awesome guy wrote:
Retard robot repeats retarded sentence.
Just double checking to make sure you're still in the murderer's camp. [emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uh huh. I never was, but your feminine and weak brain can't differentiate.
I'm sure the next retard robot response will be robotic and retarded.
I'm glad to see you've disavowed your comments from earlier in this thread where you stated that the attack was justified.
Well retard, I responded that facts were still coming out and so was withholding judgement instead of calling the driver a terrorist and joining in your hysterics. But to a low IQ butt plugger like yourself, having an informed opinion is really defense. That should be a clue as to how your uninformed opinions are created. At least it would be if you had an ounce of sense.
awesome guy wrote:
Retard robot repeats retarded sentence.
Just double checking to make sure you're still in the murderer's camp. [emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uh huh. I never was, but your feminine and weak brain can't differentiate.
I'm sure the next retard robot response will be robotic and retarded.
I'm glad to see you've disavowed your comments from earlier in this thread where you stated that the attack was justified.
Well retard, I responded that facts were still coming out and so was withholding judgement instead of calling the driver a terrorist and joining in your hysterics. But to a low IQ butt plugger like yourself, having an informed opinion is really defense. That should be a clue as to how your uninformed opinions are created. At least it would be if you had an ounce of sense.
The video of the car ramming into the crowd at full speed was already posted. Again, I'm agreeing with you and am glad that you saw the err in your judgment.
awesome guy wrote:
Retard robot repeats retarded sentence.
Just double checking to make sure you're still in the murderer's camp. [emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uh huh. I never was, but your feminine and weak brain can't differentiate.
I'm sure the next retard robot response will be robotic and retarded.
I'm glad to see you've disavowed your comments from earlier in this thread where you stated that the attack was justified.
Well retard, I responded that facts were still coming out and so was withholding judgement instead of calling the driver a terrorist and joining in your hysterics. But to a low IQ butt plugger like yourself, having an informed opinion is really defense. That should be a clue as to how your uninformed opinions are created. At least it would be if you had an ounce of sense.
The video of the car ramming into the crowd at full speed was already posted. Again, I'm agreeing with you and am glad that you saw the err in your judgment.
The video didn't start when the event started moron. Go back to the Marshall board, you're just a dimwitted troll.
nolanvt wrote:
Just double checking to make sure you're still in the murderer's camp. [emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uh huh. I never was, but your feminine and weak brain can't differentiate.
I'm sure the next retard robot response will be robotic and retarded.
I'm glad to see you've disavowed your comments from earlier in this thread where you stated that the attack was justified.
Well retard, I responded that facts were still coming out and so was withholding judgement instead of calling the driver a terrorist and joining in your hysterics. But to a low IQ butt plugger like yourself, having an informed opinion is really defense. That should be a clue as to how your uninformed opinions are created. At least it would be if you had an ounce of sense.
The video of the car ramming into the crowd at full speed was already posted. Again, I'm agreeing with you and am glad that you saw the err in your judgment.
The video didn't start when the event started moron. Go back to the Marshall board, you're just a dimwitted troll.
awesome guy wrote:Uh huh. I never was, but your feminine and weak brain can't differentiate.
I'm sure the next retard robot response will be robotic and retarded.
I'm glad to see you've disavowed your comments from earlier in this thread where you stated that the attack was justified.
Well retard, I responded that facts were still coming out and so was withholding judgement instead of calling the driver a terrorist and joining in your hysterics. But to a low IQ butt plugger like yourself, having an informed opinion is really defense. That should be a clue as to how your uninformed opinions are created. At least it would be if you had an ounce of sense.
The video of the car ramming into the crowd at full speed was already posted. Again, I'm agreeing with you and am glad that you saw the err in your judgment.
The video didn't start when the event started moron. Go back to the Marshall board, you're just a dimwitted troll.
nolanvt wrote:
The video of the car ramming into the crowd at full speed was already posted. Again, I'm agreeing with you and am glad that you saw the err in your judgment.
I'm curious as to why you didn't post the whole video that showed all of the Antifa people in the street before the car crash?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
Yay! Yay, taliban thought police! 1984 can't get here fast enough.
Of course, you'd be happy if every city had a statue of two dudes butt-sexing in the middle of a Main Street roundabout...
You're as shallow as a Petri dish. And I'm being generous.
I'm fine with not publicly honoring those who fought against the United States. Such things should be reserved for private lands. It's basically what I said yesterday.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
so we shouldn't publicly honor blacks, as they fought against the US
Yay! Yay, taliban thought police! 1984 can't get here fast enough.
