Did Maxine Waters Travel Across State Lines To Incite A Riot

10,859 Views | 160 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by aggiehawg
Onceaggie2.0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tanya 93 said:

snowdog90 said:

B-1 83 said:

snowdog90 said:

B-1 83 said:

Fascinating...........we can't have it both ways. She didn't call for riots any more than President Trump did. Either both are guilty of inciting riots, or neither is. Both called for protests, not violent riots.


WRONG!!

Violence, looting and rioting has already been happening,, and Maxine calls for MORE confrontation. How is that not inciting more riots?

Typical. You libs contort yourselves into a pretzel talking about how Trump calling for peace means he initiated a riot, and Maxine calling ror more riots doesn't mean she's calling for riots.

Useful idiots.

Her words will probably cost lives and she will blame racism for it. **** that horrible hag.
And there it is!!!!!!!! B-1 83 is now one of "you libs" because I understand the English language and what it just might mean in a legal sense! Classic F16. Since your reading comprehension obviously sucks, I'll state it again: Neither Trump's call to "fight" nor her call to get "confrontational" is absolutely calling for riots. The terms "fight" and "confrontational" have multiple meanings. One can be "confrontational" (in their face), and one can ignore the police (just stand in the already crowded street/park after curfew) without constituting what any reasonable person would call a "riot".


Forgive me for calling you a lib if you're not. Your response is as intellectual as a typical lib's response, hence my conclusion. I should have remembered that the true libs will avoid this thread, except for Tanya, who as usual avoided the issue and instead laughed at me. Typical.

If you can't see the difference in Trump's words and Witch Maxine's, and the different circumstances, I can't help you.
Well it was laughable.

I don't believe Trump should have been impeached.
I don't think from what she did in WI that she should either.

However, that is not the acceptable answer on this thread.

Trump was not the focus of this thread till B1-Lib e 3 brought it up.
B-1 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
snowdog90 said:

B-1 83 said:

It not a deflection. Either both are criminal actions, or neither is, genius. Virtually every decision we make in life is based on the evidence at hand compared to past experiences.


This is so dumb.
There's nothing "dumb" about it. The thread title had "inciting a riot". Is every act of civil disobedience a "riot"? Apparently it depends on which side of the political spectrum you cram yourself in the corner of, and who is doing the civil disobedience.
Tanya 93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Onceaggie2.0 said:

Tanya 93 said:

snowdog90 said:

B-1 83 said:

snowdog90 said:

B-1 83 said:

Fascinating...........we can't have it both ways. She didn't call for riots any more than President Trump did. Either both are guilty of inciting riots, or neither is. Both called for protests, not violent riots.


WRONG!!

Violence, looting and rioting has already been happening,, and Maxine calls for MORE confrontation. How is that not inciting more riots?

Typical. You libs contort yourselves into a pretzel talking about how Trump calling for peace means he initiated a riot, and Maxine calling ror more riots doesn't mean she's calling for riots.

Useful idiots.

Her words will probably cost lives and she will blame racism for it. **** that horrible hag.
And there it is!!!!!!!! B-1 83 is now one of "you libs" because I understand the English language and what it just might mean in a legal sense! Classic F16. Since your reading comprehension obviously sucks, I'll state it again: Neither Trump's call to "fight" nor her call to get "confrontational" is absolutely calling for riots. The terms "fight" and "confrontational" have multiple meanings. One can be "confrontational" (in their face), and one can ignore the police (just stand in the already crowded street/park after curfew) without constituting what any reasonable person would call a "riot".


Forgive me for calling you a lib if you're not. Your response is as intellectual as a typical lib's response, hence my conclusion. I should have remembered that the true libs will avoid this thread, except for Tanya, who as usual avoided the issue and instead laughed at me. Typical.

If you can't see the difference in Trump's words and Witch Maxine's, and the different circumstances, I can't help you.
Well it was laughable.

I don't believe Trump should have been impeached.
I don't think from what she did in WI that she should either.

However, that is not the acceptable answer on this thread.

Trump was not the focus of this thread till B1-Lib e 3 brought it up.
Others brought it up before him.

He is being consistent.


Neither should have an impeachment based on what they said
B-1 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Onceaggie2.0 said:

Tanya 93 said:

snowdog90 said:

B-1 83 said:

snowdog90 said:

B-1 83 said:

Fascinating...........we can't have it both ways. She didn't call for riots any more than President Trump did. Either both are guilty of inciting riots, or neither is. Both called for protests, not violent riots.


WRONG!!

Violence, looting and rioting has already been happening,, and Maxine calls for MORE confrontation. How is that not inciting more riots?

Typical. You libs contort yourselves into a pretzel talking about how Trump calling for peace means he initiated a riot, and Maxine calling ror more riots doesn't mean she's calling for riots.

Useful idiots.

Her words will probably cost lives and she will blame racism for it. **** that horrible hag.
And there it is!!!!!!!! B-1 83 is now one of "you libs" because I understand the English language and what it just might mean in a legal sense! Classic F16. Since your reading comprehension obviously sucks, I'll state it again: Neither Trump's call to "fight" nor her call to get "confrontational" is absolutely calling for riots. The terms "fight" and "confrontational" have multiple meanings. One can be "confrontational" (in their face), and one can ignore the police (just stand in the already crowded street/park after curfew) without constituting what any reasonable person would call a "riot".


Forgive me for calling you a lib if you're not. Your response is as intellectual as a typical lib's response, hence my conclusion. I should have remembered that the true libs will avoid this thread, except for Tanya, who as usual avoided the issue and instead laughed at me. Typical.

If you can't see the difference in Trump's words and Witch Maxine's, and the different circumstances, I can't help you.
Well it was laughable.

I don't believe Trump should have been impeached.
I don't think from what she did in WI that she should either.

However, that is not the acceptable answer on this thread.

Trump was not the focus of this thread till B1-Lib e 3 brought it up.
Good Lord............ Trump isn't the focus of this thread. Consistency is. I'm calling out the sides that insisted Trump was guilty of inciting a riot, while not calling out the sht stain Congressional beotch. I'm also calling out those who defended Trump, and now have their drawers in a wad about this. And now another poster calls me a lib. Classic F16. Purity of thought must be maintained.
richardag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B-1 83 said:

richardag said:

B-1 83 said:

richardag said:

B-1 83 said:

richardag said:

B-1 83 said:

Maroon Dawn said:


.....
That's not calling for riots.
Maxine Waters advocating getting confrontational and ignoring curfews(lawlessness).

What do you consider "confrontational", let alone breaking the law by ignoring curfews. Curfews are designed to protect people from the lawless rioting and looting.

By going public it appears she is knowingly threatening the jurors and the court, "we demand a murder conviction regardless of the law and our court system."
A fine line, indeed, but certainly not one that justifies impeachment.
The Democratic Party leadership impeached President Trump for just saying "peaceful protests" which are quite legal. Maxine Waters advocating breaking the law. Yes, impeachable or at least censorship, especially openly trying to intimidate jurors and he courts of Minnesota.

It very sad you are defending such despicable behavior.
Another poster with learning disabilities. I think Trumps impeachment was BS, and I think calling this "inciting a riot" is BS. I'm consistent. You're not.
Oh, forgot to include you have resorted to name calling. Sorry your debating in this discussion has deteriorated to the point of name calling.
If the shoe fits........ I plainly stated that NEITHER situation called for riots. I defended the freedoms of both speakers. You couldn't comprehend that, or that "breaking the law" did not necessarily constitute calling for a riot. I was called out, and even called a liberal, so take your nonsense somewhere else.
I never said you supported President Trump's impeachment.

I said it "seemed like Maxine Waters is inciting riots". This is clearly based on her confrontation remarks and her advocating breaking the law.

