Jump to content

Combating imaginary racism with actual racism??


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You’ve lost your mind. You’re reading way more into this than there actually is. You can’t honestly set your hair on fire about everything every day...or can you? 

 

Yea ok bro...

 

Al Qaeda used to instruct terrorists to ram their cars into crowds — just like GOP bills now legalize

 

More blood on your tiny hands gf.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Okay so if you are attacked while in your car.  You're not allowed to drive if someone is in front of you.  You just have to take the beating.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Okay so if you are attacked while in your car.  You're not allowed to drive if someone is in front of you.  You just have to take the beating.

 

You're telling me - that in all the years we have had cars on the road - there aren't laws ALREADY on the books to handle this?

 

Again, this is nothing more than giving dangerous lunatics the license to injure people that the right doesn't like... 

 

We see right through the non stop bs.  

 

Thank you Trump supporters!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

You're telling me - that in all the years we have had cars on the road - there aren't laws ALREADY on the books to handle this?

 

Again, this is nothing more than giving dangerous lunatics the license to injure people that the right doesn't like... 

 

We see right through the non stop bs.  

 

Thank you Trump supporters!

 

Dude, I gave you an example of a girl I personally know that has a cinder block through her windshield.

Your reply was "cute story bro".  You obviously wouldn't have cared if she got hurt, she doesn't matter.  It's just a "cute story" GTFO.


What would you have done if someone through a cinder block through your windshield?

 

Yes, there is a law for it.  If you feel you're endangered, you can take action to defend yourself.

 

I didn't vote for Trump so that has nothing to do with it.  This is just common sense.


Driving a car into a crowd with the intent to just hurt is different than driving away from violent protesters who are trying to hurt you.

Yes, the ones who drive into crowds should be punished to the full extent and deserves to get hurt.  Someone running over someone because they're being attacked...the attackers deserve to get hurt.

 

You're just rambling on without logically thinking.  I mean you posted a law that you completely misinterpreted thinking it helped your argument lol.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Dude, I gave you an example of a girl I personally know that has a cinder block through her windshield.

Your reply was "cute story bro".  You obviously wouldn't have cared if she got hurt, she doesn't matter.  It's just a "cute story" GTFO.


What would you have done if someone through a cinder block through your windshield?

 

Yes, there is a law for it.  If you feel you're endangered, you can take action to defend yourself.

 

I didn't vote for Trump so that has nothing to do with it.  This is just common sense.


Driving a car into a crowd with the intent to just hurt is different than driving away from violent protesters who are trying to hurt you.

Yes, the ones who drive into crowds should be punished to the full extent and deserves to get hurt.  Someone running over someone because they're being attacked...the attackers deserve to get hurt.

 

You're just rambling on without logically thinking.  I mean you posted a law that you completely misinterpreted thinking it helped your argument lol.

 

Rambling? 👆 

 

Meanwhile:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Rambling? 👆 

 

Meanwhile:

 

 

 

 


LOL, I was I was addressing the points.

You weren’t smart enough to understand the law you just read and posted it like it helped your stance 😂.  You didn’t know how to interpret it and you’re telling us about the law 😂

 

And guess what?  A few Dems votes for it too.  

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:


LOL, I was I was addressing the points.

You weren’t smart enough to understand the law you just read and posted it like it helped your stance 😂.  You didn’t know how to interpret it and you’re telling us about the law 😂

 

And guess what?  A few Dems votes for it too.  

 

 


Sorry wasn’t trying to minimize the story about your friend. 
 

These laws are nothing more than throwing red meat to their base. 
 

Dangerous move.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Is there a specific mental disorder that causes one to misinterpret Bills?  I sure hope so.  That way you could get some support/funding

6 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Yea ok - coming from the sick crowd that is worried about water and food distribution while standing in line for nine hours.  Get out of here.

 

Feels vs Fact part 394. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As with the other law he posted, Billzy is wildly exaggerating the laws being passed.

 

The Supreme Court already established that the police can be videoed.

 

Here is how the Oklahoma law reads.

 

 

It makes a criminal out of anyone who intentionally publishes personally identifiable information of a law enforcement officer, such as a photo or video, with the intent to “threaten, intimidate, harass or stalk,” according to the bill’s text. 

 

The bill would create a misdemeanor charge for the first violation 

 

Not quite what he described........😆

 

 

Oh also...........

