This Seems A Bit Wrong, Right?

[Ame®icano]

Should the national guard be permitted to fire rounds at people who are hanging out on their front porch like this?

Who gave them authority to do that?

We did not. They gave themselves that authority without asking us at all.

You people are unbelievable. You've been foaming at the mouth to shoot these "animals," yet you don't want to follow their orders when they arrive to get these "animals" under control.

I'd like to hear from LoneLaugher on this. Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is there no possibility that they were chasing rioters out of that neighborhood, and that rioters could easily cause a confrontation that would put those porch gawkers in danger?

Are you saying that people burning the businesses, and rioting on streets are equal to people standing at their porches?

Oh wait, those rioters are actually peaceful protesters, and people on their properties are animals. I got it.

Stop putting lies in my mouth. I can't help it if you can't read and I don't notice you answering my questions.

You're defending guards that are shooting "animals" at their porches.

 

[Ame®icano]

Should the national guard be permitted to fire rounds at people who are hanging out on their front porch like this?

Who gave them authority to do that?

We did not. They gave themselves that authority without asking us at all.

You people are unbelievable. You've been foaming at the mouth to shoot these "animals," yet you don't want to follow their orders when they arrive to get these "animals" under control.

I'd like to hear from LoneLaugher on this. Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is there no possibility that they were chasing rioters out of that neighborhood, and that rioters could easily cause a confrontation that would put those porch gawkers in danger?

Are you saying that people burning the businesses, and rioting on streets are equal to people standing at their porches?

Oh wait, those rioters are actually peaceful protesters, and people on their properties are animals. I got it.

Stop putting lies in my mouth. I can't help it if you can't read and I don't notice you answering my questions.

He is a weak sad limp dick of a debater. Thats his tactic when he cant hold his own.

Are you for shooting at rioters or not?

Spit it out bonobo.

 

[OldLady]

Should the national guard be permitted to fire rounds at people who are hanging out on their front porch like this?

Who gave them authority to do that?

We did not. They gave themselves that authority without asking us at all.

You people are unbelievable. You've been foaming at the mouth to shoot these "animals," yet you don't want to follow their orders when they arrive to get these "animals" under control.

I'd like to hear from LoneLaugher on this. Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is there no possibility that they were chasing rioters out of that neighborhood, and that rioters could easily cause a confrontation that would put those porch gawkers in danger?

You want to hear from me on this?

OK.

That was completely unwarranted. That was a residential street with zero unrest ongoing. People were on their own property and were doing absolutely
nothing to illicit that response from members of the National Guard. It is 100% bullshit.

Those people are not animals. The person who barked out "light em' up!" and the soldier who turned his weapon on
innocent American citizens/residents both need to be held accountable. Period.

As for you....once again you show us all that you struggle when it comes to matters like this.

Thanks for answering.

How do you know there was zero unrest in that neighborhood? That something wasn't happening a couple blocks up and they were securing the area? Maybe I've missed additional information you have on the subject other than the video?

And I didn't make it personal with you; I'd appreciate you not making it personal with me.

When you suggest that the military has the right to fire projectiles at American citizens who pose no threat
to them whatsoever, I take it personally. That is the kind of brilliance that got us where we are.

I've asked three reasonable questions and I can't seem to get an answer out of anyone.

You take it personally when anyone disagrees with you because you've got an ego the size of Brazil. You and your "us" can stuff it. You aren't the final arbiter of what's correct here or anywhere else, Lone. There is absolutely no "struggle" involved for me in following the cops' directives when they are working to save my city's ass. Going inside my house until they've cleared off is not some egregious violation of my rights.

 

[OldLady]

Should the national guard be permitted to fire rounds at people who are hanging out on their front porch like this?

Who gave them authority to do that?

We did not. They gave themselves that authority without asking us at all.

You people are unbelievable. You've been foaming at the mouth to shoot these "animals," yet you don't want to follow their orders when they arrive to get these "animals" under control.

I'd like to hear from LoneLaugher on this. Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is there no possibility that they were chasing rioters out of that neighborhood, and that rioters could easily cause a confrontation that would put those porch gawkers in danger?

