Poll of the Day > Conservative Heifer, Tomi Lahren gets WATER thrown on her as Everyone CHEERS!!!

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
OhhhJa 05/24/18 8:55:55 AM #51:	wah_wah_wah posted... Trespasser2003 posted... wah_wah_wah posted... adjl posted... There's a pretty major difference between what's typically meant by "advocating violence" (i.e. causing appreciable physical harm to somebody) and laughing at somebody who got splashed with water If you're laughing off throwing water at someone as some sort of statement, you're part of the problem. It's not that far of a leap to beating the shit out of someone. adjl posted... There's also a pretty major difference between "saying things [people] don't like" (i.e. "Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie come at me nerds") and hate speech. Nonetheless adults should be able to respond to both without resorting to cowardly attacks. Splashing water on someone IS INDEED quite a far leap from beating the shit out of them. I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it. While Richard Spencer has some really fucked up and dangerous ideas, violence is only going to empower a guy like that and make opposition look bad. But yeah... as far as throwing water on someone, it's not that far of a leap from fighting because fights have been started for far less. If someone threw water on me at a bar, I'm not sure how I'd react but that's definitely someone looking for a fight if they do that <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:901898386] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>There's a pretty major difference between what's typically meant by "advocating violence" (i.e. causing appreciable physical harm to somebody) and laughing at somebody who got splashed with water</quote> If you're laughing off throwing water at someone as some sort of statement, you're part of the problem. It's not that far of a leap to beating the shit out of someone. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> There's also a pretty major difference between "saying things [people] don't like" (i.e. "Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie come at me nerds") and hate speech.</quote> Nonetheless adults should be able to respond to both without resorting to cowardly attacks.</quote> Splashing water on someone IS INDEED quite a far leap from beating the shit out of them.</quote> I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it.</quote> While Richard Spencer has some really fucked up and dangerous ideas, violence is only going to empower a guy like that and make opposition look bad. But yeah... as far as throwing water on someone, it's not that far of a leap from fighting because fights have been started for far less. If someone threw water on me at a bar, I'm not sure how I'd react but that's definitely someone looking for a fight if they do that</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 05/24/18 9:07:51 AM #52:	adjl posted... OhhhJa posted... VeeVees posted... Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government. I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable And if they oppress you non-violently? Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:901898815] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VeeVees posted...</cite> <quote>Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government.</quote> I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable</quote> And if they oppress you non-violently?</quote> Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
knivesX2004 05/24/18 9:20:17 AM #53:	OhhhJa posted... hitting them where it hurts can have success. 10 seconds later after hitting somebody where it hurts "No not like that." <cite>knivesX2004 posted [p:901899290] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>hitting them where it hurts can have success. </quote> 10 seconds later after hitting somebody where it hurts "No not like that."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 05/24/18 9:22:38 AM #54:	OhhhJa posted... Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. That's because the US isn't a tyrannical dictatorship. Protests work by showing the government where efforts would appease most people, if the government doesn't want the people to be happy then it's pointless. --- Scloud posted... Its like he wants two things at the same time. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:901899385] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote> Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. </quote> That's because the US isn't a tyrannical dictatorship. Protests work by showing the government where efforts would appease most people, if the government doesn't want the people to be happy then it's pointless.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 05/24/18 9:40:57 AM #55:	Kyuubi4269 posted... OhhhJa posted... Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. That's because the US isn't a tyrannical dictatorship. Protests work by showing the government where efforts would appease most people, if the government doesn't want the people to be happy then it's pointless. Violence is pretty useless in those cases as well because the population already has no resources. North Korea is a solid example of that <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:901900126] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote> Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. </quote> That's because the US isn't a tyrannical dictatorship. Protests work by showing the government where efforts would appease most people, if the government doesn't want the people to be happy then it's pointless.