 

 

But it wasn’t just Republicans who voted for the Senate and House versions of this new law. This time Democrats did, too.

 

State Representatives Jose Cruz (D-OKC) and Jason Lowe (D-OKC) joined their counterparts in passing the bill.

 

Days earlier, Senate Bill 6 also passed unanimously out of the Senate Public Safety Committee. The committee’s only two Democrats, state Senators Kevin Matthews (D-Tulsa) and Michael Brooks (D-OKC), both voted yes on the measure.

 

 

What fun it is to read BillZtime hysterics (no other word for it) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

As with the other law he posted, Billzy is wildly exaggerating the laws being passed.

 

The Supreme Court already established that the police can be videoed.

 

Here is how the Oklahoma law reads.

 

 

It makes a criminal out of anyone who intentionally publishes personally identifiable information of a law enforcement officer, such as a photo or video, with the intent to “threaten, intimidate, harass or stalk,” according to the bill’s text. 

 

The bill would create a misdemeanor charge for the first violation 

 

Not quite what he described........😆

 

 

Oh also...........

 

 

But it wasn’t just Republicans who voted for the Senate and House versions of this new law. This time Democrats did, too.

 

State Representatives Jose Cruz (D-OKC) and Jason Lowe (D-OKC) joined their counterparts in passing the bill.

 

Days earlier, Senate Bill 6 also passed unanimously out of the Senate Public Safety Committee. The committee’s only two Democrats, state Senators Kevin Matthews (D-Tulsa) and Michael Brooks (D-OKC), both voted yes on the measure.

 

 

What fun it is to read BillZtime hysterics (no other word for it) 


Can we give the cop a glass of water after we video him or is that verboten? 
 

Feels not Facts. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the money.  Racism true/not-true pays.  Private jets.  Multiple homes.  AOC, BLM, DNC, BET, NAACP, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS.  Follow it.  Getting rich on the backs of  Black  people.  Using them as pawns.  Really really Sad.  Where are the people who really help the down and out who want to get ahead.  Nobody.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, BillStime said:
22 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Nut jobs aren't going to read the bill - they're going to read the headlines - and think they can run over anyone they want.

 

These laws are pathetic and dangerous.

 

But of course, we have the right wing nut jobs finding a way to justify these new laws when there are NO DOUBT laws on the books that protect these situations... but these laws are nothing more to suppress opposition voices.

 

Sick phks.

 

Dude come on, this is a ridiculous take. This law is to protect people who are attacked by rioters, like families in their cars, or truckers like Reginald Denny or Bogdan Vechirko. Get off of Twitter and think for yourself. 

Edited by Tenhigh
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

Dude come on, this is a ridiculous take. This law is to protect people who are attacked by rioters, like families in their cars, or truckers like Reginald Denny or Bogdan Vechirko. Get off of Twitter and think for yourself. 


Yea that poor woman in Charlottesville would like to speak to you about being protected.

 

Laws already exist to protect drivers and pedestrians - this law is nothing more than red meat for a racist base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BillStime said:


Yea that poor woman in Charlottesville would like to speak to you about being protected.

 

Laws already exist to protect drivers and pedestrians - this law is nothing more than red meat for a racist base. 

Be better than Twitter man.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Okay so if you are attacked while in your car.  You're not allowed to drive if someone is in front of you.  You just have to take the beating.

Law or no law if you're being threatened with physical harm and you believe fleeing is the best course of action and you have to run the dirt bags over to do that then you do that.  You're about to get attacked and your attackers are not conflicted with some moral decision.  They are out to hurt you.  Especially so if you're in some liberal left jurisdiction where you know the government is telling the cops to do nothing to stop rioters and look the other way.  And if necessary take your chances in court later.  Better to be judged by twelve then to be carried by six.   

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With race the topic du jour, it is odd that more attention isn’t being paid to the most obvious discrimination in our society: that against Asians.

 

While employers commonly engage in such discrimination, the most viciously discriminatory organizations in our society are universities. Thus, Senate Republicans offered an amendment to the new “COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act” that would have ended federal funding of universities that discriminate against Asian American applicants. The amendment, sponsored by Ted Cruz and John Kennedy, was narrowly defeated by Senate Democrats.

Aaron Ginn comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9c8b551c278b7924.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

oXBQwFW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...