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.
It may be. Do you know exactly what you are talking about?So making fun of members of congress is intimidating them
Raunchy photoshops?
Sorry, but if that intimidates a person they should go hide somewhere in a shack in Montana.
It's amazing how prog assholes like you are more and more wanting to punish thoughtcrime.
The point there was not so much "raunchy photoshops" and the other material from white supremacists and murderers in the secret Border Patrol group. It's more that the OP's lying ass tried to pass that off as "making fun of Congress". That's obviously biased bullshit, and he got called out on it, and he ran away.
In fact I'm STILL waiting for his lying ass to waddle back in here and substantiate his accusation against me (see above). He won't do it because he's a fucking WIMP.
Sadder that many miscreants here are defending her. They're loyal pawns.It may be. Do you know exactly what you are talking about?So making fun of members of congress is intimidating them
Raunchy photoshops?
Sorry, but if that intimidates a person they should go hide somewhere in a shack in Montana.
It's amazing how prog assholes like you are more and more wanting to punish thoughtcrime.
The point there was not so much "raunchy photoshops" and the other material from white supremacists and murderers in the secret Border Patrol group. It's more that the OP's lying ass tried to pass that off as "making fun of Congress". That's obviously biased bullshit, and he got called out on it, and he ran away.
In fact I'm STILL waiting for his lying ass to waddle back in here and substantiate his accusation against me (see above). He won't do it because he's a fucking WIMP.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
It may be. Do you know exactly what you are talking about?So making fun of members of congress is intimidating them
Raunchy photoshops?
Sorry, but if that intimidates a person they should go hide somewhere in a shack in Montana.
It's amazing how prog assholes like you are more and more wanting to punish thoughtcrime.
The point there was not so much "raunchy photoshops" and the other material from white supremacists and murderers in the secret Border Patrol group. It's more that the OP's lying ass tried to pass that off as "making fun of Congress". That's obviously biased bullshit, and he got called out on it, and he ran away.
In fact I'm STILL waiting for his lying ass to waddle back in here and substantiate his accusation against me (see above). He won't do it because he's a fucking WIMP.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
It may be. Do you know exactly what you are talking about?So making fun of members of congress is intimidating them
Raunchy photoshops?
Sorry, but if that intimidates a person they should go hide somewhere in a shack in Montana.
It's amazing how prog assholes like you are more and more wanting to punish thoughtcrime.
The point there was not so much "raunchy photoshops" and the other material from white supremacists and murderers in the secret Border Patrol group. It's more that the OP's lying ass tried to pass that off as "making fun of Congress". That's obviously biased bullshit, and he got called out on it, and he ran away.
In fact I'm STILL waiting for his lying ass to waddle back in here and substantiate his accusation against me (see above). He won't do it because he's a fucking WIMP.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
It may be. Do you know exactly what you are talking about?So making fun of members of congress is intimidating them
Raunchy photoshops?
Sorry, but if that intimidates a person they should go hide somewhere in a shack in Montana.
It's amazing how prog assholes like you are more and more wanting to punish thoughtcrime.
The point there was not so much "raunchy photoshops" and the other material from white supremacists and murderers in the secret Border Patrol group. It's more that the OP's lying ass tried to pass that off as "making fun of Congress". That's obviously biased bullshit, and he got called out on it, and he ran away.
In fact I'm STILL waiting for his lying ass to waddle back in here and substantiate his accusation against me (see above). He won't do it because he's a fucking WIMP.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
It may be. Do you know exactly what you are talking about?
Raunchy photoshops?
Sorry, but if that intimidates a person they should go hide somewhere in a shack in Montana.
It's amazing how prog assholes like you are more and more wanting to punish thoughtcrime.
The point there was not so much "raunchy photoshops" and the other material from white supremacists and murderers in the secret Border Patrol group. It's more that the OP's lying ass tried to pass that off as "making fun of Congress". That's obviously biased bullshit, and he got called out on it, and he ran away.
In fact I'm STILL waiting for his lying ass to waddle back in here and substantiate his accusation against me (see above). He won't do it because he's a fucking WIMP.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
Did Trump try anything?
The difference is progressives have a penchant for using government to quell their opposition.
And can you provide an exact quote of what Trump said that you are referring to?
Raunchy photoshops?
Sorry, but if that intimidates a person they should go hide somewhere in a shack in Montana.
