Why Aren’t We Having a National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

[hadit]

If you actually have, then you would agree that when leftists "demonstrate", they trash where they are, destroy property, and harm people. That is opposed to rightwingers demonstrating, which peaceful and leaves the area cleaner than when they got there.

Switch leftist with rightwingers and i do agree.

Good. Now all you have to do is show multiple incidents where right wing demonstrations resulted in riots complete with smashed store windows, burning cars and motorists pulled from their vehicles and smashed in the head with bricks while their attackers dance around them.

i dont have to do anything. You need to stop being lazy and look it up.

Then you have nothing.

Wrong again.

No, I checked. I'm right.

 

[Asclepias]

Oh really? Give us a link to those kinds of things happening.

Are you really unaware of Starbuck's doing that? They instructed their baristas to do it for a while until the backlash knocked the feet out from under them.

Give us a link to those kinds of things happening.....you saying it happens, sadly, isn't enough. Can you show one person, just one person, who had a Starbucks barista "get in their face"?

You first have to acknowledge that their idea of "getting in their face" may not be the same as yours. Define it as "I ordered a cup of coffee and you started talking about race relations instead of just getting my coffee" and I don't think there's any argument.

Excuse me...you are the one who used the term "get in the faces of customers'....and now you want to play semantics.

So...you concede that you have absolutely no evidence of any Starbucks barista "getting in the face" of any customer. So, why did you lie? What was the purpose?

Actually, I did not. You are referring to the post to which you replied. That was not mine. Do you deny that Starbucks baristas were instructed to have conversations about race with their customers?

Thats different and more sensible than your wild claim that they were told to get into their paying customers faces over it.

 

[Asclepias]

Switch leftist with rightwingers and i do agree.

Good. Now all you have to do is show multiple incidents where right wing demonstrations resulted in riots complete with smashed store windows, burning cars and motorists pulled from their vehicles and smashed in the head with bricks while their attackers dance around them.

i dont have to do anything. You need to stop being lazy and look it up.

Then you have nothing.

Wrong again.

No, I checked. I'm right.

Bad source then.

 

[Asclepias]

But left wing companies such as the shit stink coffee seller Starbucks instructs its employees to get in the faces of customers about "needing" to have a conversation about the liberal cause( whine) du jour...Fuck 'em

Oh really? Give us a link to those kinds of things happening.

Are you really unaware of Starbuck's doing that? They instructed their baristas to do it for a while until the backlash knocked the feet out from under them.

Give us a link to those kinds of things happening.....you saying it happens, sadly, isn't enough. Can you show one person, just one person, who had a Starbucks barista "get in their face"?

You first have to acknowledge that their idea of "getting in their face" may not be the same as yours. Define it as "I ordered a cup of coffee and you started talking about race relations instead of just getting my coffee" and I don't think there's any argument.

Excuse me...you are the one who used the term "get in the faces of customers'....and now you want to play semantics.

So...you concede that you have absolutely no evidence of any Starbucks barista "getting in the face" of any customer. So, why did you lie? What was the purpose?

Rightwingers love using hyperbole.

 

[hadit]

Are you really unaware of Starbuck's doing that? They instructed their baristas to do it for a while until the backlash knocked the feet out from under them.

Give us a link to those kinds of things happening.....you saying it happens, sadly, isn't enough. Can you show one person, just one person, who had a Starbucks barista "get in their face"?

You first have to acknowledge that their idea of "getting in their face" may not be the same as yours. Define it as "I ordered a cup of coffee and you started talking about race relations instead of just getting my coffee" and I don't think there's any argument.

Excuse me...you are the one who used the term "get in the faces of customers'....and now you want to play semantics.

So...you concede that you have absolutely no evidence of any Starbucks barista "getting in the face" of any customer. So, why did you lie? What was the purpose?

Actually, I did not. You are referring to the post to which you replied. That was not mine. Do you deny that Starbucks baristas were instructed to have conversations about race with their customers?

