Typical

I asked a simple question. And the party of lying liars leaps in. Video evidence? Like the evidence of the number of people at trump's inauguration? How many of your videos are just a different angle of the same action?
You have no clue. Or you do and still present them as different events.


Think about it.
You don't trust outlets like NYT or WaPo and expect your word taken on trust or your "logic". Should be easy to prove your statements but you don't even try.

You squirm, you deflect, you cry. You claim WaPo isn't valid because.....why?
Because I've proven you wrong with it many times. You don't provide links that prove WaPo wrong. You base your claims on your talking points.
Time is running out for trump.

So we're back to the original question.

Why do you group lawful protesters, exercising their 1st Amendment rights, with criminals?
Don't you know what the term "lawful protesters" means?

In general, most protests during the day are peaceful. Most of the damage occurs at night. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

People are under no requirement to answer your agenda driven questions.

As the mayor of Chicago might answer you, when turning to someone else, "Next Question" and that means from someone else, not you.

You should stick to sucking cock - Assup tells me you are good at, especially when another guy sticks his dick in your ass.

Wrong question, munchy!

Let me rephrase it for you!

Why can't the libtards control the violent anarchists and lowlife types who have infiltrated their wonderful peaceful movement? Why do they tolerate, if not applaud, arson and looting and defacing and defiling of public and private property? Do the libtards think such behavior is "guaranteed by the Constitution"?

Why do you blame conservatives for your inability to police your own demonstrators? Why blame conservatives for your cowardice and timidity in not allowing the authorities to swoop in and arrest the rabble-rousing hoodlums?

I don't give a rat's ass whether or not these thugs are carrying cards in their wallets (if they even own wallets) stamped "ANTIFA member" or "BLM member". We have actual videos of them committing crimes! Hundreds of them!

And speaking of trying to put a "negative connotation" on a peaceful movement, remember back in 2010 when Pelosi, Clyburn and other dishonest dim-retards circulated fake stories about Tea Party demonstrators spitting on them and using the n-word? That was pretty desperate and pathetic, wasn't it?

Conservatives don't need to fake it like you do. We have it all on video!

Here's an example of Munchy's pals keeping it "peaceful":


Originally Posted by lustylad

There Munchy, someone answered and humiliated you like you deserve.

LL is far too smart for the likes of you.

[COLOR="Blue"]I asked a simple question. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Then why the fuck does it take you so many words to ask it?

You, CommunistSocialistLiberalAntiT rumpers, load your stupid questions with all kinds of variable bullshit that is just that (bullshit) and then you expect a one-liner answer.

You're the one who said "conservatives" mix them up .... name one who has ... as starters! And then provide a link to them saying it.

In the meantime ... I've heard your LOONY MEDIA PUNDITS saying that burning and looting is "free speech" and therefore "protected" expression!!!!

Destroying someone's property is "free speech" and "protected"? Snapping at shit like rabid dogs!

The recent NASCAR "event" is a perfect example of how fucked you all are!

Because the agenda of the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN et al has been on display for long enough that it's impossible to ignore, even for moronic knee-jerk democrats.

The New York Times is actively attempting to boil the existence of this country down to racism. This is an active campaign that they openly admit to and has zero to do with conjecture.

Project Veritas has Jeff Zucker on tape ordering his idiots to make the fantasy impeachment the lead story all day, every day.

The New York Times gets caught hiring an editor with a history of being openly racist against white males, refuses to rescind her offer of employment, and tells the white males to then fuck themselves.

This is extremely evident and is being unapologetically done right out in the open. Originally Posted by Next Best Thing

Which is why Trump should let the liberal cities burn to the ground until they beg for police protection. They hate white male cops?

Then do without them and see how it works out.

I'm not happy with everything Trump does either but the alternative is evident in all the Democrat run cities that cannot stop this violence.

Then why the fuck does it take you so many words to ask it?

You, CommunistSocialistLiberalAntiT rumpers, load your stupid questions with all kinds of variable bullshit that is just that (bullshit) and then you expect a one-liner answer.

You're the one who said "conservatives" mix them up .... name one who has ... as starters! And then provide a link to them saying it.

In the meantime ... I've heard your LOONY MEDIA PUNDITS saying that burning and looting is "free speech" and therefore "protected" expression!!!!

Destroying someone's property is "free speech" and "protected"? Snapping at shit like rabid dogs!

The recent NASCAR "event" is a perfect example of how fucked you all are! Originally Posted by LexusLover

It takes so many words, and most of them written by someone else, because he has a speech impediment which very obviously translates into his stilted sentence construction. If he wasn't such a snarky and rude person I would feel sorry for him.

He should have gone and bought some Henry rifles and fondled them to feel better rather than attempting a civil discourse with his intellectual superiors.

Because the agenda of the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN et al has been on display for long enough that it's impossible to ignore, even for moronic knee-jerk democrats.

The New York Times is actively attempting to boil the existence of this country down to racism. This is an active campaign that they openly admit to and has zero to do with conjecture.

Project Veritas has Jeff Zucker on tape ordering his idiots to make the fantasy impeachment the lead story all day, every day.

The New York Times gets caught hiring an editor with a history of being openly racist against white males, refuses to rescind her offer of employment, and tells the white males to then fuck themselves.

This is extremely evident and is being unapologetically done right out in the open. Originally Posted by Next Best Thing

+1

Whatever else anyone thinks of trumpy, you have to give the guy credit for provoking the fake news media into openly admitting they are biased as fuck.

