4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.

---

How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.

---

So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?

---

Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.

---

I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.

Gotta love semantics.

---

Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?

---

Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.

I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.

---

The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.

---

If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).

---

Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.

---

Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).

---

It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?

---

If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.

---

Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0

A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.

---

As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.

---

There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.

Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.

---

Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.

---

um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..

---

Bingo. It's so elementary that even a child could understand.

Unless you're their family (and even then that might be questionable), why are you supporting a fund that puts violent looters and rioters who committed acts so despicable they got arrested for them back on the street while businesses are being looted and burned to the ground and people assaulted? Why throw more logs on the fire? It's completely absurd.

I suspect Sam would support politicians publicly supporting bail funds for serial killers in the name of "bail reform" and then claim anyone against that is against bail. What a clown.

---

Protesting = serial killing? Wow. Tell us how you really feel.

---

Try to use your brain, dufus. Use the same line of logic you've been using to serial killers (or whatever crime you want) and watch your logic fall apart.

This post illustrates the real disagreement. You just don't think violent looting and vandalism are that big a deal - unless it occurs at the capitol of course.

---

And by your logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.

---

NTSA data shows 1/3 of DWI are repeat offenders

Not sure you are helping your case Sam..

---

The more you and Mothra post, the less help I need. You're making my case for me.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.

---

How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.

---

So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?

---

Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.

---

I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.

Gotta love semantics.

---

Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?

---

Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.

I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.

---

The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.

---

If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).

---

Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.

---

Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).

---

It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?

---

If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.

---

Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0

A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.

---

As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.

---

There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.

Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.

---

Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.

---

um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..

---

Bingo. It's so elementary that even a child could understand.

Unless you're their family (and even then that might be questionable), why are you supporting a fund that puts violent looters and rioters who committed acts so despicable they got arrested for them back on the street while businesses are being looted and burned to the ground and people assaulted? Why throw more logs on the fire? It's completely absurd.

I suspect Sam would support politicians publicly supporting bail funds for serial killers in the name of "bail reform" and then claim anyone against that is against bail. What a clown.

---

Protesting = serial killing? Wow. Tell us how you really feel.

---

Try to use your brain, dufus. Use the same line of logic you've been using to serial killers (or whatever crime you want) and watch your logic fall apart.

This post illustrates the real disagreement. You just don't think violent looting and vandalism are that big a deal - unless it occurs at the capitol of course.

---

And by your logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.

---

NTSA data shows 1/3 of DWI are repeat offenders

Not sure you are helping your case Sam..

---

The more you and Mothra post, the less help I need. You're making my case for me.

---

well, i guess i can take one for the team and post more if you promise to post less!



(Just kidding, I enjoy your posts)

If you're trying to make the case that you're an idiot, couldn't agree more.

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.

---

How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.

---

So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?

---

Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.

---

I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.

Gotta love semantics.

---

Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?

---

Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.

I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.

---

The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.

---

If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).

---

Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.

---

Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).

---

It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?

---

If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.

---

Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0

A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.

---

As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.

---

There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.

Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.

---

Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.

---

um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..

---

Bingo. It's so elementary that even a child could understand.

Unless you're their family (and even then that might be questionable), why are you supporting a fund that puts violent looters and rioters who committed acts so despicable they got arrested for them back on the street while businesses are being looted and burned to the ground and people assaulted? Why throw more logs on the fire? It's completely absurd.

I suspect Sam would support politicians publicly supporting bail funds for serial killers in the name of "bail reform" and then claim anyone against that is against bail. What a clown.

---

Protesting = serial killing? Wow. Tell us how you really feel.

---

Try to use your brain, dufus. Use the same line of logic you've been using to serial killers (or whatever crime you want) and watch your logic fall apart.

This post illustrates the real disagreement. You just don't think violent looting and vandalism are that big a deal - unless it occurs at the capitol of course.

---

And by your logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.

---

NTSA data shows 1/3 of DWI are repeat offenders

Not sure you are helping your case Sam..

---

The more you and Mothra post, the less help I need. You're making my case for me.

---

well, i guess i can take one for the team and post more if you promise to post less!



(Just kidding, I enjoy your posts)

---

Thanks!

Mothra said:

---

If you're trying to make the case that you're an idiot, couldn't agree more.

---

I was very critical of Dem politicians pandering to BLM. If you want to argue that raising money for protesters at that particular time was unseemly, I don't disagree. The problem is that your argument proves way too much. If funding bail makes you complicit in the crime, it makes you complicit in the crime. It doesn't only make certain people complicit in certain crimes at certain times and places.

Trump advertised himself with a QAnon pin and the slogan "the storm is coming." The storm is a reference to a civil war in which Trump summarily executes his political opponents. You may not know that, but his base knows it. Biden is at least better than that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If you're trying to make the case that you're an idiot, couldn't agree more.

---

I was very critical of Dem politicians pandering to BLM. If you want to argue that raising money for protesters at that particular time was unseemly, I don't disagree. The problem is that your argument proves way too much. If funding bail makes you complicit in the crime, it makes you complicit in the crime. It doesn't only make certain people complicit in certain crimes at certain times and places.

Trump advertised himself with a QAnon pin and the slogan "the storm is coming." The storm is a reference to a civil war in which Trump summarily executes his political opponents. You may not know that, but his base knows it. Biden is at least better than that.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If you're trying to make the case that you're an idiot, couldn't agree more.

---

I was very critical of Dem politicians pandering to BLM. If you want to argue that raising money for protesters at that particular time was unseemly, I don't disagree. The problem is that your argument proves way too much. If funding bail makes you complicit in the crime, it makes you complicit in the crime. It doesn't only make certain people complicit in certain crimes at certain times and places.

Trump advertised himself with a QAnon pin and the slogan "the storm is coming." The storm is a reference to a civil war in which Trump summarily executes his political opponents. You may not know that, but his base knows it. Biden is at least better than that.

---

As usual, you've assumed far too much by my comments. I never stated, much less suggested, that Harris was complicit in a crime. I generally said her public support of bail funds designed to put offenders, some of whom were violent, back on the streets during the middle of the powder keg that was the Summer of 2020 was tacit approval of their actions. That is my opinion.

My comments should not have been viewed as an approval of anything Trump has done.

I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."

Wangchung said:

---

I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."

---

I don't disagree with a lot of this. It's heinous, no question. But a crime? Not sure about that one.

Mothra said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."

---

I don't disagree with a lot of this. It's heinous, no question. But a crime? Not sure about that one.

---

Well, that's how Sam wanted to frame the discussion so he could try and claim it couldn't be proven that Kamala funded and fundraised for the release of criminals who went on to commit more crimes including more rioting. It takes a profound belief in coincidence to be Sam, or any democrat, really.

Wangchung said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."

---

I don't disagree with a lot of this. It's heinous, no question. But a crime? Not sure about that one.

---

Well, that's how Sam wanted to frame the discussion so he could try and claim it couldn't be proven that Kamala funded and fundraised for the release of criminals who went on to commit more crimes including more rioting. It takes a profound belief in coincidence to be Sam, or any democrat, really.

---

This thread hasn't been his best showing. As I said above, he is regularly on the wrong side of most issues, but his arguments on this thread have for the most part been completely absurd and demonstrate a level of obtuseness that is remarkable.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If you're trying to make the case that you're an idiot, couldn't agree more.

---

I was very critical of Dem politicians pandering to BLM. If you want to argue that raising money for protesters at that particular time was unseemly, I don't disagree. The problem is that your argument proves way too much. If funding bail makes you complicit in the crime, it makes you complicit in the crime. It doesn't only make certain people complicit in certain crimes at certain times and places.

Trump advertised himself with a QAnon pin and the slogan "the storm is coming." The storm is a reference to a civil war in which Trump summarily executes his political opponents. You may not know that, but his base knows it. Biden is at least better than that.

---

As usual, you've assumed far too much by my comments. I never stated, much less suggested, that Harris was complicit in a crime. I generally said her public support of bail funds designed to put offenders, some of whom were violent, back on the streets during the middle of the powder keg that was the Summer of 2020 was tacit approval of their actions. That is my opinion.

My comments should not have been viewed as an approval of anything Trump has done.

---

Whether you call it approval, complicity, or whatever, the point remains. You can't pick and choose the implications of your argument.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If you're trying to make the case that you're an idiot, couldn't agree more.

---

I was very critical of Dem politicians pandering to BLM. If you want to argue that raising money for protesters at that particular time was unseemly, I don't disagree. The problem is that your argument proves way too much. If funding bail makes you complicit in the crime, it makes you complicit in the crime. It doesn't only make certain people complicit in certain crimes at certain times and places.

Trump advertised himself with a QAnon pin and the slogan "the storm is coming." The storm is a reference to a civil war in which Trump summarily executes his political opponents. You may not know that, but his base knows it. Biden is at least better than that.

