Candace Owens Twitter account suspended for racist tweets, hahahaha!

[Anonymous]

What's your take on the latest Ohr/Steele/FBI information?

Ohr/Steele/FBI-obsessed PP, can you actually start a thread about it if you want to discuss it, instead of inserting it into a bunch of other threads where it’s off-topic? TIA!

[Anonymous]

And David Duke, the KKK grand wizard, re-tweeted Laura Ingraham, then deleted it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what I just learned? Laura Ingraham, the Republican news anchor, Jeff just held up as a bigot, adopted a child from Guatemala! She welcomed a brown child into her own family. Isn't that wonderful?

Wow, according to her own words, she is complicit in destroying America. I guess that shows how much of her spiel is simply an act to fool the rubes.

Or you're misinterpreting what she means. (But I notice you couldn't make a positive comment about her adopting a brown child.)

And another insult - this time about rubes. The disdain that so many liberals feel for Americans who don't bow down at the altar of liberalism is unreal.

She doesn't leave too much up to interpretation. But by all means, interpret away.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/09/laura-ingraham-fox-news-attacks-immigrants

Instead of reading the Guardian’s interpretation, why not watch her monologue?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5819792860001/?playlist_id=5622526903001#sp=show-clips

The Guardian has taken a snippet from an 11 minute segment and left out the context of her comments.
If you had watched her segment, you would see that she spent that next 10 minutes of her monologue pointing out the crime that illegals (and some who are here legally) commit against citizens in the country. Murder, rape, etc.
She finished by saying that what is “slipping away” is not about race or ethnicity, but the common understanding that American citizenship is a privilege.

The crime rate among immigrants, both legal and illegal, is lower than that of non-immigrant Americans. It's just a reiteration of Trump's "Mexico is sending rapists". And, again, this is just how previous groups of immigrants were criticized. Immigrant groups have always been attacked for bringing crime to this country.

And, if these people were not here illegally, they would not be committing crimes against American citizens. The rate would be even lower.
As far as Mexicans sending us rapists.... while they aren’t all rapists coming, one is too many.....

https://wgno.com/2018/02/16/illegal-alien-charged-with-molesting-and-raping-7-year-old-girl-and-her-mother/

And, then there is the illegal alien from Honduras who is accused of raping a 5 year old.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/philadelphia/sanctuary-city-mcswain-juan-ramon-vasquez-aguirre-ochoa-justice-department-philadelphia-immigration-kenney-krasner-20180808.html

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what I just learned? Laura Ingraham, the Republican news anchor, Jeff just held up as a bigot, adopted a child from Guatemala! She welcomed a brown child into her own family. Isn't that wonderful?

Wow, according to her own words, she is complicit in destroying America. I guess that shows how much of her spiel is simply an act to fool the rubes.

Or you're misinterpreting what she means. (But I notice you couldn't make a positive comment about her adopting a brown child.)

And another insult - this time about rubes. The disdain that so many liberals feel for Americans who don't bow down at the altar of liberalism is unreal.

She doesn't leave too much up to interpretation. But by all means, interpret away.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/09/laura-ingraham-fox-news-attacks-immigrants

Instead of reading the Guardian’s interpretation, why not watch her monologue?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5819792860001/?playlist_id=5622526903001#sp=show-clips

The Guardian has taken a snippet from an 11 minute segment and left out the context of her comments.
If you had watched her segment, you would see that she spent that next 10 minutes of her monologue pointing out the crime that illegals (and some who are here legally) commit against citizens in the country. Murder, rape, etc.
She finished by saying that what is “slipping away” is not about race or ethnicity, but the common understanding that American citizenship is a privilege.

The crime rate among immigrants, both legal and illegal, is lower than that of non-immigrant Americans. It's just a reiteration of Trump's "Mexico is sending rapists". And, again, this is just how previous groups of immigrants were criticized. Immigrant groups have always been attacked for bringing crime to this country.

