Aren't liberals supposed to be pro-gay? Terrorists at Milo event...

124»

Comments

  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 6,541
    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.
    You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.
    You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.
    That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.
    I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,043
    edited February 6

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.
    You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.
    You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.
    That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.
    I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.
    I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.
    I would say that the leader of the protest in the link below fits my definition of some of these liberals that pjsoul claims I have a "fucked up idea" of though. Talk about a weak-ass individual! If people like him led an anarchy...they would get their asses handed to them.
    http://tribunist.com/news/trump-protesters-put-patients-life-in-danger-after-they-block-ambulance-then-cops-show-up-video/?utm_source=GSL
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 8,769
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.
    You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.
    You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.
    That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.
    I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.
    I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.
    how does that post reinforce that idea?
    "and on the 7th day, they played a show"
    Jamesis 10:10
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,043
    edited February 6

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.
    You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.
    You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.
    That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.
    I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.
    I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.
    how does that post reinforce that idea?
    Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 8,769
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.
    You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.
    You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.
    That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.
    I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.
    I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.
    how does that post reinforce that idea?
    Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.
    so liberal extremists are unorganized pansies, but conservative extremists are well organized tough guys? I'm not trying to be argumentative or put anything in your mouth, just trying to gauge your point here.
    "and on the 7th day, they played a show"
    Jamesis 10:10
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,043

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.
    You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.
    You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.
    That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.
    I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.
    I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.
    how does that post reinforce that idea?
    Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.
    so liberal extremists are unorganized pansies, but conservative extremists are well organized tough guys? I'm not trying to be argumentative or put anything in your mouth, just trying to gauge your point here.
    Not definitive, but many right wing extremists that I have encountered are ex-military pro-second amendment supporters. Many left wing extremists that I've encountered are loudmouth "it's not fair" latte drinkers...when I gauge which ones would win an actual battle...the right wingers seem to have the advantage. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides I'm sure.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 4,548
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.
    You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.
    You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.
    That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.
    I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.
    I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.
    how does that post reinforce that idea?
    Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.
    But by definition, anarchist is neither left nor right.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 8,769
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.
    You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.
    You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.
    That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.
    I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.
    I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.
    how does that post reinforce that idea?
    Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.
    so liberal extremists are unorganized pansies, but conservative extremists are well organized tough guys? I'm not trying to be argumentative or put anything in your mouth, just trying to gauge your point here.
    Not definitive, but many right wing extremists that I have encountered are ex-military pro-second amendment supporters. Many left wing extremists that I've encountered are loudmouth "it's not fair" latte drinkers...when I gauge which ones would win an actual battle...the right wingers seem to have the advantage. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides I'm sure.
    haha, I highly doubt left wing extremists are the ones you describe here. far from it.
    "and on the 7th day, they played a show"
    Jamesis 10:10
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,043
    edited February 6

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.
    You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.
    You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.
    That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.
    I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.
    I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.
    how does that post reinforce that idea?
    Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.
    But by definition, anarchist is neither left nor right.
    When they are funded by George Soros, they are. I guess I'm more so referring to any kind of leftist movement involving actual fighting.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 4,548
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.
    You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.
    You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.
    That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.
    I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.
    I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.
    how does that post reinforce that idea?
    Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.
    But by definition, anarchist is neither left nor right.
    When they are funded by George Soros, they are. I guess I'm more so referring to any kind of leftist movement involving actual fighting.
    I keep forgetting to include the kooky conspiracies. What's the hourly rate and is health insurance included?
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 6,541
    Ha! I wanted to think that the tea party was paid activism but common sense told me it wasn't. You need to view this movement the same way. It's not funded by the boogeyman Soros. Logical thinking will prove that.
    And just so we're clear, you're officially a conspiracy fan, right? Between Soros and the pizza thing.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,043

    Ha! I wanted to think that the tea party was paid activism but common sense told me it wasn't. You need to view this movement the same way. It's not funded by the boogeyman Soros. Logical thinking will prove that.
    And just so we're clear, you're officially a conspiracy fan, right? Between Soros and the pizza thing.

    The pizza thing? I don't remember posting anything on that. But you guys are right, Soros seems like a regular upstanding citizen!
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 6,541
    My bad. I confused with another poster. I'm sorry, man.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 8,769
    PJPOWER said:

    Ha! I wanted to think that the tea party was paid activism but common sense told me it wasn't. You need to view this movement the same way. It's not funded by the boogeyman Soros. Logical thinking will prove that.
    And just so we're clear, you're officially a conspiracy fan, right? Between Soros and the pizza thing.

    The pizza thing? I don't remember posting anything on that. But you guys are right, Soros seems like a regular upstanding citizen!
    seems like a good guy to me.
    "and on the 7th day, they played a show"
    Jamesis 10:10
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,043

    PJPOWER said:

    Ha! I wanted to think that the tea party was paid activism but common sense told me it wasn't. You need to view this movement the same way. It's not funded by the boogeyman Soros. Logical thinking will prove that.
    And just so we're clear, you're officially a conspiracy fan, right? Between Soros and the pizza thing.

    The pizza thing? I don't remember posting anything on that. But you guys are right, Soros seems like a regular upstanding citizen!
    seems like a good guy to me.
    To each their own I suppose
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • unsungunsung Posts: 6,916

  • vaggar99vaggar99 San Diego USAPosts: 2,020
    my feelings exactly
  • vaggar99vaggar99 San Diego USAPosts: 2,020
    Milo will be on Real Time with Bill Maher this Friday. hope no one gets hurt
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 8,769
    vaggar99 said:

    Milo will be on Real Time with Bill Maher this Friday. hope no one gets hurt

    hopefully Jim Jefferies joins them.
    "and on the 7th day, they played a show"
    Jamesis 10:10
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 28,812
    edited February 17
    unsung said:


    i have no issue with punching a nazi... fuck 'em. its a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark. ;)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
124»
Sign In or Register to comment.