It's amazing how prog assholes like you are more and more wanting to punish thoughtcrime.
The point there was not so much "raunchy photoshops" and the other material from white supremacists and murderers in the secret Border Patrol group. It's more that the OP's lying ass tried to pass that off as "making fun of Congress". That's obviously biased bullshit, and he got called out on it, and he ran away.
In fact I'm STILL waiting for his lying ass to waddle back in here and substantiate his accusation against me (see above). He won't do it because he's a fucking WIMP.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
Did Trump try anything?
Did the Congresscritter?
In both cases no (far as I know). In both cases they can't anyway. But you're evading the point, that being about not Rump or the Congresscritter but about the hypocrisy of selective outrage. See, that point isn't about the actors looking to intimidate somebody's expression out there. It's about double standard in here.
The difference is progressives have a penchant for using government to quell their opposition.
And can you provide an exact quote of what Trump said that you are referring to?
Funny you should ask that (again). Because I've been linking that same video to make that same point for two, three years, Dozens of times, and it's got thousands of hits. Yet it's been, how you say, "disappeared". Or well-buried.
It does exist somewhere though. I'll have to go hunt it down. You know, so you can have your deflection.
Curious that it got hidden though, innit.
Oh and "Progressives" have still been gone for a hundred years. That hasn't changed. You know, linear time. But back here in the present, it would appear both of them were beckoning 'government' to quell the opposition. That's what the word "laws" means. So between the two of them, sameo-sameo. Here --- not so much. There's your 'difference'.
The point there was not so much "raunchy photoshops" and the other material from white supremacists and murderers in the secret Border Patrol group. It's more that the OP's lying ass tried to pass that off as "making fun of Congress". That's obviously biased bullshit, and he got called out on it, and he ran away.
In fact I'm STILL waiting for his lying ass to waddle back in here and substantiate his accusation against me (see above). He won't do it because he's a fucking WIMP.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
Did Trump try anything?
Did the Congresscritter?
In both cases no (far as I know). In both cases they can't anyway. But you're evading the point, that being about not Rump or the Congresscritter but about the hypocrisy of selective outrage. See, that point isn't about the actors looking to intimidate somebody's expression out there. It's about double standard in here.
The difference is progressives have a penchant for using government to quell their opposition.
And can you provide an exact quote of what Trump said that you are referring to?
Funny you should ask that (again). Because I've been linking that same video to make that same point for two, three years, Dozens of times, and it's got thousands of hits. Yet it's been, how you say, "disappeared". Or well-buried.
It does exist somewhere though. I'll have to go hunt it down. You know, so you can have your deflection.
Curious that it got hidden though, innit.
Oh and "Progressives" have still been gone for a hundred years. That hasn't changed. You know, linear time. But back here in the present, it would appear both of them were beckoning 'government' to quell the opposition. That's what the word "laws" means. So between the two of them, sameo-sameo. Here --- not so much. There's your 'difference'.
And here we are. Get it from the Orange Bigly Mouth hisself.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
Did Trump try anything?
Did the Congresscritter?
In both cases no (far as I know). In both cases they can't anyway. But you're evading the point, that being about not Rump or the Congresscritter but about the hypocrisy of selective outrage. See, that point isn't about the actors looking to intimidate somebody's expression out there. It's about double standard in here.
The difference is progressives have a penchant for using government to quell their opposition.
And can you provide an exact quote of what Trump said that you are referring to?
Funny you should ask that (again). Because I've been linking that same video to make that same point for two, three years, Dozens of times, and it's got thousands of hits. Yet it's been, how you say, "disappeared". Or well-buried.
It does exist somewhere though. I'll have to go hunt it down. You know, so you can have your deflection.
Curious that it got hidden though, innit.
Oh and "Progressives" have still been gone for a hundred years. That hasn't changed. You know, linear time. But back here in the present, it would appear both of them were beckoning 'government' to quell the opposition. That's what the word "laws" means. So between the two of them, sameo-sameo. Here --- not so much. There's your 'difference'.
And here we are. Get it from the Orange Bigly Mouth hisself.
True or not we don't care. And then it is from Trump. Most of us are hoping for the big one on the West coast for gosh sake. A decade ago that would not have been able to be said. You guys ruin everything. And that includes yourselves. On depending on exact English wording and spelling principles you will end up starving and dying from the outside elements some day. And the kicker is, you throw away legality that spells things out as laws that you don't like. I envision millions of Weinsteins and millions more in this land in a decade or so.
