Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

[TheLeft]

The guy didn't "lose his temper", and the car was badly damaged prior to collision, indicating high probability that he was afraid for his life while being attacked and panicked, which was ignored during obviously political trial.

The only thing it indicates is you're making up baseless stories again in a futile attempt to justify the actions of a murdering Neo-Nazi. The facts of the matter (at least the only facts that matter) are that the aforementioned Neo-Nazi murdered an unarmed protester and wounded several others by deliberately driving his car into a crowd, and he was then arrested and found guilty in a three week trial of his peers.

[Heathen Hammer]

Just pointing out facts that leads us to conclusion that trial was political and biased since it ignored objective factual evidence. The death of that person is ultimately on antifa thugs that made a choice of starting a riot, as it was concluded in Charlottesville thread.

[mongrel]

By the same logic, muslims should be outright banned from entering the USA and those already in segregated. After all, they did rack up quite considerable bodycount already.

If Trump and his supporters can be exiled to Alaska. Equality under the law.

I think the fact that the Red Caps actually have a body count (such as at Charlottesville) is good grounds to perceive them as people.

Agreed, although to be fair, they didn't wear the hats, they show allegiance in other ways by shouting 'Heil Trump'..

Very fair of you. This of of course an absurd standard.

I am only a herald of bad tidings. It may surprise you, but in a free country there are people who perceive Trump and his supporters as not very nice people. People who want to spend their tax dollars building a monument to racism like some orange-faced Ozymandias.

[TheLeft]

Just pointing out facts that leads us to conclusion that trial was political and biased since it ignored objective factual evidence. The death of that person is ultimately on antifa thugs that made a choice of starting a riot, as it was concluded in Charlottesville thread.

What facts? You were asked on numerous occasions to produce these 'facts' and couldn't because they don't exist. And you won't produce them now because, guess what, they are spurious. Is defending a Neo-Nazi terrorist really the hill you want to die on?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Heathen Hammer]

Like I said, plenty of images of vehicle being damaged prior to collusion (with which cops are obligated to pull you over, which means they were very recent), along with footage of your antifa comrades attacking people and cars. If pointing out that an obviously political trial ignored crucial evidence pertaining to the case is "defending Neo-Nazi terrorist" to you, that just means you are ignoring reason and logic in favor of emotional but non-factual stance.

[The spartan]

Good thing your interpretation of a crime you know next to nothing about does not matter in the least to the US legal system. I trust the government of the State of Virginia on this matter far more than you, and they are hardly liberal cucks over there. You really put a lot of emphasis on your own interpretation of things. Do you think you have divine observation skills or something? "I was not presented evidence in a controlled court-room setting, nor heard oral arguments from all sides involved or given a proper timeline of the events that occurred, but I know exactly what happened, and that Jury didn't!"

[Heathen Hammer]

I didn't put emphasis on any interpretation, I put emphasis to evidence openly available to the public and the fact that it was ignored by the court. The rest is just your usual twisting of words, irrelevant to the point being made.

[mongrel]

I didn't put emphasis on any interpretation, I put emphasis to evidence openly available to the public and the fact that it was ignored by the court. The rest is just your usual twisting of words, irrelevant to the point being made.

Which relevant evidence was not considered by the court?

[Heathen Hammer]

Which relevant evidence was not considered by the court?

plenty of images of vehicle being damaged prior to collusion (with which cops are obligated to pull you over, which means they were very recent), along with footage of your antifa comrades attacking people and cars.

This evidence was ignored by the court, which was clearly concluded in Charlottesville thread. At the end of the day it were antifa members who started riots and attacking people, again, as per the footage from there.

[Pontifex Maximus]

If Trump and his supporters can be exiled to Alaska. Equality under the law. Agreed, although to be fair, they didn't wear the hats, they show allegiance in other ways by shouting 'Heil Trump'.. I am only a herald of bad tidings. It may surprise you, but in a free country there are people who perceive Trump and his supporters as not very nice people. People who want to spend their tax dollars building a monument to racism like some orange-faced Ozymandias.

