Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Republican Surrender

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    A nationalist is a patriot outside his own country.

    A patriot defends his own land, a nationalist invades other's lands.
    nonsense
    there is no difference between both.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

      Well, "nationalists" are tied to the nation state of course, and for the longest time, "nation states" simply did not exist, the French invented it - I think.

      But let's not complicate things, just before the weekend
      You think wrong.
      States without nations are doomed to disappear.
      Multicultural societies do not survive wars : Germany, Russia, AH, Ottoman Empire are only a few exemples .If USA become a multicultural sciety, they will disappear . Coexistence of different cultures in the same state is impossible .

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by ljadw View Post
        States without nations are doomed to disappear.
        We're all doomed to disappear.

        I for one, will disappear now, will reappear on monday, have fun
        Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

        Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

          Nationalists tend to join the national army and fight other nationalists and their army.

          Twice in recent memory (and many times before that) they all came to fight and die on my private property, some are still buried here, that's highly undesirable.

          If you love your country so much, stay home, write a sonnet about it or something,

          no need at all to bother others with it
          As opposed to Internationalism which has killed in its name well over 100 million people in the 20th Century, and enslaved to one degree or another over half the world's population.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

            Exactly.

            For a white supremacist party they sure are doing a lousy job of enacting any actual racist laws.
            Is it required to enact racist laws to be a white supremacist?

            I seem to recall the party that is supposedly anti racist has repeatedly made it clear that white men aren't welcome.
            But the party is majority white men.
            "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


            • #36
              Originally posted by Jutland View Post

              I don't give two shits about what he said about Antifa.

              ​​​​He said people waving torches and shouting nazi slogans were fine people, at that point he is wrong.

              Also after seeing that video your first reaction is 'but but Antifa....'
              Actually he didn’t. He said that there were very fine people on both sides. He therefore wasn’t talking about neo-Nazis or Antifa.
              However in your delusions he must have meant both. The misunderstanding is on you not me you are the one who swallows the MSM propaganda wholesale. Do better research and you will find the truth.
              Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                The left has decided that being a nationalist means you're racist.
                No further facts or logic are necessary.
                post #23
                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

                  post #23


                  You mean the National SOCIALISTS who are marching in the video?
                  If we apply that logic to the left's embrace of SOCIALISM, isn't that proof they are racist too?
                  You know, the party that enacted "Jim Crow" laws? The ones that were actually racist in intent and language?


                  So please explain to me why a dozen nuts mean everyone who calls themselves a nationalist is automatically racist.
                  We both know you can't because real racism requires actual actions and behavior (See Jim Crow), not just assumptions based on your own bastardization of a word.

                  If you are going to claim those dozen nuts represent vast sections of the rest of the country are you willing to accept the same (bad) logic with La Raza or BLM? Those are groups that are openly racist, and much larger but you accept them because they are on the left. Conservatives do not embrace the racists of the Nazis (national socialists) while dems embrace plenty of racists.


                  So please, support your accusation.
                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                    Is it required to enact racist laws to be a white supremacist?



                    But the party is majority white men.


                    No. You need not enact laws in order to be a white supremacist, but a "white supremacist" party that fails to enact anything remotely supportive of a white supremacist position isn't very effective in accomplishing its goals.
                    Since the person I was responding to is unable to read minds, we must judge the goals of the people he has condemned by their actions.
                    If there are no racist actions, then he really has no evidence on which to base his charge of racism. In other words, it is his prejudices that are obvious, not theirs.

                    As I think about this, I would pose a serious question to you. I have read in the past that the government program of welfare effectively destroyed the black family unit. (forgive me for not having citations) The analysis I read, pointed out that in the 1950s, the black family unit (nuclear family) was stronger than that of whites. Then, welfare came along and gave money to families where fathers were absent. (When you want more of something subsidize it) After that, the black family unit largely disappeared.
                    The alleged ramifications of subsidizing the absence of fathers have arguably been devastating to the black community and yet, the dems continue to promise more of the same. In light of that, do you think it could be reasonably argued that the consequences of dems policies are actually racist in result?


                    Are you saying that white men are inherently racist? Are you implying that some races are inherently more Devine than others?
                    That is kind of an ironic accusation when calling others racist, don't you think?
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Jutland View Post

                      I don't give two shits about what he said about Antifa.

                      ​​​​He said people waving torches and shouting nazi slogans were fine people, at that point he is wrong.

                      Also after seeing that video your first reaction is 'but but Antifa....'
                      No, his point is well taken.
                      You are arguing that trump's statement included the KKK because it was so broad. But then when it is pointed out that YOUR logic means he meant the same thing about antifa you dismiss it.
                      Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You don't get to selectively interpret his words so that they only support your conclusions.
                      Logic dictates that your interpretation be applied equally.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                        No, his point is well taken.
                        You are arguing that trump's statement included the KKK because it was so broad. But then when it is pointed out that YOUR logic means he meant the same thing about antifa you dismiss it.
                        Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You don't get to selectively interpret his words so that they only support your conclusions.
                        Logic dictates that your interpretation be applied equally.
                        Nope!

