"By any means necessary" and "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" aren't conservative slogans, are they?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
HIgh Schools now banning MAGA hats!!!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
"By any means necessary" and "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" aren't conservative slogans, are they?
That's your opinion.
Yes, it is, and I laid out the evidence to support it. Give it a read.
Is that so?
Yes. Were you unaware of that? If so, go ahead and check. When have the white voters ever NOT gone for a white man in a presidential election?
Are you claiming that no "white people" voted for Obama, and no males voted for Clinton?
No. What a strange question. What could possibly have led you to the ridiculous conclusion that I might be claiming that? If you could identify what led you there, I can explain your mistake to you.
Isn't it a fact that the opposite is true, and that many women voted for a woman - the Hildebeast - and many people of color voted on racial lines for Obama out of a sense of social justice?
Like I said, I don't doubt that some people voted for Obama or Clinton for racial or gender reasons. I just think it's very clear that far more people were driven from them on that same basis, such that it was a net negative. And I think the fact it's a net negative explains why in all of American history we've only had one president who wasn't a white male.
You misunderstood. I'm saying the opposite: that race and gender almost certainly played a major role. White people have an absolutely consistent record, from the dawn of the Republic, of ALWAYS voting for a white man for president. It would be foolish to imagine that prejudice didn't have a role in the Obama and Clinton elections.
There was total understanding. You tried to pretend that race and gender didn't play as much of a role as it did. In fact, the number of blacks voting skyrocketed when a black was the nominee for the Democrats. When a black wasn't that nominee, those numbers went back to levels they had been before the black nominee was on the ballot.
Pretend all you want that it wasn't a primary, and for many a sole, reason for their vote.
The ALWAYS statement trying to make a point turned to out to be foolish nonsense on your part. Trying to make it into something it isn't only reinforces claims about your stupidity. Trying to pretend that a very, very high percentage of Democrats voted for Obama based on reasons other than race further proves it.
I suspect you're correct.
Are there any recorded instances of anyone attacking a person for wearing clothing emblazoned with "Hope and change" or "I'm with her?"
None that I know of but I suspect lefties will say something to the effect of 'those don't encourage violence'.
Yes, it is, and I laid out the evidence to support it. Give it a read.
You wrote some bullshit and claimed it was evidence.
They deny that they support what they actually support?
Or try to justify their violence by blaming it on an inanimate object triggering them.
None that I know of but I suspect lefties will say something to the effect of 'those don't encourage violence'.
Maybe they don't wish to acknowledge the support that Antifa and BLM give the DEMOCRAT Party.
Or try to justify their violence by blaming it on an inanimate object triggering them.
Don't they say they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions because seeing a MAGA cap reminds them of being oppressed?
Yes, it is, and I laid out the evidence to support it. Give it a read.
I see no "evidence" worthy of the name. Can you cite some, or not?
I'll understand if you pretend you've already provided it, of course.
Maybe they don't wish to acknowledge the support that Antifa and BLM give the DEMOCRAT Party.
They acknowledge it. They justify how it's different in their situation.
The same mindset comes into play when they claim to be fighting bigotry. While their actions are bigoted, they justify that it's OK to use bigotry to fight what they consider bigotry or that it's not really bigotry if they're fighting against what they perceive as bigotry. In other words, they don't apply their own standards to themselves.
I don't doubt that some people voted for Obama or Clinton for racial or gender reasons. I just think it's very clear that far more people were driven from them on that same basis, such that it was a net negative. And I think the fact it's a net negative explains why in all of American history we've only had one president who wasn't a white male.
So you "think" it and in the next sentence declare it to be a fact?
I see no "evidence" worthy of the name. Can you cite some, or not?
I'll understand if you pretend you've already provided it, of course.
Ever notice how Oneuli claims to provide "evidence" then uses him/herself as the source that it's "evidence"? Wouldn't that be like asking a fox with feathers in his mouth if he raided the hen house then accepting "No" as an answer because he said so?
They acknowledge it. They justify how it's different in their situation.
The same mindset comes into play when they claim to be fighting bigotry. While their actions are bigoted, they justify that it's OK to use bigotry to fight what they consider bigotry or that it's not really bigotry if they're fighting against what they perceive as bigotry. In other words, they don't apply their own standards to themselves.
That's a very astute and concise assessment. Didn't FEMOCRAT Socialist She Guevara recently say that it's OK to be factually incorrect if you feel you're right?
Don't they say they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions because seeing a MAGA cap reminds them of being oppressed?
That's the justification part. They tend to justify their actual violence because they perceived some inanimate object was promoting it.
Ever notice how Oneuli claims to provide "evidence" then uses him/herself as the source that it's "evidence"? Wouldn't that be like asking a fox with feathers in his mouth if he raided the hen house then accepting "No" as an answer because he said so?
Good observation. It's like a kid claiming they can prove Superman is real by showing you a Justice League comic.
That's the justification part. They tend to justify their actual violence because they perceived some inanimate object was promoting it.
They think the end justifies the means as long as they get their way?
That's a very astute and concise assessment. Didn't FEMOCRAT Socialist She Guevara recently say that it's OK to be factually incorrect if you feel you're right?
She believes it's more important to be morally right than factually correct. In other words, feelings over substance.
Haven't those on the left often said "don't push your morals on me"?
She believes it's more important to be morally right than factually correct. In other words, feelings over substance.
Haven't those on the left often said "don't push your morals on me"?
They have. Isn't that hypocrisy?
They think the end justifies the means as long as they get their way?
The mindset of those on the left seems to be it's OK to BE violent as long as you THINK that the other person is thinking about it.