Fu*%face Von Clownstick
- Thread starter Nish
- Start date
Jem4417
Branched out member
#onecause
Jem4417
Branched out member
Didn't have much of a comeback so that's all I came up with. #IPA#double#6
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
After red meat is thrown to the poor and working class about those darn immigrants - first move for the middle class and Main Street? What a shit stain - http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/trump-financial-executive-actions/index.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
Once again...the fox is claiming to be a vegetarian as he 'guards' the henhouse
Time for fox hunting season! Or maybe extreme fox vetting
Time for fox hunting season! Or maybe extreme fox vetting
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
The irony "of extreme vetting": https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slat...for_nominees_steve_mnuchin_and_tom_price.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bucknut
Carpal tunnel level member
In response to your link:
I recall, not so long ago, the tables were turned. Republican obstructionism was "unprecedented" and undemocratic. It was causing gridlock and those damned Repubs were called "The Party of 'No'".
But NOW blatant, naked, political obstructionism is not only patriotic but cheered on! The hypocrisy is delicious.
As Obama famously said to McCain,"elections have consequences". Indeed.
https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=r....tsrc=apple&pcarrier=Sprint&pmcc=310&pmnc=120
I recall, not so long ago, the tables were turned. Republican obstructionism was "unprecedented" and undemocratic. It was causing gridlock and those damned Repubs were called "The Party of 'No'".
But NOW blatant, naked, political obstructionism is not only patriotic but cheered on! The hypocrisy is delicious.
As Obama famously said to McCain,"elections have consequences". Indeed.
https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=r....tsrc=apple&pcarrier=Sprint&pmcc=310&pmnc=120
TC
Participating member
I think anyone with half a brain cell could see the Berkeley riots were carried out by the far left moronic cretins of black bloc and antifa, most of whom are from rich upper middle class families. Spoiled angry rich kids who've never done an honest day's work in their lives. They use their parent's money to lash out at anyone who disagrees with their pitiful ideology. .
These are the attack dogs of the liberal left, the modern day equivalent of Mussolini's blackshirts. High profile liberals in politics, the media and academia along with the Hollywood elites are now giving tacit approval to their putrid violence and hysterical behaviour.
The ridiculous sight of Robert De Niro with his pompous moral piety hectoring and lecturing the public - advocating violence against Trump and his supporters is a sign of a man completely detached from reality.
Beating people up until they're unconscious and spraying pepper spray in women's faces as they talk to camera is totally unacceptable. Violent riots and intimidation to further a political cause is fascism and these scum need to be exposed for the leftist fascists that they are.
The liberals on this thread, NorCal, Bingham, free fallin, Tom D etc
You're responsible for these imbeciles who're acting out their miserable, violent anti-democratic and anti-capitalist fantasies in your name -
These are the attack dogs of the liberal left, the modern day equivalent of Mussolini's blackshirts. High profile liberals in politics, the media and academia along with the Hollywood elites are now giving tacit approval to their putrid violence and hysterical behaviour.
The ridiculous sight of Robert De Niro with his pompous moral piety hectoring and lecturing the public - advocating violence against Trump and his supporters is a sign of a man completely detached from reality.
Beating people up until they're unconscious and spraying pepper spray in women's faces as they talk to camera is totally unacceptable. Violent riots and intimidation to further a political cause is fascism and these scum need to be exposed for the leftist fascists that they are.
The liberals on this thread, NorCal, Bingham, free fallin, Tom D etc
You're responsible for these imbeciles who're acting out their miserable, violent anti-democratic and anti-capitalist fantasies in your name -
Last edited:
TC
Participating member
T
The liberal left in it's current mass hysteria mode encourages the violence of the rioters by supporting the false narrative and lies of mainstream media news outlets like CNN.
.
The liberal left in it's current mass hysteria mode encourages the violence of the rioters by supporting the false narrative and lies of mainstream media news outlets like CNN.
.
Last edited:
Gorman
Branched out member
- Location
- Rhode Island
Antifa is a left wing violence oriented protest group. Their heart is in the right place but they combat nazi rallies with violence.
TC
Participating member
Here they are at the inauguration, the same half baked wannabe revolutionaries that carried out the violence at Berkeley. Rich kids with lazy money. Spoiled brats rebelling against their mommy and daddy in the most infantile way imaginable.
The Limo was later torched, it was owned by a Muslim immigrant. The irony will be lost on these morons -
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....f-insurance-will-cover-damages/?client=safari
.
The Limo was later torched, it was owned by a Muslim immigrant. The irony will be lost on these morons -
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....f-insurance-will-cover-damages/?client=safari
.
Last edited:
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
TC - you've forgot to add that all of us who are protesting are paid by George Soros, don't have jobs, and are on welfare because real people can't afford to take time off to resist tyranny.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
Did you see that there were only 4 arrests in the city of DC on the day of the largest outpouring of protest across the world?
250 people's attitudes (see arrest reports) don't reflect the millions that marched the following day.
In reality, because I was there with 15 friends and family members protesting for two days, there was a group of about 20 black block protesters who broke off from the main march, which later swelled to 250 or so by the limo.
Yes, they did break windows at a Starbucks and Bank of America- the other 10,000 to 20,000 peaceful protestors continued on - some people tried to stop the anarchists but they moved on up a separate block pretty quickly where they vandalized a limo.
Once cornered by police they were rightly arrested -
And should I start posting all the hate videos aligned with white supremacist?
In truth, all I need to do is post Trumps executive orders and twitter feed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
250 people's attitudes (see arrest reports) don't reflect the millions that marched the following day.
In reality, because I was there with 15 friends and family members protesting for two days, there was a group of about 20 black block protesters who broke off from the main march, which later swelled to 250 or so by the limo.
