It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN In Deep Trouble For Defending Thugs Who Kidnapped And Tortured Special Needs Man

page: 5
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I get the terrorist stretch that you made.

But CNN isn't responsible for it, and as far as I can tell didn't encourage it from this story.

Can you give me the part that CNN did?




posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

You do realize I hope that only Blue Zone Leftist Democrat nutters watch Don Lemon?

Most thinking people don't watch CNN, much less Don Lemon. There's a reason Melissa Harris-Perry is no longer on the air........her audience had shrunk past the vanishing point. And MSNBC isn't far behind.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.


Please provide a quote of anyone in the OP-linked video "defending" this crime. I watched all 10 minutes and the only debate was surrounding at what point and under what circumstances the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate. The segment opens with Lemon challenging a guest saying, essentially, "How can you say that this is not a hate crime?"



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.


Please provide a quote of anyone in the OP-linked video "defending" this crime. I watched all 10 minutes and the only debate was surrounding at what point and under what circumstances the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate. The segment opens with Lemon challenging a guest saying, essentially, "How can you say that this is not a hate crime?"


It's the new world Johhny. We get to play the liberal games of calling anything but a full throated condemnation a 'defense'. Remember the whole David Duke thing

We learned the games and we now play them better. Better get used to it. Trump winning was just the start of the dismantling of liberal ideology.

edit on 7/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.


Please provide a quote of anyone in the OP-linked video "defending" this crime. I watched all 10 minutes and the only debate was surrounding at what point and under what circumstances the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate. The segment opens with Lemon challenging a guest saying, essentially, "How can you say that this is not a hate crime?"


It's the new world Johhny. We get to play the liberal games of calling anything but a full throated condemnation a 'defense'. Remember the whole David Duke thing

We learned the games and we now play them better. Better get used to it. Trump wining was just the start of the dismantling of liberal ideology.




At least you're honest about being a liar and a political extremist. I can appreciate that.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I kinda have to give Don Lemon a bit of credit here. IMHO he was very professional and also correct about this being the hate crime it clearly was. The whole story is absolutely disgusting and tragic. Symone Sanders sounds like a complete moron. In the beginning of the video she seems to be speaking in a sort of pseudo legalise and towards the end she isn't even speaking proper English and comes off as if she had been personally offended by the remarks of another commentator. Why Bernie choose her as a spokesperson is beyond me.

This is, on the very face of it, a racially and politically motivated crime. A crime that seems to have targeted one of the more vulnerable members of society. I am however left scratching my head as to why the parents of this young man would just drop him off at a McD's. While some details continue to be fuzzy it seems that there may be more to this. A racially provoked hate crime no doubt. That being said it seems as if we're still missing a puzzle piece...



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.


Please provide a quote of anyone in the OP-linked video "defending" this crime. I watched all 10 minutes and the only debate was surrounding at what point and under what circumstances the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate. The segment opens with Lemon challenging a guest saying, essentially, "How can you say that this is not a hate crime?"


It's the new world Johhny. We get to play the liberal games of calling anything but a full throated condemnation a 'defense'. Remember the whole David Duke thing

We learned the games and we now play them better. Better get used to it. Trump wining was just the start of the dismantling of liberal ideology.




At least you're honest about being a liar and a political extremist. I can appreciate that.


I ran out of patience trying to reason with liberals. After the election I was determined to not rub liberal noses in the result, but the crybaby and subversive antics post Nov 8th convinced me otherwise. Eventually you realise there is no reasoning at all and only fighting fire with fire is going to work. So, the same rules now apply.
As for 'liar' and 'political extremist' I see no such accusations from your post history against those that proclaimed Trump endorsed David Duke. I'll assume you are therefore a hypocrite.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.


Please provide a quote of anyone in the OP-linked video "defending" this crime. I watched all 10 minutes and the only debate was surrounding at what point and under what circumstances the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate. The segment opens with Lemon challenging a guest saying, essentially, "How can you say that this is not a hate crime?"


It's the new world Johhny. We get to play the liberal games of calling anything but a full throated condemnation a 'defense'. Remember the whole David Duke thing

We learned the games and we now play them better. Better get used to it. Trump wining was just the start of the dismantling of liberal ideology.




At least you're honest about being a liar and a political extremist. I can appreciate that.


I ran out of patience trying to reason with liberals. After the election I was determined to not rub liberal noses in the result, but the crybaby and subversive antics post Nov 8th convinced me otherwise. Eventually you realise there is no reasoning at all and only fighting fire with fire is going to work. So, the same rules now apply.
As for 'liar' and 'political extremist' I see no such accusations from your post history against those that proclaimed Trump endorsed David Duke. I'll assume you are therefore a hypocrite.


