# Hate Speech and Rhetoric May Contribute to Unnecessary Violence



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Hate speech on the part of various persons, including certain presidential candidates, contributes to continued stereotyping and potentially fueling acts of violence against minorities, including Muslims and Mexicans. Current candidate Trump has continued to become more and more vitriolic in his approach towards Muslims, Mexicans, and other minorities. 

The Words That Killed Medieval Jews

This NYTimes piece discusses the ramifications medieval hate speech had on unsuspecting Jews at the time. 



> Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Jews were massacred in towns where they had peacefully resided for generations. At no point did Christian authorities promote or consent to the violence. Christian theology, which applied the Psalm verse âSlay them notâ to Jews, and insisted that Jews were not to be killed for their religion, had not changed. Clerics were at a loss to explain the attacks. A churchman from a nearby town attributed the massacres to âsome error of mind.â
> 
> But not all the Rhineland killers were crazy. The crusaders set out in the Easter season. Both crusade and Easter preaching stirred up rage about the crucifixion and fear of hostile and threatening enemies. It is hardly surprising that armed and belligerent bands turned such rhetoric into anti-Jewish action.


Continued hate speak effects the human mind at the conscious and subconscious level. We are not always in control of what our minds may decide to do next, and thus I believe it prudent to discourage violent speech, especially on Trump's part. 



> But in the light of history, they should not be shocked when that violence comes to pass.


Hate speech is sometimes classifiable by the Supreme Court as being criminal due to the fact that sufficiently aggravated hate speech can indeed incite negative actions, either against the antagonist or the antagonist's target audience.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

You know... there was a time in our past where you had to watch your words. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person and boom, it was on. Quite often is was over something trivial but still, you had to be aware of what you were saying and who you were saying it to. 

Now there are laws that guard that type of thing where people are "protected" with what they perceive as a "freedom" of speech> There is no freedom without responsibility.

Saw it happen today at an intersection where the right hand lane was straight through but if you were turning right, you could do so. A truck was behind a car that had a Latino family in it and the driver was blowing its horn to turn and screaming expletives. The driver of the car made a few hand gestures and then ignored the truck. Then the truck driver escalated the issue calling the car driver and his family "migrants" and dropping "F" bombs everywhere... The light turned and the truck didn't turn, kept beeping his horn and screaming out the window. Two lights later they were stopped at another light, the tirade continued, the latino driver got out, walked back to the truck driver, said "Do you have anything more to say?" - the guy in the truck turned to the passenger and said something and they laughed, the latino guy punched him straight in the face and said "Yeah?" The guy in the truck was then trying to get as far away from the window as possible, the latino guy then walked back to his car, put it into gear and waited for the light to change, the guy in the truck took a right and went on down the road...

Had to chuckle to myself over that one...


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

First we got hate speech then we'll have thought crime. Forget it...sometimes this crap makes me want to let out a stream of the most socially unacceptable language ever heard in the history of man....in broad daylight on the capital lawn.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

According to the logic in that anti Trump hit piece, right now we ought to be slaughtering Muslims in droves. They call us the great satan and infidels and have killed a fair number of us. Where did Trump threaten to kill all Muslims? What a load of BS. We have the most lax immigration in the world and have had for decades. When Trump points out that we need to improve it to the point we keep dangerous people out, the anti Trump crowd breaks into a frenzy.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

poppy said:


> According to the logic in that anti Trump hit piece, right now we ought to be slaughtering Muslims in droves. They call us the great satan and infidels and have killed a fair number of us. Where did Trump threaten to kill all Muslims? What a load of BS. We have the most lax immigration in the world and have had for decades. When Trump points out that we need to improve it to the point we keep dangerous people out, the anti Trump crowd breaks into a frenzy.



But, but.... BLM..... 

I guess any sort of consistency in thought around here is a complete pipe dream.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I find it fascinating that no has actually addressed what was in the article. Can anyone prove that amped up religious rhetoric was not behind the pogroms and waves of attacks and antisemitism throughout Europe for at least 1,000 years? Even if it was religion misused by the powers that be to take the people's focus off their terrible living conditions or the King's need at that time to confiscate some money from wealthy Jews. It was still inflamed rhetoric. 

I find it interesting that every time Trump makes a speech the hits on white supremacist's websites go up. Stormfront is using his speeches as a recruiting tool. His followers have attacked blacks and hispanics. He even goaded them on at a speech when they attacked a black man. 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-stormfront-attributes-traffic-spike-to-trump


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Hate speech is sometimes classifiable by the Supreme Court as being criminal due to the fact that sufficiently aggravated hate speech can indeed incite negative actions, either against the antagonist or the antagonist's target audience.


I wonder what "sometimes" alludes to in this statement? Why is it only the conservatives get accused of hate speech and not people like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other liberal leaders who base their existence in hating all things conservative?


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

I think poisonheart populous progressive propagandists are the problem, bittering the heatrts of anyone gullible enough to believe.
The easiest thing to convince someone of, is that hey are being treated unfairly. And that the should be angry, and bitterhearted.
It is the left that elevates themselves on the misery of others.
Hate speech is nothing compaired to poison heart progressivism.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I think *poisonheart populous progressive propagandists* are the problem, bittering the heatrts of anyone gullible enough to believe.


Great name for a heavy metal band, but don't try to say it 5 times really fast


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

OffGridCooker said:


> I think poisonheart populous progressive propagandists are the problem, bittering the heatrts of anyone gullible enough to believe.
> The easiest thing to convince someone of, is that hey are being treated unfairly. And that the should be angry, and bitterhearted.
> It is the left that elevates themselves on the misery of others.
> Hate speech is nothing compaired to poison heart progressivism.



I think every politician plays on people's fears that they are not being treated fairly. It's how they keep everyone at the bottom fighting each other instead of themselves. Trump plays on those fears. His entire rhetoric hinges on poor white people are being treated unfairly. Last time I checked he is not a progressive. A poisonhearted, populous, propagandist definitely but not a progressive.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

People with weak minds, weak will, weak character can be swayed by about anything. A speech, a song, a movie, etc. If people are intentionally trying to incite others they have some responsibility but at the root of it are the people who are susceptible in the first place.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I think every politician plays on people's fears that they are not being treated fairly. It's how they keep everyone at the bottom fighting each other instead of themselves. Trump plays on those fears. His entire rhetoric hinges on poor white people are being treated unfairly. Last time I checked he is not a progressive. A poisonhearted, populous, propagandist definitely but not a progressive.


