Riots at the Inauguration

[NATI BENGALS]

Well if you dont count the self described anarchists as liberals, the ones responsible for the destruction on inauguration day, then blaming liberals looks kind of stupid. Last I saw there were zero arrests in DC yesterday.

[McC]

(01-22-2017, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: People say stuff all the time. There is not, nor has there been, any organized violence from Trump supporters, we cannot say the same for those that oppose him. To suggest Trump supporters would have formed an armed insertion if Hills would have won is nothing but an assumption or a case of naive folks taking a loud mouth supporter at his word. As for me; I will not assume there would have been an coup if Hills would have won. Given that shouldn't stop you, Matt, and others suggesting there would have been. They had plenty opportunity to cause violence at Clinton functions throughout the election cycle and did not. I cannot say the same for the anti-Trump open-minded folks.  

It just speaks to one's mentality when he or she says "They would have been violent too". And then suggest they are not trying to mitigate what happened.

What if is all they have.  Do they condemn the reprehensible behavior?  No.  It's like children running around saying the most ridiculous crap they can think of.  This is what the death of a broken and repeatedly failed ideology looks like.   And the funniest part is they are burning their own house down.

Welcome to the GMDino forum. Eight or ten threads a day for the past year and showing no signs of easing up.

[GMDino]

(01-22-2017, 04:20 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Well if you dont count the self described anarchists as liberals, the ones responsible for the destruction on inauguration day, then blaming liberals looks kind of stupid. Last I saw there were zero arrests in DC yesterday.

Yes, but:


a) The women weren't all attractive
b) Women who didn't march don't know why they did
c) They used naughty words.

So therefore the right can completely ignore the numbers.

#alternativefacts

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 04:20 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Well if you dont count the self described anarchists as liberals, the ones responsible for the destruction on inauguration day, then blaming liberals looks kind of stupid. Last I saw there were zero arrests in DC yesterday.

Outstanding point. There were no violent protests of the women's march. Even though the hate speech flowed freely.

[Vas Deferens]

(01-22-2017, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Outstanding point. There were no violent protests of the women's march. Even though the hate speech flowed freely.

Same people who would call that 'hate speech' would ban books like slaughterhouse 5 from public high schools. Information is scary.

[GMDino]

(01-22-2017, 05:35 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Same people who would call that 'hate speech' would ban books like slaughterhouse 5 from public high schools.   Information is scary.

Yes there were a lot of naughty words used apparently.

The entire right side of the country got the vapors over it.

I don't know what was said, didn't watch a bit of the coverage...just reading reports today.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 05:35 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Same people who would call that 'hate speech' would ban books like slaughterhouse 5 from public high schools.   Information is scary.

No doubt. Those folks aren't open-minded like us. Given the vast majority of the hate was directed against one man and there are those close-minded folks out there that may not condone hate directed toward the Commander In Chief, but they're are just those book-burnin 'types. 

[Vas Deferens]

(01-22-2017, 05:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt. Those folks aren't open-minded like us. Given the vast majority of the hate was directed against one man and there are those close-minded folks out there that may not condone hate directed toward the Commander In Chief, but they're are just those book-burnin 'types. 

'they're are' ? Does not compute. Trickle down communication skills already in effect.

What was the 'hate speech' again? Or are you just upset they didn't do the pledge of allegiance and wear a flag pin?

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 06:44 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: 'they're are' ?  Does not compute.  Trickle down communication skills already in effect.

What was the 'hate speech' again?   Or are you just upset they didn't do the pledge of allegiance and wear a flag pin?

Grammar smack. Two funny.


Just google Women's march 2017 quotes and read them for yourself, there was a lot of hate directed toward POTUS. I'm not upset at all; what would give you that idea? 

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-22-2017, 07:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Grammar smack. Two funny.


Just google Women's march 2017 quotes and read them for yourself, there was a lot of hate directed toward POTUS. I'm not upset at all; what would give you that idea? 

Did you think the people going to PROTEST the president were going to sing his praises or something?

Poor Trump never said anything bad about anyone I for one can not believe this angel of a man would have bad things said about him. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 07:33 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Did you think the people going to PROTEST the president were going to sing his praises or something?

Poor Trump never said anything bad about anyone I for one can not believe this angel of a man would have bad things said about him. 

I did not and as I said I have respect for those that peacefully assembled. This is why I'm perplexed to dude's assumption that I am upset. I merely said many hateful words were spoken against a sitting President; perhaps unprecedented. But as you were kind enough to point out; no one caused a scene or got arrested, although I am sure many disagreed with the words being spoken. 

This was in stark contrast to the over 200 folks arrested the day prior, because they were mad.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-than-200-people-arrested-as-inauguration-protests-turn-violent-051504165.html

[Vas Deferens]

(01-22-2017, 08:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I did not and as I said I have respect for those that peacefully assembled. This is why I'm perplexed to dude's assumption that I am upset. I merely said many hateful words were spoken against a sitting President; perhaps unprecedented. But as you were kind enough to point out; no one caused a scene or got arrested, although I am sure many disagreed with the words being spoken. 

This was in stark contrast to the over 200 folks arrested the day prior, because they were mad.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-than-200-people-arrested-as-inauguration-protests-turn-violent-051504165.html

I was under the impression you were 'upset' because you referred to 'hate speach'. I was not aware of any 'hate speach'. I've requested examples, still nothing. If it was mere hyperbole, fine. But referring to statements made in peaceful protests as hate speach would imply one was 'upset'.

Maybe you could spin up some alnternative facts for me to review.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 08:32 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I was under the impression you were 'upset' because you referred to 'hate speach'.  I was not aware of any 'hate speach'.  I've requested examples, still nothing.  If it was mere hyperbole, fine.  But referring to statements made in peaceful protests as hate speach would imply one was 'upset'.  

Maybe you could spin up some alnternative facts for me to review.

Not sure if your playing obtuse or if its genuine.

Ashley Judd accused POTUS of incestuous thoughts

Madonna said she has thought a lot about blowing up the residence of POTUS and told him to suck a Richard

I'm sure I could find more if I were so inclined, but they're is no point. Their were people that spoke at that pieceful meeting and some of that "speach" was hateful. You may want to reassess you're measure of what constitutes someone being upset.  


PS: Lot's of grammatical errors in the above; have a ball. 

[Vas Deferens]

So you simultaneously decry making parallels to Hitler and misuse the word hate speach, stripping it of its meaning.

Convenient.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 09:08 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: So you simultaneously decry making parallels to Hitler and misuse the word hate speach, stripping it of its meaning.  

Convenient.

O nose!!!! Misused a word and stripped it of it's meaning. If ewe want to be the knew grammar police, instead of looking at the point of a post, you Mae want two no that its hate speech not hate speach.

[Vas Deferens]

Redacted...

[StoneTheCrow]

Seriously though. If all of these injustices against women are happening, why didn't they march during the King's 8 year reign. Why didn't he fix them? Trump's been president for 7 minutes? Better march!!!

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 09:28 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Seriously though. If all of these injustices against women are happening, why didn't they march during the King's 8 year reign. Why didn't he fix them? Trump's been president for 7 minutes? Better march!!!

Hey, you have a point. Refreshing. 

[StoneTheCrow]

(01-22-2017, 09:28 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Seriously though. If all of these injustices against women are happening, why didn't they march during the King's 8 year reign. Why didn't he fix them? Trump's been president for 7 minutes? Better march!!!

Answer: It's trendy and appealing to be a whiny little cry ass for not getting your way because you'll be coddled by the media and Hollywood.

[Belsnickel]

(01-22-2017, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It just speaks to one's mentality when he or she says "They would have been violent too". And then suggest they are not trying to mitigate what happened.

Considering my first post was condemning the violence without making that statement and that me saying that was only in response to someone trying to claim being violent was only a liberal thing I thing, it is absolutely logical to suggest my statement is not mitigating what happened.