I didn't see anyone claiming that Trump endorsed David Duke. I did see a lot of people raise their eyebrows at the "my audio equipment wasn't working" moment in which he insisted he couldn't repudiate Duke because he didn't know what was being asked of him. People interpreted that to be a wink and a nod to Richard Spencer's sort. You know, the guy that lead a Nazi salute at a convention celebrating Trump's win. I think the question of whether Trump was dog whistling to these people is a reasonable one to ask. If I saw someone translating this as an endorsement, I'd correct them given time. Given the dialog, it's more likely that a vile rascist and anti-semite in said thread would occupy my attention as a matter of priority, though.

But that's all entirely off-topic. People in this thread are lying about the contents of the video because they see themselves as being at war with everyone to the left of them and deception is acceptable in war. This isn't "fighting fire with fire". It is inventing lies about what your political opponents are doing in order justify your darker inclinations. Thank you for admitting it. It's refreshing.
edit on 7-1-2017 by JohnnyElohim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.


Please provide a quote of anyone in the OP-linked video "defending" this crime. I watched all 10 minutes and the only debate was surrounding at what point and under what circumstances the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate. The segment opens with Lemon challenging a guest saying, essentially, "How can you say that this is not a hate crime?"


It's the new world Johhny. We get to play the liberal games of calling anything but a full throated condemnation a 'defense'. Remember the whole David Duke thing

We learned the games and we now play them better. Better get used to it. Trump wining was just the start of the dismantling of liberal ideology.




At least you're honest about being a liar and a political extremist. I can appreciate that.


I ran out of patience trying to reason with liberals. After the election I was determined to not rub liberal noses in the result, but the crybaby and subversive antics post Nov 8th convinced me otherwise. Eventually you realise there is no reasoning at all and only fighting fire with fire is going to work. So, the same rules now apply.
As for 'liar' and 'political extremist' I see no such accusations from your post history against those that proclaimed Trump endorsed David Duke. I'll assume you are therefore a hypocrite.


I didn't see anyone claiming that Trump endorsed David Duke. I did see a lot of people raise their eyebrows at the "my mic wasn't working" moment in which he insisted he couldn't repudiate Duke because he didn't know what was being asked of him. People interpreted that to be a wink and a nod to Richard Spencer's sort. You know, the guy that lead a Nazi salute at a convention celebrating Trump's win. I think the question of whether Trump was dog whistling to these people is a reasonable one to ask. If I saw someone translating this as an endorsement, I'd correct them given time. Given the dialog, it's more likely that a vile rascist and anti-semite in said thread would occupy my attention as a matter of priority, though.

But that's all entirely off-topic. People in this thread are lying about the contents of the video because they see themselves as being at war with everyone to the left of them and deception is acceptable in war. This isn't "fighting fire with fire". It is inventing lies about what your political opponents are doing in order justify your darker inclinations. Thank you for admitting it. It's refreshing.


Call it what you like. The racists in the video clip were trying to soften the crime and make excuses. That's a defense from here on in. No more double standards allowed.
edit on 7/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.


Please provide a quote of anyone in the OP-linked video "defending" this crime. I watched all 10 minutes and the only debate was surrounding at what point and under what circumstances the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate. The segment opens with Lemon challenging a guest saying, essentially, "How can you say that this is not a hate crime?"


It's the new world Johhny. We get to play the liberal games of calling anything but a full throated condemnation a 'defense'. Remember the whole David Duke thing

We learned the games and we now play them better. Better get used to it. Trump wining was just the start of the dismantling of liberal ideology.




At least you're honest about being a liar and a political extremist. I can appreciate that.


I ran out of patience trying to reason with liberals. After the election I was determined to not rub liberal noses in the result, but the crybaby and subversive antics post Nov 8th convinced me otherwise. Eventually you realise there is no reasoning at all and only fighting fire with fire is going to work. So, the same rules now apply.
As for 'liar' and 'political extremist' I see no such accusations from your post history against those that proclaimed Trump endorsed David Duke. I'll assume you are therefore a hypocrite.


There's no reasoning with either side. People are far too brainwashed that their ideas, beliefs and morals must somehow fit into a cookie-cutter, one size fits all, way of thinking. The true masters and overlords have done very, very well in this regard.

Divide and conquer... Divide and conquer... Please don't look behind the curtain though or all you plebs might just join together and rise up.

