RE: These aren't "protests" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 4:46:11 AM)


ORIGINAL: BamaD


And don't forget the apology tour.


Maybe you could bring us up to speed on that "apology tour" Who did he apologize to? Have you got a cite?


We on the right were just as upset, we just have higher standards of behavior.

what would those "higher standards be? Would they be the burning of churches or the physical attacks on muslims and blacks?





thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 4:52:41 AM)

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Using facetious accusations of fascism and bigotry as a tool to misrepresent an opponent is most certainly using fascism and bigotry to sell yourself.


How often did trump describe bill's wife as "crooked hillary" and claim he was going to put her in jail?

Especially reprehensible with a person with four decades of demonstrated contempt for the working people of the country.


Are you speaking of trump's lifelong demonstrated contempt for those who work for him and do not get paid?



Lucylastic -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 4:53:01 AM)


We on the right were just as upset, we just have higher standards of behavior.
You voted for trump
you have fuck all to crow about. And the right were ready with pitchforks and armed insurrection, and that the election was rigged.
Fucking hypocrite.



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 5:02:36 AM)

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Leave aside for a moment the vandalism and fire-setting. Imagine thousands of people holding signs in a line along the edges of the sidewalks on both sides of Fifth Avenue from Washington Square to Central Park. That would be one hell of an impressive protest. No businesses would be shut down and no thoroughfares blocked. Access by the public would be unaffected and emergency vehicles would not have to be diverted. But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.

K.

For those who never acquired a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade I would like to point out that those "illegal" actions are the same ones used by the founders of this nation.



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 5:06:02 AM)


ORIGINAL: BamaD

Not when they cross the line into threats of violence .

Like the threats and actual violence perpetrated by the founders of amerika? Like the actual violence the founders of the confederacy perpetrated during the civil war which you have on many occasions lauded as moral and rightous?
That is more than a little two faced don't you think?



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 5:07:44 AM)


ORIGINAL: MercTech

Actions speak louder than words.


Would those be the actions of the church bombers?
Would that be the actions of those who beat muslims in the land of "freedom of religion?



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 5:10:48 AM)


ORIGINAL: bounty44

I don't know federal/state laws concerning electors, but I do know its illegal to impede traffic and obstruct entrances. so if that's what he was responding to when he says "its perfectly legal", he's wrong (what a surprise).

Do you also condem those who tossed the tea into boston harbor for theior illegal acts?
Do you also condem those who illegally occupied seats reserved for "whites only" at lunch counters and busses?



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 5:12:24 AM)


ORIGINAL: tamaka

Smoke & mirrors easily distract the simple- minded.

Perhaps if you were to get an adult to help you with the big words you would not be so easily distracted.



heavyblinker -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 5:32:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
"Brace Yourself for Four Years of Nonstop Freakoutrage"


That is seriously obnoxious.

So his reaction to the protests is to declare war on 'liberals' and tell them they're ineffectual?

If he's trying to goad the protestors into a more extreme response, he should realize that it's not completely out of the question for a lot of people.

And if the Donald is giving no damns, then why is he still whining about everything on Twitter? He's seriously acting like he lost the election.



Kirata -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 5:49:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Almost like a cult... isn't it.

Lordy, the same could be said, and frequently has been said, of Trump's supporters.

But which with more justification?

K.



Kirata -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 6:54:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Leave aside for a moment the vandalism and fire-setting. Imagine thousands of people holding signs in a line along the edges of the sidewalks on both sides of Fifth Avenue from Washington Square to Central Park. That would be one hell of an impressive protest. No businesses would be shut down and no thoroughfares blocked. Access by the public would be unaffected and emergency vehicles would not have to be diverted. But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.

K.

For those who never acquired a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade I would like to point out that those "illegal" actions are the same ones used by the founders of this nation.

My point stands regardless.

K.



heavyblinker -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 7:04:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
But which with more justification?


Yeah, that's a pissing contest with a clear winner for sure.



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 7:16:12 AM)

ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Leave aside for a moment the vandalism and fire-setting. Imagine thousands of people holding signs in a line along the edges of the sidewalks on both sides of Fifth Avenue from Washington Square to Central Park. That would be one hell of an impressive protest. No businesses would be shut down and no thoroughfares blocked. Access by the public would be unaffected and emergency vehicles would not have to be diverted. But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.