Of course, you'd be happy if every city had a statue of two dudes butt-sexing in the middle of a Main Street roundabout...
You're as shallow as a Petri dish. And I'm being generous.
I'm fine with not publicly honoring those who fought against the United States. Such things should be reserved for private lands. It's basically what I said yesterday.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
so we shouldn't publicly honor blacks, as they fought against the US
Free men who fought against the US should not be honored, correct.
Yay! Yay, taliban thought police! 1984 can't get here fast enough.
Of course, you'd be happy if every city had a statue of two dudes butt-sexing in the middle of a Main Street roundabout...
You're as shallow as a Petri dish. And I'm being generous.
I'm fine with not publicly honoring those who fought against the United States. Such things should be reserved for private lands. It's basically what I said yesterday.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
so we shouldn't publicly honor blacks, as they fought against the US
Free men who fought against the US should not be honored, correct.
Ok. So whether you are free or not is the differentiator? Think before you answer, don't trip yourself up on your justification. I wouldn't want you to hurt your back going thru contortions.
Yes, and BLM/ANTIFA are in fact, actually bad as well. They ALL have the same rights to free speech that everyone else has. I'm sure you disagree.
Last edited by HokieJoe on Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Yay! Yay, taliban thought police! 1984 can't get here fast enough.
Of course, you'd be happy if every city had a statue of two dudes butt-sexing in the middle of a Main Street roundabout...
You're as shallow as a Petri dish. And I'm being generous.
I'm fine with not publicly honoring those who fought against the United States. Such things should be reserved for private lands. It's basically what I said yesterday.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
so we shouldn't publicly honor blacks, as they fought against the US
Free men who fought against the US should not be honored, correct.
Ok. So the confederates get the same treatment? Think before you answer, don't trip yourself up on your justification
I'm fine with removing Confederate memorials, statues, etc. on public lands.
I have no problem legally allowing them on private land backed by private funding. I'm also okay with people exercising their First Amendment rights in protesting these.
Now the big argument that my "academic" friends and family are telling me is that these KKK/neo-nazi/skinheads need to be stifled and their 1st amendment rights need to taken away.
When I ask about the 1st amendment the answer is what about it
Another item I'm told is our POTUS should be held responsible for their constituents I don't even know what that means.
Major Kong wrote:Now the big argument that my "academic" friends and family are telling me is that these KKK/neo-nazi/skinheads need to be stifled and their 1st amendment rights need to taken away.
When I ask about the 1st amendment the answer is what about it
Another item I'm told is our POTUS should be held responsible for their constituents I don't even know what that means.
It means they want to criminalize conservative thought. It means they don't believe that people with different political beliefs should be allowed Constitutional Rights (especially 1A and 2A rights). It means they want to use this event to maximize its political usefulness and demonize Trump and his supporters. These people don't play by any sort of rules or respect. They would take your rights away in an instant if they could.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
nolanvt wrote:I'm fine with removing Confederate memorials, statues, etc. on public lands.
I have no problem legally allowing them on private land backed by private funding. I'm also okay with people exercising their First Amendment rights in protesting these.
Hope I've made my position clear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you mean clear by meaning a 100% opacity then no you didn't.
You're OK with people protesting "these" what
Do you mean the Antifa nimrod group protesting the right of the KKK nimrod group protesting that the City of C'ville removed statues
Here is a hint Antifa nimrods weren't there to protest statues they were there to stifle the KKK nimrods protest.
Major Kong wrote:Now the big argument that my "academic" friends and family are telling me is that these KKK/neo-nazi/skinheads need to be stifled and their 1st amendment rights need to taken away.
When I ask about the 1st amendment the answer is what about it
Another item I'm told is our POTUS should be held responsible for their constituents I don't even know what that means.
You should tell your academic friends that they should mind what they wish for. I've little doubt that it will be anything like they expect.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
UpstateSCHokie wrote:It means they want to criminalize conservative thought. It means they don't believe that people with different political beliefs should be allowed Constitutional Rights (especially 1A and 2A rights). It means they want to use this event to maximize its political usefulness and demonize Trump and his supporters. These people don't play by any sort of rules or respect. They would take your rights away in an instant if they could.
I really haven't gotten a response in what I would call anywhere near a cogent reply...most has been nonsense.
The best so far is my cousin in who has just moved to Phoenix...newly graduated from Carson–Newman University, that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the "alt-right".
