LonJowett
-
Posts
310 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LonJowett
-
-
40 minutes ago, drummindiver said:
Lol.....sorry if your only salient argument is I hit c instead of m.
No bitterness. Just no time for people who think freedom of speech is fascism. Or Nazism.
My salient argument is as follows:
You said I must be joking that the people who were run down were not behaving violently.
I said you could redeem yourself from those who would call you a lying Nazi apologist by showing evidence you weren't lying and that they were behaving violently.
You whined about ad hoc arguments and refused to defend your argument.
Do you now concede there is no evidence the people in the crowd who were run down were violent protesters? Do you now admit they were only exercising their right to freedom of speech, which you defend?
-
10 minutes ago, betsy said:
The difference with first degree murder and second degree murder? You ask that?
Now, there's a trio - Micheal, Jacee and you!
My reaction when a Nazi drives a car into a bunch of defenceless people is not to take the position of his defence lawyer and try to reduce his charges. I am wondering why you would do that for this particular Nazi. Can you explain or is that too much to ask?
-
Just now, betsy said:
That's what the news said, it's 2nd degree murder - not premeditated. people who don't understand what they read, don't belong in any discussion!
You should ask yourself why that difference matters to you.
-
2 minutes ago, betsy said:
We're talking about the video where the car drives into the crowd of peaceful protesters. Try to keep up.
-
7 minutes ago, drummindiver said:
Ad hoc. F%ck off.
There's nothing ad-hoc about giving you the chance to show you're not a lying Nazi apologist. It's not even ad-hom. But I interpret your bitter outburst and unwillingness to show evidence as a concession that you were lying in order to defend the Nazis. So those people who would call you those names might have more of an excuse to make ad-hom attacks now.
-
16 minutes ago, drummindiver said:
Lol. Peaceful protesters. You are joking, right? This is a Poe post...HAS to be.
Where in the video do you see those people behaving violently? Give a link and point it out.
Here's your chance to prove you're not a cowardly lying Nazi apologist.
-
18 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Why on Earth would anyone want to stop the counter protests?
Yes, the most glaring deficiency in the argus/betsy argument is that they start with the premise that protesting for and against white supremacy are equally reprehensible and then they go from there.
-
3
-
-
Just now, taxme said:
Go on the internet and punch in G. Soros or go to Youtube and do the same. You will find many reputable sources that will explain to you what you want to read or hear. That is where I have gotten all my information from, and read and heard all about the rotten things Soros is behind. You can get it all from the horses mouth, as they say. Go for it.
That's not true. There isn't one reputable source that describes anything like that. There's just a bunch of Russian fake news about him, as far as I can see.
-
1
-
-
Just now, taxme said:
If the leftist cry baby fake and phony liberal media could they would try and blame Trump for starting world war 2. White nationalists have had enough of this leftist liberal democratic nonsense and are now starting to fight back against the oppression and tyranny that the likes of the Soros democrats and liberals have been forcing on them for decades. Now the losers will have to reap what they have sowed. It's pay back time.
So you don't have any evidence for your claims but you lack the integrity to admit that?
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Argus said:
The courts have been VERY clear for a lot of years that you cannot ban a group from demonstrating just because you hate their views. I notice the mayor didn't try to revoke any permits for ANTIFA, who are the ones who caused the trouble in the first place.
And while Trump has now come out and unequivocally condemned the white supremacists (as have many Republicans previously, and even FOX news) I'm still waiting to hear ANYONE in media or politics condemn the thugs of ANTIFA for showing up to block a legal demonstration through violence.
If he failed at stopping the protest, how would he be able to stop the counter-protest?
-
4 minutes ago, taxme said:
It was the leftist ANTIFA sjw warrior thugs that were in the wrong. They were paid by Soros to go create trouble against a people who were there to peacefully march and express their right to freedom of speech. It worked again for Soros and his ethnic ilk. And that democratic liberal Virginia governor went on TV to complain and condemn the peaceful marchers and he blamed in the end for the chaos and riot when he should have attacked to leftist communist Soros thugs who started it all. The only hate and bigotry that is being shown these days is coming from Soros and his gang of communist stupid little liberal snowflake thugs. You need to get your facts straight before you start to blame people who did nothing at all for what happened in Virginia.
Can you provide evidence from a reputable source that Soros paid for the protesters? If you can't, do you have the integrity to admit you have no evidence?
-
44 minutes ago, betsy said:
Charlottesville saw what happened the night before......
....and yet, it was allowed to go on the next day.
.....and the mayor of Charlottesville blames Trump. Is he daft?
And he has the gall to go spouting off on national tv.
It happened on your watch, Mr. Mayor. It was preventable. It shouldn't have happened.....but it did. You let it happened.
He did try to stop the assemblies but the pro-free-speech left-wingers (that do not exist according to you and Argus) went to court to allow it to happen. Maybe you should have read more about the situation before coming to conclusions about who (besides the Nazis) might be responsible.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/12/16138326/aclu-charlottesville-protests-racism
-
11 minutes ago, Argus said:
Why? I like the Dixie Chicks. And I was never a fan of Bush. Nor am I a fan of Trump.
You realize neither one is a conservative, don't you?
Really? In what way? They seemed equally well armed to me. It was ironic to see, in the National Post this morning, a column decrying the white supremacist violence in Charlottesvile with a picture of a Black man using a spray can as a flame thrower aiming it at the white supremacists.
I'm sure they were. They knew who was waiting them, after all! And that kind thrives on street brawling. But this traces back to Berkeley, when ANTIFA beat the crap out of Trump demonstrators. That was the last time the alt-right types showed up for one of their demos unarmed or expecting not to be attacked. The reason it was particularly violent here was the incompetence of the local police in keeping the sides apart.
The fact remains that whatever you or I think of these people, they had a legal right to demonstrate, and the far left set out to stop them by violence.
You're trying to argue it wasn't conservative people who were threatening the Dixie Chicks when they exercised their right to free speech? It was.
Again, if you were aware of the lead-up to this demonstration, many of the Nazis were going specifically to engage in violence. I'm sure there were people on the left with the same intent, but we can see the Nazis were much more successful at it now that we have a body count.
The fact remains that whatever you or I think of these people, the anti-racists (be they left or right wing) had a legal right to counter-protest, and the Nazis set out to beat and kill them. In simpler terms, the people getting run down in the street were not preventing the poor defenceless Nazis from exercising their right to free speech. They were just exercising their own right to the same.
-
16 minutes ago, Argus said:
I think all conservatives have been consistent in wanting to protect free speech, and in their demand for law and order.
I think the Dixie Chicks would disagree.
Both the Nazis and the anti-Nazis showed up ready for a fight, but the Nazis were more heavily armed. If you were aware at all of the discourse before the event, you would know that a lot of the Nazis were planning on beating liberal protesters. Don't try to pretend it was one sided. It wasn't at all.
And the only side that killed and/or sent people to the hospital was the Nazis.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Argus said:
At the same time, I see zero effort from Left wing leaders to restrain or even condemn the violence and intimidation coming from far left groups such as those at Charlottesville.
I don't think it's just the far left who will not tolerate Nazis rallying in their streets. There's wide support for counter-rallying against them. It's really just the very right-wing conservatives who are whining about how the poor Nazis had their free speech violated by seeing people who disagree with them.
-
1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:
I agree with Argus that there were two groups on the streets spoiling for a confrontation...they all got it.
Neither represent me.
So you're not down with anti-racism? That says a lot.
-
On 2017-07-21 at 9:32 AM, sharkman said:
Gosh. Obama let Putin get away with invading the Ukraine, and taking the lead in Syria. For the love of pete, get some perspective, man.
I'm not sure of your point about "perspective" but Obama installed sanctions against Russia for invading the Crimea, which Trump has looked into removing. Were you unaware of this before you commented or are you saying they should have responded militarily and not with sanctions?
-
58 minutes ago, betsy said:
Trump ran on the campaign under the banner of pro-life (remember what he said during the last debate with Hillary?).....and yet, he won.
I think a lot of people are actually ambivalent about abortion, they're swept by the noise being made through political correctness.
The Republicans has to bust political correctness....anyway, there are signs that show people getting fed up with it - another reason why Trump won!
They can try to chip away at it.........who knows. Look at slavery.....it was later abolished.
Trump won because Russia manipulated the election enough that he could squeak through the electoral college with much fewer votes than his opponent. He's a fake president placed there by foreign interests and doesn't represent America or its values at all.
-
2 hours ago, betsy said:
Where did I willingly admit such thing? You're putting words in my mouth - you're like the newscasters delivering fake news!
I didn't know it was caught on tape. Unless a video is doctored, how is someone caught saying something, be fake? I didn't hear this guy saying, foul!
