A home for the weary.
https://www.wwtbambored.com/
Nice. Do you know who's responsible? Who in any right mind would do this? Don't make shit up. We'll hafta call you Sssaucea1mamacat wrote:the difference between protesting to chase someone out of a restaurant, and sending them a bomb seems to directly correlate to the overt approval of your president supporting violence of his supporters.
What about shooting politicians playing softball? Or shooting cops in the back of the head while filling up their patrol car? Or shooting cops while they are protecting those protesting against them?a1mamacat wrote:the difference between protesting to chase someone out of a restaurant, and sending them a bomb seems to directly correlate to the overt approval of your president supporting violence of his supporters.
So, Mr. Whatabout, that justifies today's actions?BackInTex wrote:What about shooting politicians playing softball? Or shooting cops in the back of the head while filling up their patrol car? Or shooting cops while they are protecting those protesting against them?a1mamacat wrote:the difference between protesting to chase someone out of a restaurant, and sending them a bomb seems to directly correlate to the overt approval of your president supporting violence of his supporters.
And who here has approved of Trump supporting violence?
Are you deliberately obtuse or is it a gene from one of your ancestors?Bob Juch wrote:So, Mr. Whatabout, that justifies today's actions?BackInTex wrote:What about shooting politicians playing softball? Or shooting cops in the back of the head while filling up their patrol car? Or shooting cops while they are protecting those protesting against them?a1mamacat wrote:the difference between protesting to chase someone out of a restaurant, and sending them a bomb seems to directly correlate to the overt approval of your president supporting violence of his supporters.
And who here has approved of Trump supporting violence?
Perhaps one of Jefferson's goats.Beebs52 wrote:Are you deliberately obtuse or is it a gene from one of your ancestors?Bob Juch wrote:So, Mr. Whatabout, that justifies today's actions?BackInTex wrote:
What about shooting politicians playing softball? Or shooting cops in the back of the head while filling up their patrol car? Or shooting cops while they are protecting those protesting against them?
And who here has approved of Trump supporting violence?
Not in the least. Never implied it did. My "whatabouts" were targeted to Saucie's relating these attacks to those of us who support many things about Trump (but not what she implies we approve of) and that we must "approve" of these by association.Bob Juch wrote: So, Mr. Whatabout, that justifies today's actions?
No one here has approved of Trump supporting violence, but at least one member of this Bored has opined repeatedly that the real danger we face is from left wing, Antifa activists being stirred up by George Soros, presumably to disturb Mitch McConnell's lunch.BackInTex wrote: And who here has approved of Trump supporting violence?
I hope so.silverscreenselect wrote:No one here has approved of Trump supporting violence, but at least one member of this Bored has opined repeatedly that the real danger we face is from left wing, Antifa activists being stirred up by George Soros, presumably to disturb Mitch McConnell's lunch.BackInTex wrote: And who here has approved of Trump supporting violence?
I do think we'll know who's behind this pretty soon, since the bomber or bombers don't appear to be very sophisticated and the unexploded bombs and packages should have lots of evidence in them
Of course it does, dear.a1mamacat wrote:the difference between protesting to chase someone out of a restaurant, and sending them a bomb seems to directly correlate to the overt approval of your president supporting violence of his supporters.
That is NOT polite. A turd is a lump of excrement. Stop saying turd and saying or thinking that it's a polite euphemism. It's not.BackInTex wrote:Not in the least. Never implied it did. My "whatabouts" were targeted to Saucie's relating these attacks to those of us who support many things about Trump (but not what she implies we approve of) and that we must "approve" of these by association.Bob Juch wrote: So, Mr. Whatabout, that justifies today's actions?
She's being a turd (to be polite).
Not in the least. Never implied that you supported these actions. My comment was that your president provides overt approval for violence against political opponents and the media. Usually actions such as these cause massive posting.BackInTex wrote:Not in the least. Never implied it did. My "whatabouts" were targeted to Saucie's relating these attacks to those of us who support many things about Trump (but not what she implies we approve of) and that we must "approve" of these by association.Bob Juch wrote: So, Mr. Whatabout, that justifies today's actions?
She's being a turd (to be polite).
Massive posting? wtf?a1mamacat wrote:Not in the least. Never implied that you supported these actions. My comment was that your president provides overt approval for violence against political opponents and the media. Usually actions such as these cause massive posting.BackInTex wrote:Not in the least. Never implied it did. My "whatabouts" were targeted to Saucie's relating these attacks to those of us who support many things about Trump (but not what she implies we approve of) and that we must "approve" of these by association.Bob Juch wrote: So, Mr. Whatabout, that justifies today's actions?
She's being a turd (to be polite).
It is a little odd the usual Bored cryers haven't inundated us with all their insider knowledge and updates, enaht. Must be a glitch in the Batphone.Beebs52 wrote:Massive posting? wtf?a1mamacat wrote:Not in the least. Never implied that you supported these actions. My comment was that your president provides overt approval for violence against political opponents and the media. Usually actions such as these cause massive posting.BackInTex wrote:
Not in the least. Never implied it did. My "whatabouts" were targeted to Saucie's relating these attacks to those of us who support many things about Trump (but not what she implies we approve of) and that we must "approve" of these by association.
She's being a turd (to be polite).
Um, the title of this thread is Seems very quiet here about the bombsa1mamacat wrote:Not in the least. Never implied that you supported these actions. My comment was that your president provides overt approval for violence against political opponents and the media. Usually actions such as these cause massive posting.BackInTex wrote:Not in the least. Never implied it did. My "whatabouts" were targeted to Saucie's relating these attacks to those of us who support many things about Trump (but not what she implies we approve of) and that we must "approve" of these by association.Bob Juch wrote: So, Mr. Whatabout, that justifies today's actions?
She's being a turd (to be polite).
Check the George Soros thread. --Boba1mamacat wrote:Not in the least. Never implied that you supported these actions. My comment was that your president provides overt approval for violence against political opponents and the media. Usually actions such as these cause massive posting.BackInTex wrote:Not in the least. Never implied it did. My "whatabouts" were targeted to Saucie's relating these attacks to those of us who support many things about Trump (but not what she implies we approve of) and that we must "approve" of these by association.Bob Juch wrote: So, Mr. Whatabout, that justifies today's actions?
She's being a turd (to be polite).
Turd can be a polite or even endearing euphemism. I hear it used both ways, often.SportsFan68 wrote: That is NOT polite. A turd is a lump of excrement. Stop saying turd and saying or thinking that it's a polite euphemism. It's not.
Is that why you keep polishing them?BackInTex wrote:Turd can be a polite or even endearing euphemism. I hear it used both ways, often.SportsFan68 wrote: That is NOT polite. A turd is a lump of excrement. Stop saying turd and saying or thinking that it's a polite euphemism. It's not.
I see the queen of whataboutism is alive and well.
6ou are funny. Terrorist attacks only count against Dems. Of course.Bob Juch wrote:I see the queen of whataboutism is alive and well.
The gun misfires and the story ends with a Secret Service agent handing over his Glock and saying, "Here, use mine."themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:When it was time, he went downstairs, took his place in the lobby before the entourage appeared. The hotel staff had been lined up to see their boss, the president, go by. A few of them applauded. Most did not.
The president didn’t seem to notice. He waved, in his desultory fashion. The Secret Service agents clustered around him, ushered him toward the armored limo idling outside at the curb.
The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger.
Only when Trump doesn't encourage them.Beebs52 wrote:6ou are funny. Terrorist attacks only count against Dems. Of course.Bob Juch wrote:I see the queen of whataboutism is alive and well.