- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Idiot tells the crowd to wipe out Ice agents. How soon does he get arrested?
Posted on 10/22/25 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 10/22/25 at 4:43 pm
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. The guy below must not have a sufficient retirement plan.
This old fella must do time with his threats against a POTUS!!
This post was edited on 10/22/25 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 10/22/25 at 4:44 pm to Timeoday
Guilty whyte min are the worst.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 4:44 pm to Timeoday
Is this where Decaturd posts about some republican group chat?
Posted on 10/22/25 at 4:48 pm to Timeoday
Can actions be taken against this lunatic?
This post was edited on 10/22/25 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 10/22/25 at 4:49 pm to Timeoday
But moderates on here have assured me that there's no way we end up in a violent shooting civil war.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 4:49 pm to Timeoday
Some of you need a lesson in the First Amendment.
You can say this type of stuff if there is no threat of IMMINENT lawless action. If he said that with an ICE agent present in a crowd, then there would be an actionable claim.
Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.[4]
You can say this type of stuff if there is no threat of IMMINENT lawless action. If he said that with an ICE agent present in a crowd, then there would be an actionable claim.
Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.[4]
Posted on 10/22/25 at 4:50 pm to MintBerry Crunch
quote:
Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.[4]
So Epps?
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:29 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
But moderates on here have assured me that there's no way we end up in a violent shooting civil war.
It's an inevitability. The 70 year psyop has been so effective that the two perceived "sides" of the citizen political spectrum are poisoned towards one another beyond possibility of cure.
Politicians want us at war so they can call martial law and seize more power that they will never relinquish. Martial law gives them authority to declare a national emergency, which will allow them to "legally" confiscate things like your food stores (for "redistribution" to less fortunate people) and your GUNS (as a "public safety measure"). This will create a serious rift and likely a physical war between Red States who refuse to illegally confiscate their citizens' property, and a Federal Government that fully intends to unilaterally seize ALL power and authority.
When they get the firearms, we're fricking finished. And it's coming. Right now, only the Grace of GOD that one side is asking for, is preventing the fecal matter from impacting the air moving device.
Look around, folks. Look how close we are to completely destroying ourselves. I suggest everyone seriously study some volumes if historical text as well as the Holy Bible.
Popular
Back to top

5







