Nobody hates the 1st amendment more than Trump
Comments
-
Because old white people aren't on twitter?AIRWOLF said:
Giving Trump way too much credit. Also, why would he expect his core constituency not to be readers of his tweets.RaceBannon said:If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
-
People should be stoned to death for grabbing married pussy.
-
am toodnc said:
Because old white people aren't on twitter?AIRWOLF said:
Giving Trump way too much credit. Also, why would he expect his core constituency not to be readers of his tweets.RaceBannon said:If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
-
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.2001400ex said:
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 20052001400ex said:
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.RaceBannon said:Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
HTH
-
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.2001400ex said:
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 20052001400ex said:
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.RaceBannon said:Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
HTH
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you. -
What's your point? there's a difference between being against something and laying out specific punishments including jail time for said thing.RaceBannon said:Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....
If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution
Low information types
But by all means keep shilling
-
Good Christ. One was and actually senate bill from the candidate you loved. The other was a tweet at 3am from someone who can't even bring a bill to the floor. But you hate that person so a tweet is obviously worse.2001400ex said:
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.2001400ex said:
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 20052001400ex said:
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.RaceBannon said:Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
HTH
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Fuck you're a fucktard -
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?2001400ex said:
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.2001400ex said:
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 20052001400ex said:
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.RaceBannon said:Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
HTH
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you. -
They had jeans in 1879?RaceBannon said:
The court ruled in a close decision to call flag burning protected speech. That means there is another side to that issue that one can reasonably advocate for.UWhuskytskeet said:
Why don't you just come out and say you want the 1st amendment murdered?RaceBannon said:
I said he shouldn't be allowed to say that.UWhuskytskeet said:
I didn't say he should be jailed for a year or lose his citizenship.RaceBannon said:Trump shouldn't be allowed to say that
You'd have to be swallowing all 2" of Trump thunder to defend that tweet.
No one should advocate for positions that go against what you think
I had to fight to wear a flag patch on my jeans in high school. Why don't you just get off your high horse and accept that not everyone thinks like you do -
I already said the bill Hillary put forth was FS. But yes, even if FS, it used the due process of the law. And no I would not be OK if Trump put a proposal to Congress for that, cause the president is not a lawmaker.greenblood said:
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?2001400ex said:
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.2001400ex said:
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 20052001400ex said:
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.RaceBannon said:Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
HTH
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Hillary was not my candidate. She was awful. I'm calling y'all out cause you won't hold Trump to the same standard you held Obama. -
Levi Strauss, the inventor of the quintessential American garment, was born in Buttenheim, Bavaria on February 26, 1829 to Hirsch Strauss and his second wife, Rebecca Haas Strauss; Levi had three older brothers and three older sisters. Two years after his father succumbed to tuberculosis in 1846, Levi and his sisters emigrated to New York, where they were met by his two older brothers who owned a NYC-based wholesale dry goods business called “J. Strauss Brother & Co.” Levi soon began to learn the trade himself.BennyBeaver said:
They had jeans in 1879?RaceBannon said:
The court ruled in a close decision to call flag burning protected speech. That means there is another side to that issue that one can reasonably advocate for.UWhuskytskeet said:
Why don't you just come out and say you want the 1st amendment murdered?RaceBannon said:
I said he shouldn't be allowed to say that.UWhuskytskeet said:
I didn't say he should be jailed for a year or lose his citizenship.RaceBannon said:Trump shouldn't be allowed to say that
You'd have to be swallowing all 2" of Trump thunder to defend that tweet.
No one should advocate for positions that go against what you think
I had to fight to wear a flag patch on my jeans in high school. Why don't you just get off your high horse and accept that not everyone thinks like you do
When news of the California Gold Rush made its way east, Levi journeyed to San Francisco in 1853 to make his fortune, though he wouldn’t make it panning gold. He established a wholesale dry goods business under his own name and served as the West Coast representative of the family’s New York firm. Levi eventually renamed his company “Levi Strauss & Co.”
Around 1872, Levi received a letter from one of his customers, Jacob Davis, a Reno, Nevada tailor. In his letter, Davis disclosed the unique way he made pants for his customers, through the use of rivets at points of strain to make them last longer. Davis wanted to patent this new idea, but needed a business partner to get the idea off the ground. Levi was enthusiastic about the idea. The patent was granted to Jacob Davis and Levi Strauss & Company on May 20, 1873; and blue jeans were born.
lsco
Levi carried on other business pursuits during his career, as well. He became a charter member and treasurer of the San Francisco Board of Trade in 1877. He was a director of the Nevada Bank, the Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company and the San Francisco Gas and Electric Company. In 1875, Levi and two associates purchased the Mission and Pacific Woolen Mills.
