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.
More fail.This thread is about a judges ruling ya jackass.I defended Trump?You defended Trump by comparing him to some nobody in a riot. That's one hell of a low standard. He could probably shoot someone on 5th Avenue and you'd still defend him.WTF are you babbling about? I simply asked if we're going to see equal application of the law.
Dumbass
Apparently you're dumber than I thought. I didn't even mention Trump. I questioned the judges position and asked a question.
I should know better than to expect intellectual honesty from you.
The thread was about Trump, and then with your lip quivering you said "b-b-b-b-b-but some random rioter can do it... why can't Trump?"
Fail/10
Nah let's talk about some rioters instead so we can defend Trump
Might as well do it for the next 4 years then, snowflakeMore fail.This thread is about a judges ruling ya jackass.I defended Trump?You defended Trump by comparing him to some nobody in a riot. That's one hell of a low standard. He could probably shoot someone on 5th Avenue and you'd still defend him.
Apparently you're dumber than I thought. I didn't even mention Trump. I questioned the judges position and asked a question.
I should know better than to expect intellectual honesty from you.
The thread was about Trump, and then with your lip quivering you said "b-b-b-b-b-but some random rioter can do it... why can't Trump?
Fail/10
Nah let's talk about some rioters instead so we can defend Trump
I am DIRECTLY referencing his judgment with speech that actually resulted in dire consequences.
I think it may be time to put you back on ignore for awhile.
I will if nonsensical bullshit is all you're going to post. You can join the likes of franko & shootspeedersMight as well do it for the next 4 years then, snowflakeMore fail.This thread is about a judges ruling ya jackass.I defended Trump?
Apparently you're dumber than I thought. I didn't even mention Trump. I questioned the judges position and asked a question.
I should know better than to expect intellectual honesty from you.
The thread was about Trump, and then with your lip quivering you said "b-b-b-b-b-but some random rioter can do it... why can't Trump?
Fail/10
Nah let's talk about some rioters instead so we can defend Trump
I am DIRECTLY referencing his judgment with speech that actually resulted in dire consequences.
I think it may be time to put you back on ignore for awhile.
^ Lunatics keep crawling out from the woodworkThe judge in question, David Hale, is an Obama crony, doing the bidding of his master as part of the Deep State.
Maybe you're right. Trump and Putin after all.^ Lunatics keep crawling out from the woodworkThe judge in question, David Hale, is an Obama crony, doing the bidding of his master as part of the Deep State.
Why yes, because politicians would never buddy up and scheme together....
A federal judge has rejected President Donald Trump's free speech defense against a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a campaign rally.
......manbaby can't get away with firing up those deplorable apes in wife beater shirts
sad, bigly
Judge to President Trump: No protection for speech inciting violence
The judge in question, David Hale, is an Obama crony, doing the bidding of his master as part of the Deep State.
Man. The standard you rubes hold Trump to is really bottoming out.So when can we expect to see criminal charges against the man in Ferguson who demanded that the protesters he was speaking to "burn this motherfucker down"?
Will his speech be protected or will he face the law as well?
Actually according to the RW consensus around here about the Bill of Rights, inciting violence should be protected by the First Amendment, the way it's worded,
because it doesn't allow for exceptions.
Project Veritas takes hundreds of hours of footage and edits it down to nothing with the intent of using the edited footage to completely fabricate a lie. Fake news.Actually according to the RW consensus around here about the Bill of Rights, inciting violence should be protected by the First Amendment, the way it's worded,
because it doesn't allow for exceptions.
Actually, the people who were inciting Violence at President Trump's rallies were DNC operatives, this information came down directly from investigative reporting from Project Veritas.
A federal judge has rejected President Donald Trump's free speech defense against a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a campaign rally.
......manbaby can't get away with firing up those deplorable apes in wife beater shirts
sad, bigly
Judge to President Trump: No protection for speech inciting violence