---

As usual, you've assumed far too much by my comments. I never stated, much less suggested, that Harris was complicit in a crime. I generally said her public support of bail funds designed to put offenders, some of whom were violent, back on the streets during the middle of the powder keg that was the Summer of 2020 was tacit approval of their actions. That is my opinion.

My comments should not have been viewed as an approval of anything Trump has done.

---

Whether you call it approval, complicity, or whatever, the point remains. You can't pick and choose the implications of your argument.

---

But Sam Lowry can, apparently.

Wangchung said:

---

I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."

---

Right, except that you're lying. Anyone who watched the interview knows that "they won't stop and they shouldn't stop" refers to protests, not riots.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."

---

Right, except that you're lying. Anyone who watched the interview knows that "they won't stop and they shouldn't stop" refers to protests, not riots.

---

Right, it was just a coincidence that over 500 of those peaceful protests turned into riots. One event had nothing to do with the other. Completely different crowd. Protestors were BLM, rioters were white supremacists. Got it.

Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If you're trying to make the case that you're an idiot, couldn't agree more.

---

I was very critical of Dem politicians pandering to BLM. If you want to argue that raising money for protesters at that particular time was unseemly, I don't disagree. The problem is that your argument proves way too much. If funding bail makes you complicit in the crime, it makes you complicit in the crime. It doesn't only make certain people complicit in certain crimes at certain times and places.

Trump advertised himself with a QAnon pin and the slogan "the storm is coming." The storm is a reference to a civil war in which Trump summarily executes his political opponents. You may not know that, but his base knows it. Biden is at least better than that.

---

As usual, you've assumed far too much by my comments. I never stated, much less suggested, that Harris was complicit in a crime. I generally said her public support of bail funds designed to put offenders, some of whom were violent, back on the streets during the middle of the powder keg that was the Summer of 2020 was tacit approval of their actions. That is my opinion.

My comments should not have been viewed as an approval of anything Trump has done.

---

Whether you call it approval, complicity, or whatever, the point remains. You can't pick and choose the implications of your argument.

---

But Sam Lowry can, apparently.

---

Apparently. LOL.

SMDH.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If you're trying to make the case that you're an idiot, couldn't agree more.

---

I was very critical of Dem politicians pandering to BLM. If you want to argue that raising money for protesters at that particular time was unseemly, I don't disagree. The problem is that your argument proves way too much. If funding bail makes you complicit in the crime, it makes you complicit in the crime. It doesn't only make certain people complicit in certain crimes at certain times and places.

Trump advertised himself with a QAnon pin and the slogan "the storm is coming." The storm is a reference to a civil war in which Trump summarily executes his political opponents. You may not know that, but his base knows it. Biden is at least better than that.

---

As usual, you've assumed far too much by my comments. I never stated, much less suggested, that Harris was complicit in a crime. I generally said her public support of bail funds designed to put offenders, some of whom were violent, back on the streets during the middle of the powder keg that was the Summer of 2020 was tacit approval of their actions. That is my opinion.

My comments should not have been viewed as an approval of anything Trump has done.

---

Whether you call it approval, complicity, or whatever, the point remains. You can't pick and choose the implications of your argument.

---

Blow it out your arse.

Wangchung said:

---

Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.

---

You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."

---

Right, except that you're lying. Anyone who watched the interview knows that "they won't stop and they shouldn't stop" refers to protests, not riots.

---

More buffoonery. If he wants to describe it as a riot as opposed to a protest, that's his right. The evidence certainly supports that the protests in Minnesota could easily be described as riots, given the millions in dollars in destruction that resulted. But you could just agree to disagree on the terminology.

I've never seen someone so willing to debate semantics. Is it possible for you to behave in a non-obtuse manner?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."

---

Right, except that you're lying. Anyone who watched the interview knows that "they won't stop and they shouldn't stop" refers to protests, not riots.

---

More buffoonery. If he wants to describe it as a riot as opposed to a protest, that's his right. The evidence certainly supports that the protests in Minnesota could easily be described as riots, given the millions in dollars in destruction that resulted. But you could just agree to disagree.

I've never seen someone so willing to debate semantics. Is it possible for you to behave in a non-obtuse manner?

---

Now you think the difference between a riot and a protest is merely semantic? Please elaborate.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.

---

You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.

---

The irony of these comments is incredible.

You just described yourself.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."

---

Right, except that you're lying. Anyone who watched the interview knows that "they won't stop and they shouldn't stop" refers to protests, not riots.

