President Donald J. Trump

[Gd5150]

People who compare someone they disagree with politically to someone who exterminated 6 million Jewish men, women, and children, show their total lack of respect to those victims and their families. They show their complete lack of intelligence and critical thinking. In other words they're fucking ignorant filth.

[21st Century Man]

Fascists to the left of me, Fascists to the right


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q

[K_Dubb]

I read that as because he didn't play along with the setup he's bad? I bet somewhere else in America someone is breaking the law that Trump doesn't know about either. Were you expecting omniscience? Did you think we elected God? You always use a lot of big words but what you're actually saying is simplistic to the point of stupidity.  :

'S ok I think there's a language barrier.  Let me break it down for you:

At some point after Trump's elected, a group he has been forced to repeatedly disavow, with growing annoyance, during his campaign holds a thing.  Sure, they pick a cause they can pass off as legitimate, like old statues, cuz they don't want to look like complete goons.  But they can't help doing the whole Nazi thing and, just to make it easy, one of them drives a car into the opposition.

At this point you could, if you were conspiracy-minded, almost think Trump was behind it all, maneuvering things to give himself the perfect platform to denounce them once and for all and vow to break them with the force of the entire Federal government.  Put to rest every rumor and dirty guilt-by-association tactic used against him, burnish his civil-rights credentials, and make it easy for Congress to work with him, secure that he represents all that is good and right.

But, no.  He picks the flimsy pretext for the rally and tries to get the public to see that those statues are worth preserving, a difficult case to make that requires even-handed, thoughtful consideration, precisely what's lacking in debate right now.

God knows why he did it.  Even if he owes some allegiance to certain agitators among them for his win, now's the time to kick them in the teeth and come out looking truly presidential.  I mean, who likes Nazis?  Everybody can get behind that, right?  Sure it was a tragedy, but we're talking politics here, and they should never be wasted.  It should have been a slam-dunk goal.

[PB the Deplorable]

... At this point you could, if you were conspiracy-minded, almost think Trump was behind it all...

Nope, by now people paying atention would assume the pretend journalists were behind it.  We know they, the Democrat Party, BLM / Antifa or whatever name they are going by this week, and the rest of the ''Progressive'' Fascist America-haters are in cahoots.

[Dr. MD MD]

'S ok I think there's a language barrier.  Let me break it down for you:

At some point after Trump's elected, a group he has been forced to repeatedly disavow, with growing annoyance, during his campaign holds a thing.  Sure, they pick a cause they can pass off as legitimate, like old statues, cuz they don't want to look like complete goons.  But they can't help doing the whole Nazi thing and, just to make it easy, one of them drives a car into the opposition.

At this point you could, if you were conspiracy-minded, almost think Trump was behind it all, maneuvering things to give himself the perfect platform to denounce them once and for all and vow to break them with the force of the entire Federal government.  Put to rest every rumor and dirty guilt-by-association tactic used against him, burnish his civil-rights credentials, and make it easy for Congress to work with him, secure that he represents all that is good and right.

But, no.  He picks the flimsy pretext for the rally and tries to get the public to see that those statues are worth preserving, a difficult case to make that requires even-handed, thoughtful consideration, precisely what's lacking in debate right now.

God knows why he did it.  Even if he owes some allegiance to certain agitators among them for his win, now's the time to kick them in the teeth and come out looking truly presidential.  I mean, who likes Nazis?  Everybody can get behind that, right?  Sure it was a tragedy, but we're talking politics here, and it should have been a slam-dunk goal.

I still don't understand how you say But no. He made two announcements and because he didn't immediately go along with the media's white terrorist narrative (and good for him for not) this makes him a supporter of the people who organized the event?! Quite the leap there, don't you think? Do you you actually listen to what your saying yourself? 

[21st Century Man]

But, no.  He picks the flimsy pretext for the rally and tries to get the public to see that those statues are worth preserving, a difficult case to make that requires even-handed, thoughtful consideration, precisely what's lacking in debate right now.

I completely disagree with you. The Germans might as well get rid of Auschwitz.  These monuments represent part of history for better or worse.  If it causes people to go home and educate themselves about the person(s), place or event the monument is memorializing then it is all good.  Who is next?  Jefferson and Washington?  No, I'm bitterly opposed.

[ZaZa]

Haha I don't think the Deep State helped him, with astonishing discernment he has somehow misplaced when it comes to other groups, pick out the knot of turkey-necked history buffs in that crowd of shin-kickers.  He can shake his own hand on that one.

I read that as because he didn't play along with the setup he's bad? I bet somewhere else in America someone is breaking the law that Trump doesn't know about either. Were you expecting omniscience? Did you think we elected God? You always use a lot of big words but what you're actually saying is simplistic to the point of stupidity.  :

Dr. MD MD, ha ha ha LOL
lamenting again that some people use words that you have no clue about and need to surf the web to learn their meaning.
What a pathetic poignant piteous wussy :

[ZaZa]

People who compare someone they disagree with politically to someone who exterminated 6 million Jewish men, women, and children, show their total lack of respect to those victims and their families. They show their complete lack of intelligence and critical thinking. In other words they're fucking ignorant filth.

Well said !

[Dr. MD MD]

Dr. MD MD, ha ha ha LOL
lamenting again that some people use words that you have no clue about and need to surf the web to learn their meaning.
What a pathetic poignant piteous wussy :

Mmm! More useless faggot energy! 

[GravitySucks]

I completely disagree with you. The Germans might as well get rid of Auschwitz.  These monuments represent part of history for better or worse.  If it causes people to go home and educate themselves about the person(s), place or event the monument is memorializing then it is all good.  Who is next?  Jefferson and Washington?  No, I'm bitterly opposed.

Exactly. Look at the Alamo. It was being illegally held by a bunch of terrorists until the Mexican Army fought to instill order in San Antonio.

[Gd5150]

"The Holocaust was a singular event in human history, and it is an insult to the memory of the millions who died as a result of Hitler's plan of mass extermination to compare the Nazi dictator to any American president," said Abraham H. Foxman, American Defamation League national director and a Holocaust survivor.

[K_Dubb]

I still don't understand how you say But no. He made two announcements and because he didn't immediately go along with the media's white terrorist narrative (and good for him for not) this makes him a supporter of the people who organized the event?! Quite the leap there, don't you think? Do you you actually listen to what your saying yourself? 

Hey I tried no big words!  If you read really carefully I don't say he's a supporter at all.  I don't think he's a racist.  He squandered a political opportunity, botched the shot, flibbertied the gibbet, stickied the wicket, God I wish I knew more vernacular metaphors!

[21st Century Man]

Exactly. Look at the Alamo. It was being illegally held by a bunch of terrorists until the Mexican Army fought to instill order in San Antonio.

LOL.  Well-said.  I love history and what is going on right now is abhorrent to me.   Whitewashing it needs to be avoided at all costs.

[albrecht]

'S ok I think there's a language barrier.  Let me break it down for you:

At some point after Trump's elected, a group he has been forced to repeatedly disavow, with growing annoyance, during his campaign holds a thing.  Sure, they pick a cause they can pass off as legitimate, like old statues, cuz they don't want to look like complete goons.  But they can't help doing the whole Nazi thing and, just to make it easy, one of them drives a car into the opposition.

At this point you could, if you were conspiracy-minded, almost think Trump was behind it all, maneuvering things to give himself the perfect platform to denounce them once and for all and vow to break them with the force of the entire Federal government.  Put to rest every rumor and dirty guilt-by-association tactic used against him, burnish his civil-rights credentials, and make it easy for Congress to work with him, secure that he represents all that is good and right.

But, no.  He picks the flimsy pretext for the rally and tries to get the public to see that those statues are worth preserving, a difficult case to make that requires even-handed, thoughtful consideration, precisely what's lacking in debate right now.

God knows why he did it.  Even if he owes some allegiance to certain agitators among them for his win, now's the time to kick them in the teeth and come out looking truly presidential.  I mean, who likes Nazis?  Everybody can get behind that, right?  Sure it was a tragedy, but we're talking politics here, and they should never be wasted.  It should have been a slam-dunk goal.

