Nancy Pelosi's $5m San Francisco home is VANDALIZED with red paint, a pig's head and a spray-painted

NOTHING is going to "happen".

These "Militias" spewing BS online are all bark and no bite.

And, totally LMAO at anybody who thinks there is going to be some kind of a "Civil War".

That entire "narrative" has less credibility than a Bigfoot sighting.

On 1/6 in DC, anybody engaging in any sort of physical violence will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

So says you, which matters not.

 

Bank.it.

Nothing (of real.consequence) will happen.

If any gun-toting Pro-Trump "Militias" get out of hand, they will be dealt with harshly by the authorities.

There will undoubtedly be an overwhelming (and massive) police presence.

It would be a complete Fool's Errand to even try to start something.

In any event, I am certain that there is Universal Agreement (among True Patriots and those who love America) that no one wants any sort of "violent confrontations" on the 6th.

 

Sadly you are clueless as to what is going on right now.

And you fail to accept the reality the police as way understaffed to handle what is approaching and many of them are the True Patriots who are going to be part of what is coming up. They fully understand the consequences to their profession presented by Slow Joe and Kamelatoe.

 

And when did you discover that you were omniscient? Oh, silly question, I guess you always knew.

 

I thought the LW was all for Defunding the Police!

 

Oh, I see

You get to have opinions about things, but nobody else does.

If you disagree with me, come up with a valid counter opinion... because the above is just a waste of time.

 

That's a good point, @jcarlilesiu DEFining, let's go over some of your posts here and see where you would have to have been omniscient to say what you said:

Presumes omniscience. Is there any proof so far who did it? Have there been any arrests or people on TV claiming they did it?

How does the poster know what @Seth Bullock knows and feels? Is he claiming omniscience?

Presumes omniscience. Is there any proof so far who did it? Have there been any arrests or people on TV claiming they did it? How do you know the person/people who did this are RW-ers pretending to be anarchists? What specific proof that we can examine in the open? Sounds like some pretty specific and intimate knowledge there. When did you discover that YOU were omniscient?

DEFining, you see where this is headed? if you're gonna make these kinds of arguments - better expect them to be used against you. It's not as if you're the only one who can use them.

 

You almost have a point, except for there is an underlying RATIONALE for my presumptions, which I explain when I make them.

Please think about that first sentence a bit before continuing, because that is the whole of the difference between offering an educated guess (even if it is with limited information), which others can then appraise on its merits, versus just making a pronouncement of something as fact. The rest of my post is merely an elaboration on that idea, so it is necessary that one can at least appreciate that distinction, if there is to be any value in that person continuing to read, or in any reply made by that reader.

For example, trashing Nancy Pelosi's house CAN credibly suggest a dislike for Pelosi or what she is taken to stand for. If one cannot see that, that person is Nonniscient (made up word, but its meaning should be self-evident). And, as I'd stated
along w/ my initial prediction, the phrase, "we want everything," sounds like a parody of the left, more than anything one on the left would actually write to represent their position. You can agree or disagree with these REASONS for my conclusion, which may or may not be correct. But it has a BASIS, which I have shared with the readers, for their own assessment.

Saying that anarchists hate Nancy Pelosi, specifically, is not stating something as obvious as that those who vandalized her house were not fans of hers (and then some!). Also, people on the Right have quite freely expressed their overtly negative opinions of the Speaker, even in tv commercials outside of her own district.

Anarchists, on the other hand, are not so vocal about the minutia of their opinions, at least among the general public. Most of us only know the basics of their philosophy. Therefore I asked how Seth Bullock could know such a thing, which he declined to share.

Likewise, jcarlilesiu gives no explanation of a rationale for knowing that these perpetrators are NOT anarchists (who are known to have a total disregard for others' property), NOR ultra-rightists trying to pass off their acts as being done by leftist protesters, but ONLY members of the political left. Again, he gives no basis for his deduction, for the reader to evaluate. It's JUST HIS WORD.

It was basically the same with Seth, even though I now see his guess as a good one, though not for the ridiculous reason he gave, after I'd initially challenged his pronouncement (which originally came with no explanation).

I never claimed omniscience: I had an opinion, based on my understanding of the facts, and I explained my thought process. That is called: presenting an argument;
but merely asserting--

-- without JUSTIFYING those, much more specific assumptions, and insights into the guilty parties' psychological underpinnings, is NOT.

 

It was a peaceful protest so a very American and patriotic thing to do. However, failing to tear down her house meant is was a rather lackluster peaceful protest.

 

Careful... your comment smacks of leftist heresy......And wasn't it Nancy who assured us that this is just "what they do"... I'm sure her stance on defunding police will be unchanged....LOL

 

Why? Do you really believe that after folks like you have bashed police that they would interfere at all on your behalf going forward?

 

Okay. Translation anyone?

 

Lol ...

 

You're rationalizing your own opinions without proof while sarcastically calling others' opinions "omniscience."

It's a nice screed but ultimately it's simple rationalization.

 

The LW has glorified protests that turn violent and destructive AS peaceful protests (instead of calling them out as destructive riots) since Floyd. By calling it graffiti, you've just disagreed with the entire LF premise justifying vandalizing large parts of property. It's not graffiti - it's a justifiable protest. That's why we don't do things like bring the hammer down on these guys.

In the same vein, how is Pelosi gonna day we need to call the police and find out who redesigned her house when her own constituency is screaming to defund the police? She's caught in a bind here.

 

Okay. Still not clear what that has to do with correctly identifying graffiti.

"That's graffiti"
"Long screed..."

Sorry, makes no sense in relation to my post.

 

I told you to focus on my first sentence, advice that you clearly ignored. I-come-to-that-conclusion-BECAUSE
you have done precisely the same thing as did they: presented your assertions-- about my differentiation between 1) my presenting a theory based on iterated evidence, & 2) the unexplained, unsupported proclamations of those other 2 posters-- as not just your summation but, in lieu of an argument showing any value in this opinion, which you are proffering.

Yes, it can be said that this is your opinion; but all opinions are not created equal. When you offer no proof to back yours up, you are expecting others to trust in your infallibility, on the issue, without any understanding of how you come to your conclusion. It's a pity, you can't recognize that difference.

 

I agree, who's going to fight over a tax on tea?

 

Hey, all you asked for was a translation. I mean, if you wanna reduce the argument even further, here it goes: When BLM burns and loots an area, Pelosi treats the grafitti as the product of a noble protest and justifies this as just something they do. But when someone pulls the destruction trick against her, suddenly it's "just" graffiti with no virtuous reason given. Furthermore, who's Nancy gonna call - the very police the left vilified?

I mean, had the LW not let the riots run - well, run riot and put their foot down at the first Target looting, I doubt Pelosi's personal 31-Flavors outlet would have been touched. But once you start justifying evil behavior as noble, it's only a matter of time until you get touched by it as well, and touched hard. I'd be happy with bringing the hammer down on any protestor and vandal, but the LW made excuses for this behavior and took out their anger at the police rather than thugs taking over a city block, so ...

 

Correct, but you should have read my original post. Neither yours or the other make a lick of sense in relation to my post.

 

You didn't ask me to relate it to anything, you asked for a translation.

 

Reread the first word I wrote.

 

homeless are not politically pooping, it was a radicalized cuban proud boy.

extremist poopers are not homeless.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/14/youtuber-livestreams-himself-taking-poop-on-nancy-pelosis-driveway/

 

I responded to this post:

Is this asking for anything else? Maybe you wrote it in invisible ink or sumthin'?