Chat Forum
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:31 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64404 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345 ... 1611  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:32 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4250
Altazuma wrote:
henry wrote:
Santa wrote:
Whether or not it's terrorism is a pretty empty argument but let me contribute anyway. I don't consider this terrorism because it is not aimed at terrorising the civilian population.


A (likely) politically-motivated individual drives a car into civilian protesters in an attempt to maim, kill and intimidate and it isn't terrorism?

Things are getting funkier.


I have no issue with the distinction.

There is a clear difference between Terrorism and an act of hate filled murder that may be terrifying.

For it to be terrorism, the act of terrifying the population for political ends must be the actual aim.

To me this smacks of some deranged individual taking the running battles of the day too far and deciding to run people over out of revenge, hatred and anger. There is no broader political purpose or manifesto in which terror plays a part.

Any terror created in the population in this instance is a by product, not the strategic intent.

Of course, if they find a manifesto tomorrow, all this will be bollocks but I don't think it can be defined purely from the act itself.

Thanks. Always good to have someone with a clear eye while shit and dust are swirling in the arena.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34774
Altazuma wrote:
henry wrote:
Santa wrote:
Whether or not it's terrorism is a pretty empty argument but let me contribute anyway. I don't consider this terrorism because it is not aimed at terrorising the civilian population.


A (likely) politically-motivated individual drives a car into civilian protesters in an attempt to maim, kill and intimidate and it isn't terrorism?

Things are getting funkier.


I have no issue with the distinction.

There is a clear difference between Terrorism and an act of hate filled murder that may be terrifying.

For it to be terrorism, the act of terrifying the population for political ends must be the actual aim.

To me this smacks of some deranged individual taking the running battles of the day too far and deciding to run people over out of revenge, hatred and anger. There is no broader political purpose or manifesto in which terror plays a part.

Any terror created in the population in this instance is a by product, not the strategic intent.

Of course, if they find a manifesto tomorrow, all this will be bollocks but I don't think it can be defined purely from the act itself.


A slippery slope. When this sort of thinking is attributed to 'leftists' when they attempt to explain the murderous behaviour of potentially mentally ill individuals act alone but in the name of Islam, the terms 'apologism' and 'denial' are brought to bear.

The legal definition of terrorism in the US:

Quote:
"the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”


It's going to come down to quibbling over 'objective'. Here the objective appears to be to intimate or silence those in opposition to the far-right/alt-right/neo-Nazi agenda.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8195
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/12/polit ... index.html

This pretty clearly states the problem that the bored Trumpistas are seemingly oblivious to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4541
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:

We've all seen you downplay, deflect and shift the blame over the last couple of pages, captain one liner. You haven't been the only one though.


You haven't seen anything of the sort. That's what you think you have seen but only because you are stupid. Distressingly so.


Again:

Santa wrote:
Freedom fighting?


It is called a joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21642
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:

We've all seen you downplay, deflect and shift the blame over the last couple of pages, captain one liner. You haven't been the only one though.


You haven't seen anything of the sort. That's what you think you have seen but only because you are stupid. Distressingly so.


Again:

Santa wrote:
Freedom fighting?


It is called a joke.


Why should it matter what it's called? (See what I did there?)

It's also an example of you downplaying/deflecting which is 2 of the 3 things you denied doing. Shame you couldn't squeeze blame shifting into those two words I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4541
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:

We've all seen you downplay, deflect and shift the blame over the last couple of pages, captain one liner. You haven't been the only one though.


You haven't seen anything of the sort. That's what you think you have seen but only because you are stupid. Distressingly so.


Again:

Santa wrote:
Freedom fighting?


It is called a joke.


Why should it matter what it's called? (See what I did there?)

It's also an example of you downplaying/deflecting which is 2 of the 3 things you denied doing. Shame you couldn't squeeze blame shifting into those two words I guess.


It is not deflecting. It was a joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21642
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:


It is not deflecting. It was a joke.



Actually, it was the second time you deflected:

Santa wrote:
houtkabouter wrote:
Santa wrote:
Why is it important whether or not it is defined as terrorism?


Why is it so hard for you to call it what it is?


Freedom fighting?


Deflecting, even with your little "jokes" is still deflecting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 9774
Seneca of the Night wrote:
So I am just watching some on the ground live footage aired on Periscope of the event. The right spent months trying to get permits for the event. Which they got, and the reporter said that the BLM/Antifa crowd had no permit. When the right were doing their event there was wall to wall riot cop coverage. Then that disappeared and the ratbag crowd started marching along the street. The reporter I am watching was badly harassed by lunatics, then the car came screaming in literally 10 feet from where the reporter was standing. Pretty amazing. The cops and ambulances took ages to arrive.

Credit to Soros for stage managing the thing so well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:13 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11396
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
henry wrote:
Altazuma wrote:
henry wrote:
Santa wrote:
Whether or not it's terrorism is a pretty empty argument but let me contribute anyway. I don't consider this terrorism because it is not aimed at terrorising the civilian population.


A (likely) politically-motivated individual drives a car into civilian protesters in an attempt to maim, kill and intimidate and it isn't terrorism?

Things are getting funkier.


I have no issue with the distinction.

There is a clear difference between Terrorism and an act of hate filled murder that may be terrifying.

For it to be terrorism, the act of terrifying the population for political ends must be the actual aim.

To me this smacks of some deranged individual taking the running battles of the day too far and deciding to run people over out of revenge, hatred and anger. There is no broader political purpose or manifesto in which terror plays a part.

Any terror created in the population in this instance is a by product, not the strategic intent.

Of course, if they find a manifesto tomorrow, all this will be bollocks but I don't think it can be defined purely from the act itself.


A slippery slope. When this sort of thinking is attributed to 'leftists' when they attempt to explain the murderous behaviour of potentially mentally ill individuals act alone but in the name of Islam, the terms 'apologism' and 'denial' are brought to bear.

The legal definition of terrorism in the US:

Quote:
"the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”


It's going to come down to quibbling over 'objective'. Here the objective appears to be to intimate or silence those in opposition to the far-right/alt-right/neo-Nazi agenda.


I would be shocked if it wasn't charged with terrorism because that white guy that drove to NY just to kill a black guy for fun was charged with terrorism. The issue as you so well pointed out is that the definition in the court of public opinion seems to shift. If it is white person several things have to occur for it to be considered a terrorist act meanwhile liberals, Browns and blacks get it slapped at them with haste. Like the crazy liberal gunman at the Congressional baseball practice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 9774
Altazuma wrote:
henry wrote:
Santa wrote:
Whether or not it's terrorism is a pretty empty argument but let me contribute anyway. I don't consider this terrorism because it is not aimed at terrorising the civilian population.


A (likely) politically-motivated individual drives a car into civilian protesters in an attempt to maim, kill and intimidate and it isn't terrorism?

Things are getting funkier.


I have no issue with the distinction.

There is a clear difference between Terrorism and an act of hate filled murder that may be terrifying.

For it to be terrorism, the act of terrifying the population for political ends must be the actual aim.

To me this smacks of some deranged individual taking the running battles of the day too far and deciding to run people over out of revenge, hatred and anger. There is no broader political purpose or manifesto in which terror plays a part.

Any terror created in the population in this instance is a by product, not the strategic intent.

Of course, if they find a manifesto tomorrow, all this will be bollocks but I don't think it can be defined purely from the act itself.

What if the guy was wearing the uniform of a group of white supremacists when he was arrested. And he'd previously been at a pollitical rally chanting blood and soil? And......etc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4541
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:


It is not deflecting. It was a joke.



Actually, it was the second time you deflected:

Santa wrote:
houtkabouter wrote:
Santa wrote:
Why is it important whether or not it is defined as terrorism?