Raunchy photoshops?
Sorry, but if that intimidates a person they should go hide somewhere in a shack in Montana.
It's amazing how prog assholes like you are more and more wanting to punish thoughtcrime.
The point there was not so much "raunchy photoshops" and the other material from white supremacists and murderers in the secret Border Patrol group. It's more that the OP's lying ass tried to pass that off as "making fun of Congress". That's obviously biased bullshit, and he got called out on it, and he ran away.
In fact I'm STILL waiting for his lying ass to waddle back in here and substantiate his accusation against me (see above). He won't do it because he's a fucking WIMP.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
Did Trump try anything?
Did the Congresscritter?
In both cases no (far as I know). In both cases they can't anyway. But you're evading the point, that being about not Rump or the Congresscritter but about the hypocrisy of selective outrage. See, that point isn't about the actors looking to intimidate somebody's expression out there. It's about double standard in here.
The difference is progressives have a penchant for using government to quell their opposition.
And can you provide an exact quote of what Trump said that you are referring to?
Funny you should ask that (again). Because I've been linking that same video to make that same point for two, three years, Dozens of times, and it's got thousands of hits. Yet it's been, how you say, "disappeared". Or well-buried.
It does exist somewhere though. I'll have to go hunt it down. You know, so you can have your deflection.
Curious that it got hidden though, innit.
Oh and "Progressives" have still been gone for a hundred years. That hasn't changed. You know, linear time. But back here in the present, it would appear both of them were beckoning 'government' to quell the opposition. That's what the word "laws" means. So between the two of them, sameo-sameo. Here --- not so much. There's your 'difference'.
The point there was not so much "raunchy photoshops" and the other material from white supremacists and murderers in the secret Border Patrol group. It's more that the OP's lying ass tried to pass that off as "making fun of Congress". That's obviously biased bullshit, and he got called out on it, and he ran away.
In fact I'm STILL waiting for his lying ass to waddle back in here and substantiate his accusation against me (see above). He won't do it because he's a fucking WIMP.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
Did Trump try anything?
Did the Congresscritter?
In both cases no (far as I know). In both cases they can't anyway. But you're evading the point, that being about not Rump or the Congresscritter but about the hypocrisy of selective outrage. See, that point isn't about the actors looking to intimidate somebody's expression out there. It's about double standard in here.
The difference is progressives have a penchant for using government to quell their opposition.
And can you provide an exact quote of what Trump said that you are referring to?
Funny you should ask that (again). Because I've been linking that same video to make that same point for two, three years, Dozens of times, and it's got thousands of hits. Yet it's been, how you say, "disappeared". Or well-buried.
It does exist somewhere though. I'll have to go hunt it down. You know, so you can have your deflection.
Curious that it got hidden though, innit.
Oh and "Progressives" have still been gone for a hundred years. That hasn't changed. You know, linear time. But back here in the present, it would appear both of them were beckoning 'government' to quell the opposition. That's what the word "laws" means. So between the two of them, sameo-sameo. Here --- not so much. There's your 'difference'.
And here we are. Get it from the Orange Bigly Mouth hisself.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
Did Trump try anything?
Did the Congresscritter?
In both cases no (far as I know). In both cases they can't anyway. But you're evading the point, that being about not Rump or the Congresscritter but about the hypocrisy of selective outrage. See, that point isn't about the actors looking to intimidate somebody's expression out there. It's about double standard in here.
The difference is progressives have a penchant for using government to quell their opposition.
And can you provide an exact quote of what Trump said that you are referring to?
Funny you should ask that (again). Because I've been linking that same video to make that same point for two, three years, Dozens of times, and it's got thousands of hits. Yet it's been, how you say, "disappeared". Or well-buried.
It does exist somewhere though. I'll have to go hunt it down. You know, so you can have your deflection.
Curious that it got hidden though, innit.
Oh and "Progressives" have still been gone for a hundred years. That hasn't changed. You know, linear time. But back here in the present, it would appear both of them were beckoning 'government' to quell the opposition. That's what the word "laws" means. So between the two of them, sameo-sameo. Here --- not so much. There's your 'difference'.
