Let’s talk about Antifa.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cale
    replied
    Originally posted by decay
    yeah sorry i don’t shop at gruntstyle like the rest of the 10-series army guys

    post a pic of yourself if you’re going to criticize my appearance, let’s find out where you’re roastable, boy
    Not a me vs. you scenario, just drop the act of being some body-stacker. Piggybacking on some grunts a decade ago doesn't make you an SME on military operations, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's grown tired of your incessant need to refer to your military time. There's a lot to be said about the loudest vet in the room.
    Last edited by cale; 07-16-2019, 05:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • naplesE30
    replied
    Welp more often than not grand juries with more evidence than your 5:00 news say otherwise. Or are your fellow citizens also in on the oppression of themselves?

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    Originally posted by cale
    k killer
    yeah sorry i don’t shop at gruntstyle like the rest of the 10-series army guys

    post a pic of yourself if you’re going to criticize my appearance, let’s find out where you’re roastable, boy

    Leave a comment:


  • cale
    replied
    Originally posted by decay
    Most unintentionally funny post ITT.

    Sorry, but no public service in Canada rates with being combat arms in our military.

    Thanks for the laugh, though.
    k killer
    Last edited by cale; 07-16-2019, 06:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    Their actions are supposed to be justifiable, in theory. In practice, that’s not the case. You not understanding that is why you keep making both of us repeat ourselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • naplesE30
    replied
    Your blanket statements are what I oppose. Are there bad officers? Absolutely there are. It’s idiotic to think there are not. However, you act as though they have unfettered power to shoot beat and abuse at will. Like I said for a 3rd time. There actions must be JUSTIFIABLE. The fact that police shoot people does not equate to them as a whole as being oppressive or the govt as a whole for that matter.

    And when it happens it’s not “as they see fit”. It as a grand jury more often than not sees as justifiable. So justifiable indeed that charges are rare and convictions even more rare.

    Nice leap though with the not be allowed to criticize govt.
    Last edited by naplesE30; 07-16-2019, 04:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    The world has no shortage of countries worse than ours. I acknowledge that. As i’ve already discussed, some part of that migration is our own doing.

    It is starting to sound like you’re saying i’m not allowed to even criticize the government in any way.

    There’s a word for that ideology.

    Leave a comment:


  • naplesE30
    replied
    Such an oppressive police state we live in that millions have flocked here to join in the oppression. Color me delusional.

    Good thing we have antifa to beat up citizens and destroy private property to show those oppressive police that their protection of such things won’t be tolerated.

    Again police have the same restrictions you or I do. When a LEO discharges a weapon it must be justifiable. If your attacking an office your taking your life in your own hands just as if you attacked another civilian.
    Last edited by naplesE30; 07-16-2019, 04:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    I see the disconnect here; your idealism is in direct conflict with reality.

    The police absolutely can, will, and do shoot people or beat them to death as they see fit.

    Your assertion is still wrong, but hopefully this nudge is helpful.

    Leave a comment:


  • naplesE30
    replied
    As stated before in my reply. It’s a false premise “question” . Govt has the same restrictions on violence as you or I. Their is no monopoly . Govt can’t go shooting who it sees fit. It must be a justifiable use of force just like a civilian must have. So your “question” is just as false as me implying you beat your wife, but simply putting a question mark at the end does not make it so.

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    JFC. There is no premise. It’s a fucking question intended to make you think about your answer. You sound like you’re a couple steps down that path now, but I don’t understand why you’re upset that I asked it.

    Leave a comment:


  • naplesE30
    replied
    Which is completely based on a false premise. Just as I outlined. I have a right to defend myself if one were to break into my home. That does not mean I have a right to commit violence.

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    Originally posted by naplesE30
    Do you think Decay should be allowed to continue beating his wife?

    That wouldn't exactly be a true question either would it. Your "question" has an implied factual statement
    No it doesn’t. It is intended to make anyone who reads it ask themselves more questions. z31 got it.

    Leave a comment:


  • naplesE30
    replied
    Do you think Decay should be allowed to continue beating his wife?

    That wouldn't exactly be a true question either would it. Your "question" has an implied factual statement

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    Originally posted by cale
    You're not the only one who was or is in the military. Others including myself who serve
    Most unintentionally funny post ITT.

    Sorry, but no public service in Canada rates with being combat arms in our military.

    Thanks for the laugh, though.

    Leave a comment:

Working...