Anonymous wrote:"unhoused people".... I love that one. we used to call them the homeless.

At least I dont have to die....I'll "pass away".

long live euphemism!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Probably a good idea. The folks coming into town are looking for a fight. If they can't find an actual opponent, they will probably turn on themselves.

What should unhoused people downtown and within striking distance of downtown do?

I don't like the idea of leaving them unprotected from these thugs.

Is there a record of them attacking homeless people and people within striking distance? I thought the melees the last time were with counter-protestors?

they vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES - I wouldn't put anything past them

Clearly attacking banners is a natural gateway to beating homeless people senseless.

They were definitely beating people last time, not just “attacking banners.” Why are you defending these aholes?

I wasn't defending anyone. I was responding to a PP who said that they "wouldn't put anything past them" (attacking the homeless was being discussed) because they had "vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES." That's just dumb.

Whether it might be reasonable to think they would attack the homeless for other reasons, is a different question.

Were you under a rock? They were roaming the streets harassing and attacking people.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? My post doesn't dispute what you wrote, nor does your post address my point that it is idiotic to think they will attach people because they vandalized banners.

Do you get it now? There's a real risk to DC residents including unhoused people and people who have to go to work. Not everyone can stay home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Probably a good idea. The folks coming into town are looking for a fight. If they can't find an actual opponent, they will probably turn on themselves.

What should unhoused people downtown and within striking distance of downtown do?

I don't like the idea of leaving them unprotected from these thugs.

Is there a record of them attacking homeless people and people within striking distance? I thought the melees the last time were with counter-protestors?

they vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES - I wouldn't put anything past them

Clearly attacking banners is a natural gateway to beating homeless people senseless.

They were definitely beating people last time, not just “attacking banners.” Why are you defending these aholes?

I wasn't defending anyone. I was responding to a PP who said that they "wouldn't put anything past them" (attacking the homeless was being discussed) because they had "vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES." That's just dumb.

Whether it might be reasonable to think they would attack the homeless for other reasons, is a different question.

Were you under a rock? They were roaming the streets harassing and attacking people.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? My post doesn't dispute what you wrote, nor does your post address my point that it is idiotic to think they will attach people because they vandalized banners.

Do you get it now? There's a real risk to DC residents including unhoused people and people who have to go to work. Not everyone can stay home.

But, the risk has nothing to do with them vandalizing banners. That was the statement I replied to. It is amazing how you seem unable to comprehend that.

I don't really care what someone else posted about. There are people in DC who are going to be harassed and/or attacked by these violent gangs. That's a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Probably a good idea. The folks coming into town are looking for a fight. If they can't find an actual opponent, they will probably turn on themselves.

What should unhoused people downtown and within striking distance of downtown do?

I don't like the idea of leaving them unprotected from these thugs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Probably a good idea. The folks coming into town are looking for a fight. If they can't find an actual opponent, they will probably turn on themselves.

What should unhoused people downtown and within striking distance of downtown do?

I don't like the idea of leaving them unprotected from these thugs.

Is there a record of them attacking homeless people and people within striking distance? I thought the melees the last time were with counter-protestors?

they vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES - I wouldn't put anything past them

Clearly attacking banners is a natural gateway to beating homeless people senseless.

They were definitely beating people last time, not just “attacking banners.” Why are you defending these aholes?

I wasn't defending anyone. I was responding to a PP who said that they "wouldn't put anything past them" (attacking the homeless was being discussed) because they had "vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES." That's just dumb.

Whether it might be reasonable to think they would attack the homeless for other reasons, is a different question.

Were you under a rock? They were roaming the streets harassing and attacking people.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? My post doesn't dispute what you wrote, nor does your post address my point that it is idiotic to think they will attach people because they vandalized banners.

Do you get it now? There's a real risk to DC residents including unhoused people and people who have to go to work. Not everyone can stay home.

But, the risk has nothing to do with them vandalizing banners. That was the statement I replied to. It is amazing how you seem unable to comprehend that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are people without JOBS, or hobbies, or friends outside their narrow quasi-political worldview. Its sad. Let them come be heard then leave. Nobody needs to be a big man and fight them. They are losers and cowards.

Right. They are losers who believe lies.

This is the one time in their life they get to dress up and feel strong.
For them, this is like going to see a Broadway show — visiting the big city.

Let them have their day of costume play before we embark on our four year effort to root out Trumpism.

