Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Police Collusion with Neo Nazis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    Yeah, there are some important questions that need to be answered regarding, Police Collusion with Neo Nazis. Hence the title.
    Yet, as you posted earlier....you don't know which side is right or wrong....why did you determine that the Police were in collusion with the neo Nazis? Without even knowing the facts, you have determined that the Police are guilty...
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
      You realize everything is archived here right? You can call it what you want, but the signature is true and we can go back to previous discussions for proof.
      TactiKill J.....relax, I only posted what is true. Every time you post, you are automatically in violation of Godwin's law with your signature line. It doesn't matter which area of the forums you post in, you are always bringing the Nazis into the thread with that signature line.
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Nichols View Post
        Yet, as you posted earlier....you don't know which side is right or wrong....why did you determine that the Police were in collusion with the neo Nazis? Without even knowing the facts, you have determined that the Police are guilty...
        Where did I say they are guilty? Go back to the first page, all I did was ask questions. With the seriousness of this accusation I think it's normal to have questions, unless you don't care about them being involved with Nazis.

        The thread title is Police Collusion with Neo Nazi's, which is the point of discussion and an open ended statement.

        It would be different if the title was, Police Are Colluding.. Police Have Colluded..

        You understand English though, you're just back to trolling.
        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
        - Benjamin Franklin

        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post
          TactiKill J.....relax, I only posted what is true. Every time you post, you are automatically in violation of Godwin's law with your signature line. It doesn't matter which area of the forums you post in, you are always bringing the Nazis into the thread with that signature line.
          If it's a legitimate point it shouldn't be considered Godwins law.
          "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
          - Benjamin Franklin

          The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
            Where did I say they are guilty?
            The title of the thread.
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
              Why try to hide the identity of the neo nazis then? While doing the opposite for the counter-protesters.
              Because the counter-protesters (rioters) were arrested for violence or some other crimes.

              I watched it (or similar) on TV

              Comment


              • #37
                Quit feeding the troll, guys.

                All he wants is attention.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                  You realize everything is archived here right? You can call it what you want, but the signature is true and we can go back to previous discussions for proof.
                  The nice thing about blanket statements is that all it takes is one exception for you to be full of .

                  I don't hate Muslims. You're full of .

                  Also racist, another thing verifiable thanks to the archives.
                  A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                    Which is in line with his signature at the bottom of every post that he writes.....he's a postin' violation of Godwin's law....
                    A the poster boy for lying.
                    The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                      If it's a legitimate point it shouldn't be considered Godwins law.
                      But, it isn't a "legitimate point" and it is a violation of Godwin's law (aka Reductio ad Hitlerum). The law states that in any on-line discussion, eventually someone will make a non sequitur reference to Hitler or the Nazis that isn't relevant to the discussion.

                      In this case, your tag line states:

                      "The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis"

                      The first fallacy here is the use of "new right wing." What exactly constitutes this segment of the political spectrum? How does it differ from the far Right, or Right in general? What were its predecessors?

                      Give some examples of it "preach(ing) tolerance for Nazis." Does someone who is a self-described Nazi automatically preach that idea, or do they have to do more in your opinion?

                      What constitutes hat(red towards) Muslims? Would someone on the Right who says they should stay in say, the Middle East and not immigrate here hate Muslims in your opinion? Where is the line on hate drawn?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I'd like anyone to show where I have ever, EVER preached tolerance for Nazis.
                        The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X