Originally posted by Robtard
Let's say you had a job, a good job. One day you used "I intended to work" in replace of actually working, do you think your employer would accept that?As a general rule I hold that murder is bad and I'm glad this deranged pos is in custody.
As for your scenario, they wouldn't accept it. Just like I do not accept this chick is innocent. Bringing up her intentions is intended to show the character of this person. She did not go merely to protest, but to disrupt. She wanted to get 100 nazi scalps lol.
My point is she isn't the innocent victim the media is portraying her as. I mean, if you can't see that..there is no point. Should we just continue this for another 10 pages? If you can't see it, I don't know what else to say. People will just continue to bring up strawmans with this, and what is the point?
There are no innocents here, is my bottom line. If you disagree then meh.
Nice little example of how our TRUSTWORTHY Leftist Media is handling the Story of the Fresno Killer...
Originally posted by SurturSo her words = she committed crimes as fact, even though no one has been able to show her committing a crime. Okay then. Then the argument against her is literally based on 'words and feelz', which is fine I guess at this point, just own up to it.
As for your scenario, they wouldn't accept it. Just like I do not accept this chick is innocent. Bringing up her intentions is intended to show the character of this person. She did not go merely to protest, but to disrupt. She wanted to get 100 nazi scalps lol.My point is she isn't the innocent victim the media is portraying her as. I mean, if you can't see that..there is no point. Should we just continue this for another 10 pages? If you can't see it, I don't know what else to say. People will just continue to bring up strawmans with this, and what is the point?
There are no innocents here, is my bottom line. If you disagree then meh.
Originally posted by Robtard
So her words = she committed crimes as fact, even though no one has been able to show her committing a crime. Okay then. Then the argument against her is literally based on 'words and feelz', which is fine I guess at this point, just own up to it.
So we should then excuse Trump for when he says stull like Kick Em Out at a rally then because he wasn't intending Violence then?
I seem to recall you Leftists dancing to a diff tune on that one.
Originally posted by Robtard
So her words = she committed crimes as fact, even though no one has been able to show her committing a crime. Okay then. Then the argument against her is literally based on 'words and feelz', which is fine I guess at this point, just own up to it.
Dude, what is being said is that it shows her character, it shows she isn't an innocent person in this. I can only say this to you in so many ways.
Originally posted by Surtur
Dude, what is being said is that it shows her character, it shows she isn't an innocent person in this. I can only say this to you in so many ways.
Fair enough, her saying "100 Nazi scalps" shows that she's violent and neither her nor Nazi-boy are innocent.
Just remember that, the next time you're doing a spin-machine on something Trump or one of his surrogates said. Cool?
Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough, her saying "100 Nazi scalps" shows that she's violent and neither her nor Nazi-boy are innocent.
Indeed. There are zero good people in this situation.
Just remember that, the next time you're doing a spin-machine on something Trump or one of his surrogates said. Cool?
No doubt I will, as long as you remember it goes both ways.
Rob, take like 5 minutes out to watch this video, then I want you to determine a couple of things:
Around 2:05 when the punch happens, try to stop the clip right there. Look at her posture, she seems to be putting her hands up in a fighting position, about to throw a punch in another direction, and then she gets decked by someone else. Her body language says it all IMO.
Also, watch the video and tell me she isn't a lying kunt. Just state that for me after you watch it and see what she says was done to her. I want either a "No Surtur, no lying kunts in sight" or a "Yeah, seems like a lying kunt trying to capitalize on this". Yeah, I called her a kunt, you can rant about how it's supposedly misogyny another time.
I can see why rob and friends love to defend this stupid princess, just check out those pits! I'm just glad superman manlet took her down a few notches, but it looks like she will benefit from it somehow. Its just funny how Berkeley turned her into a s1ut.
How did we get derail from a black Muslim man killing white people? Rob and friends deflecting and using safe space again....
^^^Exactly. Also EWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! I had the misfortune of seeing her before, but ew. So she is stupid, skanky, and violent. I can see why an Antifa member would wanna date her. I can also see why cucks would defend her(which really does show the left has a plethora of cucks).
As for the derail, it mostly came at laughing at Bash for trying to defend Antifa. Then people spent pages trying to defend that stupidity and Antifa.
Originally posted by Surtur
Bash, why is she covering her face at some points? Not saying that proves anything, just wondering why she'd do that if she is doing nothing wrong. Let me guess: this innocent doe just didn't want to get recognized?
so you don't see a bottle either? care to have a single moment of honesty and address that instead of dodging with your typical dogshit non-sequiturs?