Thats different and more sensible than your wild claim that they were told to get into their paying customers faces over it.

I said you first had to define "getting in their face". To some people, a stranger attempting to have a conversation about race when all they want is their coffee IS getting in their face.

 

[bodecea]

Oh really? Give us a link to those kinds of things happening.

Are you really unaware of Starbuck's doing that? They instructed their baristas to do it for a while until the backlash knocked the feet out from under them.

Give us a link to those kinds of things happening.....you saying it happens, sadly, isn't enough. Can you show one person, just one person, who had a Starbucks barista "get in their face"?

You first have to acknowledge that their idea of "getting in their face" may not be the same as yours. Define it as "I ordered a cup of coffee and you started talking about race relations instead of just getting my coffee" and I don't think there's any argument.

Excuse me...you are the one who used the term "get in the faces of customers'....and now you want to play semantics.

So...you concede that you have absolutely no evidence of any Starbucks barista "getting in the face" of any customer. So, why did you lie? What was the purpose?

Rightwingers love using hyperbole.

Yes, I noticed....as if they think that strengthens their argument...same with photoshop....they seem to think that strengthens their argument too. And don't get me started on how bad they are at using analogies....

 

[bodecea]

Give us a link to those kinds of things happening.....you saying it happens, sadly, isn't enough. Can you show one person, just one person, who had a Starbucks barista "get in their face"?

You first have to acknowledge that their idea of "getting in their face" may not be the same as yours. Define it as "I ordered a cup of coffee and you started talking about race relations instead of just getting my coffee" and I don't think there's any argument.

Excuse me...you are the one who used the term "get in the faces of customers'....and now you want to play semantics.

So...you concede that you have absolutely no evidence of any Starbucks barista "getting in the face" of any customer. So, why did you lie? What was the purpose?

Actually, I did not. You are referring to the post to which you replied. That was not mine. Do you deny that Starbucks baristas were instructed to have conversations about race with their customers?

Thats different and more sensible than your wild claim that they were told to get into their paying customers faces over it.

I said you first had to define "getting in their face". To some people, a stranger attempting to have a conversation about race when all they want is their coffee IS getting in their face.

Lovely attempt at back pedaling. So, again, why did you lie? What false point were you trying to make by lying?

 

[hadit]

Are you really unaware of Starbuck's doing that? They instructed their baristas to do it for a while until the backlash knocked the feet out from under them.

Give us a link to those kinds of things happening.....you saying it happens, sadly, isn't enough. Can you show one person, just one person, who had a Starbucks barista "get in their face"?

You first have to acknowledge that their idea of "getting in their face" may not be the same as yours. Define it as "I ordered a cup of coffee and you started talking about race relations instead of just getting my coffee" and I don't think there's any argument.

Excuse me...you are the one who used the term "get in the faces of customers'....and now you want to play semantics.

So...you concede that you have absolutely no evidence of any Starbucks barista "getting in the face" of any customer. So, why did you lie? What was the purpose?

Rightwingers love using hyperbole.

Yes, I noticed....as if they think that strengthens their argument...same with photoshop....they seem to think that strengthens their argument too. And don't get me started on how bad they are at using analogies....

That sounds like you haven't had many conversations with right wingers, the kind and gentle souls on the internet.

 

[hadit]

You first have to acknowledge that their idea of "getting in their face" may not be the same as yours. Define it as "I ordered a cup of coffee and you started talking about race relations instead of just getting my coffee" and I don't think there's any argument.

Excuse me...you are the one who used the term "get in the faces of customers'....and now you want to play semantics.

So...you concede that you have absolutely no evidence of any Starbucks barista "getting in the face" of any customer. So, why did you lie? What was the purpose?

Actually, I did not. You are referring to the post to which you replied. That was not mine. Do you deny that Starbucks baristas were instructed to have conversations about race with their customers?

