ObamaTards Riot and Loot City

So justice is not blind and the wealthy and connected get preferential treatment. Thanks for stating the obvious. Hillary is damn thankful for that double standard, as are many others of all political stripes. Let me know when the justice blindfold gets pulled back down. Until then rioting and looting cannot be excused or tolerated just because our criminally corrupt government plays favorites.
If you say our current government is also corrupt, then you have no disagreement with me.

Chumpie said lock her up and did nothing. Yea yea I know the deeeeeeeeeeep state is the reason why he couldn't. Yup.

How we got from an embezzler of a million or two to Shillary I don't know. Oh wait she is white and almost every time an embezzler is as well. White and money works. Hell even OJ was "white".
 
Apologies. Are you asking if I have ever posted on this forum regarding the US Revolutionary War or Civil war? What, exactly are you asking me?

Here's the original post:
userque said:
When "the process" is biased and unfair, then you may see protests, and possible violence, and possible destruction, and possible war, as was done by the original Americans against Great Britain.

When "the process" is perceived to be biased and unfair, then you may see protests, and possible violence, and possible destruction, and possible war, as was done by the confederacy against the U.S.

When "the process" is biased, unfair, and also is killing minorities for decades or more, then you may see protests, and possible violence, and possible destruction, and possible "war."

Now, in war, looting is also done by soldiers; and by the leaders of the winning nation via the peace treaty.

So, have you ever posted on ET about these other scenarios where protests were had?

So, have you ever posted on ET about these other scenarios where protests were had, such as during the US Revolutionary War or the Civil war; or have you ever posted on soldiers (US or otherwise) looting their enemy?

I'm multitasking, so there may be a small delay in my responses, but I'll see this through to the end.
 
Everyone can't formulate a 'good' google search. I'm pretty good at it, and I felt you probably weren't able to find what you were looking for via your own google search.

I appreciate your willingness to share your expertise in google searching. But it wasn't that I wasn't able so much as wasn't willing or didn't care.

Yes, you came to me. After I provided the information you asked for, you came to me to discuss it. My initial "response" was only providing you a search phrase and link. I offered you no discussion. Rather than thanking me, you initiated this back and forth.

I never asked for anything from you. You should probably look up the phrase "Rhetorical Question" with those expert search engine skills.

I agree to disagree.

You may do so.


All members can be involved in a discussion on a public forum. If you don't want others to see your public discussions, try starting a private facebook group including only the people you want to talk to, or try the private messaging feature here. Not trying to be funny, but I can find the facebook link for you if you don't already know about that feature.

I don't mind others seeing my posts at all. Did I say that I did? As an aside, I don't use Facebook.
 
I got a question for you. Do you ever participate in any umm trading related topics?

Did a quick look see and maybe I overlooked some - repeat quick look see.

Ah, that ol' response. I used to, I don't much anymore. But neither do many people on the politics forum. Are you asking all of them that question or just fascinated with little ol' me?
 
It was clear. What part did you not understand?

Your entire post, apparently. We can do this all day, if you like. I've got a slow schedule. But when most people see a response to their post is misunderstood, they don't simply post "that's not what I said". They post "that's not what I said" and then clarify what they said or meant. That is, if they are interested in having a conversation and not just trolling like I am beginning to suspect you are more interested in.
 
Here's the original post:


So, have you ever posted on ET about these other scenarios where protests were had, such as during the US Revolutionary War or the Civil war; or have you ever posted on soldiers (US or otherwise) looting their enemy?

I'm multitasking, so there may be a small delay in my responses, but I'll see this through to the end.

No worries on the multitasking. That's life online.

I do not recall ever posting on ET about protests during the Revolutionary or Civil war, or having posted on soldiers looting their enemies, no. I do not recall seeing such topics ever on ET.
 
I saw the video and thought the cop was a complete idiot. I say go to town. I don't really care if they burn down the city. No skin off my back.
 
If you say our current government is also corrupt, then you have no disagreement with me.

Chumpie said lock her up and did nothing. Yea yea I know the deeeeeeeeeeep state is the reason why he couldn't. Yup.

How we got from an embezzler of a million or two to Shillary I don't know. Oh wait she is white and almost every time an embezzler is as well. White and money works. Hell even OJ was "white".
Previous government, current government, next in line government, the entire government corrupt to the core. Won't change so long as those in Congress remain permanent fixtures, all bought and paid for by their corporate overlords. Until then we cannot allow rioting in the streets to prevail, not because it's a threat to their governance, fuck them, but because it's a threat to you, me, and the rest of the unwashed masses who live in these streets. That, and it doesn't really accomplish anything other than fuel stereotypes and provide cops with excuses for using excessive force unnecessarily.
 
Back
Top