Remember The Bush Hitler

They've also targeted business leaders, in any case it's wrong to make it difficult for families, not just the 'target.' This is not supposed to be governing by intimidation and that is what these types of threatening protests are.

My point was though that what goes around, comes around. Idiots know no political parties.

It's funny you should mention that - You're talking about the AIG executives in Connecticut, right?

I worked for one of the organizations that organized that protest/bus tour, and I did a good amount of work, before are during it.

There was nothing threatening that happened. We never stepped on to any private property (and we could barely see the houses). There were no arrests, no complaints, and no violence or threats.

Actually thinking more about this and similar:

Class Warfare: Hundreds Protest Outside Bankers' Houses In DC

I'm not saying people don't have complaints, but they do not belong at the family abode.

Why?
 
If one makes the point that it's 'wrong' to protest at someone's home, and subsequently argues that it doesn't apply in cases of non-owner tenancy, that person is more than disingenuous. That person is a blatant partisan hypocrite.

True story :thup:
 
If one makes the point that it's 'wrong' to protest at someone's home, and subsequently argues that it doesn't apply in cases of non-owner tenancy, that person is more than disingenuous. That person is a blatant partisan hypocrite.

True story :thup:
you do understand that the Blaine house is owned by the people, right?
and they werent at a private residence?
or are we now not able to protest at the White House, because it is also a residence
 
If one makes the point that it's 'wrong' to protest at someone's home, and subsequently argues that it doesn't apply in cases of non-owner tenancy, that person is more than disingenuous. That person is a blatant partisan hypocrite.

True story :thup:
you do understand that the Blaine house is owned by the people, right?
and they werent at a private residence?
or are we now not able to protest at the White House, because it is also a residence

Perhaps you should reread my post. Because your reply makes no sense in context.

If one thinks it's wrong to protest at someone's home, that is a reasonable opinion. If that same person backpedals and says it's only wrong if said home is a private residence, that person is full of partisan bullshit.
 
If one makes the point that it's 'wrong' to protest at someone's home, and subsequently argues that it doesn't apply in cases of non-owner tenancy, that person is more than disingenuous. That person is a blatant partisan hypocrite.

True story :thup:
you do understand that the Blaine house is owned by the people, right?
and they werent at a private residence?
or are we now not able to protest at the White House, because it is also a residence

Perhaps you should reread my post. Because your reply makes no sense in context.

If one thinks it's wrong to protest at someone's home, that is a reasonable opinion. If that same person backpedals and says it's only wrong if said home is a private residence, that person is full of partisan bullshit.
the point being it isnt his "home"
as in once out of office he had to leave it
 
you do understand that the Blaine house is owned by the people, right?
and they werent at a private residence?
or are we now not able to protest at the White House, because it is also a residence

Perhaps you should reread my post. Because your reply makes no sense in context.

If one thinks it's wrong to protest at someone's home, that is a reasonable opinion. If that same person backpedals and says it's only wrong if said home is a private residence, that person is full of partisan bullshit.
the point being it isnt his "home"
as in once out of office he had to leave it
But Gore wasn't out of office until Jan 2001 and the CON$ervative Brotherhood was harassing his family's legal residence in November 2000.
 
Perhaps you should reread my post. Because your reply makes no sense in context.

If one thinks it's wrong to protest at someone's home, that is a reasonable opinion. If that same person backpedals and says it's only wrong if said home is a private residence, that person is full of partisan bullshit.
the point being it isnt his "home"
as in once out of office he had to leave it
But Gore wasn't out of office until Jan 2001 and the CON$ervative Brotherhood was harassing his family's legal residence in November 2000.
again, its not a private residence, thus the comparison FAILS
 
the point being it isnt his "home"
as in once out of office he had to leave it
But Gore wasn't out of office until Jan 2001 and the CON$ervative Brotherhood was harassing his family's legal residence in November 2000.
again, its not a private residence, thus the comparison FAILS
It's the Gore family's LEGAL residence, private or not, but the CON$ervative Brotherhood has to cling to any rationalization they can dream up to justify why they are allowed to do what they condemn in others. :cuckoo:
 
But Gore wasn't out of office until Jan 2001 and the CON$ervative Brotherhood was harassing his family's legal residence in November 2000.
again, its not a private residence, thus the comparison FAILS
It's the Gore family's LEGAL residence, private or not, but the CON$ervative Brotherhood has to cling to any rationalization they can dream up to justify why they are allowed to do what they condemn in others. :cuckoo:
no, his LEGAL residence was in TN


moron
 
If one makes the point that it's 'wrong' to protest at someone's home, and subsequently argues that it doesn't apply in cases of non-owner tenancy, that person is more than disingenuous. That person is a blatant partisan hypocrite.

True story :thup:
I see that you've met dcon.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top