Thats different and more sensible than your wild claim that they were told to get into their paying customers faces over it.

I said you first had to define "getting in their face". To some people, a stranger attempting to have a conversation about race when all they want is their coffee IS getting in their face.

Lovely attempt at back pedaling. So, again, why did you lie? What false point were you trying to make by lying?

Not lying at all. Do you really think that someone simply wanting a cup of overpriced coffee would not think a barista insisting on talking about race is getting in their face? Really?

 

[Asclepias]

Give us a link to those kinds of things happening.....you saying it happens, sadly, isn't enough. Can you show one person, just one person, who had a Starbucks barista "get in their face"?

You first have to acknowledge that their idea of "getting in their face" may not be the same as yours. Define it as "I ordered a cup of coffee and you started talking about race relations instead of just getting my coffee" and I don't think there's any argument.

Excuse me...you are the one who used the term "get in the faces of customers'....and now you want to play semantics.

So...you concede that you have absolutely no evidence of any Starbucks barista "getting in the face" of any customer. So, why did you lie? What was the purpose?

Actually, I did not. You are referring to the post to which you replied. That was not mine. Do you deny that Starbucks baristas were instructed to have conversations about race with their customers?

Thats different and more sensible than your wild claim that they were told to get into their paying customers faces over it.

I said you first had to define "getting in their face". To some people, a stranger attempting to have a conversation about race when all they want is their coffee IS getting in their face.

Youre making yourself look silly. Everyone knows what "getting in their face" means.

 

[Asclepias]

Excuse me...you are the one who used the term "get in the faces of customers'....and now you want to play semantics.

So...you concede that you have absolutely no evidence of any Starbucks barista "getting in the face" of any customer. So, why did you lie? What was the purpose?

Actually, I did not. You are referring to the post to which you replied. That was not mine. Do you deny that Starbucks baristas were instructed to have conversations about race with their customers?

Thats different and more sensible than your wild claim that they were told to get into their paying customers faces over it.

I said you first had to define "getting in their face". To some people, a stranger attempting to have a conversation about race when all they want is their coffee IS getting in their face.

Lovely attempt at back pedaling. So, again, why did you lie? What false point were you trying to make by lying?

Not lying at all. Do you really think that someone simply wanting a cup of overpriced coffee would not think a barista insisting on talking about race is getting in their face? Really?

Now youre claiming that they are insisting? More hyperbole.

Starbucks Wants Its Employees to Discuss Race Relations with Customers

"Baristas can signal their interest in a conversation by writing the campaign’s name on a patron’s cup, a space previously reserved for the finer points of drink orders and the occasional creative spelling of “Stephanie.”

When did signaling become the same as insisting?

 

[Dale Smith]

Why isn't it? Because the lamestream medias are Biased.


snip:





Why Aren’t We Having a National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

If a mob of conservatives attempted to shut down a major Hillary Clinton event, as rioters did the other day during a Donald Trump event, America would be thrust into an insufferable national dialogue about the growing violent tendencies of the Right to crush debate. There would be a flood of anxious op-ed pieces and cable news roundtables featuring chin-stroking pundits contemplating the future of discourse in America. No one would be spared.

And you better believe every conservative politician in the country would be asked to comment on this bloodcurdling development.

Do you, sir, feel that your own rhetoric about immigration and guns has somehow contributed to this ugly trend we’re seeing?

Does the GOP need to soften its tone on abortion to stop this kind of violence from happening in the future?

You might remember that, during the 2009-2010 Obamacare debates, every false and exaggerated claim about Tea Party violence induced a thousand wringing hands to grapple over the fascistic tendencies and ugly underbelly of conservatism.

You might remember the Democratic leadership in Congress decrying “acts of violence” against House members in concerted effort to create the perception that bloodshed was imminent. You will no doubt remember the fake bravery of Nancy Pelosi and friends carrying a gavel across big crowds of wholly peaceful people protesting leftist health care policy as if they were facing down Orval Faubus.

