Religious persecution in America: Merrick Garland and Kamala Harris make a man a single father because his wife prayed outside of an abortion clinic

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

How do you think it went down, Mike? 

Do you think Bevelyn defaced clinics and set cars on fire? Antifa has done that shit before, and probably everyone of those a$$holes are getting ready to riot on November 6. 

No, that's democrats. And the reason you perverts can only argue when you're lying is because you're psychopaths. 

No, you stupld ldiot. 
The DOJ charged over 300 people with Federal crimes relating to the BLM riots.  And that’s not counting the state and local crimes committed and prosecuted. 
 

And where are all the Democrats complaining about that? Huh? Huh? Is Biden calling them political prisoners? NO.  Did he pardon even one of them? No.  Because criminals belong in jail, whether they are Democrat or Republican. No liberal here protested those prosecutions even once.  You’re the f-cked up partisans, not us. 
 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/over-300-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-nationwide-demonstrations

 

Video of Williams being a full on lunatic:

 

Edited October 17, 2024 by Rebound

[User]

8 minutes ago, Rebound said:

And where are all the Democrats complaining about that? Huh? Huh? Is Biden calling them political prisoners? NO.

Um, yeah. When they were being arrested the sitting Speaker of The House, a Democrat, was saying they were being kidnapped by brown shirt thugs. The current Vice President, at that time was advocating a bial fund to get them out of jail. Democrats opposed when Trump sent federal police in to reinforce a federal courthouse that had been under siege nightly with vandalism and people attacking federal law enforcement... hell, the whole attitude of Democrats towards dealing with the BLM violence is why the Democrats opposed deploying more National Guard to DC on January 6th. They didn't like them in their scary uniforms being there. 

 

12 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You’re the f-cked up partisans, not us. 

No, you certainly are one yourself. 

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Um, yeah. When they were being arrested the sitting Speaker of The House, a Democrat, was saying they were being kidnapped by brown shirt thugs. The current Vice President, at that time was advocating a bial fund to get them out of jail. Democrats opposed when Trump sent federal police in to reinforce a federal courthouse that had been under siege nightly with vandalism and people attacking federal law enforcement... hell, the whole attitude of Democrats towards dealing with the BLM violence is why the Democrats opposed deploying more National Guard to DC on January 6th. They didn't like them in their scary uniforms being there. 

 

No, you certainly are one yourself. 

Which criminal conviction did Democrats protest?

Cause bail is just bail. You still have to go to trial and go to jail if convicted. 

Edited October 17, 2024 by Rebound

[Aristides]

 

I do agree that sentencing should be consistent when it comes to threats and violence, particularly in a country where any id*ot can buy a high capacity semi auto rifle or handgun.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Which criminal conviction did Democrats protest?

Democrats opposed the arrests and enforcement. You can't even get to a conviction if you don't even want them arrested. 

 

[West]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

@Rebound !

 

Are you saying that she WASN'T jailed for three years simply for stating an opinion?!?

 

ZOUNDS I SAY! ZOUNDS!!!

 

Or, seriously, another example of the death of the public sphere and the degradation of this platform...

When it boils down to it, yes that's exactly why Merrick Garland threw the book at her. 

Just like the Nazis of the 1930s they try to spin it in the media however. 

[West]

43 minutes ago, Aristides said:

She is threatening domestic terroism. What should be the penalty for that?

Lol. 

Compared to what has come out of the mouth of your vile president and lunatics like Maxine Watters who still walk free this is nothing. 

Chuck Schumer even threatened to "release the whirlwind" against Supreme Court judges for not ruling the way he wanted. 

And you are gonna sit here and say this woman is a terrorist. You are pathetic 

Edited October 17, 2024 by West

[User]

20 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 

I do agree that sentencing should be consistent when it comes to threats and violence, particularly in a country where any id*ot can buy a high capacity semi auto rifle or handgun.

Because threats of violence and violence without possible access to a weapon with *scary noises* "high capacity" *more scary noises* firearm is somehow better?

Eye-Roll

48 minutes ago, Aristides said:

She is threatening domestic terroism. What should be the penalty for that?

Threats have to be specific. 

Freedom of speech: I hope you die

Criminal threat: I am going to kill you

Freedom of speech: I am going to terrorize you

Criminal threat: I am going to burn your house to the ground

 

[West]

6 minutes ago, User said:

Because threats of violence and violence without possible access to a weapon with *scary noises* "high capacity" *more scary noises* firearm is somehow better?

Eye-Roll

Threats have to be specific. 

Freedom of speech: I hope you die

Criminal threat: I am going to kill you

Freedom of speech: I am going to terrorize you

Criminal threat: I am going to burn your house to the ground

 

It's also a lie to suggest she was arrested for "terrorism". 

These people can't help themselves to distort to try and justify egregious abuses of human rights. Sad

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, West said:

This administration is truly vile and what they are doing is disturbing. A 33 year old black mother of small children sentenced to three years prison time for an unacceptable view. 

Complaining about people being held accountable for their actions is pretty much the constant refrain from what used to be "the party of personal responsibility." 

Odd, isn't it? 

If you don't want to go to court and to prison, don't commit crimes. Not that hard. The irony is that in her selfishness, she abandoned her own children. Hope it was worth it. 

[Aristides]

34 minutes ago, User said:

Because threats of violence and violence without possible access to a weapon with *scary noises* "high capacity" *more scary noises* firearm is somehow better?

Eye-Roll

Threats have to be specific. 

Freedom of speech: I hope you die

Criminal threat: I am going to kill you

Freedom of speech: I am going to terrorize you

Criminal threat: I am going to burn your house to the ground

 

She was specific, she threatened the building and the people in it.

'threatened to “terrorize this place” and warned that “we’re gonna terrorize you so good, your business is gonna be over mama.” 

