Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

If you want a real answer it's because not all anti-police groups are left wing. You know about Sovereign Citizens/Free Men On The Land? They are extremely dangerous anti-government nutjobs that sometimes kill officers when they get pulled over. There's a 'black version' of them too, Moorish separatists.

---

Yeah, Sovereign Citizens, also known as Constitutionalists, are probably responsible for the majority of politically charged Anti-Police attacks. The only people they recognize as legitimate are elected sheriffs and judges. Regular police they see as armed thugs with no legitimate authority.

The Sovereign Citizens can't be responsible for those anti-police deaths because they have Sovereign Citizens listed as their own category with no deaths attributed to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BriarFox

As for this whole biased thing--again, having an opinion is not the same thing as being biased. I have a very clear point of view, as you've noted, but I try really, really hard to look at the broad facts of a situation and to stay above petty insults and gut reactions. I'm hardly perfect, but at least I try. I wish the other posters here would try to do the same.

---

You are really, really bad at looking at the broad facts of the situation then. You are also very, very bad a staying above petty insults. You are also very, very bad at controlling your gut reactions.

You aren't trying. Like at all.

If you require examples of each thing, let me know. It'll be extremely easy to illustrate your complete blindness towards "broad facts", your inability to stay above petty insults and your laughable "control" of your gut reactions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

The Sovereign Citizens can't be responsible for those anti-police deaths because they have Sovereign Citizens listed as their own category with no deaths attributed to them.

---

The most notable one was in 2010, where a Sovereign citizen and his son gunned down two officers with an AK. There was a shootout between another and two officers last May, the officers won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

The Sovereign Citizens can't be responsible for those anti-police deaths because they have Sovereign Citizens listed as their own category with no deaths attributed to them.

---

They might be counting the Baton Rouge and NYC shootings then (plus some others). They're listed as 'anti police' because the motives for killing them didn't go beyond looking for revenge against police after some high profile court rulings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

They might be counting the Baton Rouge and NYC shootings then (plus some others). They're listed as 'anti police' because the motives for killing them didn't go beyond looking for revenge against police after some high profile court rulings.

---

That was in 2016, Dallas and Baton Rouge had 9 officers killed in the two incidents, so it isn't that... Unless they are just not including one of them.

Eitherway, the list is wrong. It has 0 deaths attributed to Sovereign Citizens and that just isn't the case in the time period it lists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Great. I guess that means you're free to push for changes that kill off the other 99.9% of kids with cancer who aren't affected at all by your donations to St Jude.

---

I'll be honest.. even if soywolff comes back.. if you keep this type of rhetoric up.. you will win the belt easily.

Hopefully, Soyfox slinks back into his hole.. right now, he's your only competition. soystuff1 isn't even trying... he's just lashing out, trying to scratch your face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

That was in 2016, Dallas and Baton Rouge had 9 officers killed in the two incidents, so it isn't that... Unless they are just not including one of them.

Eitherway, the list is wrong. It has 0 deaths attributed to Sovereign Citizens and that just isn't the case in the time period it lists.

---

It would be helpful if there was a list of exactly what crime was linked to which category. I noticed 'anti-white' has 5 deaths, which matches up with the Dallas shootings (the guy said he wanted to kill white people, especially police officers, maybe they put him there instead).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

You are really, really bad at looking at the broad facts of the situation then. You are also very, very bad a staying above petty insults. You are also very, very bad at controlling your gut reactions.

You aren't trying. Like at all.

If you require examples of each thing, let me know. It'll be extremely easy to illustrate your complete blindness towards "broad facts", your inability to stay above petty insults and your laughable "control" of your gut reactions.

---

Please, o’ bastion of all things cognitive, show me the error of my ways for daring to invade your echo-chamber!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

What a joke. Seriously stop getting your so called news from Washington Post.

---

You prefer Breitbart?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Jim Acosta wasn't asking a question, he was trying to debate Trump. A real journalist, of which Acosta isn't, would have said something like "What are your thoughts about people saying your description about the caravan is wrong?" Even that's not real journalism either but at least it looks like a legitimate question.

Acosta stands up and says "This is not an invasion, why are you calling it an invasion." This is not how a journalist asks a question, it's how an activist asks a question. You're so blinded by your partisan politics you don't even know which way is up anymore.

---

I already said Acosta was grandstanding, but he did have a legitimate question about Trump's characterization of the caravan for political purposes before the election. You don't think it was a legitimate question? Or do you just believe that a group of poor people from Honduras are assaulting the border so they can attack you in your sleep and steal your things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

You're fucking kidding me, right? So ANY political racial violence is automatically considered right wing extremism? Even that black church that was set on fire by a black man that tried to make it look like a white Trump supporter set the fire?

And left wing extremism is just "disdain" for capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism?

What an absolute complete joke. Where do you find these articles?

---

The definitions seem pretty standard to me. You should probably re-read them when you're less angry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

So if white supremacists attack someone it's considered a far right attack, but if Muslims and black supremacists attack someone it's not considered a far left attack? Well isn't that special? Stop rotting your brain.

---

Why would Muslim violence be characterized as leftist? It's religious violence, not anything that's traditionally seen as "left" (i.e., Marxist, etc). And since when is the left anti-white? Being pro-diversity isn't the same thing as overthrowing the white agenda, you know. What exactly do you think the far left is?

Take a deep breath. I'm happy to debate ideas, but you just shout a lot.