Most but not all. Some of them preach the true conservative message, your future is what you make of it. Not the liberal mantra of, its all someone else's fault.

Look at one of the basics of the liberal approach to a problem, racism. Their idea to 'solve it' wasn't what King dreamed of, i.e. where a man was judged by his character not the color of his skin. That would have required the elimination of government supported racism. Did that happen? No the liberal 'solution' was to just change which race(s) the government showed favor to. 

What's been the result? You have generations of blacks who have been taught, *by the government*, that they are lesser people than whites. After all if they were equal to whites why would they need the government to give them "assistance"? This has resulted in lost generations. Generations of people who do not and can not see themselves as any more than dependent children of the government and its handouts. 

The older black men I dealt with back when the civil rights movement was finally making great strives would be spinning in their graves if they could see what the "black community" of today is like. We have to have quotas and set asides and be given a hand. . . BLACK LIVES MATTER, well unless that black life was taken by another black then blacks really don't care a lot. The "N-word" is racist and offensive, unless its one black using it against another black.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> I think every politician plays on people's fears that they are not being treated fairly. It's how they keep everyone at the bottom fighting each other instead of themselves. Trump plays on those fears. His entire rhetoric hinges on poor white people are being treated unfairly. Last time I checked he is not a progressive. A poisonhearted, populous, propagandist definitely but not a progressive.
> 
> I see you have played "the everybody does it" fallacy card.
> Trump is not a poison heart by any means.
> ...


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> . Trump plays on those fears. His entire rhetoric hinges on poor white people are being treated unfairly.


You have used the "straw fallacy" by changing trumps message to something you can argue against.
The straw argument and personal attack are the main tools the left uses to fool the gullible.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

OffGridCooker said:


> Patchouli said:
> 
> 
> > I think every politician plays on people's fears that they are not being treated fairly. It's how they keep everyone at the bottom fighting each other instead of themselves. Trump plays on those fears. His entire rhetoric hinges on poor white people are being treated unfairly. Last time I checked he is not a progressive. A poisonhearted, populous, propagandist definitely but not a progressive.
> ...


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> OffGridCooker said:
> 
> 
> > Making America great again by demonizing minorities? How does that work exactly? Can you explain, please?
> ...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I hate it when Obama uses hate speech against Americans, white people, Jews, "fly over" country, the South, ******** etc.
The hater in chief has divided this country like none before him
What a tragedy Obama is.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> OffGridCooker said:
> 
> 
> > Making America great again by demonizing minorities? How does that work exactly? Can you explain, please?
> ...


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Skinny jeans make me violent!!! :grit:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

DAVID In Wisconsin said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> > Demonizing them or just pointing out the obvious?
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I wonder what "sometimes" alludes to in this statement? Why is it only the conservatives get accused of hate speech and not people like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other liberal leaders who base their existence in hating all things conservative?


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

OffGridCooker said:


> Patchouli said:
> 
> 
> > I think every politician plays on people's fears that they are not being treated fairly. It's how they keep everyone at the bottom fighting each other instead of themselves. Trump plays on those fears. His entire rhetoric hinges on poor white people are being treated unfairly. Last time I checked he is not a progressive. A poisonhearted, populous, propagandist definitely but not a progressive.
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Just wondering why the Jews have not risen up slaughtered a bunch of innocents? B/c as far as 'hate' crimes go, 62% are against Jews. 11% against muslims.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> OffGridCooker said:
> 
> 
> > Making America great again by demonizing minorities? How does that work exactly? Can you explain, please?
> ...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> DAVID In Wisconsin said:
> 
> 
> > What would the "obvious" be?
> ...


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> OffGridCooker said:
> 
> 
> > Making America great again by demonizing minorities? How does that work exactly? Can you explain, please?
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

OffGridCooker said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> > Another straw argument. There is no denomination of minorities.
> ...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

OffGridCooker said:


> Patchouli said:
> 
> 
> > I think every politician plays on people's fears that they are not being treated fairly. It's how they keep everyone at the bottom fighting each other instead of themselves. Trump plays on those fears. His entire rhetoric hinges on poor white people are being treated unfairly. Last time I checked he is not a progressive. A poisonhearted, populous, propagandist definitely but not a progressive.
> ...



I want whatever you are smoking dude! That wins my awesome post of the day award. :rock:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

OffGridCooker said:


> You have used the "straw fallacy" by changing trumps message to something you can argue against.
> The straw argument and personal attack are the main tools the left uses to fool the gullible.



I think you are confused about those fallacies you keep pinning on me. They can't be a fallacy if they are true. 

Trump hates everyone and he sows hate everywhere. Ask Stormfront why they love him so much and use his quotes to recruit members. Why did he lose his TV show? Why did Mexico ban his pageant? He has insulted women, Jews, Muslims, blacks, Mexicans.....the list goes on and on. He said John McCain was a coward. He made fun of a disabled guy. 

I think he could torture a dog to death on live TV and y'all would still love him. There are none so blind as those who will not see.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I find it fascinating that no has actually addressed what was in the article. Can anyone prove that amped up religious rhetoric was not behind the pogroms and waves of attacks and antisemitism throughout Europe for at least 1,000 years? Even if it was religion misused by the powers that be to take the people's focus off their terrible living conditions or the King's need at that time to confiscate some money from wealthy Jews. It was still inflamed rhetoric.
> 
> I find it interesting that every time Trump makes a speech the hits on white supremacist's websites go up. Stormfront is using his speeches as a recruiting tool. His followers have attacked blacks and hispanics. He even goaded them on at a speech when they attacked a black man.
> 
> http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-stormfront-attributes-traffic-spike-to-trump


I find it interesting that you always play the race card
Can't depend on your candidate so you spread the filth Obamaco spits out
Typical hate monger


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I think you are confused about those fallacies you keep pinning on me. They can't be a fallacy if they are true.
> 
> Trump hates everyone and he sows hate everywhere. Ask Stormfront why they love him so much and use his quotes to recruit members. Why did he lose his TV show? Why did Mexico ban his pageant? He has insulted women, Jews, Muslims, blacks, Mexicans.....the list goes on and on. He said John McCain was a coward. He made fun of a disabled guy.
> 
> I think he could torture a dog to death on live TV and y'all would still love him. There are none so blind as those who will not see.


