Which of these 2 Amendments is the most abused?

9500- TWK is correct - You claim to be the violent, racist, marxist 'revolution' - but all One has is to sit on One's ass and type- keyboard pseudo warrior - and when the OBLM and Anti-Fa comes for You -9500- No One will speak for You. !


When harris send her brownshirt fascists racist for me - Thee will be a lage pile of dead DPST's in front of my cold- dead hands.



DPST's are fomenting and enabling Civil War in America - Be my guest - time for a lot of coffins for DPST violent 'revolutionaries' - armchair stupids who are being used by the DPST party. Originally Posted by oeb11

Hahaha dude really? You can't be that gullible

Hahaha dude really? You can't be that gullible Originally Posted by matchingmole

Apparently you are! Go back to your borough

To point just ask twatter , and assbook,,, they censor what they want,,,

I'd argue the IX, X, and XIII Amendments are the most abused.

I think I Amendment is too restricted.

I'd argue the IX, X, and XIII Amendments are the most abused.

I think I Amendment is too restricted. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

To restricted? Or wrongly interpreted?

To restricted? Or wrongly interpreted? Originally Posted by winn dixie

The tired "shouting fire in a movie theater" argument, and libel and shit like that. I don't think there should be any restrictions on speech.

If I buy out a full page of the wall street journal and claim that my opponent sucks cocks for crack rocks behind the Denny's dumpster, and he ends up losing business, I think the problem is that people find that to be believable, not that I slandered him. Suing me for it is cowardly. Get your satisfaction in blood.

The tired "shouting fire in a movie theater" argument, and libel and shit like that. I don't think there should be any restrictions on speech.

If I buy out a full page of the wall street journal and claim that my opponent sucks cocks for crack rocks behind the Denny's dumpster, and he ends up losing business, I think the problem is that people find that to be believable, not that I slandered him. Suing me for it is cowardly. Get your satisfaction in blood. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

So, you'd find it acceptable if your opponent then shot you in the head, to get satisfaction?

So, you'd find it acceptable if your opponent then shot you in the head, to get satisfaction? Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

Yup.

The lesson then is people ought to mind what they say, or be quite sure of their ability to defend themselves.

So according to you, the central park 5 should have shot trump for taking out 4 full page ads calling for the death penalty to be reinstated so that 5 innocent minors could be executed. The confessions were coerced and another guy confessed(DNA confirmed he did it).
How ironic that one of your stupid ideas would have saved our nation an unbelievable amount of pain. trump never would have been president.
Your FORBIDDEN TOPIC scenario shows what a douche-bag you are.
And your "believable" comment shows only care about some parts of the Constitution but not the parts that are included because of morons like you.

Yup.

The lesson then is people ought to mind what they say, or be quite sure of their ability to defend themselves. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Which poster is 'teh' most abusive - Blue Meanie is right up there!!!

your "believable" comment shows only care about some parts of the Constitution but not the parts that are included because of morons like you. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

which parts, exactly?

Blue Meanie has never read, nor understands the Constitution - it is just a Conservative 'talking point' from a DPST POV!
Dog whistle das kapital - blue meanie!

The first or the fourteenth? Originally Posted by winn dixie

SPAM

nonsense from the burrows!

Jack should probably go "see" an optometrist for that finger that got poked in his eye. Sure sees to be blinking a bit lately.









Pravda media sheds a tear.. Poor boo-boos...