81 year old assaulted in Supermaket, manners are deteriorating.

[Tommy Tainant]

Old people getting punched is HILARIOUS.

There are far too many of them. They drive too slow and hold up traffic and they moan about everything all the fucking time. There was bound to be a reaction.

 

[JoeB131]

There are far too many of them. They drive too slow and hold up traffic and they moan about everything all the fucking time. There was bound to be a reaction.

Not to mention that line at the Old Country Buffet....

 

[Tommy Tainant]

There are far too many of them. They drive too slow and hold up traffic and they moan about everything all the fucking time. There was bound to be a reaction.

Not to mention that line at the Old Country Buffet....

View attachment 248247

A lot of them smell of piss.

 

[hadit]

Old people getting punched is HILARIOUS.

There are far too many of them. They drive too slow and hold up traffic and they moan about everything all the fucking time. There was bound to be a reaction.

And you only hope you'll live long enough to become one of them.

 

[hadit]

Are you really claiming to be ignorant of the Obama era policies that separated children from adults and kept them in cages? After all this time?

Yeah, you guys can keep claiming it was the same thing, but it really wasn't...

Except that wearing a maga hat does not make you a nazi. Nazis piled up human bodies and subjugated whole populations ... tortured people. How you can say this about an old man you never met before is proof your not a thinking person.

Here's the funny thing. Before the Nazis piled up the bodies, they spent years dehumanizing the Jews... kind of the way the MAGA Nazis are dehumanizing illegals. Read some of the awful things said about undocumented immigrants here.

So here you have some old fuck who hates his Mexican neighbors so much he's putting on a hat to tell them how much he hates them.

Care to show how it was "different"?

And your mind reading skills are a bit rusty.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

We have a president who says some Mexicans don’t rape. And Republicans wonder what happened to civility.

Did he assault someone or steal their property when he said it?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Who brought race up, dumbass?

The old guy was wearing a racist MAGA hat. ONly racists wear those.

But it's leftists who are committing violence against citizens for exercising their 1st amendment rights.

Walk into a biker bar some time and start insulting their mothers... then you can tell them about your First Amendment rights.

This isn't a first Amendment issue. You are perfectly free to wear a MAGA hat, or a Klan Hood, or a Swastika Armband... Congress won't stop you.

But a liberal will.

Let me ask you: Do liberals believe in the 1st Amendment or not?

But someone will probably still kick your ass,and it will be your own damned fault.

And if the MAGA hat-wearing guy pulls a gun and shoots the assaulter, whose fault is that?

 

[JoeB131]

But a liberal will.

Let me ask you: Do liberals believe in the 1st Amendment or not?

Most of them do. That's really not the issue here. The first Amendment ONLY keeps Congress from making laws. It don't keep a biker from stomping your ass for insulting his mom, and it doesn't stop your boss from firing you for dissing the company on facebook. Words have consequences. If you are going to go out in your nazi Maga hat and mix it up with people of color, expect to get your ass kicked.

And if the MAGA hat-wearing guy pulls a gun and shoots the assaulter, whose fault is that?

Oh, his, because he shot an unarmed man.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

But a liberal will.

Let me ask you: Do liberals believe in the 1st Amendment or not?

Most of them do. That's really not the issue here. The first Amendment ONLY keeps Congress from making laws. It don't keep a biker from stomping your ass for insulting his mom, and it doesn't stop your boss from firing you for dissing the company on facebook. Words have consequences. If you are going to go out in your nazi Maga hat and mix it up with people of color, expect to get your ass kicked.

In other words, you only believe in the 1st Amendment insofar as it means Congress can't make a law taking it away. You have no problem infringing on a fellow American's right to free speech if he says (or wears) something you don't like. Does that about sum it up?

Also, if the 1st Amendment only means that Congress cannot make a law prohibiting the exercise of free speech then why is it that "Most of them (liberals)" believe it? Why not all of them? To you, is it just a law or a matter of fact that the government can't take away free speech or is it a principle we all should adhere to?

And if the MAGA hat-wearing guy pulls a gun and shoots the assaulter, whose fault is that?

