Reply With Quote
im sorry the first definition google provides was inconvenient for you
Yeah, it's a pretty crappy definition and doesn't seem to apply anyway.
im sorry the first definition google provides was inconvenient for you
Not inconvenient. It's very convenient since it's the first one and easy for a lazy person to use on a message board.
It's just not a very good definition. I'm sorry the first convenient definition provided for you was not very good.
because you say so? oh, ok
And I am not allowed an opinion because you say so?
Oh, OK.
It's easy to find a better definition, even using Google. One just need not accept the most convenient one provided without question.
What would be his reason to lie about it? What would he get from it?
Not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Flesh it out a bit, because "me" is ambiguous. Are you referring to yourself, or me, Randomguy?
aka "activist is probably inaccurate" because it's not convenient for me
or "me" is someone else?
D-
Not to mention he's a ing democrat
"activist is probably inaccurate" was something you said. so i think it was clear i was referring to you
You should make another anecdote thread boutox/TSA style.
I can see why you would lie. Your article has the marine quoted as saying he want BLM to condemn the action. He didn't even think what you claim.
You ever get bored trying ot pass of innuendo? Your wishcasting is weird.
He's getting his face on the national news. Probably has a good shot at some GoFundMe loot. And maybe this helps his next try at running for office.
Or maybe he said something that got his ass kicked, so he needs a better alibi. None of this would be unprecedented.
What would be their reason to approach someone random and ask for his thoughts on an activist movement and then beat him up?
Or maybe it happened exactly as he said. None of it would be unprecedented.
Yup. Actually in DC there have been numerous incidents where gangs of kids harras people in metro stations with the subject of black lives matters.
Btw if it looks like a black lives matter activist, walks like a black lives matter activist and talks like a black lives matter activist. Its a black lives matter activist.
It's possible. We don't really have enough info to rush to judgment, but hey, fits the narrative.
We do have the first hand account of the victim
Why wait until the investigation is complete when there's juicy race war arguments to be had!
Back in the day in Salem, we had Brother Guthrie's first hand account of how his leg broke because Sister Margery put a spell on him.
lol. when the race issue is reversed, we don't wait until investigations are complete. we just talk about how there's a big problem in this country
...while the other side remains skeptical and says wait for the investigation, or blames the victim.
So the best thing to do, clearly, is rush to judgment in all situations.
not really. in all situations, i've said to wait for investigations.
i'm just pointing out hypocrisy
When the 'victim' is responsible, yes. But that's also after evidence of that.
You instantly went on defense for the attackers and basically called the victim a liar. You first dismiss it because Breitbart. You are then given more credible links with his quotes and then dismiss his story as made up bull . Then you say he could be lying about it to get media attention and money off a gofundme page. That's a ton of excuses, but hey don't rush to judgment right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
