Topic: Explosive devices sent to Bill/Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Soros, CNN - page 3. (Read 7305 times)

Yes, why address the substance of the point, the years of leftist violence against the right, when you can avoid it with side topics?


I dunno. People who actually give a shit usually don't have to be told what to do about it.

I was simply pointing out the fact that you claimed the bombs were fake, but the ricin is real... this is not hypocrisy on my part, it was your claim not mine... I never made a claim of any kind

Also, if someone gives me a list of bullshit claims, and I fact-check 2 of them... and both of those claims are false and/or unsubstantiated... what should I assume about the other dozen claims on the list?

Cool story bro. Convenient you can write it all off. What about the years of violent attacks before just this month? You can attribute attacks on the left to the right and even specific people on the right, but when the right is attacked we need "proof" huh? I like the touch of calling the "ricin" a "threat", but these nonfunctional props are "bombs" and he is a "bomber" in spite of nothing even exploding or even appearing to have been the intent (again not justifying it, just a fact).

It is almost like you see your own hypocrisy then directly accuse me of exactly the dissonance you are experiencing, before I even directly point it out, in order to force a 3rd party to experience your own dissonance for you via projection. Nah...couldn't be.  

Wikipedia... that's... that's impressive. You just totally convinced me. FYI, talking about attacks on people because of their politics, not attacks made by people of a certain political bend... but I know any edge you can use to blur the facts you will exploit in a vain attempt to make an argument you don't have.

Problem is... I tried fact checking 2 of the outrageous claims in your image... and both of them were bullshit, so I assume the rest of that list is bullshit too...

I checked on your claim, "regular violence from the left... they punched an old lady"... "2 Minnesota GOP candidates attacked and punched"... the facts:

A Minnesota republican claims to have been punched while at dinner... no pictures, just a claim of assault... Fox News never even said the attacker was a leftist, liberal, or any of that, so I can safely assume he was not since they 100% would have mentioned it if he was...
http://www.fox9.com/news/two-minnesota-gop-candidates-say-they-were-attacked-punched

The woman claiming to be attacked... was attacked by a self-proclaimed anarchist... also not a leftist, liberal, or whatever
http://www.fox9.com/news/two-minnesota-gop-candidates-say-they-were-attacked-punched


I also checked on your claim that "ricin" was sent to several prominent GOP figures... this is false too... a "threat" of sending ricin was sent... nothing dangerous was actually sent by this guy... he sent a letter with some ground up beans in it, not deadly ricin... facts matter when you claim assassination attempts
https://www.dailywire.com/news/37684/utah-man-charged-sending-ricin-white-house-emily-zanotti


You want to nitpick on whether these bombs were assembled or not... but you don't even bother to fact-check your own claims about ricin vs powdered beans... come the fuck on man... show some intellectual honesty

Who am I to tell you, but don't you find that nowadays there is too much hatred and anger even on the Internet. Such confrontation in a society usually doesn’t lead to anything good and only strengthens disunity within the country.
Peace out

It amazes me how often he argues agains't his own points and doesn't even realize it until later. Or maybe I give him too much credit.

Hey fuck face; look at section 921 --

(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

Also, counter-argument to "destructive device":

The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

==

Literally all the AG (which is Trump appointed) is say "not destructive" and it's not a WMD dumbass, which legally, it's classification is barely a destructive device, in a well argued and well funded lawsuit. But otherwise, it's just a pipe bomb.

Yes, it does meet the definition, (2)(A).

(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;

What else would you like to be corrected on?

hey retard, you're still wrong.

Look at the definition you link, a pipe bomb does not meet that definition; so go fuck yourself you retard.

That's cute how you reported my post as off topic to make it look like I didn't just post that link


you might want to check the federal definition of "weapon of mass destruction"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a#c_2



None of your arguments invalidate the reality of all those listed leftist attacks though however, even IF they were correct (they aren't).

because a pipe bomb isn't a weapon of mass destruction you fucking tard. God, I swear anyone with an IQ over 50 could tell you that, but nah, you consume more of your fake news koolaid you moron.

I swear to god, anyone that takes this retard seriously is an idiot.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842

Fucking 2 min to find the actual law violation.

Oh really? Can you tell me then why he wasn't charged with building "weapons of mass destruction" which is a standard charge any time some one builds a FUNCTIONAL explosive device? Go back and listen to that FBI statement carefully... eh maybe not you, but anyone else with a 8th grade level of science education or more.

You can attempt to white-wash nazi's, but we had a war about this... the whole world was involved...

The fact that you think the pipe bombs were fake shows the image is more FAKE NEWS.

Yes, Exactly. Now you are going to tell me that the words he used incited ANTIFA to violence therefore he is responsible, while ignoring hundreds of calls for violence on the left since then, as well as increasing, regular violence from the left. That damn Trump, upsetting people so much they get violent! You know its his fault they got so upset they punched an old lady. She was clearly a Nazi so it was ok.

I don't know anyone that favors Sessions. Of any persuasion. That includes religious right, my left oriented friends, lots of people in between.

