Are the Republicans trying to get Ilhan Omar killed?

[BWK]

What’s the difference between her and Osama bin Laden

I don't know? How are they the same?

They both hate America

So you are a liar once again. No documented evidence. Lol! You are pathetic.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.

That is a huge if. I don't see it.

Of course you don't. You're a Cult45 sycophant. You're too far gone to matter.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Well, Omar is a traitor

Trump is a traitor.

Please define how Trump is traitor.

Please define how Omar is a 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'.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Of course you don't. You're a Cult45 sycophant. You're too far gone to matter.

Thanks for the shot of irony, loser.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Its just the Muslim thing then ?

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.

Which is Democrat vs Republican thing.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Of course you don't. You're a Cult45 sycophant. You're too far gone to matter.

Thanks for the shot of irony, loser.

I'm right. That triggers you.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well, Omar is a traitor

Trump is a traitor.

Please define how Trump is traitor.

Please define how Omar is a 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.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Then you haven't read the Constitution.

Then neither have you. Nice chicken shit response. Totally devoid of thought. Wanna try again?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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. Anywhere. So, since you brought up this irrelevant defection, how about you tell me? This should be rich.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I'm right. That triggers you.

You have to declare yourself right because you'll never hear it from anyone else. I'm hardly "triggered".

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.

 

[Rye Catcher]

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.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"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.

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.

Until just a few years ago this would be understood by all as Soviet style silencing of others and at the very least people would ignore you, if not curse you out or assault you.
We have a ways to go to reestablish what is free speech in this country but not so much that we can't shout fuck you at slimy quislings like yourself when you blaspheme the Constitution like you have.

If you think members of Congress have the ability to unilaterally and preemptively shut down free speech than you are even more stupid and a bigger liar then I previously thought, which is saying something.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Works for me. It's your content page. You must have an afflicted machine.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

"Congress shall make no laws..." means precisely that, and no precedent or case law issued by any agency can legally change that, short of a ratified amendment.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.

So, you posted a link to my Content page? I presume that's your lazy-ass fuckwit hack attempt to be funny? Dismissed.