Topic: Libtards punched a counter-protester at PDX airport.
brie !kGoudaMCFA started this discussion 9 years ago #59,386
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later[^] [v] #755,835
That guy must have been there to promote genocide, and so punching him is perfectly fine. Thanks
ken griffey sr joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,836
lol. good
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 25 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,837
Why was he protesting counters? Is he some monster that doesn't want people to have a place to set things on?
? joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,839
"You're boy got knocked out."
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,840
This can't be right. I was told the right were the violent ones, they keep saying the right are hitler
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,841
There's clearly a mistake in the article. The American left are all about tolerance and acceptance. It's the sinister Republicans who are violent, dangerous, and enemies of the 1st Amendment.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,842
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,843
? replied with this 9 years ago, 2 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,844
@755,835 (B)
> That guy must have been there to promote genocide, and so punching him is perfectly fine. Thanks
@755,840 (F)
> This can't be right. I was told the right were the violent ones, they keep saying the right are hitler
@755,841 (G)
> There's clearly a mistake in the article. The American left are all about tolerance and acceptance. It's the sinister Republicans who are violent, dangerous, and enemies of the 1st Amendment.
Cucks = rekt
@755,842 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
LOL cuck detected!!!
> That guy must have been there to promote genocide, and so punching him is perfectly fine. Thanks
@755,840 (F)
> This can't be right. I was told the right were the violent ones, they keep saying the right are hitler
@755,841 (G)
> There's clearly a mistake in the article. The American left are all about tolerance and acceptance. It's the sinister Republicans who are violent, dangerous, and enemies of the 1st Amendment.
Cucks = rekt
@755,842 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
LOL cuck detected!!!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 12 seconds later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,845
@755,840 (F)
Might want to check out the news today from Canada for an example of right wing violence.
Might want to check out the news today from Canada for an example of right wing violence.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,846
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,848
@previous (G)
You seemed to me to be under the impression that being punched at a protest by a private citizen had first amendment implications. If you didn't then I misread.
You seemed to me to be under the impression that being punched at a protest by a private citizen had first amendment implications. If you didn't then I misread.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,849
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,850
@755,848 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
No offence to you because at times I actually like you, but sometimes I genuinely have no idea which process takes you from one thought to the next. How the hell did you go from what I wrote (which, again, was dripping with what I'd thought was fairly obvious sarcasm) to the conclusion you made?
No offence to you because at times I actually like you, but sometimes I genuinely have no idea which process takes you from one thought to the next. How the hell did you go from what I wrote (which, again, was dripping with what I'd thought was fairly obvious sarcasm) to the conclusion you made?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,851
@previous (G)
Well since you mentioned the first amendment in your comment, I assumed you were talking about the first amendment. Maybe that was an inappropriate assumption.
Well since you mentioned the first amendment in your comment, I assumed you were talking about the first amendment. Maybe that was an inappropriate assumption.
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,852
@755,850 (G)
your being purposefully dense in attempt to confuse fake anon doesn't make your original stupid comment any more valid. kind of just makes you look more dense
your being purposefully dense in attempt to confuse fake anon doesn't make your original stupid comment any more valid. kind of just makes you look more dense
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,853
@755,851 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Ok, thanks for posting that because to be honest it's helped me see where you keep going wrong, and so I can try to help you:
Try to discern what the points of sentences are, rather than picking up on something that is "mentioned", going off on your own tangent, and then forming a baseless conclusion on that tangent.
For example, if someone says "the left in America is destroying itself", you can't then reply with "You mentioned 'America', so I assumed you were talking about baseball". That's not how these things work. Always try to follow the idea of sentences, the sense of them, try not to see them as mere collections of words which have been randomly thrown together.
Again, you're ok though, and I do like that you 'showed your working out', as math teachers like to say when correcting pupils.
Ok, thanks for posting that because to be honest it's helped me see where you keep going wrong, and so I can try to help you:
Try to discern what the points of sentences are, rather than picking up on something that is "mentioned", going off on your own tangent, and then forming a baseless conclusion on that tangent.
For example, if someone says "the left in America is destroying itself", you can't then reply with "You mentioned 'America', so I assumed you were talking about baseball". That's not how these things work. Always try to follow the idea of sentences, the sense of them, try not to see them as mere collections of words which have been randomly thrown together.
Again, you're ok though, and I do like that you 'showed your working out', as math teachers like to say when correcting pupils.
