Nancy Pelosi is too far Right for the Democrat base

[GMDino]

(09-23-2017, 05:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you're arguing that the organizer, Jason Kessler, and the headlining speaker Richard Spencer are not members of the white supremacist movement?

Or are you arguing that an event organized by white supremacists in which they chant Nazi slogans isn't inherently a white supremacist event?

He's trying to argue that not EVERYONE who went to protest is a Nazi.

And he be technically correct.

But I would add that anyone who wasn't and stuck around once the chants and marching started anyway sssuuuurrreeee better look to make sure their robes are clean and white.

An aside.   Give Spencer's tear-filled video I'm leaning toward stopping calling them Nazis and calling them a female reproductive part....

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2017, 05:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you're arguing that the organizer, Jason Kessler, and the headlining speaker Richard Spencer are not members of the white supremacist movement?

Or are you arguing that an event organized by white supremacists in which they chant Nazi slogans isn't inherently a white supremacist event?

I'm not ignoring anything; nor have I or anyone else stated  that there was not a large White Supremacist representation. I'm just not prepared to call everyone that attended the United the Right a White Supremacist. Of course that's not how I usually roll. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2017, 05:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not ignoring anything; nor have I or anyone else stated  that there was not a large White Supremacist representation. I'm just not prepared to call everyone that attended the United the Right a White Supremacist. Of course that's not how I usually roll. 

I didn't say you are, just clarifying how you were denying it was a white supremacists rally. I asked if people who aren't white supremacists routinely participate in white supremacist rallies. You then questioned if it was a White supremacist rally. I'm clarifying that a rally organized by white supremacists in which Nazi slogans are chanted is a white supremacist rally.

So that brings me back to my previous question of how often do non white supremacists participate in a white supremacist rally? How often do people join Klan marches cause they want to support the Klans right to free speech?

At the very least we can agree that they'd be in a small, small minority, right? I don't often hear of people who aren't Neo Nazis joining Neo Nazis in march. I'm legit asking for you to ballpark what percent of the participants at this white supremacist rally weren't white supremacists.

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2017, 05:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I didn't say you are, just clarifying how you were denying it was a white supremacists rally. I asked if people who aren't white supremacists routinely participate in white supremacist rallies. You then questioned if it was a White supremacist rally. I'm clarifying that a rally organized by white supremacists in which Nazi slogans are chanted is a white supremacist rally.

So that brings me back to my previous question of how often do non white supremacists participate in a white supremacist rally? How often do people join Klan marches cause they want to support the Klans right to free speech?

At the very least we can agree that they'd be in a small, small minority, right? I don't often hear of people who aren't Neo Nazis joining Neo Nazis in march. I'm legit asking for you to ballpark what percent of the participants at this white supremacist rally weren't white supremacists.

There were organizations there such as the 3 percenters and oath keepers whose focus was standing up against what they viewed as a violation of the Constitution. I have read the oath keepers also went to Ferguson to stand up for the protestors there.   

How often did the Democratic Party vote under Robert Byrd? 

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2017, 05:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There were organizations there such as the 3 percenters and oath keepers whose focus was standing up against what they viewed as a violation of the Constitution. I have read the oath keepers also went to Ferguson to stand up for the protestors there.   

How often did the Democratic Party vote under Robert Byrd? 

So the anti government militias whose members have been in the news for such actions as planning domestic terrorism are the "very fine people" he meant. Silent protesters are "sons of bitches". Anti government militias are "very fine people". Glad we settled that.

As for your question, i don't know. He was Pro Tempore for about 11.5 years. I'm assuming you're asking because you want to equate current White Suoremacist leaders to someone being a leader in the Senate decades after they denounced their former membership in the KKK and eventually became a leader in promoting civil rights as a means of atoning for the sins of their youth.

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2017, 05:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So the anti government militias whose members have been in the news for such actions as planning domestic terrorism are the "very fine people" he meant. Silent protesters are "sons of bitches". Anti government militias are "very fine people". Glad we settled that.

We've settled something alright; your ability to move to goal post. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2017, 06:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We've settled something alright; your ability to move to goal post. 

Someone certainly is moving the goal posts, but I don't think it's the guy repeating the fact that participants of a white supremacist rally are white supremacists. I think it's the guy who went from "when did he say that" to "that doesn't mean he was mentioning the white supremacists" to "they're not all white supremacists" to "it wasn't even a white supremacists rally" back to "they're not all white supremacists, some are anti government militias" and then mentions a dead former President Pro Tempore. 

[BmorePat87]

Seriously, though, what was up with name dropping Robert Byrd? lol

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2017, 06:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Someone certainly is moving the goal posts, but I don't think it's the guy repeating the fact that participants of a white supremacist rally are white supremacists. I think it's the guy who went from "when did he say that" to "that doesn't mean he was mentioning the white supremacists" to "they're not all white supremacists" to "it wasn't even a white supremacists rally" back to "they're not all white supremacists, some are anti government militias" and then mentions a dead former President Pro Tempore. 

Perhaps it was the guy that keep asserting every was a White Supremacist; until, given an example of a group in attendance that are not White Supremacists, so it turned to they're terrorists.

But you're most likely right; it's probably that dude that said all those other thing you said he said.

But truth be known; I took issue with the assertion that everyone that attended the rally was a White Supremacist; not sure I have changed that.  Hell even your best buddy was able to understand the original point.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-23-2017, 04:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Horsehockey.