I'd suggest people look into the true story of Bacon's rebellion. It's not what is commonly taught. It had to do with Irish, African and Native Americans intermarrying, forming a community and ultimately rising up. No wonder forced segregation and race laws were implemented after the rebellion was put down.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: s3cz0ne

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.


Please provide a quote of anyone in the OP-linked video "defending" this crime. I watched all 10 minutes and the only debate was surrounding at what point and under what circumstances the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate. The segment opens with Lemon challenging a guest saying, essentially, "How can you say that this is not a hate crime?"


It's the new world Johhny. We get to play the liberal games of calling anything but a full throated condemnation a 'defense'. Remember the whole David Duke thing

We learned the games and we now play them better. Better get used to it. Trump wining was just the start of the dismantling of liberal ideology.




At least you're honest about being a liar and a political extremist. I can appreciate that.


I ran out of patience trying to reason with liberals. After the election I was determined to not rub liberal noses in the result, but the crybaby and subversive antics post Nov 8th convinced me otherwise. Eventually you realise there is no reasoning at all and only fighting fire with fire is going to work. So, the same rules now apply.
As for 'liar' and 'political extremist' I see no such accusations from your post history against those that proclaimed Trump endorsed David Duke. I'll assume you are therefore a hypocrite.


There's no reasoning with either side. People are far too brainwashed that their ideas, beliefs and morals must somehow fit into a cookie-cutter, one size fits all, way of thinking. The true masters and overlords have done very, very well in this regard.

Divide and conquer... Divide and conquer... Please don't look behind the curtain though or all you plebs might just join together and rise up.

I'd suggest people look into the true story of Bacon's rebellion. It's not what is commonly taught. It had to do with Irish, African and Native Americans intermarrying, forming a community and ultimately rising up. No wonder forced segregation and race laws were implemented after the rebellion was put down.


You are spot on. That is exactly what has happened. It's so far gone that stopping to look behind the curtain and convincing the other side of what is behind there is pointless. We're headed for some very uncomfortable times and no one is blameless for letting it happen.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.


Please provide a quote of anyone in the OP-linked video "defending" this crime. I watched all 10 minutes and the only debate was surrounding at what point and under what circumstances the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate. The segment opens with Lemon challenging a guest saying, essentially, "How can you say that this is not a hate crime?"


It's the new world Johhny. We get to play the liberal games of calling anything but a full throated condemnation a 'defense'. Remember the whole David Duke thing

We learned the games and we now play them better. Better get used to it. Trump wining was just the start of the dismantling of liberal ideology.




At least you're honest about being a liar and a political extremist. I can appreciate that.


I ran out of patience trying to reason with liberals. After the election I was determined to not rub liberal noses in the result, but the crybaby and subversive antics post Nov 8th convinced me otherwise. Eventually you realise there is no reasoning at all and only fighting fire with fire is going to work. So, the same rules now apply.
As for 'liar' and 'political extremist' I see no such accusations from your post history against those that proclaimed Trump endorsed David Duke. I'll assume you are therefore a hypocrite.


I didn't see anyone claiming that Trump endorsed David Duke. I did see a lot of people raise their eyebrows at the "my mic wasn't working" moment in which he insisted he couldn't repudiate Duke because he didn't know what was being asked of him. People interpreted that to be a wink and a nod to Richard Spencer's sort. You know, the guy that lead a Nazi salute at a convention celebrating Trump's win. I think the question of whether Trump was dog whistling to these people is a reasonable one to ask. If I saw someone translating this as an endorsement, I'd correct them given time. Given the dialog, it's more likely that a vile rascist and anti-semite in said thread would occupy my attention as a matter of priority, though.

But that's all entirely off-topic. People in this thread are lying about the contents of the video because they see themselves as being at war with everyone to the left of them and deception is acceptable in war. This isn't "fighting fire with fire". It is inventing lies about what your political opponents are doing in order justify your darker inclinations. Thank you for admitting it. It's refreshing.


Call it what you like. The racists in the video clip were trying to soften the crime and make excuses. That's a defense from here on in. No more double standards allowed.


No, they were not. I watched all 10 minutes of it. A debate about under what circumstances and at what time the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate is not "softening the crime". You could not supply a quote when asked and instead implied that lying is fair game. Proto-fascists are concocting elaborate fictions to justify political violence. It's nauseating, but at least we have fair warning and second amendment rights in the United States.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennzthey should be in trouble with american people why because they are partially to blame for this with all there sensationalized and outright fake reporting they have garnered an america that beleives that the white people are evil bigots out to kill their young african american children . remember travon martin case. they showed a pictuire of him when he was a child to make ecveryone think zimmerman killed a kid and that wasn't the case. he was a full sized man beating up another dude and dude defended himself the reason zimmerman was not charged at the start they determined rightfully so that he acted in self defense but the pressured the gov. to tep in and make a big news thing out of it.. they did same thing in ferguson so they could make rating and more money.




posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

They will not stop demonizing those who oppose their agenda. It is how they roll. And anything that threatens their operation has a chance to be politically corrected by the MSM.

This is the moment we decide whether to believe their narrative or call them out on their bias. By now everyone should be able to see, however there is a dense fog of political correctness confusing the public on what is right vs wrong.

The only answer to know the truth is to apply morality to ourselves and based on that, pick a side and stick with it. It is obvious this was a hate crime, and those who say otherwise need to examine their heads. (I am sorry and I mean no disrespect to anyone,) but this was obviously one of the sickest, and heartbreaking videos I have seen. We are all human beings capable of doing good. No matter what race or color, this was a crime against a human being.

Strip away the skin and we are all the same underneath.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.


Please provide a quote of anyone in the OP-linked video "defending" this crime. I watched all 10 minutes and the only debate was surrounding at what point and under what circumstances the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate. The segment opens with Lemon challenging a guest saying, essentially, "How can you say that this is not a hate crime?"


It's the new world Johhny. We get to play the liberal games of calling anything but a full throated condemnation a 'defense'. Remember the whole David Duke thing

We learned the games and we now play them better. Better get used to it. Trump wining was just the start of the dismantling of liberal ideology.




At least you're honest about being a liar and a political extremist. I can appreciate that.


I ran out of patience trying to reason with liberals. After the election I was determined to not rub liberal noses in the result, but the crybaby and subversive antics post Nov 8th convinced me otherwise. Eventually you realise there is no reasoning at all and only fighting fire with fire is going to work. So, the same rules now apply.
As for 'liar' and 'political extremist' I see no such accusations from your post history against those that proclaimed Trump endorsed David Duke. I'll assume you are therefore a hypocrite.


I didn't see anyone claiming that Trump endorsed David Duke. I did see a lot of people raise their eyebrows at the "my mic wasn't working" moment in which he insisted he couldn't repudiate Duke because he didn't know what was being asked of him. People interpreted that to be a wink and a nod to Richard Spencer's sort. You know, the guy that lead a Nazi salute at a convention celebrating Trump's win. I think the question of whether Trump was dog whistling to these people is a reasonable one to ask. If I saw someone translating this as an endorsement, I'd correct them given time. Given the dialog, it's more likely that a vile rascist and anti-semite in said thread would occupy my attention as a matter of priority, though.

But that's all entirely off-topic. People in this thread are lying about the contents of the video because they see themselves as being at war with everyone to the left of them and deception is acceptable in war. This isn't "fighting fire with fire". It is inventing lies about what your political opponents are doing in order justify your darker inclinations. Thank you for admitting it. It's refreshing.


Call it what you like. The racists in the video clip were trying to soften the crime and make excuses. That's a defense from here on in. No more double standards allowed.


No, they were not. I watched all 10 minutes of it. A debate about under what circumstances and at what time the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate is not "softening the crime". You could not supply a quote when asked and instead implied that lying is fair game. Proto-fascists are concocting elaborate fictions to justify political violence. It's nauseating, but at least we have fair warning and second amendment rights in the United States.


Yes you are right - it was very nauseating that the disgusting moron on the bottom right of the video was concocting elaborate political fictions to justify violence (slight change to your wording).
I will concede though that she was the only one. The others, including Lemon, were actually quite reasonable and probably as disgusted with the one idiot in the video too.

Go and cry in a corner about your fascist claims and play with yourself in private to indulge your fantasy about what you will do with your 2nd amendment. I am not in the slightest bit interested.
edit on 7/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
They choose a victim who was another race and mentally disabled. It was a hate crime. That Symone woman is an idiot.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

When Samone said that if it was a black disabled teen and 4 whites beating him, that WOULD be a hate crime that I gave up hope for her.

She is full of racial hate because of what was done to "her" people. She brought up Jim crow.

There is zero we can do about what happened. She can immerse herself in the manure of hatred or work on improving race relations, I fear she is lost.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: UKTruth
Liberals will defend the indefensible in order to cling on to their failed ideology.
That is not going to change. It's just going to get less vocal as their way of thinking dies out as evil and immoral regimes have in the past.


Please provide a quote of anyone in the OP-linked video "defending" this crime. I watched all 10 minutes and the only debate was surrounding at what point and under what circumstances the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate. The segment opens with Lemon challenging a guest saying, essentially, "How can you say that this is not a hate crime?"


It's the new world Johhny. We get to play the liberal games of calling anything but a full throated condemnation a 'defense'. Remember the whole David Duke thing

We learned the games and we now play them better. Better get used to it. Trump wining was just the start of the dismantling of liberal ideology.




At least you're honest about being a liar and a political extremist. I can appreciate that.


I ran out of patience trying to reason with liberals. After the election I was determined to not rub liberal noses in the result, but the crybaby and subversive antics post Nov 8th convinced me otherwise. Eventually you realise there is no reasoning at all and only fighting fire with fire is going to work. So, the same rules now apply.
As for 'liar' and 'political extremist' I see no such accusations from your post history against those that proclaimed Trump endorsed David Duke. I'll assume you are therefore a hypocrite.


I didn't see anyone claiming that Trump endorsed David Duke. I did see a lot of people raise their eyebrows at the "my mic wasn't working" moment in which he insisted he couldn't repudiate Duke because he didn't know what was being asked of him. People interpreted that to be a wink and a nod to Richard Spencer's sort. You know, the guy that lead a Nazi salute at a convention celebrating Trump's win. I think the question of whether Trump was dog whistling to these people is a reasonable one to ask. If I saw someone translating this as an endorsement, I'd correct them given time. Given the dialog, it's more likely that a vile rascist and anti-semite in said thread would occupy my attention as a matter of priority, though.

But that's all entirely off-topic. People in this thread are lying about the contents of the video because they see themselves as being at war with everyone to the left of them and deception is acceptable in war. This isn't "fighting fire with fire". It is inventing lies about what your political opponents are doing in order justify your darker inclinations. Thank you for admitting it. It's refreshing.


Call it what you like. The racists in the video clip were trying to soften the crime and make excuses. That's a defense from here on in. No more double standards allowed.


No, they were not. I watched all 10 minutes of it. A debate about under what circumstances and at what time the designation of "hate crime" is appropriate is not "softening the crime". You could not supply a quote when asked and instead implied that lying is fair game. Proto-fascists are concocting elaborate fictions to justify political violence. It's nauseating, but at least we have fair warning and second amendment rights in the United States.


Yes you are right - it was very nauseating that the disgusting moron on the bottom right of the video was concocting elaborate political fictions to justify violence (slight change to your wording).
I will concede though that she was the only one. The others, including Lemon, were actually quite reasonable and probably as disgusted with the one idiot in the video too.

Go and cry in a corner about your fascist claims and play with yourself in private to indulge your fantasy about what you will do with your 2nd amendment. I am not in the slightest bit interested.


You're suggesting that I cry in the corner whilst playing with myself? What a peculiar fetish. Maybe there is something to the notion that the regressive nationalist views of modern right-wing extremists are an outgrowth of sexual repression.

No one in the video suggested or encouraged violence. Out of 5 people speaking, 1 of them argued that we shouldn't rush to label the horrifying crime a "hate crime" and from this you derive cause to froth at the mouth. You're lying and you know it. You admitted it, and you're proud of it. It is what it is. I think we both know I don't write for your benefit or for the benefit of other committed radicals. That would be pointless. My words serve other, more valuable purposes. So it's alright if you're now feeling disinterested. It's probably for the best. I should be down at the firing range, anyhow.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: 3daysgone



but he did nothing that was racist.


It's not what he did, it's what he said. He said many, many racist things. Unfortunately, racists don't recognize racism.

BTW, his company did loose its racism/discrimination court case. So, there's that, but that was before the campaign.


The guy at the end of the OP's video stated that it was the racial things Trump has done. Please tell me what he said that was racist? Talk about the illegal immigrant problem? Talk about muslims, which is a religion not a race? Tell me what he said that was racist. I am open to discussion. I will look at it objectively. If he is racists then no, we don't want him as President. I mean come on. It is time to $%^$ or get off the pot.

He said most of the illegal immigrants (I think he said mexicans) were rapists and drug dealers. They're sending their worst! So tell me how is that not racist? Most illegal immigrants btw are NOT criminals.

He also said "Those poor african americans living in the inner cities..." or to that affect. For many blacks living in this country that was racist because they're not poor and don't live in the inner city. Trump also supported Stop and Frisk--which in the past profiled racial minorities.

He also said a ton of sexist things. Like he said how could somebody vote for Carly Fiorina--that face? He defined woman by how they look. He did this time and again. He even defended his statements about Rosie O'Donnell during a televised presidential debate--of all places!
edit on 1/7/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join