Same goes for any other Republican that said the same and now wants a blitzkrieg to install a non judge (before her recent appointment by Trump and a woman who intends to legislate based on the bible) at an accelerated speed not seen in history not the constitution, right? Of course that's right.
So you support immediately impeaching everyone who's followed suit. Cool.

It's going to be a 6-3 supreme court with 3 being sycophants not professionals.

Yes, it's his decision, which patriots make based on national best interest but the right flip flops their thinking based on what's politically expedient, what's best for them, and precedent or their solemn word means nothing if it doesn't help them today, they're willing dishonest, disingenuous hypocrites but you love that.

The court today is heavily conservative now, 5-3, and will stay 5-4 conservative without him filling the slot during an election. Can't you count to 8?

At least when they get the power, democrats are poised to add as many seats as necessary to balance it.

Tell me when it's been a 6-3 liberal court.
Tell me when a lame duck president has confirmed a court pick during an election.
Tell me when the last time you sucked off a 13 year old boy was.
Tell me!

Who is this and what have you done with Bob? A long post with dozens of examples from both political parties, that's not our Bob, even as a cut and paste.

Many of these cases weren't politicians, and others were caught mid term, not during an election. It doesn't come out just during elections...the thirteen year old girl Trump and Epstein and Prince Andrew raped made her accusations well over a year ago.
Some like Epstein you labeled Democrat even though he donated to both parties and was friends with the current president until his death. A bit disingenuous.
I doubt Epstein had cameras in the sex dungeon.

You are correct, it's rampant, across the board.

Assault weapon bans. Effectively making illegal the most common rifle in the country (ar15) - even though it's statistically tiny in terms of gun killings.
(~450 people killed per year with all forms of rifle. Only some of that is ar15. That's the ~same amount of people as what die yearly from falling out of bed.)

Suppressor bans. Illegalizing an item that has been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning DIY non-commercial firearms. Illegalizing firearms that have been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning Private Sales (aka gunshow loophole). Effectively banning transfers between family and friends. Even though nearly all illegal arms are acquired by straw purchase at conventional stores by girlfriends.
And commercial sellers at gun shows have to do background checks anyways - this is much ado about old geezers trading collectible wild west / ww2 / antique shit.

Nearly all people are killed by pistols. Nobody is calling for a pistol ban. It makes things like an AWB look like a disingenuous effort - because you can pass all sorts of non-pistol-banning gun control laws and there will be no effect on gun death stats. Meaning you can just make more and more stuff illegal forever so long as you save what really matters (pistols) for last.

Between city, county, state, federal, existing gun laws are fat like an encyclopedia. Most people, unless they are 'gun folk', don't even realize the ways you can go to jail. Put a vertical grip in a pistol and posted it to instagram? Enjoy your time with the ATF. 10 years and $100k, assuming you're lax enough to not hire a lawyer to knock it down a bit. Literally volumes of ways to go to jail for shit you wouldn't even imagine would matter.

Many things people complain about aren't even a thing. Like complaining about buying guns online (you can't, not without an FFL involved), or crazy people buying guns (they can't, unless they've yet to be caught doing crazy shit).

Too many laws as it is. Erase a bunch first.

-scheherazade

Lol. Yeah, right, more liberal (my liberal friends think I'm pretty conservative, I say I'm old school republican... socially liberal and fiscally responsible, definitely not a neocon)...but do you feel the same about BLM activists disrupting other events, they should be allowed to stay and speak, holding their anti police violence signs high even at anti BLM rallies? Would they be allowed?

I agree, getting slightly physical with him was stooping ever so slightly closer to his ilk's level, although the extent they got physical was pretty minor, wasn't it?
Oh no...they grabbed his cardboard sign equivalent to an all lives matter sign at a BLM march. VIOLENCE!! Pay him one cent in restitution if he sues. It's not a civil rights case, it's what he was hoping for.

When a known white power spokesman shows up at a protest against a white power organization he's associated with it's international provocation. Don't be naive.

Removing him by having an older woman slowly walk into him until he's out of the middle of the protest doesn't bother me one bit. I don't call that violence, I call it the opposite. If they punched him, violently grabbed him (not his sign), kicked him, or actually assaulted him I might think differently, but I saw none of that.

If he wasn't doing this in the middle of a protest against his pro Nazi racist organization in an effort to disrupt and distract from the anti racist crowd, I might feel differently. He has every right to his voice, but not their soapbox. No one stopped him from standing outside the active protest area with any sign.

They grabbed his cardboard, he was so intimidated that he held on and went back into the angry mob with it instead of letting them steal it, then cries for years about how he was attacked violently by an entire mob that didn't touch him. He was poking the bull, got a snort, and cries he got both horns.

What I saw was a person who was identified as a well known racist spokesman intentionally provoking anti racists at an anti racist event and being calmly moved out of the crowd without anyone laying hands on him.

I did not see what the title and description describes at all.

It was his well known public support of Nazism being considered support for Nazism, not free speech.

It was not the disingenuous words on his sign they found unacceptable it was his public support of racist positions that were the unacceptable sentiments. (disingenuous because I assume he doesn't think blacks should have a right to openly join discussions of ideas, but his sign meant Nazi/white supremacist opinions matter and you must let them espouse them whenever and wherever they wish including at anti racist events or you're anti free speech...which I find to be hypocritical nonsense).

It took me two seconds to figure out this was fake or at best a total misrepresentation, and under two minutes to find plenty of evidence to that effect.

They only look bad when viewed totally out of context. This was edited to create a false narrative that some random innocent meek individual supporting rational discourse was attacked by a violent gang of anti free speech liberals, which is asinine and a blatant lie. He's a professional racist instigators defending racist ideologies at a racist propaganda center being protested, not free speech but his freedom to espouse racial hatred unopposed and uncontradicted.
I'm sad this bullshit is still getting passed around without explanation three plus years later.

I bet if we saw the five minutes before this conveniently edited video started, no one could question them calling him a Nazi and shouting him away, since he is in fact one, one who actively and publicly works to legitimize Nazism and other racist ideologies...he is a long time professional public aggressor and race baiter.

He has every right to discuss his ideas, the rest of us have every right to vocally disagree. When his ideas are actually supporting racial violence, it's pretty disingenuous to complain when they spark some "verbal violence".

Once again, you ignore fact to spread dishonest propaganda.

This sure looks more like idiot right wing man took his daughter into an Antifa crowd to start a fight he wanted recorded.....again....and repeatedly abandoned his daughter in the process of trying to start fights for the camera.
Who waded into the opposing crowd with their "I hate you" messages? Who is dressed for battle? Who has a metal weapon? Who tried to hit multiple others with that weapon first?

Why don't we see the instigation, only the response? That's obvious to those with a brain....because right wing moron intentionally started a physical fight with a crowd with his child present.

What happens if you wear an AOC shirt at a Patriot Prayer rally? Or an "i hate Trump and the right" shirt? Far worse than this every time.


Republicans now happily include the KKK, Bob. Democrats abandoned racism in the 60's when the Republicans turned to it for survival.
They gladly courted the American racists to get Trump "elected", and for 3 years now have furthered the racist agenda....and you love it...you continuously call it winning.
Democrats denounce Antifa, Republicans say the KKK are good people, patriotic Americans, and gladly welcome in the Republican party, even as representatives.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

You know every word of this, but disingenuously spread totally dishonest and divisive propaganda like you get paid in rubles.
So dishonest and dumb, Bob. You don't convince a single person to adopt your dishonest viewpoint with this lame propaganda.

@newtboy and @BSR

I used to engage with @bobknight33 using logic and facts. Whenever I could decisively refute his points he completely ignored my comments. Often he goes back to the same well in the future after I'd conclusively shut his arguments down.

That is not the behaviour of someone interested in any kind of serious debate. That is disingenuous or intentional avoidance of anything that might correct his ignorance. I cannot and will not respect anyone who refuses to even acknowledge the arguments made by the other side. (and don't throw that back at me, I engage with him, he just throws shit into the void and avoids engaging with me)

Who is this fucking moron?
This kind of brainless provocation by falsehood is why religion should be abolished. It's nothing more than a xenophobic weapon today, and has lost any and all redemptive value it might have once had.

Side note- be sure to boycott products from these states if you want your displeasure noticed. Money speaks far louder than words today, it worked in N Carolina.
In no particular order, the state's knowingly violating the constitution in a disingenuous plot to erode women's rights to self autonomy are-Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Utah, Arkansas, Idaho, Wyoming, Mississippi, Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, N Dakota, S Dakota, Missouri.

Fuck this hyper Islamophobic lying nut job.
Why has Trump never said the words Right Wing Terrorism, even though they're by far the most active terrorists in America? Why doesn't he label the black church burnings as attacks on Christianity? Why does Trump stand with the neo-Nazi terrorists, calling them "good people"? You won't hear PJ ask that, will you?

Some background on this liar and provocateur....Paul Joseph Watson's career emerged through his work for liar, conspiracy theorist, disingenuous character, snake oil salesman, and radio host Alex Jones. As editor-at-large of Jones' website InfoWars.com he helped promote fake news and conspiracy theories such as the claim that 9/11 was an inside job, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the New World Order and the Illuminati. Subsequently reaching a significant audience, both Watson and Jones altered their focus. Presently their commentary is mainly focused on criticizing feminism, Islam, and left-wing politics.Watson also contributes to Infowars' talk radio program The Alex Jones Show, where he occasionally either hosts or co-hosts. Watson has been working on Infowars.com since October 2002.
Skankhunt33 strikes again....obviously a trolling attempt.

