Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you...

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... | TODAY'S WINNER OF THE INTERNET | image tagged in racist,nazi,protest,internet,tiki | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
14,775 views, 183 upvotes, Made by TodaysReality 13 months ago racistnaziprotestinternettiki
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
16 ups, 4 replies
Captain Picard Facepalm Meme | TIKI TORCHES ARE NOW A HATE SYMBOL | image tagged in memes,captain picard facepalm | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
8 ups
Gotta drum up the fear and keep people in line somehow
reply
8 ups
Y U No Meme | Y   U   NOT KNOW THIS | image tagged in memes,y u no | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Steve Harvey Meme | EVERYTHING HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE USED FOR EITHER LOVE OR HATE | image tagged in memes,steve harvey | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
It's people that give things meaning.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
INANIMATE OBJECTS DON'T DECIDE WHAT MEANING THEY HAVE | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups
TRUE THAT | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
FRICKEN HAOLES NEVA STOP TRYING TO APPROPRIATE DA CULTURE | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups
reply
13 ups, 2 replies
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups
:)
reply
8 ups
reply
11 ups, 1 reply
reply
11 ups, 1 reply
reply
14 ups, 3 replies
reply
6 ups
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
9 ups, 3 replies
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
7 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups
:D
reply
0 ups
Nor did he defend the KKK and the Nazis...
reply
0 ups
obama helped to make more... what do you think antifa is... a fletchling nazi army
reply
0 ups
Killing anyone is wrong I disagree with you so there for I get to kill you make sense no
reply
[deleted]
10 ups, 2 replies
reply
8 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
9 ups
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/1m3i92.gif (click to show)
:)
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups
:)
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/1tbu2o.jpg (click to show)
reply
8 ups
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
I give you Steve, the wierd guy who makes the guacamole
i.imgflip.com/1u74w8.jpg (click to show)
reply
4 ups
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups
reply
6 ups
*Slow clap.* Amazing....
reply
[deleted]
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Thanks. I find Nazi's, white supremecists and the like extremely repulsive. I also cannot support or find excuses for violent groups like BLM and antifa.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
As if the right consists entirely of neo-nazis and kkk members...*sigh*
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
This
reply
1 up
Last I checked the BLM and antifa don't mow down a crowd of people in a car like ISIS does...
reply
6 ups
Lol
reply
6 ups
White powder!
reply
6 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups
Geez people
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups
gghhhhhhh
reply
4 ups
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups
reply
0 ups
only a liberal would do that...id sue the store for that letter
reply
2 ups
I just bought some for a rally.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Let's get to the seriousness of the issue...the president took 48 hours to condemn Nazis by name, I want to be one of those people that are like "Trump isn't represented by Nazis and doesn't represent Nazis." But it's like he doesn't make it easy to defend him. (What better reason would he have not to condemn them immediately, then worrying about votes.) Although Trump is better than Hillary, that doesn't make him a good person he's shitty just not diabolically shitty.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
http://www.dailywire.com/news/19689/flashback-after-black-radical-massacred-dallas-james-barrett

Now type a 30 paragraph response to how I'm wrong. :)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I agree they exist, but to kill a roach you need to head straight for the source, BLM is extremism, and when they terrorize and riot, I call them out. And the same needs to be done with Nazis. I can't fully condemn a group if I don't call them out by name.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Agreed. Not a strawman. I only see you getting worked up over one half of the problem. Typical lefty
reply
0 ups
How can I be a lefty when I contradict what a lefty is? I criticized Islam, BLM, socialism, Hillary Clinton, Obama, etc. (I'm a political independent) What the two of us argue over are things that I find have no party affiliation (like the Crusades). (Things you should have learned in elementary or middle school.) But of course, when we disagree, you call me a lefty and completely disregard everything else. But what should I expect, you're a typical nitpicker. Oh, and one more thing maybe you shouldn't use an entire political party to describe Antifa nutjobs because the party is more diverse than you think.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
At least he did address them and refer to them as what they are. How often did Obama ever put blame or even say Radical Islam. So if you can't defend Trump in saying he doesn't support Nazis because it took him 48 hours, Obama couldn't say Radical Islam for 8 years so what does that say about him? To criticize a president based off of how fast they say something specific about an event, then we could find fault in every single president since Washington.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
And I addressed that, I don't like Obama for that and for a lot of things he's done, I explained these things in detail, but my comments keep disappearing, I don't like when BLM doesn't get called out for terrorism, and I don't like when Nazis don't get called out for terrorism. The president immediately condemned BLM (which is good), immediately condemned Islam (which is good), but can't bring himself to condemn Nazis immediately, all I was saying is that this makes it harder for me to defend him, what am I supposed to say when a crazy liberal comes up to me and shows me this situation. All I can say is that they've got a point, only the Nazis were condemned in 48 hours, that's a bit preferential, and some would even argue that it's for a reason.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
You want to know how to respond to Liberals, well there are a couple different ways. 1 would be saying what I did, reminding them of the 8 years Obama refused to say Radical Islam. The second would be emphasizing that he addressed all of them broadly by stating "hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". Like I said before, if we nitpick every single president in how fast they respond to anything, we open up the doors to say every single one of them were terrible for not responding a certain way. It should be legitimate to consider maybe he wanted more facts as well, since there had be other times these white supremecy groups had formed a protest, with the proper paperwork, at the same spot and it didn't get violent, at least not until some anti-protestors showed up. It should be noteworthy that the anti-racist group didn't file any paperwork to form a protest against the other group, they just showed up. The white-supremecy group did file the proper paperwork, and I do agree that there are legitimate reasons to not tear down these statues and monuments, and none of them have anything to do with racism.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Funny how these people will b**ch about Trump taking a couple days to get the facts before specifically condemning the kkk by name when Obama never condemned BLM for their riots across multiple cities and event in Dallas where 4 cops were murdered by a black supremacist.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
As long as they have someone to blame for their own hatred, except themselves, they will always come up with an excuse to b**ch and complain. Take the statue in North Carolina that was destroyed during a riot. It was a Confederate statue, but yet everyone was blamed for why they decided they needed to tear it down, the cops, KKK, and fascist USA. They seem to forget that the president of the Confederacy was a democrat, and at this rate I wonder when they will commit arson and burn down the hospital in Texas was that named after him, Jefferson Davis. Many historians will tell you that many people who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War didn't necessarily do so because they wanted to keep slavery. Many were worried that the federal government was overstepping their bounds and trying to over control the states, so they were trying to protect the state's rights. Others fought for the Confederacy simply because that was where their home and family was at and they felt the need to defend it, much like Robert E. Lee did, who also helped free slaves and started schools for them. But since these people only have a single mind directed towards hatred to others, they will twist everything to make it seem like they are doing all this destruction and violence for a good cause, and then get mad when others are not being blamed for it. Any one of these people who go to the rallies and protests should be arrested for vandalism if there is destruction of any kind to private or public property. If they can't go through the correct procedure to request the removal of something they find offensive, then they should be treated like a criminal, because that is what they are.
reply
1 up
Yeah Antifa needs to be treated like the criminals they are. The great irony is that they call themselves "anti-fascist", while they act like fascists themselves and many of them are self-proclaimed communists hiding their faces just like the kkk and wearing communist hammer and sickle symbols.