Why is it so hard for you to call it what it is?


Freedom fighting?


Deflecting, even with your little "jokes" is still deflecting.


No. I have responded quite clearly that I did not think it was terrorism but that it might be and that im not too fussed on that description. I have variously called it grim, evil and a couple of other things. So if you need to me describe someone driving a car into a bunch if other people as a crime I will do so. It was a crime.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8195
Santa wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:


It is not deflecting. It was a joke.



Actually, it was the second time you deflected:

Santa wrote:
houtkabouter wrote:
Santa wrote:
Why is it important whether or not it is defined as terrorism?


Why is it so hard for you to call it what it is?


Freedom fighting?


Deflecting, even with your little "jokes" is still deflecting.


No. I have responded quite clearly that I did not think it was terrorism but that it might be and that im not too fussed on that description. I have variously called it grim, evil and a couple of other things. So if you need to me describe someone driving a car into a bunch if other people as a crime I will do so. It was a crime.

Why has your pal Donnie had such a big problem calling out the racist white nationalists, do you think?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14400
theaxe wrote:
Why has your pal Donnie had such a big problem calling out the racist white nationalists, do you think?


What's your view?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3733
Location: le Bayou
It's a criminal act that was motivated by hatred and bigotry and also as we see more and more unreleased anger, it was an attack to incite fear so it is an act of terrorism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21642
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:

No. I have responded quite clearly that I did not think it was terrorism but that it might be and that im not too fussed on that description. I have variously called it grim, evil and a couple of other things. So if you need to me describe someone driving a car into a bunch if other people as a crime I will do so. It was a crime.


Well hold the f**king phone, Santa declares murdering someone and injuring a pack of others with a car to be a crime. Don't stick your head too far above the parapet with that one there :lol:

Congrats on managing to downplay things, once more.

Wanna have another go at shifting the blame while you're at it? Not sure if you've really fulfilled that one very much, beyond making the victims culpable for being protesters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21642
Location: Middle East
lexpat wrote:
It's a criminal act that was motivated by hatred and bigotry and also as we see more and more unreleased anger, it was an attack to incite fear so it is an act of terrorism.


It's going to be interesting to see if the US Law Enforcement community will see it the same way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4354
Location: The void
houtkabouter wrote:
Uthikoloshe wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
houtkabouter wrote:
Sheesh.


You will be paged when a question on Internet Security arises.

He wont answer ;)

I've replied to you twice.

You last said 'no further comment' until I have read <suypercoolnamesguys> blog? Did I miss something?

I am trying my best to make sense of this fight. I come at this from the right side as we understand it here on PR. This VIPs article, if it is true, makes the 'DNC hacked by Russia' story bullshit. Before I make too much noise about it, I am trying to fact check. Since I suspect you fit on the left side (as understood on PR) , and are also somehow knowledgeable about computers, your opinion counts to me as someone who can tell me if VIPs are republican shills. I'd like it if it backs up my side, and dislike it if it doesn't, but likes and feelings are for Tinder and Twitter. I guess I am asking weather you still believe, in light if this VIPs article, weather you think it was a remote hack on the DNC in July 2016.

I could type the alternate scenario, but it would take me days to understand the issues and then more to get them into something coherent. The VIPS guy Ray McGovern lays it out in this video well enough (44 minutes, maybe watch the first 10 if you don't have time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__6wROkp8Dk&t=748s). There's also some good comments in below that video....

Spoiler: show
Richard Hack wrote:
There are two issues with this analysis. Neither means the analysis not is correct, but there are caveats.

1) It is possible to copy 2GB of data in 87 seconds over the Internet IF you have direct access to a high-speed line such as an OC-12 Optical Carrier line OR a Gigabit Ethernet line. The main problem with that theory is that you have to either be sitting in an ISP office or a corporate or government building with access to that line, and preferably direct access to the router, OR you have to have Gigabit Ethernet to the home. If the former, you don't get full speed access because the line is being shared among all users. If the latter, you have to be one of the only 17 percent of the country that has coverage for such a line

2) Bill Binney is talking about hacking over the Internet. It is possible to hack a target without going over the Internet. The two methods are 1) wireless connection, and 2) physical penetration hacking.

