Trump’s Gestapo in Portland

[workswithseed 2201]

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/criminal-charges-against-dozens-of-portland-protesters-dropped/283-0571774d-43e4-4750-903a-db8e686a7a51

 

PORTLAND, Ore. — Dozens of protesters arrested during mass demonstrations in downtown Portland have had their criminal charges dropped and cases closed. 

KGW analysis of police and court records shows the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office dropped charges against at least 59 of the roughly 400 protesters arrested since mass demonstrations started in Portland in late May.

Most of the dropped charges were misdemeanor offenses such as interfering with a police officer, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Nine cases dismissed by prosecutors involved more serious felony charges, including riot, arson and theft in the first degree.  

[Bama Chick 28596]

Now read them both and see if you can spot which one is news and which one is inflammatory propaganda wrapped around news.

Here’s a hint -


“Portland Rioters”
“nightly destructive riots”
“rioting offenses”
“ANTIFA-linked street criminals” “destructive nightly riots”
“liberal city”
“going so far as to attack a federal courthouse with improvised mortars and to riot in the streets armed with improvised explosive devices”
“rioting offenses”
“rioter”
“street riots”
“ANTIFA operatives”

[workswithseed 2201]

1 minute ago, Bama Chick said:

Now read them both and see if you can spot which one is news and which one is inflammatory propaganda wrapped around news.

Here’s a hint -


“Portland Rioters”
“nightly destructive riots”
“rioting offenses”
“ANTIFA-linked street criminals” “destructive nightly riots”
“liberal city”
“going so far as to attack a federal courthouse with improvised mortars and to riot in the streets armed with improvised explosive devices”
“rioting offenses”
“rioter”
“street riots”
“ANTIFA operatives”

I saw, and if 341 did get prosecuted, then I would say it sounds more riot like than protest like.

[bad_teammate 13479]

What's the actual problem with any of this, wws?

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I saw, and if 341 did get prosecuted, then I would say it sounds more riot like than protest like.

Define: Riot

[workswithseed 2201]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Define: Riot

From Webster.

1a: a violent public disorderspecifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent.

Protest

2: the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval.

 

Mortar fireworks are illegal to shoot here in Oregon, which is unfortunate, but if you cross the Columbia it is legal to buy.

[bad_teammate 13479]

21 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

From Webster.

1a: a violent public disorder specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent.

So arrests/prosecutions are a sign of a "riot" according to this definition?

What if hundreds of people are arrested for peacefully protesting in an area they are told not to? Is that a "riot"?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Cute

 

[lemonlime 5503]

I saw, and if 341 did get prosecuted, then I would say it sounds more riot like than protest like.

341 since May. So about 6 people per day on average. Interestingly small riot there.

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Sorry for 3 in a row, but inspirational footage of massive crowd.

Trump implemented The Streisand Effect lol

 

I think you mean the "Trump effect."  It's when he wants to accomplish something and he causes the exact opposite.  A great example is his entire business career.

[Bateshorn 9989]

Me, waking up to this thread: 

[wildcat09 29555]

7 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Seems some of the people are just being let go as well.

 

https://ussanews.com/News1/2020/07/14/criminal-charges-against-59-portland-rioters-dropped-by-multnomah-county-prosecutors/

 

The following article, Criminal Charges Against 59 Portland Rioters Dropped by Multnomah County Prosecutors, was first published on Big League Politics.

An analysis of court and police records by Portland’s KGW8 has revealed that Multnomah prosecutors have dropped criminal charges against 59 individuals arrested for crimes during the city’s nightly destructive riots. More than 400 people have been arrested and charged for rioting offenses since ANTIFA-linked street criminals began staging destructive nightly riots in the liberal city, going so far as to attack a federal courthouse with improvised mortars and to riot in the streets armed with improvised explosive devices.

The sum of dropped cases is almost 15% of total arrests made during the nightly riots.