 

"Similarly, WILLIAMS stood within inches of a Health Center security officer and threatened “war.”  WILLIAMS also stated that she would act by “any means necessary.” 

Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols.

Edited October 17, 2024 by Aristides

[Black Dog]

[Aristides]

19 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Complaining about people being held accountable for their actions is pretty much the constant refrain from what used to be "the party of personal responsibility." 

Odd, isn't it? 

If you don't want to go to court and to prison, don't commit crimes. Not that hard. The irony is that in her selfishness, she abandoned her own children. Hope it was worth it. 

Yup

 

"WILLIAMS shouted that she’d go to jail before letting patients enter the facility for an abortion and that she was “not afraid to get arrested.” 

[Black Dog]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Yup

"WILLIAMS shouted that she’d go to jail before letting patients enter the facility for an abortion and that she was “not afraid to get arrested.” 

[User]

43 minutes ago, Aristides said:

She was specific, she threatened the building and the people in it.

'threatened to “terrorize this place” and warned that “we’re gonna terrorize you so good, your business is gonna be over mama.” 

Terrorize how? There is nothing specific about that. 

47 minutes ago, Aristides said:

"Similarly, WILLIAMS stood within inches of a Health Center security officer and threatened “war.”  WILLIAMS also stated that she would act by “any means necessary.” 

Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols.

War how? What means?

Again, these all fit within the more vague FACE act of threatening violence to interfere with the operation of the clinic, can you articulate how they fit any "terrorism" crimes you claimed?

[impartialobserver]

did she violate established law? That is the only question that I care about. 

[Aristides]

 

Quote

Again, these all fit within the more vague FACE act of threatening violence to interfere with the operation of the clinic, can you articulate how they fit any "terrorism" crimes you claimed?

It isn't vague at all

" war" by "any means necessary"

 “terrorize this place” “we’re gonna terrorize you so good, your business is gonna be over mama.” 

How is that vague and do you think threatening people with physical violence should be legal?

As you said, I hope you die isn't the same as I'm going to kill you.  This isn't hoping something happens, it's threatening to do it.

 

Do you honestly think she would tell them exactly how she was going to carry out these threats?

I'm going to buy an AR and shoot this place up, or I'm going to make a truck bomb and park it out front, or I'm going to come after your family.

 

Do you think those threats should have just been brushed off and not taken seriously?

20 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

did she violate established law? That is the only question that I care about. 

She was convicted by a jury and sentenced by a judge.

Edited October 17, 2024 by Aristides

[West]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

Complaining about people being held accountable for their actions is pretty much the constant refrain from what used to be "the party of personal responsibility." 

Odd, isn't it? 

If you don't want to go to court and to prison, don't commit crimes. Not that hard. The irony is that in her selfishness, she abandoned her own children. Hope it was worth it. 

This is such a sad take. But not surprising. Government is your god and you don't think that people should be able to criticize it. 

Pathetic. 

[West]

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

did she violate established law? That is the only question that I care about. 

Not really. You must also look at whether such a law is just or whether it is within the public interest to throw a 33 year old mother of a toddler in prison over a protest (it's not). 

Then you must look at whether or not such a law is applied equally in other circumstances (it's not. If you like penis in your bum or align with BLM Biden gives you a pass) 

Edited October 17, 2024 by West

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, West said:

This is such a sad take. But not surprising. Government is your god and you don't think that people should be able to criticize it. 

Pathetic. 

The fact you are more sorry for a women who said she was willing get arrested and to go to jail than you are for her kids that she abandoned is pretty pathetic. She put herself over her own children.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, West said:

Not really. You must also look at whether such a law is just or whether it is within the public interest to throw a 33 year old mother of a toddler in prison over a protest (it's not). 

Then you must look at whether or not such a law is applied equally in other circumstances (it's not. If you like penis in your bum or align with BLM Biden gives you a pass) 

Lets make it clear.. did she violate established law? yes or no. Only two answers are possible. If the law is not just.. there are ways to change those laws in the future. If you do not like this arrangement.. not sure what to say. 

[User]

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

How is that vague and do you think threatening people with physical violence should be legal?

I already explained how it was vague. There is nothing specific in what was meant by terrorize or war. Its no different than other vague figures of speech like we are going to fight like hell... 

There is a reason why no charges were brought for terrorism as you claim was done here and no charges outside of the FACE act. 

No, threatening physical violence should not be lawful. 

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

As you said, I hope you die isn't the same as I'm going to kill you.  This isn't hoping something happens, it's threatening to do it.

Where is the specific threat of killing here?

Let me demonstrate.

I am going to terrorize you. This is going to be a war. It is going to be so bad I am going to run you off of here. 

Did I just threaten to kill you, or did I just threaten to argue with you here relentlessly?

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

Do you honestly think she would tell them exactly how she was going to carry out these threats?

That is the point, glad you just admitted no specifics were given. 

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

Do you think those threats should have just been brushed off and not taken seriously?

Saying you are going to bring an AR to shoot the place up is a specific threat. 

 

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Pretty sad.

I'll bet it didn't happen as advertised here though 

Hopefully people are getting better at recognizing these types of stories...

100% it didn’t happen as the right claims thats a given 

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, West said:

Separating a woman from her child over a prayer. Very pathetic and evil

You are a disgusting human being 

Liar.  Your lie was just disproven by FACTS and your response is just to repeat the original lie and act as if the facts were never presented. Standard MAGA Operating Procedure. 

Edited October 18, 2024 by BeaverFever

[Black Dog]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

Liar.  Your lie was just disproven by FACTS and your response is just to repeat the original lie and act as if the facts were never presented. Standard MAGA Operating Procedure. 

Tapping the sign: