White House defends Trump Holocaust statement that didn't mention Jews

[boutons_deux]

The White House has defended its omission of Jews and antisemitism (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/27/white-house-holocaust-remembrance-day-no-jews) from a statement remembering the Holocaust by saying that Donald Trump’s administration “took into account all of those who suffered”.

On International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Friday, the White House made no mention of Jews (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/27/white-house-holocaust-remembrance-day-no-jews), Judaism or the antisemitism that fueled Nazi Germany’s mass murder of six million Jews in the 1940s.

In its original statement, the White House said: “It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust (https://www.theguardian.com/world/holocaust). It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/28/white-house-defends-trump-holocaust-statement-that-didnt-mention-jews?CMP=fb_gu

Anti-semites, racists, white Christian male nationalists Bannon and Miller, most probably.

So I guess Adelson and other wealthy Jews who donated to, support Trash are happy?

[Thread]

Oh, fuck, if you don't make a movie, or, kiss their ass every year it's the livin' end.

Get over it. It's debatable if there actually were 6 million Jews in Europe at the time.

[Splits]

Oh, fuck, if you don't make a movie, or, kiss their ass every year it's the livin' end.

Get over it. It's debatable if there actually were 6 million Jews in Europe at the time.

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Ahmadenijad-Holocaust-Denial-Finest-Act-Says-Outgoing-Iranian-President.jpg

[Clipper Nation]

If Trump had mentioned Jews, the media would have criticized him for ignoring the plight of all the other minority groups that were victimized by the Holocaust (and there were many others).

[monosylab1k]

If Trump had mentioned Jews, the media would have criticized him for ignoring the plight of all the other minority groups that were victimized by the Holocaust (and there were many others).

This. Even as someone who is fairly anti-Trump, it's bullshit that he can't even offer a tribute to fucking Holocaust victims without people dissecting and criticizing it.

[boutons_deux]

This. Even as someone who is fairly anti-Trump, it's bullshit that he can't even offer a tribute to fucking Holocaust victims without people dissecting and criticizing it.

bullshit, the announcement could have mentioned all the main groups that Nazis murdered, which were essentially Jews and Roma.

It was intentionally anti-Semitic (et, Bannon) NOT to mention Jews as has been the tradition.

I give these toxic assholes absolutely no benefit of the doubt.

[Clipper Nation]

bullshit, the announcement could have mentioned all the main groups that Nazis murdered, which were essentially Jews and Roma.
And Slavs, and Soviets, and prisoners of war, and people of color, and homosexuals, and the mentally and physically disabled, and Jehova's Witnesses, etc., etc.

Trump gave an all-inclusive statement to avoid leaving anyone out and the media still found an excuse to complain. Then they wonder why they're hated and distrusted by the public.


I give these toxic assholes absolutely no benefit of the doubt.
Of course you don't, they have an (R) next to their names.

[baseline bum]

Oh, fuck, if you don't make a movie, or, kiss their ass every year it's the livin' end.

Get over it. It's debatable if there actually were 6 million Jews in Europe at the time.

Holy fuck, you're a holocaust denier too? :lmao

[Thread]

Holy fuck, you're a holocaust denier too? :lmao

Just checkin' assholes.

[baseline bum]

Just checkin' assholes.

So you don't believe six million Jews were gassed by your boy Hitler?

[Spur_Fanatic]

Actually, I'm with Trump on this one (I'm shocked!)

Not only jews died in those death camps.

[Mark Celibate]

This. Even as someone who is fairly anti-Trump, it's bullshit that he can't even offer a tribute to fucking Holocaust victims without people dissecting and criticizing it.

Politics are simply confirmation bias. Everyone picks a side and then waits to get drawn offsides whenever the other guy makes a move while shaping it to their preconceived notion.

I guess it's the same for anything including sports. If some fan thinks Player A is a chucker, even if the player makes 1000 shots in a row, they will wait until he misses the 1001st shot and then say ":lol chucker". It's just that politics are the most polarizing. Can't believe this Left vs Right bread and circus has gone on for so long.

[boutons_deux]

Popular vote loser, toxic "malignant narcissist" Trash and his asshole team are not NORMAL, not to be normalized.

[Clipper Nation]

Popular vote loser, toxic "malignant narcissist" Trash and his asshole team are not NORMAL, not to be normalized.
If I wanted to know if something or someone is normal, you are one of the last people on the planet I'd ever ask.

[ElNono]

The criticism is indeed bullshit. But let's not pretend this is the first President that gets his speeches microanalyzed and blown out of context. That's been actually the norm lately, tbh, heck, Breitbart/daily caller has made a living off that, and so has Salon, etc.

[Trainwreck2100]

The only take away from this is threads a holocaust denier. This is such a stupid non issue

[monosylab1k]

Just checkin' assholes.

Only pussies & asshole deny the Holocaust.

[Clipper Nation]

The criticism is indeed bullshit. But let's not pretend this is the first President that gets his speeches microanalyzed and blown out of context. That's been actually the norm lately, tbh, heck, Breitbart/daily caller has made a living off that, and so has Salon, etc.
Of course partisan sites like Salon and Breitbart are going to nitpick everything that the opposing party says and does - that's why they exist. It'd be one thing if that kind of shit was confined to the partisan blogosphere where it can easily be ignored.

The real issue is that the legacy media is indistinguishable from Salon when it comes to Republicans, but they barely scrutinize Democrats at all. So every fake controversy that Democrats make up about Trump becomes headline news all over the country and the world while the Republican equivalents rarely ever gain traction outside of Breitbart and similar outlets.

[ElNono]

Of course partisan sites like Salon and Breitbart are going to nitpick everything that the opposing party says and does - that's why they exist. It'd be one thing if that kind of shit was confined to the partisan blogosphere where it can easily be ignored.

The real issue is that the legacy media is indistinguishable from Salon when it comes to Republicans, but they barely scrutinize Democrats at all. So every fake controversy that Democrats make up about Trump becomes headline news all over the country and the world while the Republican equivalents rarely ever gain traction outside of Breitbart and similar outlets.

I don't disagree that's been a free for all, tbh, but I think the fact that the blogosphere has become the model for traditional media in some ways, speaks more about the consumers than the media themselves. And it's a real shame in a lot of ways.

It's all within a context of rapidly changing technology too. A lot of traditional media had to make strong changes because they were a dying breed. It's clear sensationalism and catering to certain demographics is much more important than journalistic integrity.

But the question ultimately is, are consumers getting what they want? In this polarized point in time, apparently they are.

[Clipper Nation]

I don't disagree that's been a free for all, tbh, but I think the fact that the blogosphere has become the model for traditional media in some ways, speaks more about the consumers than the media themselves. And it's a real shame in a lot of ways.

It's all within a context of rapidly changing technology too. A lot of traditional media had to make strong changes because they were a dying breed. It's clear sensationalism and catering to certain demographics is much more important than journalistic integrity.

But the question ultimately is, are consumers getting what they want? In this polarized point in time, apparently they are.
Well, it depends on how you define the consumers getting what they want. To me, that varies based on what you expect going into a certain outlet. If I'm reading Breitbart or Salon, I expect a blatant partisan slant going in. Chances are, I'm reading it because I want to know how one side or the other feels about current events. But with a legacy outlet like the New York Times or WaPo, I expect hard news and a level of professionalism that lives up to their lofty reputations. I don't want a one-sided narrative shoved down my throat at all times. I don't want reporters colluding with a certain party. I don't want to have to read partisan blogs to know what's going on in the world because the legacy media ignores or lies about stories that are inconvenient to a certain party. I'd imagine many people feel the same way.

If the media's approval ratings are any indication, the only people who are getting what they want from the media right now are partisan Democrats:

http://i.imgur.com/zrHE2pK.jpg

[Thread]

So you don't believe six million Jews were gassed by your boy Hitler?

No, I don't.

[Thread]

Actually, I'm with Trump on this one (I'm shocked!)

Not only jews died in those death camps.

