Charlottesville Riot: Was Trump Right ?

[Faun]

You flaming rightard -- there's video of Fields plowing over pedestrians. None were sitting in the street. Do they breed conservatives to be this stupid?

DODGE! Again my question >> "Maybe you wanna tell us that the counter protestors had a permit allowing them to block traffic and attack marchers ?" And so what are you saying now ? That's it's OK to block traffic if you're standing up, but not sitting down ?

Fool, the counterprotesters were sitting before they were standing. They did both at different times. Hardly matters though. The traffic blocking is what does.

Here's how to identify a city having a Democrat mayor >>>

LOLOL

Dumbfuck be like, a video proving me wrong is a dodge.

 

[Faun]

Umm, that's what war is.

With attackers and attackees, Get it ?

PS - "Umm" is not a word.

LOL

Umm, did you think the forum needed more evidence you're a moron?

umm

 

[Jitss617]

There was a great thread about this when it happened. In that thread and over the course of time the media finally addressed the fact that the white supremacists had coordinated with the local authorities and gotten a legal permit that allowed them to exercise their Constitutional Right to peacefully freely assemble and to march. People may hate what they stand for / believe, but the Constitution affords thee rights to every American citizen and does not require 'your' approval of their beliefs.

An interview with the leader of Antifa who showed up that day, wearing protective gear and carrying weapons. The Antifa leader admitted they showed up n Charlottesville with the full intent to INSTIGATE VIOLENCE by attacking the white Supremacists.

At the time the President simply stated the violence engaged in was not only the fault of the white supremacists but of 'others' as well.

The Antifa leader's admission that they showed up there - without having coordinated with local officials, without having gotten a permit to demonstrate, wearing protective gear, and brandishing weapons -with the full intent of INSTIGATING violence proves the President was indeed right.

Would you be ok with ISIS members marching and expressing their views in one of America's towns ?

Of course not. And if folks showed up to protest ISIS's hatred and bigotry, these rightards would be just peachy if a Democrat said there was hatred and bigotry on many sides.

I remember quite a few Democrats expressing support for ISIS, most notably Barrack Obama, to the point of his own wife asking "Whose side are you on ?"

Keep lying.

Who’s lying

 

[Correll]

THe cops were ordered to stand down, by the dems,

Again, the Mayor of Charlottesville was NOT a Democrat, but you knew that already when you posted your lie.

But you're not denying that the cops were ordered to stand down to allow the much more numerous Antifa to attack?

 

[Correll]

You are hearing the bullshit from the media. The park statue was the theme of the protest march. You're just another dupe.

Fields who is from Ohio murdered Heather Heyer, so far everyone who was convicted of violence was an out of state Nazi. So much for your "local people" park statue BULLSHIT!

That the local dems let antifa attack the white supremacists and did not arrest them, is not something you should be proud of.


YOu know, if the cops had done their job, that woman would probably still be alive.

The White Nazis attacked the unarmed America lovers and the Right-wing police let them. They watched while their fellow Nazis beat DeAndre Harris with 2 by 4s and metal poles in a parking garage as he was leaving.

That's the bullshit version the media spread around like wildfire. By now, in 2020, that fire has long been extinguished. You look ridiculous.

And the holocaust was fake too?

Calling bullshit on a leftard, that is claiming that American police are nazis, does not justify a Holocaust denial question.


You are an asshole.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[Correll]

ON both sides of the issue of historical statues. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists. Why are you lying about that?

 

[Mac1958]

ON both sides of the issue of historical statues. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists. Why are you lying about that?

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

 

[Correll]

ON both sides of the issue of historical statues. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists. Why are you lying about that?

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

 

[Mac1958]

ON both sides of the issue of historical statues. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists. Why are you lying about that?

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

I think he was doing the same thing in both cases - clumsily placating his base.

Given their continued and undying support of him, they clearly figured his "condemnations" were just showbiz and delivered with a wink.

Looks like we disagree.
.

 

[Norman]

ON both sides of the issue of historical statues. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists. Why are you lying about that?

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

I think he was doing the same thing in both cases - clumsily placating his base.

Given their continued and undying support of him, they clearly figured his "condemnations" were just showbiz and delivered with a wink.

Looks like we disagree.
.

Yes, his base, the Americans.

Not the cosplaying national socialists.

 

[Mac1958]

ON both sides of the issue of historical statues. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists. Why are you lying about that?

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

I think he was doing the same thing in both cases - clumsily placating his base.

Given their continued and undying support of him, they clearly figured his "condemnations" were just showbiz and delivered with a wink.

Looks like we disagree.
.

Yes, his base, the Americans.

Not the cosplaying national socialists.

Sure, whatever you guys want to call yourselves.
.

 

[Correll]

ON both sides of the issue of historical statues. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists. Why are you lying about that?

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

I think he was doing the same thing in both cases - clumsily placating his base.

Given their continued and undying support of him, they clearly figured his "condemnations" were just showbiz and delivered with a wink.

Looks like we disagree.
.

You asked about what you were lying about. I explained. YOu gave a reason for lying. You are still lying.



you should stop doing that.

 

[Correll]

ON both sides of the issue of historical statues. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists. Why are you lying about that?

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

I think he was doing the same thing in both cases - clumsily placating his base.

Given their continued and undying support of him, they clearly figured his "condemnations" were just showbiz and delivered with a wink.

Looks like we disagree.
.

Yes, his base, the Americans.

Not the cosplaying national socialists.

These libs live in a fantasy world, where white supremacists are a major portion of the population.