After we tear down the Jefferson Memorial, and ideally the Washington Monument (remember, as an aside when that dude drove the van there?,) and burn the archive and the Library of Congress I suggest next all Leif(v)-will V and F issue EVER be settled with Norskie names?- Ericson (Eiriksson) statues also, evil Vikings- what with their rape and pillage and fights with skrælings....the FIRST white oppressors in the New World against Indians (sic.)

People forget the 'old days' of 70's and even early 80's with the various and sundry groups blowing stuff up, shooting cops, taking on monuments, seizing embassies, high-jacking planes, and what-not. It is beginning to seem like a re-run. Like Hollywood- just a redo.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/09/us/man-slain-in-capital-monument-threat.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Muslim_Siege
a "gay perspective": http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/03/21/gay-hostage-recalls-1977-hanafi-siege-d-c/

[PB the Deplorable]

I completely disagree with you. The Germans might as well get rid of Auschwitz.  These monuments represent part of history for better or worse.  If it causes people to go home and educate themselves about the person(s), place or event the monument is memorializing then it is all good.  Who is next?  Jefferson and Washington?  No, I'm bitterly opposed.

The war wasn't even about slavery, it was about states rights to succeed from the Union.  It had been a heavily debated topic for decades leading up to the Civil War.  The North was industrial, wealthier, and more populous, while the South was more rural.  The North dominated the federal goverment, and the South didn't think they were getting a fair shake in several areas, including trade and taxation.  Slavery was a divisive issue, but not the key one.  People had more allegiance to their states than to the central government.  The election of Lincoln was just to much for them.  Making the war about slavery came later, when the war became hugely unpopular in the North.

There was nothing sinister about supporting the South, when it came to succession or allegiance to one's state over the federal government.  Those were valid opinions, and the people who fought for them weren't evil.  Thankfully they didn't ultimately win out.  There were plenty of people in the North, even abolutionists, who thought Lincoln was wrong to attack the South.  Should we figure out who they were and destroy any references to them as well?

Let's face it, the Left has been largely successful in miseducating us when it comes to our history, our government, and our form of free exchange, for decades.  Of course the goal of that was to create a generation of easily manipulated, easily led followers.

[GravitySucks]

Hey I tried no big words!  If you read really carefully I don't say he's a supporter at all.  I don't think he's a racist.  He squandered a political opportunity, botched the shot, flibbertied the gibbet, stickied the wicket, God I wish I knew more vernacular metaphors!

When Trump mentions the problems in Chicago the left blast him. Any given weekend in Chicago is worse than what happened in Virginia.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/13/chicago-weekend-shootings-august-2/

Maybe we should coin the term "neo-nigger" to highlight the most racist, most violent, least law abiding demographic in the US today.

[Dr. MD MD]

Hey I tried no big words!  If you read really carefully I don't say he's a supporter at all.  I don't think he's a racist.  He squandered a political opportunity, botched the shot, flibbertied the gibbet, stickied the wicket, God I wish I knew more vernacular metaphors!

Still not admitting the game is rigged against him and that the people doing it can spin whatever angle they want and their media lackeys will march lock step to it? OK, I can play dumb too. I prefer an adult conversation but if you insist you just don't see reality then all I can do is leave you to your delusions, self-imposed or not.

[ZaZa]

Haha I don't think the Deep State helped him, with astonishing discernment he has somehow misplaced when it comes to other groups, pick out the knot of turkey-necked history buffs in that crowd of shin-kickers.  He can shake his own hand on that one.

I read that as because he didn't play along with the setup he's bad? I bet somewhere else in America someone is breaking the law that Trump doesn't know about either. Were you expecting omniscience? Did you think we elected God? You always use a lot of big words but what you're actually saying is simplistic to the point of stupidity.  :

Dr. MD MD, ha ha ha LOL
lamenting again that some people use words that you have no clue about and need to surf the web to learn their meaning.
What a pathetic poignant piteous wussy :

        *** ATTENTION EVERYBODY !!! ATTENTION CLASS ***

Based on the latest complain by our welfare recipient Dr. MD MD (he is also our Mental Asylum patient) please abstain from using sophisticated words
so our mentally challenged low IQ basket case vulgar aggressor Dr. MD MD can understand your verbal projections.