If the alleged DNC hackers connected to the DNC network over a wireless connection from close to the building, there is no way the NSA would know it. Also, depending on the wireless protocol used, speeds sufficient to copy 2GB in 87 seconds could be available. Note that this could have been how a leaker would do it as well, so it's not evidence one way or the other.

If the alleged DNC hackers physically penetrated the DNC building and gained physical access to the network, the NSA would be unable to detect that. Depending on the method used, even forensic analysis would not necessarily be able to detect that. Again, both hackers and leakers could have used this method.

The way to possibly determine if this was done would be to do a thorough forensic analysis of the servers (as well as the available routers, both cable and wireless), which again the FBI did not do. They and the other infosec companies who have commented on this alleged hack relied on an allegedly true forensic image of the server provided to them by CrowdStrike - a company which has compromising attitudes and confirmation bias about Russia.

So the analysis referenced does not completely PROVE that a hack was impossible. It is, however, one good piece of circumstantial evidence that supports the notion of a leak over a hack.


LaserBlowFish wrote:
There are far more problems with McGovern's representation of the forensic analysis.

If it was leaked by someone who was authorized to access to the data, they would just quickly copy it directly onto a drive using windows copy paste rather than doing anything that involves the linux cp command. This contradicts McGovern's idea that the DNC chose to release it in order to divert attention from/discredit other released material. If it was leaked by someone who wasn't authorized to access the data but instead took the server offline (or took advantage of a moment when it was already down for some reason), booted into linux on the drive and copied the files, then they'd be aware they're committing a crime so they'd be more careful to overwrite all the metadata so that it doesn't point to them. If they were smart enough to use a linux boot drive they'd surely be smart enough to run a simple touch command on everything to wipe the metadata. So the evidence actually means it's unlikely that it was inside leak.

On the other hand Russia had a compound in New York that Obama seized in December. The files may already have been sitting on a sever at that Russian compound when the July 5 copy took place. They could have transferred the files there over the internet, at speeds much lower than 23 MB/s, while their malware was still active on the DNC servers. If the Russians were doing such activities at the compound, they would've needed a quick way to destroy the evidence, so it makes a lot of sense for them to work off of a booted thumb drive rather than the hard drives. That way if the feds come they can just yank out the drives and smash them / hide them. They may have had a larger hard drive with all of the original collected materials and they copied some of them onto the boot drive of the guy responsible for figuring out what to do with it. Some of the data that Guccifer 2.0 released in October was found to have been doctored, so they likely had a policy of preserving the originals and making a copy that they then alter and release. As far as we know the data released in September wasn't altered (by the way I've no idea what Russian template they're talking about, that's not in the Forensicator's analysis), but on July 5 they may not have known yet whether they'll end up changing anything, so this policy might have been the reason for making the copy. The Russians would have had reason not only to wipe the original metadata, but also to play mind games with the investigators. An alternative reason for the copy might have been because they knew that it would make it look like an unauthorized copy of the originals. Even though an actual leaker wouldn't be dumb enough to forget to wipe the metadata, they knew it could be exploited to sow some doubt. Whatever the reason, the Russians making an additional copy at their compound, not the DNC HQ, fits perfectly with all of the forensics.

All of the analysis hinges on the forensics reflecting actual copies that took place somewhere, but they can of course be artificially modified to look like anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22220
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Sefton wrote:
A little bit more of HK's head has just fallen off.


How about the head of your cock? It must be chafing.

You've had a bad couple of days, I'll forgive you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4541
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:

No. I have responded quite clearly that I did not think it was terrorism but that it might be and that im not too fussed on that description. I have variously called it grim, evil and a couple of other things. So if you need to me describe someone driving a car into a bunch if other people as a crime I will do so. It was a crime.


