Black church burned, vote Annoying Orange written on side

[beachbum111111]

"Finding it odd" and blaming it on Hillary are two completely different things. Yes, it is contradictory to write 'vote Annoying Orange' at the scene of a horrendous crime, but you're ascribing rational thought to a person (or more than likely, a group of people) that did this in a fit of anger.

Sure they burned down the church in a fit of anger. Why the forget would you write "vote Annoying Orange" on the side? Why not "ooga booga go back to africa" or some stuff? If they are angry I would expect them to write something that is angry. This seems like bait tbh. Like a sign saying "HEY MEDIA THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE BAD AND DID THIS BAD THING". It's like how there were supposed kool kids klub members were at a Annoying Orange rally supporting him, even though it later turned out to be hillary/sanders supporters dressed up as the kool kids klub to make him look bad.

[Ad Bot]

[Lord Tony®]

How is this a fit of anger bro?

If it were a muslim or mexican church it would have had a greater impact than a black church.

[Lord Tony®]

A muslim or mexican church would have made a lot more sense.

They only loving burned this stuff because BLM is relevant.

[Lord Tony®]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/protesters-dressed-as-kool kids klub-crash-gop-nevada-caucus/

They aren't even real kool kids klub members supporting Annoying Orange, lol.

[Frequency]

that did this in a fit of anger.

wha

Either way, there is no evidence that Hillary ordered this, or that the arsonists are affiliated with her in any way. Likewise, there is no substantial evidence that the arsonist is affiliated with Annoying Orange in any way. Doubting that is alright, but turning this from a tribal torching into a political conspiracy is completely inappropriate.

well i mean it's usually best not to leave evidence behind when you've done something wrong.
and turning this from a tribal torching into a conspiracy is completely probable. at this point all that's being said is that there's no way to prove anything either way, but given current circumstances and present evidence, one group objectively looks more responsible than another.

[beachbum111111]

wha

well i mean it's usually best not to leave evidence behind when you've done something wrong.
and turning this from a tribal torching into a conspiracy is completely probable. at this point all that's being said is that there's no way to prove anything either way, but given current circumstances and present evidence, one group objectively looks more responsible than another.

I mean apart from the proof of the writing on the side that said "Vote Annoying Orange"

[Frequency]

I mean apart from the proof of the writing on the side that said "Vote Annoying Orange"

the mark of a Annoying Orange supporter. should've guessed

[beachbum111111]

the mark of a Annoying Orange supporter. should've guessed

Just doing his part in "Making America Great Again"

[Lord Tony®]

If it said "make america great again" that would have made a point whether they were a Annoying Orange supporter or not.

The whole "vote Annoying Orange" makes it seem like an obvious plant.

[Lord Tony®]

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/soros-fingerprints-notmypresident-protests/

You read this stuff, George Sorros is the one funding these anti Annoying Orange protests. No doubt he would be behind this.

[Nonnel]

why did you bump this

[Lord Tony®]

why did you bump this

It's relevant with George Sorros riots.

I'm not breaking any specific rules.

[Nonnel]

do you have a non-tabloid source

[rambo1220]

as loving annoying as tony is he's not that wrong here, George Soros does fund a lot of these anti-Annoying Orange protests, and if you look the guy up he has a history of being a tool.

[Lord Tony®]

Also no surprise that the Russian government wants to arrest Soros, and Hillary wants to take down Russia.

Why would Hillary be so hell bent on taking down Russia? Oh yeah, turns out she is Sorros' lap dog.