You have every right to defend freedom even if you are wrong.

I never called you a liberal, yet you called me incapable of read comprehension.

Now you're saying take my nonsense somewhere else. So advocating breaking the the by Maxine Waters should not be called out and is nonsense?

And yes, at minimum she should be censored and probably impeached as she took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

"If the shoe fits" is wrong and you are wrong about Maxine Waters and my comments.
Onceaggie2.0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B-1 83 said:

Onceaggie2.0 said:

Tanya 93 said:

snowdog90 said:

B-1 83 said:

snowdog90 said:

B-1 83 said:

Fascinating...........we can't have it both ways. She didn't call for riots any more than President Trump did. Either both are guilty of inciting riots, or neither is. Both called for protests, not violent riots.


WRONG!!

Violence, looting and rioting has already been happening,, and Maxine calls for MORE confrontation. How is that not inciting more riots?

Typical. You libs contort yourselves into a pretzel talking about how Trump calling for peace means he initiated a riot, and Maxine calling ror more riots doesn't mean she's calling for riots.

Useful idiots.

Her words will probably cost lives and she will blame racism for it. **** that horrible hag.
And there it is!!!!!!!! B-1 83 is now one of "you libs" because I understand the English language and what it just might mean in a legal sense! Classic F16. Since your reading comprehension obviously sucks, I'll state it again: Neither Trump's call to "fight" nor her call to get "confrontational" is absolutely calling for riots. The terms "fight" and "confrontational" have multiple meanings. One can be "confrontational" (in their face), and one can ignore the police (just stand in the already crowded street/park after curfew) without constituting what any reasonable person would call a "riot".


Forgive me for calling you a lib if you're not. Your response is as intellectual as a typical lib's response, hence my conclusion. I should have remembered that the true libs will avoid this thread, except for Tanya, who as usual avoided the issue and instead laughed at me. Typical.

If you can't see the difference in Trump's words and Witch Maxine's, and the different circumstances, I can't help you.
Well it was laughable.

I don't believe Trump should have been impeached.
I don't think from what she did in WI that she should either.

However, that is not the acceptable answer on this thread.

Trump was not the focus of this thread till B1-Lib e 3 brought it up.
Good Lord............ Trump isn't the focus of this thread. Consistency is. I'm calling out the sides that insisted Trump was guilty of inciting a riot, while not calling out the sht stain Congressional beotch. I'm also calling out those who defended Trump, and now have their drawers in a wad about this. And now another poster calls me a lib. Classic F16. Purity of thought must be maintained.
LOL you came into a thread about Mad Max and brought up Trump......and you wonder why you are a called a lib..?

Have a blessed day B1 Libee 3
gbaby23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

More of the same
Onceaggie2.0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gbaby23 said:


More of the same
yeah but Trump!
One Louder
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'd love to snatch the wig off that old crow's head and shove it into her mouth.
snowdog90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To equate what Trump and Waters said is what is truly laughable.

Trump never called for violence, in fact he called for a peaceful rally. In his previous recent rallies there was no violence. He used the word peaceful often when discussing the January 6 rally. He expected no violence and called for none.

Maxine flies to a place where looting and rioting are ongoing, and calls for MORE confrontation, calls for going out in the streets, breaking curfew. She never once uses the word peaceful. She never says to stop the violence, looting and rioting that's ALREADY TAKING PLACE.

There is a difference. It should be easy to see. I'm not calling for Hag Maxine to be impeached, just saying that her actions are MUCH more proof of inciting riots than anything Trump did, or even came close to doing.
Old Sarge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
mwm said:

Yes, she did. IMO, she has engaged in an impeachable act.

But nothing will happen because she has a "D" after her name.
(D)oes Not Matter
B-1 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Where did Waters call for violence? The terms "confrontational" and "ignore the law" don't contribute violence in and of themselves. I'm sure our resident lawyers can explain it to you. Uh oh..........this English lesson will probably get me labeled a liberal again......
richardag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B-1 83 said:

Where did Waters call for violence? The terms "confrontational" and "ignore the law" don't contribute violence in and of themselves. I'm sure our resident lawyers can explain it to you. Uh oh..........this English lesson will probably get me labeled a liberal again......
confrontational
adjective
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In



Synonyms & Antonyms of confrontational

feeling or displaying eagerness to fight
  • her confrontational, in-your-face manner doesn't help get legislation passed
Synonyms for confrontational
Words Related to confrontational
Phrases Synonymous with confrontational
Near Antonyms for confrontational
Antonyms for confrontational


snowdog90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B-1 83 said:

Where did Waters call for violence? The terms "confrontational" and "ignore the law" don't contribute violence in and of themselves. I'm sure our resident lawyers can explain it to you. Uh oh..........this English lesson will probably get me labeled a liberal again......


You are incredibly dense. "More confrontation" in an environment that already includes violence can be easily interpreted as calling for more violence. Simple, really. I guess not for you.
B-1 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
snowdog90 said:

B-1 83 said:

Where did Waters call for violence? The terms "confrontational" and "ignore the law" don't contribute violence in and of themselves. I'm sure our resident lawyers can explain it to you. Uh oh..........this English lesson will probably get me labeled a liberal again......


You are incredibly dense. "More confrontation" in an environment that already includes violence can be easily interpreted as calling for more violence. Simple, really. I guess not for you.
Sort of like "fight", eh? Now, who is incredibly dense? You can't have it both ways. Virtually every definition of "riot" includes the word "violence". She didn't call for it.

noun

[ol]
  • 1. a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.
  • [/ol]
    verb

    [ol]
  • take part in a violent public disturbance.
  • [/ol]


    richardag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    And break the law
    B-1 83
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Thank you for proving my point. Words can have multiple meanings, not just the one that proves your political agenda. J walking is breaking the law, but not violent. Being out after curfew does not define a "riot".
    richardag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Confrontational and break the law as opposed to:

    Peacefully protest and fight for truth
    Maroon Dawn
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Can't help but notice the Libs here defending Aunty Maxine keep skating by her very clearly telling people to break the law by committing assault and violating curfew while also pretending those things aren't the kindling you're start riots
    B-1 83
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    richardag said:

    Confrontational and break the law as opposed to:

    Peacefully protest and fight for truth
    That's nice, but neither one advocates violence in any legal form of the word or it's use.
    B-1 83
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Maroon Dawn said:

    Can't help but notice the Libs here defending Aunty Maxine keep skating by her very clearly telling people to break the law by committing assault and violating curfew

    I missed the "assault" part somewhere.......
    Maroon Dawn
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    B-1 83 said:

    richardag said:

    Confrontational and break the law as opposed to:

    Peacefully protest and fight for truth
    That's nice, but neither one advocates violence in any legal form of the word or it's use.


    Intentionally obtuse to defend a fellow Marxist inciting lawlessness
    Maroon Dawn
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    B-1 83 said:

    Maroon Dawn said:

    Can't help but notice the Libs here defending Aunty Maxine keep skating by her very clearly telling people to break the law by committing assault and violating curfew

    I missed the "assault" part somewhere.......


    Telling people to get confrontational with others is telling them to assault others

    Stop being intentionally obtuse
    Mas89
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    B-1 83 said:

    Where did Waters call for violence? The terms "confrontational" and "ignore the law" don't contribute violence in and of themselves. I'm sure our resident lawyers can explain it to you. Uh oh..........this English lesson will probably get me labeled a liberal again......
    richardag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    B-1 83 said:

    richardag said:

    Confrontational and break the law as opposed to:

    Peacefully protest and fight for truth
    That's nice, but neither one advocates violence in any legal form of the word or it's use.
    One explicitly advocating breaking the law and confrontational. Cannot be any more clear than that in not upholding a sworn vow to uphold the Constitution.
    B-1 83
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Maroon Dawn said:

    B-1 83 said:

    Maroon Dawn said:

    Can't help but notice the Libs here defending Aunty Maxine keep skating by her very clearly telling people to break the law by committing assault and violating curfew

    I missed the "assault" part somewhere.......


    Telling people to get confrontational with others is telling them to assault others

    Stop being intentionally obtuse
    I'm being confrontational now. Am I being violent?

    Quote:

    Intentionally obtuse to defend a fellow Marxist inciting lawlessness
    Now I've gone from a liberal to a Marxist??? Wtf is wrong with you people?
    Onceaggie2.0
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Is B1 libee 3 a burner account for Mad Max. ?
    B-1 83
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Onceaggie2.0 said:

    Is B1 libee 3 a burner account for Mad Max. ?
    Someone with an account started last year is genuinely clueless with a question like this....
    Onceaggie2.0
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    B-1 83 said:

    Onceaggie2.0 said:

    Is B1 libee 3 a burner account for Mad Max. ?
    Someone with an account started last year is genuinely clueless with a question like this....
    Sorry you are getting your skull crushed on this thread thought it must be Mad Max.
    B-1 83
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    "Skull crushed"? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! More like I've made some explode because they have to think and defend their inconsistencies.
    Onceaggie2.0
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    B-1 83 said:

    "Skull crushed"? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! More like I've made some explode because they have to think and defend their inconsistencies.
    Cognitive dissonance is strong with you...cry/lol
    B-1 83
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Onceaggie2.0 said:

    B-1 83 said:

    "Skull crushed"? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! More like I've made some explode because they have to think and defend their inconsistencies.
    Cognitive dissonance is strong with you...cry/lol
    And the intricacies of the English language escape you, along with my years of conservative posting history.
    Onceaggie2.0
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    B-1 83 said:

    Onceaggie2.0 said:

    B-1 83 said:

    "Skull crushed"? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! More like I've made some explode because they have to think and defend their inconsistencies.
    Cognitive dissonance is strong with you...cry/lol
    And the intricacies of the English language escape you, along with my years of conservative posting history.
    B1 libbee maybe you should stick to what's for dinner threads seems more your speed. ? Good idea?
    Maroon Dawn
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    B-1 83 said:

    Maroon Dawn said:

    B-1 83 said:

    Maroon Dawn said:

    Can't help but notice the Libs here defending Aunty Maxine keep skating by her very clearly telling people to break the law by committing assault and violating curfew

    I missed the "assault" part somewhere.......


    Telling people to get confrontational with others is telling them to assault others

    Stop being intentionally obtuse
    I'm being confrontational now. Am I being violent?

    Quote:

    Intentionally obtuse to defend a fellow Marxist inciting lawlessness
    Now I've gone from a liberal to a Marxist??? Wtf is wrong with you people?


    A Marxist who doesn't know the legal definition of assault while goal tending for another Marxist inciting lawlessness

    Yes

    Yes you are
    Onceaggie2.0
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Maroon Dawn said:

    B-1 83 said:

    Maroon Dawn said:

    B-1 83 said:

    Maroon Dawn said:

    Can't help but notice the Libs here defending Aunty Maxine keep skating by her very clearly telling people to break the law by committing assault and violating curfew

    I missed the "assault" part somewhere.......


    Telling people to get confrontational with others is telling them to assault others

    Stop being intentionally obtuse
    I'm being confrontational now. Am I being violent?

    Quote:

    Intentionally obtuse to defend a fellow Marxist inciting lawlessness
    Now I've gone from a liberal to a Marxist??? Wtf is wrong with you people?


    A Marxist who doesn't know the legal definition of assault while goal tending for another Marxist inciting lawlessness

    Yes

    Yes you are
    I tried to tell him he is getting crushed here but he wont listen.
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.