XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-19 15:41, Skeeter wrote:   
   > In article <10kmcpj$nduj$18@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > uh@nope.com says...   
   >>   
   >> On 2026-01-19 14:48, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>> In article <10kmbtj$n7db$5@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com   
   >>> says...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> On 2026-01-19 14:35, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>> In article <10km9i9$nduj$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com   
   >>>>> says...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 2026-01-19 04:25, NoBody wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 15:16:03 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 2026-01-18 04:39, AlleyCat wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:47:25 -0800,  Alan says...   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 09:24, AlleyCat wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 16:07:58 -0700,  Skeeter says...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> She was a citizen attempting to turn around and depart the area.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> You read minds now?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> He's always thought he could read minds.   
   >>>>>>>>>> I don't need to read minds.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> The "officer's" own cellphone video shows her turning hard to her   
   right...   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> ...and running RIGHT into him, hard.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Nope. It shows the phone suddenly moving, but that proves nothing.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> There are other videos that showed what happened.  Why are there only   
   >>>>>>> two idiots here who can't admit she hit the agent?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Why can't you show a single example where the actual contact is shown?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Why are you inclined to defend a domestic terrorist?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Bootstrapping.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You can only call her a "terrorist" by claiming she acted with malicious   
   >>>> intent, and then you can claim she had malicious intent because she was   
   >>>> a "terrorist"   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Her wife showed malicious intent. We been through this   
   >>> already.   
   >> Videoing is "malicious intent" now?   
   >   
   > Taunting and daring ICE to do something. You continently   
   > left that part out.   
      
   Even if it were true (and you haven't shown that it is), taunting and   
   daring are still not malicious.   
      
   They are protected free speech.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)