The media was happy to portray the peaceful Tea Party as a movement surreptitiously driven by racism without a shred of proof outside its opposition to Barack Obama. You will remember Paul Krugman blaming peaceful assembly and free speech for an insane person’s “assassination” attempt against Kathleen Gifford, and Ezra Klein lamenting how scary things get when conservatives oppose liberal doctrine. Every shooting in America necessitates a thorough investigation into political proclivities of the perpetrator. Is he angry at the president? Did he ever register as a Republican? Is he fond of the Confederate flag? But only when the facts mesh with the helpful narrative do we hear about it.

all of the article here:
Why No National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

It's the liberals who are violent? Really? How many liberals have bombed health clinics that did abortions and killed doctors and nurses who provided that LEGAL service?

How many liberals have bombed government buildings like in Oklahoma City?

OKC was a 100 percent false flag event and I am an expert on the events of that day. McVeigh was nothing but a patsy and the cover-up still continues to this day. Remember the weather underground? How much time did Ayers and that clunt of a wife do?

 

[Asclepias]

Why isn't it? Because the lamestream medias are Biased.


snip:





Why Aren’t We Having a National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

If a mob of conservatives attempted to shut down a major Hillary Clinton event, as rioters did the other day during a Donald Trump event, America would be thrust into an insufferable national dialogue about the growing violent tendencies of the Right to crush debate. There would be a flood of anxious op-ed pieces and cable news roundtables featuring chin-stroking pundits contemplating the future of discourse in America. No one would be spared.

And you better believe every conservative politician in the country would be asked to comment on this bloodcurdling development.

Do you, sir, feel that your own rhetoric about immigration and guns has somehow contributed to this ugly trend we’re seeing?

Does the GOP need to soften its tone on abortion to stop this kind of violence from happening in the future?

You might remember that, during the 2009-2010 Obamacare debates, every false and exaggerated claim about Tea Party violence induced a thousand wringing hands to grapple over the fascistic tendencies and ugly underbelly of conservatism.

You might remember the Democratic leadership in Congress decrying “acts of violence” against House members in concerted effort to create the perception that bloodshed was imminent. You will no doubt remember the fake bravery of Nancy Pelosi and friends carrying a gavel across big crowds of wholly peaceful people protesting leftist health care policy as if they were facing down Orval Faubus.

The media was happy to portray the peaceful Tea Party as a movement surreptitiously driven by racism without a shred of proof outside its opposition to Barack Obama. You will remember Paul Krugman blaming peaceful assembly and free speech for an insane person’s “assassination” attempt against Kathleen Gifford, and Ezra Klein lamenting how scary things get when conservatives oppose liberal doctrine. Every shooting in America necessitates a thorough investigation into political proclivities of the perpetrator. Is he angry at the president? Did he ever register as a Republican? Is he fond of the Confederate flag? But only when the facts mesh with the helpful narrative do we hear about it.

all of the article here:
Why No National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

It's the liberals who are violent? Really? How many liberals have bombed health clinics that did abortions and killed doctors and nurses who provided that LEGAL service?

How many liberals have bombed government buildings like in Oklahoma City?

OKC was a 100 percent false flag event and I am an expert on the events of that day. McVeigh was nothing but a patsy and the cover-up still continues to this day. Remember the weather underground? How much time did Ayers and that clunt of a wife do?

You just lost the tiny amount of credibility you had!

 

[Dale Smith]

You first have to acknowledge that their idea of "getting in their face" may not be the same as yours. Define it as "I ordered a cup of coffee and you started talking about race relations instead of just getting my coffee" and I don't think there's any argument.

Excuse me...you are the one who used the term "get in the faces of customers'....and now you want to play semantics.

So...you concede that you have absolutely no evidence of any Starbucks barista "getting in the face" of any customer. So, why did you lie? What was the purpose?

