Jump to content

OK to Hunt and Kill White Women per Facebook


Hagar

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 77 said:

bring it!

 

Almost to that point it appears.  Snowflakes, and all minority's have entered a very dangerous area.  If they want to make war against white people, they might find out why predominantly white countries have ruled the world so many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, westend1 said:

Translation.  No.  No reputable news organization vetted this.   Looks fake.  Might be real.   My guess.  Heavily edited

Probably not what you'd consider reputable.  The ones you consider reputable are the same one who didn't report on the 14 year old HS girl being raped in a HS bathroom by two illegal aliens, one 17 and the other 18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Whether this is fake news or not, it touches on a serious issue in our society. The debate on this thread should be over whether there is a difference between hate speech and free speech and instead it is about whether a news source is reputable. The news source may not be reputable, but I believe the topic is very relevant and should be discussed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, texanabroad said:

 Whether this is fake news or not, it touches on a serious issue in our society. The debate on this thread should be over whether there is a difference between hate speech and free speech and instead it is about whether a news source is reputable. The news source may not be reputable, but I believe the topic is very relevant and should be discussed. 

It has to be true to be relevant.   iF true, I agree that it is wrong.  I don't believe it is true.  If it was, I think at least faux news would get in on it.   Actually, I think fox doesn't outright lie.  They just spin like msnbcMSNBC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, texanabroad said:

 Whether this is fake news or not, it touches on a serious issue in our society. The debate on this thread should be over whether there is a difference between hate speech and free speech and instead it is about whether a news source is reputable. The news source may not be reputable, but I believe the topic is very relevant and should be discussed. 

I agree...that's the most overused reason to dodge a debate by the libs...even if the source is very reputable.

Liberalism is very hard to defend, but c'mon...make an effort...don't kill the messenger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, westend1 said:

You have to get news from somewhere.  Tell us where you go

Living outside the states has forced me to work to find reputable news.  I can't sit down and turn on the television and get my news. What I have found is that it is important to get your news from a variety of different sources and come to your own conclusion. There is normally a shred of truth in most reports, sometimes even CNN(very rarely). Compare that to what another source reports and you can start to put the pieces together. This whole Fake News is a new invention by the media to bring people back in from alternative media. They have all been biased for a very long time. True journalism ended with the 24 hour news networks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, westend1 said:

You have to get news from somewhere.  Tell us where you go

Usually start with Fox, but google to see how others report and if different, why.

When I say Fox, I don't mean Hannity, O'Reilly, or Kelly...I mean the hard news, internet, not a TV fan...although I like Brett Baird.

I simply don't trust CNN anymore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...