He was also one of the city’s greatest philanthropists. Levi was a contributor to the Pacific Hebrew Orphan Asylum and Home, the Eureka Benevolent Society and the Hebrew Board of Relief. In 1897 Levi provided the funds for twenty-eight scholarships at the University of California, Berkeley, all of which are still in place today.
At the end of the 19th century, Levi was still involved in the day-to-day workings of the company. In 1890 — the year that the XX waist overall was given the lot number “501®” — Levi and his nephews officially incorporated the company.
Levi Strauss passed away on Friday, September 26th 1902. His estate amounted to nearly $6 million, the bulk of which was left to his four nephews and other family members, while donations were made to local funds and associations.
We’re proud to honor Levi Strauss’s legacy by celebrating his commitment to community, philanthropy and an unswerving devotion to quality. To this day, Levi Strauss & Co. strives to align itself with the same principles that guided Levi’s life.
THE INVENTION OF THE BLUE JEAN
May 20, 1873 marked an historic day: the birth of the blue jean. It was on that day that Levi Strauss and Jacob Davis obtained a U.S. patent on the process of putting rivets in men’s work pants for the very first time.
Levi Strauss, a Bavarian-born dry goods merchant, came to San Francisco in 1853 at the age of 24 to open a West Coast branch of his brothers’ New York wholesale dry goods business. Over the next 20 years, he built his business into a very successful operation, making a name for himself not only as a well-respected businessman, but also as a local philanthropist. One of Levi’s customers was a tailor named Jacob Davis.
WE MADE OUR FIRST JEANS OUT OF DENIM - THE TRADITIONAL FABRIC FOR MEN'S WORKWEAR. WITHIN A VERY SHORT TIME, THE JEAN WAS A BONA FIDE SUCCESS.
One day the wife of a local laborer asked Jacob to make a pair of pants for her husband that wouldn’t fall apart. Jacob tried to think of a way to strengthen his trousers and came up with the idea to put metal rivets at points of strain, like pocket corners and the base of the button fly. These riveted pants were an instant hit. Jacob quickly decided to take out a patent on the process, but needed a business partner to help get the project rolling. He immediately thought of Levi Strauss, from whom he had purchased the cloth to make his riveted pants.
Davis wrote to Levi to suggest that the two men hold the patent together. Levi, being an astute businessman, saw the potential for this new product, and agreed to Jacob’s proposal. The two men received patent #139,121 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 20, 1873.
history-of-denim2Soon, the first riveted clothing was made and sold. We made our first jeans out of denim — the traditional fabric for men’s workwear. Within a very short time, the jean was a bona fide success. (Although, we should note that they were called “waist overalls” or “overalls” until 1960, when baby boomers adopted the name “jeans.”)
We consider May 20, 1873 the “birthday” of blue jeans, because although denim pants had been around as workwear for many years, it was the act of placing rivets in these traditional pants for the first time that created what we now call jeans.
The next time you see someone wearing a pair of Levi’s® jeans, remember that these pants are a direct descendant of that first pair made back in 1873. That year, two visionary immigrants — Levi Strauss and Jacob Davis — turned denim, thread and a little metal into what has become the most popular apparel on earth. -
Curious, have you always been this disingenuous?RaceBannon said:Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....
If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution
Low information types
"Telling an actor to shut the fuck up" is not trashing the constitution, and no one has argued that specific point.
The problem with that attack and its relation to the first amendment, (it's not spelled "ammendment" btw) is the broader, unprecedented, principle of delegitimizing dissenting voices. How will these attitudes toward dissent manifest when he is in office? If they continue in this manner, then that is concerning.
The Hamilton apology demand does not exist in a vacuum, and such an interpretation is more indicative of a "low information voter", who can't see the big picture, such as yourself. -
*veinHardlyClothed said:
Curious, have you always been this disingenuous?RaceBannon said:Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....
If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution
Low information types
"Telling an actor to shut the fuck up" is not trashing the constitution, and no one has argued that specific point.
The problem with that attack and its relation to the first amendment, (it's not spelled "ammendment" btw) is the broader, unprecedented, principle of delegitimizing dissenting voices. How will these attitudes toward dissent manifest when he is in office? If they continue in this manner, then that is concerning.
