Bursting The Bubble

[Esmeralda]

Here's why this is in "Lifestyle:"
There are those with a well-deserved inferiority complex….they are Liberals, Democrat voters. One can see it in the scorn and vituperation they heap on the other side, a classic example of projection. And their complex is well-earned, and, no doubt, paid for in tears, and due to the pattern of mistake, misplaced loyalty, and ignorance.

A life of well-earned pain.

Liberals, in my experience, are fearful folks who need the bodyguard of big government because they are vulnerable, battered emotional hypochondriacs....they need to insure themselves against every societal misadventure that could occur. They call that 'empathy,' but it's actually neurosis. They have some sort of metaphorical bullet lodged near their heart, just waiting for a slight move which will end it all! Thus, the overwhelming feeling of incipient failure, and apprehension. And, recognizing their own weakness, they lash out at those willing to depend on themselves.


Put succinctly, the Right is never wrong, the Left is hardly ever right. And this is because our weak colleagues are just too afraid to disagree, confront, debate, their masters.




Recall this recently posted summary of Democrat/Liberal missteps?

1. We warned you what a low-life cur Ted Kennedy was...but you called him 'the Liberal Lion of the Senate.'

2. We told you Bill Clinton was a rapist...but you denied, denied, denied....until the Times and the rest admitted it.

3. We clued you into the facts about Hussein Obama, the most prodigious liar ever to infest the White House, that he wasn't up to the job, but you refused to look further than the color of his skin.


4. We explained that ‘global warming’ is nothing more than a scheme to impose global governance.


5. We told you that the Democrat Party hated Jews and the Jewish nation, yet you empowered them to guarantee Iran nuclear weapons.





6. Now….two year into the charade by your paladins, guess what? Yet another dry hole, another of your dreams ending in tears. No indictments, no charges, no impeachment. Exactly what we told you two years ago.



Liberals, weak individuals, unprepared to deal with the vicissitudes of life, demanding that warm embrace of government, promising to protect you from cradle to grave……
…..yet breaking the promises time and again.

And you never seem to learn.


What are you going to do with those posters “traitor,” “Putin,” “Russia,” “impeach,” “collusion,”…..and on and on. Anyone held responsible for lying to you?
Are you ready to demand the same spotlight turned on Hillary, et al.?????

Of course not, you cowards.



Have you no self-respect???? Don’t you recognize how often you are wrong???? Where is the courage to turn on the liars and say “nope, not this time!”



John Lutz, in his novel “The Night Watcher,” hit the nail on the head:
“You really think voters are still that gullible?

They’re dumber than they ever were, especially if they’re sophisticates.”




Being a loser is the lifestyle you've earned, and you deserve.

Your post proves one thing: what a loser you are.

Another post filled with wisdumb!





Like all Liberals, unable to dispute anything I post, and merely post another "I hate you" post.

Can't begin to tell you how impressed I am with your brilliance.

You are the one whose post is full of dumbness. Stupidity. You have posted nothing of any intelligence to discuss. Your post is simply another you hate liberals post. You are so useless you can't even see how blinded you are by your irrational prejudice and your inability to use critical thinking, depth of thought or even adequate reasoning. Useless!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, I believe we can start over again. The forefathers believed in that i.e. the 2nd, if needed.
I say we offer the lunatic left a deal to form their own country in the NE and NW and we take the rest and form a new country.

If they don't take the deal, oh well..

You mean "Oh well, we'll just go back to complaining on a message board?"

It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
attributed to Confucius

You're going to have a candlelight vigil?

That's a nice thought, but I doubt it will change anyone's mind.

Are we speaking about folks with minds?


Not Liberals, huh?


My mission is to provide the truth that government school deprived them of.
Sorry to end a sentence with a preposition.


Look at the stats, and you will find that five to ten times the number read a thread as post in same. They will see that my posts are 100% true, correct and accurate.
That's 100%....the other side fails in any dispute.

That is my target audience.



Now then.....what do you do that's constructive????

I make fun of things.

Don't give up the day job.

