Neo-Nazi Arthur Jones becomes Republican nominee in Illinois

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

I responded with quotes because you called me a liar, which you clearly are.

The person who made the first quote even admits in a later post to saying they were glad scalise was shot.

They specifically said it was karma he was shot, that he was a danger, and the tree of liberty needs blood.

The sout african geonocide, starts with LOL then quotes how south africans are fleeing, then says they better git while the gittens good because whites were torured in zimbabwe.

You were wrong.

But you know, I take back calling you a liar.

You are delusional.

You twist reality and think thaat saying "LOL whites are fleeing and they better keep fleeing cause they will get tortured like zimbabwe" isntr making fun of genocide.

And you came at me with such bluster, whne the proof is easily available for all to see.

I feel very sorry for you, and I hope that you seek help for your inability to process reality.

There's only one delusional person here friend, and I'm talking to him. You ignore any rebuttals contradicting your assertions, while at the same time resorting to personal attacks because you have no more good arguments to make. The fact that you can't accept that you're as biased as anyone on these forums is prime example of that.

Continue to shout into the void if it makes you feel better, but your sad attempts to lash out are only indicative of your inability to rationalize that people can disagree with you without supporting murder or genocide (or whatever the argument dejour is).

Peersonal attacks?

Need I show you the first post you made on this thread today about me?

This all came about because someone said just look at ats and the extreme right wingers. I said there are examples of extreme left wingers, you asked me to prove it.

Now you deny the obvious words written saying the tree of liberty needed rrefreshed with scalise's blood, that LOL people are fleeing southafrica, and they better git while the gittens good cause they were victims of torture and genocide in zimbabwe.

But sure, you are right.

Its only the right that is extreme, when the left says these things, there is always a justification, or a miscommunication.

You are delusional, and thats ok, I am used to seeing this.

Shall I go thru the teacher calling for white genocide thread and show you how people defended this, or said how condemning it was bad?

Shall I go thru the thread were a member said all trump supporters are supporters of facsism, and they all need to be eliminated, even if its war on the streets?

I mean, you said you already went through those threads and I am a liar.

You are delusional, and I hope you get help.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler
How about lauhing about south african genocide?

LOL,


The white population of Zimbabwe reached a peak of about 296,000 in 1975, representing just over four percent of the population, but numbers then started to drop, to around 120,000 in 1999, and to no more than 50,000 in 2002, possibly much less.



The rest better git while the gittins good. The history of Europeans in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), would curdle the blood.

LOL, I wonder what that means? Again, you are blatantly wrong.

Without a link it's hard to tell but I'd say the LOL is directed at a member. You are using it to say he's laughing about WG. Kinda proves wayfarer's point.

And remember, wayfarer went through these post he says, and didnt see anything resembling laughing at genocide of whites in Zimbabwe and south africa.

Because you personally inferred that the 'LOL' was him laughing at genocide, when I read it as him just laughing at the argument itself. Again, as I mentioned, this merely proves my point that your proof is nothing of the sort, and rather inference of what you believe it to be (much like many of your disagreements across several other threads), since 'LOL' is so blatantly general as to mean just about whatever you want it to.

You can't explain how 'git while the gettin's good' is a statement in support of genocide. As I mentioned earlier, show me actual textual evidence that a poster said 'whites in South Africa should be killed' and you'll have something. Until then, you're trying to present your opinion as fact (which is bad debate).

a reply to: Grambler

Yes. He's LOLing the members in the thread. You are misrepresenting his words...again. Intentionally so?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

I responded with quotes because you called me a liar, which you clearly are.

The person who made the first quote even admits in a later post to saying they were glad scalise was shot.

They specifically said it was karma he was shot, that he was a danger, and the tree of liberty needs blood.

The sout african geonocide, starts with LOL then quotes how south africans are fleeing, then says they better git while the gittens good because whites were torured in zimbabwe.

You were wrong.

But you know, I take back calling you a liar.

You are delusional.

You twist reality and think thaat saying "LOL whites are fleeing and they better keep fleeing cause they will get tortured like zimbabwe" isntr making fun of genocide.

And you came at me with such bluster, whne the proof is easily available for all to see.

I feel very sorry for you, and I hope that you seek help for your inability to process reality.

There's only one delusional person here friend, and I'm talking to him. You ignore any rebuttals contradicting your assertions, while at the same time resorting to personal attacks because you have no more good arguments to make. The fact that you can't accept that you're as biased as anyone on these forums is prime example of that.

Continue to shout into the void if it makes you feel better, but your sad attempts to lash out are only indicative of your inability to rationalize that people can disagree with you without supporting murder or genocide (or whatever the argument dejour is).

Peersonal attacks?

Need I show you the first post you made on this thread today about me?

Lol, I appreciate the play on words. I consider you a peer in debate on this as well.

Please show me the first post I made today that issues an attack on you (and not your argument).

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Grambler

Yes. He's LOLing the members in the thread. You are misrepresenting his words...again. Intentionally so?

Unbelievable. The extent that people will go to justify the lefts extremism is mind blowing.

I guarntee if someone said about black being lynched by whites in america, and I said.

"Lol

yeah the amount of blacks living in rural white towns is fastly decreasing.

The rest of the blacks better git while the gittens good, the history of blacks being torured like emmitt till would make the blood curdle"

You would rightfully call me a disgusting racist.

BUt nope, when its someone on the left, you will engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it seem like the lol wasnt meant to be for the direct statement that followed it, and the part about whites should leave is perfectly reasonable.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

I responded with quotes because you called me a liar, which you clearly are.

The person who made the first quote even admits in a later post to saying they were glad scalise was shot.

They specifically said it was karma he was shot, that he was a danger, and the tree of liberty needs blood.

The sout african geonocide, starts with LOL then quotes how south africans are fleeing, then says they better git while the gittens good because whites were torured in zimbabwe.

You were wrong.

But you know, I take back calling you a liar.

You are delusional.

You twist reality and think thaat saying "LOL whites are fleeing and they better keep fleeing cause they will get tortured like zimbabwe" isntr making fun of genocide.

And you came at me with such bluster, whne the proof is easily available for all to see.

I feel very sorry for you, and I hope that you seek help for your inability to process reality.

There's only one delusional person here friend, and I'm talking to him. You ignore any rebuttals contradicting your assertions, while at the same time resorting to personal attacks because you have no more good arguments to make. The fact that you can't accept that you're as biased as anyone on these forums is prime example of that.

Continue to shout into the void if it makes you feel better, but your sad attempts to lash out are only indicative of your inability to rationalize that people can disagree with you without supporting murder or genocide (or whatever the argument dejour is).

Peersonal attacks?

Need I show you the first post you made on this thread today about me?

Lol, I appreciate the play on words. I consider you a peer in debate on this as well.

Please show me the first post I made today that issues an attack on you (and not your argument).

So you saying I am making up false hoods, saying they are feckless, brutish,retc. is not a personal attack.

But me saying you are delusional is.

Got it.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Grambler

Yes. He's LOLing the members in the thread. You are misrepresenting his words...again. Intentionally so?

Unbelievable. The extent that people will go to justify the lefts extremism is mind blowing.

I guarntee if someone said about black being lynched by whites in america, and I said.

"Lol

yeah the amount of blacks living in rural white towns is fastly decreasing.

The rest of the blacks better git while the gittens good, the history of blacks being torured like emmitt till would make the blood curdle"

You would rightfully call me a disgusting racist.

BUt nope, when its someone on the left, you will engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it seem like the lol wasnt meant to be for the direct statement that followed it, and the part about whites should leave is perfectly reasonable.

This is pure conjecture. Saying what you expect/believe to happen is not the same as it actually happen. We'd be happy to entertain those positions if you can provide proof of someone calling you a disgusting racist for saying 'Lol' to such an argument, otherwise try sticking to verifiable facts.

a reply to: Grambler

You can spin it any way you want, you're still misrepresenting.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Grambler

Yes. He's LOLing the members in the thread. You are misrepresenting his words...again. Intentionally so?

Unbelievable. The extent that people will go to justify the lefts extremism is mind blowing.

I guarntee if someone said about black being lynched by whites in america, and I said.

"Lol

yeah the amount of blacks living in rural white towns is fastly decreasing.

The rest of the blacks better git while the gittens good, the history of blacks being torured like emmitt till would make the blood curdle"

You would rightfully call me a disgusting racist.

BUt nope, when its someone on the left, you will engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it seem like the lol wasnt meant to be for the direct statement that followed it, and the part about whites should leave is perfectly reasonable.

This is pure conjecture. Saying what you expect/believe to happen is not the same as it actually happen. We'd be happy to entertain those positions if you can provide proof of someone calling you a disgusting racist for saying 'Lol' to such an argument, otherwise try sticking to verifiable facts.

I am sticking to facts.

The fact is, a person in a thread about white farmers being forced off of their land, made a quote that was not a response to aanyone directly, starting with lol, that then propceeded to show how whites are fleeing, then said they better keep fleeing because of whites torured in Zimbabwe.

And you will bend as hard as possible to make this seem ok.

