Capco

That comment might have been worded better, but considering the context (i.e., a thread about a rich person attempting to avoid paying taxes) the comment was clearly in reference to people who should be paying taxes (and have plenty of money to do so and live comfortably) but go through loopholes that other rich people lobbied into the tax code. It was not a reference to those who are not required to pay taxes because they are exempt from doing so.

AOC showed the kid her bewbies while Bernie Sanders bankrolled the op with his gold from China… Al franken tried to grab AOC's bewbies, but that had nothing to do with the assassination attempt… Soros hired fake secret service agents and Alec Baldwin turned out to be the actual shooter.

He's beyond any man now. He's elevated his status to The Orange Bull.

NGL that is a pretty funny take lol.

The Orange Bull.

Three men were convicted of supporting a plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, the Democratic governor of Michigan.

Lmao. Definitely a fake. It already got deleted. Seriously though... sometimes I genuinely wonder how many of you guys would've purchased a "Jump to Conclusions" mat with different conclusions written on it that you could jump to.

Well, that obviously means Biden had nothing to do with it. Nothing like this would be a spur of the moment decision. It would be planned months in advance. Which in turns means that nothing like that tweet would ever have seen the light of day to begin with. It was just a tweet using very common parlance that looks very bad in hindsight, and nothing more (assuming the tweet and its deletion are factual statements to begin with).

Earlier today on another forum, I discussed the limits of the First Amendment's protections on speech. Interestingly enough, the case law governing this topic, namely Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), offers the following test for evaluating attempts by the government to punish inflammatory speech: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." In other words, it's possible that years of a slow trickle of rhetoric that leads to lawless action qualifies as protected speech under the First Amendment, because it lacks the imminence element in the Brandenburg test. Conversely, the former president's rhetoric that incited the violence on J6 probably does meet the imminence element in the Brandenburg test.

I assume you're drunk but this is still completely unacceptable. We are better than this.

I can buy that. And if this POS that wanted to circumvent our electoral process through extrajudicial means is purported as being a far left winger Antifa commie, will you buy that as legitimate and not representative of Democrats in general?

If I had to wager money on it, I'd wager that the attack on Paul Pelosi was motivated by prolonged political rhetoric.

IF that ends up being the actual front page, then I'd agree that the headline should've included "assassination" over "shooting". But as of right now, that is just some random person on the interwebs and it's best to withhold judgments like yours until it's hot off the presses.

It's very frustrating when the other team already knows your playbook. And your frustration is evident. I think it might take a bit longer than that, but I like your optimism.

He's got a lot of good quips like that. Honestly though, it did kind of bug my football side when I saw so many yellow towel-waving Yinzers in the crowd.

Sounds like the PA I know.

Tbf, I had that exact same thought about the exact same line you quoted. Even though you're correct that it's an apples to oranges comparison, some folks on the right can't even go as far as agreeing to that. One lone nutjob is enough for them to play the "rhetoric incited this violence" card, yet they can't even acknowledge the same about J6. It's just wild.

As I stated earlier, it basically comes down to consistency versus hypocrisy. Either it's wrong to espouse rhetoric that incites violent acts and is something that should be held to account, or it is not. If the violence of J6 wasn't incited by rhetoric, then this assassination wasn't either. And if this assassination was the result of rhetoric, then J6 was too. But no matter what, you can't ignore it when your tribe does it, and then cry foul when the shoe is on the other foot.

Not a good look bud. And I even refreshed the page twice to give you a chance to edit it.

@Tiberius If you still have a headache, I think this one definitely needs to get laid fwiw 🤣

Dear Sir/Madame/It, I regretfully inform you that you failed to sign your previous correspondence and hence I cannot verify its authenticity. Yours in harmony, Lord Cap of House Co, 1st Viscount Co

At least load the last page before posting. Now you look kind of ######ed for not doing so. HOW IS THAT CENSORED?! Commie mods.

He just posted like two posts before yours... How to say "I don't bother reading" without saying it.

Sometimes FUing helps that 😂

I hope the former president is not severely injured and makes a full recovery, but there was a heck of a lot more bodily harm done overall on J6 than to his ear.