Trump hates everybody???
How about your idiot Obama spreading hatred all over the place
Hypocrites all of you


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> OffGridCooker said:
> 
> 
> > Making America great again by demonizing minorities? How does that work exactly? Can you explain, please?
> ...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Someone sent me this. It sums things up fairly well.











Reminds me of the old joke about the press doing its job.

In Mobile, Alabama, it seems a guy was riding down the street when he noticed a dog attacking a little boy. He jumped out of his car, pulled the dog off and strangled it barehanded. 

The local newspaper editor saw it all, and rushed over to the man. "Wow, what a brave thing, tomorrow's headline will read 'Local Man Saves Boy's Life'" he says.

The man said, "Well, I'm not from Mobile."

The editor thought and said, "OK, how about 'Alabama Man Does Heroic Deed'"?

"Thanks, but actually I'm from New York, down here on business," the man said.

The headline the next day read "Yankee Barbarian Kills Family Pet."


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

watcher said:


> Someone sent me this. It sums things up fairly well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Um those aren't his actual quotes you know. The sheer irony is astounding. 

_âWhen Mexico sends its people, theyâre not sending their best. Theyâre not sending you. Theyâre not sending you. Theyâre sending people that have lots of problems, and theyâre bringing those problems with us. Theyâre bringing drugs. Theyâre bringing crime. Theyâre rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.â

_
_âWhat can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc__.â 
_


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ents-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/




_GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump believes that the war on terror will require unprecedented surveillance of Americaâs Muslims._
_âWeâre going to have to do thing that we never did before,â he said during a Yahoo interview.__âSome people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,â Trump said._
_âCertain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy,â he added. âWeâre going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.â_
_Trump would not rule out warrantless searches in his plans for increased surveillance of the nationâs Muslims, Yahoo reported Thursday._
_He also remained open toward registering U.S. Muslims in a database or giving them special identification identifying their faith, the news outlet added._
_âWeâre going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,â Trump continued. âWeâre going to have to look at the mosques. Weâre going to have to look very, very carefully.â_


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...wont-rule-out-database-special-id-for-muslims


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I'm confused. Every time I make a connection between someone's words and another's actions the voices cry out that everyone is responsible for their own actions and nothing anyone else says has anything to do with it. Now the voices say Obama's and others' words are responsible for everyone's actions. How can two such disparate ideas be equally true?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The hatred of all things Obama seems to have caused damage to some people. I do hope that it's not permanent and rational thought can be restored.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Um those aren't his actual quotes you know. The sheer irony is astounding.
> 
> _âWhen Mexico sends its people, theyâre not sending their best. Theyâre not sending you. Theyâre not sending you. Theyâre sending people that have lots of problems, and theyâre bringing those problems with us. Theyâre bringing drugs. Theyâre bringing crime. Theyâre rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.â
> 
> ...


Wow, you need to check your "facts"
Such hatred and lies you people spread, but so typical of the left in this country.
You never prove your lie, you just spread it, just like Obama taught you
Sickening


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> The hatred of all things Obama seems to have caused damage to some people. I do hope that it's not permanent and rational thought can be restored.


A hatred of all things on the Right, people who don't follow Obama and anybody who disagrees with you and your pack.
I wonder if rational thought ever existed?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> Someone sent me this. It sums things up fairly well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> But, but.... BLM.....
> 
> I guess any sort of consistency in thought around here is a complete pipe dream.


We get it, you think it's ok for them to call for the killing of cops
the only thing consistent is the hypocrisy you sling around


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The only difference between Trump and the rest of the clowns in this particular political circus (with D's and R's) is that Trump is actually very smart. He plays the media like a base fiddle. Now, many of his policies are scary and dangerous, but, so are many of the other idiots policies. He is a Progressive, like most in the political field. Both side of the dirty coin want the same thing, growth of government, and as a result, a shrinking of our freedoms.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Wow, you need to check your "facts"
> Such hatred and lies *you people* spread, but so typical of the left in this country.
> *You never prove your lie, you just spread it, just like Obama taught you*
> Sickening


I warrant I could find threads where you, or others, compared Obama to Hitler. It is a fairly common argumentation because the example of Hitler is still held up as an example for what absolutely not to do. Patchouli provided almost the exact quotes I would have provided, and they are right there, and quite obvious. The Trumpet is merely spewing hatred. 
Also, I have bolded the parts of your comment that were ad hominem.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The hatred of all things Obama seems to have caused damage to some people. I do hope that it's not permanent and rational thought can be restored.


I don't hate the O. Just as I don't hate rats (I have kept them as pets and the son has a pet rat now) but I take all kinds of actions to keep them out of my shop because of the damage their natural actions cause.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

How Well Do You Know Religion? - NYTimes



> Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from America may be a gift to ISIS recruitment and a grotesque echo of the sentiment behind the Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese-Americans. But, like those earlier spasms of exclusion, the Trump proposal has plenty of supporters.
> 
> In one recent poll, more than three-quarters of Republicans said that Islam was incompatible with life in the United States. There&#8217;s a widespread perception in America that Islam is rooted in misogyny and violence, incorrigible because it is rooted in a holy text that is fundamentally different from others.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> I warrant I could find threads where you, or others, compared Obama to Hitler. It is a fairly common argumentation because the example of Hitler is still held up as an example for what absolutely not to do. Patchouli provided almost the exact quotes I would have provided, and they are right there, and quite obvious. The Trumpet is merely spewing hatred.
> Also, I have bolded the parts of your comment that were ad hominem.


Comparing Obama to Hitler is a pretty good comparison.
Both had mental illness, both were narcissists, both were racist, both encouraged division and hatred.Both were in favor of gun control, neither would take criticism with any class, both thought they were gods sent to change the world.
Both came close to destroying the country they were supposed to care for.
Now you people are tearing Trump down because you and your leader fear him, telling lies, letting the stupid people believe and spread the lies.
Honesty hurts people like Obama and Clinton


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Comparing Obama to Hitler is a pretty good comparison.
> Both had mental illness, both were narcissists, both were racist, both encouraged division and hatred.Both were in favor of gun control, neither would take criticism with any class, both thought they were gods sent to change the world.
> Both came close to destroying the country they were supposed to care for.
> Now you people are tearing Trump down because you and your leader fear him, telling lies, letting the stupid people believe and spread the lies.
> Honesty hurts people like Obama and Clinton


Oh man that is the funniest thing I have read all day. ound:

Trump is a narcissist, he is a flaming racist, he routinely encourages division and hatred. He definitely thinks he is a god sent to save the world. 