The problem with the "alt-right" propaganda term that Hillary created is that it groups all Trump supporters together with the fringe minority of white supremacists in order to rationalize and justify violence against all Trump supporters when only the minority are supremacists. But of course this was their intention in order to justify violence from hate groups like Antifa against anyone on the right or anyone who supports Trump. Antifa is always escalating the violence and have attacked innocent people with weapons, maced people, destroyed property and tried to shut down free speech at rallies of anyone on the right. They even protested the anti-sharia event in NY, chanting over former muslim women victims talking about the oppression of sharia. Sickening.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Those are terrible ways to make an argument - You don't point to other people when discussing a matter, it's a fallacy. While it may seem like a good argument to call out hypocrisy, all it does is make it seem like argument avoidance (which it is). Not only that, but some people would argue that hypocrisy isn't always bad. If your father was an alcoholic, would it be bad of him to tell you not to drink alcohol? Also in the argument, you made an appeal to culture the "nitpicking presidents" argument. Imagine this scenario - A farmer gets caught using slave labor in the present 21st century, before he is cuffed and sent to prison he exclaims "Wait!!! My ancestors and your ancestors probably had slaves so if we look at everyone and everything in the past, everyone would have been condemned" (Which is also an appeal to popularity, but I'll let it slide.)

Besides that, the only other thing I have an issue with is -

The research claim - That the president needed more research to condemn what everyone could clearly see was a hate group - in seconds and for the slower ones out there minutes. But to say that the president needed two days to condemn a Nazi is really an insult to his intellect lol, not an argument. Honestly, how much time did it take you to realize that they were Nazis? You seem fairly inteligent, so I assume not very long. Did you need a research team for that?

P.S I agree that the anti-protesters had to have paperwork, but in terms of the violence, it needs to be cleared up on who became violent (first), and although that doesn't matter to much, it also doesn't excuse the fact that violence was reciprocated with violence and that the proper authorities weren't called.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
You miss the point in why you would want to point out what other people did. In this instance, many that criticize Trump for taking 2 days to respond in a specific way supported Obama. To point out what he didn't do in his 8 years and them still supporting him shows their own hypocracy in what they support to what they are complaining about. Essentially it shows that they will nitpick on amy situation in orded to have something to complain about. This is a completely different sitaution than an alcoholic father telling his son not to drink. In that instance, the father admits what he is doing is wrong and doesn't want his son to follow in his footsteps. Whereas pointing out what Obama did, his supporters will (majority of the time) not admit that there was anything wrong in what he did, but still expect Trump to not do anything like that. Clearly there is a difference if you look at it logically.

As far as your nitpick argument, that is just plain stupid. Here is why. Today it is illegal to own slaves. Back then, not only was it considered legal, but it was part of the culture. That isn't a nitpick argument. That is a justification for your actions argument. Nitpicking is trying to find the simpliest of flaws in someone in order to find a reason to condemn them, and it doesn't have to be related to anything else (much like condemning Robert E Lee for being a general in the Confederate army even though he helped free slaves and started schools for them).

Actually there is still some research I would like to so on the situation but I know the information will never truely be provided. What I would like to know is 1- what was their (white supremacists) true intent in their protest considered they didn't instigate violence in the other 2 protests that they had there, and 2- what was their reason for the protest to begin with. To me, since they were capable of holding 2 other protests without instigating violence, I would want to be sure what blame needed to be put on who for what took place. Even though he was a white supremacist, do we know for a fact that the driver of the car was part of the original protestors or did he come along to use the protest to show his own hatred, which would mean he could have acted alone. Who did start the fights and why didn't the police stop it before it started like a couple months prior? Just because they were considered Nazis, that doesn't mean they had the intent to start a fight to hurt and kill...
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Intro - Ok I don't have all the time in the world right now specifically so I'm going to keep this brief -

1. The hypocrisy argument isn't viable at any angle you perceive it, how I know this is because of a simple technique - Erase everything, Obama and every previous administration, look at Trumps administration as it should be looked at, individually. Now ask yourself - Was what Trump did ok? What Obama did is terrible, but it is an isolated issue. It's about Trump now, Obama did not affect Trump's decision, he is irrelevant to the issue.

2 - What I was trying to show you is that an appeal to culture is stupid, just because other presidents acted a certain way doesn't mean that Trump should either. Case in point, just because people in the past didn't bat an eye to what presidents condemned in the past, doesn't mean that the president shouldn't come under scrutiny. (Complicated wording aside, in the slave owner example the farmer uses the same argument type that you use to justify himself, you use the appeal to culture or the past rather justify Trump or to alleviate allegations. Am I wrong? (That was rhetorical) You use the same arguments to as a means to justify, (I said nitpicking argument so that I could isolate your argument so that you may be able to recognize it.)

