Why The Big Lie About Steve Bannon?

[tinydancer]

More PC crap. He's anti-muslim because he calls Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists and doesn't pretend it's just a coincidence? He's misogynist because he recognizes there's a difference between men and women? Please, this is one of the reasons Democrats are taking a bath with this election.

Maybe so. That is NOT what the Breitbart articles are like. If they were that reasonable, no one would be squawking.

Yes they would. If Trump picked Hillary Clinton to be in his cabinet, she would be demonized as well. This President is gonna be opposed no matter what he does.

Unfortunately, you might be right about that. But that is NOT why such a large number of people are objecting to Bannon. And folks can look all wide eyed innocent and say "What's the problem" but you know. Y'all are pretending, just like y'all are pretending there's only about six racists left in the country. No one is fooled.

There are plenty of racists in the country, and they're not all Republicans. Let's not pretend otherwise.

That fact does nothing to assuage my concerns. Bannon is an alt-right bigot. Own it.

Prove it or you are just another liar on this board. Back it up.

 

[paulitician]

Let's be real, are Dem Bootlickers gonna support any Trump Administration members? This is all just a silly distraction. No point getting worked up and arguing about it. The Democrats have begun their undermining sabotage process. It won't matter who Trump chooses, they're gonna hate regardless.

So stop trying to reason with them. Stop trying to seek their approval. It ain't gonna happen. Trump just needs to stay strong and move forward. If Democrats don't wanna work with him, than so be it. He has the pen and phone now. It is what it is.

 

[tinydancer]

View attachment 98912

No problem with any of this, right? I know I'm asking the wrong crowd, but let me school ya--this is insulting, inflammatory bullshit from a site that encourages hate and disrespect of whatever--trannies, women, Dems, gays, Muslims.
We don't need a man in the White House who held up these articles for the world to enjoy.

Show the articles. The exact articles you are blubbering about.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
He made his living off of slandering people mercilessly. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Oh?

Who did he slander, Herr Goebbels?

Should I hold my breath awaiting an answer, or just accept that you are yet again lying?

 

[Wry Catcher]

He's not a Left Wing Globalist wanker. They despise him. That's why.

Stupid ^^^

How so? If he were a fellow Left Wing Globalist wanker, y'all would be praising him 24/7. The fact you're not, tells the story. I support him now, more than ever before. Thank you.

I invite you to go to the library and read the back issue of The Economist with the cover "Anti-gobalists: Why they are wrong". Below is the final paragraph from the article:

"These are the sensible responses to the peddlers of protectionism and nativism. The worst answer would be for countries to turn their backs on globalisation. The case for openness remains much the same as it did when this newspaper was founded to support the repeal of the Corn Laws. There are more—and more varied—opportunities in open economies than in closed ones. And, in general, greater opportunity makes people better off. Since the 1840s, free-traders have believed that closed economies favour the powerful and hurt the labouring classes. They were right then. They are right now."

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...ts-only-elite-fact-less-open-world-would-hurt

 

[tinydancer]

Now all this shit was started and fired up by Greenblatt a left wing leader at ADL.

Who was a former aide to OBAMA. He's being made to eat his words now.

 

[paulitician]

He's not a Left Wing Globalist wanker. They despise him. That's why.

Stupid ^^^

How so? If he were a fellow Left Wing Globalist wanker, y'all would be praising him 24/7. The fact you're not, tells the story. I support him now, more than ever before. Thank you.

I invite you to go to the library and read the back issue of The Economist with the cover "Anti-gobalists: Why they are wrong". Below is the final paragraph from the article:

"These are the sensible responses to the peddlers of protectionism and nativism. The worst answer would be for countries to turn their backs on globalisation. The case for openness remains much the same as it did when this newspaper was founded to support the repeal of the Corn Laws. There are more—and more varied—opportunities in open economies than in closed ones. And, in general, greater opportunity makes people better off. Since the 1840s, free-traders have believed that closed economies favour the powerful and hurt the labouring classes. They were right then. They are right now."

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...ts-only-elite-fact-less-open-world-would-hurt

Nah, to hell with y'all and your New World Order. Times are changing. We can fight back now. It's Americanism, not Globalism. That's the righteous way forward.

 

[Tilly]

Sorry. I won't go to Breitbart's site and read that stuff. I've been there when posters here have included an article as a link, and the ones I've read have been pretty yucky.
Ultra conservatism, fine

So while you cannot provide any example of anti-Semitism, you are still entrenched in the position that Bannon is an anti-Semite? Is that correct?

It's in his ex-wife's deposition during their divorce proceedings. Do you think she might know?

Do you think she might have had an axe to grind?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

It's a bad idea to parade a sows ear as a silk purse.

What I don't get is that you of the Pol Pot left are already discredited. All of your lies in the election have left you battered. Yet here you go with a fresh round of the most blatant demagoguery by a clearly dishonest press.

Do you never learn? Show me evidence that Steve Bannon is an anti-Semite?

You won't, you CAN'T, yet the Hatestream media has blasted this slander for over a week. You of the Khmer Rouge are utterly despicable in outright lies used to smear those who have differing politics.


Bannon and Breitbart are suing for defamation.

I'm hoping that this is a knockout punch to the SPLC and NBC, that there is an award of $1 billion in punitive damages to show that this sort of hate campaign, coordinated by the hate filled left, will not be tolerated.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Democrats will slander anyone, make up any lie, about every single person in the Trump administration.

Yep.

They ARE the Khmer Rouge.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Anti-Semitic? I don't know about that because I've dismissed it as a joke site. But it's definitely preferred by people who are anti-Semitic.

You prefer Brietbart?

Oh wait, you're lying through your fucking teeth again - democrat!

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's in his ex-wife's deposition during their divorce proceedings. Do you think she might know?

Even YOU can't be that stupid.

Is Brad Pitt a child molester? Yes or no? His Ex-wife says he is, the LA Police say he is not. But you claim the ex should know.....

 

[tinydancer]

[
He made his living off of slandering people mercilessly. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Oh?

Who did he slander, Herr Goebbels?

Should I hold my breath awaiting an answer, or just accept that you are yet again lying?

The lies over Bannon are beyond the pale. But on the bright side ever so easy to smash into smithereens.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
He made his living off of slandering people mercilessly. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Oh?

Who did he slander, Herr Goebbels?

Should I hold my breath awaiting an answer, or just accept that you are yet again lying?

The lies over Bannon are beyond the pale. But on the bright side ever so easy to smash into smithereens.

Yes, but it just further shows that the media is nothing more than propaganda for the democrat. CNN and the New York Times openly slander enemies of the party. They have ZERO credibility. Only fool would believe their bullshit. They report what serves the party, if it ever happens to be true, that is purely coincidence.

 

[Coyote]

3 paragraphs in, and I realized I should have looked at the source. No wonder it read like the rightwing MediaMatters. PJ.

Ah, Coyote, you're so predictable.

You are a good useful idiot. You only *learn* from communist-approved sources, I'm sure.

I bet you have the left's *fake news sites* list posted to your key board, just in case you accidentally look at something without that big commie stamp of approval on it...

National Review is a communist-approved source?

Fake news is an interesting phenomena though - that's worth a thread in and of itself.

 

[OldLady]

Maybe so. That is NOT what the Breitbart articles are like. If they were that reasonable, no one would be squawking.

Yes they would. If Trump picked Hillary Clinton to be in his cabinet, she would be demonized as well. This President is gonna be opposed no matter what he does.

Unfortunately, you might be right about that. But that is NOT why such a large number of people are objecting to Bannon. And folks can look all wide eyed innocent and say "What's the problem" but you know. Y'all are pretending, just like y'all are pretending there's only about six racists left in the country. No one is fooled.

There are plenty of racists in the country, and they're not all Republicans. Let's not pretend otherwise.

That fact does nothing to assuage my concerns. Bannon is an alt-right bigot. Own it.

I'm not trying to assuage your concerns, I'm pointing out your hypocrisy and double standard. Own it. PS, you've made no credible case for Bannon being a bigot. Your accusations are not enough.

Are you unable to read English? No, I know you can. These articles aren't accusations--they are facts.

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 98912

No problem with any of this, right? I know I'm asking the wrong crowd, but let me school ya--this is insulting, inflammatory bullshit from a site that encourages hate and disrespect of whatever--trannies, women, Dems, gays, Muslims.
We don't need a man in the White House who held up these articles for the world to enjoy.

Show the articles. The exact articles you are blubbering about.

No. Go look them up if you want to read that trash. They are all Breitbart articles.

 

[OldLady]

[

It's a bad idea to parade a sows ear as a silk purse.

What I don't get is that you of the Pol Pot left are already discredited. All of your lies in the election have left you battered. Yet here you go with a fresh round of the most blatant demagoguery by a clearly dishonest press.

Do you never learn? Show me evidence that Steve Bannon is an anti-Semite?

You won't, you CAN'T, yet the Hatestream media has blasted this slander for over a week. You of the Khmer Rouge are utterly despicable in outright lies used to smear those who have differing politics.


Bannon and Breitbart are suing for defamation.

I'm hoping that this is a knockout punch to the SPLC and NBC, that there is an award of $1 billion in punitive damages to show that this sort of hate campaign, coordinated by the hate filled left, will not be tolerated.

Bannon and Breitbart are suing for defamation.
And they will get their asses kicked out of court. Defamation, after the crud he published?

 

[S.J.]

Yes they would. If Trump picked Hillary Clinton to be in his cabinet, she would be demonized as well. This President is gonna be opposed no matter what he does.

Unfortunately, you might be right about that. But that is NOT why such a large number of people are objecting to Bannon. And folks can look all wide eyed innocent and say "What's the problem" but you know. Y'all are pretending, just like y'all are pretending there's only about six racists left in the country. No one is fooled.

There are plenty of racists in the country, and they're not all Republicans. Let's not pretend otherwise.

That fact does nothing to assuage my concerns. Bannon is an alt-right bigot. Own it.

I'm not trying to assuage your concerns, I'm pointing out your hypocrisy and double standard. Own it. PS, you've made no credible case for Bannon being a bigot. Your accusations are not enough.

Are you unable to read English? No, I know you can. These articles aren't accusations--they are facts.

Then post a few of them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

3 paragraphs in, and I realized I should have looked at the source. No wonder it read like the rightwing MediaMatters. PJ.

Ah, Coyote, you're so predictable.

You are a good useful idiot. You only *learn* from communist-approved sources, I'm sure.

I bet you have the left's *fake news sites* list posted to your key board, just in case you accidentally look at something without that big commie stamp of approval on it...

National Review is a communist-approved source?

Fake news is an interesting phenomena though - that's worth a thread in and of itself.

What are you yapping about?

What does National Review have to do with anything?