                                                       THANK YOU VERU MUCH on behalf of our mental patient Dr. MD MD   
                                                                     Director of The Mental Asylum theONE /aka/ ZaZa

[bateman]

https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/897950674650005504

[albrecht]

The war wasn't even about slavery, it was about states rights to succeed.  The North was industrial, wealthier, and more populous, while the South was more rural.  The North dominated the federal goverment, and the South didn't think they were getting a fair shake in several areas, including trade and taxation.  Slavery was a divisive issue, but not the key one.  People had more allegiance to their states than to the central government.  The election of Lincoln was just to much for them.  Making the war about slavery came later, when the it became hugely unpopular in the North.

There was nothing sinister or evil about supporting the South, when it came to succession or allegiance to ones state when it came to the federal government.  Those were valid opinions.  Thankfully they didn't ultimately win out.  There were plenty of people in the North, even abolutionists, who thought Lincoln was wrong to attack the South.  Should we figure out who they were and destroy any references to them as well?

Let's face it, the Left has been largely successful in miseducating us when it omes to our history, our government, and our form of free exchange for decades.

Lest we forget there were also international interests involved and Lincoln never freed the slaves in border or Northern States (and unconstitutionally, at least arguably, refused to let some border States even meet who would've gone the other way, especially Maryland and did suspend the writ of habeus corpus. Sigh, I guess we have to tear down that Memorial also.)

Just one, of several, Lincoln on blacks (take that Memorial down! Now!)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0014.204/--abraham-lincoln-and-the-politics-of-black-colonization?rgn=main;view=fulltext

[K_Dubb]

After we tear down the Jefferson Memorial, and ideally the Washington Monument (remember, as an aside when that dude drove the van there?,) and burn the archive and the Library of Congress I suggest next all Leif(v)-will V and F issue EVER be settled with Norskie names?- Ericson (Eiriksson) statues also, evil Vikings- what with their rape and pillage and fights with skrælings....the FIRST white oppressors in the New World against Indians (sic.)

People forget the 'old days' of 70's and even early 80's with the various and sundry groups blowing stuff up, shooting cops, taking on monuments, seizing embassies, high-jacking planes, and what-not. It is beginning to seem like a re-run. Like Hollywood- just a redo.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/09/us/man-slain-in-capital-monument-threat.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Muslim_Siege
a "gay perspective": http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/03/21/gay-hostage-recalls-1977-hanafi-siege-d-c/

I don't think either futhark distinguishes between V and F, which may be the source of the confusion.  V and W (double-v) are also bad; Mom still says wolksvagen.

[21st Century Man]

The war wasn't even about slavery, it was about states rights to succeed.  The North was industrial, wealthier, and more populous, while the South was more rural.  The North dominated the federal goverment, and the South didn't think they were getting a fair shake in several areas, including trade and taxation.  Slavery was a divisive issue, but not the key one.  People had more allegiance to their states than to the central government.  The election of Lincoln was just to much for them.

There was nothing sinister or evil about supporting the South, when it came to succession or allegiance to ones state when it came to the federal government.  Those were valid opinions.  Thankfully they didn't ultimately win out.  There were plenty of people in the North, even abolutionists, who thought Lincoln was wrong to attack the South.  Should we figure out who they were and destroy any references to them as well?

Let's face it, the Left has been largely successful in miseducating us when it omes to our history, our government, and our form of free exchange for decades.

Right.  Well-said. Many of the people that fought for the South were not fighting for slavery at all.  Most of the grunts particularly.  They didn't own slaves and it was a nonissue to them.   Even some blacks fought for the South.  That is not something taught in the history books. They didn't call it the War of Northern Aggression for nothing.  There were Union states that had slaves at the time of the Civil War.  The Emancipation Proclamation did not free them.  That only happened after the war was over. 

[ZaZa]

So with all this ripping off of National Monuments when do you think "they" will march on Washington
and Capitol of the USA will have to be moved to Denver ?