K.

For those who never acquired a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade I would like to point out that those "illegal" actions are the same ones used by the founders of this nation.


My point stands regardless.

K.

Your point seems to be that either you do not approve of the founding of amerika or that it was right for then but not for now...Which is your point that stands regardless?



bounty44 -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 9:04:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: bounty44

I don't know federal/state laws concerning electors, but I do know its illegal to impede traffic and obstruct entrances. so if that's what he was responding to when he says "its perfectly legal", he's wrong (what a surprise).

Do you also condem those who tossed the tea into boston harbor for theior illegal acts?
Do you also condem those who illegally occupied seats reserved for "whites only" at lunch counters and busses?


your questions not only DO NOT follow from what I wrote, they are also based on gross misrepresentations of the current "protests" vis-à-vis historical ones.

this place was better recently because of your absence. youre a troll and im sorry to see you are back.






Lucylastic -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 9:49:19 AM)

whine to everyone, including the mods.
Im pretty sure they have you on hide.
Ignore him, its in your power buttercup, moderating isnt.



Kirata -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 9:53:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Leave aside for a moment the vandalism and fire-setting. Imagine thousands of people holding signs in a line along the edges of the sidewalks on both sides of Fifth Avenue from Washington Square to Central Park. That would be one hell of an impressive protest. No businesses would be shut down and no thoroughfares blocked. Access by the public would be unaffected and emergency vehicles would not have to be diverted. But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.

K.

For those who never acquired a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade I would like to point out that those "illegal" actions are the same ones used by the founders of this nation.


My point stands regardless.

K.

Your point seems to be that either you do not approve of the founding of amerika or that it was right for then but not for now...Which is your point that stands regardless?

I never said anything about right or wrong. I just contrasted protests with extortion. My point was that there's a difference, and that point stands. For further assistance, see here.

K.



mnottertail -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 10:02:59 AM)

protests are guaranteed under the constitution by our right to redress our grievances. There is no requirement in the redress of grievances to grab your congresswoman or senatrix by the pussy, in that document.



BamaD -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 11:04:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Leave aside for a moment the vandalism and fire-setting. Imagine thousands of people holding signs in a line along the edges of the sidewalks on both sides of Fifth Avenue from Washington Square to Central Park. That would be one hell of an impressive protest. No businesses would be shut down and no thoroughfares blocked. Access by the public would be unaffected and emergency vehicles would not have to be diverted. But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.

K.

For those who never acquired a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade I would like to point out that those "illegal" actions are the same ones used by the founders of this nation.


My point stands regardless.

K.

Your point seems to be that either you do not approve of the founding of amerika or that it was right for then but not for now...Which is your point that stands regardless?

I never said anything about right or wrong. I just contrasted protests with extortion. My point was that there's a difference, and that point stands. For further assistance, see here.

K.


He ignores the fact that if the Brits had caught the founding fathers they would have hung them. Does that mean that to follow the same rules we should hang all the protesters we can catch?



Kirata -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 11:41:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

protests are guaranteed under the constitution by our right to redress our grievances.

And in other news, the sky is blue. Did I say it wasn't?

K.



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 11:55:43 AM)

ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Leave aside for a moment the vandalism and fire-setting. Imagine thousands of people holding signs in a line along the edges of the sidewalks on both sides of Fifth Avenue from Washington Square to Central Park. That would be one hell of an impressive protest. No businesses would be shut down and no thoroughfares blocked. Access by the public would be unaffected and emergency vehicles would not have to be diverted. But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.

K.

For those who never acquired a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade I would like to point out that those "illegal" actions are the same ones used by the founders of this nation.


My point stands regardless.

K.

Your point seems to be that either you do not approve of the founding of amerika or that it was right for then but not for now...Which is your point that stands regardless?
[/quote]
I never said anything about right or wrong. I just contrasted protests with extortion.

How is extortion by the founders any different?


My point was that there's a difference, and that point stands.

You have not shown a difference therefore your point is "pointless"




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375