</quote> Violence is pretty useless in those cases as well because the population already has no resources. North Korea is a solid example of that</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 05/24/18 9:41:07 AM #56:	knivesX2004 posted... OhhhJa posted... hitting them where it hurts can have success. 10 seconds later after hitting somebody where it hurts "No not like that." Lol <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:901900132] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>knivesX2004 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>hitting them where it hurts can have success. </quote> 10 seconds later after hitting somebody where it hurts "No not like that."</quote> Lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 05/24/18 9:42:10 AM #57:	OhhhJa posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... OhhhJa posted... Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. That's because the US isn't a tyrannical dictatorship. Protests work by showing the government where efforts would appease most people, if the government doesn't want the people to be happy then it's pointless. Violence is pretty useless in those cases as well because the population already has no resources. North Korea is a solid example of that If the US became tyrannical its resources wouldn't just disappear in to the ether. --- Scloud posted... Its like he wants two things at the same time. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:901900168] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote> Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. </quote> That's because the US isn't a tyrannical dictatorship. Protests work by showing the government where efforts would appease most people, if the government doesn't want the people to be happy then it's pointless.</quote> Violence is pretty useless in those cases as well because the population already has no resources. North Korea is a solid example of that</quote> If the US became tyrannical its resources wouldn't just disappear in to the ether.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 05/24/18 9:48:21 AM #58:	Kyuubi4269 posted... OhhhJa posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... OhhhJa posted... Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. That's because the US isn't a tyrannical dictatorship. Protests work by showing the government where efforts would appease most people, if the government doesn't want the people to be happy then it's pointless. Violence is pretty useless in those cases as well because the population already has no resources. North Korea is a solid example of that If the US became tyrannical its resources wouldn't just disappear in to the ether. Yeah but that's not what I was referring to. Plus, I don't think we have to worry about the US becoming anything like NK <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:901900455] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote> Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. </quote> That's because the US isn't a tyrannical dictatorship. Protests work by showing the government where efforts would appease most people, if the government doesn't want the people to be happy then it's pointless.</quote> Violence is pretty useless in those cases as well because the population already has no resources. North Korea is a solid example of that</quote> If the US became tyrannical its resources wouldn't just disappear in to the ether.</quote> Yeah but that's not what I was referring to. Plus, I don't think we have to worry about the US becoming anything like NK</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trespasser2003 05/24/18 10:57:43 AM #59:	OhhhJa posted... adjl posted... OhhhJa posted... VeeVees posted... Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government. I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable And if they oppress you non-violently? Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets Fascinating theory. https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b --- Itchy itchy. scott came. ugly face so killed him. Tasty. 4// itchy. tasty. <cite>Trespasser2003 posted [p:901903780] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VeeVees posted...</cite> <quote>Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government.</quote> I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable</quote> And if they oppress you non-violently?</quote> Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets</quote> Fascinating theory. https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 05/24/18 11:16:25 AM #60:	wah_wah_wah posted... I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it. Yeah splashing water on somebody is the same as molesting them. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:901904591] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote> I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it.</quote> Yeah splashing water on somebody is the same as molesting them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#61	Post #61 was unavailable or deleted.
Trespasser2003 05/24/18 11:35:34 AM #62:	Zangulus posted... Revelation34 posted... wah_wah_wah posted... I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it. Yeah splashing water on somebody is the same as molesting them. Youre using the wrong definition of molestation. The word isnt inherently sexual. No it still fits. --- Itchy itchy. scott came. ugly face so killed him. Tasty. 4// itchy. tasty. <cite>Trespasser2003 posted [p:901905457] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote> I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it.</quote> Yeah splashing water on somebody is the same as molesting them.</quote> Youre using the wrong definition of molestation. The word isnt inherently sexual.</quote> No it still fits.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 05/24/18 11:52:45 AM #63:	Trespasser2003 posted... OhhhJa posted... adjl posted... OhhhJa posted... VeeVees posted... Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government. I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable And if they oppress you non-violently? Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets Fascinating theory. https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b If you make it a game of violence, the hard right automatically wins. They give no fucks about people and are therefore best set up to win that fight. Martin Luther King never said that violence is the first means, only that force should only be the absolute last resort if dialogue is impossible. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:901906307] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VeeVees posted...</cite> <quote>Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government.</quote> I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable</quote> And if they oppress you non-violently?</quote> Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets</quote> Fascinating theory. https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b</quote> If you make it a game of violence, the hard right automatically wins. They give no fucks about people and are therefore best set up to win that fight. Martin Luther King never said that violence is the first means, only that force should only be the absolute last resort if dialogue is impossible.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PK_Spam 05/24/18 11:57:00 AM #64:	Zeus posted... Somehow assaulting somebody because you're mad about the way you think they perceive and talk about your race seems completely counterproductive. Racists dont deserve respect or sympathy --- https://imgur.com/hCHZS1f <cite>PK_Spam posted [p:901906535] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Somehow assaulting somebody because you're mad about the way you think they perceive and talk about your race seems completely counterproductive.</quote> Racists dont deserve respect or sympathy</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trespasser2003 05/24/18 12:01:56 PM #65:	wah_wah_wah posted... Trespasser2003 posted... OhhhJa posted... adjl posted... OhhhJa posted... VeeVees posted... Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government. I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable And if they oppress you non-violently? Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets Fascinating theory. https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b If you make it a game of violence, the hard right automatically wins. They give no fucks about people and are therefore best set up to win that fight. Martin Luther King never said that violence is the first means, only that force should only be the absolute last resort if dialogue is impossible. Of course it's a last resort... but it's also flat-out idiotic to think that being peace-minded liberal wanting equality and/or tolerance means that you should just roll over and constantly take the abuse. Being angry is reasonable, and fighting back is reasonable. The people who always are the ones telling people to sit down, stand up, stop using violence, protest peacefully... those people tend to be the ones who are in power and do not want to share. AND they are usually the ones who tend to think that war is great and everyone should have guns because violence is the answer. --- Itchy itchy. scott came. ugly face so killed him. Tasty. 4// itchy. tasty. <cite>Trespasser2003 posted [p:901906742] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VeeVees posted...</cite> <quote>Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government.</quote> I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable</quote> And if they oppress you non-violently?</quote> Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets</quote> Fascinating theory. https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b</quote> If you make it a game of violence, the hard right automatically wins. They give no fucks about people and are therefore best set up to win that fight. Martin Luther King never said that violence is the first means, only that force should only be the absolute last resort if dialogue is impossible.</quote> Of course it's a last resort... but it's also flat-out idiotic to think that being peace-minded liberal wanting equality and/or tolerance means that you should just roll over and constantly take the abuse. Being angry is reasonable, and fighting back is reasonable. The people who always are the ones telling people to sit down, stand up, stop using violence, protest peacefully... those people tend to be the ones who are in power and do not want to share. AND they are usually the ones who tend to think that war is great and everyone should have guns because violence is the answer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PK_Spam 05/24/18 12:02:12 PM #66:	wah_wah_wah posted... Trespasser2003 posted... wah_wah_wah posted... adjl posted... There's a pretty major difference between what's typically meant by "advocating violence" (i.e. causing appreciable physical harm to somebody) and laughing at somebody who got splashed with water If you're laughing off throwing water at someone as some sort of statement, you're part of the problem. It's not that far of a leap to beating the shit out of someone. adjl posted... There's also a pretty major difference between "saying things [people] don't like" (i.e. "Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie come at me nerds") and hate speech. Nonetheless adults should be able to respond to both without resorting to cowardly attacks. Splashing water on someone IS INDEED quite a far leap from beating the shit out of them. I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it. Richard Spencer is a Nazi, dude. --- https://imgur.com/hCHZS1f <cite>PK_Spam posted [p:901906754] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>There's a pretty major difference between what's typically meant by "advocating violence" (i.e. causing appreciable physical harm to somebody) and laughing at somebody who got splashed with water</quote> If you're laughing off throwing water at someone as some sort of statement, you're part of the problem. It's not that far of a leap to beating the shit out of someone. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> There's also a pretty major difference between "saying things [people] don't like" (i.e. "Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie come at me nerds") and hate speech.</quote> Nonetheless adults should be able to respond to both without resorting to cowardly attacks.</quote> Splashing water on someone IS INDEED quite a far leap from beating the shit out of them.</quote> I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it.</quote> Richard Spencer is a Nazi, dude.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trespasser2003 05/24/18 12:03:15 PM #67:	PK_Spam posted... wah_wah_wah posted... Trespasser2003 posted... wah_wah_wah posted... adjl posted... There's a pretty major difference between what's typically meant by "advocating violence" (i.e. causing appreciable physical harm to somebody) and laughing at somebody who got splashed with water If you're laughing off throwing water at someone as some sort of statement, you're part of the problem. It's not that far of a leap to beating the shit out of someone. adjl posted... There's also a pretty major difference between "saying things [people] don't like" (i.e. "Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie come at me nerds") and hate speech. Nonetheless adults should be able to respond to both without resorting to cowardly attacks. Splashing water on someone IS INDEED quite a far leap from beating the shit out of them. I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it. Richard Spencer is a Nazi, dude. Just wait until they find out what happened to the Nazis in WW2. Although I'm sure it's not long before that's all called "fake news." --- Itchy itchy. scott came. ugly face so killed him. Tasty. 4// itchy. tasty. <cite>Trespasser2003 posted [p:901906806] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>PK_Spam posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>There's a pretty major difference between what's typically meant by "advocating violence" (i.e. causing appreciable physical harm to somebody) and laughing at somebody who got splashed with water</quote> If you're laughing off throwing water at someone as some sort of statement, you're part of the problem. It's not that far of a leap to beating the shit out of someone. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> There's also a pretty major difference between "saying things [people] don't like" (i.e. "Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie come at me nerds") and hate speech.</quote> Nonetheless adults should be able to respond to both without resorting to cowardly attacks.</quote> Splashing water on someone IS INDEED quite a far leap from beating the shit out of them.</quote> I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it.</quote> Richard Spencer is a Nazi, dude.</quote> Just wait until they find out what happened to the Nazis in WW2. Although I'm sure it's not long before that's all called "fake news."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 05/24/18 12:04:56 PM #68:	Trespasser2003 posted... wah_wah_wah posted... Trespasser2003 posted... OhhhJa posted... adjl posted... OhhhJa posted... VeeVees posted... Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government. I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable And if they oppress you non-violently? Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets Fascinating theory. https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b If you make it a game of violence, the hard right automatically wins. They give no fucks about people and are therefore best set up to win that fight. Martin Luther King never said that violence is the first means, only that force should only be the absolute last resort if dialogue is impossible. Of course it's a last resort... but it's also flat-out idiotic to think that being peace-minded liberal wanting equality and/or tolerance means that you should just roll over and constantly take the abuse. Being angry is reasonable, and fighting back is reasonable. The people who always are the ones telling people to sit down, stand up, stop using violence, protest peacefully... those people tend to be the ones who are in power and do not want to share. AND they are usually the ones who tend to think that war is great and everyone should have guns because violence is the answer. Let's bring context to what we're talking about. This is a woman sitting in a restaurant minding her own business. You don't get to go and violate her space because you find her views objectionable. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:901906893] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VeeVees posted...</cite> <quote>Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government.</quote> I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable</quote> And if they oppress you non-violently?</quote> Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets</quote> Fascinating theory. https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b</quote> If you make it a game of violence, the hard right automatically wins. They give no fucks about people and are therefore best set up to win that fight. Martin Luther King never said that violence is the first means, only that force should only be the absolute last resort if dialogue is impossible.</quote> Of course it's a last resort... but it's also flat-out idiotic to think that being peace-minded liberal wanting equality and/or tolerance means that you should just roll over and constantly take the abuse. Being angry is reasonable, and fighting back is reasonable. The people who always are the ones telling people to sit down, stand up, stop using violence, protest peacefully... those people tend to be the ones who are in power and do not want to share. AND they are usually the ones who tend to think that war is great and everyone should have guns because violence is the answer.</quote> Let's bring context to what we're talking about. This is a woman sitting in a restaurant minding her own business. You don't get to go and violate her space because you find her views objectionable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PK_Spam 05/24/18 12:05:42 PM #69:	So the people waving around Nazi flags and armbands arent real then? The same ones that say that I shouldnt be in the states just because of the color of my skin, and I should be dead? No, pretty sure those are Nazis --- https://imgur.com/hCHZS1f <cite>PK_Spam posted [p:901906941] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote>So the people waving around Nazi flags and armbands arent real then? The same ones that say that I shouldnt be in the states just because of the color of my skin, and I should be dead? No, pretty sure those are Nazis</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 05/24/18 12:06:22 PM #70:	PK_Spam posted... wah_wah_wah posted... Trespasser2003 posted... wah_wah_wah posted... adjl posted... There's a pretty major difference between what's typically meant by "advocating violence" (i.e. causing appreciable physical harm to somebody) and laughing at somebody who got splashed with water If you're laughing off throwing water at someone as some sort of statement, you're part of the problem. It's not that far of a leap to beating the shit out of someone. adjl posted... There's also a pretty major difference between "saying things [people] don't like" (i.e. "Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie come at me nerds") and hate speech. Nonetheless adults should be able to respond to both without resorting to cowardly attacks. Splashing water on someone IS INDEED quite a far leap from beating the shit out of them. I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it. Richard Spencer is a Nazi, dude. What a terrible way to dishonor the victims of Nazis by taking one of their many cherished methods of silencing people through force. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:901906966] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>PK_Spam posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>There's a pretty major difference between what's typically meant by "advocating violence" (i.e. causing appreciable physical harm to somebody) and laughing at somebody who got splashed with water</quote> If you're laughing off throwing water at someone as some sort of statement, you're part of the problem. It's not that far of a leap to beating the shit out of someone. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> There's also a pretty major difference between "saying things [people] don't like" (i.e. "Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie come at me nerds") and hate speech.</quote> Nonetheless adults should be able to respond to both without resorting to cowardly attacks.</quote> Splashing water on someone IS INDEED quite a far leap from beating the shit out of them.</quote> I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it.</quote> Richard Spencer is a Nazi, dude.</quote> What a terrible way to dishonor the victims of Nazis by taking one of their many cherished methods of silencing people through force.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trespasser2003 05/24/18 12:14:05 PM #71:	wah_wah_wah posted... Let's bring context to what we're talking about. This is a woman sitting in a restaurant minding her own business. You don't get to go and violate her space because you find her views objectionable. (sorry I don't know how to get the quote count down properly) You must not have read the statement from the staff. She was not sitting nicely minding her own business. She was making snide comments on her way out, and you can see in the video that the person who threw water at her was several feet away and that it barely even splashed her. I'd wager that she got less water on her than she would have accidentally flushing while still sitting on the shitter. --- Itchy itchy. scott came. ugly face so killed him. Tasty. 4// itchy. tasty. <cite>Trespasser2003 posted [p:901907370] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote>wah_wah_wah posted... Let's bring context to what we're talking about. This is a woman sitting in a restaurant minding her own business. You don't get to go and violate her space because you find her views objectionable. (sorry I don't know how to get the quote count down properly) You must not have read the statement from the staff. She was not sitting nicely minding her own business. She was making snide comments on her way out, and you can see in the video that the person who threw water at her was several feet away and that it barely even splashed her. I'd wager that she got less water on her than she would have accidentally flushing while still sitting on the shitter.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trespasser2003 05/24/18 12:15:19 PM #72:	wah_wah_wah posted... PK_Spam posted... wah_wah_wah posted... Trespasser2003 posted... wah_wah_wah posted... adjl posted... There's a pretty major difference between what's typically meant by "advocating violence" (i.e. causing appreciable physical harm to somebody) and laughing at somebody who got splashed with water If you're laughing off throwing water at someone as some sort of statement, you're part of the problem. It's not that far of a leap to beating the shit out of someone. adjl posted... There's also a pretty major difference between "saying things [people] don't like" (i.e. "Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie come at me nerds") and hate speech. Nonetheless adults should be able to respond to both without resorting to cowardly attacks. Splashing water on someone IS INDEED quite a far leap from beating the shit out of them. I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it. Richard Spencer is a Nazi, dude. What a terrible way to dishonor the victims of Nazis by taking one of their many cherished methods of silencing people through force. Yes... tell that to the soldiers who silenced the Nazis through force. There was a whole war about it. You should probs check out some information on it outside of Call of Duty 2. --- Itchy itchy. scott came. ugly face so killed him. Tasty. 4// itchy. tasty. <cite>Trespasser2003 posted [p:901907435] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PK_Spam posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>There's a pretty major difference between what's typically meant by "advocating violence" (i.e. causing appreciable physical harm to somebody) and laughing at somebody who got splashed with water</quote> If you're laughing off throwing water at someone as some sort of statement, you're part of the problem. It's not that far of a leap to beating the shit out of someone. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> There's also a pretty major difference between "saying things [people] don't like" (i.e. "Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie come at me nerds") and hate speech.</quote> Nonetheless adults should be able to respond to both without resorting to cowardly attacks.</quote> Splashing water on someone IS INDEED quite a far leap from beating the shit out of them.</quote> I notice the same people who applaud this also applauded Spencer getting punched. It's the same type of principle - "you don't deserve to be unmolested, I have rights to invade your space"... it is creepy as fuck that anyone would try to minimize it.</quote> Richard Spencer is a Nazi, dude.</quote> What a terrible way to dishonor the victims of Nazis by taking one of their many cherished methods of silencing people through force.</quote> Yes... tell that to the soldiers who silenced the Nazis through force. There was a whole war about it. You should probs check out some information on it outside of Call of Duty 2.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PK_Spam 05/24/18 12:19:19 PM #73:	What was she even saying as she left? This is the first Ive heard of her saying something bitchy as she was leaving. Was it vaguely racist. I BET it was vaguely racist. --- https://imgur.com/hCHZS1f <cite>PK_Spam posted [p:901907684] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote>What was she even saying as she left? This is the first Ive heard of her saying something bitchy as she was leaving. Was it vaguely racist. I BET it was vaguely racist.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 05/24/18 12:19:39 PM #74:	Trespasser2003 posted... wah_wah_wah posted... Let's bring context to what we're talking about. This is a woman sitting in a restaurant minding her own business. You don't get to go and violate her space because you find her views objectionable. (sorry I don't know how to get the quote count down properly) You must not have read the statement from the staff. She was not sitting nicely minding her own business. She was making snide comments on her way out, and you can see in the video that the person who threw water at her was several feet away and that it barely even splashed her. I'd wager that she got less water on her than she would have accidentally flushing while still sitting on the shitter. So she threw some shade. That doesn't give you any right to violate her space. In the end what are you trying to argue by saying she didn't get that much water on her? It's the same minimization bullshit. The intent was there. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:901907705] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote>wah_wah_wah posted... Let's bring context to what we're talking about. This is a woman sitting in a restaurant minding her own business. You don't get to go and violate her space because you find her views objectionable. (sorry I don't know how to get the quote count down properly) You must not have read the statement from the staff. She was not sitting nicely minding her own business. She was making snide comments on her way out, and you can see in the video that the person who threw water at her was several feet away and that it barely even splashed her. I'd wager that she got less water on her than she would have accidentally flushing while still sitting on the shitter.</quote> So she threw some shade. That doesn't give you any right to violate her space. In the end what are you trying to argue by saying she didn't get that much water on her? It's the same minimization bullshit. The intent was there.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 05/24/18 12:21:39 PM #75:	Trespasser2003 posted... Yes... tell that to the soldiers who silenced the Nazis through force. There was a whole war about it. You should probs check out some information on it outside of Call of Duty 2. This person wasn't a combat soldier facing bullets, they were a person in a Minneapolis restaurant facing unkind words. Are you from this fucking planet? Or are you from the distant country of Dumfuckistan <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:901907805] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes... tell that to the soldiers who silenced the Nazis through force. There was a whole war about it. You should probs check out some information on it outside of Call of Duty 2. </quote> This person wasn't a combat soldier facing bullets, they were a person in a Minneapolis restaurant facing unkind words. Are you from this fucking planet? Or are you from the distant country of Dumfuckistan</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PK_Spam 05/24/18 12:21:52 PM #76:	You cant spout racist bullshit all the time and then expect people to like you, bro. --- https://imgur.com/hCHZS1f <cite>PK_Spam posted [p:901907821] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote>You cant spout racist bullshit all the time and then expect people to like you, bro.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 05/24/18 12:25:16 PM #77:	I'm not saying they have to like her. I personally find her loathsome. But just because you don't like her wretched opinions, that doesn't justify you going and molesting her however way you want. Are you a lunatic? <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:901907989] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote>I'm not saying they have to like her. I personally find her loathsome. But just because you don't like her wretched opinions, that doesn't justify you going and molesting her however way you want. Are you a lunatic?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PK_Spam 05/24/18 12:31:26 PM #78:	Shes devaluing humans lives based on the color of their skin, bro. Im sure thats not a deeply personal issue to YOU, but to me, its a giant threat. --- https://imgur.com/hCHZS1f <cite>PK_Spam posted [p:901908337] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote>Shes devaluing humans lives based on the color of their skin, bro. Im sure thats not a deeply personal issue to YOU, but to me, its a giant threat.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 05/24/18 12:42:48 PM #79:	wah_wah_wah posted... I'm not saying they have to like her. I personally find her loathsome. But just because you don't like her wretched opinions, that doesn't justify you going and molesting her however way you want. Are you a lunatic? Why are you asking people if they are lunatics when you keep purposely using a loaded word like "molested"? --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:901908958] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>I'm not saying they have to like her. I personally find her loathsome. But just because you don't like her wretched opinions, that doesn't justify you going and molesting her however way you want. Are you a lunatic?</quote> Why are you asking people if they are lunatics when you keep purposely using a loaded word like "molested"?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 05/24/18 1:39:00 PM #80:	That's freedom of speech. Hitler liked freedom of speech, when he agreed with it. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:901912111] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote>That's freedom of speech. Hitler liked freedom of speech, when he agreed with it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PK_Spam 05/24/18 2:11:54 PM #81:	wah_wah_wah posted... That's freedom of speech. Hitler liked freedom of speech, when he agreed with it. Freedom of speech protects you from the law. It doesnt keep other people from calling you out on your bullshit --- https://imgur.com/hCHZS1f <cite>PK_Spam posted [p:901913909] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>That's freedom of speech. Hitler liked freedom of speech, when he agreed with it.</quote> Freedom of speech protects you from the law. It doesnt keep other people from calling you out on your bullshit</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 05/24/18 5:16:46 PM #82:	PK_Spam posted... wah_wah_wah posted... That's freedom of speech. Hitler liked freedom of speech, when he agreed with it. Freedom of speech protects you from the law. It doesnt keep other people from calling you out on your bullshit You're not "calling them out" when you're molesting them and invading their space <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:901923811] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>PK_Spam posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>That's freedom of speech. Hitler liked freedom of speech, when he agreed with it.</quote> Freedom of speech protects you from the law. It doesnt keep other people from calling you out on your bullshit</quote> You're not "calling them out" when you're molesting them and invading their space</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 05/24/18 5:29:00 PM #83:	wah_wah_wah posted... PK_Spam posted... wah_wah_wah posted... That's freedom of speech. Hitler liked freedom of speech, when he agreed with it. Freedom of speech protects you from the law. It doesnt keep other people from calling you out on your bullshit You're not "calling them out" when you're molesting them and invading their space https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76634870/901908958 --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:901924448] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PK_Spam posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>That's freedom of speech. Hitler liked freedom of speech, when he agreed with it.</quote> Freedom of speech protects you from the law. It doesnt keep other people from calling you out on your bullshit</quote> You're not "calling them out" when you're molesting them and invading their space</quote> https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76634870/901908958</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Conservative Heifer, Tomi Lahren gets WATER thrown on her as Everyone CHEERS!!! (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Conservative Heifer, Tomi Lahren gets WATER thrown on her as Everyone CHEERS!!!