And here we are. Get it from the Orange Bigly Mouth hisself.
Libel suit, not prosecuting or accusing of criminal behavior.
Even when you try not to lie, you end up lying.
The point there was not so much "raunchy photoshops" and the other material from white supremacists and murderers in the secret Border Patrol group. It's more that the OP's lying ass tried to pass that off as "making fun of Congress". That's obviously biased bullshit, and he got called out on it, and he ran away.
In fact I'm STILL waiting for his lying ass to waddle back in here and substantiate his accusation against me (see above). He won't do it because he's a fucking WIMP.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
Did Trump try anything?
Did the Congresscritter?
In both cases no (far as I know). In both cases they can't anyway. But you're evading the point, that being about not Rump or the Congresscritter but about the hypocrisy of selective outrage. See, that point isn't about the actors looking to intimidate somebody's expression out there. It's about double standard in here.
The difference is progressives have a penchant for using government to quell their opposition.
And can you provide an exact quote of what Trump said that you are referring to?
Funny you should ask that (again). Because I've been linking that same video to make that same point for two, three years, Dozens of times, and it's got thousands of hits. Yet it's been, how you say, "disappeared". Or well-buried.
It does exist somewhere though. I'll have to go hunt it down. You know, so you can have your deflection.
Curious that it got hidden though, innit.
Oh and "Progressives" have still been gone for a hundred years. That hasn't changed. You know, linear time. But back here in the present, it would appear both of them were beckoning 'government' to quell the opposition. That's what the word "laws" means. So between the two of them, sameo-sameo. Here --- not so much. There's your 'difference'.
So no exact quote. Go run and hide you snivelling little quisling.
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
Did Trump try anything?
Did the Congresscritter?
In both cases no (far as I know). In both cases they can't anyway. But you're evading the point, that being about not Rump or the Congresscritter but about the hypocrisy of selective outrage. See, that point isn't about the actors looking to intimidate somebody's expression out there. It's about double standard in here.
The difference is progressives have a penchant for using government to quell their opposition.
And can you provide an exact quote of what Trump said that you are referring to?
Funny you should ask that (again). Because I've been linking that same video to make that same point for two, three years, Dozens of times, and it's got thousands of hits. Yet it's been, how you say, "disappeared". Or well-buried.
It does exist somewhere though. I'll have to go hunt it down. You know, so you can have your deflection.
Curious that it got hidden though, innit.
Oh and "Progressives" have still been gone for a hundred years. That hasn't changed. You know, linear time. But back here in the present, it would appear both of them were beckoning 'government' to quell the opposition. That's what the word "laws" means. So between the two of them, sameo-sameo. Here --- not so much. There's your 'difference'.
And here we are. Get it from the Orange Bigly Mouth hisself.
Libel suit, not prosecuting or accusing of criminal behavior.
Even when you try not to lie, you end up lying.
Apparently that was a note-to-self, because I said nothing about "prosecuting or accusing of criminal behaviour".
You posted, and I quote, "did Rump try anything". And I answered, with his words directly.
And THAT was after I noted the same whiners who cry the blues about this Congresswoman, had nothing similar to say about Rump, and the Double Standard that belies.
So there it is, isn't it.
Oh and that video is not a "lie". That's him, speaking at a rally in Texas.
Her words made it clear she meant making fun of congresscritters.
Oh god, should I be prosecuted for that?
She needs to grow a pair of balls, even if they are rhetorical.
Oh god should I be prosecuted for that too?
The context makes it clear what she's referring to is far more egregious than simply "making fun of" somebody.
Reacting to it with “We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted” may be overreaction even if it is to allusions of rape, murder, running people over and burning people up.
But what's perhaps more interesting is this:
When Rump was running around declaring he would shut down the Washington Post and the New York Times --- same language you'll notice ---- not one of the whiners denigrating the Congresscritter's complaint took the same stance about the same issue.
Not one.
Did Trump try anything?
Did the Congresscritter?
In both cases no (far as I know). In both cases they can't anyway. But you're evading the point, that being about not Rump or the Congresscritter but about the hypocrisy of selective outrage. See, that point isn't about the actors looking to intimidate somebody's expression out there. It's about double standard in here.
The difference is progressives have a penchant for using government to quell their opposition.
And can you provide an exact quote of what Trump said that you are referring to?