 

[Toro]

You mean "Oh well, we'll just go back to complaining on a message board?"

It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
attributed to Confucius

You're going to have a candlelight vigil?

That's a nice thought, but I doubt it will change anyone's mind.

Are we speaking about folks with minds?


Not Liberals, huh?


My mission is to provide the truth that government school deprived them of.
Sorry to end a sentence with a preposition.


Look at the stats, and you will find that five to ten times the number read a thread as post in same. They will see that my posts are 100% true, correct and accurate.
That's 100%....the other side fails in any dispute.

That is my target audience.



Now then.....what do you do that's constructive????

I make fun of things.

Don't give up the day job.

Fortunately, I can do both!

 

[impuretrash]

A bunch of the lights in your marquee are out.

Your exploitation of alleged "antisemitism" in the democrat party is shameless political opportunism. This is the same label the left uses to demonize and censor everyone to the right of Marx. I am sure I don't agree with her on many things but what rep Omar said about the almighty dollar influencing US foreign policy is absolutely true. So much for you being "always correct".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's why this is in "Lifestyle:"
There are those with a well-deserved inferiority complex….they are Liberals, Democrat voters. One can see it in the scorn and vituperation they heap on the other side, a classic example of projection. And their complex is well-earned, and, no doubt, paid for in tears, and due to the pattern of mistake, misplaced loyalty, and ignorance.

A life of well-earned pain.

Liberals, in my experience, are fearful folks who need the bodyguard of big government because they are vulnerable, battered emotional hypochondriacs....they need to insure themselves against every societal misadventure that could occur. They call that 'empathy,' but it's actually neurosis. They have some sort of metaphorical bullet lodged near their heart, just waiting for a slight move which will end it all! Thus, the overwhelming feeling of incipient failure, and apprehension. And, recognizing their own weakness, they lash out at those willing to depend on themselves.


Put succinctly, the Right is never wrong, the Left is hardly ever right. And this is because our weak colleagues are just too afraid to disagree, confront, debate, their masters.




Recall this recently posted summary of Democrat/Liberal missteps?

1. We warned you what a low-life cur Ted Kennedy was...but you called him 'the Liberal Lion of the Senate.'

2. We told you Bill Clinton was a rapist...but you denied, denied, denied....until the Times and the rest admitted it.

3. We clued you into the facts about Hussein Obama, the most prodigious liar ever to infest the White House, that he wasn't up to the job, but you refused to look further than the color of his skin.


4. We explained that ‘global warming’ is nothing more than a scheme to impose global governance.


5. We told you that the Democrat Party hated Jews and the Jewish nation, yet you empowered them to guarantee Iran nuclear weapons.





6. Now….two year into the charade by your paladins, guess what? Yet another dry hole, another of your dreams ending in tears. No indictments, no charges, no impeachment. Exactly what we told you two years ago.



Liberals, weak individuals, unprepared to deal with the vicissitudes of life, demanding that warm embrace of government, promising to protect you from cradle to grave……
…..yet breaking the promises time and again.

And you never seem to learn.


What are you going to do with those posters “traitor,” “Putin,” “Russia,” “impeach,” “collusion,”…..and on and on. Anyone held responsible for lying to you?
Are you ready to demand the same spotlight turned on Hillary, et al.?????

Of course not, you cowards.



Have you no self-respect???? Don’t you recognize how often you are wrong???? Where is the courage to turn on the liars and say “nope, not this time!”



John Lutz, in his novel “The Night Watcher,” hit the nail on the head:
“You really think voters are still that gullible?

They’re dumber than they ever were, especially if they’re sophisticates.”




Being a loser is the lifestyle you've earned, and you deserve.

Your post proves one thing: what a loser you are.

Another post filled with wisdumb!





Like all Liberals, unable to dispute anything I post, and merely post another "I hate you" post.

Can't begin to tell you how impressed I am with your brilliance.

You are the one whose post is full of dumbness. Stupidity. You have posted nothing of any intelligence to discuss. Your post is simply another you hate liberals post. You are so useless you can't even see how blinded you are by your irrational prejudice and your inability to use critical thinking, depth of thought or even adequate reasoning. Useless!!

" You have posted nothing of any intelligence to discuss."


Here's your chance:


1. We warned you what a low-life cur Ted Kennedy was...but you called him 'the Liberal Lion of the Senate.'

2. We told you Bill Clinton was a rapist...but you denied, denied, denied....until the Times and the rest admitted it.

3. We clued you into the facts about Hussein Obama, the most prodigious liar ever to infest the White House, that he wasn't up to the job, but you refused to look further than the color of his skin.


4. We explained that ‘global warming’ is nothing more than a scheme to impose global governance.


5. We told you that the Democrat Party hated Jews and the Jewish nation, yet you empowered them to guarantee Iran nuclear weapons.





6. Now….two year into the charade by your paladins, guess what? Yet another dry hole, another of your dreams ending in tears. No indictments, no charges, no impeachment. Exactly what we told you two years ago.




You can simply say "It is all true and correct....Democrats/Liberals are a detriment to America, and an existential threat."


Or....you can lie.

Those are the only two choices.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
attributed to Confucius

You're going to have a candlelight vigil?

That's a nice thought, but I doubt it will change anyone's mind.

Are we speaking about folks with minds?


Not Liberals, huh?


My mission is to provide the truth that government school deprived them of.
Sorry to end a sentence with a preposition.


Look at the stats, and you will find that five to ten times the number read a thread as post in same. They will see that my posts are 100% true, correct and accurate.
That's 100%....the other side fails in any dispute.

That is my target audience.



Now then.....what do you do that's constructive????

I make fun of things.

Don't give up the day job.

Fortunately, I can do both!

I hope not 'equally' well.


We have enough unemployed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A bunch of the lights in your marquee are out.

Your exploitation of alleged "antisemitism" in the democrat party is shameless political opportunism. This is the same label the left uses to demonize and censor everyone to the right of Marx. I am sure I don't agree with her on many things but what rep Omar said about the almighty dollar influencing US foreign policy is absolutely true. So much for you being "always correct".

Wow.....that picture in your posts.....I knew you were a tough guy sportin' that 4-finger "Thug 4 Life" ring!




"...what rep Omar said about the almighty dollar influencing US foreign policy is absolutely true. So much for you being "always correct"


Now, let's prove together that I am always right, and that you are a fool....m'kay?


."... jewish lobbyists who try to use money to influence politicians to pass policies that are favorable to the expansion of Jewish interests ..."


AIPAC is number 34 in the ranking of donors and lobbying groups.


"How Influential Is AIPAC? Less Than Beer Sellers, Public Accountants, and Toyota"
How Much Does AIPAC Spend on Lobbying? Less Than Beer Sellers, Public Accountants, and Toyota

You're a government school grad, huh...you don't feel (I almost said 'think') you have to know anything to inform your opinion.




In your face, boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeee!!!!!

 

[denmark]

You are the one who should get lost into Putin’s whore house.

You're a Liberal....you should know how to take orders: I said 'get lost.'

Don't forget the good news:
You're mentally qualified for handicapped parking.

I certainly don’t conserve old propaganda material that Russians troll.

I’m sorry (NOT!) to burst your pathetic bubble.

What????

Back....begging for another chance?

I am magnanimous.....so, here you go:


1. We warned you what a low-life cur Ted Kennedy was...but you called him 'the Liberal Lion of the Senate.'

2. We told you Bill Clinton was a rapist...but you denied, denied, denied....until the Times and the rest admitted it.

3. We clued you into the facts about Hussein Obama, the most prodigious liar ever to infest the White House, that he wasn't up to the job, but you refused to look further than the color of his skin.


4. We explained that ‘global warming’ is nothing more than a scheme to impose global governance.


5. We told you that the Democrat Party hated Jews and the Jewish nation, yet you empowered them to guarantee Iran nuclear weapons.


6. Now….two year into the charade by your paladins, guess what? Yet another dry hole, another of your dreams ending in tears. No indictments, no charges, no impeachment. Exactly what we told you two years ago.


