Nazi bund 'pro american' rally at madison square garderns 2.0

[kittykellykat]

Everyone has the freedom to express themselves in Canada.
Citizens, non citizens, illegal immigrants or refugees.
Its protected by the charter.
PS: I dont remember illegals protesting anything. I remember TFW and Students, who are legal.

How are they legal when their student permits have expired? They’re protesting because they are illegals and want this to be changed to permanent residency on the grounds of basically nothing? Is it any surprise that they weren’t even attending legitimate institutions in the first place? Because it’s beyond retarded. Then THEN THEEEENN claimed they were victims of fraud. They knew they was in cahoots with the fraudulent strip mall “colleges”. Let’s just call a spade a spade

let’s call liars and scammers what they are

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

How are they legal when their student permits have expired? They’re protesting because they are illegals and want this to be changed to permanent residency on the grounds of basically nothing? Is it any surprise that they weren’t even attending legitimate institutions in the first place? Because it’s beyond retarded. Then THEN THEEEENN claimed they were victims of fraud. They knew they was in cahoots with the fraudulent strip mall “colleges”. Let’s just call a spade a spade

let’s call liars and scammers what they are

You've raised multiple issues.
Immigration fraud and degree mills are a problem and need to be tackled.
Illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be tackled.
These are different issues.
We were talking about freedom of expression and who it applies to.
The majority of students who protested were not illegals. Atleast not yet.
Even if they were attending strip mall colleges knowingly, they currently hold a visa issued by Canada.
They were protesting the federal and provincial policy changes that would impact their visa status.
They have the right to do that.
Even if they are illegal immigrants who have overstayed their visas, our charter allows them freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is being able to say things that are offensive or disagreeable.

 

[Anbarandy]

You think illegals have a right to say anything or protest about the policies of our country in order to stay here? You cannot be serious. You belong to the streets of Brampton. Go move there.

Ahem, ahem lady, your slip rac*st tropes are showing.

 

[Anbarandy]

Nazi is a word that should never be cheapened to merely include people that don't agree with you.

Okay?

Would "very fine people on both sides" be more palatable to you?

Feel better now?

 

[Frankfooter]

You've raised multiple issues.
Immigration fraud and degree mills are a problem and need to be tackled.
Illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be tackled.
These are different issues.
We were talking about freedom of expression and who it applies to.
The majority of students who protested were not illegals. Atleast not yet.
Even if they were attending strip mall colleges knowingly, they currently hold a visa issued by Canada.
They were protesting the federal and provincial policy changes that would impact their visa status.
They have the right to do that.
Even if they are illegal immigrants who have overstayed their visas, our charter allows them freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is being able to say things that are offensive or disagreeable.

Universities were cut back and told to make up the difference with larger tuition from international students. Until they were cut.
Timmies, uber eats and other corps told the government they wanted cheaper labour so they got temporary foreign workers. Until they were cut.

 

[kittykellykat]

Ahem, ahem lady, your slip rac*st tropes are showing.

Guten Morgen!

I did not understand your little quip here for a full 10 seconds, as nobody has worn a slip as an undergarment since the 1950’s. We all know I don’t even wear pants at my job, so it wouldn’t be a problem regardless.

As for the racism you claim was naughtily peeking out — I can gladly direct you to other threads where it was fully showing according to some other histrionic leftoids, and their moral policing was just as ineffectual on me as yours will be.

Auf Wiedersehen

 

[Bucktee]

Okay?

Would "very fine people on both sides" be more palatable to you?

Feel better now?

What relevance would that have with the subject at hand?

It's been years, perhaps you should listen to the exchange where you pulled that line from instead of the 2 second soundbite lifted from it to promote a false narrative.

And the answer is yes, there were very fine people on both sides.

 

[Anbarandy]

What relevance would that have with the subject at hand?

It's been years, perhaps you should listen to the exchange where you pulled that line from instead of the 2 second soundbite lifted from it to promote a false narrative.

And the answer is yes, there were very fine people on both sides.

Very fine white supremist racists?

Hhhmmmm?

 

[Bucktee]

Very fine white supremist racists?

Hhhmmmm?

Clearly you still haven't watched the clip.

You've been programmed since 2016 and need a hard reset.

You sound like one of the clownish reporters present at the news conference.

Trump: "I'm not talking about the Neo-Nazis or the White Nationalists because they should be condemned totally. I'm talking about people other than the Nazis or Nationalists who were treated badly by the press."

Reporter: "I'm sorry sir, I couldn't understand you. You said that the Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists were being treated unfairly by the press."

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

their moral policing was just as ineffectual on me as yours will be.

You don't say!

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

What relevance would that have with the subject at hand?

It's been years, perhaps you should listen to the exchange where you pulled that line from instead of the 2 second soundbite lifted from it to promote a false narrative.

And the answer is yes, there were very fine people on both sides.

I saw the video in its entirety.
He said "there were very fine people on both sides".
I agree there were bad people on both sides.
But there no good people on the right.
They were neo Nazis (who organized the rally) or people who chose to march with them!
Why does this escape you?

 

[Bucktee]

I saw the video in its entirety.
He said "there were very fine people on both sides".
I agree there were bad people on both sides.
But there no good people on the right.
They were neo Nazis (who organized the rally) or people who chose to march with them!
Why does this escape you?

Protesting the removal of a statue doesn't make you a Nazi.

Organizers had a permit to protest peacefully. Their protest was disrupted by violent fascists.

You either want rule of law and freedom of speech, or you don't.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Protesting the removal of a statue doesn't make you a Nazi.

Chanting Jews will not replace us does.
The organizers were nazis.

 

[shack]

Case & point: Someone else says something and it's brushed aside (or "stepped aside as in Biden's case) because the mere thought of one of his opponents saying something derogatory (or stupid) is completely impossible right?

No. It's obviously not impossible.

However, I think that it's hypocritical to criticize one example of Biden a gaffe (and he's not even running) being glossed over as "he really meant to say" yet never criticize the exact same type of defence for the dozens of ridiculous things trump has said. In this case it's a matter of quantity over quality since the quality is equal on both sides.

 

[shack]

Funny...I thought it was enough that people would jump on Trump for what he says...now they're blaming him for what a comedian says.

In this case, absolutely. The trump team was in complete control of everything that would be said. They knew the comic was going to make that joke. It's undeniable that the trump team, who arranges things on his behalf including his image, shares the bulk of the blame. trump is their boss. He directly hired some of those people. trump shares the blame. As the leader, the buck stops with him.

 

[shack]

I don’t want to be persnickety but you’re actually wrong here RIP. It’s a common error to believe using ‘I’ over ‘me’ is universally correct, so no judgement on my end. Look it up!

When the first person is the subject in a sentence, "I" is universally correct. Example: I like him. He likes me. In the first, the first person is the subject. That's why it is "I". In the latter, the first person is the object, hence "me".

In a sentence:

• The subject is the thing that performs the action of a verb.
• The object is the person, thing, or place that is impacted by, or involved in, the action12345.

Alternatively, you can dismiss what I say because I’m purportedly some shit-for-brains human who thinks Trump is a reasonable person, on the assumption I’ve got no education (lol).

I had no such intention. Your post was non-accusatory or an attack. I treat posters with respect when they post respectfully, as you did.

Btw, just because a person misspells something doesn’t necessarily make what they say untrue or unworthy of consideration. Anyone who cannot see why this is true requires an education. I say this as a person who does not misspell things.

He has a history of mangling the English language. It's not a one-off.

 

[kittykellykat]

When the first person is the subject in a sentence, "I" is universally correct. Example: I like him. He likes me. In the first, the first person is the subject. That's why it is "I". In the latter, the first person is the object, hence "me".