Funny you should ask that (again). Because I've been linking that same video to make that same point for two, three years, Dozens of times, and it's got thousands of hits. Yet it's been, how you say, "disappeared". Or well-buried.
It does exist somewhere though. I'll have to go hunt it down. You know, so you can have your deflection.
Curious that it got hidden though, innit.
Oh and "Progressives" have still been gone for a hundred years. That hasn't changed. You know, linear time. But back here in the present, it would appear both of them were beckoning 'government' to quell the opposition. That's what the word "laws" means. So between the two of them, sameo-sameo. Here --- not so much. There's your 'difference'.
So no exact quote. Go run and hide you snivelling little quisling.
The exact quote was posted in a video THREE DAYS before you made this post, jackass.
Did Trump try anything?
Did the Congresscritter?
In both cases no (far as I know). In both cases they can't anyway. But you're evading the point, that being about not Rump or the Congresscritter but about the hypocrisy of selective outrage. See, that point isn't about the actors looking to intimidate somebody's expression out there. It's about double standard in here.
The difference is progressives have a penchant for using government to quell their opposition.
And can you provide an exact quote of what Trump said that you are referring to?
Funny you should ask that (again). Because I've been linking that same video to make that same point for two, three years, Dozens of times, and it's got thousands of hits. Yet it's been, how you say, "disappeared". Or well-buried.
It does exist somewhere though. I'll have to go hunt it down. You know, so you can have your deflection.
Curious that it got hidden though, innit.
Oh and "Progressives" have still been gone for a hundred years. That hasn't changed. You know, linear time. But back here in the present, it would appear both of them were beckoning 'government' to quell the opposition. That's what the word "laws" means. So between the two of them, sameo-sameo. Here --- not so much. There's your 'difference'.
And here we are. Get it from the Orange Bigly Mouth hisself.
Libel suit, not prosecuting or accusing of criminal behavior.
Even when you try not to lie, you end up lying.
Apparently that was a note-to-self, because I said nothing about "prosecuting or accusing of criminal behaviour".
You posted, and I quote, "did Rump try anything". And I answered, with his words directly.
And THAT was after I noted the same whiners who cry the blues about this Congresswoman, had nothing similar to say about Rump, and the Double Standard that belies.
So there it is, isn't it.
Oh and that video is not a "lie". That's him, speaking at a rally in Texas.
So a newspaper should be able to Libel or slander someone?
Did the Congresscritter?
In both cases no (far as I know). In both cases they can't anyway. But you're evading the point, that being about not Rump or the Congresscritter but about the hypocrisy of selective outrage. See, that point isn't about the actors looking to intimidate somebody's expression out there. It's about double standard in here.
Funny you should ask that (again). Because I've been linking that same video to make that same point for two, three years, Dozens of times, and it's got thousands of hits. Yet it's been, how you say, "disappeared". Or well-buried.
It does exist somewhere though. I'll have to go hunt it down. You know, so you can have your deflection.
Curious that it got hidden though, innit.
Oh and "Progressives" have still been gone for a hundred years. That hasn't changed. You know, linear time. But back here in the present, it would appear both of them were beckoning 'government' to quell the opposition. That's what the word "laws" means. So between the two of them, sameo-sameo. Here --- not so much. There's your 'difference'.
And here we are. Get it from the Orange Bigly Mouth hisself.
Libel suit, not prosecuting or accusing of criminal behavior.
Even when you try not to lie, you end up lying.
Apparently that was a note-to-self, because I said nothing about "prosecuting or accusing of criminal behaviour".
You posted, and I quote, "did Rump try anything". And I answered, with his words directly.
And THAT was after I noted the same whiners who cry the blues about this Congresswoman, had nothing similar to say about Rump, and the Double Standard that belies.
So there it is, isn't it.
Oh and that video is not a "lie". That's him, speaking at a rally in Texas.
So a newspaper should be able to Libel or slander someone?
Nnnnnnnnope. That's illegal.
But that's not what he says there is it.
Yes he says "libel laws" but that's not what he describes. He describes "a hit piece which is a disgrace". That's the dead giveaway. It literally means something he doesn't like, which is anything that doesn't drop to its knees and fluff him.
He uses that term "disgrace" a lot. Can't stand to lose his self-infatuated "grace". In other words ---- no balls. He wants to sue people out of existence for the sole reason that his fragile narcissist ego can't take the heat.
That's what "opening up" a law means. A law is specific, now he wants to "open it up" to include all kinds of shit that wasn't in there.
ALWAYS pay attention to the lyrics. The devil is in the details.
And here we are. Get it from the Orange Bigly Mouth hisself.
Libel suit, not prosecuting or accusing of criminal behavior.
Even when you try not to lie, you end up lying.
Apparently that was a note-to-self, because I said nothing about "prosecuting or accusing of criminal behaviour".
You posted, and I quote, "did Rump try anything". And I answered, with his words directly.
And THAT was after I noted the same whiners who cry the blues about this Congresswoman, had nothing similar to say about Rump, and the Double Standard that belies.
So there it is, isn't it.
Oh and that video is not a "lie". That's him, speaking at a rally in Texas.
So a newspaper should be able to Libel or slander someone?
Nnnnnnnnope. That's illegal.
But that's not what he says there is it.
Yes he says "libel laws" but that's not what he describes. He describes "a hit piece which is a disgrace". That's the dead giveaway. It literally means something he doesn't like, which is anything that doesn't drop to its knees and fluff him.
He uses that term "disgrace" a lot. Can't stand to lose his self-infatuated "grace". In other words ---- no balls. He wants to sue people out of existence for the sole reason that his fragile narcissist ego can't take the heat.
That's what "opening up" a law means. A law is specific, now he wants to "open it up" to include all kinds of shit that wasn't in there.
ALWAYS pay attention to the lyrics. The devil is in the details.
And he goes with gunning after them for libel. Not suing them for being mean, not prosecuting them.
Libel.
Libel suit, not prosecuting or accusing of criminal behavior.
Even when you try not to lie, you end up lying.
Apparently that was a note-to-self, because I said nothing about "prosecuting or accusing of criminal behaviour".
You posted, and I quote, "did Rump try anything". And I answered, with his words directly.
And THAT was after I noted the same whiners who cry the blues about this Congresswoman, had nothing similar to say about Rump, and the Double Standard that belies.
So there it is, isn't it.
Oh and that video is not a "lie". That's him, speaking at a rally in Texas.
So a newspaper should be able to Libel or slander someone?
Nnnnnnnnope. That's illegal.
But that's not what he says there is it.
Yes he says "libel laws" but that's not what he describes. He describes "a hit piece which is a disgrace". That's the dead giveaway. It literally means something he doesn't like, which is anything that doesn't drop to its knees and fluff him.
He uses that term "disgrace" a lot. Can't stand to lose his self-infatuated "grace". In other words ---- no balls. He wants to sue people out of existence for the sole reason that his fragile narcissist ego can't take the heat.
That's what "opening up" a law means. A law is specific, now he wants to "open it up" to include all kinds of shit that wasn't in there.
ALWAYS pay attention to the lyrics. The devil is in the details.
And he goes with gunning after them for libel. Not suing them for being mean, not prosecuting them.
Libel.
See if you can translate whatever that is into English.
Apparently that was a note-to-self, because I said nothing about "prosecuting or accusing of criminal behaviour".
You posted, and I quote, "did Rump try anything". And I answered, with his words directly.
And THAT was after I noted the same whiners who cry the blues about this Congresswoman, had nothing similar to say about Rump, and the Double Standard that belies.
So there it is, isn't it.
Oh and that video is not a "lie". That's him, speaking at a rally in Texas.
So a newspaper should be able to Libel or slander someone?
Nnnnnnnnope. That's illegal.
But that's not what he says there is it.
Yes he says "libel laws" but that's not what he describes. He describes "a hit piece which is a disgrace". That's the dead giveaway. It literally means something he doesn't like, which is anything that doesn't drop to its knees and fluff him.
He uses that term "disgrace" a lot. Can't stand to lose his self-infatuated "grace". In other words ---- no balls. He wants to sue people out of existence for the sole reason that his fragile narcissist ego can't take the heat.
That's what "opening up" a law means. A law is specific, now he wants to "open it up" to include all kinds of shit that wasn't in there.
ALWAYS pay attention to the lyrics. The devil is in the details.
And he goes with gunning after them for libel. Not suing them for being mean, not prosecuting them.
Libel.
See if you can translate whatever that is into English.
I made my point. now run off in a huff.
