MagnusRichard
Loves Spam
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2017
- Posts
- 926
Those pesky democrats are getting better at the recount racket.
Who are the Russians voting for in this one?
Who are the Russians voting for in this one?
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.
I'm not aware of any laws, with extremely limited exceptions, passed by congress abridging the right of free speech.
Not only logical but necessary. Fortunately, that is almost certain to never happen. The only way it could happen would be for SJW's to dominate Congress and most state legislatures and require all white people to become slaves, as some kind of affirmative action.
There might be a museum that wants them.Judge orders Alabama not to destroy ballots after voting is finished.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/12/judge_orders_alabama_not_to_de.html
He has every right to say as much stupid shit as he wants, and he does, like it should be the law that women can't vote.And your point of pulling "laws" and "congress[sic] abridging" out of nowhere to mix in your mess is, when neither has anything to do with many people today supporting the right to vote (as you pointed out) conditioned upon the views of the person running for election, and so many people today basing their support of free speech more on what is said rather than the mere right itself?
The Alabama Supreme Court overturned that ballot-preservation order. Local election officials are free to destroy any embarrassing evidence, but they'd better hop to it. Watch for rising smoke (and they ain't electing a new Pope.)There might be a museum that wants them.
Well now, they said they might hear the case later in December I think, or maybe January. LOLThe Alabama Supreme Court overturned that ballot-preservation order. Local election officials are free to destroy any embarrassing evidence, but they'd better hop to it. Watch for rising smoke (and they ain't electing a new Pope.)
And your point of pulling "laws" and "congress[sic] abridging" out of nowhere to mix in your mess is, when neither has anything to do with many people today supporting the right to vote (as you pointed out) conditioned upon the views of the person running for election, and so many people today basing their support of free speech more on what is said rather than the mere right itself?
Why do you condition your support of everyone's right to vote on whom they vote for? And why do you condition your support of everyone's natural right to speak freely on what they say? Why are you so afraid that you want government to totally rule over the market, the vote and speech? Why are you so obviously frightened of freedom so much?
He has every right to say as much stupid shit as he wants, and he does, like it should be the law that women can't vote.
How utterly hysterical. I think you don't have any idea what the "right to free speech" is about.
You forgot to add, "compared to my idea what it's about."
Do you know for a fact she swore an oath to uphold the constitution?And you wouldn't defend with your life his right to say as much stupid shit as he wants. Yes, you've already established that numerous times. Your son in the Navy feel the same? That although every American taxpayer pays his way, he, like his father, will only defend with his life the rights of those he agrees with?
Basically, you want welfare.
More women coming out against Russel Simmons.
But not Richard Simmons. TANJ!Rightguide said:More women coming out against Russel Simmons.
Moore women.
The oath of enlistment (or office for commissioned officers) is not an optional piece. DD Form 4 with the oath is part of the enlistment paperwork. It should be signed by the commissioned officer that adminstered the oath along with the person taking the oath. Barring something like outright forgery, she swore the oath if she joined the US Navy.Do you know for a fact she swore an oath to uphold the constitution?
Looks like Travis Smiley was just suspended by PBS for 'Multiple, Credible Allegations' of Inappropriate Behavior.
Again, the difference is liberals hold them accountable for their actions while your precious republicans try and elect them to the government.
Like Moore, you've lost but won't admit it.
I haven't lost anything. I've never harassed a woman or sexually harassed a woman in my life. What I see are men losing their reputations, livelihoods, and careers, on accusations, sometimes anonymous, without being able to confront their accusers, or present a defense. I see men being prosecuted to destruction in the court of public opinion. Is this what you want, are we going to go down this road as a country? No evidence, no presumption of innocence? I don't wish this on any man regardless of politics.
I haven't lost anything. I've never harassed a woman or sexually harassed a woman in my life. What I see are men losing their reputations, livelihoods, and careers, on accusations, sometimes anonymous, without being able to confront their accusers, or present a defense. I see men being prosecuted to destruction in the court of public opinion. Is this what you want, are we going to go down this road as a country? No evidence, no presumption of innocence? I don't wish this on any man regardless of politics.
LOL< talk about moving the goal posts. I never accused you of sexual harassment so your denial is meaningless.
You were talking about how there were more democrats doing it than republicans and I articulated the difference being that democrats were holding those people responsible for their actions as opposed to republicans who try and elect them to public office.
One group is clearly against it and the other doesn't see it as being a problem. You're on the wrong side.
Does this go for all of the Democrats you've jumped all over regarding their sexual assault accusers or does that only go for the G0P molesters?