In a sentence:

• The subject is the thing that performs the action of a verb.
• The object is the person, thing, or place that is impacted by, or involved in, the action12345.

I had no such intention. Your post was non-accusatory or an attack. I treat posters with respect when they post respectfully, as you did.

He has a history of mangling the English language. It's not a one-off.

Everyone but shack please scroll past this post. Lol.

90% of people do not write as meticulously as I do. If I were to get angered or critical about it every time I encountered such people, I would be the most insufferable person on the planet. I would never learn anything from anyone. That would be an impoverished life.

Sorry to derail the thread with this everyone, but I just got so itchy to say this:

Re. the grammar lesson above, it’s based on somewhat archaic English rules about not using ‘me’ as a subject. It’s true that two subjects are being compared. The problem is if you used these rules by the book, you’d be a very bad or at the very least, eccentric writer.

If you wanted to use this rule in a non-archaic and complete way, you’d say “He is smarter than I am.” Just as we don’t exclaim “It is I!” every time someone asks“who dis?” when you call them, you wouldn’t (well, shouldn’t) say it the OG way.

Using ‘me’ isn’t wrong, even if seen as an object in this case. It’s not “doing” anything in the sentence “He is smarter than me,” so to speak. Think of it as being “acted upon” by the comparison being made. That is why it doesn’t sound funny in contemporary English to say this at all. It’s a bit more casual, to be sure, but I would not call that butchering the English language in any way whatsoever. It is fully appropriate in most contexts except very formal writing.

Proper English (TM) has many implicit rules of usage, and most linguists will say these count for correctness and fluency too. That’s why non-native speakers always sound very formal and stiff. English is a strange mutty language wrt rules in particular.

Anyway I didn’t mean to get autistic about it, but yeah. He definitely wasn’t wrong.

Hope that makes sense!

 

[Skoob]

No. It's obviously not impossible.

However, I think that it's hypocritical to criticize one example of Biden a gaffe (and he's not even running) being glossed over as "he really meant to say" yet never criticize the exact same type of defence for the dozens of ridiculous things trump has said. In this case it's a matter of quantity over quality since the quality is equal on both sides.

Trump is not a silver-tongued career politician.
He uses metaphors, humour and exaggeration to make his points. It's his style. Some interpret that in different ways. Supporters know what he means. Non-supporters only look at the words and then lose their shit.
We should judge him on his policies in office not hang on every word he says.

For example, what specific Trump policies did you support vs not support while he was in office?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

He uses metaphors, humour and exaggeration to make his points. It's his style. Some interpret that in different ways.

Well, if that wasn't a glib understatement and untruth lol.
Trump users abuse, lies, vitriol, hate and for sure exaggeration to make his points.
He leaves no reason for interpretation.
For example: "They are eating the dogs! They are eating the cats! They are eating the pets!", needs no interpretation.
There are no metaphors in that quote.
There is no humour.
There are however lies and hate.

 

[Skoob]

Well, if that wasn't a glib understatement and untruth lol.
Trump users abuse, lies, vitriol, hate and for sure exaggeration to make his points.
He leaves no reason for interpretation.
For example: "They are eating the dogs! They are eating the cats! They are eating the pets!", needs no interpretation.
There are no metaphors in that quote.
There is no humour.
There are however lies and hate.

Right no metaphors because he was referencing a claim made by a constituent:



Where do the claims come from?

They seemingly originated from a local resident who complained about Haitian immigrants at a Springfield city commission meeting on 27 August.

The man, who said he was a social media influencer, urged the government to "do something", making unsubstantiated claims about supposed crimes they were committing.

He said they were capturing ducks in a local park, slaughtering them and eating them.

Facebook posts on local crime-watch groups started making similar claims, with one supposed resident whose post went viral saying their "daughter's friend" had seen Haitians eating her cat and that local authorities had said they were doing the same with ducks and geese.