And....while you're here, against orders, you might want to explain how you can support this:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…

If it is easier, you can simply state that you are a low-life lying scum and like to be with others like you.

Ok, i’ll try to help you focus. I hope you’re not a complete lost cause.
Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“.

Prove that you are not a Putin “scum”, as you say.
By the way, I am not a Democrat.

"Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“."


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.....

Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
His executive orderconditions research funding on "compliance with the First Amendment" and directs federal agencies to ensure that institutions receiving federal research or education grants "promote free inquiry."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding


What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s freedom of speech?

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Democrat Elena] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia


“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?


BTW, this Democrat star Kagan has been guilty of lying, and fraud as well as opposing free speech.


…the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism.


So, tool, how do you feel having proven that I am never wrong?

You just demonstrated with your prepared one-sided cut/paste material (aka propaganda) that you work or volunteer for a political trolling agency, just like Putin’s IRA.

I understand USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

What a “tool” you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're a Liberal....you should know how to take orders: I said 'get lost.'

Don't forget the good news:
You're mentally qualified for handicapped parking.

I certainly don’t conserve old propaganda material that Russians troll.

I’m sorry (NOT!) to burst your pathetic bubble.

What????

Back....begging for another chance?

I am magnanimous.....so, here you go:


1. We warned you what a low-life cur Ted Kennedy was...but you called him 'the Liberal Lion of the Senate.'

2. We told you Bill Clinton was a rapist...but you denied, denied, denied....until the Times and the rest admitted it.

3. We clued you into the facts about Hussein Obama, the most prodigious liar ever to infest the White House, that he wasn't up to the job, but you refused to look further than the color of his skin.


4. We explained that ‘global warming’ is nothing more than a scheme to impose global governance.


5. We told you that the Democrat Party hated Jews and the Jewish nation, yet you empowered them to guarantee Iran nuclear weapons.


6. Now….two year into the charade by your paladins, guess what? Yet another dry hole, another of your dreams ending in tears. No indictments, no charges, no impeachment. Exactly what we told you two years ago.


And....while you're here, against orders, you might want to explain how you can support this:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…

If it is easier, you can simply state that you are a low-life lying scum and like to be with others like you.

Ok, i’ll try to help you focus. I hope you’re not a complete lost cause.
Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“.

Prove that you are not a Putin “scum”, as you say.
By the way, I am not a Democrat.

"Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“."


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.....

Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
His executive orderconditions research funding on "compliance with the First Amendment" and directs federal agencies to ensure that institutions receiving federal research or education grants "promote free inquiry."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding


What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s freedom of speech?

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Democrat Elena] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia


“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?


BTW, this Democrat star Kagan has been guilty of lying, and fraud as well as opposing free speech.


…the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism.


So, tool, how do you feel having proven that I am never wrong?

You just demonstrated with your prepared one-sided cut/paste material (aka propaganda) that you work or volunteer for a political trolling agency, just like Putin’s IRA.

I understand USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

What a “tool” you are.

I just buried you with a documented proof of Democrat's opposing free speech.....and you're trying to lie your way out of the contumely.

You've just proven everything I said about Liberals/Democrats.


Rule #1 Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.




This is just too darn easy!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

None of the fools....er, Democrats, answered when I asked if the spotlight should be turned on Hillary, et al.



"Federal judge 'shocked' Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was granted immunity by DOJ
A federal judge said he was "shocked" to find out that longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills had been granted immunity from the Justice Department during the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's server.


During a hearing in D.C. on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth made the comment about Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff, during his opening remarks, referring to when he read the DOJ inspector general report.

"I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath..."
Federal judge 'shocked' Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was granted immunity by DOJ



Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you
Wu wu wu
What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson
Jolting Joe has left and gone away
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey

 

[impuretrash]

A bunch of the lights in your marquee are out.

Your exploitation of alleged "antisemitism" in the democrat party is shameless political opportunism. This is the same label the left uses to demonize and censor everyone to the right of Marx. I am sure I don't agree with her on many things but what rep Omar said about the almighty dollar influencing US foreign policy is absolutely true. So much for you being "always correct".

