- Oct 20, 2013
- 56,445
- 18,045
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #41
At last count 4 people believed this (in the United States)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At last count 4 people believed this (in the United States)
Stop talking to your mirror.You are a pathetic, uneducated , ignorant, gullible, brain dead moron, and that is being nice about it.
False comparison fallacy, red herring fallacy, and an ignorant, ridiculous lie.
Clinton and Trump are afforded the same level of security.
What ‘stinks’ is the propensity of most on the right to lie, this this post being one of many examples.
No one should be getting close to Presidential candidates.The protests against Donald Trump of the last 2 days have shown a lack of preparedness on the part of police regarding crowd control. No protester should ever be able to smash the windows of a police car. They should not be able to throw eggs or anything else at police or anyone else. They should not be allowed to get close enough to attack Donald Trump (or any candidate) , to his supporters.
When George Bush came to Tampa a few years ago, protesters weren't able to get with 3 blocks of the building Bush was driven to. They were hustled off to a "free speech zone" 3 blocks away, and held their protest there. Some people complained that it was a violation of free speech. I differ with that. Not all speech is free. Freedom of speech is one of the parts of the Constitution that is riddled with exceptions >> slander, libel, perjury, sedition, obscenity laws, child pornography, threats, fighting words, inciting a riot, etc.
In the case of the anti-Trump protesters, they have more than shown their hand enough for there to be preventive measures taken. There should be no anti-Trump protesting in the vicinity of the building (including parking lots) where Trump is scheduled to appear. Simple as that. Anyone protesting with the perimeter area should be subject to arrest.
I'm wondering if the leniency of the police we're seeing in some of these cities (Chicago, Costa Mesa, Burlingame, etc) are a result of deliberate semi-stand down policies of liberal mayors. Maybe we need a national ruling on this. Well, if we have to go to Obama for that, I guess we can forget that idea.
Might be interesting to research if there already are laws of that sort in California, Indiana, and other states.
You can pretty much predict where the gooneybirds are going to show up. In Chicago, New York, Baltimore, and wherever there is liberal city government, tying the hands of the police. Trump ought to pick his rally cities by who is the mayor of them. Got a mayor like Rahm Emanuel or Bill DeBlasio ? Stay away. Got one like Rudy Giuliani ? Go there.
And keep generating more and more votes for Trump.Meh, I wish Trump would have a speech a day in a different California city from now until the primary. Watch those criminals burn that whole state.
Smash people's heads, arms and legs for protesting? Absurd.
"Hey, that guy said something i dont like, lets attack a bunch of people that arent him and lets smash up cars and vandalize some shit."The Donald goes out of his way to excite and provoke people with the outrageous things he says in public.
He doesn't get to pick and choose how people react to what he says. Since what he has chosen to say could be possibly the most outrageous things ever in a presidential primary campaign it doesn't surprise me that he gets energetic reaction by both his supporters AND detractors.
The protests against Donald Trump of the last 2 days have shown a lack of preparedness on the part of police regarding crowd control. No protester should ever be able to smash the windows of a police car. They should not be able to throw eggs or anything else at police or anyone else. They should not be allowed to get close enough to attack Donald Trump (or any candidate) , to his supporters.
When George Bush came to Tampa a few years ago, protesters weren't able to get with 3 blocks of the building Bush was driven to. They were hustled off to a "free speech zone" 3 blocks away, and held their protest there. Some people complained that it was a violation of free speech. I differ with that. Not all speech is free. Freedom of speech is one of the parts of the Constitution that is riddled with exceptions >> slander, libel, perjury, sedition, obscenity laws, child pornography, threats, fighting words, inciting a riot, etc.
In the case of the anti-Trump protesters, they have more than shown their hand enough for there to be preventive measures taken. There should be no anti-Trump protesting in the vicinity of the building (including parking lots) where Trump is scheduled to appear. Simple as that. Anyone protesting with the perimeter area should be subject to arrest.
I'm wondering if the leniency of the police we're seeing in some of these cities (Chicago, Costa Mesa, Burlingame, etc) are a result of deliberate semi-stand down policies of liberal mayors. Maybe we need a national ruling on this. Well, if we have to go to Obama for that, I guess we can forget that idea.