Nine of the criminal cases dropped by Multnomah County prosecutors had included felony charges, including felony riot, arson, and theft. The other fifty cases involve misdemeanor rioting offenses, such as disorderly conduct, interfering with a police officer, and resisting arrest.

At least one rioter is described as having deployed a molotov cocktail device in the street riots, bragging of his alleged criminal act in discussions with other ANTIFA operatives. 

Ah, that's just good objective reporting.

[wildcat09 29555]

7 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Now read them both and see if you can spot which one is news and which one is inflammatory propaganda wrapped around news.

Here’s a hint -


“Portland Rioters”
“nightly destructive riots”
“rioting offenses”
“ANTIFA-linked street criminals” “destructive nightly riots”
“liberal city”
“going so far as to attack a federal courthouse with improvised mortars and to riot in the streets armed with improvised explosive devices”
“rioting offenses”
“rioter”
“street riots”
“ANTIFA operatives”

I would like more explanation of these improvised mortars. Uh, for a friend.

[Bojack 2087]

7 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Seems some of the people are just being let go as well.

 

https://ussanews.com/News1/2020/07/14/criminal-charges-against-59-portland-rioters-dropped-by-multnomah-county-prosecutors/

 

The following article, Criminal Charges Against 59 Portland Rioters Dropped by Multnomah County Prosecutors, was first published on Big League Politics.

An analysis of court and police records by Portland’s KGW8 has revealed that Multnomah prosecutors have dropped criminal charges against 59 individuals arrested for crimes during the city’s nightly destructive riots. More than 400 people have been arrested and charged for rioting offenses since ANTIFA-linked street criminals began staging destructive nightly riots in the liberal city, going so far as to attack a federal courthouse with improvised mortars and to riot in the streets armed with improvised explosive devices.

The sum of dropped cases is almost 15% of total arrests made during the nightly riots.

Nine of the criminal cases dropped by Multnomah County prosecutors had included felony charges, including felony riot, arson, and theft. The other fifty cases involve misdemeanor rioting offenses, such as disorderly conduct, interfering with a police officer, and resisting arrest.

At least one rioter is described as having deployed a molotov cocktail device in the street riots, bragging of his alleged criminal act in discussions with other ANTIFA operatives. 

workswithseed, the fact that you've had zero negs for posting a source this bad should tell you that you're treated very gently here compared to many other posters. Seriously, you seem like an alright person but find some real news sources.  

[4th&Five 41902]

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

13 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

 

That’s good bull

[JBJ 3780]

12 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

I’d just like to point out again the absolute insanity of this post. You have no evidence of any kind and you don’t even know the answer yourself.
Why did you even say this? Did you simply regurgitate a talking point without even a moment of thinking to check if it was true? Either you are incredibly easily deceived or you’re intentionally attempting to deceive us, so which is it?

I know the answer, but I asked the question knowing full well that no one spouting talking points would be able or willing to answer.

How many times have protesters set fires at Portland's federal buildings this month? 

If you can't answer that, or guess plus or minus 2 fires, you really shouldn't trust your judgement on this topic.

Edited July 21, 2020 by JBJ

[Dahobbs 18182]

32 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I know the answer, but I asked the question knowing full well that no one spouting talking points would be able or willing to answer.

How many times have protesters set fires at Portland's federal buildings this month? 

If you can't answer that, or guess plus or minus 2 fires, you really shouldn't trust your judgement on this topic.

By all means, rather that making some obscure point, why don't you just tell us what you know? I've looked. I haven't seen anything definitive outside of one reference to "maybe a small fire" in the federal courthouse. I'd love to see a listing with sources.   

Hell, it isn't clear to me that any buildings were actually set on fire. I see references to small fires set in or near buildings. I mean, fuck, that could literally mean a bag of flaming shit. I guess technically it is a fire, but it isn't what people generally mean when they say a building was set on fire. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Dahobbs

[wildcat09 29555]

Someone probably threw a flaming bag of shit onto the steps in front of the building and, after making sure to call the shit poop, JBJ probably demanded that the officers fire on a crowd of people in response.