In the old pre-trump days, they still tried to pretend they weren't biased, even when such insistence was met by incredulous gasps, smirks and guffaws.

Nowadays they just admit to bias (journalistic standards be damned), but try to justify it by claiming trump is such an existential threat to American democracy that they must full-throatedly join the "resistance" and oppose him by willfully distorting and manipulating the news in all ways large or small.

This bias "justification" by the lamestream media is extremely revealing in its utter illogic and irrationality...

Sorta reminds me of the US general in Vietnam who said "we must destroy the village in order to save it"!

There Munchy, someone answered and humiliated you like you deserve.

LL is far too smart for the likes of you. Originally Posted by friendly fred

I think you might have hit on something

"humiliated you like you deserve"

maybe that's what he craves and afterwards he slinks off to his closet or the bathroom

Problem is, it is such a stupid question. I don't know of a single person who can't tell the difference between somebody protesting peacefully and somebody throwing a Molotov cocktail or jumping up and down on a police care or violently attacking a store owner trying to defend his or her property.


So let me ask the question "who are these people you say don't know the difference between a peaceful protester and a criminal"? Who lumps them all together and says there is no difference between them? Please name them. Who has said there is no such thing as a peaceful protester and if you can't answer that question with names, your OP is meaningless.


Who the fuck cares if a protest was "mostly peaceful"? If their was burning and looting, that is the story. To ignore the burning and looting, is asinine but it seems like that is your purpose for the most part "don't look at or talk about the burning and looting and criminal behavior, only look at those nice people with their signs, that's the important story". BS.


But if it makes you happy "yes, there is a difference between somebody peacefully protesting and somebody burning and looting". To bad we see very few protests without the burning and looting at night when the cock roaches come out.

But if it makes you happy "yes, there is a difference between somebody peacefully protesting and somebody burning and looting". To bad we see very few protests without the burning and looting at night when the cock roaches come out. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I thought all these questions were resolved in Ferguson. BLM too!



Hey, Munchie, are these fellows "peacefully protesting"? (Must have been a virus going around, then too!)

...So let me ask the question "who are these people you say don't know the difference between a peaceful protester and a criminal"? ... Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Better yet: Why don't the peaceful protests nab the dirt-bags and turn them over to the police since there must far more peaceful protesters than dirt-bags?

But project veritas long history of tape editing and committing felonies doesn't bother you?
And this long open display yields what?
Your list is very short at best.
And of course you won't admit trump has lied thousands of times. Lies documented by witnesses, tape, and video.
But that means nothing?

I think it's link time. What links back up your story? If it's so blatant, links should be easy.

Because the agenda of the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN et al has been on display for long enough that it's impossible to ignore, even for moronic knee-jerk democrats.

The New York Times is actively attempting to boil the existence of this country down to racism. This is an active campaign that they openly admit to and has zero to do with conjecture.

Project Veritas has Jeff Zucker on tape ordering his idiots to make the fantasy impeachment the lead story all day, every day.

The New York Times gets caught hiring an editor with a history of being openly racist against white males, and tells the white males to then fuck themselves.

This is extremely evident and is being unapologetically done right out in the open. Originally Posted by Next Best Thing

So let me ask the question "who are these people you say don't know the difference between a peaceful protester and a criminal"? Who lumps them all together and says there is no difference between them? Please name them. Who has said there is no such thing as a peaceful protester and if you can't answer that question with names, your OP is meaningless. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I think it's link time. What links back up your story? If it's so blatant, links should be easy. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Yeah, fire away with them links, munchkin!

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018...te-racism.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...roject/604093/

https://www.foxnews.com/media/projec...out-propaganda

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ophobic-tweets

All of these things are very, very common knowledge by the way.

And no living human being has a worse words-spoken/lies ratio than Adam Schiff.

Enjoy.

The better question is: Why do the protestors put themselves in that group?

Yeah, fire away with them links, munchkin!

Originally Posted by lustylad

Better yet: Why don't the peaceful protests nab the dirt-bags and turn them over to the police since there must far more peaceful protesters than dirt-bags? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I thought all these questions were resolved in Ferguson. BLM too!

What would ever give you that stupid idea?

Hey, Munchie, are these fellows "peacefully protesting"? (Must have been a virus going around, then too!) Originally Posted by LexusLover

Problem is, it is such a stupid question. I don't know of a single person who can't tell the difference between somebody protesting peacefully and somebody throwing a Molotov cocktail or jumping up and down on a police care or violently attacking a store owner trying to defend his or her property.


So let me ask the question "who are these people you say don't know the difference between a peaceful protester and a criminal"? Who lumps them all together and says there is no difference between them? Please name them. Who has said there is no such thing as a peaceful protester and if you can't answer that question with names, your OP is meaningless.


Who the fuck cares if a protest was "mostly peaceful"? If their was burning and looting, that is the story. To ignore the burning and looting, is asinine but it seems like that is your purpose for the most part "don't look at or talk about the burning and looting and criminal behavior, only look at those nice people with their signs, that's the important story". BS.


But if it makes you happy "yes, there is a difference between somebody peacefully protesting and somebody burning and looting". To bad we see very few protests without the burning and looting at night when the cock roaches come out. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...p/?arc404=true

At about 6:30 p.m., just north of the White House, federal police in riot gear fired gas canisters and used grenades containing rubber pellets to scatter largely peaceful demonstrators. Their actions cleared the way for the president, surrounded by the nation’s top law enforcement and military leaders, to walk to the historic St. John’s Church for a three-minute photo op.

Suck that,

bitches!