Hey Snowflakes, This Is What A REAL Attack Looks Like:

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Terrorism is what the white nationalist Coast Guard guy was planning to do.

He's under arrest, moron.

 

[WillowTree]

What a fucking douchebag. Remember that Hillary supporter who shot a bunch of Republican politicians playing baseball? Then there's the guy who assaulted Rand Paul. Then we have the countless beating of Trump supporters outside his rallies. Then we have the harassment of Trump administration officials and Republican member of Congress in restaurant.

I could go on all day about all the sleazy violent behavior your side engages in.

I remember the right wing loon who shot then Democrat Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona. Several protestors have been attacked at Trump rallies including women who had a baby with them and a minister. Telling GOP congressmen and Cabinet members they disagree with their policies is not harassment. it is what we call freedom. If they don't like it then they can resign.

The fact is that neither side is innocent. However Trump has openly encouraged their supporters to commit violence and he regularly whips his crowds into a frenzy against the media. Neither Pelosi or Schumer have done that.

Really?

Yes really!!!

No. Not really!

Another lie by a Trump supporter.

Every time your lips move you are lying!

 

[busybee01]

Wasn’t it Biden who threatened to take the POTUS out behind the woodshed and beat the shit outta him?

He is right. Trump is a little brat who needs a good spanking.

So you are an advocate for violence on the left and I knew you were! Stop whining!

I advocate for discipline. Trump is a spoiled child who needs to be disciplined. He incites violence against others and complains when others do it.

 

[busybee01]

I remember the right wing loon who shot then Democrat Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona. Several protestors have been attacked at Trump rallies including women who had a baby with them and a minister. Telling GOP congressmen and Cabinet members they disagree with their policies is not harassment. it is what we call freedom. If they don't like it then they can resign.

The fact is that neither side is innocent. However Trump has openly encouraged their supporters to commit violence and he regularly whips his crowds into a frenzy against the media. Neither Pelosi or Schumer have done that.

Really?

Yes really!!!

No. Not really!

Another lie by a Trump supporter.

Every time your lips move you are lying!

You are a Trump supporter so by definition you are a liar.

 

[bripat9643]

Horseshit. All lefties are thugs. We've seen that ever since early in 2016. Hillary paid people to beat up Trump supporters. That says it all.

Fake news my ill-informed friend.

And you fell for it, as usual.

Wrong. It was on video tape, moron.

Please post video of Hillary paying people to beat up tRumpkins.

Video: Clinton Camp Admits Paying Protesters to Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

"No, I’m saying that we have mentally ill people that we pay to do shit, make no mistake. Over the last twenty years. I’ve paid off a few homeless guys to do crazy stuff, and I’ve also made sure they had a hotel."​

That is hardly proof of anything. it is ambiguous at best.

Nothing can ever be proved to the satisfaction of leftwing douchebags like you. You turds are still defending Michael Brown, even though a Grand Jury refused to indict the cop who had to shoot him to defend himself.

 

[WillowTree]

Fake news my ill-informed friend.

And you fell for it, as usual.

Wrong. It was on video tape, moron.

Please post video of Hillary paying people to beat up tRumpkins.

Video: Clinton Camp Admits Paying Protesters to Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

"No, I’m saying that we have mentally ill people that we pay to do shit, make no mistake. Over the last twenty years. I’ve paid off a few homeless guys to do crazy stuff, and I’ve also made sure they had a hotel."​

That is hardly proof of anything. it is ambiguous at best.

Nothing can ever be proved to the satisfaction of leftwing douchebags like you. You turds are still defending Michael Brown, even though a Grand Jury refused to indict the cop who had to shoot him to defend himself.

They lack intelligence and insight! They are lemmings!

 

[bripat9643]

So after 12 pages, we (still) have Smollett summing up / representing the Left, not only their false claims of being victims of 'right wing's / MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporters but overall liars as we'll in general, and on the other side we have yet again another very real case of violent liberal intolerance.

Great discussion...

A real attack occurred in Annapolis and a Jewish Community center. We have the Proud Boys. There is plenty of intolerance on the right as well.

The Proud Boys don't initiate violence, but they do defend themselves. It appears that you object to the victims of left wing violence defending themselves.

 

[WillowTree]

Wasn’t it Biden who threatened to take the POTUS out behind the woodshed and beat the shit outta him?

He is right. Trump is a little brat who needs a good spanking.

So you are an advocate for violence on the left and I knew you were! Stop whining!

I advocate for discipline. Trump is a spoiled child who needs to be disciplined. He incites violence against others and complains when others do it.

Bullshit! Go play your knockout game!

 

[bripat9643]

Really?

Yes really!!!

No. Not really!

Another lie by a Trump supporter.

Every time your lips move you are lying!

You are a Trump supporter so by definition you are a liar.

 

[bripat9643]

Wasn’t it Biden who threatened to take the POTUS out behind the woodshed and beat the shit outta him?

He is right. Trump is a little brat who needs a good spanking.

So you are an advocate for violence on the left and I knew you were! Stop whining!

I advocate for discipline. Trump is a spoiled child who needs to be disciplined. He incites violence against others and complains when others do it.

In other words, you advocate violence. You're a thug.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The fat white boys you like are repukes like you. Liberals try to stay in shape so we can out run the trailer trash nazis when the come to attack.

You approved of the sucker punch cowardly attack, didn't you.
Real tough guys act. Guys like you run your mouth and hide behind your little keyboard.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

That is hardly proof of anything. it is ambiguous at best.

It's only "ambiguous" when you run away from the violence the left is tied to and creates.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

He is right. Trump is a little brat who needs a good spanking.

And Joe Biden is a cowardly gas bag and his tough guy posturing fools no one. Probably not even apologists
for the violent criminal left like you.

 

[easyt65]

16 Pages.

Democrats / snowflakes who uttered no condemnation of the POS who illegitimately ran for President in 2016 who PAID thugs to BEAT AND BLOODY AMERICAN CITIZENS just to gain some slight advantage in a political race she should never have been in.

Now they stand by silently, or rise in defense of liars who stage mock Hate Crimes in an attempt to manufacture false crimes with which to blame Conservatives and Trump Supporters.

Snowflakes stayed silence, or again rose to defend the same criminal POS who, after losing the election, called for those same snowflakes to abandon civility and increase violent intolerance...and they have answered her call.

Smoullett was / is just the latest mentally disturbed, peace / tolerance-hating, tyrant-embracing/defending, Trump-hating, Fake News-generating, fake accusation-making, con artist liberal snowflake asshole trying to (continue to) divide this country with lies.

This guy was the latest victim of cowardly liberal violence...

...and the liberal media did not give the true story of the Left's continuous attempt to divide and destroy this nation through fake racial hatred / division...and they spent more time making excuses for and defending Smoulett...

...like the snowflakes on this board

 

[martybegan]

Wow, nice attempt at "blaming the victim" there.

Sorry, but unless fighting words are used, there is never an excuse to turn words into violence.

Shame on you.

"Fighting words" have been used over and over from the *president* on down. A lot of folks have had enough.

What "fighting words" were those, douchebag? If anyone has been spewing fighting words, it's Dim politicians and the fake news media. They never fail to call Trump supporters "racist" and any other epithet they can think of.
What you're trying to say is that you feel justified in punching a Republican in the mouth. It's as simple as that.

"Douchebag" is a fighting word dickweed.

(So is "dickweed")

No, it isn't. "I'm going to kick your ass you fucking douchebag" would be.

There has to be a declaration of desire to perform an action of violence.

Not so.
fight·ing words
Dictionary result for fighting words
noun
INFORMAL

1. words indicating a willingness to fight or challenge someone.
   • US
     words expressing an insult, especially of an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature.

The courts have a far narrower definition:

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[4] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mereoffensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972)[5][6]:548+ and Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974)[7][6]:557,567—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters' speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.

