Someone was listening

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Why would it matter who started it if the righty's believed it? I don't think I mentioned GOP - exactly who is the GOP and which one's did the GOP start?

Was Trump a Rep or a Dem when he started the Birther lie and like over 40% of Repub. believed him with no evidence.

Can’t get that man out of your head can you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Can’t get that man out of your head can you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well I'm amazed at how the full Rep. party have given themselves over to him with hardly any pushback. The things that people use to complain about Obama and the Dems are 50 x worse and no one seems to care. His lies are passed over as if this is normal behavior. We can go on and on. How many days has he vac. or golfed, How many executive actions, the deficit etc. Maybe we should discuss the things that used to be brought up here - Obama's tan suit or his "lie" about keeping your Dr. how Obama disrespected the office by putting his feet up. Ect.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Well I'm amazed

quit whining...

and....you are the ONLY one that ever brings up this Obama tan suit...over...and over...and over

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

quit whining...

and....you are the ONLY one that ever brings up this Obama tan suit...over...and over...and over

but weren't you the one who posted a picture of it a few times? Do you still have that picture along with the rest of the petty pictures you used to post or did you get a new phone?

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Well I'm amazed at how the full Rep. party have given themselves over to him with hardly any pushback. The things that people use to complain about Obama and the Dems are 50 x worse and no one seems to care. His lies are passed over as if this is normal behavior. We can go on and on. How many days has he vac. or golfed, How many executive actions, the deficit etc. Maybe we should discuss the things that used to be brought up here - Obama's tan suit or his "lie" about keeping your Dr. how Obama disrespected the office by putting his feet up. Ect.

Enjoy the ride cupcake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Enjoy the ride cupcake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I get so embarrassed for you when I read your posts.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I get so embarrassed for you when I read your posts.

You are running out of ammunition my little mud hen. Stay the course. Someday I am going to hug you and never let go.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

You are running out of ammunition my little mud hen. Stay the course. Someday I am going to hug you and never let go.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again I'm embarrassed for you that you really have nothing else to say other than the same childish insults.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Please provide an example of what any body would consider to be an insightful post from you ,Paul.

Was it the one where you disclosed people make money in the northeast and then move south? You are a tool. Plain and simple. But I have fun with you so keep entertaining me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Please provide an example of what any body would consider to be an insightful post from you ,Paul.

Was it the one where you disclosed people make money in the northeast and then move south? You are a tool. Plain and simple. But I have fun with you so keep entertaining me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again nothing but childish insults from a dotard. It's embarrassing how your posts lack substance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

https://youtu.be/lA5UqUyFmT0
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Again nothing but childish insults from a dotard. It's embarrassing how your posts lack substance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you for providing fodder my little puppet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Thank you for providing fodder my little puppet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again nothing but childish insults from a dotard. It's embarrassing how your posts lack substance.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Again nothing but childish insults from a dotard. It's embarrassing how your posts lack substance.

you should read YOUR posts

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

you should read YOUR posts

Scott - seriously why would I care what you think? You're just a snarky individual - which they say is the lowest form of wit.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Scott - seriously why would I care what you think? You're just a snarky individual - which they say is the lowest form of wit.

[Sea Dangles]

Like most #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s PaulS thinks HE is adding substance. He should read his last 10 posts and decide if his offerings are in depth. I guess that is heavy lifting in his snow globe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Like most #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s PaulS thinks HE is adding substance. He should read his last 10 posts and decide if his offerings are in depth. I guess that is heavy lifting in his snow globe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean the ones responding to your childish insults? Of course they don't add value - but that is the same as the vast majority of your posts.

[detbuch]

Ann Coulter's contribution to the notion that "someone was listening."

https://townhall.com/columnists/annc...d-8cc16b57cace

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Ann Coulter's contribution to the notion that "someone was listening."

https://townhall.com/columnists/annc...d-8cc16b57cace

Trump’s Aryan Witch Enforcer selectively missed a lot of history, to attempt to make a contorted point.
Google Aztlan and Google immigrant invasion, a lot more hits on immigrant invaders than Aztlan, but keep spinning and believing Trump's rhetoric has no effect.