Wow.....that picture in your posts.....I knew you were a tough guy sportin' that 4-finger "Thug 4 Life" ring!




"...what rep Omar said about the almighty dollar influencing US foreign policy is absolutely true. So much for you being "always correct"


Now, let's prove together that I am always right, and that you are a fool....m'kay?


."... jewish lobbyists who try to use money to influence politicians to pass policies that are favorable to the expansion of Jewish interests ..."


AIPAC is number 34 in the ranking of donors and lobbying groups.


"How Influential Is AIPAC? Less Than Beer Sellers, Public Accountants, and Toyota"
How Much Does AIPAC Spend on Lobbying? Less Than Beer Sellers, Public Accountants, and Toyota

You're a government school grad, huh...you don't feel (I almost said 'think') you have to know anything to inform your opinion.




In your face, boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeee!!!!!

AIPAC is not the only political contributor in the country. (at least) 8 of the top ten political donors are Jewish:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/superpac-donors-2016/

Dont you find it interesting that left wing heros Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer (hmm, schumer) supported the war in Iraq? If there's one thing both parties can agree on, spending big and sacrificing American lives for Israel is it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A bunch of the lights in your marquee are out.

Your exploitation of alleged "antisemitism" in the democrat party is shameless political opportunism. This is the same label the left uses to demonize and censor everyone to the right of Marx. I am sure I don't agree with her on many things but what rep Omar said about the almighty dollar influencing US foreign policy is absolutely true. So much for you being "always correct".

Wow.....that picture in your posts.....I knew you were a tough guy sportin' that 4-finger "Thug 4 Life" ring!




"...what rep Omar said about the almighty dollar influencing US foreign policy is absolutely true. So much for you being "always correct"


Now, let's prove together that I am always right, and that you are a fool....m'kay?


."... jewish lobbyists who try to use money to influence politicians to pass policies that are favorable to the expansion of Jewish interests ..."


AIPAC is number 34 in the ranking of donors and lobbying groups.


"How Influential Is AIPAC? Less Than Beer Sellers, Public Accountants, and Toyota"
How Much Does AIPAC Spend on Lobbying? Less Than Beer Sellers, Public Accountants, and Toyota

You're a government school grad, huh...you don't feel (I almost said 'think') you have to know anything to inform your opinion.




In your face, boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeee!!!!!

AIPAC is not the only political contributor in the country. (at least) 8 of the top ten political donors are Jewish:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/superpac-donors-2016/

Dont you find it interesting that left wing heros Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer (hmm, schumer) supported the war in Iraq? If there's one thing both parties can agree on, spending big and sacrificing American lives for Israel is it.

How many times a day must I put you in your place???

1. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).

i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.

ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.

1. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.

i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.

ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.

iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.

Certainly not pro-Israel

 

[denmark]

I certainly don’t conserve old propaganda material that Russians troll.

I’m sorry (NOT!) to burst your pathetic bubble.

What????

Back....begging for another chance?

I am magnanimous.....so, here you go:


1. We warned you what a low-life cur Ted Kennedy was...but you called him 'the Liberal Lion of the Senate.'

2. We told you Bill Clinton was a rapist...but you denied, denied, denied....until the Times and the rest admitted it.

3. We clued you into the facts about Hussein Obama, the most prodigious liar ever to infest the White House, that he wasn't up to the job, but you refused to look further than the color of his skin.


4. We explained that ‘global warming’ is nothing more than a scheme to impose global governance.


5. We told you that the Democrat Party hated Jews and the Jewish nation, yet you empowered them to guarantee Iran nuclear weapons.


6. Now….two year into the charade by your paladins, guess what? Yet another dry hole, another of your dreams ending in tears. No indictments, no charges, no impeachment. Exactly what we told you two years ago.


And....while you're here, against orders, you might want to explain how you can support this:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…

If it is easier, you can simply state that you are a low-life lying scum and like to be with others like you.

