Yellowtail

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s interesting how the debate on who should be allowed to speak on University Campuses has so suddenly and diametrically flipped.

 

Gone are the days of ‘You don’t have a right to not be offended’.

 

 

Your claim that "...the debate on who should be allowed to speak on University Campuses has so suddenly and diametrically flipped." is interesting. 

Do you believe demonstrators have the right to block pedestrian and or vehicular traffic, physically of verbally harass people, threaten people, shout down speakers they do not agree with, and block common areas? 

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

I didn’t claim anyone was being stopped from speaking.

 

Feel free to:

 

1. Quote my post(s) in which I claimed “people are being stopped from speaking”.

 

2. Admit you made that claim up and apologize.

 

3. Flush your credibility.

 

 

Sorry, when you said: "It’s interesting how the debate on who should be allowed to speak on University Campuses has so suddenly and diametrically flipped." I assumed you meant that there were people not being allowed to speak.

I was wrong, sorry.

So what did you mean? 

Oh, I get it now, aries the bulls****r, you got me! 

1 minute ago, aries said:

IQ of a peanut then like the rest of those voting for the Cheeto coloured fascist?

You asked for the criminal and civil cases against the urophiliac in chief, so I provided them for you. 

Now see if you can string a salient sentence together for me offering a critique of these cases...

No, I asked what the people that the topic of this thread have been charged with, and because you don't know, you post an irrelevant link, and then when I point out that you don't know, you call me names.

Not only did you not know the answer, but you also didn't even know what was being asked. Typical. 

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s interesting how the debate on who should be allowed to speak on University Campuses has so suddenly and diametrically flipped.

 

Gone are the days of ‘You don’t have a right to not be offended’.

 

 

It is interesting that you claim people are being stopped from speaking. 

Do you believe demonstrators have the right to block pedestrian and or vehicular traffic, physically of verbally harass people, threaten people, shout down speakers they do not agree with, and block common areas? 

17 minutes ago, G_Money said:

I see your point.

 

All he had to do when I asked him about HeyBruce was say he doesn’t know where he is.

 

But what he said in the following posts.  I knew better.

 

Don't bother. It's the same when they make false claims. You ask them to support it, and they just post links to articles that do not support it and pretend it does. When they get called on it, they post another link to nonsense. They either know they are lying, or they are stupid. Either way it is a waste of time. Now you've shown him to be making false claims, but he'll never admit it, and will just make some other false claim like he forgot of whatnot. 

They are unwilling or unable to think for themselves, all they can to is regurgitate what other people say. 

10 minutes ago, placnx said:

Some 47 professors of the Columbia Law School sent a letter to Columbia president Shafik pointing out that the actions directed by her against those students violated the rule of law guaranteeing free speech. Shafik was previously dean of the Law School.

 

I guess that Biden et al hope that when the semester is over in a month or less, the students will go home and not make any trouble at the Democratic Convention! 

Do you believe demonstrators should be allowed to block pedestrian and or vehicular traffic, physically of verbally harass people, shout down speakers they do not agree with, and block common areas? 

9 minutes ago, G_Money said:

Honestly?  Best to delete that word from your vocabulary.

 

 

Why bother? They do not care about the truth, to the left, their end justifies any means. 

"Truth is not a left-wing value." 

Just now, DrJack54 said:

No.

Enough. You do not understand the process. 

 

That's what I thought, thanks. 

10 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Lost the plot. Step outside your bubble. The truth is there. Stalin was a mass murderer.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin

And I am saying he and FDR both did some good things.  Again, does that mean I'm a communist and think they are great? 

21 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

You are missing something.

And what might that be? 

21 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Often the return date for final stamp can be beyond current permission of stay.

 

You will NOT be on overstay. 

So if I go the day before it expires, I can effectively get 13 months on one extension? 

8 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Never said that he mentioned it in a speech. But he has mentioned this. That's a fact

And I said Stalin and FDR both did some good things, does that mean I'm a communist and think they are great? 

31 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Found proof.

 

No, it really proves nothing. It Stalin did and FDR did some good thing as well. 

In any event, we were discussing the false claim that Trump said there were good Nazis in his speech, and you have provided nothing that shows that Trump said there were good Nazis in his speech. There are leftists that make the claim by pulling a bit of a sentence out of context, but they are either stupid or lying. 

Time for you to call me a troll and a kool-aid drinker or whatnot because you have nothing. 

3 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

The under consideration period stamp is often not within expiry of current permission of stay.

When you receive that stamp you will not be on overstay even if permit in pp expires.

If you need to exit Thailand during the under consideration period that's a topic in itself.

Possible however requires advice. 

Unless I am missing something, if your permission to stay expires during the under-consideration period, I think you're in county on an expired visa. 

I get my passport stamped with the new extension of stay on the date the old extension expires.  

I wonder why the judge is not allowing the defense to call campaign finance experts, any ideas? 

17 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

It supports the claim that he liked Nazi Germany generals.

No, it really doesn't. It means he like their supposed dedication. 

17 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

And. Read Hitlers book.

What does this mean? 

In any event, we were discussing the false claim that Trump said there were good Nazis in his speech, and you have provided nothing that shows that Trump said there were good Nazis in his speech. There are leftists that make the claim by pulling a bit of a sentence out of context, but they are either stupid or lying. 

Time for you to call me a troll and a kool-aid drinker or whatnot because you have nothing. 

3 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Yes he did. Step outside your echo chamber.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-complained-generals-werent-hitlers-book-says-rcna42114

 

Trump once complained that his generals weren't like Hitler's, book says

 

The exchange with then-White House chief of staff John Kelly was detailed in an excerpt from a forthcoming book by journalists Susan Glasser and Peter Baker.

Does not support the false claim the Trump said there were good Nazis in his speech. 

4 minutes ago, G_Money said:

Appears I’m was correct (again) in the 5 keys words required in your text needed for you to make a reply.

 

 

When they can't refute you, they call you a Kool-Aid drinker or a troll like little kids on a schoolyard.

1 minute ago, riclag said:

When was the last time you seen biden hug a USA flag  ! When was the last time you heard bidens cultural Marxist supporters chant ,USA USA USA!

 

 

When the chant begins with Death to....

10 minutes ago, candide said:

If you don't know the charges, look by yourself instead of asking other posters to waste time doing it.

It's a lame trolling tactic.

You don't know either, thought not. Carry on troll

When they can't refute you, they call you a troll like little kids on a schoolyard, or leftists on a website. 

16 minutes ago, charleskerins said:

Are you incapable of reading the article ?  The wait was because the previous attorney general was a Republican and most of them are in on the sedition.   you don't "got it"

You don't know what the charges are, I thought not, thanks. 

Is the previous AG that conspired with then being charged sedition now the new Democrat AG has been elected? 

It seems to be your position that most Republicans are seditionist, correct? Should they not all be charged? 

3 minutes ago, charleskerins said:

support aka   fake electors defiling the Constitution and trying to overthrow Democracy.   Ignoring the will of the people and attempting a coup. Meanwhile ass kissers of Fascism ignore the obvious. What abject nonsense. 

Border -don't pass the bill I want to win the election.

Attempting to overthrow democracy, but we can wait three years to prosecute them, got it. 

What are the charges?