Everyone agrees that violence is not the answer. You might find some twitter nut advocating for riots on either side but the leadership of the political parties and the summer protests have repeatedly condemned violence.
Its great we all agree on that.
But when you, caelric, post on these forums the snarky comment of "they were mainly peaceful protesters" when someone posts about how awful it is that our Nation's Capital was broken into by rioters, it sounds a lot like you are trying to justify today's violence by falsely suggesting that the violence that happened over the summer was supported by the Democratic Party or whatever you are calling the boogyman out to destroy America this week.
Caelric has been pretty consistent when discussing what happened today and what happened in Portland, Wisconsin, New York, etc for months on end.
You have not.
PC RETARD HALL OF FAME
Originally Posted by Seran-the Current Retard Champion
Besides, Republicans also block abstinence and contraceptives anyway.
Originally Posted by Seran-the Current Retard Champion
Regulating firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals, the unhinged, etc. meets the first test of the 2nd amendment, 'well-regulated'.
Originally Posted by SHAFT
You show me a video of me typing that and Ill admit it. (This was the excuse he came up with when he was called out for a really stupid post)
Originally Posted by Back
3 million more popular votes. I'd say the numbers speak for themselves. Gerrymandering won for Trump.
Yeah yeah. Let me know when you find your balls to admit you were defending the violence today by trying to say democratic leadership condoned or encouraged the riots over the summer.
Yeah yeah. Let me know when you find your balls to admit you were defending the violence today by trying to say democratic leadership condoned or encouraged the riots over the summer.
Do you think that personally attacking Back somehow means he didn't challenge you to back up your claim -- and you spectacularly failed to substantiate it?
Do you think that personally attacking Back somehow means he didn't challenge you to back up your claim -- and you spectacularly failed to substantiate it?
How are you this dumb?
What? His claim that I defended the violence today? Demonstrably false, as I, multiple time, condemned the violence today and said the rioters should be arrested and imprisoned.