And, if these people were not here illegally, they would not be committing crimes against American citizens. The rate would be even lower.
As far as Mexicans sending us rapists.... while they aren’t all rapists coming, one is too many.....

https://wgno.com/2018/02/16/illegal-alien-charged-with-molesting-and-raping-7-year-old-girl-and-her-mother/

And, then there is the illegal alien from Honduras who is accused of raping a 5 year old.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/philadelphia/sanctuary-city-mcswain-juan-ramon-vasquez-aguirre-ochoa-justice-department-philadelphia-immigration-kenney-krasner-20180808.html

Ingraham explicitly included legal immigrants. Are you advocating a complete halt on immigration because a small minority commit crimes? Will you take such a maximalist position against any other group? It seems that more than one gun owner commits murder and even one murder is too many. Maybe we should take action against all gun owners?

It may be true that Mexicans have committed rapes. It is not true that they were sent by Mexico. It is certainly not true that more than an extremely small minority are rapists and it is wrong to smear the entire group as such. It is really interesting to see how far you will go to excuse bigotry when it is committed by those with whom you agree -- all the while accusing me of the same thing. Maybe time to take a hard look at yourself?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what I just learned? Laura Ingraham, the Republican news anchor, Jeff just held up as a bigot, adopted a child from Guatemala! She welcomed a brown child into her own family. Isn't that wonderful?

Wow, according to her own words, she is complicit in destroying America. I guess that shows how much of her spiel is simply an act to fool the rubes.

How do you know what she means by massive demographic changes? Maybe she means the effort to import millions and millions of poor, uneducated people and it has nothing to do with race. (Remember, the illegal immigrants forcing their way into this country average a 10th grade education.)

Oh, now who is defending racists? Double standard, double standard. If she said white people were destroying America, you would be outraged.

Immigrants to the US have always been poor and uneducated. That has been the complaint about every single large group of immigrants. It was said about the Irish and about the Italians. Even Trump's own grandfather was a poor uneducated immigrant.

Except she never said brown people were destroying America. She never specified a race at all. All she said was changing demographics. You sure are quick to jump on supposed racism against brown people, which again she never said, and continue to defend blatant anti-white racism. Unreal.

And there has got to be a limit as to how many poor, high school dropouts the country can afford to absorb. That's not racism. That's just pure economics. If you import millions and millions of people who do not pay income taxes, and thus an ever-shrinking percentage at the top has to pay an ever-increasing share, until it all collapses. As it is, half the country is not contributing to the federal government. Should we just keep allowing more and more low-income, uneducated immigrants unable to provide for their families so that it will be 60%? 70%?

Nothing to do with race. The fact is that other developed countries don't throw open their doors to every single poor person with no skills or education, and no demonstrated way to support himself. Even during the Great Immigration, right here, people entering had to show that they would not become a public charge.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what I just learned? Laura Ingraham, the Republican news anchor, Jeff just held up as a bigot, adopted a child from Guatemala! She welcomed a brown child into her own family. Isn't that wonderful?

Wow, according to her own words, she is complicit in destroying America. I guess that shows how much of her spiel is simply an act to fool the rubes.

How do you know what she means by massive demographic changes? Maybe she means the effort to import millions and millions of poor, uneducated people and it has nothing to do with race. (Remember, the illegal immigrants forcing their way into this country average a 10th grade education.)

Oh, now who is defending racists? Double standard, double standard. If she said white people were destroying America, you would be outraged.

Immigrants to the US have always been poor and uneducated. That has been the complaint about every single large group of immigrants. It was said about the Irish and about the Italians. Even Trump's own grandfather was a poor uneducated immigrant.

Except she never said brown people were destroying America. She never specified a race at all. All she said was changing demographics. You sure are quick to jump on supposed racism against brown people, which again she never said, and continue to defend blatant anti-white racism. Unreal.

And there has got to be a limit as to how many poor, high school dropouts the country can afford to absorb. That's not racism. That's just pure economics. If you import millions and millions of people who do not pay income taxes, and thus an ever-shrinking percentage at the top has to pay an ever-increasing share, until it all collapses. As it is, half the country is not contributing to the federal government. Should we just keep allowing more and more low-income, uneducated immigrants unable to provide for their families so that it will be 60%? 70%?

Nothing to do with race. The fact is that other developed countries don't throw open their doors to every single poor person with no skills or education, and no demonstrated way to support himself. Even during the Great Immigration, right here, people entering had to show that they would not become a public charge.

This is a perfect example of whitesplaining. Oh, it's not about race. It's about poor and uneducated folks. Those poor and uneducated just happen to be brown, but nobody ever said brown. One poster mentioned a failure to speak English, so we are really talking about poor, uneducated, non-English speakers, but nobody said brown. As if you would oppose poor, uneducated, non-English speaking Norwegians.

