Originally posted by Robtard
Google says no.I've already told you he's targeting news agencies that say unflattering (ie the truth) things about him and using the office of the POTUS to do it. But something, something democrats.
No, you clearly did, as you only blamed Democrats for the assault weapon ban, when it was bipartisan.
What percentage of all the speech out there is he trying to infringe upon? How many topics does he give a shit about people discussing vs how many does he not?
It's still being led by Dems. You asked for an example of Dems doing it, whether or not there are Reps are doing it too on the issue is irrelevant unless I'm saying that Reps are the clear "good guys" while Dems are the clear "bad guys" the way you do when the situation is reversed.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Them not being successful doesn't change their intent. Are you denying those being democrat talking points though?
Who is "them"? What talking points? Be specific.
Originally posted by darthgoober
It was written out poorly and made it impossible to ban abortion.
No, it was not. It restrained government from interfering with your healthcare decisions by preventing it from even knowing about them. But you are celebrating losing your rights, because someone else is exercising the same rights in a way you do not like. It is total ****ing stupidity.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who is "them"? What talking points? Be specific.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it was not. It restrained government from interfering with your healthcare decisions by preventing it from even knowing about them. But you are celebrating losing your rights, because someone else is exercising the same rights in a way you do not like. It is total ****ing stupidity.
Originally posted by darthgoober
First, are you denying it? Be specific.
I cannot deny anything, because you did not cite anything. Who and what am I supposed to be denying here? The made-up people and made-up claims that only exist in your head?
Originally posted by darthgoober
I'm pro choice, I have no issue with women exercising their rights. As for being ok with your own rights being taken away because someone else is exercising the same rights in a way you do not like, does that mean those seeking to limit the Second Amendment are totally ****ing stupid?
Do you know the difference between limit and elimminate? No rights guaranteed by the Constitution are absolute. They are all subject to reasonable restriction. All of them. Elimminating a right, takes it away from everybody, so nobody can exercise that right in any fashion. Are you retarded? Seriously, I want to know if I am wasting my time with someone with a sub-65 I.Q.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I cannot deny anything, because you did not cite anything. Who and what am I supposed to be denying here? The made-up people and made-up claims that only exist in your head?
Originally posted by Adam_PoEDo you know the difference between limit and elimminate? No rights guaranteed by the Constitution are absolute. They are all subject to reasonable restriction. All of them. Elimminating a right, takes it away from everybody, so nobody can exercise that right in any fashion. Are you retarded? Seriously, I want to know if I am wasting my time with someone with a sub-65 I.Q.
Originally posted by darthgoober
If you're asking for proof the sky ain't blue, you've got to at least be willing to say what color you think it is before demanding evidence.
I am asking you to substantiate the claim that you made, you ****ing clown.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Are abortions illegal federally now or is it determined by the states? Are states allowed to pass restrictions against guns and speech that aren't mentioned in the Second Amendment?
Your state of residence should only affect the restrictions on your rights, not whether or not you have them. You are either playing dumb, or it is not an act.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am asking you to substantiate the claim that you made, you ****ing clown.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Your state of residence should only affect the restrictions on your rights, not whether or not you have them. You are either playing dumb, or it is not an act.
Originally posted by darthgoober
I already did with Rob, pay attention. I just did it after he gave a clear indication of a stance.
You did not name a single person, or provide a single quote.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Abortions aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution, it was an interpretation from the Supreme Court about what those rights constituted. No one has removed a right, just rexamined whether or not a ruling about how the right to privacy should be interpreted. The Supreme Court reversing a ruling they previously made isn't any more of an overstep than making the ruling in the first place.
The Constitution does not enumerate all of your rights, dumb ass. It does not specifically mention the right to own an AR-15, but I bet you think you have one. You cannot possibly be this ****ing stupid.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You did not name a single person, or provide a single quote.The Constitution does not enumerate all of your rights, dumb ass. It does not specifically mention the right to own an AR-15, but I bet you think you have one. You cannot possibly be this ****ing stupid.
The constitution outlines the rights we base our laws on.
'Weaklings': Trump lashes out at supporters over 'Jeffrey Epstein hoax'
Trump called his own supporters "weaklings" for their anger over his administration's handling of the Epstein case.​
President Donald Trump has a message for supporters upset with his handling of records related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein: They are "weaklings" who have been "duped" and he doesn't need them. -snip
🙂
Trumpy's upset that even some of his supporters are not buying his covering up over him being on the Epstein Client List and is a serial pedophile.
But in the end Trump knows his Trump Cucks will all eventually believe whatever BS he says and they'll bend the knee again.
Originally posted by Robtard
'Weaklings': Trump lashes out at supporters over 'Jeffrey Epstein hoax'Trump called his own supporters "weaklings" for their anger over his administration's handling of the Epstein case.​
President Donald Trump has a message for supporters upset with his handling of records related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein: They are "weaklings" who have been "duped" and he doesn't need them. -snip
🙂
Trumpy's upset that even some of his supporters are not buying his covering up over him being on the Epstein Client List and is a serial pedophile.
But in the end Trump knows his Trump Cucks will all eventually believe whatever BS he says and they'll bend the knee again.
You're doing that thing again where you accuse the Left of what the Right is actively doing.
I want the Epstein Client List released and everyone who partook in child rape and/or sex trafficking to be exposed. I don't care if there's Democrats on the list, A-List celebrities et al, as I'm not going to defend a pedophile just because we share a political party, I'm not a Trumper.
Originally posted by Robtard
You're doing that thing again where you accuse the Left of what the Right is actively doing.I want the Epstein Client List released and everyone who partook in child rape and/or sex trafficking to be exposed. I don't care if there's Democrats on the list, A-List celebrities et al, as I'm not going to defend a pedophile just because we share a political party, I'm not a Trumper.