American sympathizers of a specific British neo-nazi group? How ridiculously fringe can you get?
Maybe you're being sarcastic but it's not as strange as you'd think. Nick Griffin (head of the BNP) is on camera at American Neo-Nazi speaking engagements telling them how to hide their worst beliefs and market themselves to disenchanted 'average' Americans as a respectable organization. At one point in its' history they were being advised by a young charismatic Italian neo-fascist. There are several BBC and Channel 4 documentaries on them (you really don't have to dig very deep into their organization to find legally actionable stuff), I don't know if they're on youtube.
But we have nothing that shows that the GOP fostered this thought in him to begin with.
Which is what I've been trying to point out.
This is a statement about how the GOP has been pushing the idea of Obama as the anti-gun candidate and President (as they love to do with virtually any Dem politician, it's a proven vote-grabber), and about all their statements about whether he was a "real American" or a legitimate holder of the office of President. Bare in mind that these aren't relegated to fringe conservative thought, there have been members of the House of Representatives pushing bills to call into question President Obama's citizenship status and "the Democrats want to take your guns away" is a favorite war cry for Republicans on the hill.
But we have nothing that shows that the GOP fostered this thought in him to begin with.
Which is what I've been trying to point out.
This post, not even attempting to deny that the right acts in such a manner, asks for a connection between the right's rhetoric, that rhetoric's effect on Mr. Von Brunn and the Holocaust Museum shooting.
And this post, in answer, links to an article citing an affadavit that states that Mr. Von Brunn had a note in his car that specifically linked all the above discussed together.
You then jumped in with a completely unrelated "but the GOP aren't the only ones who hate the Jews" that had no relevance to the conversation and seemed designed only to deflect blame.
But we have nothing that shows that the GOP fostered this thought in him to begin with.
Which is what I've been trying to point out.
What thought? That Obama was an evil, illegitimate puppet who was going to come and take his guns and controlled the media? Yeah that's really far from the right wing media's talking points.
what does any of that have to do with shooting at the holocaust museum?
Yeah, because it's the GOP-aligned media who go on about Jews' control of America.
Really? In the exchange about the fact that the GOP talking points on Obama and guns are obviously echoed in this guy's head, you picked the random connection the crazy man made at the end to the jews to nitpick.
Fucking hell, people.
Yeah.
How dare you act like Jew-hatred is an important factor for the man who shot at the HOLOCAUST Museum.
Face it, we live under the rule of law and the 1st Amendment. People who say things you don't like have the right, and will always have the right to say those things (i hope, until the PC leftists get their way).
You do understand that not all speech is protected speech, right? I'm not claiming that a FOX pundit has stepped outside protected speech, but I just want to make sure you don't think the 1st Amendment is a silver bullet.
Legality aside, people should certainly consider the potential affect of their rhetoric. To not do so is simply reckless.
Furthermore no speech is protected from criticism in the form other people's protected speech. Indeed, the First Amendment exists in part to encourage such criticism of statements of others.
Face it, we live under the rule of law and the 1st Amendment. People who say things you don't like have the right, and will always have the right to say those things (i hope, until the PC leftists get their way).
You do understand that not all speech is protected speech, right? I'm not claiming that a FOX pundit has stepped outside protected speech, but I just want to make sure you don't think the 1st Amendment is a silver bullet.
Legality aside, people should certainly consider the potential affect of their rhetoric. To not do so is simply reckless.
Yes I am well aware of that. Can't yell fire in a theater, can't incite violence, etc. Nothing I've heard in the very few instances i've read/heard from Fox pundits etc has ever reached that level like some of the more vociferous people on here would allege.
Should is the keyword there. However, as long as it passes the very few rules involved, they have the right to say it, even if you may not condone it.
American sympathizers of a specific British neo-nazi group? How ridiculously fringe can you get?
