I don't know shit about this dude but I really like this answer
Comments
-
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
-
Good day for Squirts.Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
Bad day for OBK.
Good day for Latinos and brownies everywhere!!
Every day is a great day for @creepycoug!
AYY YI YI YI YI YI YI YI YI!!! Ariba! Ariba! -
Let me in motherfuckercreepycoug said:
Good day for Squirts.Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
Bad day for OBK.
Good day for Latinos and brownies everywhere!!
Every day is a great day for @creepycoug!
AYY YI YI YI YI YI YI YI YI!!! Ariba! Ariba! -
Every day is a bad day for OBKcreepycoug said:
Good day for Squirts.Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
Bad day for OBK.
Good day for Latinos and brownies everywhere!!
Every day is a great day for @creepycoug!
AYY YI YI YI YI YI YI YI YI!!! Ariba! Ariba! -
disagreeThomasFremont said:
Every day is a bad day for OBKcreepycoug said:
Good day for Squirts.Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
Bad day for OBK.
Good day for Latinos and brownies everywhere!!
Every day is a great day for @creepycoug!
AYY YI YI YI YI YI YI YI YI!!! Ariba! Ariba!
-
I watched the video and to no surprise it was same ol accounts of the inequities of decades and centuries ago with a twist of a few black people being shot by police because they can’t listen 9/10.
He also inaccurately states that people can peaceably protest anywhere and when they want. You can’t. Most people would get fired for what they’re doing, which again for the majority is attention whoring.
While He speaks respectfully, if not eloquently, there is No “it” factor with this guy,
Whether He gets by Lyin Ted or not.
Protest on your dime with your own time if you truly wish to do something other than get likes on your Twatter or Instagram.
-
You're just too used to dealing with me. There are degrees of "it" factor. I'm on the extreme end. Don't judge others by my example. I'm too good.salemcoog said:I watched the video and to no surprise it was same ol accounts of the inequities of decades and centuries ago with a twist of a few black people being shot by police because they can’t listen 9/10.
He also inaccurately states that people can peaceably protest anywhere and when they want. You can’t. Most people would get fired for what they’re doing, which again for the majority is attention whoring.
While He speaks respectfully, if not eloquently, there is No “it” factor with this guy,
Whether He gets by Lyin Ted or not.
Protest on your dime with your own time if you truly wish to do something other than get likes on your Twatter or Instagram. -
And yet he manages to be pissed off 24/7. I’d feel bad for him if he wasn’t such a waste of skin.dnc said:
disagreeThomasFremont said:
Every day is a bad day for OBKcreepycoug said:
Good day for Squirts.Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
Bad day for OBK.
Good day for Latinos and brownies everywhere!!
Every day is a great day for @creepycoug!
AYY YI YI YI YI YI YI YI YI!!! Ariba! Ariba! -
What I like to do, whenever I really want to make an impact and get something important accomplished, is take a knee and let real men and women do the hard work of making change. That's what I like to do.
-
Ok!!!!TurdBuffer said:What I like to do, whenever I really want to make an impact and get something important accomplished, is take a knee and let real men and women do the hard work of making change. That's what I like to do.