Once again, Ingraham explicitly included legal immigrants among those who are destroying America. What evidence do you have that legal immigrants are overly uneducated and poor? When Ingraham complains about the demographics of legal immigrants, she is talking about skin color and religion. You know that and I know that. You are perfectly comfortable with that sort of bigotry. But, nobody better mock Ingraham, that would be racist.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what I just learned? Laura Ingraham, the Republican news anchor, Jeff just held up as a bigot, adopted a child from Guatemala! She welcomed a brown child into her own family. Isn't that wonderful?

Wow, according to her own words, she is complicit in destroying America. I guess that shows how much of her spiel is simply an act to fool the rubes.

How do you know what she means by massive demographic changes? Maybe she means the effort to import millions and millions of poor, uneducated people and it has nothing to do with race. (Remember, the illegal immigrants forcing their way into this country average a 10th grade education.)

Oh, now who is defending racists? Double standard, double standard. If she said white people were destroying America, you would be outraged.

Immigrants to the US have always been poor and uneducated. That has been the complaint about every single large group of immigrants. It was said about the Irish and about the Italians. Even Trump's own grandfather was a poor uneducated immigrant.

Except she never said brown people were destroying America. She never specified a race at all. All she said was changing demographics. You sure are quick to jump on supposed racism against brown people, which again she never said, and continue to defend blatant anti-white racism. Unreal.

And there has got to be a limit as to how many poor, high school dropouts the country can afford to absorb. That's not racism. That's just pure economics. If you import millions and millions of people who do not pay income taxes, and thus an ever-shrinking percentage at the top has to pay an ever-increasing share, until it all collapses. As it is, half the country is not contributing to the federal government. Should we just keep allowing more and more low-income, uneducated immigrants unable to provide for their families so that it will be 60%? 70%?

Nothing to do with race. The fact is that other developed countries don't throw open their doors to every single poor person with no skills or education, and no demonstrated way to support himself. Even during the Great Immigration, right here, people entering had to show that they would not become a public charge.

This is a perfect example of whitesplaining. Oh, it's not about race. It's about poor and uneducated folks. Those poor and uneducated just happen to be brown, but nobody ever said brown. One poster mentioned a failure to speak English, so we are really talking about poor, uneducated, non-English speakers, but nobody said brown. As if you would oppose poor, uneducated, non-English speaking Norwegians.

Once again, Ingraham explicitly included legal immigrants among those who are destroying America. What evidence do you have that legal immigrants are overly uneducated and poor? When Ingraham complains about the demographics of legal immigrants, she is talking about skin color and religion. You know that and I know that. You are perfectly comfortable with that sort of bigotry. But, nobody better mock Ingraham, that would be racist.

You're the only one here assuming poor and uneducated means brown. Why would you make such a racist leap? Haven't you ever worked with Indians, with their advanced degrees?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what I just learned? Laura Ingraham, the Republican news anchor, Jeff just held up as a bigot, adopted a child from Guatemala! She welcomed a brown child into her own family. Isn't that wonderful?

Wow, according to her own words, she is complicit in destroying America. I guess that shows how much of her spiel is simply an act to fool the rubes.

How do you know what she means by massive demographic changes? Maybe she means the effort to import millions and millions of poor, uneducated people and it has nothing to do with race. (Remember, the illegal immigrants forcing their way into this country average a 10th grade education.)

Oh, now who is defending racists? Double standard, double standard. If she said white people were destroying America, you would be outraged.

Immigrants to the US have always been poor and uneducated. That has been the complaint about every single large group of immigrants. It was said about the Irish and about the Italians. Even Trump's own grandfather was a poor uneducated immigrant.

Except she never said brown people were destroying America. She never specified a race at all. All she said was changing demographics. You sure are quick to jump on supposed racism against brown people, which again she never said, and continue to defend blatant anti-white racism. Unreal.

And there has got to be a limit as to how many poor, high school dropouts the country can afford to absorb. That's not racism. That's just pure economics. If you import millions and millions of people who do not pay income taxes, and thus an ever-shrinking percentage at the top has to pay an ever-increasing share, until it all collapses. As it is, half the country is not contributing to the federal government. Should we just keep allowing more and more low-income, uneducated immigrants unable to provide for their families so that it will be 60%? 70%?

Nothing to do with race. The fact is that other developed countries don't throw open their doors to every single poor person with no skills or education, and no demonstrated way to support himself. Even during the Great Immigration, right here, people entering had to show that they would not become a public charge.

This is a perfect example of whitesplaining. Oh, it's not about race. It's about poor and uneducated folks. Those poor and uneducated just happen to be brown, but nobody ever said brown. One poster mentioned a failure to speak English, so we are really talking about poor, uneducated, non-English speakers, but nobody said brown. As if you would oppose poor, uneducated, non-English speaking Norwegians.

Once again, Ingraham explicitly included legal immigrants among those who are destroying America. What evidence do you have that legal immigrants are overly uneducated and poor? When Ingraham complains about the demographics of legal immigrants, she is talking about skin color and religion. You know that and I know that. You are perfectly comfortable with that sort of bigotry. But, nobody better mock Ingraham, that would be racist.

You're the only one here assuming poor and uneducated means brown. Why would you make such a racist leap? Haven't you ever worked with Indians, with their advanced degrees?

You can be sure that Ingraham objects to Indians changing our demographics as well. But, please tell me which poor and uneducated immigrants are destroying America and then we will figure out their skin color.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what I just learned? Laura Ingraham, the Republican news anchor, Jeff just held up as a bigot, adopted a child from Guatemala! She welcomed a brown child into her own family. Isn't that wonderful?

Wow, according to her own words, she is complicit in destroying America. I guess that shows how much of her spiel is simply an act to fool the rubes.

How do you know what she means by massive demographic changes? Maybe she means the effort to import millions and millions of poor, uneducated people and it has nothing to do with race. (Remember, the illegal immigrants forcing their way into this country average a 10th grade education.)

Oh, now who is defending racists? Double standard, double standard. If she said white people were destroying America, you would be outraged.

Immigrants to the US have always been poor and uneducated. That has been the complaint about every single large group of immigrants. It was said about the Irish and about the Italians. Even Trump's own grandfather was a poor uneducated immigrant.

Except she never said brown people were destroying America. She never specified a race at all. All she said was changing demographics. You sure are quick to jump on supposed racism against brown people, which again she never said, and continue to defend blatant anti-white racism. Unreal.

And there has got to be a limit as to how many poor, high school dropouts the country can afford to absorb. That's not racism. That's just pure economics. If you import millions and millions of people who do not pay income taxes, and thus an ever-shrinking percentage at the top has to pay an ever-increasing share, until it all collapses. As it is, half the country is not contributing to the federal government. Should we just keep allowing more and more low-income, uneducated immigrants unable to provide for their families so that it will be 60%? 70%?

Nothing to do with race. The fact is that other developed countries don't throw open their doors to every single poor person with no skills or education, and no demonstrated way to support himself. Even during the Great Immigration, right here, people entering had to show that they would not become a public charge.

This is a perfect example of whitesplaining. Oh, it's not about race. It's about poor and uneducated folks. Those poor and uneducated just happen to be brown, but nobody ever said brown. One poster mentioned a failure to speak English, so we are really talking about poor, uneducated, non-English speakers, but nobody said brown. As if you would oppose poor, uneducated, non-English speaking Norwegians.

Once again, Ingraham explicitly included legal immigrants among those who are destroying America. What evidence do you have that legal immigrants are overly uneducated and poor? When Ingraham complains about the demographics of legal immigrants, she is talking about skin color and religion. You know that and I know that. You are perfectly comfortable with that sort of bigotry. But, nobody better mock Ingraham, that would be racist.

You're the only one here assuming poor and uneducated means brown. Why would you make such a racist leap? Haven't you ever worked with Indians, with their advanced degrees?

You can be sure that Ingraham objects to Indians changing our demographics as well. But, please tell me which poor and uneducated immigrants are destroying America and then we will figure out their skin color.

Their skin color is completely irrelevant. You're trying SO HARD prove that non-liberals are racist! You are twisting around every bit as much to prove that the "other side" is racist as you did earlier in the thread to prove that "your side" (aka the NYT and Jeong) is not.

Makes no difference to me what color skin someone has. I just want educated people coming here (or at least high school graduates) who will be a net positive to our country. Trying to build up an underclass is not in America's best interest.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Their skin color is completely irrelevant. You're trying SO HARD prove that non-liberals are racist! You are twisting around every bit as much to prove that the "other side" is racist as you did earlier in the thread to prove that "your side" (aka the NYT and Jeong) is not.

Makes no difference to me what color skin someone has. I just want educated people coming here (or at least high school graduates) who will be a net positive to our country. Trying to build up an underclass is not in America's best interest.

Why is it that you repeatedly ignore that Ingraham included legal immigrants among those she is saying are destroying America? Are you arguing that legal immigrants are predominately uneducated and are creating an underclass? Moreover, Ingraham never even brought up the financial status or education of immigrants. She just ranted about crime, which again is lower among immigrants than among non-Immigrant Americans.

It's funny that in your effort to defend Ingraham, you have to invent an entirely new argument that she didn't make.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what I just learned? Laura Ingraham, the Republican news anchor, Jeff just held up as a bigot, adopted a child from Guatemala! She welcomed a brown child into her own family. Isn't that wonderful?

Wow, according to her own words, she is complicit in destroying America. I guess that shows how much of her spiel is simply an act to fool the rubes.

Or you're misinterpreting what she means. (But I notice you couldn't make a positive comment about her adopting a brown child.)

And another insult - this time about rubes. The disdain that so many liberals feel for Americans who don't bow down at the altar of liberalism is unreal.

She doesn't leave too much up to interpretation. But by all means, interpret away.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/09/laura-ingraham-fox-news-attacks-immigrants

Instead of reading the Guardian’s interpretation, why not watch her monologue?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5819792860001/?playlist_id=5622526903001#sp=show-clips

The Guardian has taken a snippet from an 11 minute segment and left out the context of her comments.
If you had watched her segment, you would see that she spent that next 10 minutes of her monologue pointing out the crime that illegals (and some who are here legally) commit against citizens in the country. Murder, rape, etc.
She finished by saying that what is “slipping away” is not about race or ethnicity, but the common understanding that American citizenship is a privilege.

The crime rate among immigrants, both legal and illegal, is lower than that of non-immigrant Americans. It's just a reiteration of Trump's "Mexico is sending rapists". And, again, this is just how previous groups of immigrants were criticized. Immigrant groups have always been attacked for bringing crime to this country.

And, if these people were not here illegally, they would not be committing crimes against American citizens. The rate would be even lower.
As far as Mexicans sending us rapists.... while they aren’t all rapists coming, one is too many.....

https://wgno.com/2018/02/16/illegal-alien-charged-with-molesting-and-raping-7-year-old-girl-and-her-mother/

And, then there is the illegal alien from Honduras who is accused of raping a 5 year old.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/philadelphia/sanctuary-city-mcswain-juan-ramon-vasquez-aguirre-ochoa-justice-department-philadelphia-immigration-kenney-krasner-20180808.html

Ingraham explicitly included legal immigrants. Are you advocating a complete halt on immigration because a small minority commit crimes? Will you take such a maximalist position against any other group? It seems that more than one gun owner commits murder and even one murder is too many. Maybe we should take action against all gun owners?

It may be true that Mexicans have committed rapes. It is not true that they were sent by Mexico. It is certainly not true that more than an extremely small minority are rapists and it is wrong to smear the entire group as such. It is really interesting to see how far you will go to excuse bigotry when it is committed by those with whom you agree -- all the while accusing me of the same thing. Maybe time to take a hard look at yourself?

And, her example of legal immigrants was the Iraqi refugee allowed into the country under Obama who killed a police officer.
I have no problem with legal immigration - as long as those entering are vetted carefully and found to be capable of supporting themselves.
My issue with those coming from Mexico and through Mexico are not the legal immigrants. It is the illegal aliens from ANY country.
I have said it before - illegal immigration is more than a “social” issue. It is an economic issue and more importantly, a national security issue. If we don’t know who is entering the country, how do we know what the intent of those entering is? Unfortunately, I believe it will take another 9-11 type event for our country to get serious about securing our borders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a good example of what I mean by Jeong turning a mirror on white people:

December 22, 2014, Andrew Sullivan defending "The Bell Curve" -- "...Airing taboo stuff and examining and critiquing it has been a running feature of this blog from its beginnings. It is an axiom of mine that anything can be examined and debated... So I responded to the race and IQ controversy exactly as I would any other: put it all on the table and let the facts and arguments take us."