Well hold the f**king phone, Santa declares murdering someone and injuring a pack of others with a car to be a crime. Don't stick your head too far above the parapet with that one there :lol:

Congrats on managing to downplay things, once more.

Wanna have another go at shifting the blame while you're at it? Not sure if you've really fulfilled that one very much, beyond making the victims culpable for being protesters.


Oh for fucks sakes. You're either not trying or you're not capable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22220
Santa wrote:
The competing chains of events as presented go like this:

A few of us -
1 underlying tensions
2 manifest in the election of bubblefart
3 escalating violent confrontations between (antifa, anti Trumpista and sundry other anti things) protesters and pro bubblefart, alt right and light, proud boys, white sypremacists, pro free speech) rallyists
4 this

Most of you
1. Americans are thick
2. bubblefart
3. This

Make of that what you will.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34774
McMaster - 'course it was terrorism.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-h ... sm-n792196


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21642
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:

No. I have responded quite clearly that I did not think it was terrorism but that it might be and that im not too fussed on that description. I have variously called it grim, evil and a couple of other things. So if you need to me describe someone driving a car into a bunch if other people as a crime I will do so. It was a crime.


Well hold the f**king phone, Santa declares murdering someone and injuring a pack of others with a car to be a crime. Don't stick your head too far above the parapet with that one there :lol:

Congrats on managing to downplay things, once more.

Wanna have another go at shifting the blame while you're at it? Not sure if you've really fulfilled that one very much, beyond making the victims culpable for being protesters.


Oh for fucks sakes. You're either not trying or you're not capable.


You're partly right, I really don't have to try very hard to see you struggle with your own semantic petard.

I will concede that yes, you're also right that this was a crime. Well done you for pointing that out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21642
Location: Middle East
henry wrote:
McMaster - 'course it was terrorism.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-h ... sm-n792196



:lol:

I don't have him on speed dial, I promise.

Always said that magnificent bald bastard was one of the good ones. 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21642
Location: Middle East
Sefton wrote:
Santa wrote:
The competing chains of events as presented go like this:

A few of us -
1 underlying tensions
2 manifest in the election of bubblefart
3 escalating violent confrontations between (antifa, anti Trumpista and sundry other anti things) protesters and pro bubblefart, alt right and light, proud boys, white sypremacists, pro free speech) rallyists
4 this

Most of you
1. Americans are thick
2. bubblefart
3. This

Make of that what you will.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Which list does "declaring deliberately running people down with a car to be a crime" go under?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8195
fatcat wrote:
theaxe wrote:
Why has your pal Donnie had such a big problem calling out the racist white nationalists, do you think?


What's your view?

I've stated my view previously, it's time the Trumpistas stated theirs, how about you state yours?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:58 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11396
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
fatcat wrote:
theaxe wrote:
Why has your pal Donnie had such a big problem calling out the racist white nationalists, do you think?


What's your view?

Trump refuses to condemn these people because he recognizes them as supporters and he supports them. That’s the truth. Anything else is denial.

How can this even surprise us? His top advisor ran the publication that courted and popularized the beliefs and actions of these same people. It’s all out in the open. Don’t ask why he can’t condemn them. We know.

The calls are coming from inside the house.

From this brilliant piece. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in- ... rs-house-3

Trying to rationalize 45's action is trying to rationalize an abuser. He hits me because he is under a lot of stress at work and so on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4541
Turbogoat wrote:
Sefton wrote:
Santa wrote:
The competing chains of events as presented go like this:

A few of us -
1 underlying tensions
2 manifest in the election of bubblefart
3 escalating violent confrontations between (antifa, anti Trumpista and sundry other anti things) protesters and pro bubblefart, alt right and light, proud boys, white sypremacists, pro free speech) rallyists
4 this

Most of you
1. Americans are thick
2. bubblefart
3. This

Make of that what you will.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Which list does "declaring deliberately running people down with a car to be a crime" go under?


