1,000,000 Post Thread

No, if there was a law that was broken, you CAN cite it. I cannot prove to you such a law doesn't exist, nowc=can I? Damn. You're not too bright.
 
No, if there was a law that was broken, you CAN cite it. I cannot prove to you such a law doesn't exist, now can I? Damn. You're not too bright.
 
Trump is an idiot. Saying 86 47 is not illegal, nor is a threat of violence. It's the same as saying "fire him." Gee, didn't Trump used to love to say "You're fired" on national TV? It made him feel like a he-man, instead of man whose IQ is about as low as @wizer's.
 
Trump is an idiot. Saying 86 47 is not illegal, nor is it a threat of violence. It's the same as saying "fire him." Gee, didn't Trump used to love to say "You're fired" on national TV? It made him feel like a he-man, instead of man whose IQ is about as low as @wizer's.
 
Trump is an idiot. Saying 86 47 is not illegal, nor is it a threat of violence. It's the same as saying "fire him." Gee, didn't Trump used to love to say "You're fired" on national TV? It made him feel like a he-man, instead of a man whose IQ is about as low as @wizer's.
 
Note to self. @LotusBud replies during any disagreement with insults including you're an asshole, you've got low IQ, you think your smart but you're not so it's sad. No way to have a decent back and forth with this person not worth the effort.
 
Note to wizer: Evading the question will never make what Comey did illegal. There is no law against what he did, and you're actually a tool. Just a fact, not a name call. You never answered my question.
 
Even if I was a tool, an asshole, a person with low IQ who thinks he's smart so it's sad, what does that have to do with the topic being discussed?
 
If I post to you 6 more times I'll get about 3 more elementary school insults hurled my way. That proves something but not what you intended.
 
Intent vs. Interpretation: In the 2023 case Counterman v. Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled that for a statement to be a "true threat," the speaker must have some subjective understanding that their words would be perceived as a threat. Proving Comey intended a death threat rather than a "remove from office" message is legally difficult. [1, 2] Ambiguity of "86": Because the term has multiple common meanings—including "to eject" or "to be out of"—defense attorneys argue it is too vague to constitute a clear, direct threat of violence. [2, 3] First Amendment Protections: Political speech, even when offensive or aggressive, is highly protected. Courts generally require a "clear and present dan
 
I have made my argument, and I have challenged you to make yours. You have not posted a single solitary thing that proves Comey brokke any law whatsoever. And yet yu repeatedly insulted me, accusing me of not respecting the law. Again, I ask, WHAT LAW? @wizer. WHAT LAW?
 
of course to some degenerate conservatives who bow to will will of their betters anything that can be twisted into something "actionable" usually is, especially with Trumps DOJ.
 
of course to some degenerate conservatives who bow to the will of their betters anything that can be twisted into something "actionable" usually is, especially with Trumps DOJ.
 
@Jack it's not about the argument itself, it's about trying to have a sensible discussion and getting nothing but dumb insults
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alticus
Australian Cockroach Kingpin Caught With 100,000 Illegal Insects In Record Bug Bust
Replies
2
Views
78
Admin.
Admin.
Flynn
01010011 01101111 01101100 01110110 01100101 00100000 01010100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01001001 01100110 00100000 01011001 01101111 011101
2 3
Replies
84
Views
1K
Reggie_Essent
Reggie_Essent
Alticus
Michigan Man Wins $500,000 From Birthday Gift Lottery Ticket
Replies
0
Views
56
Alticus
Alticus
Joe
Trump Economy sheds 92,000 US jobs for February
Replies
0
Views
105
Joe
Joe
Alticus
Guy Opens A $100,000 Pack Of Baseball Cards From 1952
Replies
14
Views
612
Frood
Frood