3 - I would like to answer some of those questions for you.

Motive - A response to black lives matter, I don't think these white supremacists are fueled by the longing of the slave times, I think that they are fueled by the aggression of BLM, this is evident by the parody of "White Lives Matter", the modern racist was created by a movement against racism kind of ironic huh? Hate breeds hate.

But I must also hold a stand in disagreement, I don't think that the Nazis started the violence because these people have a tendency to respond not cause, but I disagree with your observation - this is an appeal to tradition. Say for example I open a law firm, and that firm has a record of being on the moral high ground with no corruption indicated in the first two years post its opening, and although it's fair to assume that they won't be corrupted, you can't concretely say for sure until you investigate, because that is a logical fallacy.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
1- It isn't about the hypocracy of the issue, it is what was accepted verse what they now don't accept. Even if you eliminate everything from the past, I will pose this to you. Besides eliminating past administrations, how about eliminating past protests. Forget that white supremacists have protested at that spot in the past to keep the statue there, why automatically assume it would have to be another white supremacist group protesting to keep it that time? Like I have stated many times before, here and elsewhere, there are non-racist reasons in which that statue should still be there. I'm not a white supremacist, but if I went to that protest to fight to keep the statue there, I would have been labeled as one. Maybe they wanted to check their facts to be sure it was a white supremacist group, and not just some people wanting to keep the statue. Maybe they wanted to ses if anyone filed the paperwork to legally have a protest. If you eliminate everything from the past, then you have to consider that they should be allowed to have the proper time to see what the full situation was before seeing who should be at blame for what. 1 to 2 hours is not enough time for that.

2- What you fail to recognize and accept in your farmers example is that you are comparing something that is illegal today to what was legal, common practice, and part of the culture. So it isn't nitpicking but justifing actions. What I was referring to in regards to nitpicking presidents of the past, we could nitpick the response time of Roosevelt for when we reacted to WWII. More currently, the response time of Bush to 9/11. The point I was making is we can always say someone should have responded faster to any given situation, and then condemn them for it. That is the nitpicking situation, finding reasons to complain. The main point is that Trump did react at first, even though he didn't call them out by name in day 1, but did 2 days later. It is nitpickong to say it should have been done day 1.

3- Motive is different than intent. By intent, I mean what did they plan to accomplish in the protest? Did they plan on trying to change the minds of those in charge to not remove the statue or did they plan on destruction and violence? The motive for the protests could be either racial or non-racial. Like I have stated many times, there are many non-racial reasons as to keep the statue up. I am not looking for motive, but their intent of what they planned on doing.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
1 - One of your main arguments if not your most vocal one was that " many that criticize Trump for taking 2 days to respond in a specific way supported Obama. To point out what he didn't do in his 8 years and them still supporting him shows their own hypocracy" So is it about hypocrisy or is it not? (rhetorical question) You seem to be contradicting yourself.

2 - That's the point, I went to the extremes to show you that your argument was ridiculous, substitute any time period with any action and it's still an appeal to tradition. For example - "Spanking your kids isn't wrong, my parents did it back in the 1950's" It's justifying someone or something by saying something was common place, which is a what you are doing, thus you are committing a fallacy.

3 - No it's not, "I am motivated by my yearning for money" "I intend to make a lot of money" Motive and intent go hand in hand. Plus according to the dictionary, they are synonyms so... there's that. But let's pretend that it's not the same. If you look at the protests there were many racially motivated terms thrown around that were irrelevant to the protests. I don't support the statue being taken down, but is it necessary for me to scream "WHITE LIVES MATTER!". Their motive and intent were to express racial spite.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
1- What are you failing to see in how the complaining about 2 days isn't hypocracy? How am I contradicting myself?

