starfire_xes said:

What is the definition of a nazi?  I know what the definition economically is a nazi.  But define what is a nazi? 

With your definition: Quote for Bigbadwolf:



"Since when did being a Nazi not automatically classify you as a piece of worm excrement, swimming inside a pile of dog shit, caked on the heel of Uncle Sam's fucking boot, from decades past? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Our spray-tan-toupee-with-a-mouth-in-chief has somehow made it fashionable to be a sexually repressed, virgin halfwit cunt with a learning disability, just because he never had to learn to wipe his own lip, or his asshole?"

This is
YOu
That is your opinion.  It doesn't mean what nazis are.  I think that your a hard headed knucklehead, that doesn't mean is it true.  You see what the difference is between an opinion and a fact? 

I have a blue eyes and blond hair, and have an obvious northern european descent, that does make a nazi? 

You can see what a fucking stupid, idiotic opinion and facts are.

These fucking posts are so fucking idiotic is not even worth replying to.

---

starfire_xes said:

What is the definition of a nazi?  I know what the definition economically is a nazi.  But define what is a nazi?

---

akira_akuma said:

no more lies, Shiva.

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

Tipote said:

Please define what you call real Nazis.

---

They live in Germany a long time ago and actually acted on their ideology with the support of the German government and general public.

---

So they have to be in Germany? Are ideologies geographically-fixed?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

akira_akuma said:

no more lies, Shiva.

---

Where did I lie?

---

Quote:

Forgive me, perhaps I'm confused but is this not an attempt to justify fascist violence as defense of public property?

---

Quote:

Those specific protesters are destroying statues, or protesters like them?

---

Quote:

Do you agree with this logic too: yes, because they are the ones killing people, the people in these fascist groups (literally) are the ones killing people...

---

Quote:

so to prevent that, people are anxious to prevent them from killing anymore. - if yes, why do you consider the concerns of people anxious to prevent the destruction of statues to trump the concerns of people anxious to prevent fascist violence (in other words, why do you consider the counter-protesters to have been in the wrong)? - if no, why does the logic not carry over from property destruction to homicide?

---

akira_akuma said:

some American's were behind the eugenics aspect of the Nazi regime...lots of literature was written in regards to it...among the political literature, of course...and you know who alot of those people were, in America? Democrats. lol...and Liberals. LOLOLOLOL

shivas.wisdom said:

akira_akuma said:

no more lies, Shiva.

---

Where did I lie?

---

didn't say you lied. but i'm OMITTING things. see how that works?

not only do i HAVE to, because we are treated like children here...but we must all fight fire with fire in war.

---

Quote:

2) fire won't put out fire.  It makes it worse.  If you ever run into this problem, you might give water a try.

---

Quote:

You can also win by rationally proving your point in such a way as to turn their own words against them.  That isn't deception, that's just clever phrasing.

---

well, i was talking about counter-intelligence and counter-deception, not "out-doing" your opponent, i mean, that's a given objective, which precludes the counter-deception. it's out-doing the enemy and progenitor of the original deception by making enough exposure of their lies in order to turn their own words (or actions) against them. cops do this all the time, for example...oh and lawyers.

often referred to as "leading people on".

Quote:

there are also other ways, like making people continue defending their point to the furthest logical extreme. 

---

that doesn't necessarily proof anything. can you tell me one thing we have provided all logical postulations for? nah.

and to nte. there is also the repetition effect. tell a lie enough, people can start to believe it, and that is through deception- it is the great tool of deception is repetition and ambiguity (which you cannot escape, whether in effectuating speech, nor with literary prose).

akira_akuma said:

and to nte. there is also the repetition effect. tell a lie enough, people can start to believe it, and that is through deception- it is the great tool of deception is repetition and ambiguity (which you cannot escape, whether in effectuating speech, nor with literary prose).

---

Quote:

The cure for deceptive repetition is reciprocal repetition of fact.

---

not always the case, but truth is the arbiter of win.

it always is. the point i'm making, which you seem to be unable to cope with, because "deception is bad mmmkay", is that to get to the arbiter, truth, sometimes you need to out-deceive your opponent. and no, you cannot just "out-repeat someone" who has a media apparatus. for example. you have to use tactics, which include deception, but are not outright harmful ones. call them "divisive" tactics, if you must- doesn't change the fact of one's out-deceiving an opponent. if you divide and conquer on the level of your opponent, then you are playing the same game of deception, in order to do various things...like keep your opponent on their game, for example...make them think one way, but you're really taking things in another direction. c'mon man. you should know this.

akira_akuma said:

anarchists kill people all the time

http://archive.is/9gP9U

can't wait for the media scrub attempt.

---

Quote:

You believe this bullshit

---

Quote:

but are unconvinced Heather Heyer was murdered

---

Quote:

You just need to get off the internet and meet your "enemy"  because your viewpoint is getting more and more skewed every day - violent fantasies are being interjected into your posts more and more often. You are becoming radicalized.

---

akira_akuma said:

better is relative, though, isn't it? a win is a win.

---

Quote:

Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you

---

Quote:

This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury.

I answered their questions truthfully, including questions about my private life, questions no American citizen would ever want to answer.

Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight.

As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.

Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.

But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.

I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.

I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct.

I was also very concerned about protecting my family. The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration, too.

In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investigation that began with private business dealings 20 years ago, dealings I might add about which an independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago.

The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my private life. And now the investigation itself is under investigation.

This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people.

Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most -- my wife and our daughter -- and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so.

Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours.

Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.

Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.

Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time to move on.

We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.

And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.

Thank you for watching. And good night.

---

It leaves you open to being caught out down the road.

Tipote said:

Bubbles85 said:

Move them goal posts much? Just admit that you hold racist views toward white people.

---

You dont understand the definition of racism.

How am I racist against white people?

---