Might be interesting to research if there already are laws of that sort in California, Indiana, and other states.
As soon as they picked up the flag of a foreign country they became invaders to be shot on sight as enemy soldiers.
Ah, someone once said something, so now its cool if your side goes around attacking people, throwing rocks and vandalizing everything in sight. Nice try, but your logic is fucking retarded.The protests against Donald Trump of the last 2 days have shown a lack of preparedness on the part of police regarding crowd control. No protester should ever be able to smash the windows of a police car. They should not be able to throw eggs or anything else at police or anyone else. They should not be allowed to get close enough to attack Donald Trump (or any candidate) , to his supporters.
When George Bush came to Tampa a few years ago, protesters weren't able to get with 3 blocks of the building Bush was driven to. They were hustled off to a "free speech zone" 3 blocks away, and held their protest there. Some people complained that it was a violation of free speech. I differ with that. Not all speech is free. Freedom of speech is one of the parts of the Constitution that is riddled with exceptions >> slander, libel, perjury, sedition, obscenity laws, child pornography, threats, fighting words, inciting a riot, etc.
In the case of the anti-Trump protesters, they have more than shown their hand enough for there to be preventive measures taken. There should be no anti-Trump protesting in the vicinity of the building (including parking lots) where Trump is scheduled to appear. Simple as that. Anyone protesting with the perimeter area should be subject to arrest.
I'm wondering if the leniency of the police we're seeing in some of these cities (Chicago, Costa Mesa, Burlingame, etc) are a result of deliberate semi-stand down policies of liberal mayors. Maybe we need a national ruling on this. Well, if we have to go to Obama for that, I guess we can forget that idea.
Might be interesting to research if there already are laws of that sort in California, Indiana, and other states.
hahahahahahahaha!
so it was okay when your idol told his loons to rough up protestors?
but now you're crying?
the protesters here were wrong. but i can't say you idiots didn't bring it on yourselves.
Youre the psycho who thinks its cool if anti Trump protesters attack people.As soon as they picked up the flag of a foreign country they became invaders to be shot on sight as enemy soldiers.
what are you talking about, psycho?
Youre the psycho who thinks its cool if anti Trump protesters attack people.As soon as they picked up the flag of a foreign country they became invaders to be shot on sight as enemy soldiers.
what are you talking about, psycho?
Ah, someone once said something, so now its cool if your side goes around attacking people, throwing rocks and vandalizing everything in sight. Nice try, but your logic is fucking retarded.The protests against Donald Trump of the last 2 days have shown a lack of preparedness on the part of police regarding crowd control. No protester should ever be able to smash the windows of a police car. They should not be able to throw eggs or anything else at police or anyone else. They should not be allowed to get close enough to attack Donald Trump (or any candidate) , to his supporters.
When George Bush came to Tampa a few years ago, protesters weren't able to get with 3 blocks of the building Bush was driven to. They were hustled off to a "free speech zone" 3 blocks away, and held their protest there. Some people complained that it was a violation of free speech. I differ with that. Not all speech is free. Freedom of speech is one of the parts of the Constitution that is riddled with exceptions >> slander, libel, perjury, sedition, obscenity laws, child pornography, threats, fighting words, inciting a riot, etc.
In the case of the anti-Trump protesters, they have more than shown their hand enough for there to be preventive measures taken. There should be no anti-Trump protesting in the vicinity of the building (including parking lots) where Trump is scheduled to appear. Simple as that. Anyone protesting with the perimeter area should be subject to arrest.
I'm wondering if the leniency of the police we're seeing in some of these cities (Chicago, Costa Mesa, Burlingame, etc) are a result of deliberate semi-stand down policies of liberal mayors. Maybe we need a national ruling on this. Well, if we have to go to Obama for that, I guess we can forget that idea.
Might be interesting to research if there already are laws of that sort in California, Indiana, and other states.
hahahahahahahaha!
so it was okay when your idol told his loons to rough up protestors?
but now you're crying?
the protesters here were wrong. but i can't say you idiots didn't bring it on yourselves.