Trump doesn't want immigrants from s***hole countries

[SBJJ]

Like the 3rd thread I've seen today, without an article, that doesn't get dumped, but my threads do.

Yea. I don't get it

 

[JosephDredd]

Twitter themselves validated the recent videos he posted of their bias, by banning O'Keefe's account yesterday, and then having to put it back up after receiving backlash.

How does that validate his videos? They may have considered it against their Terms Of Service to try to damage their company. It sounds like you don't know what validation is.

It sounds more like you don't like the content of what he posts, but are too lazy or lack the ability/creativity to dispute it on actual grounds of evidence/analysis of what the content itself shows. Much like the people at Twitter.

Are you aware of his past fraudulent releases and his "stings" blown by his incredible stupidity? It sounds like you are not. It sounds like you don't know what a lot of things are.

 

[Joe]

Making America Great Again means normalizing the use of the word "shit". He succeeded in getting CNN to show the word "shithole" in the chyron and have Anderson and Acosta say the word "shit" multiple times. #Winning.

Next up, the F word and uncensored boobs. Stay tuned.

Trump has huge support from envagelics. They are his biggest believers. People like Tony Perkins,who with his groups, for decades would file complaints when they would see sexual acts or bad language on tv. They were very concerned this would lead to the moral decline of America.

 

[oldshadow]

How about we don't want shit heads from shit hole countries that want to turn this country into a shit hole like where they come from.

 

[JSnake]

How does that validate his videos? They may have considered it against their Terms Of Service to try to damage their company. It sounds like you don't know what validation is.

Are you aware of his past fraudulent releases and his "stings" blown by his incredible stupidity? It sounds like you are not. It sounds like you don't know what a lot of things are.

They wouldn't have put it back up under pressure, if they truly had the right to do so.

Even the CIA and other intel agencies commonly do that to acquire information... how can you automatically discredit everything someone does in the present based on the past without even assessing the content for itself?

Were you one of the people that believed the recent accusations in the Michael Wolff book outright, despite his questionable history?

 

[JosephDredd]

They wouldn't have put it back up under pressure, if they truly had the right to do so.

That doesn't make any sense. You don't know how anything works. Again.

Even the CIA and other intel agencies commonly do that to acquire information... how can you automatically discredit everything someone does in the present based on the past without even assessing the content for itself?

When did I discredit this allegation?

Were you one of the people that believed the recent the accusations in the Michael Wolff book, despite his questionable past?

What did Wolff do that in any way compares to what O'Keefe has done? Do you know what O'Keefe has done?

 

[Liquid Smoke]

But Tom Arnold is a valid news source

Roseanne > Tom

 

[SBJJ]

That doesn't make any sense. You don't know how anything works. Again.



When did I discredit this allegation?



What did Wolff do that in any way compares to what O'Keefe has done? Do you know what O'Keefe has done?

Post unbiased sources showing what he did. It simple

 

[JSnake]

That doesn't make any sense. You don't know how anything works. Again.

When did I discredit this allegation?

What did Wolff do that in any way compares to what O'Keefe has done? Do you know what O'Keefe has done?

If he broke their Terms of Service, they are within their rights to ban him and keep him banned. Instead of bringing up their ToS showing specifically what he violated, you're just throwing baseless accusations. Ok then, enlighten me; specifically in their ToS or statement made by Twitter themselves, what did O'Keefe violate to warrant being banned initially? No more taking the lazy way out.

We're not comparing the degree of their actions, just that they're both questionable. Even the MSM admitted Wolff's questionable history puts his claims in doubt. So I get the impression you did believe him at face value... which makes you a partisan hypocrite. Thank you for demonstrating that.

 

[JosephDredd]

If he broke their Terms of Service, they are within their rights to ban him and keep him banned. Instead of bringing up their ToS showing specifically what he violated, you're just throwing baseless accusations. Ok then, enlighten me; specifically in their ToS or statement made by Twitter themselves, what did O'Keefe violate to warrant being banned initially? No more taking the lazy way out.

You said the fact they unbanned him proves the veracity of his claims. This is untrue and illogical. They are a private company: they can literally ban or unban him for any reason and it would absolutely not have any bearing on the veracity of his claims. In fact, I don't know how a thinking person could reasonably draw that conclusion unless you just woke up today and are seeing commerce and social media for the first time.

We're not comparing the degree of their actions, just that they're both questionable. Even the MSM admitted Wolff's questionable history puts his claims in doubt.

They're not both equally questionable, though. O'Keefe is literally a fraud and a con-artist: his entire working model is to lie and to fake information, and he's exposed himself through actions that I thought only existed in cartoons many times. Again, it sounds like you are not aware of what O'Keefe has done. It is completely unreasonable to approach both their work in the same way, which is what you are insinuating.

So I get the impression you did believe him at face value... which makes you a partisan hypocrite. Thank you for demonstrating that.

You believe a lot of things that have no logical foundation.

 

[JosephDredd]

Post unbiased sources showing what he did. It simple

What? What is this referring to? Did you quote the right person?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

But Tom Arnold is a valid news source

Derp

 

[K1levelgrappler]

 

[HIMBOB]

Play no. 1 in the sjw handbook.

So would calling someone a SJW be the first play in the racists handbook?

 

[SBJJ]

So would calling someone a SJW be the first play in the racists handbook?

SJW=Right Winger

Racist/Nazi=Terrorist

I think a lefty calling someone a right winger is the equivalent of a righty calling a lefty a SJW

Racist and Nazi are another level. The equivalent of a righty calling a lefty a terrorist

 

[HereticBD]

What's the post number in that thread?

Yeah, umm, you see that little arrow next to the name in the post I quoted? Just click that, and it will link you right there.

Then again, you already knew that.

 

[BOWHUNTER]

Haiti and most of Africa ore fcuking shift holes. I mean have you seen Liberia?

 

[ShadowRun]

So is there tape of him saying it yet or more hearsay and "sources" that he said it ?

 

[SBJJ]

What's the post number? It's linking me to a page, but not a post.

You've been given multiple quotes by multiple posters. That entire thread was littered with filth toward Alabama. I'm not even arguing that Alabama is not a shithole. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

You called me out as a liar as you have before. And AGAIN have been shot down. I don't expect you to admit you were wrong. I'm actually surprised you didn't delete your post like you have before.

Anyway, if you EVER call me a liar again I will point to this thread.

 

[TapoutforSprawl]

So is there tape of him saying it yet or more hearsay and "sources" that he said it ?

Do you care? Either you'll deny it, like you're doing now, or if it is proven you'll defend/agree with it.