(04-05-2018 12:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 12:13 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Why am I not surprised that you cant tell the difference between these two people...

Of greater concern to me is that he can't tell the difference between free speech, internet memes (which require someone to acquiesce to participating in them) and verbal assault, of a child no less.

Waiting in line at “Tiny’s” to buy cookies for the younger girls in their Church group...

Not dropping F bombs repeatedly on camera and accusing millions of people of basically being murderers or complicit in the murder of children.

Yea, just the same...

Dumb

(04-05-2018 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 01:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  And worse, its West U., which is a small community where you run into each other all the time. I guess she doesn't have enough to do. She's a big anti-gun person. Her husband is a Rice professor.

Interestingly enough an incumbent councilman (Ballafant) who was a fixture in West U. politics and another fixture (Yehle), finished 7th and 8th in an 8 person field. Burke finished 2nd (top 4 get elected).

http://www.instantnewswestu.com/large-fi...y-council/

https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bella...127131.php

Very true... lived there for years...

(04-05-2018 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Those memes were posted here by your fellow posters. They are shameful attacks on a teen as well.

wow... so rather than admit the difference, you actually have the balls to double down on it?

Let's ignore the difference between someone who quietly wears a shirt or hat vs someone who openly and with intent, rants in public (either in person or on the internet) and let me try and help you out....

If i 'attack' you on this board, there is zero crime. The board certainly has rules and they will be enforced, but the worst they can do is ban me from this privately owned and hosted forum. If you called the police, they would laugh at you.

and for all I know SOME posters on here are 'children'.

but if I drive to your home or stop you on the street and yell obscenities at you, that is almost always a crime. A petty crime perhaps, but a crime nonetheless....

I'm not defending their posts. I honestly didn't look at them once I knew it was simply a link to another thread... but there are all sorts of tasteless, classless posts on here (including by some people's measure by you AND me).... and of course there is a difference between a kid who simply gets a photo taken without their knowledge vs someone who intentionally puts themselves 'out there'... not to mention the adults who then pimp them....

Let me ask you... based on demographics, this is most likely a white woman and a white female child. Would anything change for you if genders or races were different? What if it were a black girl wearing a BLM shirt and a white man did this?

I lived there too and know some of the people who ran for council.
This was the place I described where the police commissioner or mayor would call me if I had a problem.

(04-05-2018 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 01:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  And worse, its West U., which is a small community where you run into each other all the time. I guess she doesn't have enough to do. She's a big anti-gun person. Her husband is a Rice professor.

Interestingly enough an incumbent councilman (Ballafant) who was a fixture in West U. politics and another fixture (Yehle), finished 7th and 8th in an 8 person field. Burke finished 2nd (top 4 get elected).

http://www.instantnewswestu.com/large-fi...y-council/

https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bella...127131.php

Very true... lived there for years...

(04-05-2018 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Those memes were posted here by your fellow posters. They are shameful attacks on a teen as well.

wow... so rather than admit the difference, you actually have the balls to double down on it?

Let's ignore the difference between someone who quietly wears a shirt or hat vs someone who openly and with intent, rants in public (either in person or on the internet) and let me try and help you out....

If i 'attack' you on this board, there is zero crime. The board certainly has rules and they will be enforced, but the worst they can do is ban me from this privately owned and hosted forum. If you called the police, they would laugh at you.

and for all I know SOME posters on here are 'children'.

but if I drive to your home or stop you on the street and yell obscenities at you, that is almost always a crime. A petty crime perhaps, but a crime nonetheless....

I'm not defending their posts. I honestly didn't look at them once I knew it was simply a link to another thread... but there are all sorts of tasteless, classless posts on here (including by some people's measure by you AND me).... and of course there is a difference between a kid who simply gets a photo taken without their knowledge vs someone who intentionally puts themselves 'out there'... not to mention the adults who then pimp them....

Let me ask you... based on demographics, this is most likely a white woman and a white female child. Would anything change for you if genders or races were different? What if it were a black girl wearing a BLM shirt and a white man did this?

I was in no way implying whatsoever that these two things are the same. I was merely pointing out that kids don't seem to be off limits when it fits some people's politics and they can hide behind a keyboard. They're equally disgusting IMHO.

And I'm also in no way defending the classless an idiotic behavior of this woman.

If you aren't implying they are in any way the same, why bring it up?

(04-05-2018 03:08 PM)banker Wrote:  If you aren't implying they are in any way the same, why bring it up?

Because of the feigned outrage in the first two posts that kids should not be targets merely for free speech, when those posters seem to have no issue doing that when it suits them.

Yes, different methods and one is clearly worse, but they are still both attacks for nothing more than free speech.

(04-05-2018 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:08 PM)banker Wrote:  If you aren't implying they are in any way the same, why bring it up?

Because of the feigned outrage in the first two posts that kids should not be targets merely for free speech, when those posters seem to have no issue doing that when it suits them.

Yes, different methods and one is clearly worse, but they are still both attacks for nothing more than free speech.

(04-05-2018 02:09 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

Surprising, I expected someone much uglier.

(04-05-2018 03:27 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:08 PM)banker Wrote:  If you aren't implying they are in any way the same, why bring it up?

Because of the feigned outrage in the first two posts that kids should not be targets merely for free speech, when those posters seem to have no issue doing that when it suits them.

Yes, different methods and one is clearly worse, but they are still both attacks for nothing more than free speech.

Pathetic copout. You posted the meme, you own what it says or implies. You shamelessly attacked a kid...and now you decry a shameful attack on a kid.

(04-05-2018 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:08 PM)banker Wrote:  If you aren't implying they are in any way the same, why bring it up?

Because of the feigned outrage in the first two posts that kids should not be targets merely for free speech, when those posters seem to have no issue doing that when it suits them.

Yes, different methods and one is clearly worse, but they are still both attacks for nothing more than free speech.

So a kid wearing a MAGA hat or Tshirt = the Parkland punks who promote themselves in all manner possible, TV shows, social media, staying in 5 stars at the cost of some leftist group.

(04-05-2018 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:27 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:08 PM)banker Wrote:  If you aren't implying they are in any way the same, why bring it up?

Because of the feigned outrage in the first two posts that kids should not be targets merely for free speech, when those posters seem to have no issue doing that when it suits them.

Yes, different methods and one is clearly worse, but they are still both attacks for nothing more than free speech.

Pathetic copout. You posted the meme, you own what it says or implies. You shamelessly attacked a kid...and now you decry a shameful attack on a kid.

oh booo ******* hooooo! I attacked a political activist who is trying to hinder my 2nd amendment rights, not some kid wearing a hillary clinton shirt out on the street eating ice cream. big ******* difference.

(04-05-2018 02:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 01:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 01:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  What is even more sick is that they backed a woman who enabled a rapist and serial harasser and denigrated the victims publically.

You are aware who the current president is, no?

Your candidate lost. Bill Clinton is not in the White House.

Trump is a serial cheater, but not much proof on anything else. And he seems to be behaving while in office. He isn't having state troopers bring in attractive young women for him to mess with and then having his wife attack the victims.

Bill Clinton had state troopers bring him attractive young women for him to mess with when he was the president? Got a link for that?

But yeah...trumps pure...in your mind. Just ignore the many reported incidents of him groping and harassing women and all of them he called lairs and all the threats that he would sue them (and then never suing) and the bragging about walking into the dressing room of teen beauty pageant contestants because he could.

BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST (IMO)!!!!

So this t-shirt



was all it took to trigger this leftist b#tch into berating and scaring the hell out of some poor young girls waiting in line to buy cookies to give to younger girls at their church Saturday night. I hope she reaps her reward for this cowardly, hateful act one day.

(04-05-2018 03:55 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:27 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:08 PM)banker Wrote:  If you aren't implying they are in any way the same, why bring it up?

Because of the feigned outrage in the first two posts that kids should not be targets merely for free speech, when those posters seem to have no issue doing that when it suits them.

Yes, different methods and one is clearly worse, but they are still both attacks for nothing more than free speech.

Pathetic copout. You posted the meme, you own what it says or implies. You shamelessly attacked a kid...and now you decry a shameful attack on a kid.

oh booo ******* hooooo! I attacked a political activist who is trying to hinder my 2nd amendment rights, not some kid wearing a hillary clinton shirt out on the street eating ice cream. big ******* difference.

Liberals sure can dish it out but they sure as hell can't take it....

(04-05-2018 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 01:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  What is even more sick is that they backed a woman who enabled a rapist and serial harasser and denigrated the victims publically.

You are aware who the current president is, no?

When was he impeached?

(04-05-2018 04:06 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST (IMO)!!!!

INFOWARS DOT COM

(04-05-2018 02:20 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

I'd hit it...

(04-05-2018 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:08 PM)banker Wrote:  If you aren't implying they are in any way the same, why bring it up?

Because of the feigned outrage in the first two posts that kids should not be targets merely for free speech, when those posters seem to have no issue doing that when it suits them.

Yes, different methods and one is clearly worse, but they are still both attacks for nothing more than free speech.

so someone can't think it's okay to put a child in time out, but not chastise people who beat their children because both are 'attacks' for nothing more than being two?

You're making false equivalencies....

Someone wearing a t-shirt is not the same as someone making a public speech.
Someone commenting on the internet is not the same as physically confronting them.

Maybe your definition of 'attacking' differs from mine. Commenting on the internet about a teen who is proselytizing and physically confronting a teen because you disagree with their t-shirt ain’t the same effin ballpark. It ain’t the same league, it ain’t even the same effin’ sport.

(04-05-2018 04:26 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 02:20 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

I'd hit it...

Uh, ok. I wouldn't though, IMO. I would rather be with a classy and nice woman that is overweight than a crazy woman any day, regardless of looks.

(04-05-2018 04:35 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 04:26 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 02:20 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

I'd hit it...

Uh, ok. I wouldn't though, IMO. I would rather be with a classy and nice woman that is overweight than a crazy woman any day, regardless of looks.

I'm just shallow enough to not care, lol.