This is the "tolerance" of the Left.

Tolerance includes tolerating opposing ideas, too, assholes. Not just different skin colors. Not just different sexual orientations.

Oh, look. A video that begins with what is clearly a reaction to something that happened before the video started.

This might very well be a crazy bitch confusing thirteen different ideas ("racist"?) and flipping out, accosting peaceful demonstrators and damaging their property. In which case she's totally at fault. Or else something might have happened that prompted her behaviour.

You could have saved a lot of verbiage if you'd just pulled that worn-out, threadbare old, "Contehhhhehhehhhhehhhxt!" card without dressing it all up like that.

Fact is, she did what she did. There's no disputing that.

If you want to go to context, watch how she's being treated. Nobody's in her face. Nobody's being aggressive toward her in the least. She is the aggressor there, plain and simple. Your "context" whinge, dress it up however you like, was destroyed before you made it, because the context of her actions is demonstrated in response to her actions. She's being a bully and a cunt, and that's all there is to it.

It's certainly interesting to see that you're trying to defend her bullying, though.

Despite the intolerance that John Castle has for any disagreement with his pre-packaged presentation, context does matter and is lacking. Further, where is the evidence that this woman demonstrates a standard for leftism? Tiresome, failed troll is weak sauce.

In fact, what is the evidence that she is on the political left at all? She's accusing her opposite number of being racist. John, are you saying that only leftists oppose racism? In your answer, be sure to ignore all context.

By the way, what kind of bicycle cop is that fat? I mean I can understand the Burger King bitch being fat, but aren't the cops riding around burning calories all day?

Just the usual dose of Impotent Rage™ from our very own Terrible Writer™

First:

1. What intolerance are you referring to? Examples, if you don't mind. Wait, that's right, you haven't got any, you're just talking out your ass, as you always do.

2. Context doesn't alter actions. Her actions are on video. Yelling, 'Context!" won't magically erase them.

Who is she attacking, and on what basis? There's the evidence. You know what's fun? Leftist bullying gets exposed, and look who comes running to defend it.

Let me help you out, gul:

There's your response. If you don't want to look like a Lefty who approves of bullying by your ideological kin, that's your response. Okay? Memorize that.

When right-wingers pull dumb shit bullying like this, that's the response of sane people. When Lefties do the same, that's still the response of sane people.

No double standards. No excuses. No cop-outs.

Yeah, you kick that stone. It won't achieve a damned thing except to demonstrate that copping out is all you're capable of.

I disagree. Hillary Clinton's actions are NOT on the Britney Spears leaked sex tape.

If they were, we'd have lost Jeriko much sooner.

The hell? What has that got to do with this?

With what? I answered the very words you said.

No, dingus. I never mentioned Bratney Spores or Billary.

Someone want to help John understand?

*Watches it*

Leftist, shmeftist, what it is, is a PR disaster for Burger King.

Where exactly does she attack them (other than verbally)? pushing the camera? kicking their sign? I don't think her method of arguing was effective but I agree with her: "no uterus no say." It's a woman's choice and that's it.

I think I'll go to burger king for lunch.

I just got back from BK! I'm chowing down right now.
As for the fat cop, every city sets their own standard. Some are very strict on length of hair, bodyfat levels, etc.

"Misogynistic white privilege racist assholes" pretty much gives away the thug's orientation as a leftist/liberal/progressive/whatever they're calling themselves this week. The phraseology is straight out of that playbook.

Drunk deep the Kool-Aid, this one has.

Huh. Look at all those cameras around.

I have those moments where I'm just looking for something to be pissed off at (usually it's traffic). That's what this looks like to me.

Any -isms don't belong in the hands of the stupid.

We need philosopher kings, and they should all be me.

Honestly, I'm embarrassed for her.

Um, let's see, you called people assholes in the OP, do you not acknowledge that as intolerant?

Bullshit, but I guess I'll remind you of that in the next discussion of a killing justified by "stand your ground" laws.

She's attacking the person following her around and shoving a camera in her face. What do you do under such harassment?

Let me help you out:

See the difference? No, I'm sure you won't.

The day I take advice from you on such things is the day I sign up for a labotamy. The video cherry picks a piece of a larger scene, so do you.

Only when all the data is available. The response of sane people to something like this is to ask what preceded it.

See, now it's fun again.

Tell that to the people in TNZ. Is she wearing a Burgee King shirt? Why is the camera focusing on her boob? Everyone knows that fat girls with big boobs don't count.

So hey, gul, here's a fun thing. Name the minute:second mark where she's complaining about being "followed" or "stalked." For your defense of her indefensible actions to work, of course, it should be as near to 0:00 as possible.

Unless of course you're just fabricating that defense entirely. And you are. But good stuff.

Oh, and...

Did the events on the video take place, gul? Did the woman, in fact, get in a kid's face screaming racism- and sexism-laden profanity at that kid?

The event is real and observable. Your defense of it is based on conjecture and fabrication. That puts you in a seriously bad moral position.

You mean the one that happened before the clip begins?