Are you saying that people burning the businesses, and rioting on streets are equal to people standing at their porches?

Oh wait, those rioters are actually peaceful protesters, and people on their properties are animals. I got it.

Stop putting lies in my mouth. I can't help it if you can't read and I don't notice you answering my questions.

You're defending guards that are shooting "animals" at their porches.

Stop calling people animals.

Now answer my question: Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the cops' progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is that why the order?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Should the national guard be permitted to fire rounds at people who are hanging out on their front porch like this?

Who gave them authority to do that?

We did not. They gave themselves that authority without asking us at all.

You people are unbelievable. You've been foaming at the mouth to shoot these "animals," yet you don't want to follow their orders when they arrive to get these "animals" under control.

I'd like to hear from LoneLaugher on this. Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is there no possibility that they were chasing rioters out of that neighborhood, and that rioters could easily cause a confrontation that would put those porch gawkers in danger?

You want to hear from me on this?

OK.

That was completely unwarranted. That was a residential street with zero unrest ongoing. People were on their own property and were doing absolutely
nothing to illicit that response from members of the National Guard. It is 100% bullshit.

Those people are not animals. The person who barked out "light em' up!" and the soldier who turned his weapon on
innocent American citizens/residents both need to be held accountable. Period.

As for you....once again you show us all that you struggle when it comes to matters like this.

Thanks for answering.

How do you know there was zero unrest in that neighborhood? That something wasn't happening a couple blocks up and they were securing the area? Maybe I've missed additional information you have on the subject other than the video?

And I didn't make it personal with you; I'd appreciate you not making it personal with me.

When you suggest that the military has the right to fire projectiles at American citizens who pose no threat
to them whatsoever, I take it personally. That is the kind of brilliance that got us where we are.

I've asked three reasonable questions and I can't seem to get an answer out of anyone.

You take it personally when anyone disagrees with you because you've got an ego the size of Brazil. You and your "us" can stuff it. You aren't the final arbiter of what's correct here or anywhere else, Lone. There is absolutely no "struggle" involved for me in following the NG's directives when they are working to save my city's ass. Going inside my house until they've cleared off is not some egregious violation of my rights.

You definitely struggle.

 

[Ame®icano]

Stop calling people animals.

Now answer my question: Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is that why the order?

"stop calling people animals."

Those are your words, not mine.

To answer your question, no... people have right to be at their own properties, and chances they will throw bricks at the guards are slim to none. Why would anyone risk having their property destroyed?

 

[SavannahMann]

What about "get inside" was not understood?

Under what authority do they have to order citizens about on their own property let alone to open fire on citizens going about their lawful business?

That scene was straight out of Nazi Germany or Stalingrad.

Under the currently law, they aren't allowed to be outside their homes after a certain time. If you disagree with that law, don't blame the officers, blame the politicians who passed it.

Actually, they were allowed outside as long as they were on their own property.

https://dps.mn.gov/macc/Pages/faq.aspx

So they were allowed outside of their homes according to the official Department of Public Safety website explanation of what the Curfew entailed.

 

[OldLady]

Stop calling people animals.

Now answer my question: Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is that why the order?

"stop calling people animals."

Those are your words, not mine.

To answer your question, no... people have right to be at their own properties, and chances they will throw bricks at the guards are slim to none. Why would anyone risk having their property destroyed?

Should the national guard be permitted to fire rounds at people who are hanging out on their front porch like this?

Who gave them authority to do that?

We did not. They gave themselves that authority without asking us at all.

You people are unbelievable. You've been foaming at the mouth to shoot these "animals," yet you don't want to follow their orders when they arrive to get these "animals" under control.

I'd like to hear from LoneLaugher on this. Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is there no possibility that they were chasing rioters out of that neighborhood, and that rioters could easily cause a confrontation that would put those porch gawkers in danger?

You want to hear from me on this?

OK.

That was completely unwarranted. That was a residential street with zero unrest ongoing. People were on their own property and were doing absolutely
nothing to illicit that response from members of the National Guard. It is 100% bullshit.

Those people are not animals. The person who barked out "light em' up!" and the soldier who turned his weapon on
innocent American citizens/residents both need to be held accountable. Period.

As for you....once again you show us all that you struggle when it comes to matters like this.

Thanks for answering.

How do you know there was zero unrest in that neighborhood? That something wasn't happening a couple blocks up and they were securing the area? Maybe I've missed additional information you have on the subject other than the video?

And I didn't make it personal with you; I'd appreciate you not making it personal with me.

When you suggest that the military has the right to fire projectiles at American citizens who pose no threat
to them whatsoever, I take it personally. That is the kind of brilliance that got us where we are.

I've asked three reasonable questions and I can't seem to get an answer out of anyone.

You take it personally when anyone disagrees with you because you've got an ego the size of Brazil. You and your "us" can stuff it. You aren't the final arbiter of what's correct here or anywhere else, Lone. There is absolutely no "struggle" involved for me in following the NG's directives when they are working to save my city's ass. Going inside my house until they've cleared off is not some egregious violation of my rights.

You definitely struggle.

You and G.T. can send me a nasty postcard. I'll be crushed.

 

[OldLady]

What about "get inside" was not understood?

Under what authority do they have to order citizens about on their own property let alone to open fire on citizens going about their lawful business?

That scene was straight out of Nazi Germany or Stalingrad.

Under the currently law, they aren't allowed to be outside their homes after a certain time. If you disagree with that law, don't blame the officers, blame the politicians who passed it.

Actually, they were allowed outside as long as they were on their own property.

https://dps.mn.gov/macc/Pages/faq.aspx

View attachment 343455

So they were allowed outside of their homes according to the official Department of Public Safety website explanation of what the Curfew entailed.

Yeah, I saw that. Definite conflicting directives here. But the police saying "Get inside" was definitely not confusing. I sure wouldn't go running out with my phone to show them I'm in the right; not at that point.

 

[OldLady]

IT WASN'T the National Guard. It was the police. The majors reported it wrong.

 

[Ame®icano]

Stop calling people animals.

Now answer my question: Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is that why the order?

"stop calling people animals."

Those are your words, not mine.

To answer your question, no... people have right to be at their own properties, and chances they will throw bricks at the guards are slim to none. Why would anyone risk having their property destroyed?

Should the national guard be permitted to fire rounds at people who are hanging out on their front porch like this?

Who gave them authority to do that?

We did not. They gave themselves that authority without asking us at all.

You people are unbelievable. You've been foaming at the mouth to shoot these "animals," yet you don't want to follow their orders when they arrive to get these "animals" under control.

I'd like to hear from LoneLaugher on this. Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is there no possibility that they were chasing rioters out of that neighborhood, and that rioters could easily cause a confrontation that would put those porch gawkers in danger?

You want to hear from me on this?

OK.

That was completely unwarranted. That was a residential street with zero unrest ongoing. People were on their own property and were doing absolutely
nothing to illicit that response from members of the National Guard. It is 100% bullshit.

Those people are not animals. The person who barked out "light em' up!" and the soldier who turned his weapon on
innocent American citizens/residents both need to be held accountable. Period.

As for you....once again you show us all that you struggle when it comes to matters like this.

Thanks for answering.

How do you know there was zero unrest in that neighborhood? That something wasn't happening a couple blocks up and they were securing the area? Maybe I've missed additional information you have on the subject other than the video?

And I didn't make it personal with you; I'd appreciate you not making it personal with me.

When you suggest that the military has the right to fire projectiles at American citizens who pose no threat
to them whatsoever, I take it personally. That is the kind of brilliance that got us where we are.

I've asked three reasonable questions and I can't seem to get an answer out of anyone.

You take it personally when anyone disagrees with you because you've got an ego the size of Brazil. You and your "us" can stuff it. You aren't the final arbiter of what's correct here or anywhere else, Lone. There is absolutely no "struggle" involved for me in following the NG's directives when they are working to save my city's ass. Going inside my house until they've cleared off is not some egregious violation of my rights.

You definitely struggle.

You and G.T. can send me a nasty postcard. I'll be crushed.

You, Penelope and candycorn are the reason I would support repeal of 19th Amendment.

 

[OldLady]

Stop calling people animals.

Now answer my question: Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is that why the order?

"stop calling people animals."

Those are your words, not mine.

To answer your question, no... people have right to be at their own properties, and chances they will throw bricks at the guards are slim to none. Why would anyone risk having their property destroyed?

[IMG alt="Ame®icano"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/m/11/11420.jpg?1412810418[/IMG]
Ame®icano
Gold Member

Animals...

Oh, you wanna play?

OldLady

Stupid c*nt.

What's that got to do with anything, moron?

And it's not an actual quote, which yours was.

 

[Auld Phart]

Stop calling people animals.

Now answer my question: Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is that why the order?

"stop calling people animals."

Those are your words, not mine.

To answer your question, no... people have right to be at their own properties, and chances they will throw bricks at the guards are slim to none. Why would anyone risk having their property destroyed?

NO

Those are YOUR words.

You're defending guards that are shooting "animals" at their porches.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Should the national guard be permitted to fire rounds at people who are hanging out on their front porch like this?

No. Who are they and where did this happen?

 

[OldLady]

Stop calling people animals.

Now answer my question: Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is that why the order?

"stop calling people animals."

Those are your words, not mine.

To answer your question, no... people have right to be at their own properties, and chances they will throw bricks at the guards are slim to none. Why would anyone risk having their property destroyed?

NO

Those are YOUR words.

You're defending guards that are shooting "animals" at their porches.

Why, thank you Will.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

What about "get inside" was not understood?

Under what authority do they have to order citizens about on their own property let alone to open fire on citizens going about their lawful business?

That scene was straight out of Nazi Germany or Stalingrad.

Authority or not, if they are aiming at you, best to go inside unless you're prepared for a firefight.

So, this is how we defend liberty now. Meekly going inside.

They have no guns. The left sees to that. Government always goes after the civil even while the Africans loot and burn

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Stop calling people animals

I agree. It's an insult to animals. I prefer "demons"

 

[Ame®icano]

Stop calling people animals.

Now answer my question: Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is that why the order?

"stop calling people animals."

Those are your words, not mine.

To answer your question, no... people have right to be at their own properties, and chances they will throw bricks at the guards are slim to none. Why would anyone risk having their property destroyed?

NO

Those are YOUR words.

You're defending guards that are shooting "animals" at their porches.

Try again... This is the original image. It's not that hard to trace it back. I was referring to her own words.

Do you want to reconsider?

 

[OldLady]

Stop calling people animals.

Now answer my question: Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is that why the order?

"stop calling people animals."

Those are your words, not mine.

To answer your question, no... people have right to be at their own properties, and chances they will throw bricks at the guards are slim to none. Why would anyone risk having their property destroyed?

NO

Those are YOUR words.

You're defending guards that are shooting "animals" at their porches.

Try again... This is the original image. It's not that hard to trace it back. I was referring to her own words.

View attachment 343477

Do you want to reconsider?

Let me explain the convention of putting a word in quotation marks:

Quotation marks around single words can occasionally be used for emphasis, but only when quoting a word or term someone else used. Usually, this implies that the author doesn’t agree with the use of the term.
He said he was “working”; it looked to me like he was procrastinating.
You call this filthy room “clean”?!
When quotation marks are put around a word in this way, they are called scare quotes.

 

[OldLady]

Stop calling people animals.

Now answer my question: Is there no possibility that people on their front porches could impede the Guard's progress with fireworks, bricks or a gun? Is that why the order?

"stop calling people animals."

Those are your words, not mine.

To answer your question, no... people have right to be at their own properties, and chances they will throw bricks at the guards are slim to none. Why would anyone risk having their property destroyed?

NO

Those are YOUR words.

You're defending guards that are shooting "animals" at their porches.

Try again... This is the original image. It's not that hard to trace it back. I was referring to her own words.

View attachment 343477

Do you want to reconsider?

And I didn't call anyone a c*nt in that exchange, either. You are a dishonest and barely literate individual and there is no way I'm wasting anymore time on ya.