Maybe you're being sarcastic but it's not as strange as you'd think. Nick Griffin (head of the BNP) is on camera at American Neo-Nazi speaking engagements telling them how to hide their worst beliefs and market themselves to disenchanted 'average' Americans as a respectable organization. At one point in its' history they were being advised by a young charismatic Italian neo-fascist. There are several BBC and Channel 4 documentaries on them (you really don't have to dig very deep into their organization to find legally actionable stuff), I don't know if they're on youtube.
I wasn't being sarcastic, actually - I didn't know about this connection at all.
Evander, you should just give up. I don't know how you've tried to debate these people who are willing to blame the GOP or right wingers or supporters of Ron Paul for one crazy nutjob going off.
Face it, we live under the rule of law and the 1st Amendment. People who say things you don't like have the right, and will always have the right to say those things (i hope, until the PC leftists get their way). All because someone or a group of people espouse a view you hate doesn't mean you can blame them for the actions of a bunch of random whackjobs.
When that view is echoed in the writing and speech of multiple murderers, those people have some responsibility.
@spinal77
He's 88 and critically wounded, I don't expect him to survive his wounds, let alone be physically able to stand trial. In any event at his age lifetime imprisonment would amount to maybe a 5 year sentence. There will be no justice.
One can only hope he lives long enough they hit him with a wrongful death lawsuit, take every goddamn possession he has and burn it all in front of him.
But we have nothing that shows that the GOP fostered this thought in him to begin with.
Which is what I've been trying to point out.
This is a statement about how the GOP has been pushing the idea of Obama as the anti-gun candidate and President
No it wasn't.
It was a statement about his OVERALL platform. Just because he picked up one little thing off of the GOP tray that happened to mesh with things he already believed doesn't mean that the GOP talked him in to adopting his current way of life.
But we have nothing that shows that the GOP fostered this thought in him to begin with.
Which is what I've been trying to point out.
This is a statement about how the GOP has been pushing the idea of Obama as the anti-gun candidate and President (as they love to do with virtually any Dem politician, it's a proven vote-grabber), and about all their statements about whether he was a "real American" or a legitimate holder of the office of President. Bare in mind that these aren't relegated to fringe conservative thought, there have been members of the House of Representatives pushing bills to call into question President Obama's citizenship status and "the Democrats want to take your guns away" is a favorite war cry for Republicans on the hill.
But we have nothing that shows that the GOP fostered this thought in him to begin with.
Which is what I've been trying to point out.
This post, not even attempting to deny that the right acts in such a manner, asks for a connection between the right's rhetoric, that rhetoric's effect on Mr. Von Brunn and the Holocaust Museum shooting.
And this post, in answer, links to an article citing an affadavit that states that Mr. Von Brunn had a note in his car that specifically linked all the above discussed together.
You then jumped in with a completely unrelated "but the GOP aren't the only ones who hate the Jews" that had no relevance to the conversation and seemed designed only to deflect blame in the conversation.
What a suprise, you conveniently forgot to include this quote from the tree:
What thought? That Obama was an evil, illegitimate puppet who was going to come and take his guns and controlled the media? Yeah that's really far from the right wing media's talking points.
Again, the specific quote you chose consisted of three sentances - the gun one, the holocaust denial, and the jewish control one. The idea that Democrat politicians want to 'take away your guns' or whatever, as used by mainstream republicans, obviously refers to the fact that Democrats are generally pro-gun control. This is not an extreme position, it's a perfectly legitimate one. You might agree or disagree with gun control, but trying to attack mainstream GOP figures because they're pro-gun rights as if this incites violence reeks of desperation.
You could have at least been honest and said what you were really referring to was the shooter's anti-gun control stance, and we could have proceeded from there. Instead you chopped up the quote tree to pretend you weren't referring to the quote I re-inserted in this post.
EDIT: Well Goddamn Evander you already answered for me. Grr. I wanted to show how the quote tree had been mangled though.
How dare you act like Jew-hatred is an important factor for the man who shot at the HOLOCAUST Museum.
Instead of examining the evidence that was presented, which showed that there was more of a link to GOP rhetoric than some here want to admit.
what evidence?
that he hated Obama?
You know, I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton. Does that mean that I'm magically a republican now?