Edited July 21, 2020 by wildcat09

[Biff Tannen 46060]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I mean, fuck, that could literally mean a bag of flaming shit.

[workswithseed 2201]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Ah, that's just good objective reporting.

Didn't meant to quote ya.

 

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

So arrests/prosecutions are a sign of a "riot" according to this definition?

What if hundreds of people are arrested for peacefully protesting in an area they are told not to? Is that a "riot"?

No, I wouldn't say what happened in Selma was a riot, or the million man March was one either. That's why I said since they seem riot like. I probably should have said the few that rioted during a protest. I do wonder why the felony charges are being dismissed all together in the few cases. 

 

1 hour ago, Bojack said:

workswithseed, the fact that you've had zero negs for posting a source this bad should tell you that you're treated very gently here compared to many other posters. Seriously, you seem like an alright person but find some real news sources.  

I would say the source is biased, but i don't think it's bad. It's not lying about the information given from the original source it used. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by workswithseed

[SydneyCarton 49323]

22 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Gonna be a healthy dose of both.

I'll tell you this; they have learned to hate.  I think it's sad as shit, but it's a cold truth.  They hate anyone and anything associated with this regime.  Shit, my son, who is actually objectively reasonably conservative, absolutely hates the GOP and Trumpists.  It's not just that most (not all, for sure) of this generation is active, involved, and cares about the issues -- it's that their passion is so damned white-hot.  It's encouraging, and sad, to see.

I mean, I'm glad your kids are passionate. But it's probably not safe to blanket all "young kids" as similar to yours, because it's pretty safe to say their views and opinions and actions are all shaped by the household in which they were raised, and who their parents were/are. Which means at least 30% of their generation have been brainwashed by their trump loving parents. 

I heard a good question on NPR in an interview a couple weeks ago. The guy asked an author "Can someone explain to me how the hippies in the free love movement turned into Boomers?" I'm still flummoxed and scratching me head there. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[wildcat09 29555]

11 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Didn't meant to quote ya.

 

No, I wouldn't say what happened in Selma was a riot, or the million man March was one either. That's why I said since they seem riot like. I probably should have said the few that rioted during a protest. I do wonder why the felony charges are being dismissed all together in the few cases. 

 

I would say the source is biased, but i don't think it's bad. It's not lying about the information given from the original source it used. 

Look man, we may disagree on a lot but you seem well intentioned so I'm going to let you in on a secret. Cops lie. A lot. Basically all of the time. Even when under oath on the witness stand.

I'm not there so I can't speak to exactly what's happened with specific arrests made in Portland over the past few weeks, but I can tell you what every lawyer knows about situations like this generally: police illegally arrest a shitload of people (meaning without probable cause to believe that a particular person they're arresting committed a crime) and fill out a report with some pretextual lie justifying the arrest. That's not intended to stand up in court, but just to paper an excuse for why they rounded up a few hundred agitators they didn't like and wanted to get in the system. Then, because they have no evidence, the charges get dropped, but the people they rounded up have been made to ride the rap and are now identified for easy surveillance and abuse.

[Dahobbs 18182]

22 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, I'm glad your kids are passionate. But it's probably not safe to blanket all "young kids" as similar to yours, because it's pretty safe to say their views and opinions and actions are all shaped by the household in which they were raised, and who their parents were/are. Which means at least 30% of their generation have been brainwashed by their trump loving parents. 

I heard a good question on NPR in an interview a couple weeks ago. The guy asked an author "Can someone explain to me how the hippies in the free love movement turned into Boomers?" I'm still flummoxed and scratching me head there. 

They didn't. The hippies were always a minority of that generation. A vocal and visible minority, but a minority nonetheless. 

[Captainant 28380]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

I know the answer, but I asked the question knowing full well that no one spouting talking points would be able or willing to answer.

How many times have protesters set fires at Portland's federal buildings this month? 

If you can't answer that, or guess plus or minus 2 fires, you really shouldn't trust your judgement on this topic.

can you link me to the news/fact source you're using on setting federal buildings on fire? I haven't heard anything about that aside from unsubstantiated claims on twitter and message boards.

[hobbes2702 13350]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

I know the answer, but I asked the question knowing full well that no one spouting talking points would be able or willing to answer.

How many times have protesters set fires at Portland's federal buildings this month? 

If you can't answer that, or guess plus or minus 2 fires, you really shouldn't trust your judgement on this topic.

So are you easily deceived or are you attempting to deceive us? Because your question has been answered. If you have some sort of knowledge we’d love to hear it. Instead it looks like you are just lying.

[Brisketexan 106610]

34 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, I'm glad your kids are passionate. But it's probably not safe to blanket all "young kids" as similar to yours, because it's pretty safe to say their views and opinions and actions are all shaped by the household in which they were raised, and who their parents were/are. Which means at least 30% of their generation have been brainwashed by their trump loving parents. 

I heard a good question on NPR in an interview a couple weeks ago. The guy asked an author "Can someone explain to me how the hippies in the free love movement turned into Boomers?" I'm still flummoxed and scratching me head there. 

Oh, I don't disagree at all on the numbers (and of course, anecdotal evidence from me is no evidence at all).  Polling data tends to reflect the kind of breakdown you're noting.  That said, what I think is interesting is the unambiguous/entrenched nature of their views, and the passion that goes with them.

I was politically involved and passionate in my teenage years (yeah, I was a dork in that respect).  But I never had such bright-line love-hate passion the way I'm hearing young people express it.  Hell, even as a young center-right advocate, I openly said that I was absolutely willing to vote for Dems in any given election if they indeed presented the better candidate, and once I turned 18, I did just that.

My daughter is voting age now.  She will not vote GOP in any race.  If a GOP candidate is running unopposed, she will write in an opponent.  My son isn't voting age yet, and again, he's more center-right, but I can't see him voting for a GOP candidate in anything.  They came of age in the era of Trumpism, and I don't see that stink ever washing off the GOP for them.  It will be interesting to watch over the years.

[SydneyCarton 49323]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I don't disagree at all on the numbers (and of course, anecdotal evidence from me is no evidence at all).  Polling data tends to reflect the kind of breakdown you're noting.  That said, what I think is interesting is the unambiguous/entrenched nature of their views, and the passion that goes with them.

I was politically involved and passionate in my teenage years (yeah, I was a dork in that respect).  But I never had such bright-line love-hate passion the way I'm hearing young people express it.  Hell, even as a young center-right advocate, I openly said that I was absolutely willing to vote for Dems in any given election if they indeed presented the better candidate, and once I turned 18, I did just that.

My daughter is voting age now.  She will not vote GOP in any race.  If a GOP candidate is running unopposed, she will write in an opponent.  My son isn't voting age yet, and again, he's more center-right, but I can't see him voting for a GOP candidate in anything.  They came of age in the era of Trumpism, and I don't see that stink ever washing off the GOP for them.  It will be interesting to watch over the years.

Not to derail this thread, but this makes me sad. Not because I don't agree with your children. I understand them. I feel similarly. But that kind of polarizing hatred and lack of an open mind that you at one time entertained, during their formative years, just shows me how fucked up we likely are in regards to passionless decision making, continued divisiveness, and an inability to compromise. It's like the Cubans in Florida that hear Socialist and run as far to the right as they can reflexively.The antics of the conservative right, as Brickhorn has touched in in regards to war, are poisoning the more reasoned and rational progressives and turning them into the same thing. Just with different views. I see it every time folks cheer on the Lincoln Project (which I also do as well), or proclaiming that candidates need to fight dirty to win. And I agree. We need to fight dirty to win. And fighting dirty seems to be the only way to win. And in that regard, in a way, we've already lost. 

