I Don't Understand Why Democrats Keep Calling For Free Speech

You obviously don't get satire.
Here is what I posted:
I am willing to sacrifice as many Charlie Kirks as it takes to preserve no universal background checks.
You obviously don't get that no background check would have prevented the Charlie Kirk shooting.
The gun used was a typical 30-06 deer rifle handed down from his grandfather.
What we need are fewer liars who call ICE agents "Nazis and Gestapo" or who called Charlie Kirk a "hater".
 
Last edited:
They claim that it's free speech for them to celebrate the assassination of Charlie Kirk and unfortunately it is, but where was his free speech to disagree with their views? Why must they murder people who don't agree with them? Oh wait, I get it,... It's the only way they think that they're going to win by silencing the threat. The only thing is that Tyler Robinson didn't silence Charlie Kirk at all. His plan backfired because now his voice is louder than ever. Nobody ever did manage to prove him wrong. That's why he was assassinated.
Cover for their love of murder
 
You obviously don't get that no background check would have prevented the Charlie Kirk shooting.
The gun used was a typical deer rifle handed down from his grandfather.
What we need are fewer liars who call ICE agents "Nazis and Gestapo" or who called Charlie Kirk a "hater".


He also doesn't seem to get that even if he doesn't have any true criminal intent, I do believe saying something like that is still illegal. Am I right?





Forget it. I have a better chance making a chimpanzee understand it.
 
You obviously don't get that no background check would have prevented the Charlie Kirk shooting.
The gun used was a typical deer rifle handed down from his grandfather.
What we need are fewer liars who call ICE agents "Nazis and Gestapo" or who called Charlie Kirk a "hater".

You didn’t have a problem with Trump calling the FBI the gestapo.

Charlie Kirk said a lot of hateful things.
 
Forget it. I have a better chance making a chimpanzee understand it.

Childish insults are just covering your total lack of argument.

Some no name assholes who are in the Dem party said terrible things.

The assholes in your party who say terrible things are celebrated and lauded.

That’s the difference.
 
Childish insults are just covering your total lack of argument.

Some no name assholes who are in the Dem party said terrible things.

The assholes in your party who say terrible things are celebrated and lauded.

That’s the difference.


Why should I say anything at all when it's literally all over YouTube? I'm just too lazy to do all of your homework for you. 🥱
 
.Charlie Kirk was willing to sacrifice as many schoolchildren as it takes to prevent an assault weapons ban and universal background checks.

Tens of thousands of gun deaths each year are worth it to keep the Second Amendment. B-b-b-b-b-but I didn't mean ME!
40,000 gun deaths a year are generally gang related.
You know criminals killing each other and other people.
But you want law abiding citizens to turn in their guns, so only criminals have guns?

Charlie Kirk did not sacrifice any school children, the shooters did.
A better question is, "why don't public schools teach morals like parochial schools do"?
Guest speakers to lecture on the value of human life.
1758757119590.webp
 
Why should I say anything at all when it's literally all over YouTube? I'm just too lazy to do all of your homework for you. 🥱

Youre too lazy to substantiate and explain your own argument.

You were given a narrative and don’t have the brain processing power to critically analyze it.
 
Youre too lazy to substantiate and explain your own argument.

You were given a narrative and don’t have the brain processing power to critically analyze it.


Look it up on YouTube of liberals mocking Charlie Kirk assassination.
 
Look it up on YouTube of liberals mocking Charlie Kirk assassination.

You can find a lot of them, I don’t doubt it.

A lot of nobodies that no one really cares.

Meanwhile your party doesn’t just tolerate it, you support and honor those who mocked Paul Pelosi.
 
They claim that it's free speech for them to celebrate the assassination of Charlie Kirk and unfortunately it is, but where was his free speech to disagree with their views? Why must they murder people who don't agree with them? Oh wait, I get it,... It's the only way they think that they're going to win by silencing the threat. The only thing is that Tyler Robinson didn't silence Charlie Kirk at all. His plan backfired because now his voice is louder than ever. Nobody ever did manage to prove him wrong. That's why he was assassinated.
Because trump keeps trying to suppress free speech. Where have you been living - under a rock most likely.
 
You didn’t have a problem with Trump calling the FBI the gestapo.
The Comey's FBI was the Gestapo. Setting up General Flynn. Kevin Clinesmith falsified evidence to get a FISA warrant. Strzok, Page, McCabe would "ensure" that Trump lost. Hiding or covering up the Hunter Biden laptop. How about that raid on Mar-a-Lago, especially going thru Melania's underwear. Or spying on Catholics or parents who speak up at school board meetings.
You can't show how Kash Patel's FBI is even the slightest way political.
 
You can find a lot of them, I don’t doubt it.

A lot of nobodies that no one really cares.

Meanwhile your party doesn’t just tolerate it, you support and honor those who mocked Paul Pelosi.
No bodies responding to the narrow-mindedness and hatred He was spewing. Which males them better than you., hypocrite.
 
Inciting violence and saying that you want to murder all MAGA Republicans or as you put it Charlie Kirks is a federal offense duh!
Just so you know, when you write or post false statements about others online, you typically have to prove how those false statements caused you harm in order to bring a civil claim. That falls under a category of torts (civil wrongs) known as defamation.

However, there’s a subset of defamation called “defamation per se.” These are statements considered so inherently damaging that harm is presumed — meaning the person does not have to prove exactly how they were harmed.

Falsely accusing someone of a crime — including planning to murder someone, or an entire group of people (e.g., “all MAGA Republicans”) — could easily stray into defamation per se territory.

So while it may light up the pleasure centers in your brain to sling reckless accusations on a message board, just be aware of what could result from doing so — especially when you're doing it under multiple identities.
 
15th post
Just so you know, when you write or post false statements about others online, you typically have to prove how those false statements caused you harm in order to bring a civil claim. That falls under a category of torts (civil wrongs) known as defamation.

However, there’s a subset of defamation called “defamation per se.” These are statements considered so inherently damaging that harm is presumed — meaning the person does not have to prove exactly how they were harmed.

Falsely accusing someone of a crime — including planning to murder someone, or an entire group of people (e.g., “all MAGA Republicans”) — could easily stray into defamation per se territory.

So while it may light up the pleasure centers in your brain to sling reckless accusations on a message board, just be aware of what could result from doing so — especially when you're doing it under multiple identities.



Screenshot_20250924-184018.webp
 
The Comey's FBI was the Gestapo. Setting up General Flynn. Kevin Clinesmith falsified evidence to get a FISA warrant. Strzok, Page, McCabe would "ensure" that Trump lost. Hiding or covering up the Hunter Biden laptop. How about that raid on Mar-a-Lago, especially going thru Melania's underwear. Or spying on Catholics or parents who speak up at school board meetings.
You can't show how Kash Patel's FBI is even the slightest way political.

You’re delusional. Half of that didn’t happen and the other half isn’t corrupt.

Trump firing prosecutors because they aren’t charging Trump’s political enemies is the kind of politicization we’re never seen before.
 
So you're justifying his murder over his words
Free speech for me, but not for thee
There is no justification for murder but if
you are publicly going to spew hatred some crazy person out there who feels he or his family is being attacked is going to respond badly. Yes it's sad but in part he brought this on himself.
 
Back
Top Bottom