Evander on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
Oh my God MSNBC you employ idiots. Paraphrasing: 'And sadly, von Brunn's hateful words have been repeated in the media by people including myself for all to see.' Read off an op-ed from another journalist decrying the media for giving von Brunn's viewpoints airtime.
Immediately afterward, cue the screenshot of von Brunn's site pimping his book.
To reiterate, MSNBC employs idiots.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I think it comes down to a lot of partisan myopia. So many folks buy in to some kind of binary partisan proposition, where you MUST be part of one of the two camps.
American sympathizers of a specific British neo-nazi group? How ridiculously fringe can you get?
Maybe you're being sarcastic but it's not as strange as you'd think. Nick Griffin (head of the BNP) is on camera at American Neo-Nazi speaking engagements telling them how to hide their worst beliefs and market themselves to disenchanted 'average' Americans as a respectable organization. At one point in its' history they were being advised by a young charismatic Italian neo-fascist. There are several BBC and Channel 4 documentaries on them (you really don't have to dig very deep into their organization to find legally actionable stuff), I don't know if they're on youtube.
I wasn't being sarcastic, actually - I didn't know about this connection at all.
That's pretty disturbing.
EDIT: Pants - that's really disturbing.
There is also an alarmingly powerful far-right (and I mean genuinely far-right, not 'far-right' the way people here seem to use it) presence in the EU already, and the BNP MEPs will likely ally with them and start voting as a block.
But we have nothing that shows that the GOP fostered this thought in him to begin with.
Which is what I've been trying to point out.
This is a statement about how the GOP has been pushing the idea of Obama as the anti-gun candidate and President
No it wasn't.
It was a statement about his OVERALL platform. Just because he picked up one little thing off of the GOP tray that happened to mesh with things he already believed doesn't mean that the GOP talked him in to adopting his current way of life.
First, I doublequoted you when I meant to grab the original that set you off. Whoops.
Second; no one is saying that the conservative rhetoric he was listening to turned him from an upright, stable person into a murderous terrorist. He was unstable to begin with, probably long before Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh hit the air. What we're saying is that there's a strong correlation between what those types of people were saying and the rationale he himself gave in his personal notebook.
""You want my weapons — this is how you'll get them."
There is nothing inherently antisemtic about that. His choice of targets is, but the sentiment is straight out of the "Obama's going to take your guns" refrain on Right Wing talk radio.
"The Holocaust is a lie."
Obviously antisemitic. No argument here.
"Obama was created by Jews."
Definitely antisemitic (again, speaks to his choice of target), but it's got "what do we really know about Barack Hussein Obama" written all over it. Obama as an empty suit, propped up by <insert X special interest here> was a talking point all through the election.
The guy was an antisemite, no doubt. He was ALSO and anti-Obama, anti-government loon whose suicide note bore a striking resemblance to GOP talking points, though.
Correlation isn't the absence of causation either. Evidence trails have to start somewhere, and lacking the powers and resources of the FBI, it's going to be hard for me to go through this guy's stuff to find specifics.
Correlation isn't the absence of causation either. Evidence trails have to start somewhere, and lacking the powers and resources of the FBI, it's going to be hard for me to go through this guy's stuff to find specifics.
but you're happy to draw your conclusions up front, and belittle me for not going along with them?
I think it comes down to a lot of partisan myopia. So many folks buy in to some kind of binary partisan proposition, where you MUST be part of one of the two camps.
For instance, how you continue to equate GOP with conservative?
Correlation isn't the absence of causation either. Evidence trails have to start somewhere, and lacking the powers and resources of the FBI, it's going to be hard for me to go through this guy's stuff to find specifics.
but you're happy to draw your conclusions up front, and belittle me for not going along with them?
Where have I been belittling you?
And I haven't drawn any conclusions "up front." I'm looking at the information available, and not just stopping at "Jew hater shoots up Jew museum."
I think it comes down to a lot of partisan myopia. So many folks buy in to some kind of binary partisan proposition, where you MUST be part of one of the two camps.
For instance, how you continue to equate GOP with conservative?
