Kamela has a new “preacher accent” at church as she channels Brian Kelly
Is there anything about her that is real?
Link: https://x.com/RealLifeFootage/status/1850557606999556165?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1850557606999556165%7Ctwgr%5Ee1a18a25efa805954d33589800e089cb2579d425%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fharris-
Replies to: Kamela has a new “preacher accent” at church as she channels Brian Kelly
I love Preacher Kamala, but not as much as HRC's "I don't feel no ways tired".
Or her hot sauce comment that got zero pushback from a black radio show or Old Joe's "put you all back in chains" remark. Kimmel, David Cross, Fallon, Trudeau, Ted Danson, Sarah Silverman, Howard Stern, Ralph Norhrum all wore blackface. In fact, no statues of Al Jolson have been toppled so I guess that's progress somehow.
Reminds me of my 86-year-old dad in a Chinese restaurant.
(no message)
She learned that from Barry. They both try so hard to be black when it helps their cause.
(no message)
Barry plays the racist card but he can't be black, he missed 20 straight free throws.
(no message)
Obama is painful to listen to as he goes into what he thinks is his "hip black" accent.
The guy is less black than Anderson Cooper.
Don't worry about a speck in her eye...do something about the plank in your's for promoting a Felon,
Rapist, Fraud with oh so many more faults. Shame on you.
Do you support stripping free speech? Simple question.
(no message)
Do you believe a Felon, Rapist and Fraud who called for an insurrection to overthrow our democracy
should be elected our President?...Simple Question...
Can't answer, can you? Just like your communism dodge.
(no message)
Re: "Free Speech"...it's not free speech to say that Haitian immigrants are eating neighbors dogs
and cats...nor is it free speech to claim Biden's FEMA is failing citizens in Hurricane ravaged states, when the Governors there are Praising FEMA for helping them BEFORE the hurricane(s) hit them, and giving them all the assistance they asked for....that's lying...and it's harmful to the suffering residents.
btw, I listened to Tulsi Gabbard's speech where see accused Kamala Harris of trying to stifle Free Speech...it was all a lie...par for the course with anyone associated with Donald Trump.
Now, answer my question...Since DJT is a Convicted Felon...a Rapist...and Fraud, multiple times over...along with inciting an insurrection...and being the kind of person he wants deported from this country...why should he be chosen as our President?
It may or may not be true, jury still out, but even if wrong, it is free speech, just like the
Klan rally in Greensboro every year was or is. I hate the Klan, but they had their right to demonstrate without destruction and violence. Also the Gay Rights demonstration is free speech.
Those are absolutely examples of Free Speech. And now you've confirmed that you oppose it. Thanks.
As for your loaded question nonsense, those are of course fabricated charges from a weaponized subset of the justice system funded by Soros money. It's all baloney.
Do you agree that those examples are indeed outright lies, and that they have caused real harm to
citizens?...if so, then in the best interest of this country we need to find a Constitutional remedy for this problem...and that's what Kamala Harris is suggesting. Further to this end, KH has promised to take a bipartisan approach to legislation (e.g. the bipartisan Immigration Bill), and even have a Republican in her cabinet...a far cry from DJT's promised attacks on any media that expresses an opinion in opposition to him, and an administration that requires fealty to HIM as a condition of employment...and not an oath to defend our Constitution.
Misinformation is real...and it is being wielded as a weapon by forces bent on tearing down not only our way of life, but our standing in the world. We need to confront this threat...together...as Republicans, Independents and Democrats who are guided by our shared Constitution, and not a wannabe dictator/puppet.
There are Ohio residents who dispute that the immigrant stories are "lies." Furthermore.....
...the statements that FEMA failed the citizens who suffered Hurricane damage is a matter of opinion.
You're trying to say that these things should be criminalized. That's a blatant 1A violation, and only the lowest form of American would want to imprison people for criticizing their government. I already knew you were sewage, but you keep lowering the bar for yourself.
Don't make stuff up...I suggested that a bipartisan...and Constitutional...remedy be found to
protect Americans from harmful misinformation...you have a problem with that?
btw, there are already laws that restrict "Free Speech" which I've posted to this Forum...we can, and should, do better...especially with the advent of 'AI generated' video, audio and written misinformation intended by our adversaries to bring down the USA...or haven't you heard?
There is no "constitutional remedy" that slices up the First Amendment. Moron.
(no message)
Your research is lacking...Restrictions exist and have been upheld...therefore, through
Constitutional means, additional restrictions can be put in place. IMO bipartisan legislation would be the proper way to go, but we'll just leave that to the scholars.
btw, I suggest you click on the first reference in the linked Wiki summary for more details.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#:~:text=Categories%20of%20speech%20that%20are,property%20law%2C%20true%20threats%2C%20false
Yeah, we're all aware of those. NONE of the things you want to criminalize fall under that category.
You want to criminalize criticism of government agencies that you disagree with. You want to criminalize opinions. You want to criminalize observations of events that you believe didn't happen per the "debunkings" of leftist media groups.
There is no "constitutional remedy" for any of that. It will never pass, let alone survive judicial review.
There are currently four categories of restriction...who's to say there can't be one, or two more?..
...all arrived at through our Constitutional process. Once again, there is a genuine problem with misinformation causing harm to citizens, so our elected officials should do something...together (i.e. in a bipartisan fashion) to find a remedy...possibly including another 'Restriction'....it's been done before...and now you know that's true...
Learning is a life-long process...embrace it.
Love it - you're truly too stupid to understand that the power to abuse will go both ways.
The Founding Fathers and the Constitution looked ahead and saw scumbags like you as an issue. This is why we have the 1st Amendment. These things you're talking about are merely interpretations of it. There is ZERO basis to pare it down to limit things that subjective in nature and based on political leanings.
Sorry, dumbass. There will be no bipartisan restrictions on Free Speech that would allow you to start criminalizing statements you don't agree with. Move along.
Just read what I provided...there are 4 categories of restrictions on "Free Speech"...people who
violate them suffer penalties...i.e. you cannot say anything you want with impunity...its' the law....and since those restrictions are now law, others can be created...however, the 1st Amendment is a strong protector of free speech, so any restrictions must have clear harms identified, as well as focused measures to discourage harm to others.
Checkout the landscape for this issue in the attached article...
Link: https://academic.oup.com/ajcl/article/70/Supplement_1/i278/6597032
You're too stupid to grasp this.
I'll keep it simple. It won't happen. Piss off.
You have a very fascist view of free speech.
(no message)