Anonymous G double-posted this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,854
@755,852 (ken griffey sr)
> your being purposefully dense
It's you're, not your. But no, I'm not, I genuinely didn't get how he went from my comment to assuming the 1st Amendment's application to private citizens was the subject of it. Now I know though, he posted his 'thought process' (sic), so the matter is dealt with. Thanks, and ciao!
> your being purposefully dense
It's you're, not your. But no, I'm not, I genuinely didn't get how he went from my comment to assuming the 1st Amendment's application to private citizens was the subject of it. Now I know though, he posted his 'thought process' (sic), so the matter is dealt with. Thanks, and ciao!
dw !vJwW0tsPXQ joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,857
dw !vJwW0tsPXQ double-posted this 9 years ago, 40 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #755,858
The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #755,861
Anonymous D replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #755,862
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #755,867
@755,853 (G)
You're a funny guy, but you do tend to overdo your schtick a bit. Just for future reference, the schtick level in this post is slightly too high. Going forward I think we would all benefit if you toned it down just a bit. Thanks for responding.
You're a funny guy, but you do tend to overdo your schtick a bit. Just for future reference, the schtick level in this post is slightly too high. Going forward I think we would all benefit if you toned it down just a bit. Thanks for responding.
Anonymous B replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #755,869
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #755,870
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #755,874
Anonymous B replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #755,875
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #755,877
Anonymous B replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #755,879
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #755,881
Meta joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 35 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #755,887
@755,843 (ken griffey sr)
What is a safe space anyway?
I've noticed when anti-leftists get physically assaulted, someone chimes in with "aww babby need a safe space?". I was under the impression that "safe space" meant psychologically safe -- that is no hurtful speech, things that could trigger PTSD, etc.
What is a safe space anyway?
I've noticed when anti-leftists get physically assaulted, someone chimes in with "aww babby need a safe space?". I was under the impression that "safe space" meant psychologically safe -- that is no hurtful speech, things that could trigger PTSD, etc.
squeegee the shaman joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #755,889
@previous (Meta)
kinda like the war on christmas huh, turns out it was all a bunch of manufactured bullshit to tilt at.
kinda like the war on christmas huh, turns out it was all a bunch of manufactured bullshit to tilt at.
Meta replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #755,890
@previous (squeegee the shaman)
Yes exactly! Like in the GOP safe space you wouldn't be allowed to take the Christ out of Christmas. Like if a Republican got upset because the barista wrote "happy holidays" on his Starbucks cup, that would be someone needing a safe space.
But like, physically punching someone in the head until they are unconscious is not the same thing and isn't what "safe space" means.
Yes exactly! Like in the GOP safe space you wouldn't be allowed to take the Christ out of Christmas. Like if a Republican got upset because the barista wrote "happy holidays" on his Starbucks cup, that would be someone needing a safe space.
But like, physically punching someone in the head until they are unconscious is not the same thing and isn't what "safe space" means.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
? replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #755,938
The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY replied with this 9 years ago, 20 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #755,942
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #755,958
yeah about as mature as that right-wing quebecois boy who shot up the mosque and killed several people
brie !kGoudaMCFA (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 24 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #755,963
@previous (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
I agree, the leftist protesters who keep punching people that don't agree with them are just like terrorists.
I agree, the leftist protesters who keep punching people that don't agree with them are just like terrorists.
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #755,964
@previous (brie !kGoudaMCFA)
yeah fists should be regulated and banned like guns they're completely equivalent
yeah fists should be regulated and banned like guns they're completely equivalent
brie !kGoudaMCFA (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #755,965
@previous (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
You are the one who mentioned the false equivalency, I just agreed.
You are the one who mentioned the false equivalency, I just agreed.
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 34 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #755,970
sammy davis sr joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 4 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,009
@755,854 (G)
> > your being purposefully dense
>
> It's you're, not your.
no, i meant your. i guess you are that dense??? so nvm sorry for giving u too much credit
> But no, I'm not, I genuinely didn't get how he went from my comment to assuming the 1st Amendment's application to private citizens was the subject of it. Now I know though, he posted his 'thought process' (sic), so the matter is dealt with. Thanks, and ciao!
lol
> > your being purposefully dense
>
> It's you're, not your.
no, i meant your. i guess you are that dense??? so nvm sorry for giving u too much credit
> But no, I'm not, I genuinely didn't get how he went from my comment to assuming the 1st Amendment's application to private citizens was the subject of it. Now I know though, he posted his 'thought process' (sic), so the matter is dealt with. Thanks, and ciao!
lol
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
sammy davis sr double-posted this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,010
@755,854 (G)
and just in case you tard out and try to argue with me being dense was the object of the possessive 'your'. you would know this if you had finished the sentence probably? i know better than to make this post but whatever
and just in case you tard out and try to argue with me being dense was the object of the possessive 'your'. you would know this if you had finished the sentence probably? i know better than to make this post but whatever
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 4 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,039
@previous (sammy davis sr)
> and just in case you tard out and try to argue with me being dense was the object of the possessive 'your'. you would know this if you had finished the sentence probably? i know better than to make this post but whatever
Well then that makes you look like even more of a retard than before, because if you intended "being" to be a gerund rather than a main verb your sentence should have read: "Your being purposefully dense is an attempt...", not "...in an attempt..."
Here, some reading for you -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund
You take care now Snowflake, and try to work on your anger issues ;)
> and just in case you tard out and try to argue with me being dense was the object of the possessive 'your'. you would know this if you had finished the sentence probably? i know better than to make this post but whatever
Well then that makes you look like even more of a retard than before, because if you intended "being" to be a gerund rather than a main verb your sentence should have read: "Your being purposefully dense is an attempt...", not "...in an attempt..."
Here, some reading for you -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund
You take care now Snowflake, and try to work on your anger issues ;)
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
sammy davis sr replied with this 9 years ago, 18 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,335
@previous (G)
well im not mad at all and i'm still pretty sure my sentence was grammatically correct
> your being purposefully dense is an attempt to confuse fake anon and doesn't...
> your being purposefully dense in attempt to confuse fake anon doesn't...
even if you are right that just aint how i talk
well im not mad at all and i'm still pretty sure my sentence was grammatically correct
> your being purposefully dense is an attempt to confuse fake anon and doesn't...
> your being purposefully dense in attempt to confuse fake anon doesn't...
even if you are right that just aint how i talk
sammy davis sr double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,336
@756,039 (G)
thinkin about it and your version of that sentence sounds too presumptuous know what i mean? don't want to be dictatorial in a sentence like that... know what i mean
thinkin about it and your version of that sentence sounds too presumptuous know what i mean? don't want to be dictatorial in a sentence like that... know what i mean
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,370
@756,335 (sammy davis sr)
> well im not mad at all and i'm still pretty sure my sentence was grammatically correct
Fine, but it wasn't. You fucked up the gerund. Presumption doesn't enter into it. The reason we have grammar rules is to pin down the meanings of sentences and reduce the need for ambiguous presumption.
> well im not mad at all and i'm still pretty sure my sentence was grammatically correct
Fine, but it wasn't. You fucked up the gerund. Presumption doesn't enter into it. The reason we have grammar rules is to pin down the meanings of sentences and reduce the need for ambiguous presumption.
? replied with this 9 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,382
brie !kGoudaMCFA (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,384
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,422
@756,370 (G)
> > well im not mad at all and i'm still pretty sure my sentence was grammatically correct
>
>
> Fine, but it wasn't. You fucked up the gerund. Presumption doesn't enter into it. The reason we have grammar rules is to pin down the meanings of sentences and reduce the need for ambiguous presumption.
there was nothing ambiguous there sorry
> > well im not mad at all and i'm still pretty sure my sentence was grammatically correct
>
>
> Fine, but it wasn't. You fucked up the gerund. Presumption doesn't enter into it. The reason we have grammar rules is to pin down the meanings of sentences and reduce the need for ambiguous presumption.
there was nothing ambiguous there sorry
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,425
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,427
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,429
@previous (ken griffey sr)
> I'm glad you're OK with my being wrong
Fixed this for you so you can start to learn how to use the gerund.
> I'm glad you're OK with my being wrong
Fixed this for you so you can start to learn how to use the gerund.
Anonymous B replied with this 9 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,430
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,431
@756,429 (G)
im actually not OK with you feeling comfortable enough to correct my original sentence or you being wrong
im actually not OK with you feeling comfortable enough to correct my original sentence or you being wrong
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,433
@previous (ken griffey sr)
> im actually not OK with your feeling comfortable enough to correct my original sentence or your being wrong
Corrected the gerunds again.
> im actually not OK with your feeling comfortable enough to correct my original sentence or your being wrong
Corrected the gerunds again.
Anonymous G double-posted this 9 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,434
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,435
Anonymous B replied with this 9 years ago, 0 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,436
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,437
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #756,441
@756,433 (G)
> > im actually not OK with your feeling comfortable enough to correct my original sentence nor am I OK with your being wrong
>
> Corrected the gerunds again.
corrected
> > im actually not OK with your feeling comfortable enough to correct my original sentence nor am I OK with your being wrong
>
> Corrected the gerunds again.
corrected