Let’s not insult women by calling that shameful nonsense a “Women’s March”

[jc456]

Now NightFox can tell all of us how this @sshole progressive is just "expressing" themselves and that they have a "right" to this "expression"... (and of course how we inexplicably do not have the right to call it out, question it, or otherwise discuss it)

Apparently you have the same imperfect understanding of what rights are that plagues much of the citizenry in the United States, for your edification, (as I've already stated in this thread) the right to express yourself ends when it becomes other than peaceful and violates the life, liberty or property of others.

Nice try at building a straw man; though next time I would suggest you hire a competent construction crew.

so you denounce all of the weekend's anti-trump marches? Cause they were all violent and destructive.

 

[P@triot]

Now NightFox can tell all of us how this @sshole progressive is just "expressing" themselves and that they have a "right" to this "expression"... (and of course how we inexplicably do not have the right to call it out, question it, or otherwise discuss it)

Apparently you have the same imperfect understanding of what rights are that plagues much of the citizenry in the United States, for your edification, (as I've already stated in this thread) the right to express yourself ends when it becomes other than peaceful and violates the life, liberty or property of others.

The children's lives were "violated" when they were forced to view giant vaginas. Thank you for proving yourself wrong yet again.

 

[RDD_1210]

You're really whining that a guy is wearing a backpack? Holy shit. Odds are that you wear a fucking name tag to work, so who are you to judge Jethro.

Where the fuck do you work that they wear name tags?!?

Also - at a job - you have to do what your employer tells you to do. That's a far cry from this tiny little homo wearing a backpack like a 2nd grader of his own choosing.

Any other really stupid things you want to say there RDD?

Please go back to complaining about his backpack. It's very important.

 

[NightFox]

lighting someone's hair on fire cause they have a different view than you is humane? Hard to take people threatening to blow up houses and setting young women's hair on fire seriously. I laugh at pretendland.

Perhaps by explaining that human beings are born with the right to express themselves and that sometimes the form the expression takes might not be to our liking but as long as it's peaceful and doesn't violate the life, liberty or property of others, it remains a right.

Which part didn't you understand?

so you denounce the women's march?

Nope, I denounce any action taken by individuals which may have been part of it that weren't peaceful and/or violated the life, liberty or property of others, I also don't agree with the bulk of what these women were advocating but that's immaterial to their right to "march" and voice their opinions in whatever fashion they chose as long as it was done peaceably.

I also give them credit for the time and effort they all took to voice their concerns in way that was for the most part peaceable, the exceptions (those that were not peaceable) were not emblematic of the whole.

 

[RDD_1210]

"routinely"? You will have to show the evidence of his admitting to sexual assault like Drumplethinskin did.....or else being convicted of such.

Who did Trump admit to sexually assaulting? I must have missed that.

LOL, you would be this dumb to actually post this.

You just called bodecea "dumb"

(Psst....stupid....she posed that question first)

Ok, so be it. Whats your point?

that you didn't answer who trump sexually assaulted. we're all patiently waiting for your answer.

You didn't hear Trump brag how he moves in on women and grabs them by the pussy. He kisses them, "doesn't even ask".

Oh that's right, you did. But because he's a republican you're ok with it.

Hypocrite.

 

[RDD_1210]

"routinely"? You will have to show the evidence of his admitting to sexual assault like Drumplethinskin did.....or else being convicted of such.

Who did Trump admit to sexually assaulting? I must have missed that.

LOL, you would be this dumb to actually post this.

You just called bodecea "dumb"

(Psst....stupid....she posed that question first)

Ok, so be it. Whats your point?

My point is threefold:

• You just called your fellow progressive "dumb"

• You're so ignorant you can't even follow the thread. No wonder you vote Dumbocrat

• As always, you have no idea what you're talking about

I see three bullets but no actual point. Keep trying though Billy Joe.

 

[SmokeALib]

Bullshit. Locker room banter between two males, unaware of being recorded, is not Trump grabbing a female by her crotch.
Dumass.

 

[brummelben]

I agree that it was a Soros march ...a march of freaks

freaks like this one....and this is just one example of the stupidity and vulgarity of those who attended the march! I found this, below elsewhere online...

.....legs open for refugees ....meh....

that will make the refugees run for the hills.

So repulsive!!! And these are the progressive pigs who want to feign "outrage" over Trump's comment that their fellow progressive pigs will allow a man of money and power to grab them any time they want.

This progressive pig right here is a perfect representation of the mind set of the females on the left.