The Fanny

[Fabbs]

Can a safe zone be established for those ruffled by Trumps not specifically mentioning Jews?

[DarrinS]

Nothing to defend, tbh. This is possibly the most innocuous statement ever made by Lord Orange.

[baseline bum]

Nothing to defend, tbh. This is possibly the most innocuous statement ever made by Lord Orange.

True, but cubby denying six million Jews were gassed is pretty disgusting.

[DarrinS]

True, but cubby denying six million Jews were gassed is pretty disgusting.

Yeah, I saw that. Wtf?

[Thread]

True, but cubby denying six million Jews were gassed is pretty disgusting.

Anytime you want to do something about it speak up and we'll go. I've takin' all the guff from you that I'm takin'. We're a snake & mongoose here on in.

[Thread]

Yeah, I saw that. Wtf?

Nobody leads Cubby around by the fuckin' nose. Nice square fucking number is hammered up our asses for decades. I see the symbolism, where's the substance? And I ain't talkin' about that pic of Hitler dancin' around likes he's doing the jig.

[boutons_deux]

Protests Are Winning As Desperate Trump Issues Statement Blaming Obama For His Muslim Ban


The protests against Trump's Muslim ban are having an impact on the White House as the President has released a statement defending his executive order.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/29/protests-winning-desperate-trump-issues-statement-blaming-obama-muslim-ban.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

As Flip Wilson would say, "da black debbil made me doit"

[boutons_deux]

Trump lashes out at ‘sadly weak’ McCain and Graham because they criticized his immigration order

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/trump-lashes-out-at-sadly-weak-mccain-and-graham-because-they-criticized-his-immigration-order/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

and Bitch McConnell says "We don't have religious test for immigrants"

Senate conviction looking better, it won't take long

[ElNono]

Well, it depends on how you define the consumers getting what they want. To me, that varies based on what you expect going into a certain outlet. If I'm reading Breitbart or Salon, I expect a blatant partisan slant going in. Chances are, I'm reading it because I want to know how one side or the other feels about current events. But with a legacy outlet like the New York Times or WaPo, I expect hard news and a level of professionalism that lives up to their lofty reputations. I don't want a one-sided narrative shoved down my throat at all times. I don't want reporters colluding with a certain party. I don't want to have to read partisan blogs to know what's going on in the world because the legacy media ignores or lies about stories that are inconvenient to a certain party. I'd imagine many people feel the same way.

If the media's approval ratings are any indication, the only people who are getting what they want from the media right now are partisan Democrats:

http://i.imgur.com/zrHE2pK.jpg

NYTimes went paywalled a while ago. I don't know how WaPo operates, but they're owned by Amazon now, right?

I mean, ultimately it became increasingly obvious that money trumped journalistic integrity. At some point the newscasters, instead of the news, became the stars of the shows. That's terrible if you ask me. It's a world of political pundits doing 24/7 op'eds right now. But, it must sell. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

[baseline bum]

Anytime you want to do something about it speak up and we'll go. I've takin' all the guff from you that I'm takin'. We're a snake & mongoose here on in.

How many Jews did Hitler kill?

[spurraider21]

Well, it depends on how you define the consumers getting what they want. To me, that varies based on what you expect going into a certain outlet. If I'm reading Breitbart or Salon, I expect a blatant partisan slant going in. Chances are, I'm reading it because I want to know how one side or the other feels about current events. But with a legacy outlet like the New York Times or WaPo, I expect hard news and a level of professionalism that lives up to their lofty reputations. I don't want a one-sided narrative shoved down my throat at all times. I don't want reporters colluding with a certain party. I don't want to have to read partisan blogs to know what's going on in the world because the legacy media ignores or lies about stories that are inconvenient to a certain party. I'd imagine many people feel the same way.

If the media's approval ratings are any indication, the only people who are getting what they want from the media right now are partisan Democrats:

http://i.imgur.com/zrHE2pK.jpg:lmao relying on polls
:lmao libcucks still taking polls seriously
:lmao you never learn

[Thread]

How many Jews did Hitler kill?

Less than 6 million.

[DMC]

I don't disagree that's been a free for all, tbh, but I think the fact that the blogosphere has become the model for traditional media in some ways, speaks more about the consumers than the media themselves. And it's a real shame in a lot of ways.

I agree, but the change is that consumers see a product that's just as trustworthy yet more entertaining coming from blogosphere than MSM. It's because many have fallen off the trail due to the slant from either side.
Go look at CNN.. all Trump bashing with maybe a dissenting piece for sake of "fairness". Go to Fox news, just the opposite. It's all Trump praising except the one piece from a "liberal". If someone is telling you the weather is sunny and another is saying it's stormy, you might as well just disregard the weather reports and dress how it suits you.


It's all within a context of rapidly changing technology too. A lot of traditional media had to make strong changes because they were a dying breed. It's clear sensationalism and catering to certain demographics is much more important than journalistic integrity.

Click count is more important. Since money started flowing for clicks, everything went to shit. MSM now is just the modern day ".99" gimmick that stores use to fool the mind into not seeing the actual price "hey it's below 20.00! 19.99!" It's done with almost all retail pricing. Now it's the clickbait titles "You won't believe what happens next!" and "ARE MOBILE PHONES NEXT?" in >70 font size, flashing red banner above it with another headline that's also not really newsworthy.. but look at how large the font is! It must be important if it takes the entire page!


But the question ultimately is, are consumers getting what they want? In this polarized point in time, apparently they are.
That shouldn't be the question. The news shouldn't be consumer driven insofar as what they report. What if the weather was like that?

[DMC]

:lmao relying on polls
:lmao libcucks still taking polls seriously
:lmao you never learn

Philo getting his passive aggressive/neutral stance on; lobbing attacks from the safety of neutrality.

Careful Philo, you might appear to pick a lane!

[baseline bum]

Less than 6 million.

5,999,999 Jews?

[Thread]

5,999,999 Jews?

bum

[leemajors]

Thread flailing, so sad

[Thread]

Thread flailing, so sad

This is twixt bum & I, Heath. Get out of it.

[leemajors]

This is twixt bum & I, Heath. Get out of it.

Not sure what that means, fucko but I ain't heath and you're twisting in the wind on the tree of woe.

[Thread]

Not sure what that means, fucko but I ain't heath and you're twisting in the wind on the tree of woe.

That means the barn in on fire and mother wants you to get up offin' Audra & tend it.

[leemajors]

That means the barn in on fire and mother wants you to get up offin' Audra & tend it.

Ok avante

[Thread]

Ok avante

I'm honored to be likened to A.

[ElNono]

I agree, but the change is that consumers see a product that's just as trustworthy yet more entertaining coming from blogosphere than MSM. It's because many have fallen off the trail due to the slant from either side.
Go look at CNN.. all Trump bashing with maybe a dissenting piece for sake of "fairness". Go to Fox news, just the opposite. It's all Trump praising except the one piece from a "liberal". If someone is telling you the weather is sunny and another is saying it's stormy, you might as well just disregard the weather reports and dress how it suits you.

Click count is more important. Since money started flowing for clicks, everything went to shit. MSM now is just the modern day ".99" gimmick that stores use to fool the mind into not seeing the actual price "hey it's below 20.00! 19.99!" It's done with almost all retail pricing. Now it's the clickbait titles "You won't believe what happens next!" and "ARE MOBILE PHONES NEXT?" in >70 font size, flashing red banner above it with another headline that's also not really newsworthy.. but look at how large the font is! It must be important if it takes the entire page!

That shouldn't be the question. The news shouldn't be consumer driven insofar as what they report. What if the weather was like that?

I completely agree. There's a dichotomy here where the consumer is really the loser, but at the same time, the consumer also actively seeks the CNNs and FOXes of the world.

I read not that long ago a somewhat provoking analysis that the reason there's a free/ad model for news is basically because they're subsidized by being the direct conduits for certain corporations/interests. And it's an analysis that makes a lot of sense to me in retrospect.

Like I said before, the actual news should be the star, not the newscasters or the medium they come through. It's unfortunate that what appears in high demand right now is more op-eds than actual news. It's like a good portion of consumers want somebody else to think for them, I don't really get it.

[UZER]

I completely agree. There's a dichotomy here where the consumer is really the loser, but at the same time, the consumer also actively seeks the CNNs and FOXes of the world.

I read not that long ago a somewhat provoking analysis that the reason there's a free/ad model for news is basically because they're subsidized by being the direct conduits for certain corporations/interests. And it's an analysis that makes a lot of sense to me in retrospect.

Like I said before, the actual news should be the star, not the newscasters or the medium they come through. It's unfortunate that what appears in high demand right now is more op-eds than actual news. It's like a good portion of consumers want somebody else to think for them, I don't really get it.

Sounds like you're describing ESPN

[Th'Pusher]

I agree, but the change is that consumers see a product that's just as trustworthy yet more entertaining coming from blogosphere than MSM. It's because many have fallen off the trail due to the slant from either side.
Go look at CNN.. all Trump bashing with maybe a dissenting piece for sake of "fairness". Go to Fox news, just the opposite. It's all Trump praising except the one piece from a "liberal". If someone is telling you the weather is sunny and another is saying it's stormy, you might as well just disregard the weather reports and dress how it suits you.

Click count is more important. Since money started flowing for clicks, everything went to shit. MSM now is just the modern day ".99" gimmick that stores use to fool the mind into not seeing the actual price "hey it's below 20.00! 19.99!" It's done with almost all retail pricing. Now it's the clickbait titles "You won't believe what happens next!" and "ARE MOBILE PHONES NEXT?" in >70 font

That shouldn't be the question. The news shouldn't be consumer driven insofar as what they report. What if the weather was like that?

The problem is the profit motive doesn't work when you're peddling real news.

[Thread]

The problem is the profit motive doesn't work when you're peddling real news.

The Pusher

[ElNono]

Sounds like you're describing ESPN

ESPN followed the model. It's clear that's what keeps them afloat.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NYTimes went paywalled a while ago. I don't know how WaPo operates, but they're owned by Amazon now, right?

I mean, ultimately it became increasingly obvious that money trumped journalistic integrity. At some point the newscasters, instead of the news, became the stars of the shows. That's terrible if you ask me. It's a world of political pundits doing 24/7 op'eds right now. But, it must sell. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

Cable news with Fox and CNN is a more recent phenomenon. They pioneered the celeb talking head particularly Fox. The main issue has been Fox and then the alt-right's steady propaganda about MSM and to only trust them. Combine that with Ailes and now Bannon being in key posts of the GOP and it is what it is.

When it boils down to it, while there are quite a few celeb talking head venues, not all of them are like that particularly when it comes to the written press. Then of course when you study the veracity of their reporting it ends up being the GOP outlets that are the least adherent to the truth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I read not that long ago a somewhat provoking analysis that the reason there's a free/ad model for news is basically because they're subsidized by being the direct conduits for certain corporations/interests. And it's an analysis that makes a lot of sense to me in retrospect.

The major outlets are more than conduits. The interests now own the outlet for the most part.

ABC is run by Disney/ESPN. NBC by Comcast. CBS is owned by Westinghouse. CNN by Turner enterprises. Fox by the GOP.

Christian media, western liberal, the old smoke filled room society, southern liberal, and the conservative party respectively.

[ElNono]

The major outlets are more than conduits. The interests now own the outlet for the most part.

ABC is run by Disney/ESPN. NBC by Comcast. CBS is owned by Westinghouse. CNN by Turner enterprises. Fox by the GOP.

Christian media, western liberal, the old smoke filled room society, southern liberal, and the conservative party respectively.

There has always been owners, but journalistic integrity was more or less there. You see a guy like Greenwald right now, whom you might agree or not, but he's basically an outcast.

At this point though, everything has become so politicized, it's kinda surreal. It used to be that you could go to the BBC or Der Spiegel or El Mundo and get some views from the outside world, but these days it's extremely difficult to get a read from those places.

[ElNono]

This is a worthwhile read though, IMO:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/letter-from-washington-how-america-lost-its-identity-a-1131294.html

[baseline bum]

There has always been owners, but journalistic integrity was more or less there. You see a guy like Greenwald right now, whom you might agree or not, but he's basically an outcast.

At this point though, everything has become so politicized, it's kinda surreal. It used to be that you could go to the BBC or Der Spiegel or El Mundo and get some views from the outside world, but these days it's extremely difficult to get a read from those places.

Herman and Chomsky made a pretty good case the American media was shit in the 1980s too.

https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

How many Jews did Hitler kill?

Official Red Cross stats put the real number around 150,000 died in the POW/work camps.

[Winehole23]

arguendo, is that not a pogrom of shocking magnitude?

[baseline bum]

Official Red Cross stats put the real number around 150,000 died in the POW/work camps.

:lmao OK Goebbels

[boutons_deux]

:lmao OK Goebbels

speaking of Goebbels

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/15/brunhilde-pomsel-nazi-joseph-goebbels-propaganda-machine?CMP=fb_gu

[DMC]

I completely agree. There's a dichotomy here where the consumer is really the loser, but at the same time, the consumer also actively seeks the CNNs and FOXes of the world.

In the same way they seek other venues that are main stream, like eating at McDonald's. It's easy, quick and cheap. When a person turns on their TV to watch news, they can get several CNN channels and perhaps a couple Fox channels, and folks are still accustomed to that one person, the news anchor, telling them what's going on. During the Iraq war (Desert Storm), it began to be theater. It probably started before that but I didn't keep up with it because I was in the military. Then you had Geraldo fucking Rivera embedded during Iraqi Freedom. Dude was a Jerry Springer type who created sensationalism through reality TV stunts. It went downhill from that period. Now it's just a huge fucking show.


I read not that long ago a somewhat provoking analysis that the reason there's a free/ad model for news is basically because they're subsidized by being the direct conduits for certain corporations/interests. And it's an analysis that makes a lot of sense to me in retrospect.

People want to live out their lives insulated from the reality of the rest of the world. They want filtered news, which is why you have things like "E" and you are able to pick your narrative for your life. If you fundamentally believe in conservatism, you might pick Fox. If you believe in liberalism, whether fad or not, you might pick any other news station. They might all report the same event, but they present "news" like a series of opinion pieces. Rarely will you see a list of simple facts not laced with innuendo and "what if" type scenarios that all get conflated into an actual discussion, as if they really happened.


Like I said before, the actual news should be the star, not the newscasters or the medium they come through. It's unfortunate that what appears in high demand right now is more op-eds than actual news. It's like a good portion of consumers want somebody else to think for them, I don't really get it.
The truth is the population doesn't need to know most of the shit that gets reported, but they do have a right to know. The onus is on the reader to gather facts if they truly want to be informed but media moguls know the majority of them will take the first line of text as truth and run with it. They didn't create that condition, they just capitalize on it. As a news source who leans so heavily on constitutional rights, they have a responsibility they are not living up to when they intentionally ignore truth just to push a narrative. Same is true for all sides and it's not just in media.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

:lmao OK Goebbels

You know it was bullshit right and the Jews in Hollywood made it all up so any time Israel did something really bad Jews could say but but muh Holocaust goyim and Jews in the West could use it to profit off of victim hood.

It wasn't even called the Holocaust until the 70s

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a7/e5/11/a7e5118d5be6cb0657e77b88a0a07515.jpg

Don't believe me? Go to a library and find an old 50-60s encyclopedia look up the Holocaust, you won't find it in there

[Thread]

You know it was bullshit right and the Jews in Hollywood made it all up so any time Israel did something really bad Jews could say but but muh Holocaust goyim and Jews in the West could use it to profit off of victim hood.

[[[It wasn't even called the Holocaust until the 70s

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a7/e5/11/a7e5118d5be6cb0657e77b88a0a07515.jpg

Don't believe me? Go to a library and find an old 50-60s encyclopedia look up the Holocaust, you won't find it in there]]]

Great find, DO.

[baseline bum]

You know it was bullshit right and the Jews in Hollywood made it all up so any time Israel did something really bad Jews could say but but muh Holocaust goyim and Jews in the West could use it to profit off of victim hood.

It wasn't even called the Holocaust until the 70s

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a7/e5/11/a7e5118d5be6cb0657e77b88a0a07515.jpg

Don't believe me? Go to a library and find an old 50-60s encyclopedia look up the Holocaust, you won't find it in there

LOL holocaust deniers. We didn't go to the moon either and JFK was shot from the grassy knoll?

[Thread]

LOL holocaust deniers. We didn't go to the moon either and JFK was shot from the grassy knoll?

DO has a find there, bum. Show me [Holocaust] before the '70's.

Chop/chop.

[monosylab1k]

at this point we should just be happy Trump acknowledged Holocaust victims at all. Trump's natural progression would have been to go full Culburn and deny it happened or question the numbers. Would anybody really be shocked if Trump had tweeted some shit about "Holocaust victim numbers don't add up! Hitler a victim of FAKE NEWS! Sad"

[Th'Pusher]

at this point we should just be happy Trump acknowledged Holocaust victims at all. Trump's natural progression would have been to go full Culburn and deny it happened or question the numbers. Would anybody really be shocked if Trump had tweeted some shit about "Holocaust victim numbers don't add up! Hitler a victim of FAKE NEWS! Sad"

I would have been shocked, but only because it would be a slap in the face to one of his core constituents - the evangelical Christian.

[Bill The Butcher]

DO has a find there, bum. Show me [Holocaust] before the '70's.

Chop/chop.

Shoulda known this mother whoring Italian ###### would show up here. Somebody fetch me my knife, I'm going to send this wop into the grave next to Mussolini.

[Thread]

at this point we should just be happy Trump acknowledged Holocaust victims at all. Trump's natural progression would have been to go full Culburn and deny it happened or question the numbers. Would anybody really be shocked if Trump had tweeted some shit about "Holocaust victim numbers don't add up! Hitler a victim of FAKE NEWS! Sad"

C'mon, mono, do another talk show and we'll hash it all out.

[Thread]

Shoulda known this mother whoring Italian ###### would show up here. Somebody fetch me my knife, I'm going to send this wop into the grave next to Mussolini.

Pack a lunch, BB. You're gonna be a while. I ain't no easy clean.

[baseline bum]

Pack a lunch, BB. You're gonna be a while. I ain't no easy clean.

Bend over. I'll pack your lunch.

[Spur_Fanatic]

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/14/146951/4234203-0631958105-rmuda.jpg

[spurraider21]

DO has a find there, bum. Show me [Holocaust] before the '70's.

Chop/chop.
Show me "world War 1" before world War 2 started.

You won't, it was called the great War. Labels like this are meaningless. Before the 1930's, "the great depression" referred to what is now called "the panic of 1873"

[Thread]

Show me "world War 1" before world War 2 started.

You won't, it was called the great War. Labels like this are meaningless. Before the 1930's, "the great depression" referred to what is now called "the panic of 1873"

Until you apologize for calling me a dickhead we'll not converse.

ADDENDUM:::And that's a dirty shame because I've reached the [reply] button for you a score of times.

[baseline bum]

Until you apologize for calling me a dickhead we'll not converse.

ADDENDUM:::And that's a dirty shame because I've reached the [reply] button for you a score of times.

I'm sure he's sorry you're a dickhead.

[clambake]

Until you apologize for calling me a dickhead we'll not converse.

ADDENDUM:::And that's a dirty shame because I've reached the [reply] button for you a score of times.

the way you hold out, even for those you fancy, is courageous.

[spurraider21]

Until you apologize for calling me a dickhead we'll not converse.

ADDENDUM:::And that's a dirty shame because I've reached the [reply] button for you a score of times.
Your capitulation is duly noted.

And I called you fuckface, not dickhead. I would never offend the dickheads around the world.

[DMC]

at this point we should just be happy Trump acknowledged Holocaust victims at all. Trump's natural progression would have been to go full Culburn and deny it happened or question the numbers. Would anybody really be shocked if Trump had tweeted some shit about "Holocaust victim numbers don't add up! Hitler a victim of FAKE NEWS! Sad"

Do you write for CNN?

Trump Praised Hitler?

By monosylab1k, CNN
Updated 2:01 PM ET, Mon January 30, 2017

Trump praising Hitler? Hitler, the most egregious example of a murderous dictator the world has ever known, praised by the president? Not saying Trump praised Hitler but would anyone be shocked if he did?

[Thread]

the way you hold out, even for those you fancy, is courageous.

Thank you, Clammy. I don't mind strangers insulting me as 21 did, and I don't hold it against them. But, 21 & I have a relationship. For him to forsake me like that over an issue that we vehemently disagree on is saddening to me. I hate it being estranged from him. I miss him terribly.

[boutons_deux]

GOP Congressman cultivating ties with anti-Muslim parties across Europe

One of them was founded by Nazis.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has been busy cultivating relationships with anti-EU populists and Islamophobes from all over Europe. He has even struck up a special relationship with an Austrian party founded by Nazis in the wake of World War II.

The Congressman — who is infamous for accusing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-pitti/steve-king-immigration_b_3653145.html) child asylum seekers of smuggling drugs into the U.S., keeping a confederate flag at his desk (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/11/steve-king-provokes-criticism-displaying-confederate-flag/86947746/), and asking (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/us/politics/steve-king-nonwhite-subgroups.html) what contributions nonwhite people have made to society — has been openly forming political partnerships and personal friendships with a wide array of leaders on Europe’s xenophobic and populist right.

Among his stated acquaintances are members of populist and nativist parties from Austria, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

https://thinkprogress.org/gop-congressman-cultivating-ties-with-anti-muslim-parties-across-europe-bf3e3057caa2#.35vt3q2an

This is serving his cornholing voters in IA?

[clambake]

he has kept iowa safe from terrorist attacks.

[clambake]

or maybe the people just don't notice......cuz of all the cornholing.

[monosylab1k]

Do you write for CNN?

Trump Praised Hitler?

By monosylab1k, CNN
Updated 2:01 PM ET, Mon January 30, 2017

Trump praising Hitler? Hitler, the most egregious example of a murderous dictator the world has ever known, praised by the president? Not saying Trump praised Hitler but would anyone be shocked if he did?

ROFL where did you find that?

[DMC]

ROFL where did you find that?

I made it as an example :lol

[Splits]

ROFL where did you find that?


I made it as an example :lol

:lmao

[monosylab1k]

I made it as an example :lol

:lol ok

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

LOL holocaust deniers. We didn't go to the moon either and JFK was shot from the grassy knoll?

The goal was to exterminate every last Jew right? So why was Anne Frank's father found in the hospital ward at Auschwitz? Did they want to make sure he was healthy enough to be gassed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Frank

It was at Auschwitz, in September, that Frank was separated forever from his wife and daughters. He was sent to the men's barracks and found himself in the sick barracks when he was liberated by Soviet troops on 27 January 1945.

[spurraider21]

You know it was bullshit right and the Jews in Hollywood made it all up so any time Israel did something really bad Jews could say but but muh Holocaust goyim and Jews in the West could use it to profit off of victim hood.

It wasn't even called the Holocaust until the 70s

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a7/e5/11/a7e5118d5be6cb0657e77b88a0a07515.jpg

Don't believe me? Go to a library and find an old 50-60s encyclopedia look up the Holocaust, you won't find it in there

Here you go, fuckface.

https://i.gyazo.com/9b68a4316d0173296018059f558e139d.png

Here's the source, and you can download the PDF (big link on top) to get the original print

http://www.jta.org/1942/12/24/archive/hungry-jewish-women-lashed-to-death-by-nazis-for-picking-mushrooms