Ok, i’ll try to help you focus. I hope you’re not a complete lost cause.
Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“.

Prove that you are not a Putin “scum”, as you say.
By the way, I am not a Democrat.

"Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“."


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.....

Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
His executive orderconditions research funding on "compliance with the First Amendment" and directs federal agencies to ensure that institutions receiving federal research or education grants "promote free inquiry."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding


What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s freedom of speech?

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Democrat Elena] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia


“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?


BTW, this Democrat star Kagan has been guilty of lying, and fraud as well as opposing free speech.


…the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism.


So, tool, how do you feel having proven that I am never wrong?

You just demonstrated with your prepared one-sided cut/paste material (aka propaganda) that you work or volunteer for a political trolling agency, just like Putin’s IRA.

I understand USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

What a “tool” you are.

I just buried you with a documented proof of Democrat's opposing free speech.....and you're trying to lie your way out of the contumely.

You've just proven everything I said about Liberals/Democrats.

Rule #1 Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

This is just too darn easy!!!!

Yes, it is easy to lie and distort facts by cut/pasting easy peasy troll text.

Prove that I lied!
Is this not accurate? ...
USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What????

Back....begging for another chance?

I am magnanimous.....so, here you go:


1. We warned you what a low-life cur Ted Kennedy was...but you called him 'the Liberal Lion of the Senate.'

2. We told you Bill Clinton was a rapist...but you denied, denied, denied....until the Times and the rest admitted it.

3. We clued you into the facts about Hussein Obama, the most prodigious liar ever to infest the White House, that he wasn't up to the job, but you refused to look further than the color of his skin.


4. We explained that ‘global warming’ is nothing more than a scheme to impose global governance.


5. We told you that the Democrat Party hated Jews and the Jewish nation, yet you empowered them to guarantee Iran nuclear weapons.


6. Now….two year into the charade by your paladins, guess what? Yet another dry hole, another of your dreams ending in tears. No indictments, no charges, no impeachment. Exactly what we told you two years ago.


And....while you're here, against orders, you might want to explain how you can support this:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…

If it is easier, you can simply state that you are a low-life lying scum and like to be with others like you.

Ok, i’ll try to help you focus. I hope you’re not a complete lost cause.
Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“.

Prove that you are not a Putin “scum”, as you say.
By the way, I am not a Democrat.

"Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“."


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.....

Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
His executive orderconditions research funding on "compliance with the First Amendment" and directs federal agencies to ensure that institutions receiving federal research or education grants "promote free inquiry."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding


What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s freedom of speech?

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Democrat Elena] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia


“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?


BTW, this Democrat star Kagan has been guilty of lying, and fraud as well as opposing free speech.


…the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism.


So, tool, how do you feel having proven that I am never wrong?

You just demonstrated with your prepared one-sided cut/paste material (aka propaganda) that you work or volunteer for a political trolling agency, just like Putin’s IRA.

I understand USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

What a “tool” you are.

I just buried you with a documented proof of Democrat's opposing free speech.....and you're trying to lie your way out of the contumely.

You've just proven everything I said about Liberals/Democrats.

Rule #1 Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

This is just too darn easy!!!!

Yes, it is easy to lie and distort facts by cut/pasting easy peasy troll text.

Prove that I lied!
Is this not accurate? ...
USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

I just smashed a custard pie in your ugly kisser......why are you back pretending I didn't????




Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
His executive orderconditions research funding on "compliance with the First Amendment" and directs federal agencies to ensure that institutions receiving federal research or education grants "promote free inquiry."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding





What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s freedom of speech?

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Democrat Elena] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia





“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?





BTW, this Democrat star Kagan has been guilty of lying, and fraud as well as opposing free speech.


…the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism.




So, tool, how do you feel having proven that I am never wrong?

 

[denmark]

Ok, i’ll try to help you focus. I hope you’re not a complete lost cause.
Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“.

Prove that you are not a Putin “scum”, as you say.
By the way, I am not a Democrat.

"Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“."


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.....

Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
His executive orderconditions research funding on "compliance with the First Amendment" and directs federal agencies to ensure that institutions receiving federal research or education grants "promote free inquiry."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding


What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s freedom of speech?

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Democrat Elena] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia


“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?


BTW, this Democrat star Kagan has been guilty of lying, and fraud as well as opposing free speech.


…the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism.


So, tool, how do you feel having proven that I am never wrong?

You just demonstrated with your prepared one-sided cut/paste material (aka propaganda) that you work or volunteer for a political trolling agency, just like Putin’s IRA.

I understand USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

What a “tool” you are.

I just buried you with a documented proof of Democrat's opposing free speech.....and you're trying to lie your way out of the contumely.

You've just proven everything I said about Liberals/Democrats.

Rule #1 Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

This is just too darn easy!!!!

Yes, it is easy to lie and distort facts by cut/pasting easy peasy troll text.

Prove that I lied!
Is this not accurate? ...
USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

I just smashed a custard pie in your ugly kisser......why are you back pretending I didn't????




Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
His executive orderconditions research funding on "compliance with the First Amendment" and directs federal agencies to ensure that institutions receiving federal research or education grants "promote free inquiry."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding





What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s freedom of speech?

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Democrat Elena] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia





“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?





BTW, this Democrat star Kagan has been guilty of lying, and fraud as well as opposing free speech.


…the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism.




So, tool, how do you feel having proven that I am never wrong?

You are like a moronic broken record that keeps cut/pasting troll stuff and can’t refute a SIMPLE statement ...

USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

 

[impuretrash]

A bunch of the lights in your marquee are out.

Your exploitation of alleged "antisemitism" in the democrat party is shameless political opportunism. This is the same label the left uses to demonize and censor everyone to the right of Marx. I am sure I don't agree with her on many things but what rep Omar said about the almighty dollar influencing US foreign policy is absolutely true. So much for you being "always correct".

Wow.....that picture in your posts.....I knew you were a tough guy sportin' that 4-finger "Thug 4 Life" ring!




"...what rep Omar said about the almighty dollar influencing US foreign policy is absolutely true. So much for you being "always correct"


Now, let's prove together that I am always right, and that you are a fool....m'kay?


."... jewish lobbyists who try to use money to influence politicians to pass policies that are favorable to the expansion of Jewish interests ..."


AIPAC is number 34 in the ranking of donors and lobbying groups.


"How Influential Is AIPAC? Less Than Beer Sellers, Public Accountants, and Toyota"
How Much Does AIPAC Spend on Lobbying? Less Than Beer Sellers, Public Accountants, and Toyota

You're a government school grad, huh...you don't feel (I almost said 'think') you have to know anything to inform your opinion.




In your face, boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeee!!!!!

AIPAC is not the only political contributor in the country. (at least) 8 of the top ten political donors are Jewish:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/superpac-donors-2016/

Dont you find it interesting that left wing heros Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer (hmm, schumer) supported the war in Iraq? If there's one thing both parties can agree on, spending big and sacrificing American lives for Israel is it.

How many times a day must I put you in your place???

1. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).

i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.

ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.

1. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.

i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.

ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.

iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.

Certainly not pro-Israel

Since when did support for Israel become synonymous with support for America? Our politicians have no problem spending trillions to strengthen Israel's borders, but they just can't seem to find it in them to fund our own border security.

Horowitz is also a big supporter of the Iraq war too. Huh, go figure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Speaking of bursting that Liberal bubble.....


"It’s not often I, like most of America, make a point to watch MSNBC or CNN. If I want to know what leftists are thinking I just imagine something so incredibly insane that there’s no way an educated adult would actually believe it, then double it and I’m there. But Friday night was an exception, I had to see how they responded to the news of the Mueller Report’s submission to the Attorney General and no further indictments coming. It was glorious.