---

More buffoonery. If he wants to describe it as a riot as opposed to a protest, that's his right. The evidence certainly supports that the protests in Minnesota could easily be described as riots, given the millions in dollars in destruction that resulted. But you could just agree to disagree.

I've never seen someone so willing to debate semantics. Is it possible for you to behave in a non-obtuse manner?

---

Now you think the difference between a riot and protest is merely semantic? Please elaborate.

---

Sorry, don't argue semantics with obtuse jackasses. Have a nice day.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.

---

You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.

---

Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."

---

Right, except that you're lying. Anyone who watched the interview knows that "they won't stop and they shouldn't stop" refers to protests, not riots.

---

More buffoonery. If he wants to describe it as a riot as opposed to a protest, that's his right. The evidence certainly supports that the protests in Minnesota could easily be described as riots, given the millions in dollars in destruction that resulted. But you could just agree to disagree.

I've never seen someone so willing to debate semantics. Is it possible for you to behave in a non-obtuse manner?

---

Now you think the difference between a riot and protest is merely semantic? Please elaborate.

---

Sorry, don't argue semantics with obtuse jackasses. Have a nice day.

---

I guess that's one difference between us. Till next time!

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.

---

You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.

---

Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?

---

That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.

---

You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.

---

Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?

---

That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.

---

Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.

---

You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.

---

Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?

---

That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.

---

Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?

---

The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.

If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.

---

You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.

---

Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?

---

That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.

---

Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?

---

The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.

If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.

---

Your inability to understand is no indictment of the point.

At some point, you're going to have to examine your dependency on coincidence when supporting your chosen narratives. Or at least realize it isn't the clever troll you think it is.

Wangchung said:

---

At some point, you're going to have to examine your dependency on coincidence when supporting your chosen narratives. Or at least realize it isn't the clever troll you think it is.

---

Coincidentally, that will probably be at whatever point you show some evidence supporting yours. Amazing how that works.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

At some point, you're going to have to examine your dependency on coincidence when supporting your chosen narratives. Or at least realize it isn't the clever troll you think it is.

---

Coincidentally, that will probably be at whatever point you show some evidence supporting yours. Amazing how that works.

---

Your inability to understand the evidence is no indictment of said evidence.

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

---

I'm not interested in the separate conversation of bail reform any more than I want to discuss tax reform in this conversation. We are discussing Kamala Harris advertising for and bailing out criminals with an NGO she supports. Some of those criminals she personally helped bail out went on to assault people and kill people. She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting. Facts matter.

---

You missed the conversation that was going on before. It's ok.

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

---

I'm not interested in the separate conversation of bail reform any more than I want to discuss tax reform in this conversation. We are discussing Kamala Harris advertising for and bailing out criminals with an NGO she supports. Some of those criminals she personally helped bail out went on to assault people and kill people. She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting. Facts matter.

---

You missed the conversation that was going on before. It's ok.

---

Weird that it would be confused with the very obvious topic at hand, then, given the context surrounding when Kamala made her statements about the protest riots and what she subsequently did with her money and fame in helping them raise $35,000,000 to bail out criminals. Most people can see it's just her funding the violent brown shirt wing of the democrat party during nationwide rioting but some let the vast void of coincidence color their rationale so they think otherwise. Maybe it shouldn't be suggested that Trump's words to peacefully protest are a sign he promotes a violent ideology. Maybe it's the height of stupidity to claim Biden's pick of Kamala Harris isn't a sign his administration supports violent ideologies when it gains power for democrats.

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

---

I'm not interested in the separate conversation of bail reform any more than I want to discuss tax reform in this conversation. We are discussing Kamala Harris advertising for and bailing out criminals with an NGO she supports. Some of those criminals she personally helped bail out went on to assault people and kill people. She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting. Facts matter.

---

You missed the conversation that was going on before. It's ok.

---

Weird that it would be confused with the very obvious topic at hand, then, given the context surrounding when Kamala made her statements about the protest riots and what she subsequently did with her money and fame in helping them raise $35,000,000 to bail out criminals. Most people can see it's just her funding the violent brown shirt wing of the democrat party during nationwide rioting but some let the vast void of coincidence color their rationale so they think otherwise. Maybe it shouldn't be suggested that Trump's words to peacefully protest are a sign he promotes a violent ideology. Maybe it's the height of stupidity to claim Biden's pick of Kamala Harris isn't a sign his administration supports violent ideologies when it gains power for democrats.

---

Picking Harris was about 1 thing only, and if you don't know what it is, height of stupidity is sort of a lacking description.