It is utter madness.

 

[Mac1958]

ON both sides of the issue of historical statues. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists. Why are you lying about that?

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

I think he was doing the same thing in both cases - clumsily placating his base.

Given their continued and undying support of him, they clearly figured his "condemnations" were just showbiz and delivered with a wink.

Looks like we disagree.
.

You asked about what you were lying about. I explained. YOu gave a reason for lying. You are still lying.



you should stop doing that.

And I think you're doing what you always do; Denying, running interference for, and enabling the very worst behaviors of the Trump base, and giving the hardcore Left a nice, big target for their PC and Identity Politics crap.

Dang! Looks like we disagree again!
.

 

[Correll]

ON both sides of the issue of historical statues. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists. Why are you lying about that?

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

I think he was doing the same thing in both cases - clumsily placating his base.

Given their continued and undying support of him, they clearly figured his "condemnations" were just showbiz and delivered with a wink.

Looks like we disagree.
.

You asked about what you were lying about. I explained. YOu gave a reason for lying. You are still lying.



you should stop doing that.

And I think you're doing what you always do; Denying, running interference for, and enabling the very worst behaviors of the Trump base, and giving the hardcore Left a nice, big target for their PC and Identity Politics crap.

Dang! Looks like we disagree again!
.

Even if your suspicions were correct, you still took those quotes so far out of context, that they are misleading.


The first one, you don't give all the context of all the times, he has condemned David Duke and you assume the worst possible explanation for why he gave that one answer that one time.


The second one, you dont' give the context where he A clearly and explicitly stated that he was not talking about the white supremacists at the rally and B, clearly and repeatedly and explicitly condemned the white supremacists at the rally.


Your meme was a lie.


You had to lie to make your point.



Is that really who you want to be?


What if you are wrong?

 

[BrokeLoser]

ON both sides of the issue of historical statues. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists. Why are you lying about that?

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

I think he was doing the same thing in both cases - clumsily placating his base.

Given their continued and undying support of him, they clearly figured his "condemnations" were just showbiz and delivered with a wink.

Looks like we disagree.
.

Yes, his base, the Americans.

Not the cosplaying national socialists.

These libs live in a fantasy world, where white supremacists are a major portion of the population.


It is utter madness.

SHIT...I wish they were right. Racist patriots would have made sure we were never invaded by tens of millions of human cockroaches from Mexico.

 

[Mac1958]

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

I think he was doing the same thing in both cases - clumsily placating his base.

Given their continued and undying support of him, they clearly figured his "condemnations" were just showbiz and delivered with a wink.

Looks like we disagree.
.

You asked about what you were lying about. I explained. YOu gave a reason for lying. You are still lying.



you should stop doing that.

And I think you're doing what you always do; Denying, running interference for, and enabling the very worst behaviors of the Trump base, and giving the hardcore Left a nice, big target for their PC and Identity Politics crap.

Dang! Looks like we disagree again!
.

Even if your suspicions were correct, you still took those quotes so far out of context, that they are misleading.


The first one, you don't give all the context of all the times, he has condemned David Duke and you assume the worst possible explanation for why he gave that one answer that one time.


The second one, you dont' give the context where he A clearly and explicitly stated that he was not talking about the white supremacists at the rally and B, clearly and repeatedly and explicitly condemned the white supremacists at the rally.


Your meme was a lie.


You had to lie to make your point.



Is that really who you want to be?


What if you are wrong?

I doubt it, seeing you continuing to do what I just said you were doing.
.

 

[Correll]

About what am I lying? Those are direct quotes.
.

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

I think he was doing the same thing in both cases - clumsily placating his base.

Given their continued and undying support of him, they clearly figured his "condemnations" were just showbiz and delivered with a wink.

Looks like we disagree.
.

Yes, his base, the Americans.

Not the cosplaying national socialists.

These libs live in a fantasy world, where white supremacists are a major portion of the population.


It is utter madness.

SHIT...I wish they were right. Racist patriots would have made sure we were never invaded by tens of millions of human cockroaches from Mexico.

ONe could play that game for hours. It would go better with a lot of beer.


What would happen if some significant portion of the White population really were white supremacists?


Yes,. A large, strong white supremacist movement would be, at the very least, rioting in the streets over the illegal alien issue.

 

[Correll]

Taken out of context to the point that it is completely misleading.

I think he was doing the same thing in both cases - clumsily placating his base.

Given their continued and undying support of him, they clearly figured his "condemnations" were just showbiz and delivered with a wink.

Looks like we disagree.
.

You asked about what you were lying about. I explained. YOu gave a reason for lying. You are still lying.



you should stop doing that.

And I think you're doing what you always do; Denying, running interference for, and enabling the very worst behaviors of the Trump base, and giving the hardcore Left a nice, big target for their PC and Identity Politics crap.

Dang! Looks like we disagree again!
.

Even if your suspicions were correct, you still took those quotes so far out of context, that they are misleading.


The first one, you don't give all the context of all the times, he has condemned David Duke and you assume the worst possible explanation for why he gave that one answer that one time.


The second one, you dont' give the context where he A clearly and explicitly stated that he was not talking about the white supremacists at the rally and B, clearly and repeatedly and explicitly condemned the white supremacists at the rally.


Your meme was a lie.


You had to lie to make your point.



Is that really who you want to be?


What if you are wrong?

I doubt it, seeing you continuing to do what I just said you were doing.
.

1. Your meme is still misleading, for all the reasons I pointed out.

2. What if you are wrong?