"I like Hitler"

Quote me where istated Europe accepted Hitler killing WJE.

What idid state was that Europe as a whole had anti WJE laws. So it was the cultural norm for Hitler to have his anti WJE laws. This is not rocket science

 

So you can show me a Democrat disavowing Farrakhan. Or are you daft enough to believe Farrakhan's antisemitism isn't well known?

 

Yet, when faced with irrefutable evidence, you dismiss it because of emotion.

You can't prove anything. You're too emotionally bound to your delusions.

 

You mean like how Obama came out against Farrakhan for his racist comments?

 

And yet only Hitler allowed the killing of millions of Jews. That wasn't the norm.

Eta. Looking for another brick wall.

 

Back for more!

Yes indeed and only Jefferson (and other American presidents no less) allowed the race based chattel slavery and murder of millions of NON-WHITES on the middle passage (exclusive to America)

This is my entire point: demonize Hitler and we have to demonize Jefferson. It's a simple choice. This should not be about the colour of the victims [as it appears to be ATM]

 

So we demonize both for some actions, while praising them for others. Is it similar to demonizing terrorists? One man's terrorist is another's hero.

 

Perhaps. Let's just speak the truth.

Unfortunately we as a ppl (whites) do not demonize American presidents as we should. We are utter hypocrites and hypocrites cannot ever be trusted.

 

Anyone struggling with the concept that the Nazis were more terroristic and worth demonizing than the innocent victims that they slaughtered needs some therapy.

 

Anyone struggling with the concept that the American founding fathers were more terroristic and worth demonizing than the innocent victims that they slaughtered needs some therapy

 

Without question. Anyone trying to "both sides" chattel slavery needs help.

 

What about the ppl that always deflect by talking about the Guinea princes who captured many in Africa?

 

Sounds like those people are engaged in a bit of whataboutism and also a false equivalence. I'd have to look more into the Guinea princes, but until I see some evidence, my assumption is that they were not engaging in race-based, hereditary, chattel slavery. So, definitely desperate and intellectually dishonest whataboutism, but likely also a false equivalence.

 

Is that the best reply you can come up with? Hahahaha, I thought you would have more. Irrefutable evidence? What irrefutable evidence have you offered? None!!!!

Emotion? Me?

I am a stock analyst and have been one for 47 years. Emotions are the biggest enemy of stock market traders and yet I have been successful at it and constantly, meaning that emotions are not what drives me.........just the exact opposite.

You keep striking out. If you keep this up, you might be sent back to the minor leagues.

 

Oh, **** of here with that. Judging people from a different time and different context is self-righteous buffoonery.

 

No, it's not "after the fact". You're just grasping for straws.

That's the same quote used from the same transcript they tried to base the lie on.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy was the other group.

https://www.newsweek.com/united-daughters-confederacy-statues-monuments-udc-653103

 

Precisely. Iwas more referring to the old "selling their own" deflection that scoffers use in conversations about chattel slavery in America. It's a very common tactic on here in those discussions.

It would be akin to me stating that the Holocaust in Germany wouldn't have happened if Jewish folk weren't so treacherous. Now imagine the hostility Iwould get for stating that but when ppl blame slavery in America on Guinea princes it's never met with any hostility at all besides from me, Esau! Crickets. Which sums up the prevailing racism around the topic of chattel slavery in America.

 

Read the last part out loud. I know you can't. You won't. Your emotions won't let you.

 

I wasn't sure if there was something different about Guinea, but my assumption was that there wasn't. But yes, the "selling their own" defense is as disgustingly common as it is dishonest. Agreed on the comparison.

 

Iagree, we shouldn't judge Hitler. It was normal in those days. Right?

 

And another fake propaganda post.
What he said was
You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people,
Which is making a distinction between the two
Nobody even tries to bring that up anymore because its been debunked so bad, that most people with any critical thinking skills at all, are too embarrassed to even mention it.
But not you
So while you take actual conversations out of context just like you did with your 4 year old video, the rest knows you gladly sacrifice your own credibility
just to take swipes at political candidates you don't like
So go ahead, spread all the fake BS you want. I could care less how you are viewed on PF.
In fact, how many posters now have made the same claim about you in this thread alone?

 

Its really funny to watch the age level of posters. It takes almost child like qualities to take an actual statement
then try and word twist it into what you want it to say without the knowledge of how you couldn't possibly fool anyone over the age of 16.
Its like my Dad used to say, Not only do they not have a clue, they don't even suspect something.
It reminds me of my 4 year old grandson who says nuntohhhh.

 

Why would I give any importance to what a liar and a conman says? He will say anything the benefits him. His actions are more indicative, just like what he did on January 6th. He said to the insurrectionists to "stop and go home" but he did it 3 hours after the insurrection started. What is more indicative of what he was thinking, his words or his actions?

Let me once again remind you what a conman does:

a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true. This means that he will say what is the right thing to say so that his followers believe he is doing the right thing. Nonetheless, his actions are the opposite of his words. He is a conman.

Just look at you. You have repeated this same thing repeatedly, thinking that it means something. Nonetheless, his actions say the opposite. In simple words, he has conned you.

 

Why would I give any importance to what a liar and a conman says? He will say anything the benefits him. His actions are more indicative, just like what he did on January 6th. He said to the insurrectionists to "stop and go home" but he did it 3 hours after the insurrection started. What is more indicative of what he was thinking, his words or his actions?

Let me once again remind you what a conman does:

a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true. This means that he will say what is the right thing to say so that his followers believe he is doing the right thing. Nonetheless, his actions are the opposite of his words. He is a conman.

Just look at you. You have repeated this same thing repeatedly, thinking that it means something. Nonetheless, his actions say the opposite. In simple words, he has conned you.

 

You couldn't have proved me more right if you'd written a 60 page essay on how right I was.