They are articles designed to add an alt-right spin to any article.

That's not "pointing out leftist reporting" that is spinning any reporting to make it alt-right friendly.

I have posted from news sites that aggregate storied from around the web.  I explain that that is what they are but they are being used for the ease to get ot the video of a story plus try to provide a link to the original story.

I don't just share it as truth.

Big difference.

Own it.

Dailywire writes from a conservative point of view. Which also links directly back to the original leftist biased major media story.

I share a story to promote discussion on this board. Whether you agree or disagree with the marieral is not even a concern. The discussion of the posted matieral is important. Unfortunately you and others on the board either do not click to a story and then click the embedded links to the leftist biased articles or possibly just are not ever notice them.

At least with a dailywire we get a conservative point of view and a leftist link. If we just post from msm then we have to just accept their leftist slant with no conservative point of view.

[GMDino]

(09-23-2017, 07:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Dailywire writes from a conservative point of view.   Which also links directly back to the original leftist biased major media story.  

I share a story to promote discussion on this board.   Whether you agree or disagree with the marieral is not even a concern.   The discussion of the posted matieral is important.   Unfortunately you and others on the board either do not click to a story and then click the embedded links to the leftist biased articles or possibly just are not ever notice them.

At least with a dailywire we get a conservative point of view and a leftist link.    If we just post from msm then we have to just accept their leftist slant with no conservative point of view.

Actually, quite the opposite, I will search for the original story rather than give an alt-right site the ad click they so desperately want.

A post from MSN or CNN or any news site can be read as is and a personal opinion given rather than using an alt-right site to state your views.

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2017, 06:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps it was the guy that keep asserting every was a White Supremacist; until, given an example of a group in attendance that are not White Supremacists, so it turned to they're terrorists.

But you're most likely right; it's probably that dude that said all those other thing you said he said.

I called them an anti-government group, which they are, who have been in the news recently because of members getting arrested for plotting domestic terrorism, which they have. I do this to make the same point as before:

-Guy kneeling during the national anthem because of racial injustice = "son of a *****" who should be fired
-Anti government militia = "very nice people"

Replacing "white supremacist" with "anti government militia" still doesn't make this sound good. 

Quote:But truth be known; I took issue with the assertion that everyone that attended the rally was a White Supremacist; not sure I have changed that.  Hell even your best buddy was able to understand the original point.

I asked you to ballpark what percent of the white supremacist rally participants weren't white supremacists. You seem fairly positive that a large enough share of non white supremacists participate in white supremacist events to be of note when discussing the participants of that event. It has to be a healthy chunk then. Just ballpark. 

I'm also curious what that whole Byrd thing was. 

[BmorePat87]

Apparently the Oath Keepers came out and said they did not attend the rally.


https://rewire.news/article/2017/08/11/charlottesville-virginia-readies-hate-group-rally/
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/23/545509627/armed-militias-face-off-with-the-antifa-in-the-new-landscape-of-political-protes


A leader of a faction of 3 Percenters says that very few of them actually went since most members did not want to be associated with white supremacists

https://qz.com/1053604/who-were-the-armed-camouflaged-men-in-charlottesville-who-have-nothing-to-do-with-the-military/


Even the far right anti government crowd called this event organized by white supremacists a white supremacist rally.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-23-2017, 07:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Actually, quite the opposite, I will search for the original story rather than give an alt-right site the ad click they so desperately want.

A post from MSN or CNN or any news site can be read as is and a personal opinion given rather than using an alt-right site to state your views.

Then why do you piss and moan about dailywire on here when you can just click the link to the original story. You waste 3-4 posts in a thread complaining about something that you can easily bypass.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-23-2017, 04:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You do realize that in every dailywire article or even breitbart for that matter...... there is a direct link to the other reporting. So the article is a conservative point of view of the News. That has the leftist point of view in he original reporting.

These articles are the most balanced because you can directly link to the leftist pov reporting.

Let's take the Daily Wire article about modern day eugenics in Iceland where you claimed women were having prenatal screening tests forced upon them.

The story is about a woman who didn't have the tests forced on her and as a result had a child with Down Syndrome instead of an abortion.

Therefore, the article and you were dishonest in your claims.

A dishonest article with a conservative slant isn't more balanced because it includes a link to another story. It's still a dishonest story regardless of the slant.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-27-2017, 06:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Let's take the Daily Wire article about modern day eugenics in Iceland where you claimed women were having prenatal screening tests forced upon them.

The story is about a woman who didn't have the tests forced on her and as a result had a child with Down Syndrome instead of an abortion.

Therefore, the article and you were dishonest in your claims.

A dishonest article with a conservative slant isn't more balanced because it includes a link to another story. It's still a dishonest story regardless of the slant.

You mean the article that linked directly back to the original cbs reporting within the article.

Yes thank you for making my point.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-27-2017, 09:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You mean the article that linked directly back to the original cbs reporting within the article.

Yes thank you for making my point.

You didn't deny you and the article were dishonest. Thanks for making my point. Plus I read the original article and watched the video and asked you to show me exactly where I could find the information to support the dishonest claims and as usual you couldn't. Furthermore, it was apparent you hadn't watched the video you said I should watch in less than 90 seconds.

Just because it linked to a story without deliberate lies doesn't make the Daily Wire's deliberate lies any less dishonest.