Here's a question for you: find me one instance where Obama egged on people at one of his speeches to attack a person of another color. And I mean literally beat a man because of his race. Because Trump has actually done that. 

And here's another thought to roll around your little noggin: why in this wide world would Obama be afraid of Trump? Obama is done. 2 terms as President and he is moving on to the next thing. Y'all are so wrapped up in non-reality it's kind of astounding sometimes the stuff you say.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

That's one the most insane things I've heard in a long time. Hitler killed millions of people in his reign. Obama has done no such thing, and in fact wants to bring more refugees into the country. That may be controversial, but at least it's _tolerant_. He's going to be removed from office in another year. I guess he's not the antichrist after all.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> And I mean literally beat a man because of his race. Because Trump has actually done that.


I would like to see your citation of the proof for this, I saw both clips, you show yours and I'll show the one that reveals the agenda behind yours.

I am not voting for Trump but I hate it when people do what you have done.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Shine said:


> I would like to see your citation of the proof for this, I saw both clips, you show yours and I'll show the one that reveals the agenda behind yours.
> 
> I am not voting for Trump but I hate it when people do what you have done.


Maybe this?
Donald Trump: My Fans Were Right To Beat Up Black Protester



> After his supporters beat up a Black Lives Matter protester on video, Donald Trump suggested that they may have done the right thing.





> Reports of Trump supporters launching violent and racist attacks have become fairly commonplace. Another recent rally took a dark turn when attendees shoved and spat on on immigration advocates. The following week, Trump supporters were filmed dragging and kicking an immigration activist while others yelled âU-S-A! U-S-A!â


I notice you're not calling out the fact that people like Cornhusker don't cite anything they post.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> Maybe this?
> Donald Trump: My Fans Were Right To Beat Up Black Protester
> 
> 
> ...


Change words much to suit your purpose? Your link also says this: "After his supporters beat up a Black Lives Matter protester on video, Donald Trump suggested that they may have done the right thing."

So look at the citation, compare it to what they next walked the statement back to and then look what was actually said. 

"Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing," 

Yes, they should have brought this gentleman up to the front and gave him the microphone...

...and it is more proper when you say "Cornhusker does not cite..." no arrogance intended.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm going to blame my computer for that, LOL. It's a MacBook Pro and has autocorrect built in like a smartphone.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Shine said:


> Change words much to suit your purpose? Your link also says this: "After his supporters beat up a Black Lives Matter protester on video, Donald Trump suggested that they may have done the right thing."
> 
> So look at the citation, compare it to what they next walked the statement back to and then look what was actually said.
> 
> ...


So you agree then that Trump encouraged and approved of their behavior? 



> Trump had warned in August after Black Lives Matter activists disrupted a Bernie Sanders campaign event that if the movement's activists protested one of his events, they would have a fight on their hands.
> "That will never happen with me," Trump said after Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, let Black Lives Matter activists take over one of his events.
> Donald Trump: I've been 'a little childish'
> *"I don't know if I'll do the fighting myself, or if other people will," Trump said then.*


http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-protester-confrontation/

Watch the video. He says flat out the guy deserved to be attacked.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Shine said:


> Change words much to suit your purpose? Your link also says this: "After his supporters beat up a Black Lives Matter protester on video, Donald Trump suggested that they may have done the right thing."
> 
> So look at the citation, compare it to what they next walked the statement back to and then look what was actually said.
> 
> ...


Oh and how about answering the question instead of trying to critique HF's grammar. Cornhusker pretty much never cites anything he posts. He just flings the accusations out there and whines about other people lying.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I think 'don't' was correct as it referenced 'people like', plural.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> So you agree then that Trump encouraged and approved of their behavior?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah? When he does something that he pays for and someone comes and tries to use HIS event for THEIR agenda, let me ask - what would you do? Ask them to please stop? You are being foolish. If you watch the video, you will see that the protester threw the first punches when the crowd booed him and the security personnel began to usher him out. You have a different video?

Can you re-watch the video and tell me what the time stamp is that he says, as you have accused: He says flat out the guy deserved to be attacked.

I watched, you have added your own agenda to what actually happened.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Oh and how about answering the question instead of trying to critique HF's grammar. Cornhusker pretty much never cites anything he posts. He just flings the accusations out there and whines about other people lying.


I am not Cornhusker, nor do I endorse the methodologies that Cornhusker uses. He is in charge of his own actions and his own posts. If you wish to address him, do so, do not ask me to give credence nor disapproval on something that I have no control over. 

You did something that I understand to be dishonest, I wanted to understand if you had video proving your point.

I called you on yours, do not try to deflect... If you have proof, come forward and I will stand down.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> I think 'don't' was correct as it referenced 'people like', plural.


Don't is the contraction of "do not", doesn't is the contraction of "does not". Repeat the sentence without the contractions, it answers your assertion.

Again, this is an effort to assist not an effort to belittle nor cast aspersions upon anyone.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm going to blame my computer for that, LOL. It's a MacBook Pro and has autocorrect built in like a smartphone.


In this light, forgive me for my correction.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I called you on yours, *do not try to deflect*... If you have proof, come forward and I will stand down


You "called", they showed, and then you deflected to a lecture on contractions in which you got it wrong, as Tiempo explained.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You "called", they showed, and then you deflected to a lecture on contractions in which you got it wrong, as Tiempo explained.


Do you have trouble following a conversation? 

Really-> ? You are going with "don't" - oh my goodness.

They showed something that contradicted what they alleged. 


And you call on a dead hand. 

Perfect.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *Do you have trouble following a conversation?* Really, you are going with "don't" - oh my goodness.
> 
> They showed something that contradicted what they alleged. And you call on a dead hand. Perfect.


Not at all.

I followed it the whole time, and you're running down rabbit trails instead of focusing on the real topic. 



> *They showed something* that contradicted what they alleged


You've shown nothing at all 
You said you'd post a link to refute what they showed.
:shrug:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Lol


> I notice you're not calling out the fact that people like Cornhusker don't cite anything they post.


