Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Saw x saying it’s ok as she was there
But she was targeted and attacked
Slightly different
Saw x saying it’s ok as she was thereWas the journalist also a rioter?
The dude turns around, takes aim and fires. Nothing random about itSaw x saying it’s ok as she was there
But she was targeted and attacked
Slightly different
You didn't complain that much when the right wing racist fruitcakes were rioting and attacking the police and ambulance staff last summer.so you are happy with people rioting then, can guarantee you’d be pissed off if it was in your city
People on this thread are that stupid they probably believe itNah it’s the same shop and car burning shown over and over again.
Right Wing Racist Fruitcakes
Context is everything, apparantly.It’s a bit weird how it’s apparently ok to attack certain police officers and not others.
If they had rioted to stop Trump taking office would it have been legal?Refreshing to see that in the midst of all the left wing rioting and violence, there's at least one Democrat who's not afraid to point out that in the eyes of the electorate, the Dems are clearly on the wrong side:
<However, John Fetterman, the Democrat senator for Pennsylvania, has criticised his party for failing to call out “anarchy and true chaos”, which have seen cars torched and shops looted.
“My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement,” he said.>
Apparantly mental gymnastics works both ways.The mental gymnastics on display after justifying J6 for years is really quite something.
Pardon?Apparantly mental gymnastics works both ways.
How big do you think the sentences for LA rioters and looters should be? One of the J6 sentences was 18 years.
Apparantly mental gymnastics works both ways.
How big do you think the sentences for LA rioters and looters should be? One of the J6 sentences was 18 years.
Apparantly mental gymnastics works both ways.
How big do you think the sentences for LA rioters and looters should be? One of the J6 sentences was 18 years.
It must have taken some mental gymnastics to justify that thought.Thanks for proving my point
It must have taken some mental gymnastics to justify that thought.
So, do you think looters and rioters in LA are justified and should not receive punishments. You seem rather quiet on the point.
What is my side? I never declared one.I think anyone who breaks the law should be punished accordingly.
I'm not the one pardoning criminals, that's your side.
If letting criminal behaviour off the hook is a real issue for you then you must be furious with the orange idiot.
Outgoing President refuses to honour due process and Incites his followers to try to overthrow the transfer of power by violent means including attacks on law enforcement.It must have taken some mental gymnastics to justify that thought.
So, do you think looters and rioters in LA are justified and should not receive punishments. You seem rather quiet on the point.
Although he disputed the election results he asked everyone to go home.Outgoing President refuses to honour due process and Incites his followers to try to overthrow the transfer of power by violent means including attacks on law enforcement.
Same President now back in power, refuses to honour due process and instructs his agents to arrest and detain random citizens and (again not following due process) sends in the military to quash the violent resistance to his constitution defying measures.
Do you see both the difference and the common denominator now?
After he'd incited them to *checks notes* 'fight like hell'...Although he disputed the election results he asked everyone to go home.
To be clear, this is what ended up happening because he wanted to overturn an election that he fairly lost. Was it right for these criminals and the man who incited their violence to get away with it?Although he disputed the election results he asked everyone to go home.
His words were far more nnuanced than your simplistic black and white view.After he'd incited them to *checks notes* 'fight like hell'...
He said last year that it was his right to interfere with the election. He should be in prison, not the White House, yet goes on about law and order with no sense of ironyHis words were far more nnuanced than your simplistic black and white view.
Capitol riots: Did Trump's words at rally incite violence?
Read this article it is more balanced.
By the way Trump was not impeached for inciting violence and if he did he should have been.
Yeah mate, you are smarter than the whole US judicial system and know better than the US electorate, I get it.He said last year that it was his right to interfere with the election. He should be in prison, not the White House, yet goes on about law and order with no sense of irony
There's nothing ambiguous about his promotion of 'stop the steal'. Nor is there about his aforementioned 'fight like hell' address on the day of Biden's inauguration.His words were far more nnuanced than your simplistic black and white view.
Capitol riots: Did Trump's words at rally incite violence?
Read this article it is more balanced.
By the way Trump was not impeached for inciting violence and if he did he should have been.
What? He actively tried to interfere in the 2020 election, that’s undisputed.Yeah mate, you are smarter than the whole US judicial system and know better than the US electorate, I get it.
I know you understand everything better than anyone else but a Federal judge has ruled otherwise. Perhaps you could put him or her right.You’re missing the point. What he’s doing requires the governor’s consent
it clearly wasn't though, he clearly just said it wasn't "under siege".It rather seems like it.
View attachment 43571
They'll just appeal it, perhaps someone could put you right on how the US court system works.I know you understand everything better than anyone else but a Federal judge has ruled otherwise. Perhaps you could put him or her right.
I believe a hearing is scheduled on Thursday, in the meantime maybe you should check out the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.They'll just appeal it, perhaps someone could put you right on how the US court system works.
As if you have any idea what that says without googling it.I believe a hearing is scheduled on Thursday, in the meantime maybe you should check out the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
Absolute bullshit as usual from you, having the presence of marines is a great idea and will stop them taking the piss and destroying communities
he's a weird one that kidTotal hysterical nonsense from the Trump fanboy, as usual.
No one is destroying communities, LA is not in flames. The LAPD did not request help from the National Guard or the Marines, and neither did they need it to bring the situation under control.
If you'd bother to pay attention to the actual facts, you might notice that the National Guard have basically been stood around or inside Federal buildings, and the Marines haven't done anything at all.
You're embarrassing yourself mate, either try keeping up with the actual news or go back to low level trolling by just posting dancing Trump gifs, it's more your level.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?