The Hamilton apology demand does not exist in a vacuum, and such an interpretation is more indicative of a "low information voter", who can't see the big picture, such as yourself.
-
"low information voter" LOL.HardlyClothed said:
Curious, have you always been this disingenuous?RaceBannon said:Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....
If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution
Low information types
"Telling an actor to shut the fuck up" is not trashing the constitution, and no one has argued that specific point.
The problem with that attack and its relation to the first amendment, (it's not spelled "ammendment" btw) is the broader, unprecedented, principle of delegitimizing dissenting voices. How will these attitudes toward dissent manifest when he is in office? If they continue in this manner, then that is concerning.
The Hamilton apology demand does not exist in a vacuum, and such an interpretation is more indicative of a "low information voter", who can't see the big picture, such as yourself.
Euphemism for stupid, fearful, fragile white guy who needs a daddy to help him. -
Would you be happier with an executive order?2001400ex said:
I already said the bill Hillary put forth was FS. But yes, even if FS, it used the due process of the law. And no I would not be OK if Trump put a proposal to Congress for that, cause the president is not a lawmaker.greenblood said:
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?2001400ex said:
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.2001400ex said:
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 20052001400ex said:
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.RaceBannon said:Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
HTH
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Hillary was not my candidate. She was awful. I'm calling y'all out cause you won't hold Trump to the same standard you held Obama. -
Trump can't legally overturn something decided at the supreme Court level with an executive order.greenblood said:
Would you be happier with an executive order?2001400ex said:
I already said the bill Hillary put forth was FS. But yes, even if FS, it used the due process of the law. And no I would not be OK if Trump put a proposal to Congress for that, cause the president is not a lawmaker.greenblood said:
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?2001400ex said:
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.2001400ex said:
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 20052001400ex said:
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.RaceBannon said:Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
HTH
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Hillary was not my candidate. She was awful. I'm calling y'all out cause you won't hold Trump to the same standard you held Obama.
So, no. -
Trump just needs more time to get his guys in there2001400ex said:
Trump can't legally overturn something decided at the supreme Court level with an executive order.greenblood said:
Would you be happier with an executive order?2001400ex said:
I already said the bill Hillary put forth was FS. But yes, even if FS, it used the due process of the law. And no I would not be OK if Trump put a proposal to Congress for that, cause the president is not a lawmaker.greenblood said:
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?2001400ex said:
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.2001400ex said:
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 20052001400ex said:
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.RaceBannon said:Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
HTH
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Hillary was not my candidate. She was awful. I'm calling y'all out cause you won't hold Trump to the same standard you held Obama.
So, no. -
That's something we can agree on.greenblood said:
Trump just needs more time to get his guys in there2001400ex said:
Trump can't legally overturn something decided at the supreme Court level with an executive order.greenblood said:
Would you be happier with an executive order?2001400ex said:
I already said the bill Hillary put forth was FS. But yes, even if FS, it used the due process of the law. And no I would not be OK if Trump put a proposal to Congress for that, cause the president is not a lawmaker.greenblood said:
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?2001400ex said:
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.2001400ex said:
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 20052001400ex said:
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.RaceBannon said:Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
HTH
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Hillary was not my candidate. She was awful. I'm calling y'all out cause you won't hold Trump to the same standard you held Obama.
So, no. -
Flag burning is free speech but cross burning is a hate crime.dhdawg said:
Burning a flag is political speech, the SC made that determination decades ago. I don't trust the government to decide what kind of flag burning is intimidation and what isn't2001400ex said:
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
So much for consistency.
-
You're the idiot that brought Hamilton up. A completely moronic point that you want to double down on.HardlyClothed said:
Curious, have you always been this disingenuous?RaceBannon said:Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....
If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution
Low information types
"Telling an actor to shut the fuck up" is not trashing the constitution, and no one has argued that specific point.
The problem with that attack and its relation to the first amendment, (it's not spelled "ammendment" btw) is the broader, unprecedented, principle of delegitimizing dissenting voices. How will these attitudes toward dissent manifest when he is in office? If they continue in this manner, then that is concerning.
The Hamilton apology demand does not exist in a vacuum, and such an interpretation is more indicative of a "low information voter", who can't see the big picture, such as yourself.
Delegitimizing dissenting voices? Fuck off snowflake.