Notice How you siad how false and feckless all of the threads I linked were, notice how you arent discussing them now.

Its funny, when the original poster on this thread said yeah look at all of the right wing extremism on ats, you didnt ask for proof, you took him at his word.

But when I say there is left wing extremism, you want proof, get the proof, and then make every excuse you can for why that hatred is merely a miscommunication or justified.

Its because your narrative will not let you see reality.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

I responded with quotes because you called me a liar, which you clearly are.

The person who made the first quote even admits in a later post to saying they were glad scalise was shot.

They specifically said it was karma he was shot, that he was a danger, and the tree of liberty needs blood.

The sout african geonocide, starts with LOL then quotes how south africans are fleeing, then says they better git while the gittens good because whites were torured in zimbabwe.

You were wrong.

But you know, I take back calling you a liar.

You are delusional.

You twist reality and think thaat saying "LOL whites are fleeing and they better keep fleeing cause they will get tortured like zimbabwe" isntr making fun of genocide.

And you came at me with such bluster, whne the proof is easily available for all to see.

I feel very sorry for you, and I hope that you seek help for your inability to process reality.

There's only one delusional person here friend, and I'm talking to him. You ignore any rebuttals contradicting your assertions, while at the same time resorting to personal attacks because you have no more good arguments to make. The fact that you can't accept that you're as biased as anyone on these forums is prime example of that.

Continue to shout into the void if it makes you feel better, but your sad attempts to lash out are only indicative of your inability to rationalize that people can disagree with you without supporting murder or genocide (or whatever the argument dejour is).

Peersonal attacks?

Need I show you the first post you made on this thread today about me?

Lol, I appreciate the play on words. I consider you a peer in debate on this as well.

Please show me the first post I made today that issues an attack on you (and not your argument).

So you saying I am making up false hoods, saying they are feckless, brutish,retc. is not a personal attack.

But me saying you are delusional is.

Got it.

Precisely. Since you seem to be having some difficulty differentiating I will explain: The modality of debate on ATS is to attack the argument, not the person. If you have problems decoupling that I can consider you a good person who's arguments I disagree with at times (and vocally decry), then I can see why you would think I'm making personal attacks at you.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Grambler

Yes. He's LOLing the members in the thread. You are misrepresenting his words...again. Intentionally so?

Unbelievable. The extent that people will go to justify the lefts extremism is mind blowing.

I guarntee if someone said about black being lynched by whites in america, and I said.

"Lol

yeah the amount of blacks living in rural white towns is fastly decreasing.

The rest of the blacks better git while the gittens good, the history of blacks being torured like emmitt till would make the blood curdle"

You would rightfully call me a disgusting racist.

BUt nope, when its someone on the left, you will engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it seem like the lol wasnt meant to be for the direct statement that followed it, and the part about whites should leave is perfectly reasonable.

This is pure conjecture. Saying what you expect/believe to happen is not the same as it actually happen. We'd be happy to entertain those positions if you can provide proof of someone calling you a disgusting racist for saying 'Lol' to such an argument, otherwise try sticking to verifiable facts.

I am sticking to facts.

The fact is, a person in a thread about white farmers being forced off of their land, made a quote that was not a response to aanyone directly, starting with lol, that then propceeded to show how whites are fleeing, then said they better keep fleeing because of whites torured in Zimbabwe.

No, you're not sticking to facts, you're sticking to what you believe is implied. Again, I honestly don't see how 'git while the gettins good' is a direct quote for 'they better keep fleeing because of whites tortured in Zimbabwe'. You have conflated the two directly in your post. I can understand that you would think that, and I've asked you already to explain how 'git while the gettins good' could be construed that way, but instead you've listed your 'translation', practically proving my point.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

I responded with quotes because you called me a liar, which you clearly are.

The person who made the first quote even admits in a later post to saying they were glad scalise was shot.

They specifically said it was karma he was shot, that he was a danger, and the tree of liberty needs blood.

The sout african geonocide, starts with LOL then quotes how south africans are fleeing, then says they better git while the gittens good because whites were torured in zimbabwe.

You were wrong.

But you know, I take back calling you a liar.

You are delusional.

You twist reality and think thaat saying "LOL whites are fleeing and they better keep fleeing cause they will get tortured like zimbabwe" isntr making fun of genocide.

And you came at me with such bluster, whne the proof is easily available for all to see.

I feel very sorry for you, and I hope that you seek help for your inability to process reality.

There's only one delusional person here friend, and I'm talking to him. You ignore any rebuttals contradicting your assertions, while at the same time resorting to personal attacks because you have no more good arguments to make. The fact that you can't accept that you're as biased as anyone on these forums is prime example of that.