This statement is at best stilted. I used two different subjects with different grammatical requirements.
This statement is fixed:
"I notice you're not calling out the fact that some people don't cite anything they post, as Cornhusker does frequently."
However, this is a decidedly odd tangent.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not at all.
> 
> I followed it the whole time, and you're running down rabbit trails instead of focusing on the real topic.
> 
> ...


You are having trouble following the line of thought? Replying to what one implied is "me" running down rabbit trails. lol To whom did I ask for proof? Has this person provided proof? Someone did step in and provide a link that pretty much showed that 1. the website made up the title to sensationalize the issue and when the video was reviewed, it essentially showed that the man in question was throwing punches while being escorted our of the arena. 

So, how about you post a website that proves what basketti said? Trump beat a man because of his race? I'll wait here. Other than that, PM basketti and see if that person will give you permission to fight their battles...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

It was late, I was tired. I missed the "people like" - Don't is used properly.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Oh man that is the funniest thing I have read all day. ound:
> 
> *Trump is a narcissist, he is a flaming racist, he routinely encourages division and hatred. He definitely thinks he is a god sent to save the world. *
> 
> ...


You just described Obama :rotfl:

I guess you don't remember how Obama got elected by campaigning aginst Bush even though Bush wasn't running.
Now we have Clinton, the one person as vile as Obama, and in many ways, just a continuance of Obama.
When did Trump beat a man because of his race?
you do tell the darndest stories 
Obama is a bigot, we all agree on that (unless you are so far gone on an Obama cloud to see the real world)
He refuses to denounce any violence from blacks, he constantly demonizes cops and whites, just like you do...(ok, now we know about the Obama cloud).
Keep spreading the hatred, just like a good Obama fan, I'm sure he's proud of your help in spreading the lies and hate.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You are having trouble following the line of thought? Replying to what one implied is "me" running down rabbit trails. lol To whom did I ask for proof? Has this person provided proof? Someone did step in and provide a link that pretty much showed that 1. the website made up the title to sensationalize the issue and when the video was reviewed, it essentially showed that the man in question was throwing punches while being escorted our of the arena.
> 
> So, *how about you post a website *that proves what basketti said? Trump beat a man because of his race? I'll wait here. Other than that, PM basketti and see if that person will give you permission to fight their battles...


You've still shown nothing at all 
You said you'd post a link to refute what they showed.
It's not late now


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Shine said:


> Yeah? When he does something that he pays for and someone comes and tries to use HIS event for THEIR agenda, let me ask - what would you do? Ask them to please stop? You are being foolish. If you watch the video, you will see that the protester threw the first punches when the crowd booed him and the security personnel began to usher him out. You have a different video?
> 
> Can you re-watch the video and tell me what the time stamp is that he says, as you have accused: He says flat out the guy deserved to be attacked.
> 
> I watched, you have added your own agenda to what actually happened.


I would do what Bernie Sanders did and let them have the mic. 

So you are faulting the protester for throwing the first punch you can see because he is ON THE FLOOR where he was knocked down by the MOB. Good grief. If a mob of people hurling insults and racial slurs knocked you to the floor you gonna seriously try and tell me you would just lay there? Seriously? 

And once again Trump said BEFORE he ever went to give this speech that:




> "That will never happen with me," Trump said after Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, let Black Lives Matter activists take over one of his events.
> 
> *"I don't know if I'll do the fighting myself, or if other people will," Trump said then.*




So let's go step by step here: Trump let his followers know IN ADVANCE that the appropriate response to a BLM activist is to attack them. When one then showed up at his speech Trump's supporters attacked him. Exactly like he had previously told them to do. Not sure what is so difficult to understand here. He not only did not stop them he encouraged them in their actions. When asked afterwards about it he defended their behavior.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've still shown nothing at all
> You said you'd post a link to refute what they showed.
> It's not late now


Refute? Come on now... that's not the tactic that you use. Basketti said that Trump beat a man because of his race. I asked for proof. I also offered that if she provided the proof that Trump beat a man because of his race that I could provide a convincing alternative video showing differently, I know, I've seen both, the one that they use and what the Trump party has posted to show the earlier video to be, um, how do you say - Oh - yeah, like what you guys said about PP.

So, once she posts her proof, I'll be glad to refute. See, how easy it is when you understand what is offered as opposed to what is given?

I haven't seen her proof, nor have I seen you step in with proof to back up her statement that Trump beat a person because of his race, so for now, I'm just going to call that Basketti's PP moment because you guys seem to understand what you mean when you[collectively] think about that...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> I would do what Bernie Sanders did and let them have the mic.
> 
> So you are faulting the protester for throwing the first punch you can see because he is ON THE FLOOR where he was knocked down by the MOB. Good grief. If a mob of people hurling insults and racial slurs knocked you to the floor you gonna seriously try and tell me you would just lay there? Seriously?
> 
> ...


"you would give him the mic" lol. So, you would let people come to your rally, and then hand the mic from one person to another because they demanded it? Really? What's your rally for then? How do you get your talking points out to people? How many do you pay for? Yes YOU pay for before you want to get your message out without being interrupted? Isn't interrupting someone rude? If you try to escort them out peacefully and respectfully and they resist, what are you going to do? Say - OK, you can stay but please be quiet? lol 

You are trying to twist things here, can you show me the video that shows Trump specifying that BLM people should be treated this way? Or did he say that about people that try to disrupt his rally? What do you think about people that go to someone's rally with the intent to disrupt it in the first place? Do you think that anyone, anywhere should be able to disrupt a scheduled event because they had something that was bothering them? ...and everyone should respect them even though that person just disrespected all of the people at that event?

What kind of a world are you reaching to build?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Shine said:


> Refute? Come on now... that's not the tactic that you use. *Basketti said that Trump beat a man because of his race.* I asked for proof. I also offered that if she provided the proof that Trump beat a man because of his race that I could provide a convincing alternative video showing different, I know, I've seen both, the one that they use and what the Trump party has posted to show the earlier video to be, um, how do you say - Oh - yeah, like what you guys said about PP.
> 
> So, once she posts her proof, I'll be glad to refute. See, how easy it is when you understand what is offered as opposed to what is given?
> 
> I haven't seen her proof, nor have I seen you step in with proof to back up her statement that Trump beat a person because of his race, so for now, I'm just going to call that Basketti's PP moment because you guys seem to understand what you mean when you[collectively] think about that...


I am confused. Basketti has never posted in this thread at all. So I don't know what exactly Shine is on about here? 

I said:


Patchouli said:


> Oh man that is the funniest thing I have read all day. ound:
> 
> Trump is a narcissist, he is a flaming racist, he routinely encourages division and hatred. He definitely thinks he is a god sent to save the world.
> 
> ...


While I do like Basketti and we both do have red hair we are not the same person.  

And I said Trump EGGED ON his supporters to beat up a person of another color. Not that Trump literally beat someone himself. While he did threaten to do so as I amply proved I highly doubt he would actually get his little hands dirty, he might muss up that lovely hair of his.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> I am confused. Basketti has never posted in this thread at all. So I don't know what exactly Shine is on about here?
> 
> I said:
> 
> ...


You are correct, I need to pay a lot more attention, as it is I should really stop wasting my time as I use this site as a diversion in an otherwise hectic week/world. But, you said that "And I mean literally beat a man because of his race. Because Trump has actually done that. " - it was confusing if you meant only that he egged people on...

This is what Trump is using to draw people out of their collective shell. As to the BLM protester that was "Attacked" and Strangled" and "Kicked" and "punched" - CNN reports this regarding him: "No arrests were made, and the protester did not require medical attention." 

I said that I will not vote for him and I won't. But, it would be much more interesting and to a point, much more satisfying to see what would happen with a Trump Presidency, I mean, check the last four presidents, he sure as heck cannot do any worse. I fear that Hillary will take us immediately to war or even worse, continue to destroy smaller countries and leave them a practical wasteland for the people that live there. So, Hillary scares me, Trump, as he has done successfully, [haven't seen one of his shows] entertains me with the way he puts knots in people's tails.

So, I'll quit trying to get people to stand up and admit when they make mistakes, I mean, that's what I've always understood is proper, and that's what I practice - [the proof is in the pudding] So y'all [collectively] go on with yer bad selves...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> See, how easy it is *when you understand* what is offered as opposed to what is given?


I understand you're still talking in circles about everything except *actually showing* your evidence

You've rambled on so much you really don't know who said what



> But, you said that "And I mean literally beat a man because of his race. Because Trump has actually done that. " - *it was confusing* if you meant only that he egged people on...


It's not confusing if you simply pay attention and focus on the topic


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I understand you're still talking in circles about everything except *actually showing* your evidence
> 
> You've rambled on so much you really don't know who said what
> 
> ...


school marm-ish response?

...should I go sit in a corner?

Here, answer me this, if someone plans to violently take the microphone from you at your event, will you just hand it to them and let them say whatever they want, even lies about you? Trump said what he said, you wish to use it out of context, you do that a lot. What he said was in response to a question about what would he do if someone tried to take his microphone. Now, this out of context usage attempts to be broadcast as a general statement by Trump rather than what it was. Even in it, he was surmising about what would happen, this is what I meant, it is a twisting, out of context attack that is not a valid effort. He was answering a specific question. He did not suggest that his supporters should use force as a general rule, he surmised, in the context of the question about what might happen. Get it? For people to do this is dishonest.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqOlOdHHoEM[/ame]

Have you read the BLM threats to forcibly take not only the microphone from him but his entire stage from him back in August? Talk about hate speech...

http://therightscoop.com/its-on-now...-protesters-and-they-respond-on-social-media/


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Shine said:


> You are correct, I need to pay a lot more attention, as it is I should really stop wasting my time as I use this site as a diversion in an otherwise hectic week/world. But, you said that "And I mean literally beat a man because of his race. Because Trump has actually done that. " - it was confusing if you meant only that he egged people on...


It's only confusing if you leave out half of the paragraph! Good grief. 



> Here's a question for you: *find me one instance where Obama egged on people at one of his speeches to attack a person of another color*. And I mean literally beat a man because of his race. Because Trump has actually done that.





Shine said:


> This is what Trump is using to draw people out of their collective shell. As to the BLM protester that was "Attacked" and Strangled" and "Kicked" and "punched" - CNN reports this regarding him: "No arrests were made, and the protester did not require medical attention."
> 
> I said that I will not vote for him and I won't. But, it would be much more interesting and to a point, much more satisfying to see what would happen with a Trump Presidency, I mean, check the last four presidents, he sure as heck cannot do any worse. I fear that Hillary will take us immediately to war or even worse, continue to destroy smaller countries and leave them a practical wasteland for the people that live there. So, Hillary scares me, Trump, as he has done successfully, [haven't seen one of his shows] entertains me with the way he puts knots in people's tails.
> 
> So, I'll quit trying to get people to stand up and admit when they make mistakes, I mean, that's what I've always understood is proper, and that's what I practice - [the proof is in the pudding] So y'all [collectively] go on with yer bad selves...


I have no problem admitting when I make a mistake. But in this case I absolutely did not.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Shine said:


> school marm-ish response?
> 
> ...should I go sit in a corner?
> 
> ...


You are making this more difficult than it has to be. Trump was asked about what he would do if he was in Bernie Sanders shoes and a BLM protester showed up. Trump said he would fight them or his audience would. 

A few weeks later Trump gives a speech and a BLM protester shows up and his audience attacks the guy and Trump tells them good job both during the speech and after. 

There's no spin here. No trying to make him look bad. It's just simple facts.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

So, I take it that you are for protesters, all protesters? You feel that they should have their say? Now I am against violence where violence is not called for. There is too much leeway to make the call that he was egging on his audience rather than telling the security staff that they "were doing a good job". No one but Trump can say for sure what his intent was. For anyone to latch on to that snippet and say without a doubt that the "intention" was "X" is being foolish. I watched the video, it could be said either way but neither for absolute certainty as to the intention of those words.

No more difficulties, you may take it however you wish and go from there.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Shine said:


> So, I take it that you are for protesters, all protesters? You feel that they should have their say? Now I am against violence where violence is not called for. There is too much leeway to make the call that he was egging on his audience rather than telling the security staff that they "were doing a good job". No one but Trump can say for sure what his intent was. For anyone to latch on to that snippet and say without a doubt that the "intention" was "X" is being foolish. I watched the video, it could be said either way but neither for absolute certainty as to the intention of those words.
> 
> No more difficulties, you may take it however you wish and go from there.


I believe in our Constitutional right to protest absolutely. I don't care if I agree with you or not you have a right to stand up and speak out. 

Again Trump was asked what he meant later and he said:


> âMaybe he should have been roughed up,â he said. âIt was disgusting what he was doing.â
> 
> He gave a similarly winking response when his supporters have turned violent in the past. Two men in Boston said they ambushed and brutally beat a homeless Latino man because they were âinspiredâ by Trump, who later explained his supporters âare very passionateâ and âlove this country.â
> Reports of Trump supporters launching violent and racist attacks have become fairly commonplace. Another recent rally took a dark turn when attendees shoved and spat on on immigration advocates. The following week, Trump supporters were filmed dragging and kicking an immigration activist while others yelled âU-S-A! U-S-A!â
> After a slew of these highly publicized incidents, Trumpâs campaign began corralling media this week and refused to allow reporters into the crowd at rallies.


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...d-trump-black-lives-matter-protester-beating/


Yahoo just reported on his latest rally where a BLM protester was dragged out with the crowd chanting Sieg Heil and saying the protester ought to be burnt to death. Reporters were also shut out from filming by the security. Pretty scary if you actually believe in any sort of constitutional freedoms. 

http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump...n-fire-at-black-lives-matter-supporter-video/


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

The right to protest is spelled out to peacefully assemble and address grievances with the government. Crashing a candidate's rally on private property is not peaceful, neither is it addressing the government since he's just a candidate.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I warrant I could find threads where you, or others, compared Obama to Hitler. It is a fairly common argumentation because the example of Hitler is still held up as an example for what absolutely not to do. Patchouli provided almost the exact quotes I would have provided, and they are right there, and quite obvious. The Trumpet is merely spewing hatred.
> Also, I have bolded the parts of your comment that were ad hominem.


So, when the Hitler thing happens the left claim the debate is over. But its ok, now?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/polit...vert-racism-back-mainstream-article-1.2466966



> In what type of environment does a grown man feel comfortable in the presence of other adults saying that they should light a man on fire? This, ladies and gentlemen, is the type of environment that Donald Trump has built. Another person at the rally could be heard saying &#8220;shoot him,&#8221; another one said "kick him," and yet another man yelled out a Nazi salute. The man wasn't armed, wasn't violent, wasn't threatening, he was a peaceful protestor.
> 
> PROTESTER THROWN OUT OF TRUMP RALLY: 'IT FELT LIKE A MOB'
> 
> ...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> http://m.nydailynews.com/news/polit...vert-racism-back-mainstream-article-1.2466966


I wish people would just seek out the truth. I wish mass media would cling to the hard truths, but alas, it spins it out of control so as to keep us chipping away at each other so they can walk their chosen path and march to the tune of their respective drummers. 

I can handle the truth even if my viewpoints turn out to be wrong, I just need to see the facts clearly. While I understand people will have different viewpoints, I do not think that all people will establish themselves so firmly should the absolute truth be available for them to vet their viewpoints.

This is the world of today. People do not actively seek out the absolute truth(s), they are comfortable using anything that fits their own personal choice regarding this or that topic.

And I will say this firmly to all parties concerned: We are being played, all of us, to do the bidding of others that do not have our best interests in mind.

I am certain that almost 98% of all people on this planet, when faced with the absolute hard truth, an undeniable truth, would seek to find a middle ground wherein a reasonable acceptance of all sides could be tendered.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Let's see a protester with the intention of disrupting someone's event is roughed up, good!!
The problem I have with the disruptive agitator protesters is the are always leaching off of someon else's crowd. 
Protesters are fee to draw their own crowd, free to protest, free to speak, but not free to mooch of of other people's event, not free to "force people to listen" to you.
If you have lost the debate in the arena of ideas, maybe you should just shut up.
Being loud does not make you correct.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Trump is a narcissist, he is a flaming racist, he routinely encourages division and hatred. He definitely thinks he is a god sent to save the world.


This kind of blistering personal attack says more about your character, than it says about Trumps character.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

OffGridCooker said:


> This kind of blistering personal attack *says more about your character*, than it says about Trumps character.


There are similar remarks made nearly every day about BO and Hillary.
You should mention that to those folks also


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Shine said:


> I wish people would just seek out the truth. I wish mass media would cling to the hard truths, but alas, it spins it out of control so as to keep us chipping away at each other so they can walk their chosen path and march to the tune of their respective drummers.
> 
> I can handle the truth even if my viewpoints turn out to be wrong, I just need to see the facts clearly. While I understand people will have different viewpoints, I do not think that all people will establish themselves so firmly should the absolute truth be available for them to vet their viewpoints.
> 
> ...


I agree. And I guess that makes me a 2%er, because I don't compromise my views or beliefs because I think it would make my life easier. However, I don't consider my opinions necessarily better, because I'm one of the few people capable of acknowledging another person's intelligence while disagreeing with them. 
That being said, what exactly are you getting at?


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are similar remarks made nearly every day about BO and Hillary.
> You should mention that to those folks also


Sounds fair!


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> I agree. And I guess that makes me a 2%er, because I don't compromise my views or beliefs because I think it would make my life easier. However, I don't consider my opinions necessarily better, because I'm one of the few people capable of acknowledging another person's intelligence while disagreeing with them.
> That being said, what exactly are you getting at?


That is exactly how Rush Limbaugh and other consivertive thinkers think!


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> I agree. And I guess that makes me a 2%er, because I don't compromise my views or beliefs because I think it would make my life easier. However, I don't consider my opinions necessarily better, because I'm one of the few people capable of acknowledging another person's intelligence while disagreeing with them.
> That being said, what exactly are you getting at?


Getting at? While I consider myself overly blessed, I understand that I have limitations that try my patience. As evidenced in this thread, I've missed names and obvious grammatical tenses and in trying to assist, I've made myself less credible. 

What I am getting at in the post that you replied to is before humanity can get together to go forward, we must all, individually strive to see the points that others attempt to make, give them credence for a few moments of consideration and then either accept them or cast them off. That being done, then the next move would be to move forward a step more in a loving fashion. 

For all that I am good at, there is much that I am bad at. Petty bickering does not entertain me. If I post something, then I am intending to communicate as plainly as possible.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Shine said:


> Getting at? While I consider myself overly blessed, I understand that I have limitations that try my patience. As evidenced in this thread, I've missed names and obvious grammatical tenses and in trying to assist, I've made myself less credible.
> 
> What I am getting at in the post that you replied to is before humanity can get together to go forward, we must all, individually strive to see the points that others attempt to make, give them credence for a few moments of consideration and then either accept them or cast them off. That being done, then the next move would be to move forward a step more in a loving fashion.
> 
> For all that I am good at, there is much that I am bad at. Petty bickering does not entertain me. If I post something, then I am intending to communicate as plainly as possible.


