White White Supremacists in Northamerica and Western Europe dont like Soviet Russia, Why?

[cnelsen]

Not really. Common mistake for ESL, and not even a glaring one. Question: when you see this:

View attachment 149981

do you think you've seen the sign of Jewish supremacists?

Thats not the same, thats the israeli flag if i see someone with the german russian, british flag i dont say i met a white supremacist either. Also its not the only telltale sign, I said that already, its the overall look. There are more telltalle signs before i declare someone a white supremacist. You guys misconstrue my posts.

So you get to define what white supremacy is based on how someone accessorized? Israel restricts immigration to Jews. US actually makes it harder for whites to immigrate and PAID Jews from the Soviet Union to move here. How are we a white supremacist country oppressing minorities, and Israel isn't Jewish supremacist?

Jew is a religion not a race, if at all it would be religious supremacy, as far as I know jews come in all colours and shapes and even people with zero jewish ancestrry can become jews by conversion. No one can become white no matter how he much he tries, thats why racism is the worst form of supremacy, worse then religious supremacy or based on language, nationality etc.

If you want to immigrate to Israel, they don't ask whether you believe in God. They ask who your mother was. I.e., it's blood. Race.

you can convert even by most orthodox standards, well its like a culture or being american "everyone got to be it" but you need to swear allegiance to the people and culture (flag/constitution). its not like white supremacy.

No, the point is, it is immigration by blood, which means by race. Ethnic, racial Jews are allowed to immigrate. Racial Africans are not, even if the can claim they are Jewish (see Ethiopians). Jews therefore are placed in a superior position to anyone else in the world by Israeli policy. Jewish supremacy.

 

[Pogo]

You ever met a white supremacist?

I haven't.

Me neither. And I'll bet none of the libtards on this board constantly bleating about those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of monuments have ever met one either.

"Destruction of monuments"?

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

 

[impuretrash]

You ever met a white supremacist?

I haven't.

Me neither. And I'll bet none of the libtards on this board constantly bleating about those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of monuments have ever met one either.

"Destruction of monuments"?

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

 

[Pogo]

I haven't.

Me neither. And I'll bet none of the libtards on this board constantly bleating about those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of monuments have ever met one either.

"Destruction of monuments"?

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to take the existing dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter. And that's dishonest.

 

[impuretrash]

Me neither. And I'll bet none of the libtards on this board constantly bleating about those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of monuments have ever met one either.

"Destruction of monuments"?

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destroy" involves elimination.

Notice the verb. There's one in every sentence.

If you need to be intellectually dishonest to prove a point...

 

[defcon4]

Me neither. And I'll bet none of the libtards on this board constantly bleating about those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of monuments have ever met one either.

"Destruction of monuments"?

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destroy" involves elimination.

Notice the verb. There's one in every sentence.

 

[defcon4]

Me neither. And I'll bet none of the libtards on this board constantly bleating about those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of monuments have ever met one either.

"Destruction of monuments"?

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to shift the dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter.

 

[defcon4]

Me neither. And I'll bet none of the libtards on this board constantly bleating about those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of monuments have ever met one either.

"Destruction of monuments"?

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to take the existing dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter. And that's dishonest.

 

[Pogo]

"Destruction of monuments"?

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to shift the dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter.

BZZZT. Sorry, a mentally ill driver running over a monumnent in Arkansas that had nothing to do with the Lost Cause movement (or race) isn't at all the subtopic and does not in itself make a case for a pattern of those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of their monuments.

Lotta weasel-word/weasel-image posters here too dishonest to address the point.

 

[Pogo]

"Destruction of monuments"?

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to take the existing dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter. And that's dishonest.

If you need to be intellectually dishonest to prove a point...

You're actually going to sit here on this board and try to tell me "removal" and "destruction" are the same thing?

---- So if I remove this shirt I'm wearing --- it just disappears? I can never wear it again?

ONCE AGAIN for the Illiterati --- the poster said "destruction". "Removal" is not "destruction". Never has been, never will be.
PERIOD.

 

[impuretrash]

BZZZT. Sorry, a mentally ill driver running over a monumnent in Arkansas that had nothing to do with the Lost Cause movement (or race) isn't at all the subtopic and does not in itself make a case for a pattern of those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of their monuments.

Lotta weasel-word/weasel-image posters here too dishonest to address the point.

Destroyed/removed...whatever it's semantics. Monuments are being taken down to appease minorities in order to sow division and win votes.

 

[defcon4]

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to shift the dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter.

BZZZT. Sorry, a mentally ill driver running over a monumnent in Arkansas that had nothing to do with the Lost Cause movement (or race) isn't at all the subtopic and does not in itself make a case for a pattern of those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of their monuments.

Lotta weasel-word/weasel-image posters here too dishonest to address the point.

Their monuments Pogster? You have always supported ISIS and their modus operandi of destroying artifacts. ISIS has the perception of the monuments as not "ours" but theirs. White supremacists Pogster? Everybody is white supremacist in your and your ilk's eyes who wants to preserve the nations history be it "glorious" or not "so glorious."

 

[defcon4]

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to take the existing dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter. And that's dishonest.

If you need to be intellectually dishonest to prove a point...

You're actually going to sit here on this board and try to tell me "removal" and "destruction" are the same thing?

---- So if I remove this shirt I'm wearing --- it just disappears? I can never wear it again?

ONCE AGAIN for the Illiterati --- the poster said "destruction". "Removal" is not "destruction". Never has been, never will be.
PERIOD.

