with that” is easy. Its a bullshit statement. I support issues that I think are smart, beneficial to my community, and those that align with my values. Some of those issues I agree with “left” wing solutions and for others I agree with “right” wing solutions. You like to paint me on one side and call it like it’s black and white, but that isn’t true or honest. I don’t think that’s the case for most people.

If you support policies that use the power of the government to take away from one person to give to another, and to force a person to work against his will for another...you support the values of slavery.

Well you just described exactly what taxation does. So does that mean if you support taxation which funds our military then you support slavery? Come on man you are off the rails.

There's nothing in inherent in taxation that mandates government to give the proceeds to someone who did nothing to earn it.

They give roads, mail service, education, safety, security etc ya know all the things you complain about illegals wanting and taking

 

[Slade3200]

No that’s not what I believe nor is it what I said. I understand why your so obnoxious now, you have an extremely difficult time understanding what other people say. You constantly misrepresent what I say and I find myself self wasting time reexplaining things to you. Not sure if that’s a tactic you use to be irritating or if you are really that dumb

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

Yes, you answered. You said there are no ethical limitations on government. In other words, you condone slavery. So much for your personal ethics.

I’m sorry if my responses go over your head. You obviously aren’t understanding. Maybe instead of drawing false conclusions you should ask more questions and make sure you are following what’s going on.

Our government operates on laws that are based on the constitution and written by elected officials. Not on ethics. It doesn’t take a genius to know that the morals and values of the people are reflected in our laws and elected leaders... if they don’t follow the will of the people they lose power. Of the laws don’t reflect the will of the people they get changed.

Jim Crow wasn’t moral or ethical so it was changed. LGBT rights is a more recent example. The will of the majority determines what our government and laws do... not ethics

How do you not understand this?

On the one hand, you claim Jim Crow was changed because it wasn't ethical. On the other hand you just said that ethics do not determine our laws, the mob does.

Have you really ever thought about this issue?

Have you thought it through? You seem confused. I don’t think Jim Crow was ethical at all... yet it was law. So you tell me, how did that happen in a system that you claim has ethical limitations.

 

[bripat9643]

And yet you support a leftwing ideology that has an end result of turning the masses into slaves of the state.

What's up with that?

Well “what’s up with that” is easy. Its a bullshit statement. I support issues that I think are smart, beneficial to my community, and those that align with my values. Some of those issues I agree with “left” wing solutions and for others I agree with “right” wing solutions. You like to paint me on one side and call it like it’s black and white, but that isn’t true or honest. I don’t think that’s the case for most people.

If you support policies that use the power of the government to take away from one person to give to another, and to force a person to work against his will for another...you support the values of slavery.

Well you just described exactly what taxation does. So does that mean if you support taxation which funds our military then you support slavery? Come on man you are off the rails.

There's nothing in inherent in taxation that mandates government to give the proceeds to someone who did nothing to earn it.

They give roads, mail service, education, safety, security etc ya know all the things you complain about illegals wanting and taking

They don't "give" anything. The services government provides all suck, and they cost several times what they should cost. So what's your point?