Oh, his, because he shot an unarmed man.

His being unarmed is irrelevant, it's against the law to commit murder. Just as it's against the law to assault someone in the first degree. Get it? The law is the law and applies to everyone. This means you don't get a free pass to assault someone because you don't like his fucking hat.

There is a distinction here that I'm not sure you're aware of. You're telling me that if one "mixes it up" with black people while wearing a MAGA hat then he should expect to get his ass kicked. You're absolutely correct. What you're not saying is that you think they should kick his ass and they would be justified in doing so, in spite of the law. Am I wrong?

 

[Marion Morrison]

We have a president who says some Mexicans don’t rape. And Republicans wonder what happened to civility.

Fuck you, asshole....Your team is perpetrating the documented physical violence.

Next up, helicopters.

Incel - Wikipedia

Bodey-Odey-Os

Dykes on Bikes - Wikipedia

 

[DustyInfinity]

I want to know why anyone would care that a person wears a hat with a slogan.

So if he wore a hat that said "Heil Hitler" , you'd be 'It's just a slogan, dude, chill."

I don't think people believe that even YOU think half the country is racist. You're just trolling and justifying violence against political rivals. Either you're a troll, or even worse, you actually believe that half of all Americans are racist like CNN says.

 

[DustyInfinity]

It is pretty telling that conservatives can't even have bumper stickers because the unstable lefties will commit vandalism. Someone already brought up that people with Obama bumper stickers have no issues. I wonder why that is?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Old people getting punched is HILARIOUS.

Lol, young turds getting shot through the face is even more hilarious, shit4brains.

 

[JoeB131]

In other words, you only believe in the 1st Amendment insofar as it means Congress can't make a law taking it away. You have no problem infringing on a fellow American's right to free speech if he says (or wears) something you don't like. Does that about sum it up?

I'm saying if you get in my face and say something that offends me, you are going to regret your life choices that day.

Also, if the 1st Amendment only means that Congress cannot make a law prohibiting the exercise of free speech then why is it that "Most of them (liberals)" believe it? Why not all of them? To you, is it just a law or a matter of fact that the government can't take away free speech or is it a principle we all should adhere to?

Because I have this funny idea that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The 1A is a great principle, but you really have to temper it with a bit of reason. You can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. You can't let your cult leader molest kids because he's thinks he's Jesus. And if you are stupid enough to walk up to a bunch of black guys wearing a Klan Hood or a Swastika or a MAGA hat, you should kind of expect the resulting ass-kicking.

His being unarmed is irrelevant, it's against the law to commit murder. Just as it's against the law to assault someone in the first degree. Get it? The law is the law and applies to everyone. This means you don't get a free pass to assault someone because you don't like his fucking hat.

There is a distinction here that I'm not sure you're aware of. You're telling me that if one "mixes it up" with black people while wearing a MAGA hat then he should expect to get his ass kicked. You're absolutely correct. What you're not saying is that you think they should kick his ass and they would be justified in doing so, in spite of the law. Am I wrong?

I'm saying that the concept of "Fighting Words" is a concept in our law.

Fighting Words

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.


And this is my main problem with Trump overall. Other presidents have talk about the division of ideas. Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Keynesian Economics vs. Supply Side, Activist Government vs. Limited Government. These are good conversations, we should totally have them.

Trump has sought to divide people. He calls the press the enemy of the people, mocks the disabled, calls people of certain ethnicity "rapists" and "animals", and generally stirs up the nastiest hatreds, and then wonders why the small minded fool who goes out there with a MAGA hat gets his ass kicked.

 

[Meathead]

In other words, you only believe in the 1st Amendment insofar as it means Congress can't make a law taking it away. You have no problem infringing on a fellow American's right to free speech if he says (or wears) something you don't like. Does that about sum it up?

I'm saying if you get in my face and say something that offends me, you are going to regret your life choices that day.

Also, if the 1st Amendment only means that Congress cannot make a law prohibiting the exercise of free speech then why is it that "Most of them (liberals)" believe it? Why not all of them? To you, is it just a law or a matter of fact that the government can't take away free speech or is it a principle we all should adhere to?

