Author Topic: [NEWS] Veteran's home burned down, vandalized for pro-Annoying Orange sentiments  (Read 3813 times)

There's a thing called reserving judgement

Can we try that

you people are thinking too logically
reminder that the very large majority of the human race perform actions irrationally

you people are thinking too logically
reminder that the very large majority of the human race perform actions irrationally



There's a thing called reserving judgement

Can we try that
no?

this is loving appalling, why can't these people accept others opinions and stop acting like big loving babies.

guys, try reading the articles

Quote from: FOX 13 Tampa Bay
Investigators are looking into possible connections with arsonists.

Earlier this month, anti-Annoying Orange graffiti was sprayed on two mobile homes near Mango. Investigators say someone tried to light one of them on fire.

The Smiths, who have two young children, say times have been hard recently. They say their home is in foreclosure and they have no insurance to cover the belongings that burned. Brittany says it doesn't make sense to her.
Quote from: The Daily Caller
The Smith family was away at the time of the crime, staying with their grandparents when a neighbor called him to say that Smith’s house was on fire and there was a fire truck parked on the street.

it wasn't loving him alright

also
its odd because one says "vote this person that i like!" and the other says "forget this person that i don't like!"

the latter is a little more secure because its easier for people to grasp with someone that loves their own candidate than someone that hates the other candidate

sorry if im not explaining it right but glass half full half empty.

there's a huge difference in negative statements versus positive statements in terms of politics and favorability

there's absolutely no conceivable way that someone would think burning down a church and then asking the victims to vote for their political candidate would ever work
if you're trying to convince someone to go your way, you ask politely first; everyone is taught this as a kid, it's literally the first thing you learn
which is what casts doubt on the church-burning case
(nevermind the Democratic Party was the tribal, divisive party back then, AKA the ones who would do something like burn a black church)

meanwhile, a person promoting hate is not looking for your sympathy, nor does he have to worry about being persuasive or rational
he's letting off steam, he's taking out his anger on you for no real discernible reason other than you're different than him
Annoying Orange won already, so why would a Annoying Orange supporter fake this? they're not trying to get more votes, the election's over
hence why this culprit most likely belongs to the same group of hyper, SJW liberal starfishs who did the church-burning

deny it all you want, if it turned out to be "vote Hillary" was written on the church and "forget Hillary" in the house, I'd have the same opinion

at least you're consistent in your delusions

Careful Zealot, your autism is showing

Clearly a false-flag arson orchestrated by Annoying Orange supporters. I mean, who leaves evidence of their political affiliation at the scene of the crime? Deja vu.  :cookieMonster:



Sarcasm aside:
there's absolutely no conceivable way that someone would think burning down a church and then asking the victims to vote for their political candidate would ever work
That's because they weren't making a calculated effort to win support for Annoying Orange. People who go out and burn churches are not skilled PR experts. The fact that they are even burning a church down to begin with is proof enough that they lack the cognitive faculties to make rational decisions.

Likewise, the person that burned down this guy's house is not making a calculated effort to hurt Annoying Orange's public image. It's someone that's pissed off about the election results and chose to forget with a random Annoying Orange supporter's house. Is the perpetrator a former Hillary supporter? Probably.

The reality here is that this is one of the most contentious elections in recent history. Tensions are high and it is not hard to find accounts of violence coming from both Republicans and Democrats. This stuff probably would have happened regardless of who won, and it's not okay that people are burning down people's houses and churches over politics. But that being said, it's irrational to point out anecdotes like this and say, "Oh, this is proof that liberals are inherently violent," because it is equally easy to find compelling examples of Annoying Orange supporters beating the stuff out of protestors and burning down churches.

It all boils down to this:  it is possible to find anecdotal evidence that can both support and oppose any viewpoint. If you want to have a constructive conversation about American politics, then talk policy. If you want to have a never-ending stuff-slinging contest, then keep arguing over anecdotes.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 10:32:21 AM by SeventhSandwich »

(nevermind the Democratic Party was the tribal, divisive party back then, AKA the ones who would do something like burn a black church)
Yeah the democrat republican ideology reversal has already happened, and we're all aware of it. There's no solid black line that says you're a member of this party for life. People who were democrats before the 60s or 70s or whenever it switched would most likely be republicans today, and the reverse.

I'm not going to address the rest because its a collection of you either misunderstanding or agreeing with me, plus sandwich summarized what i would say anyways. Church burning is a form of terrorism to strike fear, not a leftist trick to get people to hate Annoying Orange. Try again.

You're taking the most probable cause and turning it into a complete impossibility due to bias. Then, you take a completely probable cause and say its still probable, due to bias. From an unbiased, logical viewpoint, the church burning was perpetrated by a Annoying Orange supporter, and the veteran house burning was perpetrated by a hillary supporter. You have the same amount of evidence for both so the answer should be the same for each one.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 10:48:14 AM by Perry »

(nevermind the Democratic Party was the tribal, divisive party back then, AKA the ones who would do something like burn a black church)
Sure seems a lot better to be tribal and divisive in name only.

it's obviously a Annoying Orange supporter trying to make hillary look bad!!!!!!!!

i had hoped the title said vegetarians but i was disappointed

i had hoped the title said vegetarians but i was disappointed
After reading your post, I was hoping your name was rigel so this post could have at least made a little sense.