So you are a liar once again. No documented evidence. Lol! You are pathetic.They both hate AmericaI don't know? How are they the same?What’s the difference between her and Osama bin Laden
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you are a liar once again. No documented evidence. Lol! You are pathetic.They both hate AmericaI don't know? How are they the same?What’s the difference between her and Osama bin Laden
That is a huge if. I don't see it.If the majority of citizen voters belief the evidence presented is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the Senators vote to acquit trump, they will save trump and destroy the Republican Party.
Please define how Omar is a traitor?Trump is a traitor.Well, Omar is a traitor
Please define how Trump is traitor.
She is a Democrat, and diametrically opposed to the Constitution, as are all current Democrats.
Thanks for the shot of irony, loser.Of course you don't. You're a Cult45 sycophant. You're too far gone to matter.
Its just the Muslim thing then ?I'm not calling for any violence against her, but I wish to fuck she wasn't here, and I do not view her as anAmerican.
Let's see, Omar is a Democrat, Republicans don't like Democrats in office. So it isn't a Muslim thing, it is a Democrat vs. Republican thing.
Wrong. It's a party over country thing. The specific party doesn't matter.
Thanks for the shot of irony, loser.Of course you don't. You're a Cult45 sycophant. You're too far gone to matter.
Please define how Omar is a traitor?Trump is a traitor.Well, Omar is a traitor
Please define how Trump is traitor.
She is a Democrat, and diametrically opposed to the Constitution, as are all current Democrats.
I'd say the exact same thing about Cult45 'republicans'.
Then you haven't read the Constitution.
Then you haven't read the Constitution.
Then neither have you. Nice chicken shit response. Totally devoid of thought. Wanna try again?
I have read it countless times, and carry a copy with me with which to slap you people upside the head when opportunity knocks.
In light of the 1st Amendment, why are there free speech zones at Progressive-dominated universities that receive taxpayer funding, who put them there, and why?
I have read it countless times, and carry a copy with me with which to slap you people upside the head when opportunity knocks.
Then, you're embarrassingly bad at reading comprehension, it would seem. I also flat out don't believe much of the made up personal anecdotes people like you invent to support your confirmation bias.
In light of the 1st Amendment, why are there free speech zones at Progressive-dominated universities that receive taxpayer funding, who put them there, and why?
I've never supported the concept of free speech zones.
I have read it countless times, and carry a copy with me with which to slap you people upside the head when opportunity knocks.
Then, you're embarrassingly bad at reading comprehension, it would seem. I also flat out don't believe much of the made up personal anecdotes people like you invent to support your confirmation bias.
And yet as is typical, you offer no proof of your contention.
In light of the 1st Amendment, why are there free speech zones at Progressive-dominated universities that receive taxpayer funding, who put them there, and why?
I've never supported the concept of free speech zones.
Yet you support those who do, which makes my point for me.
You have to declare yourself right because you'll never hear it from anyone else. I'm hardly "triggered".I'm right. That triggers you.
I have read it countless times, and carry a copy with me with which to slap you people upside the head when opportunity knocks.
Then, you're embarrassingly bad at reading comprehension, it would seem. I also flat out don't believe much of the made up personal anecdotes people like you invent to support your confirmation bias.
And yet as is typical, you offer no proof of your contention.
In light of the 1st Amendment, why are there free speech zones at Progressive-dominated universities that receive taxpayer funding, who put them there, and why?
I've never supported the concept of free speech zones.
Yet you support those who do, which makes my point for me.
Since you haven't provided any evidence to your claim I support them, your entire 'point' is a disingenuous fabrication. Why do you do this? Because credibility just isn't important to hacky morons, just their own political tribes.
I have read it countless times, and carry a copy with me with which to slap you people upside the head when opportunity knocks.
Then, you're embarrassingly bad at reading comprehension, it would seem. I also flat out don't believe much of the made up personal anecdotes people like you invent to support your confirmation bias.