                        The protest against removing the confederate statue were organized by KKK and alt-right neonazi while the counter protesters were not organized by Antifa. So, one side was predominantly extremists and Trump tried to equate it with the other side simply because it included some Antifa extremists.

                        I have posted in an older thread the report about the demonstrations. The town had experienced a similar situation a few months ago and the local residents were fed up with the white supremacists who were gathering in their town. Local lresidents and churches participated in the counter-demonstration.

                        https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...91#post5136191
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Trung Si View Post

                          No he didn't, please show us where he did?
                          You missed his press conference when he SPECIFICALLY mentioned the fine people of the night parade...

                          https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings...nfrastructure/

                          Q Who are the good people?

                          Q Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying.

                          THE PRESIDENT: No, no. There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people — neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

                          But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest — because I don’t know if you know, they had a permit.The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country — a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.


                          And he was lying also to protect his neonazi fans because the night torch parade did not have a permit...

                          The report which I have posted in this forum (see previous post) tells this clearly..

                          From the report


                          https://www.huntonak.com/images/cont...iant-ready.pdf

                          FINAL REPORT

                          INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE 2017 PROTEST EVENTS IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA


                          ...

                          To conceal their planning efforts, Kessler, Richard Spencer, and other Unite The Right organizers used Discord, an application that allows confidential communications in private chat rooms. As indicated above, a Unite The Right planning document shared on Discord was made public on August 16, 2017.282 The document reveals that a core group began planning for August 11 as early as June 6, and finished planning on August 10. The final planning document, entitled “Operation Unite The Right Charlottesville 2.0”, stated, in relevant part:

                          The Torchlit rally will be at the Jefferson Monument near the UVA campus on Friday the 11th under cover of darkness. We will meet at 2130 in “Nameless Field” and march with our torches lit to the monument. Each person should bring their own torches which can be brought from a local Wal-Mart, Lowes, Home Depot, etc. Tiki Torches are fine. Once on the grounds of the monument a speech will be given, we do some chants, then sing dixie, then put out the torches. We will return to “Nameless Field” and back to our cars.


                          The section also emphasized that attendees should not “mention this torchlight beforehand outside of extremely vetted circles,” and should not “post about [the torchlight event] on social media until after.”284

                          Good people would not be aware of that night torch parade and would not participate
                          Last edited by pamak; 30 Nov 19, 11:09.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            Nope!

                            The protest against removing the confederate statue were organized by KKK and alt-right neonazi while the counter protesters were not organized by Antifa. So, one side was predominantly extremists and Trump tried to equate it with the other side simply because it included some Antifa extremists.

                            I have posted in an older thread the report about the demonstrations. The town had experienced a similar situation a few months ago and the local residents were fed up with the white supremacists who were gathering in their town. Local lresidents and churches participated in the counter-demonstration.

                            https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...91#post5136191

                            This will be my only response to you, but in the real world no one is impressed when you cite to yourself as proof of something. But thanks for the laugh.
                            Next, in your obsessive desire to try to prove me wrong on something, you ignored what I said, ignored the post I was responding to (about poster’s logic) and even your own statement that you cited as proof That whatever point you were trying to make was right, didn’t address the issue.
                            Other than that, you absolutely humiliated me.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                              This will be my only response to you, but in the real world no one is impressed when you cite to yourself as proof of something. But thanks for the laugh.
                              Next, in your obsessive desire to try to prove me wrong on something, you ignored what I said, ignored the post I was responding to (about poster’s logic) and even your own statement that you cited as proof That whatever point you were trying to make was right, didn’t address the issue.
                              Other than that, you absolutely humiliated me.
                              Those who read can see the links that I cited in my posts. The links of the press conference and the independent report of the protest events in Charlottesville were no written by me. I am not interested in you as a person. I am only interested in your claims, and I explained why their reasoning is wrong. If you constantly feel that I try to humiliate you with my retort, it is not my problem.
                              Last edited by pamak; 30 Nov 19, 12:29.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                                No. You need not enact laws in order to be a white supremacist, but a "white supremacist" party that fails to enact anything remotely supportive of a white supremacist position isn't very effective in accomplishing its goals.
                                Since the person I was responding to is unable to read minds, we must judge the goals of the people he has condemned by their actions.
                                If there are no racist actions, then he really has no evidence on which to base his charge of racism. In other words, it is his prejudices that are obvious, not theirs.

                                As I think about this, I would pose a serious question to you. I have read in the past that the government program of welfare effectively destroyed the black family unit. (forgive me for not having citations) The analysis I read, pointed out that in the 1950s, the black family unit (nuclear family) was stronger than that of whites. Then, welfare came along and gave money to families where fathers were absent. (When you want more of something subsidize it) After that, the black family unit largely disappeared.
                                The alleged ramifications of subsidizing the absence of fathers have arguably been devastating to the black community and yet, the dems continue to promise more of the same. In light of that, do you think it could be reasonably argued that the consequences of dems policies are actually racist in result?


                                Are you saying that white men are inherently racist? Are you implying that some races are inherently more Devine than others?
                                That is kind of an ironic accusation when calling others racist, don't you think?
                                Very well put.
                                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X