Major Kong wrote:Now the big argument that my "academic" friends and family are telling me is that these KKK/neo-nazi/skinheads need to be stifled and their 1st amendment rights need to taken away.
When I ask about the 1st amendment the answer is what about it
Another item I'm told is our POTUS should be held responsible for their constituents I don't even know what that means.
Yell your academic friends that they should mind what they wish for. I've little doubt that it will be anything like they expect.
They sure like reeducation camps and thought crimes. It's like they're fascists or something.
HokieJoe wrote:You should tell your academic friends that they should mind what they wish for. I've little doubt that it will be anything like they expect.
Oh they pretty much know that...at least from me.
When I tell 'em that Antifa doesn't mean anti-fascist but Another nitwit true inbred fascist they are not amused.
nolanvt wrote:I'm fine with removing Confederate memorials, statues, etc. on public lands.
I have no problem legally allowing them on private land backed by private funding. I'm also okay with people exercising their First Amendment rights in protesting these.
Hope I've made my position clear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you mean clear by meaning a 100% opacity then no you didn't.
You're OK with people protesting "these" what
Do you mean the Antifa nimrod group protesting the right of the KKK nimrod group protesting that the City of C'ville removed statues
Here is a hint Antifa nimrods weren't there to protest statues they were there to stifle the KKK nimrods protest.
If people want to protest Confederate symbols placed on private lands in my example, then I have no problem with them doing that. If such public pressure means that a private individual or organization decides against it, that's the free market at work.
As for the stuff in C'ville, I generally had no problem with it except for the murderer. I'd rather Nazis be out in the open rather than hidden.
UpstateSCHokie wrote:It means they want to criminalize conservative thought. It means they don't believe that people with different political beliefs should be allowed Constitutional Rights (especially 1A and 2A rights). It means they want to use this event to maximize its political usefulness and demonize Trump and his supporters. These people don't play by any sort of rules or respect. They would take your rights away in an instant if they could.
I really haven't gotten a response in what I would call anywhere near a cogent reply...most has been nonsense.
The best so far is my cousin who has just moved to Phoenix...newly graduated from Carson–Newman University, that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the "alt-right".
UpstateSCHokie wrote:It means they want to criminalize conservative thought. It means they don't believe that people with different political beliefs should be allowed Constitutional Rights (especially 1A and 2A rights). It means they want to use this event to maximize its political usefulness and demonize Trump and his supporters. These people don't play by any sort of rules or respect. They would take your rights away in an instant if they could.
I really haven't gotten a response in what I would call anywhere near a cogent reply...most has been nonsense.
The best so far is my cousin in who has just moved to Phoenix...newly graduated from Carson–Newman University, that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the "alt-right".
And he just graduated? That's depressing.
You should ask him to define the "alt-right" and then ask him what percent of the US population is made up by the "alt-right." And then ask if its okay to take away the rights from that percent of the population without due process.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
nolanvt wrote:I'm fine with removing Confederate memorials, statues, etc. on public lands.
I have no problem legally allowing them on private land backed by private funding. I'm also okay with people exercising their First Amendment rights in protesting these.
Hope I've made my position clear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you mean clear by meaning a 100% opacity then no you didn't.
You're OK with people protesting "these" what
Do you mean the Antifa nimrod group protesting the right of the KKK nimrod group protesting that the City of C'ville removed statues
Here is a hint Antifa nimrods weren't there to protest statues they were there to stifle the KKK nimrods protest.
If people want to protest Confederate symbols placed on private lands in my example, then I have no problem with them doing that. If such public pressure means that a private individual or organization decides against it, that's the free market at work.
As for the stuff in C'ville, I generally had no problem with it except for the murderer. I'd rather Nazis be out in the open rather than hidden.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you weren't an ignorant simpleton then you'd realize the land is often made as a donation to the public along with the monument itself from private donors to display it in the first place. Giant if though and you're just a troll.
nolanvt wrote:If people want to protest Confederate symbols placed on private lands in my example, then I have no problem with them doing that. If such public pressure means that a private individual or organization decides against it, that's the free market at work.
As for the stuff in C'ville, I generally had no problem with it except for the murderer. I'd rather Nazis be out in the open rather than hidden.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is still a bunch of nonsense...have you ever before been asked to clarify what you mean I'm thinking no.
This wasn't the mongoloid Antifa's supporting the removal of monuments...it was Antifa being there to antagonize another mongoloid group.