You're really being quite thick about this. Let me try the easy way. What would you have me say about It?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21642
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
You're really being quite thick about this. Let me try the easy way. What would you have me say about It?


Fear not, you've said quite enough. It's been quite telling, really.

Be sure and let us know what other incidents in the future you think qualify as a crime though, we can't wait to hear what your judgement will be there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14400
theaxe wrote:
fatcat wrote:
theaxe wrote:
Why has your pal Donnie had such a big problem calling out the racist white nationalists, do you think?


What's your view?

I've stated my view previously, it's time the Trumpistas stated theirs, how about you state yours?


Fair enough. I've only just looked in on this thread again having avoided it for a few months so I've no idea what you think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14400
Deadtigers wrote:
fatcat wrote:
theaxe wrote:
Why has your pal Donnie had such a big problem calling out the racist white nationalists, do you think?


What's your view?

bubblefart refuses to condemn these people because he recognizes them as supporters and he supports them. That’s the truth. Anything else is denial.

How can this even surprise us? His top advisor ran the publication that courted and popularized the beliefs and actions of these same people. It’s all out in the open. Don’t ask why he can’t condemn them. We know.

The calls are coming from inside the house.

From this brilliant piece. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in- ... rs-house-3

Trying to rationalize 45's action is trying to rationalize an abuser. He hits me because he is under a lot of stress at work and so on.


He has condemned them although he should have gone further and singled them out. But even if he had would that have made any difference to you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4541
Everyone going to the March for Racial Justice on September 30th?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8195
Santa wrote:
Everyone going to the March for Racial Justice on September 30th?

Santa - you still haven't answered my question


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4541
theaxe wrote:
Santa wrote:
Everyone going to the March for Racial Justice on September 30th?

Santa - you still haven't answered my question


What did you say?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4541
Dude come on. You've waited around for the great reveal. Get in there. What's the question - he said naively walking into the trap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8195
Santa wrote:
theaxe wrote:
Santa wrote:
Everyone going to the March for Racial Justice on September 30th?

Santa - you still haven't answered my question


What did you say?

Why has Drumpf been unwilling to single the alt-right, white supremacists and nazis out for criticism, in your opinion?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4541
theaxe wrote:
Santa wrote:
theaxe wrote:
Santa wrote:
Everyone going to the March for Racial Justice on September 30th?

Santa - you still haven't answered my question


What did you say?

Why has Drumpf been unwilling to single the alt-right, white supremacists and nazis out for criticism, in your opinion?


Because he is evil. Why do you think he doesn't? Is it because it may alienate some of his voters?


Last edited by Santa on Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8195
Santa wrote:
theaxe wrote:
Santa wrote:
theaxe wrote:
Santa wrote:
Everyone going to the March for Racial Justice on September 30th?

Santa - you still haven't answered my question


What did you say?

Why has Drumpf been unwilling to single the alt-right, white supremacists and nazis out for criticism, in your opinion?


Because he is evil.

Your honest opinion please


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8195
Santa wrote:
theaxe wrote:
Santa wrote:
theaxe wrote:
Santa wrote:
Everyone going to the March for Racial Justice on September 30th?

Santa - you still haven't answered my question


What did you say?

Why has Drumpf been unwilling to single the alt-right, white supremacists and nazis out for criticism, in your opinion?


Because he is evil. Why do you think he doesn't? Is it because it may alienate some of his voters?

Yes, I tend to think he is calculating that a statement condemning these people will not be popular with parts of his base so he is avoiding it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4541
theaxe wrote:
Your honest opinion please


Maybe he doesn't want to upset some people who voted for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14400
Oh heck, the big reveal was such an anti climax.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64404 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345 ... 1611  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Bokkom, Boomslang, Deadtigers, Google Adsense [Bot], Rinkals, Tecumseh and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group