Continue to shout into the void if it makes you feel better, but your sad attempts to lash out are only indicative of your inability to rationalize that people can disagree with you without supporting murder or genocide (or whatever the argument dejour is).

Peersonal attacks?

Need I show you the first post you made on this thread today about me?

Lol, I appreciate the play on words. I consider you a peer in debate on this as well.

Please show me the first post I made today that issues an attack on you (and not your argument).

So you saying I am making up false hoods, saying they are feckless, brutish,retc. is not a personal attack.

But me saying you are delusional is.

Got it.

Precisely. Since you seem to be having some difficulty differentiating I will explain: The modality of debate on ATS is to attack the argument, not the person. If you have problems decoupling that I can consider you a good person who's arguments I disagree with at times (and vocally decry), then I can see why you would think I'm making personal attacks at you.

So I am not going to be able to post a quote from you calling me delusional?

Just want to get you on record before I do it.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Grambler

Yes. He's LOLing the members in the thread. You are misrepresenting his words...again. Intentionally so?

Unbelievable. The extent that people will go to justify the lefts extremism is mind blowing.

I guarntee if someone said about black being lynched by whites in america, and I said.

"Lol

yeah the amount of blacks living in rural white towns is fastly decreasing.

The rest of the blacks better git while the gittens good, the history of blacks being torured like emmitt till would make the blood curdle"

You would rightfully call me a disgusting racist.

BUt nope, when its someone on the left, you will engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it seem like the lol wasnt meant to be for the direct statement that followed it, and the part about whites should leave is perfectly reasonable.

This is pure conjecture. Saying what you expect/believe to happen is not the same as it actually happen. We'd be happy to entertain those positions if you can provide proof of someone calling you a disgusting racist for saying 'Lol' to such an argument, otherwise try sticking to verifiable facts.

I am sticking to facts.

The fact is, a person in a thread about white farmers being forced off of their land, made a quote that was not a response to aanyone directly, starting with lol, that then propceeded to show how whites are fleeing, then said they better keep fleeing because of whites torured in Zimbabwe.

No, you're not sticking to facts, you're sticking to what you believe is implied. Again, I honestly don't see how 'git while the gettins good' is a direct quote for 'they better keep fleeing because of whites tortured in Zimbabwe'. You have conflated the two directly in your post. I can understand that you would think that, and I've asked you already to explain how 'git while the gettins good' could be construed that way, but instead you've listed your 'translation', practically proving my point.

Explain to me what this sentence could possibly mean other than white were torured in zimbabwe, so they better flee south africa while they can.

The rest better git while the gittins good. The history of Europeans in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), would curdle the blood.

What interpretatiopn do you have that says that these two sentences that are directly adjacent shouldnt not be read as if they have any connection to each other?

Oh, and again, you have dropped the scalise bit, where his blood needed to water the tree of liberty.

Oh, and you havent touched the defense of the teacher calling for white genocide.

Oh and should I bring up the quotes about how all trump supporters are supporters of facsism, and they need to be eliminated?

Nah, you dont want to discuss that, because its all just a misunderstanding.

I was feckless and brutish by bring those up.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

I responded with quotes because you called me a liar, which you clearly are.

The person who made the first quote even admits in a later post to saying they were glad scalise was shot.

They specifically said it was karma he was shot, that he was a danger, and the tree of liberty needs blood.

The sout african geonocide, starts with LOL then quotes how south africans are fleeing, then says they better git while the gittens good because whites were torured in zimbabwe.

You were wrong.

But you know, I take back calling you a liar.

You are delusional.

You twist reality and think thaat saying "LOL whites are fleeing and they better keep fleeing cause they will get tortured like zimbabwe" isntr making fun of genocide.

And you came at me with such bluster, whne the proof is easily available for all to see.

I feel very sorry for you, and I hope that you seek help for your inability to process reality.

There's only one delusional person here friend, and I'm talking to him. You ignore any rebuttals contradicting your assertions, while at the same time resorting to personal attacks because you have no more good arguments to make. The fact that you can't accept that you're as biased as anyone on these forums is prime example of that.

Continue to shout into the void if it makes you feel better, but your sad attempts to lash out are only indicative of your inability to rationalize that people can disagree with you without supporting murder or genocide (or whatever the argument dejour is).

Peersonal attacks?

Need I show you the first post you made on this thread today about me?

Lol, I appreciate the play on words. I consider you a peer in debate on this as well.

Please show me the first post I made today that issues an attack on you (and not your argument).

So you saying I am making up false hoods, saying they are feckless, brutish,retc. is not a personal attack.

But me saying you are delusional is.

Got it.

Precisely. Since you seem to be having some difficulty differentiating I will explain: The modality of debate on ATS is to attack the argument, not the person. If you have problems decoupling that I can consider you a good person who's arguments I disagree with at times (and vocally decry), then I can see why you would think I'm making personal attacks at you.

So I am not going to be able to post a quote from you calling me delusional?

Just want to get you on record before I do it.

Hehe, I see what you're getting at. That's fair, I'll admit it. You called me delusional, so I called you it back. That was wrong of me (regardless of what you said), so for that I apologize.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

I responded with quotes because you called me a liar, which you clearly are.

The person who made the first quote even admits in a later post to saying they were glad scalise was shot.

They specifically said it was karma he was shot, that he was a danger, and the tree of liberty needs blood.

The sout african geonocide, starts with LOL then quotes how south africans are fleeing, then says they better git while the gittens good because whites were torured in zimbabwe.

You were wrong.

But you know, I take back calling you a liar.

You are delusional.

You twist reality and think thaat saying "LOL whites are fleeing and they better keep fleeing cause they will get tortured like zimbabwe" isntr making fun of genocide.

And you came at me with such bluster, whne the proof is easily available for all to see.

I feel very sorry for you, and I hope that you seek help for your inability to process reality.

There's only one delusional person here friend, and I'm talking to him. You ignore any rebuttals contradicting your assertions, while at the same time resorting to personal attacks because you have no more good arguments to make. The fact that you can't accept that you're as biased as anyone on these forums is prime example of that.

Continue to shout into the void if it makes you feel better, but your sad attempts to lash out are only indicative of your inability to rationalize that people can disagree with you without supporting murder or genocide (or whatever the argument dejour is).

Peersonal attacks?

Need I show you the first post you made on this thread today about me?

Lol, I appreciate the play on words. I consider you a peer in debate on this as well.

Please show me the first post I made today that issues an attack on you (and not your argument).

So you saying I am making up false hoods, saying they are feckless, brutish,retc. is not a personal attack.

But me saying you are delusional is.

Got it.

Precisely. Since you seem to be having some difficulty differentiating I will explain: The modality of debate on ATS is to attack the argument, not the person. If you have problems decoupling that I can consider you a good person who's arguments I disagree with at times (and vocally decry), then I can see why you would think I'm making personal attacks at you.

So I am not going to be able to post a quote from you calling me delusional?

Just want to get you on record before I do it.

Hehe, I see what you're getting at. That's fair, I'll admit it. You called me delusional, so I called you it back. That was wrong of me (regardless of what you said), so for that I apologize.

My feelings arebnt hurt at all, so there is no need for an apology.

But if i offened you, I also apologize.

I am more interested in how you can say these two sentences shouldnt be read in conjunction with each other.

The rest better git while the gittins good. The history of Europeans in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), would curdle the blood.

Notice how they arent far apart from each other. Heck they arent even seperated by a paragraph indentation.

It is obvious, painfully so, that this is saying whites better get out now, cause they were tortured in zimbabwe.

Yet you say that isnt the case.

So I would like for you to explain to me how you interpret that.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Grambler

Yes. He's LOLing the members in the thread. You are misrepresenting his words...again. Intentionally so?

Unbelievable. The extent that people will go to justify the lefts extremism is mind blowing.

I guarntee if someone said about black being lynched by whites in america, and I said.

"Lol

yeah the amount of blacks living in rural white towns is fastly decreasing.

The rest of the blacks better git while the gittens good, the history of blacks being torured like emmitt till would make the blood curdle"

You would rightfully call me a disgusting racist.

BUt nope, when its someone on the left, you will engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it seem like the lol wasnt meant to be for the direct statement that followed it, and the part about whites should leave is perfectly reasonable.

This is pure conjecture. Saying what you expect/believe to happen is not the same as it actually happen. We'd be happy to entertain those positions if you can provide proof of someone calling you a disgusting racist for saying 'Lol' to such an argument, otherwise try sticking to verifiable facts.

I am sticking to facts.

The fact is, a person in a thread about white farmers being forced off of their land, made a quote that was not a response to aanyone directly, starting with lol, that then propceeded to show how whites are fleeing, then said they better keep fleeing because of whites torured in Zimbabwe.

No, you're not sticking to facts, you're sticking to what you believe is implied. Again, I honestly don't see how 'git while the gettins good' is a direct quote for 'they better keep fleeing because of whites tortured in Zimbabwe'. You have conflated the two directly in your post. I can understand that you would think that, and I've asked you already to explain how 'git while the gettins good' could be construed that way, but instead you've listed your 'translation', practically proving my point.

