It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko
So it was probably a white supremacist. It could possibly be planned by more than one.
It is possible it's also a drug addict who happened to get stuck in a protest I guess.
Or an alien from an alternate dimension.
There is a .01 percent chance it's actually a clone of Robert e Lee.
It was a racist white guy.
I'm calling it.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: underwerks
Anyone remember not too long ago when people on the right tried to make it legal to do what this driver did?
In North Dakota, it could become legal to hit a protester with your car
Kind of makes you think..
No, but I do remember when you tried to use this incident as an example of what you think bills like that really mean.
The key phrases in that bill are "unintentional" and "exercise due care."
It's not a blank check to run over protesters. Neither is the North Carolina bill.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko
So it was probably a white supremacist. It could possibly be planned by more than one.
It is possible it's also a drug addict who happened to get stuck in a protest I guess.
Or an alien from an alternate dimension.
There is a .01 percent chance it's actually a clone of Robert e Lee.
It was a racist white guy.
I'm calling it.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy
Probably, but it's funny to watch the same crowd that howls in denial over every terrorist attack shame people for injecting doubt.
originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: underwerks
The bill doesn't pertain to intentionally trying to murder protesters. You're lying, and you KNOW you're lying. Stop lying.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy
Probably, but it's funny to watch the same crowd that howls in denial over every terrorist attack shame people for injecting doubt.
Well yeah.
Some guy who worships Islam shooting people up might be workplace violence.
Drive a car into a crowd?
Terrorism.
originally posted by: underwerks
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: underwerks
Anyone remember not too long ago when people on the right tried to make it legal to do what this driver did?
In North Dakota, it could become legal to hit a protester with your car
Kind of makes you think..
No, but I do remember when you tried to use this incident as an example of what you think bills like that really mean.
The key phrases in that bill are "unintentional" and "exercise due care."
It's not a blank check to run over protesters. Neither is the North Carolina bill.
I didn't mean it's a blank check to run over people. A lawyer could spin this as unintentional and the guy could probably get off under the right circumstances if that bill went through.
I'm more concerned with the precedent a bill like that sets.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko
So it was probably a white supremacist. It could possibly be planned by more than one.
It is possible it's also a drug addict who happened to get stuck in a protest I guess.
Or an alien from an alternate dimension.
There is a .01 percent chance it's actually a clone of Robert e Lee.
It was a racist white guy.
I'm calling it.
Kind of like when the guy with a guy fox mask and Che shirt throws a brick through a store window demanding $15 an hour?
Do we need to speculate then to..we could. It could actually be Che from another dimension.
originally posted by: chuck258
a reply to: theantediluvian
You can't ignore empirical fact. 4chan is very good at what they do. They've got the clearest picture thus far:
i.4cdn.org...
Also reports out that his car was being attacked by Antifa faggots before he floored it. Maybe if Antifa didn't attack random innocent people like we have seen time and again over the last year or so, we wouldn't have had this issue.
originally posted by: underwerks
originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: underwerks
The bill doesn't pertain to intentionally trying to murder protesters. You're lying, and you KNOW you're lying. Stop lying.
Now who's lying. The bill has an intended purpose, and it sure isn't to protect the safety of protestors. Don't be obtuse.