Actually, I did not. You are referring to the post to which you replied. That was not mine. Do you deny that Starbucks baristas were instructed to have conversations about race with their customers?

Thats different and more sensible than your wild claim that they were told to get into their paying customers faces over it.

I said you first had to define "getting in their face". To some people, a stranger attempting to have a conversation about race when all they want is their coffee IS getting in their face.

Youre making yourself look silly. Everyone knows what "getting in their face" means.

Spare me, dumb ass. I have seen the videos. They get nose to nose with Trump supporters and NO one has the right to invade your personal space and scream at you.

 

[Asclepias]

Excuse me...you are the one who used the term "get in the faces of customers'....and now you want to play semantics.

So...you concede that you have absolutely no evidence of any Starbucks barista "getting in the face" of any customer. So, why did you lie? What was the purpose?

Actually, I did not. You are referring to the post to which you replied. That was not mine. Do you deny that Starbucks baristas were instructed to have conversations about race with their customers?

Thats different and more sensible than your wild claim that they were told to get into their paying customers faces over it.

I said you first had to define "getting in their face". To some people, a stranger attempting to have a conversation about race when all they want is their coffee IS getting in their face.

Youre making yourself look silly. Everyone knows what "getting in their face" means.

Spare me, dumb ass. I have seen the videos. They get nose to nose with Trump supporters and NO one has the right to invade your personal space and scream at you.

You've seen videos of Starbucks baristas getting into the face of Trump supporters? Please post one.

 

[Esmeralda]

Why isn't it? Because the lamestream medias are Biased.


snip:





Why Aren’t We Having a National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

If a mob of conservatives attempted to shut down a major Hillary Clinton event, as rioters did the other day during a Donald Trump event, America would be thrust into an insufferable national dialogue about the growing violent tendencies of the Right to crush debate. There would be a flood of anxious op-ed pieces and cable news roundtables featuring chin-stroking pundits contemplating the future of discourse in America. No one would be spared.

And you better believe every conservative politician in the country would be asked to comment on this bloodcurdling development.

Do you, sir, feel that your own rhetoric about immigration and guns has somehow contributed to this ugly trend we’re seeing?

Does the GOP need to soften its tone on abortion to stop this kind of violence from happening in the future?

You might remember that, during the 2009-2010 Obamacare debates, every false and exaggerated claim about Tea Party violence induced a thousand wringing hands to grapple over the fascistic tendencies and ugly underbelly of conservatism.

You might remember the Democratic leadership in Congress decrying “acts of violence” against House members in concerted effort to create the perception that bloodshed was imminent. You will no doubt remember the fake bravery of Nancy Pelosi and friends carrying a gavel across big crowds of wholly peaceful people protesting leftist health care policy as if they were facing down Orval Faubus.

The media was happy to portray the peaceful Tea Party as a movement surreptitiously driven by racism without a shred of proof outside its opposition to Barack Obama. You will remember Paul Krugman blaming peaceful assembly and free speech for an insane person’s “assassination” attempt against Kathleen Gifford, and Ezra Klein lamenting how scary things get when conservatives oppose liberal doctrine. Every shooting in America necessitates a thorough investigation into political proclivities of the perpetrator. Is he angry at the president? Did he ever register as a Republican? Is he fond of the Confederate flag? But only when the facts mesh with the helpful narrative do we hear about it.

all of the article here:
Why No National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

It's the liberals who are violent? Really? How many liberals have bombed health clinics that did abortions and killed doctors and nurses who provided that LEGAL service?

How many liberals have bombed government buildings like in Oklahoma City?

OKC was a 100 percent false flag event and I am an expert on the events of that day. McVeigh was nothing but a patsy and the cover-up still continues to this day. Remember the weather underground? How much time did Ayers and that clunt of a wife do?