Denver NEW CAPITOL of USA Under NWO - Feds already moving to Denver & DC to go down in flames
Posted by 14300 on April 21, 2013 at 5:36pm in New World Order

http://12160.info/forum/topics/denver-new-capitol-of-usa-under-nwo-feds-already-moving-to-denver

[21st Century Man]

Lest we forget there were also international interests involved and Lincoln never freed the slaves in border or Northern States (and unconstitutionally, at least arguably, refused to let some border States even meet who would've gone the other way, especially Maryland and did suspend the writ of habeus corpus. Sigh, I guess we have to tear down that Memorial also.)

Just one, of several, Lincoln on blacks (take that Memorial down! Now!)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0014.204/--abraham-lincoln-and-the-politics-of-black-colonization?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Yep. Well, someone tried to deface that this week too.  Where will it end?

[Gd5150]

So with all this ripping off of National Monuments when do you think "they" will march on Washington
and Capitol of the USA will have to be moved to Denver ?


Denver NEW CAPITOL of USA Under NWO - Feds already moving to Denver & DC to go down in flames
Posted by 14300 on April 21, 2013 at 5:36pm in New World Order

http://12160.info/forum/topics/denver-new-capitol-of-usa-under-nwo-feds-already-moving-to-denver

That will never happen. It'll move to Dallas.

[Dr. MD MD]

        *** ATTENTION EVERYBODY !!! ATTENTION CLASS ***

NO ONE BUT NO ONE HERE GIVES A SHIT! 

[albrecht]

I don't think either futhark distinguishes between V and F, which may be the source of the confusion.  V and W (double-v) are also bad; Mom still says wolksvagen.

Ha, I think I mentioned before. I have some old letters from a great uncle and as a kid signed "Olav" but as a teenager it seems to have switched to "Olaf", but sometimes both (in same years) the weird thing is they weren't some kind of official document but letters home and, sometimes, to different audiences, so wonder if he even knew (for different audiences using diff spelling) or if going to American public school etc becoming standardized/Anglicized in spelling? The pronunciation of V, F, and W is an interesting thing in Germanic languages.

[K_Dubb]

Ha, I think I mentioned before. I have some old letters from a great uncle and as a kid signed "Olav" but as a teenager it seems to have switched to "Olaf", but sometimes both (in same years) the weird thing is they weren't some kind of official document but letters home and, sometimes, to different audiences, so wonder if he even knew (for different audiences using diff spelling) or if going to American public school etc becoming standardized/Anglicized in spelling? The pronunciation of V, F, and W is an interesting thing in Germanic languages.

You would think they'd have settled the voiced/voiceless labiodental fricative early since one of the primary deities' names begins with it (Wotanaz in proto-Germanic I think) but, at least in Norwegian, it seems they gave up entirely.

Incidentally, my last name begins with a W which is rare up there and people back there pronounce it V.  How it became W I can only attribute to generations of illiteracy and confusion.

[albrecht]

Yep. Well, someone tried to deface that this week too.  Where will it end?

Someone vandalized a local street sign (Robert E. Lee) and some City Council commie has said we need to change the name. Already changed the local elementary school a few years back. Still not sure. It will cost $700 to fix signs and someone hung a note "thank you whoever did this" to the pole. Not sure how much to replace. They claim "citizen" input as to people living on street if name change. Can you imagine the response to some who say "don't?" In a public document and forum considering the atmosphere created by Obama and the militant leftists? What next? Hey, MLK (West 19th Street) was renamed decades ago. He was a confirmed plagiarist and apparently philanderer. And also Christian minister who wasn't down with the homosexual or tranny dealI guess that must go!?

[ZaZa]

NO ONE BUT NO ONE HERE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT MY POOR ENGLISH! 

Dr. MD MD,
poor crybaby, how many grades did you completed Mr.imbecil ?  (7 or 8, I think judging by your level of intelligence you projecting here)

/... oh I almost forgot that you might not understand this word, so here it goes:

Noun. imbecile
(plural imbeciles) (obsolete) A person with limited mental capacity who can perform tasks and think only like a young child,
in medical circles meaning a person who lacks the capacity to develop beyond the mental age of a normal five to seven-year-old child.
(pejorative) A fool, an idiot.