Because I have this funny idea that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The 1A is a great principle, but you really have to temper it with a bit of reason. You can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. You can't let your cult leader molest kids because he's thinks he's Jesus. And if you are stupid enough to walk up to a bunch of black guys wearing a Klan Hood or a Swastika or a MAGA hat, you should kind of expect the resulting ass-kicking.

His being unarmed is irrelevant, it's against the law to commit murder. Just as it's against the law to assault someone in the first degree. Get it? The law is the law and applies to everyone. This means you don't get a free pass to assault someone because you don't like his fucking hat.

There is a distinction here that I'm not sure you're aware of. You're telling me that if one "mixes it up" with black people while wearing a MAGA hat then he should expect to get his ass kicked. You're absolutely correct. What you're not saying is that you think they should kick his ass and they would be justified in doing so, in spite of the law. Am I wrong?

I'm saying that the concept of "Fighting Words" is a concept in our law.

Fighting Words

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.


And this is my main problem with Trump overall. Other presidents have talk about the division of ideas. Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Keynesian Economics vs. Supply Side, Activist Government vs. Limited Government. These are good conversations, we should totally have them.

Trump has sought to divide people. He calls the press the enemy of the people, mocks the disabled, calls people of certain ethnicity "rapists" and "animals", and generally stirs up the nastiest hatreds, and then wonders why the small minded fool who goes out there with a MAGA hat gets his ass kicked.

If you think a MAGA hat is the same as a KKK hood or the swaztika symbol, I have only two words for you, FUCK OFF!

No, sorry, three words, FUCK OFF ASSHOLE!

 

[JoeB131]

I don't think people believe that even YOU think half the country is racist. You're just trolling and justifying violence against political rivals. Either you're a troll, or even worse, you actually believe that half of all Americans are racist like CNN says.

Well, first, half the country doesn't support Trump.

Second, yes, I think a large portion of his followers are racist whether they want to admit that to themselves or not.

There are different degrees between the nut who goes out there wearing a swastika and the guy who will say, "Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Mexicans" before he goes into a whole diatribe about "those people' and their values.

Here's the underlying problem. In between the 1940s and 1960's, Conservatives lost the conversation about economics. They realized the way back into power was to play on people's racial, religious and sexual fears. They used nice terms like "Family Values" and "Law and Order" to push this agenda, of course.

This started with Tricky Dick's Southern Strategy... on with Reagan's Welfare Queens and Bush-41's Willie Horton ad.

Trump is just the undiluted version of this rat poison.

 

[JoeB131]

It is pretty telling that conservatives can't even have bumper stickers because the unstable lefties will commit vandalism. Someone already brought up that people with Obama bumper stickers have no issues. I wonder why that is?

Really?

Cars With Obama Bumper Stickers Targeted By Vandals At Western Washington U.

Vehicle sporting Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders stickers vandalized in Metairie parking lot

 

[Polishprince]

Do not wear a hat indoors people. Whatever happened to good old-fashioned manners.

An 81 year old man waltzed right into a Supermarket and didn't bother taking his hat off. You'd think he'd know better manners at his age. A right cross to the face straightened gramps right out.

The great old school conservative, MLK, addressed this, and I paraphrase

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their baseball cap, but by the content of their character."

We don't live in that America yet. The Deep South, MLK's home, was deeply liberal at the time. The Left hasn't changed.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It is pretty telling that conservatives can't even have bumper stickers because the unstable lefties will commit vandalism. Someone already brought up that people with Obama bumper stickers have no issues. I wonder why that is?

Really?

Cars With Obama Bumper Stickers Targeted By Vandals At Western Washington U.

Vehicle sporting Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders stickers vandalized in Metairie parking lot

Hoaxes!

 

[Marion Morrison]

I'm gonna laugh my ass off when one of these punks assault an old man for wearing a hat and get shot right in the face.

I don't wear one because I know I'll go to prison, I don't give a fuck or put up with bullshit like that.