2- So what you are saying that in the 50s it was legal to assault your kids beyond spanking as a punishment? Why do I find that hard to believe? It is not that my argument is ridiculous, but a fact of what is taking place. Did he not blame everyone on day 1 and call them all out for their hatred "on many sides"? So it was 2 days later he called all the groups out by name. Even if he did it on day 1, how long after the event is acceptable on timing? 10 hours? 6 hours? 1 hour? 10 minutes (since you said you found all the facts in 30 minutes and he should be able to get them faster)? How many articles out there say to this date it was the Nazis who started it and how many say it was the anti-racists? How do you know your 30 minute search had all the facts snd was accurate? The fact is, no matter how fast he called the groups out by name, someone would say it should have been faster and still claim he is a Nazi supporter. All I amsaying that the same nitpicking can be done with any president. It isn't anappeal to tradition, just a fact.

3- You know there are multiple definitions for words and can be used in multiple contexts. So you are motivated by your yearning for money, but your motive to do something isn't the same as how you intend to do it, how are you going to get it done. You are motivated to keep the statue. Are you motivated to do it through protests or do you intend to do it through protests? One is a why the other a how. Is it necessary for the anti-racists to scream "BLACK LIVES MATTER, DOWN WITH COPS" when tearing down statues? Or to put it simply, is it racist for a black person to say "black lives matter"? If not, why should it be racist to say "white lives matter"? Once again, motive and intent are different, depending on the context. Like I stated, in intent, what did they plan to accomplish, or better yet, what actions did they intend to do at the protest? Did they go with the intent to harm and kill people? If so why file paperwork to legally have a protest and not just take guns and start killing people who came by? Once again it is the "how" I am concerned with mostly, not the "why".
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
As for my "observation", it wasn't an appeal to tradition. It is an observation based off of past actions. And it isn't saying concretely that this is what took placed based off of past actions, it would follow a pattern. That doesn't mean an investigation shouldn't take place. In your example with the law firm, if someone files a complaint, an imvestigation into the firm would be required regardless of the reputation. What I am saying is that just because they are Nazis and anti-racist protestors showed up, that doesn't mean we should assume the Nazis attacked first. Now with the rest of what you said, lets take that back to the beginning. Should Trump have called them Nazis/ white supremacists on day 1 without doing an investigation to find out who they were, what they were doing, and what caused the events? It would be an appeal to tradition to automatically assume that since they were protesting to keep the statue that it had to be a white supremacist group. Once again, there are non-racial reasons to keep the statue. However you are saying it is okay to appeal to tradition when pointing blame and naming people without knowing any facts but not when making a prediction of what took place based off of known facts and previous actions. It all goes back to nitpicking on what you think should have happened based off of your own beliefs.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
1 -An appeal to tradition is using something in the past to justify a current event. For example - "Spanking your kids isn't wrong, my parents did it back in the 1950's" It's justifying someone or something by saying something was common place, which is a what you are doing, thus you are committing a fallacy.

2 - I never assumed that the Nazis attacked first, but they reciprocated the violence, and ultimately ended up killing people. Which is wrong, and they should have been called out by name, Trump calls out the regressive left on the daily, I'm just asking him to do the same with the Nazis/the group that ended up killing people.

3 - Cut the crap, the president, the most powerful office in the free world, had a problem finding out what I found out in at most 30 minutes with an internet connection? Bullshit.

4 - It's not an automatic assumption, the protesters were screaming "Hail victory" doing Nazi salutes, etc. Preserving the statue doesn't make one racist, they made this about race.

"However you are saying it is okay to appeal to tradition when pointing blame and naming people without knowing any facts but not when making a prediction of what took place based off of known facts and previous actions. It all goes back to nitpicking on what you think should have happened based off of your own beliefs."

