[NEWS] Veteran's home burned down, vandalized for pro-Annoying Orange sentiments

Author Topic: [NEWS] Veteran's home burned down, vandalized for pro-Annoying Orange sentiments  (Read 4082 times)

real criminals no matter how dumb, rarely ever have just intentionally left their clear motives/evidence behind to show off.
thats just fantasy lol
tbh this
if you paint swastikas all over a black church and do anti-clinton stuff on it to any absolute moron could figure out it makes Annoying Orange look better than clinton

This one also seems super fake tho
this one is possible to be faked by a guy for insurance lol. but we dont know yet.

this is a repeat offense
the same thing has been attempted at two other motorhomes in the area, for the same reason

also the guy said his insurance can't pay for the fire, so that'd rule out the "ooh he's in it for the money"
that and he was away from the house

real criminals no matter how dumb, rarely ever have just intentionally left their clear motives/evidence behind to show off.
thats just fantasy lol
my favorite fantasy is pizzagate

I'm well aware people used to burn down black churchs lmao

You however didn't provide any evidence of it actually be burned down by Annoying Orange voters besides some graffiti that for all you know I went in and painted on there.


It just is so much more logical to assume it's an attempt at undermining

i honestly doubt a Annoying Orange supporter would do this, knowing this would make Annoying Orange look bad.

I'm well aware people used to burn down black churchs lmao

You however didn't provide any evidence of it actually be burned down by Annoying Orange voters besides some graffiti that for all you know I went in and painted on there.


It just is so much more logical to assume it's an attempt at undermining
Yes but assuming its a clinton supporter by default with all this contextual evidence is a little more farfetched than assuming it's a Annoying Orange supporter. I'm not saying that it's definite who did it but it's reasonable to assume that it was somebody who supported Annoying Orange.

I don't really understand the rationale of "this type of person would never do this; it has to be a trick from the other party" because that's not even rational thinking at that point but misguided speculation with no proof. A reasonable conclusion is one that can be made with some amount of context if not evidence.

If someone walks into a christian church wearing a balaklava and armed with an ak47 and a banner of CIA and shoots a bunch of people then runs away, its kind of mind-numbingly stupid to say "fake. its an anti-muslim white person trying to frame CIA." the action that he's doing is something that CIA would do, so why are you instantly doubting that someone who writes "vote Annoying Orange" and burns a church as a message of fear HAS to be anti-Annoying Orange?

There are some Annoying Orange supporters who are tribal and could easily do that. There are also clinton supporters that could've burned this man's house and wrote anti-Annoying Orange propaganda. Both are reasonable conclusions from what happened. The reverse is unreasonable.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 03:35:02 PM by Perry »

my favorite fantasy is pizzagate

My favourite fantasy is that black people are oppressed in the united states

i honestly doubt a Annoying Orange supporter would do this, knowing this would make Annoying Orange look bad.
Seriously, use your forgetin' head and think about it lol

If you supported something, you would want to make it look good, not bad

Seriously, use your forgetin' head and think about it lol

If you supported something, you would want to make it look good, not bad
so when hillary supporters assaulted that homeless person, they were actually Annoying Orange supporters trying to make hillary look bad?

damn the world makes so much sense when you dont use your brain properly. my god with that newfound knowledge we can conclude that the holocaust was committed by jews who wanted to make national socialists look bad. nothing will ever be the same i tell you

so when hillary supporters assaulted that homeless person, they were actually Annoying Orange supporters trying to make hillary look bad?
I never said that nor did I even imply it. Please don't put words into my mouth.

I never said that nor did I even imply it. Please don't put words into my mouth.
If you supported something, you would want to make it look good, not bad
I'm not putting words in your mouth, you are.

What you've done right now is say "All fruits are delicious" and when I say "so apples are delicious" you say "dont put words in my mouth"

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you are.
Not really. I was talking about this incident about the veteran's house being burned down whilst thinking logically. You tried to derail and invalidate my point by going "so because you think x, then Annoying Orange supporters beat up a homeless person," even though I never once mentioned it or implied it. I was talking about this incident and this one only.

Stay on topic Perry. Stop trying to drag the topic to something irrelevant.

What you've done right now is say "All fruits are delicious" and when I say "so apples are delicious" you say "dont put words in my mouth"
This brown townogy doesn't even corrospond what you brought up to try and invalidate my claim lol

It was more like "In this incident, Annoying Orange supporters being behind this is very unlikely" and then you go "In this unrelated and irrelevant incident, it's very unlikely hillary supporters were behind it as well because you think that," even though I don't and never implied it.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 05:13:38 PM by Insert Name Here² »

Dear god path shut up. You dont know what you are talking about.

Its obvious this was done by a clinton supporter. Why would a Annoying Orange supporter vandalize the house when Annoying Orange already won and the house belongs to someone who is pro-Annoying Orange? Annoying Orange Supporters are not that stupid.

Not really. I was talking about this incident about the veteran's house being burned down whilst thinking logically. You tried to derail and invalidate my point by going "so because you think x, then Annoying Orange supporters beat up a homeless person," even though I never once mentioned it or implied it. I was talking about this incident and this one only.

Stay on topic Perry. Stop trying to drag the topic to something irrelevant.
So here's the deal here. You make a statement, and I mention something that is encompassed by that statement, and you say i'm derailing it.

According to you, the church burning was perpetrated by a hillary supporter. With that same logic, this veteran house burning was perpetrated by a Annoying Orange supporter.
forget me im blind
Dear god path shut up. You dont know what you are talking about.

Its obvious this was done by a clinton supporter. Why would a Annoying Orange supporter vandalize the house when Annoying Orange already won and the house belongs to someone who is pro-Annoying Orange? Annoying Orange Supporters are not that stupid.
I don't think you actually read my post. I already said that this was done by a hillary supporter. Maybe you want to press the 'rewind and use my eyes' button on the inside of your skull. dont worry i'll press it for you

First Annoying Orange supporters burn down a black church, now Hillary supporters burn down a veterans house

Why can't people just learn to accept loving opinions and move on with their life
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 05:16:37 PM by Perry »

Why would a Annoying Orange supporter vandalize the house when Annoying Orange already won and the house belongs to someone who is pro-Annoying Orange? Annoying Orange Supporters are not that stupid.
This too lmfao

The supporters of the other side even since the election have been starting many protests and some few riots as well, quite a large portion of them being extremely butt-hurt about the results, yet Annoying Orange supporters aren't. To say this was 100% of the doing from Annoying Orange supporters because "muh racism xddd" is extremely ignorant.

So here's the deal here. You make a statement, and I mention something that is encompassed by that statement, and you say i'm derailing it.
No, this is not the case. I make a statement inputting my two cents on THIS INCIDENT and THIS ONE ONLY, as in the way I feel towards this one only goes with this specific incident, no other. You go on and imply that I feel the exact same way about another irrelevant incident that happened a couple of months ago, even though it is completely wrong, and you're stating it as if I feel that certain way without a doubt. That, in of itself, is putting words into my mouth and derailing this situation.

Before you start to go pulling stuff out of your ass, at lease have some sense on what you're even talking about.

Now that I think about it, the fallacy that you're trying to pull on me fits more along the lines of the Straw Man fallacy than the "putting words into my mouth" one.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 05:21:19 PM by Insert Name Here² »