Yes, they did break windows at a Starbucks and Bank of America- the other 10,000 to 20,000 peaceful protestors continued on - some people tried to stop the anarchists but they moved on up a separate block pretty quickly where they vandalized a limo.
Once cornered by police they were rightly arrested -
And should I start posting all the hate videos aligned with white supremacist?
In truth, all I need to do is post Trumps executive orders and twitter feed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No no. I thought they were violent, spoiled, wealthy, Marxist fascists.
I'm confused.
TC
Participating member
NorthCal, Brocky, JD etc
Do you accept that America (like many other countries in the world today) has security problems? Do you recognise that despite the twitter/Facebook charts on social media showing lawnmowers to be more of a threat to American life than terrorism, there are legitimate security concerns that reasonable Americans might hold?
Do you recognise that Islamic terrorism is not a figment of a fevered imagination, but a real thing that exists and which causes a risk to human life in America and many other countries? This isn’t to say that other forms of terrorism don’t exist – they obviously do.
If you do recognise the above fact then would you concede that large scale immigration from Islamic countries into the US might bring a larger number of potential challenges than, say, large scale immigration from New Zealand or Iceland?
Would you recognise that Iran is one of the world’s leading state-sponsors of terror, and that, for example, an Iranian-born American citizen in 2011 was caught planning to carry out a terror attack in Washington. Would you recognise that aggravating though a temporary halt on all Iranian nationals visiting the US might be, and many good people though it will undoubtedly stop, there is a reason that some countries cause a greater security concern than others? Might citizens of a country whose leadership regularly chants ‘Death to America’ present a larger number of questions for border security than, say, citizens of Denmark whose government rarely says the same? What would your vetting policy be to distinguish between different Iranians seeking to enter the US?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Iran_assassination_plot
Does the whole world have the right to live in America? This is a variant of the same question we Europeans should have been asking for years. If you do not think that the whole world has the right to live in the USA then who should be allowed to live there and who should not? Who might be given priority?
If you believe in giving some people asylum, as I do, who should be given priority? Should asylum be forever? Or should there be a time-limit (such as up until such a time as your country of origin is deemed safe)? How do you deal with people who have been given asylum, whose reason for asylum is over (i.e. their country has returned to peace) but whose children have entered the school system (for instance)?
Is it wrong that the Trump administration says it wishes to favour Christian refugees over Muslim refugees? Many Christians refuse to accept that the plight of Christians – even when they are the specific target of persecution – should be given priority over anyone else. This is a noble example of the general Christian ethos but is it wise or moral when you consider the limited numbers that can come in and if you accept that the entire persecuted world cannot arrive in America?
How do you identify the type of Muslims who America should indeed welcome? And how do you distinguish them from the sort of Muslims who the country could well do without? In other words, what would your vetting procedures be? What is your policy?
http://www.danielpipes.org/17198/smoking-out-islamists-via-extreme-vetting
If you think all of the above questions are simply ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted’ then I suppose the rest of us will just have to accept that we’re going to lose you to four years of shouting on the streets in vagina hats. But the rest of us should try to address these questions. We’re not going to be able to shout them away.
.
Do you accept that America (like many other countries in the world today) has security problems? Do you recognise that despite the twitter/Facebook charts on social media showing lawnmowers to be more of a threat to American life than terrorism, there are legitimate security concerns that reasonable Americans might hold?
Do you recognise that Islamic terrorism is not a figment of a fevered imagination, but a real thing that exists and which causes a risk to human life in America and many other countries? This isn’t to say that other forms of terrorism don’t exist – they obviously do.
If you do recognise the above fact then would you concede that large scale immigration from Islamic countries into the US might bring a larger number of potential challenges than, say, large scale immigration from New Zealand or Iceland?
Would you recognise that Iran is one of the world’s leading state-sponsors of terror, and that, for example, an Iranian-born American citizen in 2011 was caught planning to carry out a terror attack in Washington. Would you recognise that aggravating though a temporary halt on all Iranian nationals visiting the US might be, and many good people though it will undoubtedly stop, there is a reason that some countries cause a greater security concern than others? Might citizens of a country whose leadership regularly chants ‘Death to America’ present a larger number of questions for border security than, say, citizens of Denmark whose government rarely says the same? What would your vetting policy be to distinguish between different Iranians seeking to enter the US?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Iran_assassination_plot
Does the whole world have the right to live in America? This is a variant of the same question we Europeans should have been asking for years. If you do not think that the whole world has the right to live in the USA then who should be allowed to live there and who should not? Who might be given priority?
If you believe in giving some people asylum, as I do, who should be given priority? Should asylum be forever? Or should there be a time-limit (such as up until such a time as your country of origin is deemed safe)? How do you deal with people who have been given asylum, whose reason for asylum is over (i.e. their country has returned to peace) but whose children have entered the school system (for instance)?
Is it wrong that the Trump administration says it wishes to favour Christian refugees over Muslim refugees? Many Christians refuse to accept that the plight of Christians – even when they are the specific target of persecution – should be given priority over anyone else. This is a noble example of the general Christian ethos but is it wise or moral when you consider the limited numbers that can come in and if you accept that the entire persecuted world cannot arrive in America?
How do you identify the type of Muslims who America should indeed welcome? And how do you distinguish them from the sort of Muslims who the country could well do without? In other words, what would your vetting procedures be? What is your policy?
http://www.danielpipes.org/17198/smoking-out-islamists-via-extreme-vetting
If you think all of the above questions are simply ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted’ then I suppose the rest of us will just have to accept that we’re going to lose you to four years of shouting on the streets in vagina hats. But the rest of us should try to address these questions. We’re not going to be able to shout them away.
.
Last edited:
