Harris says "People of America should be prepared for more violent protests"!

No.  A month or so ago....  my buddy showed me cause he knows I dont like him... then he showed other clips of Harris saying... no.....threatening of more to come if they don't get their way....  

I keep waiting for an actual link. I debunked Raider’s and Detox’ links and no one else has provided one.

Do you know why that is? 

DJ. You did not debunk anything whatsoever. You simply refuse to open your eyes to what is going on. The video is out there on youtube. It's Harris. Her words. Her tweets. Just watch it. Read her tweets. That's all you need to do.

something about stones and glass houses

If she has deleted them from Twitter then you would only be able to see them on secondary sites which could easily doctor the text to say just about anything.

Correct.

The exchange between Harris and Colbert — which took place on June 17, a few weeks after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis............ Kamala Harris played both sides of the issue ....Although she has expressed support for protesters, Harris has also condemned the violence, including looting, that has turned some of the summer's protests into riots.

You raise very good points!

In a "discussion" - say between friendly colleagues - about the merits of either team
in a coming football game, it's fine to say something that begins with "I think ... "
- which implies one is not suggesting a FACT but rather a personal belief.
This is fine. We all do this. It's acceptable.

But in a *debate* the accepted standards are inherently raised when one is making
assertions (of facts) WITHOUT a caveat such as "I think..." or  "My view is..."
Then one is either directly asserting something as a FACTUAL statement, or by
obvious implication. It's difficult for any opponent to challenge YOUR statements
when you support them with evidence, or even just sound logic.
Any argument carries far greater weight when supported by providing valid evidence.
On the internet that means showing links to credible sources, or
at the very least demonstrating very sound logic (absent "Logic Fallacies')

If I make a statement like "It's true that economies tend to perform much
better under Democrats in the WH" - WITHOUT supporting that statement
with valid evidence, then it can and rightfully SHOULD be challenged.
One opens oneself up not just to multiple challenges but a "losing argument"
if your assertions are not supported.
Anyone can just make up sh!t. trump does it ALL THE TIME. Doesn't make it
true or factual unless it's supported in the weight of the evidence, which YOU
are obligated to provide if YOU are the one making the assertion.

There are two reasons people DON'T provide valid evidence:
1/   they are unwilling to do so,
2/   they can't  (none exists)
Either way, you lose the argument.

There's obviously a third reason, which is directly applicable to internet forums:
if it was all debated and/or debunked ad nauseum recently - and so it is not
incumbent on the asserter to have to spend inordinate amounts of time to
search and find previous debate answers just to appease some clown
DEMANDING repeat answers to previous ended debates. In these instances
the onus shifts to the challenger.
EXAMPLE: "Show me ALL the evidence that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq,
and if you don't  then I win the debate, hahahaha!"

Cnn did it to Harvard law professor Alan dershawitz ( definitely misspelled last name)   ... any media that does that should be held accountable.... 

hahahaha! ..........does flash back to grade school behavior..

Mostly correct.

Personally, I condemn violent protestors, and I also support protestors.

And I would HOPE  every good American shares the same opinion.

Protest is our right!

Violence by some protestors is WRONG!!!! ALWAYS!!!!

But they are TWO DIFFERENT things - though they are realted.

So I cannot agree that she was "playing both sides," when they are two different issues (though related)

Playing both sides would be to say I condemn "violent protestors" but I support "violent protestors"

Now if she - or ANYONE ftm - took that contradictory position - specifically as I stated in the sentence above, then said person would be two-faced and worthy of disdain.

Much like saying: John Mccain is a "loser" then later saying I DID NOT call John McCain a "loser"

Personally, I condemn violent protestors, and I also support protestors.

Um, ya-right ....because as we all know for a fact, *NOBODY* laughs after age 12 ...

It's the kind of laughing I'm referring to and how many HA's are in the laugh...e.g.aaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

would be excessive and in your face laughing... reminiscent of elementary school children..

In person, and/or in a room of people, somebody says something really effing STUPID, and guess what??

People laugh.

You can hear it and you can see the expression on their faces.

It is an "expressed reaction" to something laughable

Of course to the receiver, it may be embarrassing/humiliating to have him or
what he said "laughed at" ....Naturally he doesn't like that -- despite the fact 
*HE* provoked that response  from what he said.

Do you understand this?

Now, since we are not in person, but on the internet using a KEYBOARD
how is the same elicited response to something LAUGHABLE be expressed??
This is one of the ways, even if YOU don't like it:

  aaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

It is exactly the same as if done in person to something stated that is LAUGHABLE.

It is no more misplaced (nor rude) than outright LAUGHTER when in person.

Get it????

Now if you don't like it in person or online either, then to whomever this may apply,
myself included -- then don't provoke a common human response
to something YOU stated that is LAUGHABLE...

Simple.

Did Kamala say she supports the protests or or the riots?

[Quote: Originally Posted by fubah2

Um, ya-right ....because as we  In person, and/or in a room of people, somebody says something really effing STUPID, and guess what?? People laugh. You can hear it and you can see the expression on their faces. It is an "expressed reaction" to something laughable Of course to the receiver, it may be embarrassing/humiliating to have him or what he said "laughed at" ....Naturally he doesn't like that -- despite the fact  *HE* provoked that response  from what he said. Do you understand this?   Now, since we are not in person, but on the internet using a KEYBOARDhow is the same elicited response to something LAUGHABLE be expressed??This is one of the ways, even if YOU don't like it:   aaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA    It is exactly the same as if done in person to something stated that is LAUGHABLE. It is no more misplaced (nor rude) than outright LAUGHTER when in person. Get it???? Now if you don't like it in person or online either, then to whomever this may apply,myself included -- then don't provoke a common human response to something YOU stated that is LAUGHABLE... Simple.[/Quote]

Oh I get it!!! ..Because..doing that laugh in person would draw a punch...However, since it's done over the internet ..the person doing the adolescent laugh is protected ..and is obviously the reason the person using the excessive laugh fells safe in taunting the other person with it.,..  then justifies his response,,because he was provoked into do it ,,so, the person had it coming.

You are right ...it's Simple..in more ways that one..

Never mind Mugg...I just saw your earlier response.

All I can say is that you (Fubah) must have spent 48 hours of your time going on and on how Trump is responsible for 200K dead. So it's pretty clear that you personally believe that. 

On the other hand, the association with BLM and MFF and the involvement of Harris is a joke to you? 

One is easy to prove and the other impossible. 

Case closed.

slim condones violence .  his own words .

and that would be just because he drew laughter after he said something ridiculous.

violence is never right . 

i for one condemn violence .  biden and harris do as well

What does the word BEWARE mean to the people in this thread? Are the American people being asked to be on the lookout for and BEWARE of the peaceful protests? 

Harris is for sure playing both sides of the fence on this issue and it doesn't take a genius to figure out which side of the fence she is on when she is warning the American people to BEWARE.

I'm with you on that as well as all the non-adolf supporters I've counted thus far.

I too condemn violence. 

Those who seek to travel from out of state with a high-powered automatic weapon to shoot people, or to torch property, or to tear gas peaceful protestors, or to rape women, or to brawl, or to hurl anything at peace officers....or just to throw a punch simply because you don't like the way someone reacted, all need to seek professional counselling for their aggression, and anti-social behaviors -- as those violent actions are abhorent.

Why do you continue to use the horribly racist and offensive term "Adolf"? I am certain you realize how offensive the name is in the context that you have been using it on this site for months, yet you continue to use it. Why?

On the surface, it is 100% the things you preach against. Yet you continue to offend people here with it over and over.