You rarely get the chance to watch someone have to choke down a c**p sandwich of their own making in front of the people they’d been force-feeding one to for years, but that was Friday night on cable news."
Mueller Delivers Liberals A Giant Crap Sandwich



"...gaslighting the country for 2 years before having the curtain ripped back so thoroughly should have been met with some humility. They should have been begging their audience for forgiveness. "


Good advice, Liberals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Democrats scrambled, scheduling a 3:00 pm conference call for Saturday on how to coordinate their messaging in the wake of the Mueller report contradicting everything they’d been saying.

...these knuckle-dragging buffoons tried to play the “We have to wait and see what’s in the report” card. Suddenly, pragmatism and a desire to avoid speculation became the order of the day. It was as if the people who hear dog whistles in everything a Republican says had been deaf to their own voices for 2 years.

...without acknowledging they’d sworn to the public they’d personally seen evidence of corruption.

Two years, tens of millions of dollars, and no limit on what he can look into coming up empty is not enough for these leftists.

...they will employ the Soviet tactic of investigating to see if they can find a crime rather than investigate when a crime has been reported, but these aren’t normal people.


....zero shame or sense of decency."
Mueller Delivers Liberals A Giant Crap Sandwich




It's the Democrat way.

 

[denmark]

"Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“."


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.....

Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
His executive orderconditions research funding on "compliance with the First Amendment" and directs federal agencies to ensure that institutions receiving federal research or education grants "promote free inquiry."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding


What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s freedom of speech?

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Democrat Elena] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia


“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?


BTW, this Democrat star Kagan has been guilty of lying, and fraud as well as opposing free speech.


…the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism.


So, tool, how do you feel having proven that I am never wrong?

You just demonstrated with your prepared one-sided cut/paste material (aka propaganda) that you work or volunteer for a political trolling agency, just like Putin’s IRA.

I understand USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

What a “tool” you are.

I just buried you with a documented proof of Democrat's opposing free speech.....and you're trying to lie your way out of the contumely.

You've just proven everything I said about Liberals/Democrats.

Rule #1 Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

This is just too darn easy!!!!

Yes, it is easy to lie and distort facts by cut/pasting easy peasy troll text.

Prove that I lied!
Is this not accurate? ...
USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

I just smashed a custard pie in your ugly kisser......why are you back pretending I didn't????




Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
His executive orderconditions research funding on "compliance with the First Amendment" and directs federal agencies to ensure that institutions receiving federal research or education grants "promote free inquiry."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding





What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s freedom of speech?

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Democrat Elena] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia





“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?





BTW, this Democrat star Kagan has been guilty of lying, and fraud as well as opposing free speech.


…the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism.




So, tool, how do you feel having proven that I am never wrong?

You are like a moronic broken record that keeps cut/pasting troll stuff and can’t refute a SIMPLE statement ...

USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

The Bubble has Burst for the OP.
He/she/it from cut/paste troll land cannot confirm that this statement is a “lie”:

USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Glenn Greenwald‏Verified account @ggreenwald 29m29 minutes ago
Glenn Greenwald Retweeted Ken Dilanian

Ratioed by furious MSNBC/NBC viewers for finally hearing the truth - truth this network has deliberately & systematically kept off its air for 2 years by largely banning all dissenters. That's why their viewers are shocked & outraged: they had no idea there was even a debate:



Glenn Greenwald‏Verified account @ggreenwald 38m38 minutes ago
Among the many great things this @mtaibbi article from yesterday did - in which he says the Trump/Russia debacle is equal in media humiliation to Iraq - is remind everyone of the key role played by @DavidCornDC & @MotherJones in starting it. Read it:




Glenn Greenwald Retweeted jon gabriel

They cashed it in for 3 years. They'll be fine. I genuinely feel sorry for liberals whose fear of Trump was real and who had it exploited for profit and self-serving promotion by cable hosts, pundits, neocons and the intelligence community for their own gain and profit:



Glenn Greenwald‏Verified account @ggreenwald 2h2 hours ago
If you compare the propaganda, falsehoods, deceit & lies you were fed for 3 years by glittery cable stars who make many millions of dollars a year, to the brave skepticism & smart dissent of YouTube hosts like @KyleKulinski & @jimmy_dore, it tells you all you need to know.