Despite the leaked video with Billy Bush and other comments he'd made about some women, Trump's been elected - warts and all! He says sensational things!
The way the media relentlessly, and unfairly, went after Trump since the day he started running for office - editing his interviews to suit their narrative about him - I can understand the deep resentment (an understatement), he must be feeling about them!
Media moguls have big influence on the so-called news being fed to the public - thru the shows they produce. They manipulate the viewers with their bias. They're more damaging!
That's one of the good thing about Trump: he brought out the sleazy tactics of the media out in the open!
Look at our own little Miss Nitwit - she just had to insist on her irrational disparagement of Trump on national tv. She couldn't let it go at that, when pointed out to her about this CNN producer's similar disparagement of Kellyanne.
Don't you get it? It's the media who's trying to paint Trump into a misogynist because of his comments, and yet a producer of CNN exhibit the same kind of comment.......and little Miss Nitwit thinks it's not the same! She's determined to push her view that Trump is a misogynist, because of his comment!
I don't care for her slanted views! Enough of these insults to viewers' intelligence! And to think that we even pay for these morons!
Sorry. I thought you would hold the president at least to the same standard you hold some twenty something CNN producer. Most credible people would. I take back the assumption that you're credible. That was clearly fake news.
-
9 hours ago, betsy said:
An anchor yesterday at CTV or CBC had among her guest, the editor of Daily Mail. She criticized TRump for the CNBC comment against the woman reporter, and was giving a leading commentary about how Trump targets women. The editor didn't follow the lead. Instead, he pointed out that a CNN producer was heard saying that, "Kellyanne looks like she got hit by a shovel."
So what did the flabbergasted anchor woman say? It's not the same because we "know" Trump has been disparaging women - and she brought up the tape with Billy Bush! The Daily Mail editor fired back, "if there's a cockroach, you can be sure that usually there are more!"
This stupid anchor woman relies on the publicity on Trump as her evidence, and she refused to entertain the notion that the CNN producer exhibited the same offense that Trump is being criticized with.........because there's no publicity about the CNN producer!
The nitwit! She didn't even blink!
Maybe they felt that some secret, possibly faked (because he's been caught doing that) James O'Keefe video of some producer saying something is not as relevant as the president saying it. You'd think that wouldn't need explaining. At least you're willing to admit that what the president says in public is completely inappropriate and degrades the office and the country. You can at least see how that's not the case when a CNN producer says something in private.
-
21 minutes ago, betsy said:
FAKE NEWS!
You're giving all the credit to Trudeau!
It wasn't just Trudeau! It was both Trudeau, Nieto and American lobbyists!
Timer: 1:00
The narrarive of Trump is different from Trudeau's. Trump didn't say Trudeau had convinced him:
What are you on about? Here's what happened. There was a rumour that Steve Bannon had an executive order ready for Trump to sign, declaring the U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA. Trump said he spoke with the leaders of Mexico and Canada and decided that pulling out would be "a pretty big, you know, shock to the system" and then said he would try to renegotiate rather than pull out. Trudeau said that he reminded Trump of how important NAFTA is to the U.S. and that is when he changed his mind. I don't see any conflicts there or any "Fake News", which I assume is your go-to phrase whenever you don't like hearing the truth - like that the president flip-flops like a wet fish and bases his policies on the last person who talked to him.
-
18 hours ago, betsy said:
Of course, you're basing that info from Trudeau and the CBC. What are the chances that Trudeau and Mexico suddenly made a compromise with Trump, just so USA won't pull out? And actually, that's part of Trump's negotiation tactic? He got them in a position he wanted them to be?
No, I'm basing it on Trump's actual words. He said he changed his mind after Trudeau told him how important it was to the U.S. You can try to spin that however you want, but it seems to me the president is out of his league.
-
In one fell swoop, Trudeau declares this thread completely out to lunch. He's like a bloody Trump Whisperer. With one phone call, Trump suddenly understands the importance of NAFTA and is backing down completely. It's funny how U.S. policy is now based on the last person that Trump talked to. It must be hard for his supporters to keep up with what they believe in. They have to change their arguments like the wind.
-
Oh wow, as if the left hasn't been spreading a whole lot of manure themselves. really !
Where did you hear about the NDP nationalizing Stelco?
The Battle of Charlottesville
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
But why do you feel it's important to make that distinction?