Looks like your guy Trump was awfully mad and pissed that a group of women turned out more people than he did at his inauguration. How childish of him

 

[jc456]

lighting someone's hair on fire cause they have a different view than you is humane? Hard to take people threatening to blow up houses and setting young women's hair on fire seriously. I laugh at pretendland.

Perhaps by explaining that human beings are born with the right to express themselves and that sometimes the form the expression takes might not be to our liking but as long as it's peaceful and doesn't violate the life, liberty or property of others, it remains a right.

Which part didn't you understand?

so you denounce the women's march?

Nope, I denounce any action taken by individuals which may have been part of it that weren't peaceful and/or violated the life, liberty or property of others, I also don't agree with the bulk of what these women were advocating but that's immaterial to their right to "march" and voice their opinions in whatever fashion they chose as long as it was done peaceably.

I also give them credit for the time and effort they all took to voice their concerns in way that was for the most part peaceable, the exceptions (those that were not peaceable) were not emblematic of the whole.

I give two shits what their march was about. I care when they do it out of control. And being out of control is what happened. You've obviously never heard of the bad apple spoils the bunch/ barrel, have you? You can't have it both ways bubba.

 

[jc456]

I agree that it was a Soros march ...a march of freaks

freaks like this one....and this is just one example of the stupidity and vulgarity of those who attended the march! I found this, below elsewhere online...

.....legs open for refugees ....meh....

that will make the refugees run for the hills.

So repulsive!!! And these are the progressive pigs who want to feign "outrage" over Trump's comment that their fellow progressive pigs will allow a man of money and power to grab them any time they want.

This progressive pig right here is a perfect representation of the mind set of the females on the left.

Looks like your guy Trump was awfully mad and pissed that a group of women turned out more people than he did at his inauguration. How childish of him

it had nothing to do with that. but why should I tell you the real reason and have you be enlightened by facts.

 

[brummelben]

lighting someone's hair on fire cause they have a different view than you is humane? Hard to take people threatening to blow up houses and setting young women's hair on fire seriously. I laugh at pretendland.

Perhaps by explaining that human beings are born with the right to express themselves and that sometimes the form the expression takes might not be to our liking but as long as it's peaceful and doesn't violate the life, liberty or property of others, it remains a right.

Which part didn't you understand?

so you denounce the women's march?

Nope, I denounce any action taken by individuals which may have been part of it that weren't peaceful and/or violated the life, liberty or property of others, I also don't agree with the bulk of what these women were advocating but that's immaterial to their right to "march" and voice their opinions in whatever fashion they chose as long as it was done peaceably.

I also give them credit for the time and effort they all took to voice their concerns in way that was for the most part peaceable, the exceptions (those that were not peaceable) were not emblematic of the whole.

I give two shits what their march was about. I care when they do it out of control. And being out of control is what happened. You've obviously never heard of the bad apple spoils the bunch/ barrel, have you? You can't have it both ways bubba.

No one was out of control. IN NYC with 500,000 marchers not a single arrest

 

[NightFox]

Now NightFox can tell all of us how this @sshole progressive is just "expressing" themselves and that they have a "right" to this "expression"... (and of course how we inexplicably do not have the right to call it out, question it, or otherwise discuss it)

Apparently you have the same imperfect understanding of what rights are that plagues much of the citizenry in the United States, for your edification, (as I've already stated in this thread) the right to express yourself ends when it becomes other than peaceful and violates the life, liberty or property of others.

The children's lives were "violated" when they were forced to view giant vaginas. Thank you for proving yourself wrong yet again.

LOL, really? What children would those be? and what right was violated? Are you under the impression that you or anybody else has the right not to be exposed to things which you may deem offensive? If that's the case, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but neither you nor anybody has that right when it comes to the commons; nor have you been granted the discretion to dictate what may or may not be appropriate expression for other peoples children to be "exposed to".

There weren't any laws violated here and there certainly weren't any rights being violated, however you are once again demonstrating your authoritarian streak by suggesting that you are in a position to subjectively determine what other peoples children be allowed to see, why don't you stick to censoring your OWN children's experiences and allow other parents to exercise the same right? .

 

[P@triot]

If that's the case, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but neither you nor anybody has that right when it comes to the commons; nor have you been granted the discretion to dictate what may or may not be appropriate expression for other peoples children to be "exposed to".

Sorry snowflake...but you've already lost the "right" to discuss rights when you illustrated your complete and total lack of knowledge about rights.

 

[NightFox]

lighting someone's hair on fire cause they have a different view than you is humane? Hard to take people threatening to blow up houses and setting young women's hair on fire seriously. I laugh at pretendland.

Perhaps by explaining that human beings are born with the right to express themselves and that sometimes the form the expression takes might not be to our liking but as long as it's peaceful and doesn't violate the life, liberty or property of others, it remains a right.

Which part didn't you understand?

so you denounce the women's march?

Nope, I denounce any action taken by individuals which may have been part of it that weren't peaceful and/or violated the life, liberty or property of others, I also don't agree with the bulk of what these women were advocating but that's immaterial to their right to "march" and voice their opinions in whatever fashion they chose as long as it was done peaceably.

I also give them credit for the time and effort they all took to voice their concerns in way that was for the most part peaceable, the exceptions (those that were not peaceable) were not emblematic of the whole.

I give two shits what their march was about. I care when they do it out of control. And being out of control is what happened.

How do you figure it was "out of control" ? There were no appreciable violence, property destruction or mass arrests, for a protest that size they did a remarkably good job of keeping things under control.

You've obviously never heard of the bad apple spoils the bunch/ barrel, have you? You can't have it both ways bubba.

Yeah I've heard that expression and it's a non sequitur to the subject at hand, the operative principle here would be "the exception is not the rule".

 

[P@triot]

There weren't any laws violated here and there certainly weren't any rights being violated, however you are once again demonstrating your authoritarian streak by suggesting that you are in a position to subjectively determine what other peoples children be allowed to see, why don't you stick to censoring your OWN children's experiences and allow other parents to exercise the same right? .

We have decency laws. Deal with it my fragile little snowflake.

Liberty does not equal anarchy

 

[NightFox]

If that's the case, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but neither you nor anybody has that right when it comes to the commons; nor have you been granted the discretion to dictate what may or may not be appropriate expression for other peoples children to be "exposed to".

Sorry snowflake...but you've already lost the "right" to discuss rights when you illustrated your complete and total lack of knowledge about rights.

LOL, do me a favor and point out exactly where that happened?

 

[P@triot]

No one was out of control. IN NYC with 500,000 marchers not a single arrest

That's because a radical progressive mayor - a devout communist - instructed law enforcement not to make any arrests. That doesn't mean laws weren't violated.

 

[jc456]

lighting someone's hair on fire cause they have a different view than you is humane? Hard to take people threatening to blow up houses and setting young women's hair on fire seriously. I laugh at pretendland.

Perhaps by explaining that human beings are born with the right to express themselves and that sometimes the form the expression takes might not be to our liking but as long as it's peaceful and doesn't violate the life, liberty or property of others, it remains a right.

Which part didn't you understand?

so you denounce the women's march?

Nope, I denounce any action taken by individuals which may have been part of it that weren't peaceful and/or violated the life, liberty or property of others, I also don't agree with the bulk of what these women were advocating but that's immaterial to their right to "march" and voice their opinions in whatever fashion they chose as long as it was done peaceably.

I also give them credit for the time and effort they all took to voice their concerns in way that was for the most part peaceable, the exceptions (those that were not peaceable) were not emblematic of the whole.

I give two shits what their march was about. I care when they do it out of control. And being out of control is what happened.

How do you figure it was "out of control" ? There were no appreciable violence, property destruction or mass arrests, for a protest that size they did a remarkably good job of keeping things under control.

You've obviously never heard of the bad apple spoils the bunch/ barrel, have you? You can't have it both ways bubba.

Yeah I've heard that expression and it's a non sequitur to the subject at hand, the operative principle here would be "the exception is not the rule".

but the rule is the rule. and violating rules is not by exception. You've never played team sports. The country is made up of teams, my team is currently beating the shit out of your team and you wish to promote personal fouls and think it's ok. sure.

the mere fact you state there were arrests is sad. Protests are supposed to be peaceful. Not in your face. fk in your face and fk that women's march for violation of every woman who wasn't there.

 

[P@triot]

If that's the case, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but neither you nor anybody has that right when it comes to the commons; nor have you been granted the discretion to dictate what may or may not be appropriate expression for other peoples children to be "exposed to".

Sorry snowflake...but you've already lost the "right" to discuss rights when you illustrated your complete and total lack of knowledge about rights.

LOL, do me a favor and point out exactly where that happened?

When you said you abhor decency laws, that children can be exposed to anything, and when you cited "freedom of expression" as your excuse for challenging my posts (which is, ironically, my freedom of expression). You can't figure out which way is up, snowflake. You keep contradicting yourself and defeating your own arguments.

 

[brummelben]

No one was out of control. IN NYC with 500,000 marchers not a single arrest

That's because a radical progressive mayor - a devout communist - instructed law enforcement not to make any arrests. That doesn't mean laws weren't violated.

You are full of it sonny boy, always a pathetic excuse. You sound like Trump. There were also no arrests in Chicago with 250,000 attendees