Trump is the dude that really tries to do what he says, and he said some really serious things about improving conditions for blacks in America.

What does that amount to, when we've got many entire trades and industries taken over by illegal Mexican immigrants? I can't really answer that.

How would you act so as to increase average liquid cash reserves in the subgroup in question to 2000, or 3000?

Spend, I love you so I'm going to let you in on a secret. The overwhelming majority of black people do not support Trump. Dont let Rasmussen fool you. 1, contemporary support among Blacks for Republican politics is at an all time low. Dont think that the same set that overwhelming voted Obama into office twice, would only 2 years later have radically shifted to the opposite end of the political spectrum. Blacks will vote Democratic until the party shifts again, because the truth of the matter is most African Americans are economically disadvantaged relative the national cohort, and Democratic policies are helpful as fuck (a government safety net when you cant rely on generational wealth or a well heeled social network). Beyond the ignorant refrain to "leave the Democratic plantation" (you want to disenfranchise a potential black Republican voter? Say this shit LOL), all this malarkey about optimal employment is a bunch of jive. Yes, it's great that everyone is employed. But when the majority of the national cohort doesn't even have 1000 dollars in the event that an emergency arises, I'm thinking all that employment is not really translating to a level of income that provides happiness. Please see here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/few-americans-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-1000-emergency.html


Black folks dont own stocks like everyone else:
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=88110&page=1

35 percent  of Blacks compared to White peers, and that's for cats that make over 50k (which is not anyone who didn't finish college, so it's much worse for low income blacks). So all this market growth means shit.
And wage growth has not kept up with inflation.

So, from a Black person that runs in really, really diverse circles, trust me when I say there is not much love lost amongst the brothas for Dear Trump.

To prove me, please observe the recent Blexit campaign (yes, Black Exit) that Kanye and Candace Owen's have been cooking up.
https://m.facebook.com/blexitmn/

Waste of time, imo. Our religious culture does not condone Trumps behavior (older Blacks, which typically ran conservative until Trump. Anti abortion is a huge deal for this set. But Trump, and his Cabinet specifically, this is too much). Younger blacks are not really into Rebuplican politics.

When you let Jeff Sessions head the DOJ, well, you lose the black vote.

Hmm, that does not explain why Trump's popularity among black voters has more than doubled...

Maybe you are simply wrong.


Really?

Funny how many left wing people including you believe in National Socialism...

Wait...wasn't NAZI...let's see...how did that translate....

Definition of Nazi in English:
 
Nazi
NOUN

historical
1A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Example sentences
1.1derogatory A person with extreme racist or authoritarian views.
Example sentencesSynonyms
1.2 A person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way.
‘I learned to be more open and not such a Nazi in the studio’

What gives? Are you referring or mixing up definition 1A and 1.1 or 1.2?

@TEC, by a few years ago, did you mean two years ago, around the time Trump took office? This is around the time Antifa became openly active.

I would also disagree with conservatives being targeted generally. It's mainly Trump supporters, and those that are enabling this. Classic Republicanism is a noble idea, a necessary check on liberal policies that is supposed to balance out governance over the long term. But this brand of raw cultism is insane, and the general public is condemning this nonsense. Rather than a general push back against conservatism (because most folks are moderate on both sides), this is a direct response to Trump and the degradation of the office. We have a president speaking directly to white nationalism. We at least used to hide our shame, now we wear it like a firebrand of regressiveness.

Also, the recent wave of hate crimes is decidedly conservative. The majority of mass casualty events belong to conservative actors, at least in the recent few years.

Why are these actions more frequently occurring in aTrump presidency, more so than any other recent 4 years? It's the level of rhetoric coming from the head. It has incited everyone, and this generally more aggressive climate is the fruit of having an uncivil leader pander to his base.

Reaping and sowing and yada yada yada.

And a side note; Nazis are pretty much a universally condemned class. The ideology is so dangerous, it's fucking illegal in some places, literally.

How bad do you have to be fucking up in order to get your platform confused with that of a Nazi?

Trump could easily shed the anchor that racial nationalist provide to his platform. Only takes a few words, and it should be inconsequential given how small of a percentage of his base they are up  

But instead, there are "fine people on both sides"...

Yes, you are missing the fact that anyone right of the extreme left, or just random people walking by, are regularly designated "nazis" , and this is used to justify their assault. This has been going on for a few years now, and not a peep from the left over it. Now that the left is also now starting to get "targeted" by extremists, now, NOW is the time to tone down the rhetoric... not before the years of regular violent attacks on conservatives and regular calls for violence ignored.

Thank you for the wonderful demonstration of how the left insists on jumping to the most extreme conclusion every time, simply because it suits them.

So to sum it up so you can't try to take this off into some other extremist interpretation that suits you...

The left has no grounds to point fingers and lay blame after years of laying silent over leftist violence against conservatives in the US.



More like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AhGYo9TExU

(notice this is about a year and a half old...)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKICKcMU3MU  

I don't know where that is either any more...