D
Deleted member 7528
Guest
Weird how your stances on fascism swing so wildly.
It's the good kind, though. Like speech and assembly. You know, the type he agrees with.
Weird how your stances on fascism swing so wildly.
I've learned on the Tunnels that threats of violence and destroying property is only hyperbole and not to be taken seriously when it comes from a lib or progressive. And it's definitely not fascist or a threat to democracy. Some would even deem it anti-fascist as their motives are pure.
Yet many of the same posters on this board cheering on the 'hyperbole' would have you believe 1/6/21 is one of the worst events in US History rivaled only by the Civil War and 9/11.
Good stuff
odd how you online cyberwarriors don't see how it's identical to say mad things online and to storm the US Capitol and kill people
Meh. Politics should be a much more dangerous occupation for both sides of the aisle. None of them should be insulated from the material and physical harms they cause. The opportunity for enrichment needs to be balanced out by equal risk of some kind, and we already know there’s no criminal risk.
idk what this addresses or even means in relation to my post making fun of brad and jh
fwiw i think it's ok to yell at kyrsten sinema in bathrooms or on airplanes or whatever, but don't think it's ok to plot an insurrection on a govt building
Did you think it was okay to open fire on a group of Congressmen playing baseball? Please link me to your posts condemning the rhetoric of Dems then.
idk what this addresses or even means in relation to my post making fun of brad and jh
fwiw i think it's ok to yell at kyrsten sinema in bathrooms or on airplanes or whatever, but don't think it's ok to plot an insurrection on a govt building
Meh. Politics should be a much more dangerous occupation for both sides of the aisle. None of them should be insulated from the material and physical harms they cause. The opportunity for enrichment needs to be balanced out by equal risk of some kind, and we already know there’s no criminal risk.
it feels like you're reaching for the philosophical concept of immediacy - making the effects of congressional action real to our leaders instead of mediating it with language/reporting/media/geography - but I don't want to put words into your mouth
Imagine a person who believes the Second Amendment helps hold politicians accountable through unfettered access to guns telling people who are against that interpretation that they supported opening fire on a group of politicians.
Crazy, right? It’s almost like that person realizes they’re wrong but projects those horrible opinions on others instead of acknowledging their own faults.
That’s a new twist on bosiding 1/6.