Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Doink!

Members
  • Content Count

    706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Doink!

  • Rank
    Lower Midcard

Previous Fields

  • Favourite Wrestler
    Demolition
  • Occupation
    Retail
  • Orientation
    Straight

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

788 profile views
  1. There's no way he'll be convicted of felony murder. No way. The DA rushed the charges because he's in a contested primary right now and is being investigated by the G.B.I. This is the same DA, mind you, that said a couple of weeks ago that a taser was considered a deadly weapon.
  2. Swastikas aren't banned in the US. It falls under the first. Texas vs Johnson affirmed this.
  3. Even though I am not a fan of it, the first amendment would disagree with you.
  4. Yes it would have. You obviously don't know your history. We were headed to war no matter what.
  5. It's not your property to destroy. I don't see how this is controversial.
  6. My stat was in a year. But you knew that. If you want something locally to me, rioters destroyed a restaurant that employed women trying to escape from domestic violence and homelessness.
  7. No, I am asking for specific examples. But of course you knew that. https://newstalk955.com/rioters-kill-black-officer-destroy-black-businesses/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8378601/Two-people-killed-police-officer-shot-violence-erupts-Iowa-town-Davenport.html In other news, the Minneapolis Police Dept has stopped negotiations with the police union. Good move. Public sector unions are terrible anyway.
  8. So explain all the deaths because of the rioters please?
  9. Do you have proof that they were no danger? You made the claim.
  10. Nine unarmed black people were killed in 2019. Just nine. Only three so far this year.
  11. Trump never packed the Supreme Court. FDR's agenda was to help the citizens, so he threw Japanese Americans into internment camps?
  12. The dude was running in a neighborhood that wasn't his. Let's assume it was an act of racism. Eliminating the police will only increase these types of encounters where the neighborhood takes the law into their own hands. I'm not saying we can't police our own neighborhoods, but we can also have the police there as well.
  13. You quoted a guy from the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the President who forced Japanese Americans into work camps and tried to pack the Supreme Court to push his agenda through. He also prolonged the Depression through his policies.
  14. ............but we just condemned the Arbery shooting because of vigilante justice. This is what you will be getting more of. And if the next goal is to disarm the public like some Dems want, how will we enforce it with no police. Will you send the military in the enforce the law, because I thought we were against the military coming in to enforce the law? And how will these community enforcers be deputized? If you want the government to be over them, they'd have to be deputized, thus they are once again a police force. I mean, the only other choice is to have what they have in Africa. The rich have their own privatized security and the rest are left with fending for themselves.
  15. First paragraph: Explain to me how that process would help the Unabomber, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the like. Second paragraph: So now when someone steps on someone else's property, instead of calling the police to defuse the situation, they will now shoot first and ask questions later.
×
×
  • Create New...