"It is not the words in your vocabulary, it is the wisdom in your brain" OffGridCooker
Keep the thoughts coming!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> The right to protest is spelled out to peacefully assemble and address grievances with the government. Crashing a candidate's rally on private property is not peaceful, neither is it addressing the government since he's just a candidate.


Y'all crack me up. Protesters with rifles showing up to harass law enforcement doing their jobs is totally cool but 1 black guy showing up at a Trump rally is a travesty. 

BLM protests in Nevada by armed white people totally cool. 

BLM protests in Nevada by black people with no guns is a horrific misuse of the constitution. 

Oh the irony.....


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Patchouli*
> _
> Trump is a narcissist, he is a flaming racist, he routinely encourages division and hatred. He definitely thinks he is a god sent to save the world. _





OffGridCooker said:


> This kind of blistering personal attack says more about your character, than it says about Trumps character.


Honey every single point there has been amply proven here. Your complete denial of facts says more about you than anything else. 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists



> For mental-health professionals, *Donald Trump* is at once easily diagnosed but slightly confounding. âRemarkably narcissistic,â said developmental psychologist *Howard Gardner,* a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education. âTextbook narcissistic personality disorder,â echoed clinical psychologist *Ben Michaelis.* âHeâs so classic that Iâm archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because thereâs no better example of his characteristics,â said clinical psychologist *George Simon,* who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. âOtherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. Heâs like a dream come true.â



http://theweek.com/articles/590711/donald-trump-running-most-explicitly-racist-campaign-since-1968


> Donald Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since 1968
> 
> Donald Trump's presidential candidacy is unique and remarkable in many ways. Never before has someone with no experience in government, not even a shred of understanding of public policy, and little in the way of an organized campaign done so well. Trump has been leading the Republican race for nearly five months, and shows no sign of faltering. And here's one other way it's remarkable: After decades of rhetorical evolution from Republicans on matters of race, Donald Trump is now running the most plainly, explicitly, straightforwardly racist campaign since at least George Wallace's third-party run in 1968, and maybe even Strom Thurmond's in 1948.


The savior complex and the division and hatred are both amply proven in those 2 articles.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

> *Amendment* I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the *right* of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Abridging the freedom of speech anyone?


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Honey every single point there has been amply proven here. Your complete denial of facts says more about you than anything else. )


If it were proven I would believe it, you have only fooled yourself not anyone else.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Honey every single point there has been amply proven here. Your complete denial of facts says more about you than anything else.
> 
> http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists
> 
> ...


This is nothing but poisonheart progressivism, and it is obvious you art trying to poison the brand of a good man!


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Y'all crack me up. Protesters with rifles showing up to harass law enforcement doing their jobs is totally cool but 1 black guy showing up at a Trump rally is a travesty.
> 
> BLM protests in Nevada by armed white people totally cool.
> 
> ...


You read waaaaaaaaaay more into that than what I actually wrote. And meant. 

I didn't say it was a "travesty", I said it was not covered under the constitutionally protected "right to assemble". The BLM guy tried to steal some publicity from Trump and it was an epic fail. I do not condone some of the things that were allegedly said about him, but at this point it's still heresay isn't it? Is there video somewhere of the incident? I would take a look at it but it still doesn't change the fact that the guy had no business trying to protest at the political rally, he was trying to exercise rights he does not have. If someone is going into the protest business it would serve them well to learn those kind of things. 

Come to think of it, didn't BLM try some attention grabs at Hillary's events awhile back, and get shut down and thrown out of there, too? 

The Nevada rancher situation did come closer to the right outlined in the constitution since it was an act of government that was under protest, however I did not think the way it was handled was "totally cool", not even close. 

Don't put words in my mouth and presume what thoughts are in my head.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Hmm... Has anyone glanced at the title of this thread in a while?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

OffGridCooker said:


> If it were proven I would believe it, you have only fooled yourself not anyone else.


Did you read the links? Watch the videos? It's really pretty black and white.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

OffGridCooker said:


> This is nothing but poisonheart progressivism, and it is obvious you art trying to poison the brand of a good man!


These are direct quotes from the guy's own mouth. You can alliterate till the cows come home but it doesn't make your point true.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Honey every single point there has been amply proven here. Your complete denial of facts says more about you than anything else.
> 
> http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists
> 
> ...


There is no proof here just opinion from his enemies.
I have diagnosed these phycologist to be poisonheart progressives, that trying to poison Trumps brand. 
....So there I have proved them and you wrong with my opinion! 
The people that really know Trump personally, don't think he has a personality disorder. They think he is well balanced and a fair man. It is not like he is a bitterheart progressive. These psychologist are disgusting people, sham on them.
If trump has a personality disorder, and is a racist, where are the disgruntled employees?
You would think they would be lining up to try to vilify him.
The absence of these critics says a lot about trump.

You have to change the definition of racism for Trump to be a racist. The author is a disgusting poisonheart, and "racial accusationist", trying to poison Trumps brand
Racial accusationist and poisonhearts are much worse people than a racist.
To falsely claim someone is is racist just to harm them personally, is just wrong!
Your " proof of Trumps racism is just opinion, and bad opinion at that.
This is how the left works, they make false accusations, and then the innocent has to spend their time defending themselves.
I am actually very liberal about some issues, but I would never want to be identified identified as liberal, because of their mean spirited dishonesty.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Y'all crack me up. Protesters with rifles showing up to harass law enforcement doing their jobs is totally cool but 1 black guy showing up at a Trump rally is a travesty.
> 
> BLM protests in Nevada by armed white people totally cool.
> 
> ...


Originally Posted by MO_cows View Post
The right to protest is spelled out to peacefully assemble and address grievances with the government. Crashing a candidate's rally on private property is not peaceful, neither is it addressing the government since he's just a candidate.

OffGridCooker- I think what mo_cows was saying is that one has the right to protest but not the right to mooch of of someone else's crowd, or crash someone's event.
These pathetic protesters could not draw a crowd of two people to listen to them because they are kooks, so they resort to leaching of of someone else.
That is so "Code Pink"
Not nice people!


----------

