Nancy Pelosi is too far Right for the Democrat base

[Vlad]

(09-23-2017, 08:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Just when we were making progress. Please share the quote where he called some white supremacists "very fine people".

I suppose one could draw that inference if they believed that everyone protesting the removal of statues are White Supremacists; otherwise, it is just an attempt to troll.  

He did but not exclusively white supremacists, he said 'both sides'.
Notice how this press conference started out and ended up.
Pathetic liberal media scumbags.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662

[ballsofsteel]

(09-22-2017, 03:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I think he fits in more with a classic democrat.    He could have easily ran as a democrat in the 80's, 90's or even 00's.

Not even close. That is why he ran as a Rupub. He shares their values, Greed and take from the poor and give to the rich.

[Vlad]

(09-23-2017, 04:16 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When speaking of white supremacist groups protesting, he described some of them as being "very fine people".

But a comment by a liberal that is blatantly racist you give a pass to.
"That we have a clean articulate black man running for president"  was just Joe Biden being Joe.  Imagine Trump saying that.

Can't you not ever get off your one track mind and think out of the box when it comes to the things Trump says fully aware he is the most buffoonish and inarticulate speaking president ever?

When Trump said there are "very fine people on both sides" he clearly meant those that work hard every day to provide for their families and are tax paying, LAW ABIDING, PEACEFUL CITIZENS...until the thugs on your side showed up.

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2017, 08:09 AM)Vlad Wrote: He did but not exclusively white supremacists, he said 'both sides'.
Notice how this press conference started out and ended up.
Pathetic liberal media scumbags.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662

Believe me I've read the transcript before and the reporter's questions and the liberal's inference of it are what is dividing this country far more efficiently than any White Supremacists group could ever hope to do.  

[Vlad]

(09-23-2017, 09:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Believe me I've read the transcript before and the reporter's questions and the liberal's inference of it are what is dividing this country far more efficiently than any White Supremacists group could ever hope to do.  

I'm not sure weather or not the country is any more divided than it has been under Obama

A country divided and liberal hate...Trumps election didn't create division or leftist hate,  it exposed it.

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2017, 08:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Just when we were making progress. Please share the quote where he called some white supremacists "very fine people".

I suppose one could draw that inference if they believed that everyone protesting the removal of statues are White Supremacists; otherwise, it is just an attempt to troll.  

The rally was organized by white supremacist groups. Starting with that fact, Trump said not everyone there was a Nazi and that "You also had some very fine people on both sides" (8/15/17 during a press conference at Trump Towers). He's referring to the protest at night in which organizers led chants of "Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil". He went on to mention several times that they had permits, unlike the "alt left" who "came charging with clubs". Permits obtained by white supremacists groups.

It's clear he tried to paint some of the protestors at the white supremacists organized rally at benign, using his most descriptive language for left counter protestors. The point of this all that, the President calling for employers to fire people for silent protesting aside, he uses much more aggressive and deriding language for a guy silencing protesting inequality than he did for Neo Nazis.

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2017, 08:28 AM)Vlad Wrote: But a comment by a liberal that is blatantly racist you give a pass to.
"That we have a clean articulate black man running for president"  was just Joe Biden being Joe.  Imagine Trump saying that.

Can't you not ever get off your one track mind and think out of the box when it comes to the things Trump says fully aware he is the most buffoonish and inarticulate speaking president ever?

When Trump said there are "very fine people on both sides" he clearly meant those that work hard every day to provide for their families and are tax paying, LAW ABIDING, PEACEFUL CITIZENS...until the thugs on your side showed up.

So are we finding quotes from 10 years ago that have nothing to do with this thread and accusing each other of ignoring them?

and, yes, those poor peaceful White Supremacists with their torches and shields and jars of piss and mace. They were so peaceful and law abiding. Law abiding citizens bring riot gear and urine to rallies and yell Nazi slogans

[StLucieBengal]

(09-23-2017, 02:01 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I didn't expect you would.  I didn't he say he did either but he does try to bypass them as much as he can.  If he had the ability to censor the press I would have no doubt that he would. So since he can't censor them he just tries to discredit them.  It's his own antics that gets him the headlines. 