1) If Ecuador is America's bitch, after giving Assange asylum for years then what of all the countries that refused to extend asylum?

2) Trump has shown he has no interest in bringing Assange to the U.S. It's a safe bet that pressure on the Equadorians to turn him over were at an all-time low. Turning him over now is, if anything, hurting the powers that be in America. How is that being America's bitch?

3) Assange isn't wanted on charges of journalism. You could make the argument that some/many of the charges against him are politically motivated, but if so that will play out in court. Americans may no longer have an unbiased judiciary, but if there's nothing there, it will be hard to come up with a conviction even with a friendly judge.

Everything in this video is just empty rhetoric. There are no facts, just arguments attempting to play on our emotions. If they had facts, they should have used them. That they resort to these disingenuous tactics shows they've got nothing.

Wow, did @bobknight33 finally make a friend?

You're as disingenuous as he is, but you have yet to master the cool, collected trolling that's his trademark, @NaMeCaF . If you get too emotionally engaged then you're just trolling yourself.

Comparing post-Saddam Iraq to the current state of the US is more than a bit disingenuous. There's no 1:1 comparison here, or anything even remotely close.

Are you implying the peasants would still have revolted and executed the ruling class if the ruling class were having an equally difficult time getting enough to eat?

Your one-sided view of an obviously two-sided equation is disingenuous at best, utterly moronic at worst.

Ok, I, and almost all non right wingers disagree. CNN and Faux are no where near the same level. CNN may have some bias against the man who actively encouraged right wing terrorists to attack them as enemies of America and continues to do so....that's perfectly reasonable and professional.
What they don't do is make up stories out of thin air like Faux, edit video to create false impressions that are diametrically opposed to reality, hire mostly frauds who have been caught falsifying reports, repeat obvious lies because their preferred candidate/politician said them, or go on the campaign trail with candidates not to report, but to speak on their behalf. Your conflation of the two is either disingenuous, outrageously ignorant, or insane, you choose.

I watch more than enough Faux to know what they are, pure propaganda. You can deny it all you like, that only makes you look ignorant or dishonest. I'm certain I watch more Faux than you watch CNN, yet you've made similar (but less honest) claims about them, you must not watch it enough to know of what of you speak, you just take a convicted frauds word that they're liars as gospel and never investigate it seems.

You don't know me, sir, or you wouldn't make such a spurious claim. I gather information from multiple opposing sources. How could I debunk the lies from Faux and OAN if I don't watch them spout those lies?

Then how about what Trump himself did?...turnabout is fair play, so in this instance two wrongs might make things more right, at least more balanced. The left playing fairly, honorably, and attempting to avoid even the appearance of impropriety got us Trump, who has no such qualms. I hope Democrats don't sit on their high horse and complain that Trump doesn't play fair while he destroys our democracy and union....it's well past time to start tossing the steaming shit back at them.

Trump raped his pre-teen daughters on film and bragged about it, that's why he won't show us their long form medical and financial records.....that's far truer than his birther claims.
Also, his kids are all illegals, born to non citizens as anchor babies, (all his baby mommas are immigrants/invaders) when he tries to remove birthright citizenship they should be deported immediately. ;-)

No, none of those people are good at reporting news, not one can separate their rabid hyper biased opinions from fact, although Smith is doing better lately......but slightly better than god awful isn't good.
Fox is a joke, period. They don't have reporters, they have hosts. They're an opinion/entertainment/propaganda network, not a news network. It's really sad that you watch them but don't understand that basic fact, and you defend them as offering good reporting while also admitting they aren't even news...WTF, man?

The thing there is the news media is not being unprofessional, Trump is, but you're listening to him as if he wasn't an impudent infant and believing the nonsense that reporting on his constant vitriolic foibles is unprofessional. It's simply not.

Trump is the leader of the nation, not CNN, not his advisors, not Hannity. He is not being led to the right, he's dragging centrists far right or attacking them if they refuse to go along.
How about maybe he tries to lead towards civility and professionalism instead of impetuously attack any detractors like a spoiled brat, blaming them for his own actions?

You really like the sound of your own voice, don't you?

1) You cherry picked and then exaggerated my statements.

2) You toned it down a bit, while still doing both of the above.

3) Now you're just cherry picking.

There's no point debating you if you're just going to be disingenuous about it.

Does a group of white people who are purposely excluding racial minorities seem equally, more, or less prone to racially charged violence than a multi-ethnic group?

And before you bring that black group back into the discussion, remember, odds are (at least in the US) they don't have the range of options the whites do. Most of the time, a group of 50 or more black people forms with no other racial groups present because they're pushed into less desirable areas and excluded from the wealthier side of society. I agree that it's possible that group could be prone to violence, but I'd argue that their reasons would stem more from social inequality, rather than racism. You can't make that same argument for the white group.