This bizarre story was immediately explained in the liberal media as being MAGA attack:

But to recap:
So let's get this straight, a man in his underwear manages to elude security cameras, Scale a wall & elude security guards and dogs,breaks into a home without setting an alarm off but is somehow captured with a hammer because of a wellness check at 2am. Also were both in their underwear, and a 3rd “unknown person” answered the door.
Fishy Pelosi Story Right?


DePape is not a right wing MAGA guy, he's a crazy doper who is all over the place on politics.
Paul knew his name & called him a friend in 911 call
Was NOT a political attack.

But by leftest standards... If 2 guys in their undwear get into a hammer fight at 2 am its Trumps fault.


What web links are you looking at? The fake ones created on Friday and now are gone?

I wouldn't care if he talked like Stephen Hawking. It's nice not hearing lies and childish name calling or hate induced distorted facial expressions.

So, what did he have to say about education? Fill me in.

The difference between the past and present, republicans and democrats, is that we've never had a president openly claim the entire system was rigged, broken, stolen.

I have no problem with due process on either side, but name calling and baseless accusations are not helpful. Quietly and politely take your grievances to the appropriate channels. What Trump is doing is in a nutshell, destroying people's faith in democracy.

Note that if you think this is a partisan answer, this works for either side in any context.

Trump should stop eating little children.

It has not been verified but he is 100% doing it.
Very inappropriate.

He has shrunk away from having a policy on anything, now he only has insults, name-calling and baseless accusations to work with.

"Im not going to fact check you" basicaly means he can get away with murder in Times square, what is the point of asking if he can make up anything in response?

Very difficult to get a meaningful interview from someone who lies habitually. Unless you fact-check every single piece of crap that comes out of his mouth you get flooded.

Were doing the most testing. Were doing well we understand the disease. We have the best economy probably ever. I feel masks possibly work. I tell people to wear masks. These are the biggest rallies. We actually have plans. We have come up with many plans.

Sure you do.

The scale of sensitivity has changed.

Back then, if a white dude beat up a black dude for being black, people would just say some shit about it and move on.

Today, name calling can land you in jail.

What qualifies as terrible has a lower threshold in today's social psyche.

As racism becomes rarer and milder, any remaining form sticks out that much more, and is that much more offensive.

(Same with violence. We're in the safest time in human history, but people are more worried about kidnappings and shootings than ever)

Basically, it's all relative.

I had a coworker that said to me 'this place is really racist', and I asked why. He said 'because nobody says hi to me as I walk down the hall'. My response was 'So? I never say hi to anybody'. So, I started forcing myself to say hi to people, just to maintain appearances. Otherwise, I'd just be going about my day minding my own business, and people could be getting the wrong impression.

-scheherazade

I must say, it's really baffling to me that he's seen as some alpha-male type. He recoils and slinks away at the slightest criticism or he flips out and starts going through his best of racism, name calling, or makin shit up like a rolodex of stupid excuses for why he can't or wont answer a simple question.

I've said before that he's a stupid person's idea of a smart person, a poor person's idea of a rich person, and add to that a cuckold's idea of an alpha male. He's not stoic and steadfast. He's arrogant and boorish.

Yes. I get it.

I don't need to see no stinkin' quotes. I'm 64. I've heard it all for years. Nothing new here except the players.

Are you trying to win any of them over or are you just entangled in the fighting back and forth and name calling? Who do you think you are going to change by telling them they are racist? That makes you stuck in the echo chamber with no way to win the game.

----------

And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it "Riding The Gravy Train".

Nothing you can say, but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy

Very nice newtboy. Your restraint is admirable.

No harsh personal insults or name calling. Just facts.

There is iron in your words of truth.

NO name calling.

I agree the politics he supports blindly are a big part of the problem in America, but he has every right to live here, that's why America is great, we celebrate diversity and your right to be wrong, even when we find it distasteful.

Please don't name call.

So much wrong.

Reality is not subjective. That's insane. Your perception of reality is subjective, but only if you aren't careful.

(Redacted)

Mental defect doesn't mean mental illness. It means your brain chemistry might be abnormal and react abnormally to drugs. Parkinson's isn't considered mental illness for example.

This story was about him stupidly taking totally unknown drugs from unknown sources, why on earth are your panties in such a bunch because I stated the obvious, that this is not a normal marijuana overdose experience?

Pretty weak, bro.
(You've already been chastised for the silly name calling)

No name calling please. You can make your point without name calling. Thanks

I try to not speak about things I don't know about.
I try to avoid "news" like this that's so clearly biased, on any 'side'. They tend to skew and ignore facts to make a political point. A good test is if they can't refrain from childlike name calling.

I can't speak for down under, here, we see "both" sides (and I still strongly deny that the antifa people are really on the left, because fascism is not a politically left philosophy, and they are fascists) acting outrageously.

EDIT:That said, only one group has actually killed so far, and only one group has fired guns into crowds of women and children so far, and that side stands firmly with the right, and the right has so far stood with them, calling them peaceful protesters that only defended themselves from antifa. I have yet to hear of a single democratic representative say antifa are good people, or peaceful protesters, the right however has made that a mantra about the alt right, Nazis and KKK.

Hmmmm...I had to look up Sargon....you've got to be kidding...he's slightly LEFT OF CENTER?!? You are absolutely bat shit nuts. He's clearly, firmly far right. It didn't take me 5 minutes to be sure.
HAHAHA!!!! You start by giving me credit for watching it, then berate me for not watching it. I gave it a total fair hearing, and it took no time at all for it to show it's colors as totally hyper biased far right Nazi apologist bullshit.

Again, only the right wing media is claiming that main stream media is hiding antifa criminality. It's clearly being shown here, and they are called out for the violent idiots they are constantly, but if the right acknowledged that, they might have to deal with the Nazis and KKK and alt right on their 'side' (and sadly, they can't denounce them as easily since they clearly courted them in the election, unlike the left and antifa)
I have absolutely zero need to watch such tripe to be informed. Here, coverage isn't one sided, no matter what Bob and Hannity tell you.

I have no doubt that my arguments fall on deaf ears with Bob, but I can give other readers another rational point of view, denounce debunked fabrications, point out information that's intentionally omitted, and point them towards verifiable sources rather than opinion pieces masquerading as news. They are the minds I hope to reach, Bob's is closed, as, I'm starting to think, is yours.

Considering Sanders appeal, I don't think abandoning all their ideals is called for, but examining which are important and which equate to morality bullying would be good. I think most leftists agree that the name calling isn't helpful (with exceptions for total douchbags).
Really, I think an honest, non bombastic candidate from either side would be preferable to either choice we had.

Sorry to hear that pc thuggery is so prevalent there. That does sound overboard, but I totally support banning proselytizing of any kind at a school that takes public funding. Spreading your belief on my dime is unacceptable.

@C-note

i am trying to unpack your comment to formulate a response,and then i realized that the reason i was struggling is because your comment makes no sense.

it just a generic,and lazy mish-mash of of inflammatory jargon slapped together to appear well-thought out and salient.

but in reality,it is gibberish,in my opinion.

your comment is a stream declarative statements based on nothing presented in this video.

1.o'neill is racist....to which there is no evidence.

2.o'neill is a misogynist....to which there is no evidence.

3.o'neill is a troll....while this may be a true statement,i see no evidence that what he is postulating is for the single and simple goal to get a rise out of the audience.

4.o'neill is using false equivalencies to justify rhetoric......i suspect you do not understand what "false equivalency" and "rhetoric" actually mean.especially in the context of this particular video.

5.o'neill is debating the right of hate speech in a civil setting.

no he is not debating someone "right" to hate speech,and here is the point where i suspect that you simply did not watch the video.you did not listen to mr o'neill's argument.you did not consider his points and the inherent problems when we begin to restrict language (because you didn't watch the video).

now you are certainly within your rights to disagree with mr o'neill,but you need to at least listen to his argument in order to formulate a cohesive and viable response.

i suspect you read the title,had an emotional,knee jerk reaction and responded in a very generic and lazy fashion.in fact,your comment actually makes mr o'neills argument.

instead of listening to his argument,you responded in the very manner that mr o'neill addresses,and criticizes.

you accused him of:racism,misogynism,troll and using false equivalencies to justify a point he never made!

and when you react by name-calling an insults you diminish the conversation,and shut down all interactions.

now i do not know you,so please take my comment in the humanity it is written.
if you disagree with mr o'neills argument,than can you please express your points and clarify why you feel his argument is flawed or outright wrong?

i am sincerely interested.