The funny part about this is you complain about fake news then post links to the dailywire or breitbart.  Sounds like you like your news spoon fed to you so that it aligns with your world view.

The even funnier part to me is that you think the MSM is fake is because you're part of the alt-right.

When did I become alt right?

DW, Breitbart are acknowledged slanted news. My issue is with the media who claims to be unbiased but yet still reports on a slant.

Going around the media by going to twitter isn't censoring the media. Censoring the press would be shutting them down using the government or cancelling all press briefings.

So far he has turned off the cameras because media press corp put on a show for the camera so they can get a show. That is not censoring the press. Honestly all these could be audio Only and be fine .

This would all go away if the media just acknowledged they were biased. MSNBC has started doing this and even though I don't agree it's pretty clear what they want to show and what They do not..... heck they cancelled Greta VanSustren and she is pretty liberal.

[GMDino]

(09-23-2017, 11:12 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When did I become alt right?  

DW, Breitbart are acknowledged slanted news.   My issue is with the media who claims to be unbiased but yet still reports on a slant.  

Ok, THIS quote would make someone "alt-right" when the acknowledge that they are deliberately sharing "news" slanted to the right, and they are aware the news is that way, in order to order to push/agree with their agenda.

(09-23-2017, 11:12 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Going around the media by going to twitter isn't censoring the media.   Censoring the press would be shutting them down using the government or cancelling all press briefings.

And using sites that deliberately twist the news and prints demonstrably provable lies is lyinh.

(09-23-2017, 11:12 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So far he has turned off the cameras because media press corp put on a show for the camera so they can get a show.    That is not censoring the press.  Honestly all these could be audio Only and be fine .  

This would all go away if the media just acknowledged they were biased.    MSNBC has started doing this and even though I don't agree it's pretty clear what they want to show and what They do not..... heck they cancelled Greta VanSustren and she is pretty liberal.

The POTUS call ed the press the "enemy".

Pretty much don't need any proof beyond that.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-23-2017, 11:12 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When did I become alt right?  

DW, Breitbart are acknowledged slanted news.   My issue is with the media who claims to be unbiased but yet still reports on a slant.  

Going around the media by going to twitter isn't censoring the media.   Censoring the press would be shutting them down using the government or cancelling all press briefings.    

So far he has turned off the cameras because media press corp put on a show for the camera so they can get a show.    That is not censoring the press.  Honestly all these could be audio Only and be fine .  

This would all go away if the media just acknowledged they were biased.    MSNBC has started doing this and even though I don't agree it's pretty clear what they want to show and what They do not..... heck they cancelled Greta VanSustren and she is pretty liberal.

LOL...I wouldn't want to be associated with the alt-right either!  Sorry you're stuck pal.

I'd address more of this post if I had time, but time to go to work.  Maybe later.

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2017, 10:14 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The rally was organized by white supremacist groups. Starting with that fact, Trump said not everyone there was a Nazi and that "You also had some very fine people on both sides" (8/15/17 during a press conference at Trump Towers). He's referring to the protest at night in which organizers led chants of "Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil". He went on to mention several times that they had permits, unlike the "alt left" who "came charging with clubs". Permits obtained by white supremacists groups.

It's clear he tried to paint some of the protestors at the white supremacists organized rally at benign, using his most descriptive language for left counter protestors. The point of this all that, the President calling for employers to fire people for silent protesting aside, he uses much more aggressive and deriding language for a guy silencing protesting inequality than he did for Neo Nazis.

All that and you still cannot point to him calling White Supremacists "very fine" people. He actually made a distinction between the two and even said "we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence." ; but, spinning the narrative that he called White Supremacists "very nice" people helps the left with their agenda of divisiveness.