Explain to me what this sentence could possibly mean other than white were torured in zimbabwe, so they better flee south africa while they can.

The rest better git while the gittins good. The history of Europeans in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), would curdle the blood.

What interpretatiopn do you have that says that these two sentences that are directly adjacent shouldnt not be read as if they have any connection to each other?

Oh, and again, you have dropped the scalise bit, where his blood needed to water the tree of liberty.

Oh, and you havent touched the defense of the teacher calling for white genocide.

Oh and should I bring up the quotes about how all trump supporters are supporters of facsism, and they need to be eliminated?

Nah, you dont want to discuss that, because its all just a misunderstanding.

I was feckless and brutish by bring those up.

Its not my job to explain why you said what you said, that's yours. I can't believe you expect me to do so. You are deflecting from the fact that you took a direct statement and 'reflavored it to match your expectations' exactly as I have claimed you did.

Proximal location (while it can play some role in understanding) in the structure of an argument does not make the argument. I genuinely didn't understand your viewpoint on the response since it didn't make sense how you were presenting it (because I couldn't rationalize your inference and later 'reflavoring' of the statement).

Re; Scalise & 'Tree of Liberty' comment: Sure its rather tasteless (insomuch as I don't think regular bloodletting is a positive thing in almost all cases - including patriotic re-affirmations like rising up against tyrannical governments which is where that statement was derived from). But tastelessness is not tacit admission of support for something, as I've already explain to you the poster you referenced that comment from decries the person who shot Scalise as a 'lunatic' (which of course you failed to include because it didn't support your argument).

Re: Teacher calling for white Genocide: Again, tasteless, and he claims it was satirical (which is indeterminate), but you can't say 'Nah, he said it and he secretly isn't sorry for it and really believes it because I actually can see into his mind and know he's lying when he said it was satirical'.

Re: Supporters of Trump being called fascists that need to be eliminated - I didn't actually see this, so I must have missed this one. I do recall many ATS posters saying Trump supporters were fascists, but if you can re-link the thread or let me know what page its on i'll go back and check again to confirm that they actually called for them to be eliminated (and decry it if it indeed exists).

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

I responded with quotes because you called me a liar, which you clearly are.

The person who made the first quote even admits in a later post to saying they were glad scalise was shot.

They specifically said it was karma he was shot, that he was a danger, and the tree of liberty needs blood.

The sout african geonocide, starts with LOL then quotes how south africans are fleeing, then says they better git while the gittens good because whites were torured in zimbabwe.

You were wrong.

But you know, I take back calling you a liar.

You are delusional.

You twist reality and think thaat saying "LOL whites are fleeing and they better keep fleeing cause they will get tortured like zimbabwe" isntr making fun of genocide.

And you came at me with such bluster, whne the proof is easily available for all to see.

I feel very sorry for you, and I hope that you seek help for your inability to process reality.

There's only one delusional person here friend, and I'm talking to him. You ignore any rebuttals contradicting your assertions, while at the same time resorting to personal attacks because you have no more good arguments to make. The fact that you can't accept that you're as biased as anyone on these forums is prime example of that.

Continue to shout into the void if it makes you feel better, but your sad attempts to lash out are only indicative of your inability to rationalize that people can disagree with you without supporting murder or genocide (or whatever the argument dejour is).

Peersonal attacks?

Need I show you the first post you made on this thread today about me?

Lol, I appreciate the play on words. I consider you a peer in debate on this as well.

Please show me the first post I made today that issues an attack on you (and not your argument).

So you saying I am making up false hoods, saying they are feckless, brutish,retc. is not a personal attack.

But me saying you are delusional is.

Got it.

Precisely. Since you seem to be having some difficulty differentiating I will explain: The modality of debate on ATS is to attack the argument, not the person. If you have problems decoupling that I can consider you a good person who's arguments I disagree with at times (and vocally decry), then I can see why you would think I'm making personal attacks at you.

So I am not going to be able to post a quote from you calling me delusional?

Just want to get you on record before I do it.

Hehe, I see what you're getting at. That's fair, I'll admit it. You called me delusional, so I called you it back. That was wrong of me (regardless of what you said), so for that I apologize.

My feelings arebnt hurt at all, so there is no need for an apology.

But if i offened you, I also apologize.

I am more interested in how you can say these two sentences shouldnt be read in conjunction with each other.

The rest better git while the gittins good. The history of Europeans in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), would curdle the blood.

Notice how they arent far apart from each other. Heck they arent even seperated by a paragraph indentation.