OMG This is so hilarious. OMG

 

[WillowTree]

Why isn't it? Because the lamestream medias are Biased.


snip:





Why Aren’t We Having a National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

If a mob of conservatives attempted to shut down a major Hillary Clinton event, as rioters did the other day during a Donald Trump event, America would be thrust into an insufferable national dialogue about the growing violent tendencies of the Right to crush debate. There would be a flood of anxious op-ed pieces and cable news roundtables featuring chin-stroking pundits contemplating the future of discourse in America. No one would be spared.

And you better believe every conservative politician in the country would be asked to comment on this bloodcurdling development.

Do you, sir, feel that your own rhetoric about immigration and guns has somehow contributed to this ugly trend we’re seeing?

Does the GOP need to soften its tone on abortion to stop this kind of violence from happening in the future?

You might remember that, during the 2009-2010 Obamacare debates, every false and exaggerated claim about Tea Party violence induced a thousand wringing hands to grapple over the fascistic tendencies and ugly underbelly of conservatism.

You might remember the Democratic leadership in Congress decrying “acts of violence” against House members in concerted effort to create the perception that bloodshed was imminent. You will no doubt remember the fake bravery of Nancy Pelosi and friends carrying a gavel across big crowds of wholly peaceful people protesting leftist health care policy as if they were facing down Orval Faubus.

The media was happy to portray the peaceful Tea Party as a movement surreptitiously driven by racism without a shred of proof outside its opposition to Barack Obama. You will remember Paul Krugman blaming peaceful assembly and free speech for an insane person’s “assassination” attempt against Kathleen Gifford, and Ezra Klein lamenting how scary things get when conservatives oppose liberal doctrine. Every shooting in America necessitates a thorough investigation into political proclivities of the perpetrator. Is he angry at the president? Did he ever register as a Republican? Is he fond of the Confederate flag? But only when the facts mesh with the helpful narrative do we hear about it.

all of the article here:
Why No National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

It's the liberals who are violent? Really? How many liberals have bombed health clinics that did abortions and killed doctors and nurses who provided that LEGAL service?

How many liberals have bombed government buildings like in Oklahoma City?

A. You don't know that McVeigh was a conservative and B. You do know that Bill Ayers a good friend of Obama's and a liberal through and through bombed government buildings. He even lamented that he didn't do more.

 

[Dale Smith]

Why isn't it? Because the lamestream medias are Biased.


snip:





Why Aren’t We Having a National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

If a mob of conservatives attempted to shut down a major Hillary Clinton event, as rioters did the other day during a Donald Trump event, America would be thrust into an insufferable national dialogue about the growing violent tendencies of the Right to crush debate. There would be a flood of anxious op-ed pieces and cable news roundtables featuring chin-stroking pundits contemplating the future of discourse in America. No one would be spared.

And you better believe every conservative politician in the country would be asked to comment on this bloodcurdling development.

Do you, sir, feel that your own rhetoric about immigration and guns has somehow contributed to this ugly trend we’re seeing?

Does the GOP need to soften its tone on abortion to stop this kind of violence from happening in the future?

You might remember that, during the 2009-2010 Obamacare debates, every false and exaggerated claim about Tea Party violence induced a thousand wringing hands to grapple over the fascistic tendencies and ugly underbelly of conservatism.

You might remember the Democratic leadership in Congress decrying “acts of violence” against House members in concerted effort to create the perception that bloodshed was imminent. You will no doubt remember the fake bravery of Nancy Pelosi and friends carrying a gavel across big crowds of wholly peaceful people protesting leftist health care policy as if they were facing down Orval Faubus.

The media was happy to portray the peaceful Tea Party as a movement surreptitiously driven by racism without a shred of proof outside its opposition to Barack Obama. You will remember Paul Krugman blaming peaceful assembly and free speech for an insane person’s “assassination” attempt against Kathleen Gifford, and Ezra Klein lamenting how scary things get when conservatives oppose liberal doctrine. Every shooting in America necessitates a thorough investigation into political proclivities of the perpetrator. Is he angry at the president? Did he ever register as a Republican? Is he fond of the Confederate flag? But only when the facts mesh with the helpful narrative do we hear about it.

all of the article here:
Why No National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

It's the liberals who are violent? Really? How many liberals have bombed health clinics that did abortions and killed doctors and nurses who provided that LEGAL service?