If the sportsman want to use their platform to express their views about the Nation, then why can't the leader of that Nation express his views about the sportsman?   

[StLucieBengal]

(09-23-2017, 11:18 AM)GMDino Wrote: Ok, THIS quote would make someone "alt-right" when the acknowledge that they are deliberately sharing "news" slanted to the right, and they are aware the news is that way, in order to order to push/agree with their agenda.


And using sites that deliberately twist the news and prints demonstrably provable lies is lyinh.


The POTUS call ed the press the "enemy".

Pretty much don't need any proof beyond that.

So it's alt right that I do not believe we have unbiased media reporting? Lol ok then

I post threads with stories that are scraped from major media sources. The bias from the original reporting is often called out. By posting these stories I actually do show both sides of the bias. This allows the reader to read the conservative point of view plus click the links From the story to the original reporting. You claim DW stories are bad for the board j actually think they help the board because in these stories you can click back to the original reporting. The problem for you and others here is that you are just too lazy to click through true story. I imagine it would help if it was in meme and gif format.

When the media blatantly lies and tries to always paint conservatives and normal midwestern people as rubes. People are fed up with that stuff and polls have shown people hate the media and think they are liars. Especially with major media.

This is why talk radio, podcasting, and conservative news sources are so popular.

[GMDino]

(09-23-2017, 12:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So it's alt right that I do not believe we have unbiased media reporting?  Lol ok then

Nooooooo.....it's alt right because you say you use sites to support your positions that are...




alt right!

(09-23-2017, 12:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I post threads with stories that are scraped from major media sources.  The bias from the original reporting is often called out.    By posting these stories I actually do show both sides of the bias.   This allows the reader to read the conservative point of view plus click the links From the story to the original reporting.    You claim DW stories are bad for the board j actually think they help the board because in these stories you can click back to the original reporting.    The problem for you and others here is that you are just too lazy to click through true story.   I imagine it would help if it was in meme and gif format.  

I claim that the dailywire (please own it) stories are nothing but propaganda.  Never said they were bad for the board...just laughable.

When the original reporting is shown it is claimed that THAT story is biased.  

How many times as Matt or others posted legitimate articles that aren't even read but are responded too based on the headline?

How many times has a post been take line by line to point out the fallacies and bias only to be written off due to a misspelled word or the EXACT definition used in a particular sentence?  Or, my favorite, simple responded too with an insult or cliche meant to imply that its is always someone ELSE who is not reading or studying.

The last thing I am is lazy when it comes to reading.  The first thing I am is skeptical when the source material is "admittedly" alt-right.

(09-23-2017, 12:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When the media blatantly lies and tries to always paint conservatives and normal midwestern people as rubes.   People are fed up with that stuff and polls have shown people hate the media and think they are liars.    Especially with major media.  

This is why talk radio, podcasting, and conservative news sources are so popular.

People get offended by everything.  Within this week, on this board, someone said they "must be racist" because they supported Trump when that was never said.  

People being offended doesn't make it right to simply lie about things or to use "being offended" to support a biased/racist/whateveristposition.

But the last line must explain why no one on the right ever complains about the "liberal media" or "liberal elites" in Hollywood and television...since conservative sources are "so popular".

Or it could be just a talking point to cover up a confirmed bias disguising as a "normal mid-western" libertarian.    

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2017, 12:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All that and you still cannot point to him calling White Supremacists "very fine" people. He actually made a distinction between the two and even said "we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence." ; but, spinning the narrative that he called White Supremacists "very nice" people helps the left with their agenda of divisiveness.

If the sportsman want to use their platform to express their views about the Nation, then why can't the leader of that Nation express his views about the sportsman?   

He said that some people taking part in a white supremacist rally where the crowd was led in chants yelling Nazi slogans were "very nice people"... so he called some white supremacists "very nice people". I guess we can assume some of the people who openly took part in a rally organized by white supremacists and yelled "Jews won't replace us" and "blood and soil" weren't white supremacists, but that's stretching.