It is obvious, painfully so, that this is saying whites better get out now, cause they were tortured in zimbabwe.

Yet you say that isnt the case.

So I would like for you to explain to me how you interpret that.

This helps actually. As I said, I was having difficulty parsing the supposed meaning of the statement. Just so I'm understanding your correctly, let me re-affirm my understanding:

the statement 'Git while the gettins good' and 'History of white Europeans in Rhodesia...' is as you are saying meant to imply that white folks need to leave the area because historically there has been bloodshed inflicted upon them for staying in similar areas/situations?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Grambler

Yes. He's LOLing the members in the thread. You are misrepresenting his words...again. Intentionally so?

Unbelievable. The extent that people will go to justify the lefts extremism is mind blowing.

I guarntee if someone said about black being lynched by whites in america, and I said.

"Lol

yeah the amount of blacks living in rural white towns is fastly decreasing.

The rest of the blacks better git while the gittens good, the history of blacks being torured like emmitt till would make the blood curdle"

You would rightfully call me a disgusting racist.

BUt nope, when its someone on the left, you will engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it seem like the lol wasnt meant to be for the direct statement that followed it, and the part about whites should leave is perfectly reasonable.

This is pure conjecture. Saying what you expect/believe to happen is not the same as it actually happen. We'd be happy to entertain those positions if you can provide proof of someone calling you a disgusting racist for saying 'Lol' to such an argument, otherwise try sticking to verifiable facts.

I am sticking to facts.

The fact is, a person in a thread about white farmers being forced off of their land, made a quote that was not a response to aanyone directly, starting with lol, that then propceeded to show how whites are fleeing, then said they better keep fleeing because of whites torured in Zimbabwe.

No, you're not sticking to facts, you're sticking to what you believe is implied. Again, I honestly don't see how 'git while the gettins good' is a direct quote for 'they better keep fleeing because of whites tortured in Zimbabwe'. You have conflated the two directly in your post. I can understand that you would think that, and I've asked you already to explain how 'git while the gettins good' could be construed that way, but instead you've listed your 'translation', practically proving my point.

Explain to me what this sentence could possibly mean other than white were torured in zimbabwe, so they better flee south africa while they can.

The rest better git while the gittins good. The history of Europeans in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), would curdle the blood.

What interpretatiopn do you have that says that these two sentences that are directly adjacent shouldnt not be read as if they have any connection to each other?

Oh, and again, you have dropped the scalise bit, where his blood needed to water the tree of liberty.

Oh, and you havent touched the defense of the teacher calling for white genocide.

Oh and should I bring up the quotes about how all trump supporters are supporters of facsism, and they need to be eliminated?

Nah, you dont want to discuss that, because its all just a misunderstanding.

I was feckless and brutish by bring those up.

Re; Scalise & 'Tree of Liberty' comment: Sure its rather tasteless (insomuch as I don't think regular bloodletting is a positive thing in almost all cases - including patriotic re-affirmations like rising up against tyrannical governments which is where that statement was derived from). But tastelessness is not tacit admission of support for something, as I've already explain to you the poster you referenced that comment from decries the person who shot Scalise as a 'lunatic' (which of course you failed to include because it didn't support your argument).

That poster, who by the way is a poster I like, has admitted just this last week they stand by their statement that scalise is an enemy of the people that had it coming.

He admitted to saying he was glad it happened.

His defense, which is fair, is that people would cheer for Hillary being shot (whihc I also find disgusting).

I never said he didnt say this guy was a lunatic. He admits he shot scalise for the wrong reasons, but still says that if scalise was shot for his stance on abortion, it would be self defense.

Re: Teacher calling for white Genocide: Again, tasteless, and he claims it was satirical (which is indeterminate), but you can't say 'Nah, he said it and he secretly isn't sorry for it and really believes it because I actually can see into his mind and know he's lying when he said it was satirical'.

But it wasnt the teacher I was refencing (who btw made somments they should have left scalise bleed to death on twitter).

I was the responses on ats, such as one of the fisrt ones that said I should stop whining about saying this because if I was black, I would be calling for white genocide too. Or saying I deserved to be lambasted for calling out someone calling for white genocide, because I should instead listen to his objections with white people.

Those are all through that thread, and not hard to find.

Re: Supporters of Trump being called fascists that need to be eliminated - I didn't actually see this, so I must have missed this one. I do recall many ATS posters saying Trump supporters were fascists, but if you can re-link the thread or let me know what page its on i'll go back and check again to confirm that they actually called for them to be eliminated (and decry it if it indeed exists).

Its a long exchange occuring on page 4 and 5 of this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The point is not that you have to call it out, or condemn it.

