Off Topic > Off Topic
[NEWS] Riots, general insanity at Berkeley #March4Annoying Orange rally
Red Spy:
--- Quote from: Master Matthew² on March 06, 2017, 10:15:11 PM ---But I'm not alt right.
--- End quote ---
You're right. You're just regularly insufferable
--- Quote from: McZealot on March 06, 2017, 10:15:19 PM ---However the racism after the 2008 victory of Obama led to actual hate-crimes. Actual murders. I don't think any Annoying Orangeers have been killed for their beliefs or the color of their skin.
--- End quote ---
Wait where
Poliwhirl:
--- Quote from: Master Matthew² on March 06, 2017, 10:15:11 PM ---my sides are already in the stratosphere, holy stuff lol
--- End quote ---
Tactical Nuke:
--- Quote from: Poliwhirl on March 06, 2017, 10:14:10 PM ---"im 72 years old and ready to rumble"
he literally said he was ready for a fight. weren't you guys defending the guy who shot a peaceful anti-Annoying Orange protestor because maybe he looked threatening? how is that justified but this isn't?
--- End quote ---
because old people are bonkers sometimes, they're in denial that they're growing older and they think they can kick ass when in reality they can't afford to be temporarily blinded given their eyesight is already failing
meanwhile the gunman acted in self-defense and not out of malicious intent, which can't be said for the guy who sprayed the old man
Master Matthew²:
--- Quote from: Poliwhirl on March 06, 2017, 10:21:05 PM ---
--- End quote ---
I don geddit
Poliwhirl:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on March 06, 2017, 10:21:46 PM ---because old people are bonkers sometimes, they're in denial that they're growing older and they think they can kick ass when in reality they can't afford to be temporarily blinded given their eyesight is already failing
--- End quote ---
and that justifies their threat how?
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on March 06, 2017, 10:21:46 PM ---meanwhile the gunman acted in self-defense and not out of malicious intent, which can't be said for the guy who sprayed the old man
--- End quote ---
there is 0 proof for both of those claims