How many liberals have bombed government buildings like in Oklahoma City?

OKC was a 100 percent false flag event and I am an expert on the events of that day. McVeigh was nothing but a patsy and the cover-up still continues to this day. Remember the weather underground? How much time did Ayers and that clunt of a wife do?

You just lost the tiny amount of credibility you had!

Fact: ANFO was not used for if it had, it would have been an hour before the rescue team could start removing bodies without gas masks because of the ammonia in the air. FACT: Seismic graphs in Tulsa and Norman, Oklahoma show two distinct explosions\. FEMA found two unexploded bombs in the carnage and removed them and had them exploded in an empty field. I could write about this ALLL fucking day. I even met General Benton Partin that is an explosives expert and he said it was a physical impossibility that an ANFO bomb could case concrete encased rebar to be turned to powder on the upper floors. I will take his word over yours any day.

PS, I don't NEED any "street cred" from the likes of you, can ya dig it?

 

[Carla_Danger]

OKC was a 100 percent false flag event and I am an expert on the events of that day. McVeigh was nothing but a patsy and the cover-up still continues to this day. Remember the weather underground? How much time did Ayers and that clunt of a wife do?

Shuddup Dale, you nincompoop. Take your false flag and shove it up your rear end.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Why isn't it? Because the lamestream medias are Biased.


snip:





Why Aren’t We Having a National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

If a mob of conservatives attempted to shut down a major Hillary Clinton event, as rioters did the other day during a Donald Trump event, America would be thrust into an insufferable national dialogue about the growing violent tendencies of the Right to crush debate. There would be a flood of anxious op-ed pieces and cable news roundtables featuring chin-stroking pundits contemplating the future of discourse in America. No one would be spared.

And you better believe every conservative politician in the country would be asked to comment on this bloodcurdling development.

Do you, sir, feel that your own rhetoric about immigration and guns has somehow contributed to this ugly trend we’re seeing?

Does the GOP need to soften its tone on abortion to stop this kind of violence from happening in the future?

You might remember that, during the 2009-2010 Obamacare debates, every false and exaggerated claim about Tea Party violence induced a thousand wringing hands to grapple over the fascistic tendencies and ugly underbelly of conservatism.

You might remember the Democratic leadership in Congress decrying “acts of violence” against House members in concerted effort to create the perception that bloodshed was imminent. You will no doubt remember the fake bravery of Nancy Pelosi and friends carrying a gavel across big crowds of wholly peaceful people protesting leftist health care policy as if they were facing down Orval Faubus.

The media was happy to portray the peaceful Tea Party as a movement surreptitiously driven by racism without a shred of proof outside its opposition to Barack Obama. You will remember Paul Krugman blaming peaceful assembly and free speech for an insane person’s “assassination” attempt against Kathleen Gifford, and Ezra Klein lamenting how scary things get when conservatives oppose liberal doctrine. Every shooting in America necessitates a thorough investigation into political proclivities of the perpetrator. Is he angry at the president? Did he ever register as a Republican? Is he fond of the Confederate flag? But only when the facts mesh with the helpful narrative do we hear about it.

all of the article here:
Why No National Conversation About Leftist Violence?

It's the liberals who are violent? Really? How many liberals have bombed health clinics that did abortions and killed doctors and nurses who provided that LEGAL service?

How many liberals have bombed government buildings like in Oklahoma City?

OKC was a 100 percent false flag event and I am an expert on the events of that day. McVeigh was nothing but a patsy and the cover-up still continues to this day. Remember the weather underground? How much time did Ayers and that clunt of a wife do?

OMG This is so hilarious. OMG

Dale should be locked up for his own safety.