Comments by "sharper68" (@sharper68) on "Leftist Masterminds Behind East Coast Blizzard Says Rightist Mastermind" video.

  1. ***** Thanks for the advice but when all you serve is shit it is hard to take you seriously at all. 
    2
  2. ***** You are incorrect ... but that is pretty normal for you.  At least you are consistent. 
    1
  3. ***** I have done so time and again to no effect with you.  You do not have facts to back any of our assertions as normal and just spout nonsense like it is truth.  You too are just stating an opinion and like 9 out of 10 times I have seen you do so your spin is fringe racist drivel.
    1
  4. ***** Please outline what you consider a neutral source.  I suspect you do not use them.  All valid claims made on wikipedia are cited and backed up.  If the claims made are bogus and the reference does not work out then the assertion can be discounted. You can not just dismiss information from there with a wave of your hand, it requires some research.  Nazi is a well understand term and the "national socialists" were hard core right wing.  Your spin if false and weak and you have refuted nothing.  What we have learned about those who make sweeping generalizations about a race is they are full of shit and should be ignored or called out as the backward knuckle draggers they are
    1
  5. ***** Please provide references to this extended source material as I have never read anything that validates your spin that was not from a crack pot fringe group. Your spin is not supported by anything I have ever seen and naked revisionist claptrap. 
    1
  6. ***** It could be false but the fact is you dismiss it as a tactic without supplying the sources that drive your spin.  Nazi is a well understood term that is defined correctly in Wikipedia from valid sources and represents the standard definition.  Unless you have sources that dispute this information your assertion it is false is empty hot air.  If someone says Nazism is driven by global warming and there is nothing to back it then that assertion will be highlighted as needing a citation.  The reader should then determine if it is not valid or not based on that. Again I ask for sources that drive what your definition is,  I will be waiting. 
    1
  7. ***** I have no idea what you are talking about. There are citations through out that entire article that back up the definitions of the words used.   It is open source but the citiation system within it leaves the data open to be confirmed.  In this case the citations are intact and I challenge you refute them or back down from your position.  It is not wrong and it does not matter if you agree or not unless you can give another source that counters what it says.  Muddying the waters with your spin is nothing but an attempt to invalidate the commonly excepted definitions for the words used.  This is now a business as usual tactic I see used by the right. I consistently see people who agree with you blindly and completely misrepresenting common terms to serve a partisan spin with nothing to back them up at all. 
    1
  8. ***** The information in the post is cited further down if you continue to read it.  The definitions associated with all these terms are properly referenced and if you follow the links the claims are validated. I do not accept anonymous assertions that are unsupported from anyone.  When you make the claim the information is not to be trusted that is your right/  To make it stick and be anything more than your opinion you must make assertions of your own and apply the same standard you demand from these ones. I am not asking you to hold your nose but do some additional research and see nothing that is said here is out of line. If you imagine there are elements that are incorrect I would be interested in knowing what exactly you object to.  Open source references like Wikipedia should always be viewed skeptically. That does not mean they are of no value unless you can refute them.  Blithe dismissal is never an argument. 
    1
  9. ***** Good, because you do not have a point or a valid criticism.  Any education or a even basic attempt at doing some independent research (out side the right wing propaganda machine) validates it.  You are not an honest broker in this debate anyway.  Your views are not based on data but instead your favorite spin and you only look at or accept information that validates you.  You and those like you are guilty of this and it is the only reason you can make the assertions you do with a strait face.  Do not pretend to be high minded on this issue as your pretense at valuing cited information is a sham. 
    1
  10. ***** I know, that is a good thing because you can not.  See ya ..
    1
  11. ***** You have done nothing of the kind except try to make a pseudo intellectual arguments about citations (you do not value in your own assertions).  All you are really doing is just naked justification to ignore information you do not like.  Nothing more ..
    1
  12. ***** You are still incorrectly asserting it has to be cleaned at all.  You have not even made a real claim against it.  I do not think there is anything to do but then  do not have your revised bubble spin about what Nazi's were. 
    1