It's not like this was an event not planned by white supremacists and they just tagged along. This was a rally ornagzined by white supremacists, where the permits he kept reminding us about were obtained by white supremacists, and where the participants were led in chanting Nazi slogans. That's like me going to a KKK rallying, marching, yelling the N word and then trying to claim I'm not a racist, I just really like states rights.

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2017, 02:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He said that some people taking part in a white supremacist rally where the crowd was led in chants yelling Nazi slogans were "very nice people"... so he called some white supremacists "very nice people". I guess we can assume some of the people who openly took part in a rally organized by white supremacists and yelled "Jews won't replace us" and "blood and soil" weren't white supremacists, but that's stretching.

It's not like this was an event not planned by white supremacists and they just tagged along. This was a rally ornagzined by white supremacists, where the permits he kept reminding us about were obtained by white supremacists, and where the participants were led in chanting  Nazi slogans. That's like me going to a KKK rallying, marching, yelling the N word and then trying to claim I'm not a racist, I just really like states rights.

.......or it could have just been some folks that didn't want to see a piece of their history removed and that is who he was referring to as he separated them from the White Supremacists he condemned. But it's probably best to go with they all were White Supremacists; it fits the liberal playbook. 

All that opposed the rally were Antifa and only there to incite violence. Hey this divisive, stereotypical jargon is fun.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-23-2017, 01:00 PM)GMDino Wrote:



Nooooooo.....it's alt right because you say you use sites to support your positions that are...




alt right!






I claim that the dailywire (please own it) stories are nothing but propaganda.  Never said they were bad for the board...just laughable.

When the original reporting is shown it is claimed that THAT story is biased.  

How many times as Matt or others posted legitimate articles that aren't even read but are responded too based on the headline?

How many times has a post been take line by line to point out the fallacies and bias only to be written off due to a misspelled word or the EXACT definition used in a particular sentence?  Or, my favorite, simple responded too with an insult or cliche meant to imply that its is always someone ELSE who is not reading or studying.

The last thing I am is lazy when it comes to reading.  The first thing I am is skeptical when the source material is "admittedly" alt-right.



People get offended by everything.  Within this week, on this board, someone said they "must be racist" because they supported Trump when that was never said.  

People being offended doesn't make it right to simply lie about things or to use "being offended" to support a biased/racist/whateveristposition.

But the last line must explain why no one on the right ever complains about the "liberal media" or "liberal elites" in Hollywood and television...since conservative sources are "so popular".

Or it could be just a talking point to cover up a confirmed bias disguising as a "normal mid-western" libertarian.    

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.

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2017, 03:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: .......or it could have just been some folks that didn't want to see a piece of their history removed and that is who he was referring to as he separated them from the White Supremacists he condemned. But it's probably best to go with they all were White Supremacists; it fits the liberal playbook. 

All that opposed the rally were Antifa and only there to incite violence. Hey this divisive, stereotypical jargon is fun.

Do people often go to white supremacist rallies when they aren't white supremacists?

[GMDino]

(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.

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.

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2017, 04:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Do people often go to white supremacist rallies when they aren't white supremacists?

The Unite the Right Rally drew groups from many different organizations and individuals that felt Constitutional Rights were being violated.

Tell you what, this is going nowhere. You just roll with everyone that attended the Unite the Right Rally was a White Supremacist and I'll give the benefit of the doubt that some were there just defending what they considered their Constitutional Right.   

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2017, 05:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Unite the Right Rally drew groups from many different organizations and individuals that felt Constitutional Rights were being violated.

Tell you what, this is going nowhere. You just roll with everyone that attended the Unite the Right Rally was a White Supremacist and I'll give the benefit of the doubt that some were there just defending what they considered their Constitutional Right.   

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?