(Commenting on an announcement of use of bikers to provide security for the Trump inauguration)
If they insist on being violent. Then I insist on the following:
I want dead liberals littered throughout the streets. I want their carcasses piled up 20 to 30 feet high. I want sanitation trucks on every corner to help remove the refuse.
27 comments
Oh I love this line of thinking! Pile the corpses higher, higher, friend...you have a very enthusiastic supporter in the hereafter, who loves it when every little skull is added to his throne.
Just...don't assume we're fighting on the same side. Your skull might look nice there too.
... Trump hires a biker gang, known for violent thuggery, to act as security for a pitifully small crowd of people who came to support him.
And this somehow translates to liberals being violent in a completely unspecified way? To which you respond with open calls for the genocidal purging of American citizens and presumably a dictatorship as you'd be murdering the opposition party?
How does any of this shit make sense to these people?
So, basically you want to be guard in a concentration camp?
I'd say that it's the Trumpettes that insist on being violent.
If they insist on being violent you get violent right back. I guess violence is domain on the right.
Side note: Kind of hope this shows the alt-left what their violence would bring and why many say to not use violence
Meanwhile, at the actual thing, Ed the Sock makes fun of their fat asses on park benches in low crowd pathetic inauguration. Oh well, no one said Harley clowns bikers aren't full of shit and false bravado, no one paying attention anyway. They all ran away the before the next day protests, ones that could start that garbage up again anyway.
@Passerby
Bikers For Trump volunteered without being asked. I'm sure they're already telling stories of how they persevered over the leftist hoards and how these stories will grow with time.
It didn't work when the Nazis tried it. It ended up with dead conservatives piled up 20 to 30 feet high.
So sure, hire bikers for security.
@Passerby
"How does any of this shit make sense to these people?"
It makes alternate sense.
@Azereaux
This was a toxic election and make no mistake about it. The right amped it up at pro Trump rallies. Some actually threatened violence in the event they lost. Then Bernie, unfortunately, was taken out and it was Hillary VS Trump. This was probably the start where the left got really pissed. Even those of us who voted against Trump (I didn't want to vote Hillary but I couldn't vote Trump in good conscience) did so knowing this wouldn't end well. I even have friends that are far left, and actually rejoiced when Trump one on basis Hillary lost. Then they actually took glee in the fact some committed suicide over the election. Once results came out that Trump won many on the left, already disenfranchised, lashed out violently.
I'm libertarian myself and despise both parties but I remember as a teen in 90s that there was a difference between the two. Now I don't see it
@2028554
" I remember as a teen in 90s that there was a difference between the two. Now I don't see it"
There is still a difference in the two, same as the 90s. The difference now is even bigger, because in the 90s the extremist infection of the right wasn't as intense. Back then the militias were told to sit down and shut up you're making us look bad and you're not even real conservatives you're just mixed nuts. Now they're in the White House.
@#2028580
" Now I see violence on both sides sadly."
Did you see Hillary and Bernie supporters beating up Trump supporters at Hillary and Bernie rallys? Because I saw Trump supporters at Trump rallys beating up Trump protesters.
One liberal hitting one conservative while ten conservatives beating up ten liberals does not constitute "violence on both sides. That there is violence on one side and not the other.
"Both McVeigh and Rudolph were somewhat protected by many on far right if not publicly"
They were somewhat protected on the less far right as well. But as I said before the most extreme were held at arms length by Gingrich&co, whereas now they are in the White House.
Rarely, if ever, I saw the Hill and Bernie supporters to violence until after the election. After the election they became quite violent. And I disagree. It would show violence on both sides just one has far more to it (the right wing is almost made up of it). I remember hearing violent rhetoric from individuals during the Kerry/Bush campaign and Obama/Romney campaign from right winger talk show hosts and they were, at the time somewhat embraced if not officially. Though I am sure many did try to keep them at arms length for image purposes they too did not condemn it which to me is just as bad. Though to his credit Obama winning really brought it out. We see now the right wing was the racist, xenophobic, homophobic we thought it was. Trump too really brought it out too by appealing to them
'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'
-Mohandas K. 'Mahatma' Gandhi
Someone once advocated the use of violence. He was jailed for 27 years because of that.
He ended up being the president of his country. His name was Nelson Mandela.
Did he resort to being vengeful, nay become a tyrant, against his previous white masters when he gained power?
He created an atmosphere of reconciliation .
No dead liberals in South Africa. Or India.
What was stopping Hitler from being exactly like Willy Brandt...?!
@2028601
" And I disagree. It would show violence on both sides just one has far more to it (the right wing is almost made up of it).
You disagree and follow up with an agreement. WTF?
When one side has 10 times more X than the other side that does not constitute "Both sides are X" If you look long enough you will find a 6'3" woman that does not mean women are as tall as men. You even said the right wing is almost made of it.
They are not both violent. The left has violent people, the right considers violence an acceptable way of doing business. There is a difference.
Also remember the rights use of fake news. The term is recent, but the use of it goes back farther than Reagan. When the rights violence is embarrassingly obvious on the 6PM news they will generate fake news of violence from the left. When the right shoots up a clinic with bullets
they blame the violence on the violent murder dismembering of babies at the clinic by liberals as the source of that violence, not on their own 45 years of "murdering millions of babies".
@2028620
Actually I didn't agree. I just admit that the right is far more violent."
As in "both sides are violent" which sounds like each side is as bad as the other.
No.
That line is the last resort of conservatives when faced with conservative violence so blatant that denying it just destroys their credibility. They change their strategy to accusing liberals of being just as bad.
"I do see violence from the left."
And I met a 6'4" woman once.
Jew civilians murdered a few Nazis in WWII. Can we say both sides were murderous?
We could but it would be just a teeny bit misleading.
"The fake news I remember was more talk shows back then like Limbaugh."
And now it's coming out of the White House. Back in the 90s it was also coming out of the Republic controlled House
"It wasn't until Fox pandered to Bush I really saw it and that was early 2000s."
They were pandering to Gingrich in the 90s. "
"I might have come across some in 90s and not known then it was just propaganda (which is what I consider fake news)"
There was a lot in the 90s. There is more now, and it's more blatantly false now. Which goes back to my original claim the differences between the parties is bigger now than it was in the 90s. The right has become worse.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.