Then you can look at things from the viewpoint of American citizens of Mexican descent:
Mexican Cession and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the illegal land takings that have occurred since.
Mexican Repatriation occurred in the 1930s when the government illegally deported a million AMERICAN citizens of Mexican descent to Mexico.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump’s Aryan Witch Enforcer selectively missed a lot of history, to attempt to make a contorted point.
Google Aztlan and Google immigrant invasion, a lot more hits on immigrant invaders than Aztlan, but keep spinning and believing Trump's rhetoric has no effect.

She didn't miss any history. She pointed out a slice of reality that made its point. She wasn't trying to make your Salem Witch trial investigation's selective points which also "missed" a lot of history. History is far far far more extensive than your little range. And the brief little slice of it that she presents is a spot on contribution of events and words that influence. The number of hits on google is irrelevant in terms of who is listening to the rhetoric of Mexican Supremacist factions. To dismiss the effect of that rhetoric on a large number of Mexicans who want to be here, and welcome any notion of their right to be here regardless of our immigration laws, helps to solidify the belief that they indeed have a right, a superior right that precedes anyone else's.

Then you can look at things from the viewpoint of American citizens of Mexican descent:
Mexican Cession and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the illegal land takings that have occurred since.
Mexican Repatriation occurred in the 1930s when the government illegally deported a million AMERICAN citizens of Mexican descent to Mexico.

You've already pointed that out. I regret that I gave you the opportunity to once again point it out. I got it the first time and it gets boring hearing about it over and over. It's all interesting, but this is still the U.S., not Mexico, however it got to be that way.

This is the first time that Coulter's viewpoint has been tendered. There is no need to bring all that old stuff up as if it somehow discredits what she says. I doesn't. But a not very nice try.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You've already pointed that out. I regret that I gave you the opportunity to once again point it out. I got it the first time and it gets boring hearing about it over and over. It's all interesting, but this is still the U.S., not Mexico, however it got to be that way.

This is the first time that Coulter's viewpoint has been tendered. There is no need to bring all that old stuff up as if it somehow discredits what she says. I doesn't. But a not very nice try.

Perhaps she should have read his manifesto.
Then she would have seen this statement.

"Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement."

Pretty far stretch to blame that on Armando Navarro, Roberto Rodriguez or some civil action group.

But perhaps Ann Coulter feels guilty about saying this, though I doubt it.

Ann Coulter, appearing as a guest on Jeanine Pirro’s Fox News show, offered a dispassionately violent suggestion about what could be done to stem the flow of migrants: “You can shoot invaders.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps she should have read his manifesto.
Then she would have seen this statement.

"Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement."

Pretty far stretch to blame that on Armando Navarro, Roberto Rodriguez or some civil action group.

But perhaps Ann Coulter feels guilty about saying this, though I doubt it.

Ann Coulter, appearing as a guest on Jeanine Pirro’s Fox News show, offered a dispassionately violent suggestion about what could be done to stem the flow of migrants: “You can shoot invaders.”

This doesn't address Coulter's article that I posted. It seems that no matter what is actually said, it simply provides you with an opportunity to change the subject and drag us back into whatever bone you have to pick. That gets old. But I do understand that it does relieve you of the burden of rebutting or disproving or even of making a pertinent response.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This doesn't address Coulter's article that I posted. It seems that no matter what is actually said, it simply provides you with an opportunity to change the subject and drag us back into whatever bone you have to pick. That gets old. But I do understand that it does relieve you of the burden of rebutting or disproving or even of making a pertinent response.

Ann Coulter who said “You can shoot invaders.” then claims no culpability when a man decides to shoot people he views as invaders.
Her “argument” has no basis in reality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Ann Coulter who said “You can shoot invaders.” then claims no culpability when a man decides to shoot people he views as invaders.
Her “argument” has no basis in reality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You just made her point. If you deny that inflammatory rhetoric from the left leads to violence but that Trump using perfectly valid words is the reason for mass shootings, then your opinion has no basis in reality. Constantly ragging on Trump for merely using a word, which accurately describes a situation, then giving a pass to all the pols and organizations that accuse him and white males and Republicans of being fascists, Nazis, etc., with no real basis for saying so, repeatedly, shows what a hypocrite who makes stuff up you really are.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You just made her point. If you deny that inflammatory rhetoric from the left leads to violence but that Trump using perfectly valid words is the reason for mass shootings, then your opinion has no basis in reality. Constantly ragging on Trump for merely using a word, which accurately describes a situation, then giving a pass to all the pols and organizations that accuse him and white males and Republicans of being fascists, Nazis, etc., with no real basis for saying so, repeatedly, shows what a hypocrite who makes stuff up you really are.

Her point is saying “You can shoot invaders” has no effect?
Trump’s Denialists, of which you are one, must deny.
Because if voters realize that Trump is not only divisive but also a person who provokes terrorists, his presidency cannot be rescued.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Her point is saying “You can shoot invaders” has no effect?
Trump’s Denialists, of which you are one, must deny.
Because if voters realize that Trump is not only divisive but also a person who provokes terrorists, his presidency cannot be rescued.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was referring to the article by her that I posted and to which you had a pseudo, or rather non-existent, reply. You changed the subject. I attempted to get back to the subject. You refuse. As I said, you ramble on about other things so you don't have to respond. Which is OK. Don't respond. But just don't post one of your knee jerk other hates as if it is a response.

I don't know about her "you can shoot invaders" remark. And I certainly don't know the context nor intent of what she said. I have learned that trusting to your interpretation of that could very well be misleading, or entirely wrong.

And I'm not interested in, nor agree with, everything that Coulter says. I thought that the article by her that I posted, and to which you pretended to reply to, was enlightening as to the one-sided, even hypocritical, if not entirely fallacious, condemning Trump of inspiring violence because he used certain words.

I understand why you would try to evade any reasonable discussion of how that is not fair nor accurate--or even an outride lie.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I was referring to the article by her that I posted and to which you had a pseudo, or rather non-existent, reply. You changed the subject. I attempted to get back to the subject. You refuse. As I said, you ramble on about other things so you don't have to respond. Which is OK. Don't respond. But just don't post one of your knee jerk other hates as if it is a response.

I don't know about her "you can shoot invaders" remark. And I certainly don't know the context nor intent of what she said. I have learned that trusting to your interpretation of that could very well be misleading, or entirely wrong.

And I'm not interested in, nor agree with, everything that Coulter says. I thought that the article by her that I posted, and to which you pretended to reply to, was enlightening as to the one-sided, even hypocritical, if not entirely fallacious, condemning Trump of inspiring violence because he used certain words.

I understand why you would try to evade any reasonable discussion of how that is not fair nor accurate--or even an outride lie.

Her article proposed that the shooter was influenced by a viewpoint that is held by very few as opposed to something broadcast on Fox, called as such by Trump in rallies time after time.

Keep denying, perhaps you actually believe that Trump’s speech has no effect and he is using those words to join people together to solve a problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Words are like guns
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Her article proposed that the shooter was influenced by a viewpoint that is held by very few as opposed to something broadcast on Fox, called as such by Trump in rallies time after time.

This sentence is incoherent.

It begins by trying to compare different things--being influenced by a viewpoint, and by the source of a (the same?) viewpoint. Possibly being influenced by the actual rhetoric is one thing. Attributing the source of the rhetoric as influence is another thing. Coulter addressed the rhetoric and action itself--the source being those who actually said or wrote or did it.

If your saying that the shooter would be influenced, not by the rhetoric, but by the source (Fox News), that is a different argument which Coulter did not address.

If your saying that the "viewpoint" of the Mexican supremacists is held by very few because it wasn't on Fox News and therefor it would not be effective in influencing the shooter, that would be assuming something you don't know, as well as being irrelevant, and even more it would be misleading since the "viewpoint" actually has been broadcast or written in main stream media, including the NYT and other main print and television media other than Fox.


Keep denying, perhaps you actually believe that Trump’s speech has no effect and he is using those words to join people together to solve a problem.

And then you end by bringing in Trump, totally ignoring the distinct possibility that the shooter was influenced by the actual massive illegal immigration and the verbal threats of Mexican Supremacists that have been going on for a long time and are fully explicated rhetoric, not just single words, or supposed "code" or "dog whistles."

As you say, keep denying.

I don't deny that some crazy might take any word, no matter how legitimate or pertinent, and go off on a killing spree. But I'm going to point the finger on the shooter. That we cannot use legitimate language to describe events because some crazy may go batchit is ridiculous.

You seem to want to deny that rhetoric from the left can be effective enough to cause violence. The leftist media and politicians are fairly quiet about the possibility that their rhetoric, which is more direct and explicit, not just dog whistle stuff, influenced the Dayton shooter, who was a Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren fan. But boy, are they going hyper over the El Paso shooting because they somehow conclude that it's Trump's fault.