Pogster, removal is not exclusive of destruction. Why are you being such a moron? Destroying is actually removing. Your book burning plans are actually aimed at removing certain books from circulation. Your desperate attempts are removing/destroying your logic. I am very disappointed with you Pogster.

 

[cnelsen]

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to take the existing dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter. And that's dishonest.

If you need to be intellectually dishonest to prove a point...

You're actually going to sit here on this board and try to tell me "removal" and "destruction" are the same thing?

---- So if I remove this shirt I'm wearing --- it just disappears? I can never wear it again?

ONCE AGAIN for the Illiterati --- the poster said "destruction". "Removal" is not "destruction". Never has been, never will be.
PERIOD.

Useless sophistry from a useless sophist.

 

[cnelsen]

BZZZT. Sorry, a mentally ill driver running over a monumnent in Arkansas that had nothing to do with the Lost Cause movement (or race) isn't at all the subtopic and does not in itself make a case for a pattern of those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of their monuments.

Lotta weasel-word/weasel-image posters here too dishonest to address the point.

Destroyed/removed...whatever it's semantics. Monuments are being taken down to appease minorities in order to sow division and win votes.

Historically, the destruction of a population's physical cultural symbols presages attacks on the population itself.

 

[cnelsen]

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to take the existing dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter. And that's dishonest.

If you need to be intellectually dishonest to prove a point...

You're actually going to sit here on this board and try to tell me "removal" and "destruction" are the same thing?

---- So if I remove this shirt I'm wearing --- it just disappears? I can never wear it again?

ONCE AGAIN for the Illiterati --- the poster said "destruction". "Removal" is not "destruction". Never has been, never will be.
PERIOD.

Pogster, removal is not exclusive of destruction. Why are you being such a moron? Destroying is actually removing. Your book burning plans are actually aimed at removing certain books from circulation. Your desperate attempts are removing/destroying your logic. I am very disappointed with you Pogster.

He's just being a douche. If you take down a statue of Robert E Lee you've destroyed a cultural symbol of our history whether you smash it into tiny pieces or stash it in a shed.

 

[cnelsen]

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to take the existing dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter. And that's dishonest.

If you need to be intellectually dishonest to prove a point...

You're actually going to sit here on this board and try to tell me "removal" and "destruction" are the same thing?

---- So if I remove this shirt I'm wearing --- it just disappears? I can never wear it again?

ONCE AGAIN for the Illiterati --- the poster said "destruction". "Removal" is not "destruction". Never has been, never will be.
PERIOD.

If you remove the shirt you are wearing, I know for sure I'LL disappear.

 

[Pogo]

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to take the existing dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter. And that's dishonest.

If you need to be intellectually dishonest to prove a point...

You're actually going to sit here on this board and try to tell me "removal" and "destruction" are the same thing?

---- So if I remove this shirt I'm wearing --- it just disappears? I can never wear it again?

ONCE AGAIN for the Illiterati --- the poster said "destruction". "Removal" is not "destruction". Never has been, never will be.
PERIOD.

If you remove the shirt you are wearing, I know for sure I'LL disappear.

Deal.

Done.

 

[Pogo]

BZZZT. Sorry, a mentally ill driver running over a monumnent in Arkansas that had nothing to do with the Lost Cause movement (or race) isn't at all the subtopic and does not in itself make a case for a pattern of those big bad white supremacists and cheering on the destruction of their monuments.

Lotta weasel-word/weasel-image posters here too dishonest to address the point.

Destroyed/removed...whatever it's semantics. Monuments are being taken down to appease minorities in order to sow division and win votes.

Nnnnope. Monuments are being moved --- not "destroyed", moved, crucial difference ---- because of where they are. And where they are is on public municipal land and/or in front of "authoritative" looking buildings, especially local government ones, and that placement is for a specific propaganda purpose, and those municipalities on whose land it stands are taking control of their own spaces.

And if that was to "win votes" it doesn't seem to have worked to that effect since it started over two years ago from the Dylann Roof massacre starting with Nikki Haley and the South Carolina state legislature.

 

[Pogo]

How am I looking at a monument if it's been 'destroyed'?

I repeat --- "Destruction of monuments"? How long is this gonna take?

You're gonna sit there and pretend that there's not a concerted, ongoing effort happening right now in the US to remove monuments? Really?

Ah but he didn't say "remove". He said "destroy". Crucial difference.

"Remove" involves placement; "destruction" involves elimination. He tried to get away with a weasel word and got pulled over.

Re-placement addresses the location of something. Destruction addresses the existence of it.
He's trying to take the existing dynamic of the former and distort it into the latter. And that's dishonest.

If you need to be intellectually dishonest to prove a point...

You're actually going to sit here on this board and try to tell me "removal" and "destruction" are the same thing?

---- So if I remove this shirt I'm wearing --- it just disappears? I can never wear it again?

ONCE AGAIN for the Illiterati --- the poster said "destruction". "Removal" is not "destruction". Never has been, never will be.
PERIOD.

Pogster, removal is not exclusive of destruction. Why are you being such a moron? Destroying is actually removing. Your book burning plans are actually aimed at removing certain books from circulation. Your desperate attempts are removing/destroying your logic. I am very disappointed with you Pogster.

And I am disappointed the reading lessons have not taken. Destroying is a way of removing but moving is not destroying.
Maybe I'd just better leave it at that -- anything more would be too complex.