4 - No, I want the statue to stay, I saw what happened and analyzed the situation. It would have been an appeal to tradition if I had said: "Well in the past racists wanted the statue, thus whoever wants to keep it is a racist." But I never made that assumption. But hey, when all else fails, throw in a straw man fallacy for good measure.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
1- That arguement is incomplete. It never ends with saying "because my parents did it to me, it should be alright for me to do it to my kids." The rest of that argument is "Look at me now. Because I was spanked and not coddled, I learned discipline and respect. I learned there are consequences for my actions." Once again it isn't an appeal to tradition or even justification because of what someone else did. You really need to think your examples through before commenting them.

2- It was 1 man that killed someone and injured others with his car. Yes he was identified asa white supremacist, but that doesn't meanhe was part of tge initial group there to riot. To blame them allfor his actions would be like blaming all black people and calling them all cop killing racist bastards. As far as the Nazis shouldn't have retaliated, let me ask you this. If you were protesting something legally and someone didn't like what you were protesting against so they started attacking you physically, would you pack up and go home after you let them wail on you, or would you defend yourself?

3- So 30 minutes after the woman was killed you had all the answers? Why aren't you working for the CIA? Or was it 30 minutes a couple days after the fact? Maybe it is time for you to cut the crap.

4- You can say that about yourself because you want the statue to stay, but you can't say that about the anti-racist protestors. They want the statue gone because they say it is racist, so they will say anyone who wants to keep it is racist, regardless of what that person says their reason is. Now, let me ask you this. How long after the incident did you see video of what took place on how they were rioting? Only after you honestly answer that can I continue this commentz
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
Like I said earlier, they have had peaceful protests over the removal of the statue before, so why jump to blame them for anything. Honestly it goes right back to the whole not every muslim is a radical terrorist.

From what I saw, the proper authorities were there before the violence broke out, and I read somewhere that they were told to stand down and allow the violence to take place. Not sure how accurate the report was, just something I read. I will stand behind this statement, regardless of their hatred for other races, we will never know the full intent of their protest and if they would have instigated violence on their own like the anti-racist groups have been doing since. To say that the Nazis should be at blame for reciprocating violence (if the other group started it) would be like saying you should be charged for 1st degree murder for killing a murderer who was about to kill a member of your family. There is a point in which self defense is accepted, regardless of who you are. And honestly considering during the second protests when the anti-racist group came and it was broken up before fights broke out, I wouldn't blame the Nazis for having different gear at this one in case it was to happen again. I think it is stupid removing these statues, and there is no racist reason as to why. Regardless of who they are, they have the right to protest and should be allowed to do so without having another group come and protest their protest. That is where problems arise.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
1 - If you want me to take what you said about the events seriously, you need to provide a source. Nobody in hell would advise that you sit there and take violence being perpetrated against you.

2- No this was reciprocated violence to the degree of manslaughter - A car from the original protesters crashed into the anti-protesters. That's murder, not self-defense. There is a point where self-defense becomes manslaughter, and it passed the limit when that guy went full on "Grand Theft Auto" Don't pretend that it's they were just innocent protester, they have a right to protest, they have a right to self-defense, if they win in votes and support they have the right to keep the statue, they don't have the right to commit manslaughter.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
1- If you want me to take what you say seriously, provide evidence that the man in the car was part of the original protest and didn't come later.

2- Yes there is a point in which self defense does become man-slaughter. But there is also a line in which you have crossed in which you take the actions of 1 man and put that blame on each one of the protestors. Once again, did they go there with the intent to kill people? If so why did only 1 person die? Why were they not all in cars or carried gyns to start shooting people? The one thing we will never know is what would have happened at the protest if the anti-racists didn't show up. I never stated they are innocent. I did state out of the 2 groups they were the only ones legally allowed to protest that day. I can't state whether they are innocent or not because I don't know if they planned on hurting and killing people or if it was just suppise to be a peaceful stand-in. Once again their motive could be racist, but their intent (how they planned to do the protest) could have been peaceful. You are right in they didn't have the right to commit manslaughter, but you are wrong in saying they did. 1 man did. If they all are responsible, they should all be in prison for accessories to manslaughter.
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
TODAY'S WINNER OF THE INTERNET
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback