Unforgiven Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 At least we are all crystal clear now about democrats... If you don't vote democrat you ain't a criminal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: I thought not. You're an intellectual fraud. And yes, a hypocrite. 1. I call out your hypocrisy. 2. You tell me to reconcile YOUR opinions. 3. You call me a hypocrite when I can't? Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Jauronimo said: 1. I call out your hypocrisy. 2. You tell me to reconcile YOUR opinions. 3. You call me a hypocrite when I can't? Brilliant. I think your memory's a bit faulty, hypocrite. 1) I call YOUR hypocrisy out pointing out your unending devotion to "science" and indefinite lockdowns. 2) you get redass Yes, it was rather brilliant if I say so myself. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 2, 2020 Author Share Posted June 2, 2020 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince88 Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 4 hours ago, njbuff said: Maybe this helps..... Love that movie. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: So this is nothing about George Floyd..............Thanks, Your statement that the guilty policemen will get off wasn't serious.......... Who was paying ? Yes the officer would have gotten off without video. Also the DA said there was evidence that supports not criminally charging the officer. So yes it's very likely that officer would have walked without the protests. This has happened over and over again, no matter who is President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 10 minutes ago, B-Man said: So this is nothing about George Floyd..............Thanks, Your statement that the guilty policemen will get off wasn't serious.......... Who was paying ? Is this true? about the tear gas? Not that it substantively matters to me, because they were asked to move and they didn't listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 Just now, Joe in Winslow said: I think your memory's a bit faulty, hypocrite. 1) I call YOUR hypocrisy out pointing out your unending devotion to "science" and indefinite lockdowns. 2) you get redass Yes, it was rather brilliant if I say so myself. Set the record straight then Joe. Below is where you have stood on the issues. How does this make sense? Government force used to impose quarantines: Tyranny Government force to restrict hours on private enterprise: Tyranny Military force to enforce curfews, dispel assembly, and put down looting/civil unrest: Justified 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 13 minutes ago, Wacka said: Times like this bring out the libtards like when a house is fumigated for roaches. They are coming out of every nook and cranny. This country needs to be fumigated and all the roaches removed.? So I take it you support the use of gas on the peaceful protesters yesterday in DC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Stampede said: Yes the officer would have gotten off without video. Also the DA said there was evidence that supports not criminally charging the officer. So yes it's very likely that officer would have walked without the protests. This has happened over and over again, no matter who is President. The answer is to criminally charge people in this country when a loud mob of people say we should, regardless of the actual evidence? *not saying that is the case in the Minneapolis case, but your post seems to indicate that is a good strategy going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: So I take it you support the use of gas on the peaceful protesters yesterday in DC? Peaceful is not throwing stuff at the cops or setting a church on fire.. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 2, 2020 Author Share Posted June 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Magox said: Is this true? about the tear gas? Not that it substantively matters to me, because they were asked to move and they didn't listen. Yes. It was smoke canisters. They were warned 3 times, they refused to move back. These were NOT peaceful protesters 2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: So I take it you support the use of gas on the peaceful protesters yesterday in DC? False .............as usual. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 Just now, Jauronimo said: Set the record straight then Joe. Below is where you have stood on the issues. How does this make sense? Government force used to impose quarantines: Tyranny Government force to restrict hours on private enterprise: Tyranny Military force to enforce curfews, dispel assembly, and put down looting/civil unrest: Justified Oh. My. God. You're obtuse aren't you? I CALLED YOU OUT FOR YOUR HYPOCRITICAL VIEW THAT: Government force used to impose quarantines: JUSTIFIED Government force to restrict hours on private enterprise: JUSTIFIED Military force to enforce curfews, dispel assembly, and put down looting/civil unrest: NOT SO MUCH So let's sum this up for you since you're having difficulty on the topic. If you think *I* am a hypocrite for what you posted, then you're also tacitly admitting your OWN hypocrisy. Ya dig? That clear enough for you? Or are you too wrapped up in the emotion of your own blisteringly hot virtue signalling to SEE just what a complete and utter jackass you actually are? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 I want everyone to know, that Governor Murphy from New Jersey believes this: Quote Governor Phil Murphy began his daily COVID-19 briefing by honoring the peace actions of the weekend seeking justice for the late George Floyd, killed by police in Minneapolis, Minnesota a week ago. “I support these protests and I thank the thousands of residents who peacefully and respectfully took part,” said Murphy. “This is a transformational moment of our time. …Peaceful protesting is the way we get to a better place.” He addressed the apparent disconnect between his own executive order shutting down nonessential businesses and his support for the protests, which concentrated populations in violation of social distancing. “It’s one thing to protest – I don’t want to make light of this and I’ll probably get lit up by everybody who owns a nail salon in the state, but it’s one thing to protest what day nail salons are opening and it’s another to come out in peaceful protest overwhelmingly about somebody who was murdered right before our eyes. In other words, via his dictate, those law abiding rubes who were protesting about their livelihoods being destroyed, again by DICTATE, that the protests from "nail salon" owner's isn't nearly as important as those that protest for social justice. Who the ***** is he to say something like that? These people disgust me. I don't know if I have felt as angry about our political discourse than what we are having right now. The counter argument is completely vacuous and bankrupt. They don't have a leg to stand on. 4 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Magox said: I want everyone to know, that Governor Murphy from New Jersey believes this: In other words, via his dictate, those law abiding rubes who were protesting about their livelihoods being destroyed, again by DICTATE, that the protests from "nail salon" owner's isn't nearly as important as those that protest for social justice. Who the ***** is he to say something like that? These people disgust me. I don't know if I have felt as angry about our political discourse than what we are having right now. The counter argument is completely vacuous and bankrupt. They don't have a leg to stand on. He's almost as big a douchebag as Jauronimo. Almost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: Yes. It was smoke canisters. They were warned 3 times, they refused to move back. These were NOT peaceful protesters False .............as usual. So no tear gas? Wasn't that the justification that was used for "warfare"? If true, it just gets worse and worse for these people attempting to make these INFOWAR sort of looney claims. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Tiberius said: He obviously appealed to people's prejudices running for office. He didn't scapegoat immigrants for a non-existent crime wave for no reason. He scapegoated immigrants as criminals for a reason. To win votes He didn't scapegoat immigrants, period. He absolutely platformed on border control and cracking down on people entering the country illegally. He correctly called out that specific group as criminals because they entered illegally. Conflating that group with legal immigrants is akin to Conflating the Westboro baptists with Christians. It is disingenuous and counterproductive. Perhaps a more relevant comparison, it is like conflating violent agitators and rioters with protesters. Don't do that. Edited June 2, 2020 by BuffaloHokie13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 7 minutes ago, Wacka said: Peaceful is not throwing stuff at the cops or setting a church on fire.. Was the church burning at the moment gas was used? And were “cops” under duress at the moment the gas was used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 Just now, Sig1Hunter said: The answer is to criminally charge people in this country when a loud mob of people say we should, regardless of the actual evidence? *not saying that is the case in the Minneapolis case, but your post seems to indicate that is a good strategy going forward. Not at all. When someone loses a life due to poor judgement by police then the police should be charged accordingly. I always respect and will continue to respect police. I won't judge police based on a bad few. I don't judge anyone based on a bad few. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 This is the face of the New World Order. Any more questions? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts