Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
B..b..b..b..but He Told Them To March Peacefully!
B..b..b..b..but He Told Them To March Peacefully!
By R. Suave
19 Dec 2023 5:21 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
21 Dec 2023 10:09 pm
As in, you're **** clueless..GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 11:02 pm » wrote: ↑ R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.
This statement is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath of office no less] that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.
You should brace yourself, there's worse ahead..
21 Dec 2023 10:12 pm
R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 11:09 pm » wrote: ↑ As in, you're **** clueless..
You should brace yourself, there's worse ahead..
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.
This statement is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath of office no less] that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.
21 Dec 2023 10:14 pm
You can scream that all you want, but you lost..GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 11:12 pm » wrote: ↑ R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.
This statement is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath of office no less] that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.
21 Dec 2023 10:31 pm
R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.
This statement is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath of office no less] that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.
The truth is there were no "arms" involved with the protest.
If Trump's words had resulted in a gun fight with the Capitol Cops ..then yes the Colorado Supreme court would have a legitimate case instead of "crying wolf". to their audience full of effeminately raised Drama Queens and totally hysterical Queers.
22 Dec 2023 2:44 am
He’s BlackVagina.Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 10:27 pm » wrote: ↑ Are you another poster that changed his name?
I'm guessing you've been outed .
22 Dec 2023 7:05 am
How much of the Jan 6th Hearings did you watch?GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 11:31 pm » wrote: ↑ R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.
This statement is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath of office no less] that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.
The truth is there were no "arms" involved with the protest.
If Trump's words had resulted in a gun fight with the Capitol Cops ..then yes the Colorado Supreme court would have a legitimate case instead of "crying wolf". to their audience full of effeminately raised Drama Queens and totally hysterical Queers.
"I couldn't see it through my tears, but let me tell you all about it - 'k?"
22 Dec 2023 7:06 am
22 Dec 2023 7:19 am
You think that **** routine of yours is "debate", Hole?Z09 » 22 Dec 2023, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑ You know...
When someone can't argue or debate and instead just insults people it's a sign they know the have no case
You don't answer questions.
22 Dec 2023 7:45 am
More questions...
Are you really just a Hole?
22 Dec 2023 8:38 am
And yet, you're afraid to try defending any of it!
Are you making the claim that you believe that the pee tapes and the Steel dossier were genuine, even after they've been proven to be false?
And you agree with the idiot justices in CO that had the power and the duty to keep Trump off their ballot?
Why won't you back up those beliefs instead of just calling them ****?
22 Dec 2023 8:39 am
My apologies! I DID misunderstand your response.Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 9:43 pm » wrote: ↑ I hope you don't think I support this ruling..
I don't
ITs dumb and dangerous
Liberals are as dumb as they come..
And this ruling will be overturned..
Imagine ..
Four judges decides for the people of Colorado
22 Dec 2023 8:46 am
GHETTOBLASTER » Yesterday, 8:31 pm » wrote: ↑R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 8:05 am » wrote: ↑ How much of the Jan 6th Hearings did you watch?
"I couldn't see it through my tears, but let me tell you all about it - 'k?"
Yesterday, 8:31 pm
R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.
This statement is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath of office no less] that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.
The truth is there were no "arms" involved with the protest.
If Trump's words had resulted in a gun fight with the Capitol Cops ..then yes the Colorado Supreme court would have a legitimate case instead of "crying wolf". to their audience full of effeminately raised Drama Queens and totally hysterical Queers.
22 Dec 2023 9:16 am
Why would I want to defend bullzeet?Zeets2 » 22 Dec 2023, 9:38 am » wrote: ↑ And yet, you're afraid to try defending any of it!
Are you making the claim that you believe that the pee tapes and the Steel dossier were genuine, even after they've been proven to be false?
And you agree with the idiot justices in CO that had the power and the duty to keep Trump off their ballot?
Why won't you back up those beliefs instead of just calling them ****?
I agree with you...they had the power and duty to keep Grifty off the ballot..And you agree with the idiot justices in CO that had the power and the duty to keep Trump off their ballot?
22 Dec 2023 9:16 am
Here’s the question at hand: Should Texas Ban Biden from the Ballot?
Peggy Noonan discusses that question in National Unity and the Colorado Supreme Court
Mr. Trump hasn’t been convicted of insurrection by a jury or judge. It seems to me that when and if he is, a state court might feel free to remove his name from a ballot. Until he is, they shouldn’t. Because without conviction, whether Trump committed insurrection is a matter of opinion and argument. With conviction it can be asserted as proven fact.
The southern border of the state of Texas is in functional collapse, with an unprecedented wave of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. The Washington Post this week likened the border area to a “Mad Max” world of cut-through barriers and debris. Fox News on Wednesday showed an order instructing a recently crossed migrant to report to U.S. immigration officials to make her case to stay in America. Fox showed the date on the order: January 2031. An immigration lawyer said it is proof of what illegal immigrants already sense: The administration is in effect granting back-door amnesty to all who come. And so they’re coming. Among them are—again the number is unprecedented—natives of China, India, Africa, Turkey. This is a challenge to our national security that most won’t begin to worry about until something bad happens. The Department of Homeland Security reported this week that 35,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions were encountered in fiscal 2023. That’s only the number caught. In October alone, Customs and Border Protection reported apprehending 13 people on the terrorist watchlist. Again, that’s only the number caught. What a disaster.
If Colorado is able to ban Mr. Trump from the ballot over charges of insurrection, can Texas ban Joe Biden from the ballot on grounds he has defied his constitutional responsibility to defend the country by securing its borders? There are politicians in Texas already promising to do just that.
Peggy Noonan discusses that question in National Unity and the Colorado Supreme Court
Mr. Trump hasn’t been convicted of insurrection by a jury or judge. It seems to me that when and if he is, a state court might feel free to remove his name from a ballot. Until he is, they shouldn’t. Because without conviction, whether Trump committed insurrection is a matter of opinion and argument. With conviction it can be asserted as proven fact.
The southern border of the state of Texas is in functional collapse, with an unprecedented wave of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. The Washington Post this week likened the border area to a “Mad Max” world of cut-through barriers and debris. Fox News on Wednesday showed an order instructing a recently crossed migrant to report to U.S. immigration officials to make her case to stay in America. Fox showed the date on the order: January 2031. An immigration lawyer said it is proof of what illegal immigrants already sense: The administration is in effect granting back-door amnesty to all who come. And so they’re coming. Among them are—again the number is unprecedented—natives of China, India, Africa, Turkey. This is a challenge to our national security that most won’t begin to worry about until something bad happens. The Department of Homeland Security reported this week that 35,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions were encountered in fiscal 2023. That’s only the number caught. In October alone, Customs and Border Protection reported apprehending 13 people on the terrorist watchlist. Again, that’s only the number caught. What a disaster.
If Colorado is able to ban Mr. Trump from the ballot over charges of insurrection, can Texas ban Joe Biden from the ballot on grounds he has defied his constitutional responsibility to defend the country by securing its borders? There are politicians in Texas already promising to do just that.
22 Dec 2023 10:05 am
It's simple when you try to ignore the facts.R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 10:16 am » wrote: ↑ Why would I want to defend bullzeet?
I agree with you...they had the power and duty to keep Grifty off the ballot..
And it makes you look like an even bigger idiot than almost everyone else here believes.
You're NOT agreeing with me, fool! You're agreeing with the ignorant liberal judges that made this ridiculous ruling, and you're seeing the results now!
Already there are other governors who have followed suit and chosen to keep Biden off the ballot in their states, and libs like you were too dumb to realize that this would be the reaction to the Colorado decision:
Texas official threatens to remove Biden from ballot in retaliation for Trump in Colorado
The Independent by John Bowden Wed, December 20, 2023
https://news.yahoo.com/texas-official-t ... 49655.html
Republicans Threaten to Take Joe Biden Off Ballot in States They Control
Newsweek by Kate Plummer
Republicans are calling for President Joe Biden to be removed from state presidential ballots following a Colorado court ruling that Donald Trump is not permitted to be on its ballot next year.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1lNuwU
So tell us, nitwit. Were you and all your brainless liberal friends who were cheering the CO ruling so shocked that this would be the obvious result?Republicans Team Up to Remove Biden From State Ballots: 'Unfair, Abuse of Power'
Town Hall by Sarah Arnold | December 20, 2023
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL.) mulled the idea of taking President Joe Biden off of his state's 2024 primary ballot after the Colorado Supreme Court kicked former President Trump from its 2024 GOP primary ballot.
"There was no trial on any of this,” DeSantis said. “They basically just said, what, you can’t be on the ballot? I mean, how does that work? ”DeSantis said the ruling has no “limiting principle” and that other states could remove Biden for "constitutional violations" if Colorado could do it.“Could we just say that Biden can’t be on the ballot because he let in 8 million illegals into the country and violated the constitution, which he has?” DeSantis continued.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharno ... s-n2632667
Are you really that dumb? Is that really the battle that you want, to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters, both Democrat and Republican?
22 Dec 2023 10:09 am
You say they have the power and the duty to remove Grifty from the ballot at the request of Concerned Colorado Republicans...I agree.Zeets2 » 22 Dec 2023, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑ It's simple when you try to ignore the facts.
And it makes you look like an even bigger idiot than almost everyone else here believes.
You're NOT agreeing with me, fool! You're agreeing with the ignorant liberal judges that made this ridiculous ruling, and you're seeing the results now!
Already there are other governors who have followed suit and chosen to keep Biden off the ballot in their states, and libs like you were too dumb to realize that this would be the reaction to the Colorado decision:
So tell us, nitwit. Were you and all your brainless liberal friends who were cheering the CO ruling so shocked that this would be the obvious result?
Are you really that dumb? Is that really the battle that you want, to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters, both Democrat and Republican?
What's your **** beef?
22 Dec 2023 11:51 am
But with his accountability for an act (that is in itself, highly debatable), remaining in question, you have no right to do anything based on the basis the act happened and he was involved. I feel it was an insurrection, and I feel Trump was involved so that's enough to disqualify him. Outside a gender studies classroom, nothing works like that
Until you can reliably ascertain that the act in question actually was the act you think it was - and that the man you think was actively involved, actually was involved, - you have no act and no one involved. No such determination has taken place.
No, I'm not raking through history to 'provide links'. If you can't directly dispute a point, then question your own links.
22 Dec 2023 11:55 am
JustinSane » 22 Dec 2023, 12:51 pm » wrote: ↑ But with his accountability for an act (that is in itself, highly debatable), remaining in question, you have no right to do anything based on the basis the act happened and he was involved. I feel it was an insurrection, and I feel Trump was involved so that's enough to disqualify him. Outside a gender studies classroom, nothing works like that
Based on that as a framework, as I've said somewhere else, anyone and everyone can be disqualified right now for being involved in an insurrection. It can't work like that, it's retarded
They asked, and answered that question.But with his accountability for an act (that is in itself, highly debatable), remaining in question
You should inform yourself.
Since you were wrong we need go no further.you have no right to do anything
22 Dec 2023 11:57 am
Are you talking about the **** from the Jan 6th committee? Come on - put your argument up front and in the roomR.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 12:55 pm » wrote: ↑ They asked, and answered that question.
You should inform yourself.
Since you were wrong we need go no further.
No, I'm not raking through history to 'provide links'. If you can't directly dispute a point, then question your own links.
22 Dec 2023 11:58 am
Ok...my turn...JustinSane » 22 Dec 2023, 12:57 pm » wrote: ↑ Are you talking about the **** from the Jan 6th committee? Come on - put your argument up front and in the room
How much of the Jan 6th hearings did you watch?
Who is online
In total there are 3147 users online :: 11 registered, 15 bots, and 3121 guests
Registered users: Vegas, Johnny You, Blackvegetable, ROG62, RebelGator, Beekeeper, LowIQTrash, Toddster Patriot, nefarious101, springfield xd, Huey
Bots: Not, Bolt, LCC, GPTBot, DuckDuckBot, proximic, ADmantX, curl/7, CriteoBot, facebookexternalhit, Googlebot, YandexBot, Applebot, bingbot, Mediapartners-Google