the i dont care about politics anymore thread

[Mblake1981]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He can have an opinion, just like anyone else. Let me know if and when he acts on it with force of law.

And none btw! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Ctrl F garland has no results?

"I think we should march boots through Seattle." [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He can have an opinion, just like anyone else. Let me know if and when he acts on it with force of law.

And none btw! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Ctrl F garland has no results?

You'd make a great lawyer. He obviously knows he can't act on it legally, you doofus, he's getting around the fact he can't act on it with the force of law by pressuring somebody else to do it instead, which is precisely what is unconstitutional about it.

Thus your retarded quibble over what constitutes "pressure" coming from the AG of the country, as if his opinion doesn't exert far more influence than a random citizen.

And all of this is to say the left is censorious and authoritarian by nature, which they are. You masterfully totally sidestepped that whole argument with some idiotic "hey technicalllllly it's not censorship sooo".

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by Mblake1981 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"I think we should march boots through Seattle." [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm down for that. I don't even care what the reason is.

People see some tanks rollin' thru a city, both sides will sit down and shut up for awhile.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You'd make a great lawyer. He obviously knows he can't act on it legally, you doofus, he's getting around the fact he can't act on it with the force of law by pressuring somebody else to do it instead, which is precisely what is unconstitutional about it.

Thus your retarded quibble over what constitutes "pressure" coming from the AG of the country, as if his opinion doesn't exert far more influence than a random citizen.

And all of this is to say the left is censorious and authoritarian by nature, which they are. You masterfully totally sidestepped that whole argument with some idiotic "hey technicalllllly it's not censorship sooo".

This post needs more paranoid conspiracy theories about George Soros imo

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You'd make a great lawyer. He obviously knows he can't act on it legally, you doofus, he's getting around the fact he can't act on it with the force of law by pressuring somebody else to do it instead, which is precisely what is unconstitutional about it.

Thus your retarded quibble over what constitutes "pressure" coming from the AG of the country, as if his opinion doesn't exert far more influence than a random citizen.

And all of this is to say the left is censorious and authoritarian by nature, which they are. You masterfully totally sidestepped that whole argument with some idiotic "hey technicalllllly it's not censorship sooo".

It takes a lawyer to know the difference between AG and SG, I guess. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ooloo]

Look guys all they're doing is finding really slimy ways to censor information they don't like without breaking any laws! Why have an issue with that? Cmon!

Also whether something is legally censorship, or censorship in practice is a totally different question, Lionel Hutz. That's why that constitutional exception exists at all. Thanks for another tedious pedantic derail though.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look guys all they're doing is finding really slimy ways to censor information they don't like without breaking any laws! Why have an issue with that? Cmon!

Also whether something is legally censorship, or censorship in practice is a totally different question, Lionel Hutz. That's why that constitutional exception exists at all. Thanks for another tedious pedantic derail though.

Tell me why I should be afraid of the SG. Make me feel the fear you do.

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It takes a lawyer to know the difference between AG and SG, I guess. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Haha, as if that changes anything? Like, cool, I typed the wrong acronym. I guess democrats aren't acting censorious by nature, and flirting with it legally with the white house's public utterances then! Which was the original assertion.

Then you kramered in with "Hey I dunno about all that censorious by nature stuff, not gonna comment there, but *legally* it's not censorship okay seeya!"

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Haha, as if that changes anything? Like, cool, I typed the wrong acronym. I guess democrats aren't acting censorious by nature, and flirting with it legally with the white house's public utterances then! Which was the original assertion.

Then you kramered in with "Hey I dunno about all that censorious by nature stuff, not gonna comment there, but *legally* it's not censorship okay seeya!"

Do you feel persecuted by the government issuing health advisories? He's a spokesperson and little else.

Might be time to listen to Joycelyn.

[Jibartik]

cool society we built