And yet as is typical, you offer no proof of your contention.
In light of the 1st Amendment, why are there free speech zones at Progressive-dominated universities that receive taxpayer funding, who put them there, and why?
I've never supported the concept of free speech zones.
Yet you support those who do, which makes my point for me.
Since you haven't provided any evidence to your claim I support them, your entire 'point' is a disingenuous fabrication. Why do you do this? Because credibility just isn't important to hacky morons, just their own political tribes.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/search/20627494/
I'll not comment on the overall honesty of these, but when someone claims to not support the views of the political actors they support, and yet reflects a similar attitude, I tend to have doubts.
Then you haven't read the Constitution.
Then neither have you. Nice chicken shit response. Totally devoid of thought. Wanna try again?
I have read it countless times, and carry a copy with me with which to slap you people upside the head when opportunity knocks.
In light of the 1st Amendment, why are there free speech zones at Progressive-dominated universities that receive taxpayer funding, who put them there, and why?
Have at it.
You sound like you copied this right out of some fascist hand book, declaring something "hate" speech and granting yourself the right to preemptively shut it down because you don't like it."Congress shall make no laws...". Responsible people in authority (which excludes Republican members of Congress) have the right and the ability to restrict agent provocateurs and other forms of speech (yelling hate in a crowded theater, for example).
If you have read COTUS and understood Supreme Court decisions you would have understood this.
I have read it countless times, and carry a copy with me with which to slap you people upside the head when opportunity knocks.
Then, you're embarrassingly bad at reading comprehension, it would seem. I also flat out don't believe much of the made up personal anecdotes people like you invent to support your confirmation bias.
And yet as is typical, you offer no proof of your contention.
In light of the 1st Amendment, why are there free speech zones at Progressive-dominated universities that receive taxpayer funding, who put them there, and why?
I've never supported the concept of free speech zones.
Yet you support those who do, which makes my point for me.
Since you haven't provided any evidence to your claim I support them, your entire 'point' is a disingenuous fabrication. Why do you do this? Because credibility just isn't important to hacky morons, just their own political tribes.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/search/20627494/
I'll not comment on the overall honesty of these, but when someone claims to not support the views of the political actors they support, and yet reflects a similar attitude, I tend to have doubts.
Your link doesn't work, of course. Hack behavior is predictable in that it's always stupid and wrong.
Then you haven't read the Constitution.
Then neither have you. Nice chicken shit response. Totally devoid of thought. Wanna try again?
I have read it countless times, and carry a copy with me with which to slap you people upside the head when opportunity knocks.
In light of the 1st Amendment, why are there free speech zones at Progressive-dominated universities that receive taxpayer funding, who put them there, and why?
Have at it.
"Congress shall make no laws...". Responsible people in authority (which excludes Republican members of Congress) have the right and the ability to restrict agent provocateurs and other forms of speech (yelling hate in a crowded theater, for example).
If you have read COTUS and understood Supreme Court decisions you would have understood this.
Then, you're embarrassingly bad at reading comprehension, it would seem. I also flat out don't believe much of the made up personal anecdotes people like you invent to support your confirmation bias.
And yet as is typical, you offer no proof of your contention.
In light of the 1st Amendment, why are there free speech zones at Progressive-dominated universities that receive taxpayer funding, who put them there, and why?
I've never supported the concept of free speech zones.
Yet you support those who do, which makes my point for me.
Since you haven't provided any evidence to your claim I support them, your entire 'point' is a disingenuous fabrication. Why do you do this? Because credibility just isn't important to hacky morons, just their own political tribes.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/search/20627494/
I'll not comment on the overall honesty of these, but when someone claims to not support the views of the political actors they support, and yet reflects a similar attitude, I tend to have doubts.
Your link doesn't work, of course. Hack behavior is predictable in that it's always stupid and wrong.
Works for me. It's your content page. You must have an afflicted machine.