Reply With Quote
Just a little roughousing and horse-play imo
You claimed that violence at Trump rallies, by Trump supporters was far more prevalent. Back your claim big guy.
Just a little roughousing and horse-play imo
Why are you blithefully trying to ignore TSA's methods and motives in all this? Angry people are violent and Trump has given them a scapegoat with his comments inciting violence. You build it and they will come. . . .
Boutox has a point about the level of violence the different groups are willing to go to and it speaks to our local Breitbart piece of 's actual argument. Conflating the fringes of the two is horse . If the Bolsheviks start setting up compounds in the NW to overthrow the government and blow up a Great Plains federal building in reprisal for acts of the US government then great.
Else your 'there are idiots on both sides' while technically correct, misses the ing point in regards to both relity and the perception that TSA is trying to present. Please point out the violent marxist militias in the last 100 years.
He has a point about his rhetoric and the Civil Right era violence.
NYT piece was also cited in the article:
How about Trump and the GOP take responsibility for the rhetoric as opposed to the narrative we are being fed here.
Fuzzy and Boutons refuse to admit any wrong by the anti-Trump protesters. The people deserve to be attacked by the mobs for having the audacity to go to a political rally of someone Fuzzy and Boutons disagree with.
Blithefully ignoring?
I Fckn pointed them out!
Sometimes one takes the upper hand by admitting the stupidity on your side and completely own it without citing " well you guys are worse, nah, nah nah".
Read the fckn article put up by Darrin in H. Post. Tell me what MLK would say about this? Yeah we gotta be violent...BS The author is very different events with the Trump phenomena. You did not comment. Shame.
If you look at it people protesting Trump seem to be committing more of the violence. That should stop.
By the same token, so should Trumpenstein's race baiting.
MLK is not the only way. WHile I agree that an eye for an eye reprisal should be rejected, I do believe that turning the other cheek is a slave's morality. Further, I reject your binary paradigm that our political system pigeonholes us into. I have no 'side.' My point is that people in glass houses should not throw stones. It is what it is and completely germane to the argument at hand.
Trump set up an expectation of violence for protestors that go to his events. Why is he not being questioned for his role in all of this? Why is his political opponents supposed to identify with them? Because they're minorities? Phrenology is so irritating in this country.
He is the candidate. Instead I am supposed to conflate myself with people I have no idea what their motivations or allegiance is beyond being anti-Trump? Despite not identifying as a Democrat or part of your political oversimplification?
Speak for yourself, fattie. Whether or not they are right or wrong is minutiae. I haven't made a position either way. I don't see you condemning Trump's precipitation of the behavior. I refuse to apologize for rabble.
Fact is that Trump invited it. Now that it's here I'm supposed to go along with this sideshow of irrelevance?
I'm interested in cause and to me it is very simple what caused this. He's running for president.
lack of accountability everywhere
trump refuses to acknowledge his role in violence, leftists point the finger at trump every time they've been called out for acts of violence...but but, he did it too!
Who initiated the call for violence? Was it any 'leftist' group? I'm not going to be accountable for random people. Sorry just not going to do it. Rule of law is fine by me.lack of accountability everywhere
trump refuses to acknowledge his role in violence, leftists point the finger at trump every time they've been called out for acts of violence...
I'm talking about the person running for president. You are talking about everyone that identifies as 'liberal.' You can try and conflate the two but one is actually based on fact the other is just guilt by association nonsense.
From what I can tell the violent protesters are being indicted like normal. I'm missing the calls for their exoneration anywhere.
Trump IS being questioned for his role. Who said anything about turning the other cheek? Slave morality? Slave morality? You are justifying THIS behavior by considering the behavior similar some sort of slave backlash?
Jesus... And you dare mention oversimplification in the same diatribe.
The call for violence occurs when groups surround Trump supporters, but instead of holding up signs and chanting or even silent protest with signs, they start cursing and throwing stuff. Then the punks, maybe not even associated with the original group, start cheap shotting people in the back of the head and such. When the violence starts the cameras roll.
This is exactly what can make Trump more popular. Wanking all the behavior off on Trump is a horrible excuse. In fact it reinforces prejudices about people of color having to resort to violence. Read the article put up by Darrin again. That's Fckn Bs. This is not the French Revolution. " They won't listen unless we are violent"????
This is a GD presidential election.
This is not slaves reacting to massa striking them.
Hard to have a debate when your ass tucks tail and runs away from your claims.
You claimed that violence at Trump rallies, by Trump supporters was far more prevalent. Don't be a pussy this time, back your claim up.
In other words, this junior high school internet wanna be bully can't back his up.
Boner with the Pedo fantasies again.
Grow the up.
You made the claim not me, stop being a pussy and back it up. If there is plenty of info out there to support your claim it should be easy for you.
You sound even stupider than you really are by constantly repeating the pedo fantasy that you know isn't true.
You really are a de able piece of .
The calls for violence happen several different ways and don't all fit your narrative. If you want to feel bad for those particular instances vicariously then go ahead. I will pass. Fact is Trump invited and encouraged it financially and otherwise. I'm not going to feel bad because he got what he asked for.
I did read the article so will you please shut up as if I had not. It doesn't say that violence is the only way. What it says is that violence is a way and that it can be effective. I agree with the premise that violence can be a viable option. What it doesn't say is that it should be a last resort but that is my personal ethic. Doesn't mitigate the articles point though for all of your blanket dismissals.
I am still waiting for an explanation for why I am supposed to accept the association with rock throwers or why anyone else should particularly an entire political ideology. Like I said before, phrenology is stupid and I reject it out of hand.
And my slave morality quote came from Nietzsche who was not commenting on the plight of people identified as black. It was much more generalized. Turn the other cheek and claims that the meek will inherit the Earth are a slaves morality because it allows the oppression to continue.
You are so tied up into phrenology that you cannot see past it. That you put it in terms of either being fully franchised or southern 19th century slave makes that loud and clear. Not all of the violent protesters are black anyway.
Your excuse making for adults because of consenting children every time an argument about a pedo comes up gives a different impression, fattie. I admit that I wonder what you are capable of and would not allow my children around you. I would recommend much the same to anyone else.
Not here it's not. Instead we have the troll cabal spinning us around in this stupidity. Try and keep up.
Nice strawman on your phrenology.
Not to beat a dead horse but I played sports from Junior High through College and can't freaking imagine as a teenage athlete letting a coach suck my . That was my only point and I never defended Hastert. I'm glad the sucker is going to jail. The fact that you can imagine letting a coach suck your says more about you than me. You just lie and make up to be offensive and run your lame shtick.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 06-09-2016 at 04:10 PM.
That is not all that you have said although that is what you have tried to distill it down to. Youre so wrapped up in yourself but if you couldn't imagine it then what you are imagining is that they did consent. That is the whole point, fattie.
You think those kids consented and were gay so . . . mitigating cir stance. It's de able on multiple levels frankly.
Here is a new avatar for you:
Didn't claim any mitigating cir stances. Hastert is guilty as and I'm glad he is going to jail.. Quit twisting my words. Call it what you want but those teenage athletes let a guy suck their . I wouldn't have under any cir stances, but maybe you are different. It's OK.That is not all that you have said although that is what you have tried to distill it down to. Youre so wrapped up in yourself but if you couldn't imagine it then what you are imagining is that they did consent. That is the whole point, fattie.
You think those kids consented and were gay so . . . mitigating cir stance. It's de able on multiple levels frankly.
Here is a new avatar for you:
I have no intention of fighting these stupid accusations again just for saying as an athlete I would have never let a coach suck my under any cir stances.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions