DescentBB

Well, more info is coming out about the Trump rally and it's coming from the police themselves. Seem those gentle adult Bernie/Hillary supporters are not so gentle and certainly not very adult:

“It seems the [media] aren’t broadcasting footage of the debris being thrown across Harrison by Sanders/Hillary supporters at Trump fans,” the officer wrote shortly after the canceled Trump event.

The officer, who posed anonymously on the Second City Cop blog, also noted the media didn’t report that protesters were running through parking lots and breaking windows of cars with Trump stickers on them, or that the department called out emergency Incident Teams to cope with the anti-Trump riot at the University of Illinois in Chicago.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -reported/

The cop also goes on to ask some interesting questions about preparedness but I'll let you read about them

When you start a fire, there's always that chance that you will end up getting yourself burned. I don't condone the disruptions and nastiness at Trump's rallies. It's counterproductive and it's only generating more popularity and sympathy for Trump. That's exactly how bullies work the system. But I can see how it got started when he's done nothing but whip up his supporters with hateful and racial rhetoric and empty promises. So now you're surprised that liberals are getting mad and are doing something to vent that rage? You seem to think that only white male conservatives have a right to get mad? Well, liberals are getting pretty ticked off right now too. If you think it's bad now, if Trump manages to get elected, things will get worse, not better.

first off, Breitbart is the communication arm of the Trump idiocy(in fact, that seems to be all Trumptards produce for linkage anymore). Second, this proof seems to be solely based upon a single, anonymous poster claiming to be a cop, claiming to have seen things of which ZERO photographic evidence is reports and no one has produced insurance claims about. Pretty damned shaky, Woody. Maybe you need to get out and read a real news source, not a tabloid that goes along with a political campaign, even when the campaign manager assaults a woman on their staff. Even the drunken ass that founded that site had more credibility than they have nowadays.

Right slick, you don't like something you cast aspersion. You show me a reputable link that backs up what you are saying or it didn't happen.

Brietbart! LOL!

Comfuckingletely disregarded.

Same thought to you ferno, disprove what my link states. Stop making easy replies like you know something.

woodchip wrote:Right slick, you don't like something you cast aspersion. You show me a reputable link that backs up what you are saying or it didn't happen.

what 'didn't happen' is a lot of cars being damaged. It isn't on the news, there is no record of an influx of insurance claims, nothing. Nice try at bogus logic, but most of us can see where the truth is. Breitbart is NEVER a place to seek truth. Wasn't when the drunk ran it, still isn't.

woodchip wrote:disprove what my link states

So we can have a repeat of you turning tail when I put your feet to the fire?

If that's the way you want it...

1) Breitbart is one of those people who twists the facts to suit his own narrative, taking self-aggrandizement and grandiose, incoherent proclamations and making a burrito of himself out of them.

2) http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/ ... -protests/

3) http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... -and-chaos

4) http://www.npr.org/2016/03/11/470154065 ... d-protests

5)

I look forward to your typical "leftist biased media/poor trump" responses.

But reality has a liberal bias!!!1!1

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:disprove what my link states

So we can have a repeat of you turning tail when I put your feet to the fire?

If that's the way you want it...

1) Breitbart is one of those people who twists the facts to suit his own narrative, taking self-aggrandizement and grandiose, incoherent proclamations and making a burrito of himself out of them.

2) http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/ ... -protests/

3) http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... -and-chaos

4) http://www.npr.org/2016/03/11/470154065 ... d-protests

5)

I look forward to your typical "leftist biased media/poor trump" responses.

So you link liberal news organs as "proof it didn't happen" yet you want to downplay Breitbart. All your comments about Breitbart I could say the same for your sources. Tell how much did your links report on Billy bob Clintons sexual escapades while he was in office? I wonder how much we would hear if Trumps wife was a slut. But what the hey, because your sources don't report the violence it didn't happen? Or perhaps you should read your own links:

Nerijus Meskauskus, a Trump supporter from Oak Lawn, Illinois described being assaulted by protesters. He told the Guardian that he had been holding an American flag and smoking a cigarette with fellow Trump supporters after the rally when someone came up and grabbed the flag. As Meskauskus described it, he was surrounded by protesters and punched “six or seven times” before “cops grabbed me and pulled me over the barricade”. He said protesters were “trying to jump the barricade to attack me”.

Kinda reminds me how the Obama thugs beat up on a black tea party member. Violence was always a leftist tool of persuasion.

woodchip wrote:
liberal news/always a leftist tool

and there it is, right on cue. Brietbart writes things with such a slant. it's almost vertical.

by the way, no one cares about your "opinion" on obama/clinton. you always use that as a defense mechanism after someone (like me) proves you wrong. And as for reading the articles, I did. Without the rose-colored glasses you have. In there, I caught this:

There were several violent clashes sparked by Trump supporters attempting to wrestle flags from protesters.

And seeing as you read at least one of them (given by what you quoted), you know the whole story, aswell. Better than that trash Brietbart wrote.