People are of course free to observe whatever they want, no matter how asinine their observations. The theory that the wall is a monument to Trump's ego which serves no other purpose than to keep brown people out of the country is absurd. Survey says: oh wow pretty much nobody who supports the wall agrees. You're ignoring the arguments in order to cling to the desperate "everything Trump and his supporters want is racist" agenda in order to, I don't really know, advocate for open borders? Your position is ridiculous.

[TheLeft]

This evidence was ignored by the court, which was clearly concluded in Charlottesville thread. At the end of the day it were antifa members who started riots and attacking people, again, as per the footage from there.

So in other words your conclusion is:

"I wasn't there but I saw footage that utterly exonerates him, but I'm not going to share it with you, the court, the police or even The Neo-Nazi Terrorist himself because... reasons. But I'm right. Honest."

Cool.

[The spartan]

I didn't put emphasis on any interpretation

You are saying a legal trial was invalidated on political grounds without any physical evidence of malpractice by the court, it just didn't turn out the way you personally thought it should. That is quite the emphasis on self-interpretation. You are literally saying you know better than the court and the jury involved with the trial.

I put emphasis to evidence openly available to the public and the fact that it was ignored by the court. The rest is just your usual twisting of words, irrelevant to the point being made.

This means nothing. You apparently don't know how evidence is submitted to court, and interpreted yourself from media sources (which wouldn't be allowed in court) what the evidence was saying. Again, you are saying you know better than the judge and jury what the verdict should have been. You are saying that the State of Virginia is incapable of holding fair trials on contentious charges (which are most charges) and that their legal system is a failure. Again, all because a trial didn't turn out the way you, personally, thought it should.

So in other words your conclusion is:

"I wasn't there but I saw footage that utterly exonerates him, but I'm not going to share it with you, the court, the police or even The Neo-Nazi Terrorist himself because... reasons. But I'm right. Honest."

Cool.

He wouldn't even know if it exonerates the perp or not if he saw it. He isn't familiar with Virginia State law at all. To be fair (to you, not him), he likely does not believe a word he is saying is true, he is still playing political games. It is all he knows how to do.

[Gaidin]

I remember this closed thread from a few months ago...

[Heathen Hammer]

So in other words your conclusion is:

"I wasn't there but I saw footage that utterly exonerates him, but I'm not going to share it with you, the court, the police or even The Neo-Nazi Terrorist himself because... reasons. But I'm right. Honest."

Cool.

Nice strawman, bruh. Neither you nor spartan addressed what I actually said (which indicates lack of interest in good faith discussion), so replying to either of you seems like a waste of time.

People are of course free to observe whatever they want, no matter how asinine their observations. The theory that the wall is a monument to Trump's ego which serves no other purpose than to keep brown people out of the country is absurd. Survey says: oh wow pretty much nobody who supports the wall agrees. You're ignoring the arguments in order to cling to the desperate "everything Trump and his supporters want is racist" agenda in order to, I don't really know, advocate for open borders? Your position is ridiculous.

Fortunately people who think this way are a decreasing marginal minority, that is going to be left behind politically and intellectually. The "argument" (if we can call it such) itself is intellectually worthless, but it is still loud, amplified by corporate legacy media and its oligarch owners who have something to gain from preventing US form having sensible control over its borders.

[TheLeft]

He wouldn't even know if it exonerates the perp or not if he saw it. He isn't familiar with Virginia State law at all. To be fair (to you, not him), he likely does not believe a word he is saying is true, he is still playing political games. It is all he knows how to do.

I'm fairly certain he doesn't really believe it. It's fun to see how far he'll go in order to defend his utterly preposterous position though.

Nice strawman, bruh. Neither you nor spartan addressed what I actually said (which indicates lack of interest in good faith discussion), so replying to either of you seems like a waste of time.

I accept your surrender.

Any time you want to post your mythical evidence that exonerates the Neo-Nazi feel free. But we all know that won't happen because it doesn't exist.

[mongrel]

This evidence was ignored by the court, which was clearly concluded in Charlottesville thread. At the end of the day it were antifa members who started riots and attacking people, again, as per the footage from there.

That's not relevant, no reason to murder the woman, or indeed anyone else.The Charlottesville thread recognised that that lady received justice.I know , I opened it.

People are of course free to observe whatever they want, no matter how asinine their observations. The theory that the wall is a monument to Trump's ego which serves no other purpose than to keep brown people out of the country is absurd. Survey says: oh wow pretty much nobody who supports the wall agrees. You're ignoring the arguments in order to cling to the desperate "everything Trump and his supporters want is racist" agenda in order to, I don't really know, advocate for open borders? Your position is ridiculous.

I told you, I am the mere messenger. Whinging about 'your position' when roughly half your country, possibly more consider the Orange-faced man-child king a complete , is futile.

Lets put this in simple terms.

Suppose there was a man in a red hat who hates his neighbour's feline pets. He promises a builder that he wants a wall built,his neighbour will pay for it. The neighbour quite literally tells him to off. The hatwearer jumps up and down shouting at both parties demanding that the wall be built. What would an unbiased observer think? He is a in a hat who hates cats.He can pay for his own ing wall

[The spartan]

I'm fairly certain he doesn't really believe it. It's fun to see how far he'll go in order to defend his utterly preposterous position though.

Fun? He is trying his hardest to justify murder for political gain, I find that scary.

[Pontifex Maximus]

That's not relevant, no reason to murder the woman, or indeed anyone else.The Charlottesville thread recognised that that lady received justice.I know , I opened it.



I told you, I am the mere messenger. Whinging about 'your position' when roughly half your country, possibly more consider the Orange-faced man-child king a complete , is futile.

Lets put this in simple terms.

Suppose there was a man in a red hat who hates his neighbour's feline pets. He promises a builder that he wants a wall built,his neighbour will pay for it. The neighbour quite literally tells him to off. The hatwearer jumps up and down shouting at both parties demanding that the wall be built. What would an unbiased observer think? He is a in a hat who hates cats.He can pay for his own ing wall

Your cats aside, I'm still thoroughly unconvinced that the major impetus in building the wall is to exclude brown people from this country, and you've not provided any sources or arguments sufficient for me to be swayed by your arguments. My own personal opinion is that I don't really care at all which people come into this country with regards to color, religion, place of origin etc so long as they are vetted, compatible with American culture, and not criminals. I assume you're just for open borders, which says that none of this matters, just let everyone in. This is of course a completely moronic position for a nation state to adopt - but that's the normal state of your party. If your party chose to engage honestly with the electorate you may actually stand a chance at defeating Trump in 2020. Maintain this same tactic and I can guarantee you'll lose in 2020.

[mongrel]

Your cats aside, I'm still thoroughly unconvinced that the major impetus in building the wall is to exclude brown people from this country, and you've not provided any sources or arguments sufficient for me to be swayed by your arguments. My own personal opinion is that I don't really care at all which people come into this country with regards to color, religion, place of origin etc so long as they are vetted, compatible with American culture, and not criminals. I assume you're just for open borders, which says that none of this matters, just let everyone in. This is of course a completely moronic position for a nation state to adopt - but that's the normal state of your party. If your party chose to engage honestly with the electorate you may actually stand a chance at defeating Trump in 2020. Maintain this same tactic and I can guarantee you'll lose in 2020.

I don't need to provide any sources to prove that a significant number of people consider MAGA hat wearers s. It's an observable phenomenon. The real motive for immolating your nation for a vanity project is a mystery, contained within that orange little head. I don't have skin in the game as far as US politics is concerned, not being American and all.

[Heathen Hammer]

Fun? He is trying his hardest to justify murder for political gain, I find that scary.

Where did I say that murder was justified? Yet again, you clearly ignore argument presented and put words in my mouth.