Shades Of Nazi Germany: Biden Wants Americans To Report / Turn In 'Radicalized' Friends And Family To His Govt

she was part of a violent mob, armed mob trespassing

The next time a white policeman shoots an unarmed black person who is in the midst of a 'Mostly Peaceful Protest' who are looting, burning, disobeying officer's orders, etc.... let's see how that hypocritical BS you are spewing is accepted by Antifa & BLM.

:p

Last I checked, trespassing was not punishable by execution / lethal use of force, snowflake.
she had violent intent, look at all her retweets:

 

You really hate our country, don't you? No lie is too dispicable.
You are an idiot and a liar. You should really stop projecting.

I retired from the military after 20 years of service and am currently still serving after more than another decade, and the oath I took when I entered, to protect this nation, the Constitution, and my fellow Americans, has no expiration date.

You're welcome, snowflake.
 
she was part of a violent mob, armed mob trespassing

The next time a white policeman shoots an unarmed black person who is in the midst of a 'Mostly Peaceful Protest' who are looting, burning, disobeying officer's orders, etc.... let's see how that hypocritical BS you are spewing is accepted by Antifa & BLM.

:p

Last I checked, trespassing was not punishable by execution / lethal use of force, snowflake.

lawandcrime.com

Pro-Trump Woman Shot and Killed at U.S. Capitol Retweeted Attorney Lin Wood's 'Must Be Done' List Before She Died

A woman shot and killed during violent protests aimed at stopping the certification of Joe Biden as the next President of the United States has been identified as 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt. That's according to reporting by KUSI-TV, an independent television station in San Diego, Calif., which...
lawandcrime.com
lawandcrime.com

Her action was a hell of a lot more than "trespassing" as I am sure you are aware. Deny deny deny
 
It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.
I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.
 
No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.
From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.
Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.
 
It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.
I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.
No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.
 
No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.
From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.
Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.
 
It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.
I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.
No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.

My point has always been about PA's being limited to actual PA's, go through my thread history if you think otherwise.

You are ignoring the freedom of the baker, making you guilty of your own accusation.
 
It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.
I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.
No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.

My point has always been about PA's being limited to actual PA's, go through my thread history if you think otherwise.

You are ignoring the freedom of the baker, making you guilty of your own accusation.
Your point was trying to differentiate “point of sale” and “contract” services and the thread history proves me on this one. You claimed this was part of the original CRA but it’s not. It does cover places that serve food. You know, like a bakery.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

But it’s not. It’s only about making sure that your side is protected in a way that is palatable.
 
No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.
From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.
Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.
It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.
 
It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.
I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.
No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.

My point has always been about PA's being limited to actual PA's, go through my thread history if you think otherwise.

You are ignoring the freedom of the baker, making you guilty of your own accusation.
Your point was trying to differentiate “point of sale” and “contract” services and the thread history proves me on this one. You claimed this was part of the original CRA but it’s not. It does cover places that serve food. You know, like a bakery.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

But it’s not. It’s only about making sure that your side is protected in a way that is palatable.

That is an extension of the "what is actually a PA" argument.

Please show where I said "abolish all PA's". My point is and has always been to limit PA's to actual PA's, the original concept, not "any time money changes hands"
 
No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.
From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.
Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.
It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.
 
It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.
I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.
No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.

My point has always been about PA's being limited to actual PA's, go through my thread history if you think otherwise.

You are ignoring the freedom of the baker, making you guilty of your own accusation.
Your point was trying to differentiate “point of sale” and “contract” services and the thread history proves me on this one. You claimed this was part of the original CRA but it’s not. It does cover places that serve food. You know, like a bakery.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

But it’s not. It’s only about making sure that your side is protected in a way that is palatable.

That is an extension of the "what is actually a PA" argument.

Please show where I said "abolish all PA's". My point is and has always been to limit PA's to actual PA's, the original concept, not "any time money changes hands"
No, you didn’t say abolishing all PAs because that would be consistent with your stated beliefs.

Since that’s not your assertion, your stated beliefs are just pretext.
 
No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.
From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.
Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.
It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.
It’s not double talk. It’s rather important distinction that fragility can’t understand.

Saying that a trend occurs, that a benefit occurs does not mean it applies to everyone in that population.

This isn’t about you, snowflake.
 
No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.
From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.
Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.
It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.
It’s not double talk. It’s rather important distinction that fragility can’t understand.

Saying that a trend occurs, that a benefit occurs does not mean it applies to everyone in that population.

This isn’t about you, snowflake.

Ignoring the actual consequences of a given act at the micro to justify a "macro" rule or regulation is an SJW staple.
 
It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.
I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.
No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.

My point has always been about PA's being limited to actual PA's, go through my thread history if you think otherwise.

You are ignoring the freedom of the baker, making you guilty of your own accusation.
Your point was trying to differentiate “point of sale” and “contract” services and the thread history proves me on this one. You claimed this was part of the original CRA but it’s not. It does cover places that serve food. You know, like a bakery.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

But it’s not. It’s only about making sure that your side is protected in a way that is palatable.

That is an extension of the "what is actually a PA" argument.

Please show where I said "abolish all PA's". My point is and has always been to limit PA's to actual PA's, the original concept, not "any time money changes hands"
No, you didn’t say abolishing all PAs because that would be consistent with your stated beliefs.

Since that’s not your assertion, your stated beliefs are just pretext.

So you admit you lied? Thank you.
 
It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.
I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.
No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.

My point has always been about PA's being limited to actual PA's, go through my thread history if you think otherwise.

You are ignoring the freedom of the baker, making you guilty of your own accusation.
Your point was trying to differentiate “point of sale” and “contract” services and the thread history proves me on this one. You claimed this was part of the original CRA but it’s not. It does cover places that serve food. You know, like a bakery.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

But it’s not. It’s only about making sure that your side is protected in a way that is palatable.

That is an extension of the "what is actually a PA" argument.

Please show where I said "abolish all PA's". My point is and has always been to limit PA's to actual PA's, the original concept, not "any time money changes hands"
No, you didn’t say abolishing all PAs because that would be consistent with your stated beliefs.

Since that’s not your assertion, your stated beliefs are just pretext.

So you admit you lied? Thank you.
What? I never said you wanted to abolish PAs. Go back and reread Marty. Wear your glasses next time.
 
No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.
From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.
Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.
It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.
It’s not double talk. It’s rather important distinction that fragility can’t understand.

Saying that a trend occurs, that a benefit occurs does not mean it applies to everyone in that population.

This isn’t about you, snowflake.

Ignoring the actual consequences of a given act at the micro to justify a "macro" rule or regulation is an SJW staple.
I’m willing to accept that teaching history make not make white ancestors look as good as you want.

If you snowflakes can’t handle that, it’s not my problem.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top