I was merely making the point to a user that said a view at ats will see the right wing extremism and hatred that there is also left wing extremism and hatred just as prevalent.

I would be able to go thru almost every thread that is accused of a right wing person being extreme, and parse out how maybe although tasteless, they were justifications for their positions.

But I wont do that, because I understand that these things are wrong, and acknodlege and disavow extremsim from all sides.

But I stand by the examplse I have given being examples of left wing extremism, and not just me misrepresenting the facts.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

I responded with quotes because you called me a liar, which you clearly are.

The person who made the first quote even admits in a later post to saying they were glad scalise was shot.

They specifically said it was karma he was shot, that he was a danger, and the tree of liberty needs blood.

The sout african geonocide, starts with LOL then quotes how south africans are fleeing, then says they better git while the gittens good because whites were torured in zimbabwe.

You were wrong.

But you know, I take back calling you a liar.

You are delusional.

You twist reality and think thaat saying "LOL whites are fleeing and they better keep fleeing cause they will get tortured like zimbabwe" isntr making fun of genocide.

And you came at me with such bluster, whne the proof is easily available for all to see.

I feel very sorry for you, and I hope that you seek help for your inability to process reality.

There's only one delusional person here friend, and I'm talking to him. You ignore any rebuttals contradicting your assertions, while at the same time resorting to personal attacks because you have no more good arguments to make. The fact that you can't accept that you're as biased as anyone on these forums is prime example of that.

Continue to shout into the void if it makes you feel better, but your sad attempts to lash out are only indicative of your inability to rationalize that people can disagree with you without supporting murder or genocide (or whatever the argument dejour is).

Peersonal attacks?

Need I show you the first post you made on this thread today about me?

Lol, I appreciate the play on words. I consider you a peer in debate on this as well.

Please show me the first post I made today that issues an attack on you (and not your argument).

So you saying I am making up false hoods, saying they are feckless, brutish,retc. is not a personal attack.

But me saying you are delusional is.

Got it.

Precisely. Since you seem to be having some difficulty differentiating I will explain: The modality of debate on ATS is to attack the argument, not the person. If you have problems decoupling that I can consider you a good person who's arguments I disagree with at times (and vocally decry), then I can see why you would think I'm making personal attacks at you.

So I am not going to be able to post a quote from you calling me delusional?

Just want to get you on record before I do it.

Hehe, I see what you're getting at. That's fair, I'll admit it. You called me delusional, so I called you it back. That was wrong of me (regardless of what you said), so for that I apologize.

My feelings arebnt hurt at all, so there is no need for an apology.

But if i offened you, I also apologize.

I am more interested in how you can say these two sentences shouldnt be read in conjunction with each other.

The rest better git while the gittins good. The history of Europeans in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), would curdle the blood.

Notice how they arent far apart from each other. Heck they arent even seperated by a paragraph indentation.

It is obvious, painfully so, that this is saying whites better get out now, cause they were tortured in zimbabwe.

Yet you say that isnt the case.

So I would like for you to explain to me how you interpret that.

This helps actually. As I said, I was having difficulty parsing the supposed meaning of the statement. Just so I'm understanding your correctly, let me re-affirm my understanding:

the statement 'Git while the gettins good' and 'History of white Europeans in Rhodesia...' is as you are saying meant to imply that white folks need to leave the area because historically there has been bloodshed inflicted upon them for staying in similar areas/situations?

Yes that is exactly what that statement means.

The lol part was about how the white sout africans are leaving, and the user then says and they better git, because looked what happened to whites in zimbabwe.

It is clear that that poster is saying that whole thread that the whites need to leave, because they have it comiong because colonialism. They even tell me if I dont like it, I should move to souyh afirca and see how I do there, followed by the word lulz.

You know, I think you and I have reached an accord on this. I too decry anyone (on ATS or otherwise) who endorses violence of any kind, and its an abhorrent position to take (not to mention hypocritical) to justify it through any means. This is not limited to any one political stance, but rather individuals who regardless of affiliation are hyperbolic in their rhetoric for the sake of making a point. If I have misconstrued what was a genuine endorsement I want to make it clear now my position on the matter, since we've been going back and forth in debate on something that feels like an endless rabbit hole.

I should and will endeavor to make a point to call it out on both the liberal side as well as the conservative side of the argument from now on.

Lastly, I appreciate the debate with you (I think we both share a passion for verbal sparring), and regardless of whether or not we agree (or the level to which our debates become heated) I want to make it clear I respect you as a human being and in no way want to imply that you are personally anything other than someone who wants to do good in the world (as I think most of the posters on ATS whom I disagree with are).