Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh, look!...It's Cleopatra!To be fair, the tea party kind of called themselves tea baggers first. But whatever!You mean like the dickweeds who refer to the TEA party crowd as "teabaggers", amongst other smears and outright lies?
BTW, how many of those people have been associated with squatting, vandalism, theft, sex acts in public, assault, rioting and other various and sundry acts of aggression and violence?
Like, none.
Why are you obsessed with my butt and what I do with it? That is a little weird.
It's weird for a guy to like a woman's butt?
Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.
Why are you obsessed with my butt and what I do with it? That is a little weird.
It's weird for a guy to like a woman's butt?
Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.
I wonder if Lumpy would call these guys bums?
It's always interesting to me how many Democrats use the military...generally for convenience and political gain.. sad really.
The military and their families have earned the right to protest in my eyes, even if I truly disagree with them.
..Most of these OWS protesters are too used of a free ride with no repercussions...someone else has to pay..that not American, that's anarchy.
I had no idea I was a democrat.
So only the military has earned the right to protest? But no one else?
I thought the constitution gave everyone the right to protest. And do you know any OWS protesters or are you assuming they have always had a free ride?
It's weird for a guy to like a woman's butt?
Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.
Your wrong RetiredGySgt:
The Freedom of Speech clause in the US Constitution superpasses State and Local law!
The United States Constitution came first, then State, then Local. Read up on the constitution. No law is above it.
I think you have it backwards. Maybe you think you local and state gov are supreme, but your wrong, wrong, wrong!
It's weird for a guy to like a woman's butt?
Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.
You know how you accused me of never calling out people on the left? Why haven't you called out Lumpy? How is it on your high horse?
It's weird for a guy to like a woman's butt?
Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.
You know how you accused me of never calling out people on the left? Why haven't you called out Lumpy? How is it on your high horse?
Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.
You know how you accused me of never calling out people on the left? Why haven't you called out Lumpy? How is it on your high horse?
Need help there Luissa.. and you say your not a Democrat..
Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.
You know how you accused me of never calling out people on the left? Why haven't you called out Lumpy? How is it on your high horse?
What would I call him out for? Cause you and he hate each other and make personal attacks? Quote for me some political point he tried to make that was illegal or wrong or that I have not made myself.
My personal opinion is that he is a fool for cheapening his attacks on your positions by making personal insults and attacks. But it isn't like you do not do the same to him.
Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.
You know how you accused me of never calling out people on the left? Why haven't you called out Lumpy? How is it on your high horse?
What would I call him out for? Cause you and he hate each other and make personal attacks? Quote for me some political point he tried to make that was illegal or wrong or that I have not made myself.
My personal opinion is that he is a fool for cheapening his attacks on your positions by making personal insults and attacks. But it isn't like you do not do the same to him.
You know how you accused me of never calling out people on the left? Why haven't you called out Lumpy? How is it on your high horse?
Need help there Luissa.. and you say your not a Democrat..
Only party I ever registered with was the republican party.
And I know you are kind of an idiot, but I was making a point.
Need help there Luissa.. and you say your not a Democrat..
Only party I ever registered with was the republican party.
And I know you are kind of an idiot, but I was making a point.
I've decided to stop insulting you...and go watch the last period of the Sharks/Phoenix hockey game..
"kind of an idiot"... sheesh..
From under what type of rock did you crawl?Once the tables turn and tea party members occupy the right side of the street then the left will be saying the same thing. This country is seething with hate, some deserved, but with the nation in it's death throes it is only human to understand that some people will resort to civil disobedience and rightfully so. Granted, the losers in this movement are extremely short sighted and feel obligated to entitlements that they don't deserve.
Your totally right. Children who are born poor should not eat, or have medical attention, or schools to be educated in.
The only people who deserve to eat are the rich. They worked real hard making money (stealing other people's money), and they should be protected by the gov and police, while those little hungry children should just die.
Bravo Bravo
You mean like the dickweeds who refer to the TEA party crowd as "teabaggers", amongst other smears and outright lies?Their just freeloading bums at this point.
Yet another sponsored left wing failure everyone else ends up paying for...
Many pay taxes themselves.
Do you guys ever do research on the people who dismiss and judge?
BTW, how many of those people have been associated with squatting, vandalism, theft, sex acts in public, assault, rioting and other various and sundry acts of aggression and violence?
Like, none.
You mean like the dickweeds who refer to the TEA party crowd as "teabaggers", amongst other smears and outright lies?Many pay taxes themselves.
Do you guys ever do research on the people who dismiss and judge?
BTW, how many of those people have been associated with squatting, vandalism, theft, sex acts in public, assault, rioting and other various and sundry acts of aggression and violence?
Like, none.
Dont forget to add murder to that list.
Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.
Your wrong RetiredGySgt:
The Freedom of Speech clause in the US Constitution superpasses State and Local law!
The United States Constitution came first, then State, then Local. Read up on the constitution. No law is above it.
I think you have it backwards. Maybe you think you local and state gov are supreme, but your wrong, wrong, wrong!
And yet it is ESTABLISHED law through out the Country that the 1st Amendment has limits. That those limits can and are imposed by all levels of Government. Keep proving just how fucking stupid you are.
precisely the goal of some of these groups. Probably Oakland'sThere needs to be some compromise. Anything less will end up like Kent State.
Your wrong RetiredGySgt:
The Freedom of Speech clause in the US Constitution superpasses State and Local law!
The United States Constitution came first, then State, then Local. Read up on the constitution. No law is above it.
I think you have it backwards. Maybe you think you local and state gov are supreme, but your wrong, wrong, wrong!
And yet it is ESTABLISHED law through out the Country that the 1st Amendment has limits. That those limits can and are imposed by all levels of Government. Keep proving just how fucking stupid you are.
Arn't you tired of putting your foot in your mouth yet? Everyone knows that some speech is limited---Political is not one that is. In fact it is protect speech above all other speech.
I do not think that cursing shows your intelligence--In fact one is questioning your upbring...you poor soul. Saying the F*** word shows how small your vocabulary is.
I am guessing you bet your wife when she doesn't agree with you? Yes or No?
While the right tried to blame the left.You mean like the dickweeds who refer to the TEA party crowd as "teabaggers", amongst other smears and outright lies?
BTW, how many of those people have been associated with squatting, vandalism, theft, sex acts in public, assault, rioting and other various and sundry acts of aggression and violence?
Like, none.
Dont forget to add murder to that list.
And the left's claims that the Tea Party was responsible for Giffords being shot...
And yet it is ESTABLISHED law through out the Country that the 1st Amendment has limits. That those limits can and are imposed by all levels of Government. Keep proving just how fucking stupid you are.
Arn't you tired of putting your foot in your mouth yet? Everyone knows that some speech is limited---Political is not one that is. In fact it is protect speech above all other speech.
I do not think that cursing shows your intelligence--In fact one is questioning your upbring...you poor soul. Saying the F*** word shows how small your vocabulary is.
I am guessing you bet your wife when she doesn't agree with you? Yes or No?
If political speech is protected completely by the 1st Amendment then why did Democrats pass a federal law barring political ads that mention a candidates name 90 days before a Federal election?
If political speech is so protected then how come Obama and Clinton both used federal and State laws to limit vocal political protest at gatherings they attended while running for office?
Keep proving how stupid you are.
