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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
You talk fancy, but in reality you're just a common idiot,
You posted how the judge you admire (and whose cock you'd like to suck dry) argued that the 1st amendment didn't allow the state the power to criminalize flag burning, then in the next post you 'disagreed' with his 'conclusion that the first amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning. That's a retard level mistake.
I never took your quiz, I attacked the DSA and its views about free speech and gun rights. You can't defend those views because you yourself are a fraud and a huckster of a failed and dangerous ideology from the 20th century that's been rebranded to seem in innocuous when it really isn't. Smart people are not socialists. Successful people are not socialists. It's an ideology of envy and failure, responsible for more than 100 million deaths across multiple nations last century. What does that say about you?
It says that you're a loser. It says that you're a faggot. It says that you're an un-American POS without a basic understanding of what your own ideology represents. Or maybe you do, that's even worse.
Losers lose. Losers deflect when they're losing. You deflected away to legalese regarding the constitution. Perhaps you're a lawyer, you like to quibble about the meaning of common words. I don't know and I don't care. Constitutional law is not is not my area of expertise, I already told you that, so fuck off. That doesn't mean I don't know what the amendments are and what is in the Bill of Rights.
You're a glorified socialist stooge and you stepped into the ring with the wrong person. I'm going to pick apart your ideology piece by piece like a vulture picks apart a slab of rotted carrion, then hang it around your neck and make you own it.
BTW did you know that Mexico now has a socialist president? Why don't you pack up your shit and get the fuck out of the country and live out your Marxist dream there. Because your dream of socialism in the US will never come true.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
You talk fancy, but in reality you're just a common idiot,
You posted how the judge you admire (and whose cock you'd like to suck dry) argued that the 1st amendment didn't allow the state the power to criminalize flag burning, then in the next post you 'disagreed' with his 'conclusion that the first amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning. That's a retard level mistake.
I never took your quiz, I attacked the DSA and its views about free speech and gun rights. You can't defend those views because you yourself are a fraud and a huckster of a failed and dangerous ideology from the 20th century that's been rebranded to seem in innocuous when it really isn't. Smart people are not socialists. Successful people are not socialists. It's an ideology of envy and failure, responsible for more than 100 million deaths across multiple nations last century. What does that say about you?
It says that you're a loser. It says that you're a faggot. It says that you're an un-American POS without a basic understanding of what your own ideology represents. Or maybe you do, that's even worse.
Losers lose. Losers deflect when they're losing. You deflected away to legalese regarding the constitution. Perhaps you're a lawyer, you like to quibble about the meaning of common words. I don't know and I don't care. Constitutional law is not is not my area of expertise, I already told you that, so fuck off. That doesn't mean I don't know what the amendments are and what is in the Bill of Rights.
You're a glorified socialist stooge and you stepped into the ring with the wrong person. I'm going to pick apart your ideology piece by piece like a vulture picks apart a slab of rotted carrion, then hang it around your neck and make you own it.
BTW did you know that Mexico now has a socialist president? Why don't you pack up your shit and get the fuck out of the country and live out your Marxist dream there. Because your dream of socialism in the US will never come true.
I stopped reading after "you talk fancy". Actually, I then glanced and saw "losers lose", something about sucking something, and figured you probably need more time.
You've been at the library feverishly working up a response all afternoon, and this is what you come up with?
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
You talk fancy, but in reality you're just a common idiot,
You posted how the judge you admire (and whose cock you'd like to suck dry) argued that the 1st amendment didn't allow the state the power to criminalize flag burning, then in the next post you 'disagreed' with his 'conclusion that the first amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning. That's a retard level mistake.
I never took your quiz, I attacked the DSA and its views about free speech and gun rights. You can't defend those views because you yourself are a fraud and a huckster of a failed and dangerous ideology from the 20th century that's been rebranded to seem in innocuous when it really isn't. Smart people are not socialists. Successful people are not socialists. It's an ideology of envy and failure, responsible for more than 100 million deaths across multiple nations last century. What does that say about you?
It says that you're a loser. It says that you're a faggot. It says that you're an un-American POS without a basic understanding of what your own ideology represents. Or maybe you do, that's even worse.
Losers lose. Losers deflect when they're losing. You deflected away to legalese regarding the constitution. Perhaps you're a lawyer, you like to quibble about the meaning of common words. I don't know and I don't care. Constitutional law is not is not my area of expertise, I already told you that, so fuck off. That doesn't mean I don't know what the amendments are and what is in the Bill of Rights.
You're a glorified socialist stooge and you stepped into the ring with the wrong person. I'm going to pick apart your ideology piece by piece like a vulture picks apart a slab of rotted carrion, then hang it around your neck and make you own it.
BTW did you know that Mexico now has a socialist president? Why don't you pack up your shit and get the fuck out of the country and live out your Marxist dream there. Because your dream of socialism in the US will never come true.
I stopped reading after "you talk fancy". Actually, I then glanced and saw "losers lose", something about sucking something, and figured you probably need more time.
You've been at the library feverishly working up a response all afternoon, and this is what you come up with?
Sad how far you've fallen. Sad, really.
I lied. I also saw "legalese", which is my stupid father-in-law's favorite word, and THEN I stopped reading.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
You talk fancy, but in reality you're just a common idiot,
You posted how the judge you admire (and whose cock you'd like to suck dry) argued that the 1st amendment didn't allow the state the power to criminalize flag burning, then in the next post you 'disagreed' with his 'conclusion that the first amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning. That's a retard level mistake.
I never took your quiz, I attacked the DSA and its views about free speech and gun rights. You can't defend those views because you yourself are a fraud and a huckster of a failed and dangerous ideology from the 20th century that's been rebranded to seem in innocuous when it really isn't. Smart people are not socialists. Successful people are not socialists. It's an ideology of envy and failure, responsible for more than 100 million deaths across multiple nations last century. What does that say about you?
It says that you're a loser. It says that you're a faggot. It says that you're an un-American POS without a basic understanding of what your own ideology represents. Or maybe you do, that's even worse.
Losers lose. Losers deflect when they're losing. You deflected away to legalese regarding the constitution. Perhaps you're a lawyer, you like to quibble about the meaning of common words. I don't know and I don't care. Constitutional law is not is not my area of expertise, I already told you that, so fuck off. That doesn't mean I don't know what the amendments are and what is in the Bill of Rights.
You're a glorified socialist stooge and you stepped into the ring with the wrong person. I'm going to pick apart your ideology piece by piece like a vulture picks apart a slab of rotted carrion, then hang it around your neck and make you own it.
BTW did you know that Mexico now has a socialist president? Why don't you pack up your shit and get the fuck out of the country and live out your Marxist dream there. Because your dream of socialism in the US will never come true.
I stopped reading after "you talk fancy". Actually, I then glanced and saw "losers lose", something about sucking something, and figured you probably need more time.
You've been at the library feverishly working up a response all afternoon, and this is what you come up with?
Sad how far you've fallen. Sad, really.
I lied. I also saw "legalese", which is my stupid father-in-law's favorite word, and THEN I stopped reading.
Coug, your contributions here are quite generic. Be happy you can even post here with a few responses. Like Browning, you peaked long ago. Your board IQ° is somewhere in the lower end of the middle of the pack. Not horrible but nothing really noteworthy
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.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
You talk fancy, but in reality you're just a common idiot,
You posted how the judge you admire (and whose cock you'd like to suck dry) argued that the 1st amendment didn't allow the state the power to criminalize flag burning, then in the next post you 'disagreed' with his 'conclusion that the first amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning. That's a retard level mistake.