Violence always benefits the right. MLK and Gandhi had nonviolent direct action corrvet

If you want to make a cosplay analogy, that can also be said of Antifa and the student activists demanding wholesale changes to their SLACs to combat "systemic" whatever from the comfort of their parents' $2M houses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Probably a good idea. The folks coming into town are looking for a fight. If they can't find an actual opponent, they will probably turn on themselves.

What should unhoused people downtown and within striking distance of downtown do?

I don't like the idea of leaving them unprotected from these thugs.

Is there a record of them attacking homeless people and people within striking distance? I thought the melees the last time were with counter-protestors?

they vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES - I wouldn't put anything past them

Clearly attacking banners is a natural gateway to beating homeless people senseless.

They were definitely beating people last time, not just “attacking banners.” Why are you defending these aholes?

I wasn't defending anyone. I was responding to a PP who said that they "wouldn't put anything past them" (attacking the homeless was being discussed) because they had "vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES." That's just dumb.

Whether it might be reasonable to think they would attack the homeless for other reasons, is a different question.

Were you under a rock? They were roaming the streets harassing and attacking people.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? My post doesn't dispute what you wrote, nor does your post address my point that it is idiotic to think they will attach people because they vandalized banners.

Do you get it now? There's a real risk to DC residents including unhoused people and people who have to go to work. Not everyone can stay home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Probably a good idea. The folks coming into town are looking for a fight. If they can't find an actual opponent, they will probably turn on themselves.

What should unhoused people downtown and within striking distance of downtown do?

I don't like the idea of leaving them unprotected from these thugs.

Is there a record of them attacking homeless people and people within striking distance? I thought the melees the last time were with counter-protestors?

they vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES - I wouldn't put anything past them

Clearly attacking banners is a natural gateway to beating homeless people senseless.

They were definitely beating people last time, not just “attacking banners.” Why are you defending these aholes?

I wasn't defending anyone. I was responding to a PP who said that they "wouldn't put anything past them" (attacking the homeless was being discussed) because they had "vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES." That's just dumb.

Whether it might be reasonable to think they would attack the homeless for other reasons, is a different question.

Were you under a rock? They were roaming the streets harassing and attacking people.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? My post doesn't dispute what you wrote, nor does your post address my point that it is idiotic to think they will attach people because they vandalized banners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Probably a good idea. The folks coming into town are looking for a fight. If they can't find an actual opponent, they will probably turn on themselves.

What should unhoused people downtown and within striking distance of downtown do?

I don't like the idea of leaving them unprotected from these thugs.

Is there a record of them attacking homeless people and people within striking distance? I thought the melees the last time were with counter-protestors?

they vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES - I wouldn't put anything past them

Clearly attacking banners is a natural gateway to beating homeless people senseless.

They were definitely beating people last time, not just “attacking banners.” Why are you defending these aholes?

I wasn't defending anyone. I was responding to a PP who said that they "wouldn't put anything past them" (attacking the homeless was being discussed) because they had "vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES." That's just dumb.

Whether it might be reasonable to think they would attack the homeless for other reasons, is a different question.

Were you under a rock? They were roaming the streets harassing and attacking people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Probably a good idea. The folks coming into town are looking for a fight. If they can't find an actual opponent, they will probably turn on themselves.

What should unhoused people downtown and within striking distance of downtown do?

I don't like the idea of leaving them unprotected from these thugs.

Is there a record of them attacking homeless people and people within striking distance? I thought the melees the last time were with counter-protestors?

they vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES - I wouldn't put anything past them

Clearly attacking banners is a natural gateway to beating homeless people senseless.

They were definitely beating people last time, not just “attacking banners.” Why are you defending these aholes?

I wasn't defending anyone. I was responding to a PP who said that they "wouldn't put anything past them" (attacking the homeless was being discussed) because they had "vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES." That's just dumb.

Whether it might be reasonable to think they would attack the homeless for other reasons, is a different question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Probably a good idea. The folks coming into town are looking for a fight. If they can't find an actual opponent, they will probably turn on themselves.

What should unhoused people downtown and within striking distance of downtown do?

I don't like the idea of leaving them unprotected from these thugs.

Is there a record of them attacking homeless people and people within striking distance? I thought the melees the last time were with counter-protestors?

they vandalized BLM banners from CHURCHES - I wouldn't put anything past them

Clearly attacking banners is a natural gateway to beating homeless people senseless.

They were definitely beating people last time, not just “attacking banners.” Why are you defending these aholes?