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "G O T T A H E A R B O T H S I D E S" —Andrew Sullivan"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Let's hear both sides!"

Ironically, the second tweet was used by Sullivan last week to show that Jeong was racist.

The problem with this, is she incriminated all white people rather than just Sullivan. Do all white people think exactly like Sullivan?

She isn't incriminating anybody. She's examining amd critiquing the idea for debate, just like Sullivan did with the Bell Curve. Don't you want to hear both sides? You don't want to live in an echo chamber.

We've heard both sides. Jeff has put forth one weak argument after another - with it basically boiling down to "it's OK to be say awful things about white people - like they should be "cancelled" - because they are not in actual danger of being cancelled (with the further ridiculous implication that black people are).

if the NYT wants to keep an anti-white racist on the editorial staff (while firing an anti-black racist for the identical infractions) and liberals want to twist themselves into a pretzel to explain why racism is OK when it's directed against whites, so be it. But they lose a lot of credibility when they turn around and then attack anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal skewed thinking as being racist themselves.

Couldn't agree more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP right above, your very good response got lost in the quote.

To reiterate, Jeff has cherry-picked a couple of tweets to redirect this discussion away from the fact that this racist went on a 2-year spree of tweeting angry, hostile comments about white people.

And by the way, did Jeff every apologize for telling that poster she was wrong about her 2-year tweeting spree? He said it was a false accusation, and he was proven wrong.

Show us, Jeff, that you can admit when you're wrong.

It's hilarious that you accuse me of cherry-picking when the entire attack on Jeong has been based on cherry-picking. You do realize that tweet was one that Candace Owens chose to modify and tweet, resulting in this thread. It was also one that Sullivan used in his attack on Jeong, apparently not realizing that it was lampooning him. I guess when Owens or Sullivan select a tweet completely out of context, it is fine with you. When I choose the same tweet, it's cherry-picking.

Moreover, I did not tell a poster that she was wrong about a 2-year tweeting spree. I asked her to present evidence to support her allegation. I did not say it was a false accusation, but rather I said that if she could not support her accusation, I would delete it for being false. So, now you should apologize for making false allegations about me.

You said proved proof that she tweeted over two years or I will delete your post because it is false. She proved it was NOT false, and you are STILL unable to say "sorry, you were right." Have you ever admitted to a conservative that you were wrong about anything, at any time, over all these years?

Yes, I frequently admit being wrong. In this case, the original allegation is that she had tweeted hateful tweets for years. Two years is technically "years" I guess, so that part is true. However, I still dispute that the tweets were hateful. I think the tweets were sarcasm and mockery and not motivated by hate, but rather as a means of making a point.

Her hateful, sorry - “sarcastic and mocking” tweets continue into 2017.

They were shown to have started in 2013, according to that earlier link. So yes, for YEARS she has been spewing racist tweets. But they're so funny!

[Anonymous]

And now Candace Owens has defended Hitler in a speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/08/one-trumps-most-vocal-black-supporters-seemed-defend-hitler-recent-speech/?utm_term=.18608f3fda17

“If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine,” Candace Owens told a London audience. “The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany."

So, according to her, if only Hitler had kept his genocidal Holocaust within the borders of Germany, everything would have been fine!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And now Candace Owens has defended Hitler in a speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/08/one-trumps-most-vocal-black-supporters-seemed-defend-hitler-recent-speech/?utm_term=.18608f3fda17

“If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine,” Candace Owens told a London audience. “The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany."

So, according to her, if only Hitler had kept his genocidal Holocaust within the borders of Germany, everything would have been fine!

Nice clip! Now maybe you could show the rest of what she said? Here:

Hitler was "a homicidal, psychotic maniac" and there is "no excuse or defense ever for ... everything that he did," she clarified.

Her comments were meant to show that Hitler was not a nationalist, she said. Hitler did not put Germans first; he "was putting German Jews into concentration camps and murdering — he was a mass murderer," she said.

She dismissed critics who said her comments meant that Hitler could have been great if he had just focused on Germany: "No, I'm saying Hitler wasn't a nationalist."