Originally posted by Robtard
Did you read that DailyMail story you posted in full, TI?It was little more than a hate march by "'hard right-wing extremists' (one apparently a Nazi sympathizer) to fuel intolerance and hatred.
"A German official has said that Angela Merkel's open door migrant policy will lead to 'civil war."
So you think by 2020 with 20-30 million migrants in Germany, they will just all be getting along peachy?
Do you live in a fcking dream world? I mean I know you live in the Bay Area, its kind of dreamy, but the fact you disregard and the already blame republicans is really telling.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
"A German official has said that Angela Merkel's open door migrant policy will lead to 'civil war."So you think by 2020 with 20-30 million migrants in Germany, they will just all be getting along peachy?
Do you live in a fcking dream world? I mean I know you live in the Bay Area, its kind of dreamy, but the fact you disregard and the already blame republicans is really telling.
Going to guess you didn't read it. Anyhow.
-That "German official" is Hansjoerg Mueller, part of the "anti-immigration" league of the "Alternative for Germany party". So not surprised he'd spout alarmist and incendiary comments
-20-30, just this morning it was "20". The numbers keep swelling, considering no one knows exactly what the state of the ME or Germany will be in 5 years.
-LoL, wut? I blame Republicans? Is this just more odd personal attack deflection.
Originally posted by Robtard
Going to guess you didn't read it. Anyhow.-That "German official" is Hansjoerg Mueller, part of the "anti-immigration" league of the "Alternative for Germany party". So not surprised he'd spout alarmist and incendiary comments
-20-30, just this morning it was "20". The numbers keep swelling, considering no one knows exactly what the state of the ME or Germany will be in 5 years.
-LoL, wut? I blame Republicans? Is this just more odd personal attack deflection.
So because he is not pro immigration, he's automatically discredited. Interesting.
Not what I said, I said it wasn't shocking that he'd make reactionary comments like that, which are meant to incite emotion.
Similar with how there's this group in the US like that's to use "will lead to Civil War" when someone else even hints at stronger gun regulation. But in reality, we all know America's not getting into another Civil War anytime soon.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not what I said, I said it wasn't shocking that he'd make reactionary comments like that, which are meant to incite emotion.Similar with how there's this group in the US like that's to use "will lead to Civil War" when someone else even hints at stronger gun regulation. But in reality, we all know America's not getting into another Civil War anytime soon.
We know what you were doing, you were trying to discredit him stating he was an alarmist.
Its like you are un aware of whats going on in Germany and you are just doing your internet thing where you ignore the obvious and hide the truth. Many sources have been posted and you ran from them all.
You're right, it's completely shocking that a guy from a "anti-immigration" league would say something like "will lead to Civil War" in regards to Germany's immigration issue.
I seem to know more than you. I ran from what now? Is this another personal attack deflection tactic.
On another note, why do you care about Germany? When you're known as the guy to tell any non-American that they shouldn't concern themselves or talk about American issues.
Originally posted by long pig
Why do you libbos always try to discredit and debate the person who comes up with an idea instead of the actual idea?Its such a scumball way to "win" a debate by not debating.
Classic alinski liberal online troll tactics.
Step 1: discredit poster
Step 2: discredit source
Fail safe: rinse and repeat but scream racist louder if you didn't the first two steps.
Originally posted by long pig
Why do you libbos always try to discredit and debate the person who comes up with an idea instead of the actual idea?Its such a scumball way to "win" a debate by not debating.
Oh look, another BS claim/personal attack made to distract away from the discussion since it's not going the way you prefer. Good job 👆
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Classic alinski liberal online troll tactics.Step 1: discredit poster
Step 2: discredit source
Fail safe: rinse and repeat but scream racist louder if you didn't the first two steps.
All good, but I:
-Didn't discredit the poster (you)
-Didn't discredit the source (even though it was the DM)
So you're complaining again because you posted a story without reading it first and it didn't work out for you.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You keep running from all sources, even the New York Times.
That's the second time you've said "you run from sources" and the second time I'm asking, when did I run? So this seems like another personal attack because the thread is not going the way you want it to.
Originally posted by Robtard
All good, but I:-Didn't discredit the poster (you)
-Didn't discredit the source (even though it was the DM)So you're complaining again because you posted a story without reading it first and it didn't work out for you.
It shows how weak your ideals are.
Originally posted by long pig
Your track record speaks for itself. If you dislike the facts you'll either attack the person who posted the facts, the person who gathered the facts or call the facts racist. But you never actually debate the facts.It shows how weak your ideals are.
More lies. On point, I did not attack anyone here, neither TI, the guy who made the comment nor the source and I directly commented on the immediate topic (having actually read the story unlike others).
You're just trying to flame-troll again. It's gotten old; you need a new shtick, imo. Work on it, if you want more attention.