I never took your quiz, I attacked the DSA and its views about free speech and gun rights. You can't defend those views because you yourself are a fraud and a huckster of a failed and dangerous ideology from the 20th century that's been rebranded to seem in innocuous when it really isn't. Smart people are not socialists. Successful people are not socialists. It's an ideology of envy and failure, responsible for more than 100 million deaths across multiple nations last century. What does that say about you?
It says that you're a loser. It says that you're a faggot. It says that you're an un-American POS without a basic understanding of what your own ideology represents. Or maybe you do, that's even worse.
Losers lose. Losers deflect when they're losing. You deflected away to legalese regarding the constitution. Perhaps you're a lawyer, you like to quibble about the meaning of common words. I don't know and I don't care. Constitutional law is not is not my area of expertise, I already told you that, so fuck off. That doesn't mean I don't know what the amendments are and what is in the Bill of Rights.
You're a glorified socialist stooge and you stepped into the ring with the wrong person. I'm going to pick apart your ideology piece by piece like a vulture picks apart a slab of rotted carrion, then hang it around your neck and make you own it.
BTW did you know that Mexico now has a socialist president? Why don't you pack up your shit and get the fuck out of the country and live out your Marxist dream there. Because your dream of socialism in the US will never come true.
I stopped reading after "you talk fancy". Actually, I then glanced and saw "losers lose", something about sucking something, and figured you probably need more time.
You've been at the library feverishly working up a response all afternoon, and this is what you come up with?
Sad how far you've fallen. Sad, really.
I lied. I also saw "legalese", which is my stupid father-in-law's favorite word, and THEN I stopped reading.
Coug, your contributions here are quite generic. Be happy you can even post here with a few responses. Like Browning, you peaked long ago. Your board IQ° is somewhere in the lower end of the middle of the pack. Not horrible but nothing really noteworthy
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
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.
Are you saying that he'd be more useful as a lampshade?
You would know about those kind of lampshades, you're descended from a Nazi after all.
You relentlessly yammering dumbfuck, you can't even get one simple thing straight. My great uncle was the SS officer; my grandfather got himself discharged from the Wehrmacht because of bleeding ulcers. I'm descended from a fucking Viennese tailor who didn't want to be in Hitler's army.
I know about lampshades because, unlike you, I read and understand history.
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.
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.
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.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.
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.
Comments
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!
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 posted how the judge you admire (and whose cock you'd like to suck dry) argued that the 1st amendment didn't allow the state the power to criminalize flag burning, then in the next post you 'disagreed' with his 'conclusion that the first amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning. That's a retard level mistake.
I never took your quiz, I attacked the DSA and its views about free speech and gun rights. You can't defend those views because you yourself are a fraud and a huckster of a failed and dangerous ideology from the 20th century that's been rebranded to seem in innocuous when it really isn't. Smart people are not socialists. Successful people are not socialists. It's an ideology of envy and failure, responsible for more than 100 million deaths across multiple nations last century. What does that say about you?
It says that you're a loser. It says that you're a faggot. It says that you're an un-American POS without a basic understanding of what your own ideology represents. Or maybe you do, that's even worse.
Losers lose. Losers deflect when they're losing. You deflected away to legalese regarding the constitution. Perhaps you're a lawyer, you like to quibble about the meaning of common words. I don't know and I don't care. Constitutional law is not is not my area of expertise, I already told you that, so fuck off. That doesn't mean I don't know what the amendments are and what is in the Bill of Rights.
You're a glorified socialist stooge and you stepped into the ring with the wrong person. I'm going to pick apart your ideology piece by piece like a vulture picks apart a slab of rotted carrion, then hang it around your neck and make you own it.
BTW did you know that Mexico now has a socialist president? Why don't you pack up your shit and get the fuck out of the country and live out your Marxist dream there. Because your dream of socialism in the US will never come true.
You've been at the library feverishly working up a response all afternoon, and this is what you come up with?
Sad how far you've fallen. Sad, really.
I know about lampshades because, unlike you, I read and understand history.