Attacking Churches acceptable?

When churches become political forces set against the will of the people they run the risk of this.
That's what the Dems said when they blew up churches in Alabama during the Civil Rights movement....it's what your friends the National Socialist said in Germany in the 1930s
 
Is it acceptable to attack anyone when you are disappointed about a Constitutional ruling?
The tenure among Democrats and liberals is that when they don’t like an outcome - an election, legislation or court decision - then it is acceptable to engage in violence. Hell, Democrat leaders practically threaten with violence if they don’t get an outcome. On top of all that, these hypocrites have the audacity to lose their shit over a couple hundred Conservatives taking a page from their book and attacking and defacing the Capitol.

With that level of inconsistency, can’t take you seriously.
 
The tenure among Democrats and liberals is that when they don’t like an outcome - an election, legislation or court decision - then it is acceptable to engage in violence. Hell, Democrat leaders practically threaten with violence if they don’t get an outcome. On top of all that, these hypocrites have the audacity to lose their shit over a couple hundred Conservatives taking a page from their book and attacking and defacing the Capitol.

With that level of inconsistency, can’t take you seriously.
What does Democratic leadership "practically" threatening with violence look like? Have any examples? 😄
 
Why? Is November when you're planning on providing proof for your claims or pedophilia?
No there is already proof, he took inappropriate showers with his own daughter. Then there are plenty of other pictures of him groping little girls. But the immoral party will look the other way, when it's one of their own.
 
You know how many liberals are going to come here and condone the burning of churches in the wake of Roe? Zero. Compare that to the amount of deplorable mutants on the right who try and defend attempts by their own to riot and over throw a democratically won election.
Well it looks like you were incorrect. See post #22 by Tommy Tainant

Edit: It looks like you had already noticed this :).
 
What does Democratic leadership "practically" threatening with violence look like? Have any examples? 😄
What does Democratic leadership "practically" threatening with violence look like? Have any examples? 😄


 
That's too easy of an answer for these morons. Not enough conspiracy. No way you would even be able to jail them because they're protected by a cabal of capitalist, commie, nazi, globalists...
Lol, mean while our cities and villages are still filled with locals. Prosecutors are still driven by win percentage. Judges still want the unlawful off the streets. Cops still cuff and stuff. Only the ultra rich and powerful get different rules to play by. As far as conspiracy goes they do exist. The ultra wealthy continue to take a larger piece of the pie while the rest of us work multiple jobs to get by. Even if you do get where you can afford a balanced life still hard to enjoy. I have finally gotten to where I could afford balance but am really only comfortable at work. S o I still spend most of my time working.
 




"I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up," she said. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation."

Waters told CNN on Monday evening that her reference to confrontation was meant in the context of the civil rights movement's nonviolent history, saying that "the whole civil rights movement is confrontation." When pressed on the judge presiding over Chauvin's trial having said that her remarks could be grounds for an appeal, Waters replied, "Oh no, no they didn't."


That's from your own link. Waters clarified her comments and nowhere there does she advocate violence.
 
"I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up," she said. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation."

Waters told CNN on Monday evening that her reference to confrontation was meant in the context of the civil rights movement's nonviolent history, saying that "the whole civil rights movement is confrontation." When pressed on the judge presiding over Chauvin's trial having said that her remarks could be grounds for an appeal, Waters replied, "Oh no, no they didn't."


That's from your own link. Waters clarified her comments and nowhere there does she advocate violence.




The woman is full of violent rhetoric.
 

Forum List

Back
Top