Sorry, but a MAGA hat, or a display on a sidewalk about a political view you disagree with is not "fighting words"

Fighting words - Wikipedia

 

[martybegan]

0 symparhy....but thoughts and prayers for all the victims of the new racist wave caused by the orange.

What victims would that be? There have been at least a dozen fake hate crimes claimed from the left while Conservatives get beaten and bloodied by snowflakes answering Hillaryy's call for an increase in violent intolerance...

Trump encouraged violence at his rallies. At the Republican Convention, Ted Cruz's wife had to be taken off the floor because of fear for her safety. Trump regularly whips his crowds into a frenzy against the media and a supporter at his last rally attacked a member of the media.

So I see you got your TDS talking points from whatever professor's class you attended today.

Busybee will defend leftwing thugs no matter how obviously guilty they are.

You are the rightwing thugs who refuse to condemn rightwing violence or even acknowledge it exists.

Tu Quo que wasn't a defense at Nuremberg, and it doesn't work here either.

Was the snowflake justified in attacking the conservative guy or not?

 

[Crepitus]

"Fighting words" have been used over and over from the *president* on down. A lot of folks have had enough.

What "fighting words" were those, douchebag? If anyone has been spewing fighting words, it's Dim politicians and the fake news media. They never fail to call Trump supporters "racist" and any other epithet they can think of.
What you're trying to say is that you feel justified in punching a Republican in the mouth. It's as simple as that.

"Douchebag" is a fighting word dickweed.

(So is "dickweed")

No, it isn't. "I'm going to kick your ass you fucking douchebag" would be.

There has to be a declaration of desire to perform an action of violence.

Not so.
fight·ing words
Dictionary result for fighting words
noun
INFORMAL

1. words indicating a willingness to fight or challenge someone.
   • US
     words expressing an insult, especially of an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature.

The courts have a far narrower definition:

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[4] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mereoffensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972)[5][6]:548+ and Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974)[7][6]:557,567—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters' speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.

Sorry, but a MAGA hat, or a display on a sidewalk about a political view you disagree with is not "fighting words"

Fighting words - Wikipedia

I never said they were. I did say personal insults were, and I saw nothing in your quoted materials to change that.

 

[martybegan]

What "fighting words" were those, douchebag? If anyone has been spewing fighting words, it's Dim politicians and the fake news media. They never fail to call Trump supporters "racist" and any other epithet they can think of.
What you're trying to say is that you feel justified in punching a Republican in the mouth. It's as simple as that.

"Douchebag" is a fighting word dickweed.

(So is "dickweed")

No, it isn't. "I'm going to kick your ass you fucking douchebag" would be.

There has to be a declaration of desire to perform an action of violence.

Not so.
fight·ing words
Dictionary result for fighting words
noun
INFORMAL

1. words indicating a willingness to fight or challenge someone.
   • US
     words expressing an insult, especially of an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature.

The courts have a far narrower definition:

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[4] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mereoffensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972)[5][6]:548+ and Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974)[7][6]:557,567—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters' speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.

Sorry, but a MAGA hat, or a display on a sidewalk about a political view you disagree with is not "fighting words"

Fighting words - Wikipedia

I never said they were. I did say personal insults were, and I saw nothing in your quoted materials to change that.

Only personal insults that would cause a reasonable person to feel physically threatened, and the bar is pretty high for that.

So you can't punch a person for calling you an asshole.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Obviously planned and funded by that jew Soros

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Obviously planned and funded by that jew Soros

George Soros denounced Judaism when he was still a child. What about Soros is "Jewish" to you?

And whether this specific criminal attack was Soros created or not there isn't any doubt that Antifa and other vermin like them are being bankrolled by the global economic vampire, Soros. Antifa Thugs Demand ‘Overdue Payment’ From George Soros

It suits you to pretend otherwise but evidence proves you wrong. Stop the lies.