 

Is it too early for Bourbon? 

Edited July 21, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[TwiceHorn 31983]

15 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I don't remember that, are you sur e you're not thinking of FChorn?

Never was an overstatement.  But escriva was wont to drop a b_t level bomb and not come back and defend or elaborate.

[Brisketexan 106610]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Not to derail this thread, but this makes me sad. Not because I don't agree with your children. I understand them. I feel similarly. But that kind of polarizing hatred and lack of an open mind that you at one time entertained, during their formative years, just shows me how fucked up we likely are in regards to passionless decision making, continued divisiveness, and an inability to compromise. It's like the Cubans in Florida that hear Socialist and run as far to the right as they can reflexively.The antics of the conservative right, as Brickhorn has touched in in regards to war, are poisoning the more reasoned and rational progressives and turning them into the same thing. Just with different views. I see it every time folks cheer on the Lincoln Project (which I also do as well), or proclaiming that candidates need to fight dirty to win. And I agree. We need to fight dirty to win. And fighting dirty seems to be the only way to win. And in that regard, in a way, we've already lost. 

 

Is it too early for Bourbon? 

Excellent post.  And you may recall hearing me say exactly the bolded back in 2016 after Trump won.

We are so debased that I don't think there's any coming back.  We're now irrevocably committed to our own self-destruction.  Any hope lies not in salvaging what we have, but in rebuilding something decent from the rubble of the institutions that have been destroyed.

You can't talk with or reason with the Trumpist right.  You haven't been able to do so since they went full-on into birtherism and all other attendant bullshit.  Facts, evidence, and the truth not only don't matter -- they are the enemy.  You can't engage with an opposition under those rules.  The only winning move is to isolate them and work around them.  Which is fucking pathetic, because we need rational center-right voices in the room; ANY echo chamber ends up believing its own bullshit eventually, which does not lead to good results.  But when the dissenting voices that dominate the room traffic in ridiculously obvious lies and deranged conspiracy theories, you have to tune them out.  So here we are.

 

[JBJ 3780]

31 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

So are you easily deceived or are you attempting to deceive us? Because your question has been answered. If you have some sort of knowledge we’d love to hear it. Instead it looks like you are just lying.

It hasn't been answered.

How many times have protesters set fires at Portland's federal buildings this month? 

[hobbes2702 13350]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It hasn't been answered.

How many times have protesters set fires at Portland's federal buildings this month? 

We are all waiting for you to catch up big guy

[JBJ 3780]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

We are all waiting for you to catch up big guy

The point has already been made.  FWIW, I don't really expect an answer, but my point strengthens everytime y'all refuse.

[hobbes2702 13350]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

The point has already been made.  FWIW, I don't really expect an answer, but my point strengthens everytime y'all refuse.

Exceptional trolling. Ignore answers from others. Refuse to provide any evidence. Pretend you are winning.

[Brisketexan 106610]

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It hasn't been answered.

How many times have protesters set fires at Portland's federal buildings this month? 

And you haven't answered the relevant question (I mean, it's relevant if you believe in silly stuff like the Constitution and laws) -- how many of the protesters who have been 1) beaten and gassed, 2) arrested, or 3) grabbed off the street and shoved into unmarked vans "set fires at Portland federal buildings?"

Got an answer?

Because I've got video of a line of moms, standing peacefully, getting gassed by armed paramilitary irregular forces.  Not a one of them was setting a fire, throwing a rock, or anything of the sort.  And that's just for starters.  You really don't want to go down this road, because at the end of it, you have to admit that you think the Constitution, particularly the 1st and 4th amendments, isn't even as valuable as toilet paper.

[Biff Tannen 46060]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

And you haven't answered the relevant question (I mean, it's relevant if you believe in silly stuff like the Constitution and laws) -- how many of the protesters who have been 1) beaten and gassed, 2) arrested, or 3) grabbed off the street and shoved into unmarked vans "set fires at Portland federal buildings?"

Got an answer?

Because I've got video of a line of moms, standing peacefully, getting gassed by armed paramilitary irregular forces.  Not a one of them was setting a fire, throwing a rock, or anything of the sort.  And that's just for starters.  You really don't want to go down this road, because at the end of it, you have to admit that you think the Constitution, particularly the 1st and 4th amendments, isn't even as valuable as toilet paper.

I also recall a naked chick protester spread eagle on the street.  That was...interesting.

[Dahobbs 18182]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The point has already been made.  FWIW, I don't really expect an answer, but my point strengthens everytime y'all refuse.

Dude, I've fucking answered you. Others have too. What the fuck is your deal? I generally have no problem with you, but now I'm negging this bullshit. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Dahobbs

[hobbes2702 13350]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Dude, I've fucking answered you. Others have too. What the fuck is your deal?

Apparently the burden is on us to support his claim

[wildcat09 29555]

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The point has already been made.  FWIW, I don't really expect an answer, but my point strengthens everytime y'all refuse.

It’s been answered by multiple posters you twat.

[Brisketexan 106610]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I also recall a naked chick protester spread eagle on the street.  That was...interesting.

Oh, and they pepper spray shot her, too.  Seriously, watch the video.  Armed paramilitary irregulars were so threatened by some bare tits and cooch that they.....shot at her.

Again....fucking toy soldiers shot at....a single naked woman.  These are JBJ's heroes, these are his defenders of the Republic.  Fanfuckingtastic.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And you haven't answered the relevant question (I mean, it's relevant if you believe in silly stuff like the Constitution and laws) -- how many of the protesters who have been 1) beaten and gassed, 2) arrested, or 3) grabbed off the street and shoved into unmarked vans "set fires at Portland federal buildings?"

Got an answer?

Because I've got video of a line of moms, standing peacefully, getting gassed by armed paramilitary irregular forces.  Not a one of them was setting a fire, throwing a rock, or anything of the sort.  And that's just for starters.  You really don't want to go down this road, because at the end of it, you have to admit that you think the Constitution, particularly the 1st and 4th amendments, isn't even as valuable as toilet paper.

People that support collective punishment for the actions of individuals always make the dumb arguments that JBJ is trying to make.

It happened with 911 where JBJs wanted all Muslims punished for the acts of a few.

It happened when Trayvon Martin's death was justified because other black people committed crimes at an allegedly higher rate thereby justifying Zimmerman's suspicions.

It happened when all Mexicans and all immigrants were blamed because a few, among millions, happened to be actual criminals.

For patriots and supposed rugged individualists like JBJ, only white conservative people get to roll around armed without taking any collective responsibility at all for Dylan Roof and other shitheads like him. They can also protest at the Michigan state capitol and take no collective responsibility for the windows that were broken there.  Memaw was just screaming at a cop.  She shouldn't be arrested because a few bad actors broke some windows.  No, those bad actors are the only ones responsible for the broken windows.  I actually agree with this stance, FWIW.  However, it isn't applied across the board by JBJ or the powers that be because they are all hypocrites.

[Dahobbs 18182]

19 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It hasn't been answered.

How many times have protesters set fires at Portland's federal buildings this month? 

 

16 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I thought you knew. I don't know of any off the top of my head, I know of vandalism of federal buildings and arson of local buildings (county courthouse, police station).

 

15 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I looked. I found one mention of "what was believed to be a small fire" at the federal courthouse. Given that description, I'm going to guess really close to zero. Also, some people launched fireworks... in early July...

If there are actually people lighting federal buildings on fire, they should arrest them rather than gas/beat/kidnap protestors using unmarked vans. The fact that they haven't been actually arresting the folks they've "detained" should say a lot about how legitimate their motives are. 

 

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

By all means, rather that making some obscure point, why don't you just tell us what you know? I've looked. I haven't seen anything definitive outside of one reference to "maybe a small fire" in the federal courthouse. I'd love to see a listing with sources.   

Hell, it isn't clear to me that any buildings were actually set on fire. I see references to small fires set in or near buildings. I mean, fuck, that could literally mean a bag of flaming shit. I guess technically it is a fire, but it isn't what people generally mean when they say a building was set on fire. 

 

54 minutes ago, Captainant said:

can you link me to the news/fact source you're using on setting federal buildings on fire? I haven't heard anything about that aside from unsubstantiated claims on twitter and message boards.

 

15 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The point has already been made.  FWIW, I don't really expect an answer, but my point strengthens everytime y'all refuse.

If somebody responds to @JBJ and he doesn't see it, did they really respond at all?

[hobbes2702 13350]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

 

 

 

 

If somebody responds to @JBJ and he doesn't see it, did they really respond at all?

You’re fucking up his (non) victory lap lol

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and they pepper spray shot her, too.  Seriously, watch the video.  Armed paramilitary irregulars were so threatened by some bare tits and cooch that they.....shot at her.

Again....fucking toy soldiers shot at....a single naked woman.  These are JBJ's heroes, these are his defenders of the Republic.  Fanfuckingtastic.

Of course they did. I am female. It doesn't take a video for me to replay my own memories of men being so discombobulated by boobs that they lose their shit and do stupid, aggressive, illegal, crap (made worse in groups of men where the competitive vibe goes off the charts). It doesn't take imagination to figure the locker room talk that happened once they were in their male safe space either. All sorts of 'target' comments and so on.

What doesn't get spoken about enough  is what the media and government reaction would have been if this had been a young minority female in the street.

[Huckleberry 34404]

20 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The point has already been made.  FWIW, I don't really expect an answer, but my point strengthens everytime y'all refuse.

Okay, I'll give you an answer. The answer is zero. Your point hasn't been strengthened, it has been proven to be a complete load of crap.

They've set federal buildings on fire zero times. Zero.

Please explain how this has strengthened your point.

[immamac 44197]

@JBJ

I can play this game all day. same question for you. Your posts get deleted till you answer.

Which side are you on?
A) The side that fights unequivocally for equal rights for all american citizens.
B) The side that doesn't fight unequivocally for equal rights for all american citizens.

[Nivek 17330]

The point has already been made.  FWIW, I don't really expect an answer, but my point strengthens everytime y'all refuse.

You are only proving that the majority of cops are bad people. You are just too far gone to see it.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

28 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It hasn't been answered.

How many times have protesters set fires at Portland's federal buildings this month? 

You realize that just underlining text doesn't turn it into a clickable hyperlink, right?

[Brisketexan 106610]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It doesn't take a video for me to replay my own memories of men being so discombobulated by boobs that they lose their shit and do stupid, aggressive, illegal, crap

In my defense, I freely admit to such discombobulation, but my reaction always stopped at "stupid."  In fact, it often stopped at "stupid," and then "stupid" settled in for the long haul, and I ended up doing things like dating a cruel and unpredictable woman, but....boobs.

So....don't think you're not culpable here!  Harrumph!

Oh....and I feel like it needs to be said....I've seen a fair number of boobs.  Never once have they prompted me to think "man.....I wish I had pepper ball rounds to shoot at that gal."

Edited July 21, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Huckleberry 34404]

Brisketexan: "The soliders WILL commit acts of violence. It's who they are."
JBJ: "You could just as easily be talking about the protestors."
Huckleberry: "What a stupid thing to say."
JBJ: "How many times have they set federal buildings on fire? That's why the federal soldiers have to be there and protect buildings."
Huckleberry: "Good question. How many?"
JBJ: "I dunno."
Huckleberry: "I thought you knew. I don't know of any. They set local municipality buildings on fire twice."
Many others: "Yeah, they haven't set any federal buildings on fire."
JBJ: "Nobody can answer me, that's why my point is awesome."