- Sep 28, 2010
- 55,986
- 16,214
- 2,180
and so he tweets out a nasty one he treats out a nasty one. so? You sure were concerned for obummer like he wasn't going to like it. why?and they are what exactly?yep, kind of went there cause you felt the need to have to warn obummer that the donald tweets. wow. like even obummer knows that. And if the donald tweeted something about obummer meant what exactly? And that is how I got to the 1st amendment. I mean there had to be a point for the warning right?Nice pole vault.
There was a point but it was not the warning to the former President about the dire and or disastrous consequences of a nasty tweet by the Grabber in Chief, King of the nasty tweets.
The President can make his statement but the Grabber can respond with a nasty tweet if he wants to. Not in anyway trying to limit the Constitutional rights of the Grabber to tweet, as you mendaciously suggested that I did.
My concern was facetious. I'm sure President Obama knows the awesome power of a nasty tweet........