Correlation isn't the absence of causation either. Evidence trails have to start somewhere, and lacking the powers and resources of the FBI, it's going to be hard for me to go through this guy's stuff to find specifics.
but you're happy to draw your conclusions up front, and belittle me for not going along with them?
Where have I been belittling you?
And I haven't drawn any conclusions "up front." I'm looking at the information available, and not just stopping at "Jew hater shoots up Jew museum."
But you're treating theory as fact.
Which is why this thread is like reading Fox News.
EDIT: Well Goddamn Evander you already answered for me. Grr. I wanted to show how the quote tree had been mangled though.
That was unintentional. The quote you mentioned was supposed to go where Evanders first one was.
Regardless, the quote is basically GOP/NRA boilerplate with Jew-hate thrown in for flavor. I don't see how this is remotely deniable.
As I already said:
The idea that Democrat politicians want to 'take away your guns' or whatever, as used by mainstream republicans, obviously refers to the fact that Democrats are generally pro-gun control. This is not an extreme position, it's a perfectly legitimate one. You might agree or disagree with gun control, but trying to attack mainstream GOP figures because they're pro-gun rights as if this incites violence reeks of desperation.
As for the "Barack HUSSEIN (wink wink nudge nudge) Obama" bullshit nobody here's defending how it crept into mainstream republican talking points (even though John McCain publically criticized his warm-up act at a rally for using it), but two things -
A: Am I the only person who remembers the fact that the racist insinutations concerning Barack Obama started in The Democratic Primary?
B: What about all that shit concerning George Bush being a weak-minded puppet controlled by Dick Cheney/Halliburton/Don Rumsfeld? By this logic liberals are responsible for anti-semitic theories about neocon-zionist cabals directing White House policy.
Correlation isn't the absence of causation either. Evidence trails have to start somewhere, and lacking the powers and resources of the FBI, it's going to be hard for me to go through this guy's stuff to find specifics.
but you're happy to draw your conclusions up front, and belittle me for not going along with them?
Where have I been belittling you?
And I haven't drawn any conclusions "up front." I'm looking at the information available, and not just stopping at "Jew hater shoots up Jew museum."
But you're treating theory as fact.
Which is why this thread is like reading Fox News.
I'm treating my theory like my theory, just like you're treating your theory like it's your theory.
Failing to assume you're right and I'm wrong =/= assuming my theory is gospel.
I'm waiting for the day one of these racist faggots bombs a landmark to get attention, then maybe people will realize there are self-proclaimed nazis in their midst and they need to imprison people without funny names for once.
I'm waiting for the day one of these racist faggots bombs a landmark to get attention, then maybe people will realize there are self-proclaimed nazis in their midst and they need to imprison people without funny names for once.
It's still a long time ago compared to anti-abortion violence etc. but yeah, I was amazed at some Americans here claiming that the last left-wing terrorist acts took place in the 60s. The 70s were the fucking heyday of left-wing terrorism.
I'm waiting for the day one of these racist faggots bombs a landmark to get attention, then maybe people will realize there are self-proclaimed nazis in their midst and they need to imprison people without funny names for once.
It's still a long time ago compared to anti-abortion violence etc. but yeah, I was amazed at some Americans here claiming that the last left-wing terrorist acts took place in the 60s. The 70s were the fucking heyday of left-wing terrorism.
not to mention the guy on the third page who claimed that left wing extremists had NEVER killed anyone
I think he later mentioned that he was born some time during the 90s, so that explains something, there
I'm waiting for the day one of these racist faggots bombs a landmark to get attention, then maybe people will realize there are self-proclaimed nazis in their midst and they need to imprison people without funny names for once.
It's still a long time ago compared to anti-abortion violence etc. but yeah, I was amazed at some Americans here claiming that the last left-wing terrorist acts took place in the 60s. The 70s were the fucking heyday of left-wing terrorism.
not to mention the guy on the third page who claimed that left wing extremists had NEVER killed anyone
I think he later mentioned that he was born some time during the 90s, so that explains something, there
Yeah, I mean fair enough there are legitimate questions to be raised as to why anti-abortion violence is still so prevalent, for example. Thankfully people are still arguing about other stupid shit so I don't have to address it.
It's still a long time ago compared to anti-abortion violence etc. but yeah, I was amazed at some Americans here claiming that the last left-wing terrorist acts took place in the 60s. The 70s were the fucking heyday of left-wing terrorism.
I don't really know what this is in response to, except maybe a strawman of the basic idea put forth on here that "left-wing" loosely defined does not lead to violence in the same way that "right wing" ideology does. I don't think anyone has claimed that there has never been left-wing violence, just that there hasn't been any recently, and furthermore any Venn diagrams you draw with those groups don't overlap mainstream left-wing talking points anyway.
What really pisses me off is Ben B arguing with Rick Chavez on CNN that white terrorists are totally different from tan ones. It must be the male pattern baldness and heavy purchase of Viagra that make people understimate skinheads.
I think it comes down to a lot of partisan myopia. So many folks buy in to some kind of binary partisan proposition, where you MUST be part of one of the two camps.
For instance, how you continue to equate GOP with conservative?
EDIT: Well Goddamn Evander you already answered for me. Grr. I wanted to show how the quote tree had been mangled though.
That was unintentional. The quote you mentioned was supposed to go where Evanders first one was.
Regardless, the quote is basically GOP/NRA boilerplate with Jew-hate thrown in for flavor. I don't see how this is remotely deniable.
Huh?
The right wing is not synonymous with the GOP. The right wing media is not synonymous with the GOP media. The GOP as a whole is by and large not hostile to Jews. The right wing can often be hostile to Jews. The rhetoric propagated on right wing media often has more in common with the right wing than the GOP. So while you're right that the neoconservative movement is not hostile to Jews, that is almost irrelevant when there is a paleo conservative movement which generally is and that has been exerting itself both in media and in political action like the "tea parties" or Ron Paul's campaign.
I think it comes down to a lot of partisan myopia. So many folks buy in to some kind of binary partisan proposition, where you MUST be part of one of the two camps.
For instance, how you continue to equate GOP with conservative?
EDIT: Well Goddamn Evander you already answered for me. Grr. I wanted to show how the quote tree had been mangled though.
That was unintentional. The quote you mentioned was supposed to go where Evanders first one was.
Regardless, the quote is basically GOP/NRA boilerplate with Jew-hate thrown in for flavor. I don't see how this is remotely deniable.
Huh?
The right wing is not synonymous with the GOP. The right wing media is not synonymous with the GOP media. The GOP as a whole is by and large not hostile to Jews. The right wing can often be hostile to Jews. The rhetoric propagated on right wing media often has more in common with the right wing than the GOP. So while you're right that the neoconservative movement is not hostile to Jews, that is almost irrelevant when there is a paleo conservative movement which generally is and that has been exerting itself both in media and in political action like the "tea parties" or Ron Paul's campaign.
The right AND left wings can BOTH be hostile to the Jews.
If you're calling me out for specifying the GOP, though, that's because I was responding to other people who were ALSO specifying the GOP. If you take issue with them being called out specifically, then join the club.
It's still a long time ago compared to anti-abortion violence etc. but yeah, I was amazed at some Americans here claiming that the last left-wing terrorist acts took place in the 60s. The 70s were the fucking heyday of left-wing terrorism.
I don't really know what this is in response to, except maybe a strawman of the basic idea put forth on here that "left-wing" loosely defined does not lead to violence in the same way that "right wing" ideology does. I don't think anyone has claimed that there has never been left-wing violence, just that there hasn't been any recently, and furthermore any Venn diagrams you draw with those groups don't overlap mainstream left-wing talking points anyway.
o_O
Uh, it's a response to people on this thread specifically claiming that the last time left-wing terrorism took place was in the 60s or even earlier (I never saw the latter claim but I havn't read all the thread yet). That's it. That's what it refers to. Not "a strawman of a basic idea".
Posts
Maybe you're being sarcastic but it's not as strange as you'd think. Nick Griffin (head of the BNP) is on camera at American Neo-Nazi speaking engagements telling them how to hide their worst beliefs and market themselves to disenchanted 'average' Americans as a respectable organization. At one point in its' history they were being advised by a young charismatic Italian neo-fascist. There are several BBC and Channel 4 documentaries on them (you really don't have to dig very deep into their organization to find legally actionable stuff), I don't know if they're on youtube.
This is a statement about how the GOP has been pushing the idea of Obama as the anti-gun candidate and President (as they love to do with virtually any Dem politician, it's a proven vote-grabber), and about all their statements about whether he was a "real American" or a legitimate holder of the office of President. Bare in mind that these aren't relegated to fringe conservative thought, there have been members of the House of Representatives pushing bills to call into question President Obama's citizenship status and "the Democrats want to take your guns away" is a favorite war cry for Republicans on the hill. This post, not even attempting to deny that the right acts in such a manner, asks for a connection between the right's rhetoric, that rhetoric's effect on Mr. Von Brunn and the Holocaust Museum shooting. And this post, in answer, links to an article citing an affadavit that states that Mr. Von Brunn had a note in his car that specifically linked all the above discussed together.
You then jumped in with a completely unrelated "but the GOP aren't the only ones who hate the Jews" that had no relevance to the conversation and seemed designed only to deflect blame.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yeah.
How dare you act like Jew-hatred is an important factor for the man who shot at the HOLOCAUST Museum.
Furthermore no speech is protected from criticism in the form other people's protected speech. Indeed, the First Amendment exists in part to encourage such criticism of statements of others.
Its a political party with two seats in the European parliament.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes I am well aware of that. Can't yell fire in a theater, can't incite violence, etc. Nothing I've heard in the very few instances i've read/heard from Fox pundits etc has ever reached that level like some of the more vociferous people on here would allege.
Should is the keyword there. However, as long as it passes the very few rules involved, they have the right to say it, even if you may not condone it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I wasn't being sarcastic, actually - I didn't know about this connection at all.
That's pretty disturbing.
EDIT: Pants - that's really disturbing.
"Words have power. If you make your living distributing venom, you're not innocent when that venom is used."
He's 88 and critically wounded, I don't expect him to survive his wounds, let alone be physically able to stand trial. In any event at his age lifetime imprisonment would amount to maybe a 5 year sentence. There will be no justice.
One can only hope he lives long enough they hit him with a wrongful death lawsuit, take every goddamn possession he has and burn it all in front of him.
No it wasn't.
It was a statement about his OVERALL platform. Just because he picked up one little thing off of the GOP tray that happened to mesh with things he already believed doesn't mean that the GOP talked him in to adopting his current way of life.
And no one has shown that it was GOP venom being used IN THE SHOOTING.
Just because the GOP are hatemongers doesn't mean that we can hold them accountable for ALL hate.
What a suprise, you conveniently forgot to include this quote from the tree:
Again, the specific quote you chose consisted of three sentances - the gun one, the holocaust denial, and the jewish control one. The idea that Democrat politicians want to 'take away your guns' or whatever, as used by mainstream republicans, obviously refers to the fact that Democrats are generally pro-gun control. This is not an extreme position, it's a perfectly legitimate one. You might agree or disagree with gun control, but trying to attack mainstream GOP figures because they're pro-gun rights as if this incites violence reeks of desperation.
You could have at least been honest and said what you were really referring to was the shooter's anti-gun control stance, and we could have proceeded from there. Instead you chopped up the quote tree to pretend you weren't referring to the quote I re-inserted in this post.
EDIT: Well Goddamn Evander you already answered for me. Grr. I wanted to show how the quote tree had been mangled though.
what evidence?
that he hated Obama?
You know, I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton. Does that mean that I'm magically a republican now?
Immediately afterward, cue the screenshot of von Brunn's site pimping his book.
To reiterate, MSNBC employs idiots.
There is also an alarmingly powerful far-right (and I mean genuinely far-right, not 'far-right' the way people here seem to use it) presence in the EU already, and the BNP MEPs will likely ally with them and start voting as a block.
Second; no one is saying that the conservative rhetoric he was listening to turned him from an upright, stable person into a murderous terrorist. He was unstable to begin with, probably long before Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh hit the air. What we're saying is that there's a strong correlation between what those types of people were saying and the rationale he himself gave in his personal notebook.
""You want my weapons — this is how you'll get them."
There is nothing inherently antisemtic about that. His choice of targets is, but the sentiment is straight out of the "Obama's going to take your guns" refrain on Right Wing talk radio.
"The Holocaust is a lie."
Obviously antisemitic. No argument here.
"Obama was created by Jews."
Definitely antisemitic (again, speaks to his choice of target), but it's got "what do we really know about Barack Hussein Obama" written all over it. Obama as an empty suit, propped up by <insert X special interest here> was a talking point all through the election.
The guy was an antisemite, no doubt. He was ALSO and anti-Obama, anti-government loon whose suicide note bore a striking resemblance to GOP talking points, though.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
correlation =/= causation
Regardless, the quote is basically GOP/NRA boilerplate with Jew-hate thrown in for flavor. I don't see how this is remotely deniable.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
but you're happy to draw your conclusions up front, and belittle me for not going along with them?
For instance, how you continue to equate GOP with conservative?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And I haven't drawn any conclusions "up front." I'm looking at the information available, and not just stopping at "Jew hater shoots up Jew museum."
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Huh?
But you're treating theory as fact.
Which is why this thread is like reading Fox News.
As I already said:
As for the "Barack HUSSEIN (wink wink nudge nudge) Obama" bullshit nobody here's defending how it crept into mainstream republican talking points (even though John McCain publically criticized his warm-up act at a rally for using it), but two things -
A: Am I the only person who remembers the fact that the racist insinutations concerning Barack Obama started in The Democratic Primary?
B: What about all that shit concerning George Bush being a weak-minded puppet controlled by Dick Cheney/Halliburton/Don Rumsfeld? By this logic liberals are responsible for anti-semitic theories about neocon-zionist cabals directing White House policy.
Failing to assume you're right and I'm wrong =/= assuming my theory is gospel.
And, again, where did I belittle you?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'm waiting for the day one of these racist faggots bombs a landmark to get attention, then maybe people will realize there are self-proclaimed nazis in their midst and they need to imprison people without funny names for once.
It's still a long time ago compared to anti-abortion violence etc. but yeah, I was amazed at some Americans here claiming that the last left-wing terrorist acts took place in the 60s. The 70s were the fucking heyday of left-wing terrorism.
ad hominem doesn't invalidate the other parts of his post
not to mention the guy on the third page who claimed that left wing extremists had NEVER killed anyone
I think he later mentioned that he was born some time during the 90s, so that explains something, there
Yeah, I mean fair enough there are legitimate questions to be raised as to why anti-abortion violence is still so prevalent, for example. Thankfully people are still arguing about other stupid shit so I don't have to address it.
If I prove you wrong, do I get a prize?
The right wing is not synonymous with the GOP. The right wing media is not synonymous with the GOP media. The GOP as a whole is by and large not hostile to Jews. The right wing can often be hostile to Jews. The rhetoric propagated on right wing media often has more in common with the right wing than the GOP. So while you're right that the neoconservative movement is not hostile to Jews, that is almost irrelevant when there is a paleo conservative movement which generally is and that has been exerting itself both in media and in political action like the "tea parties" or Ron Paul's campaign.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The right AND left wings can BOTH be hostile to the Jews.
If you're calling me out for specifying the GOP, though, that's because I was responding to other people who were ALSO specifying the GOP. If you take issue with them being called out specifically, then join the club.
o_O
Uh, it's a response to people on this thread specifically claiming that the last time left-wing terrorism took place was in the 60s or even earlier (I never saw the latter claim but I havn't read all the thread yet). That's it. That's what it refers to. Not "a strawman of a basic idea".