Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Try disturbing the peace. But it doesn't matter as the owner had every right to ask her to leave when she caused a scene. Get it?
How to handle confrontational liberals.
- Thread starter Eagle_Eye
- Start date
Try disturbing the peace. But it doesn't matter as the owner had every right to ask her to leave when she caused a scene. Get it?
Hurting the feels of a Reichwing NutJob.
If you click on his name you can see his posts as an abbreviated list. He has 13 PAGES of posts just from today. He must use a portable commode as a computer chair, eat Cheetoes and bologna sammiches at his keyboard, and pop uppers to stay awake. Insane.
If I'd said there was no difference, DEMOCRAT, you'd have a point.
Since I didn't, you don't.
Loser.
Didn't have a clue what "and" meant.
When did I quote you and claim it as my own, DEMOCRAT?
I'll understand if you don't know.
Loser.
Feigning ignorance doesn't work, liar.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
hard to say since I have no fucking idea what you're going on about......
The store owner is a DEMOCRAT who dislikes Bannon's politics. He called the cops. Poor Fowl.
https://www.blackswanbooks.com
Didn't have a clue what "and" meant.
I cited the statute. It doesn't say "and," does it, DEMOCRAT?
Loser.
No proof, no truth, DEMOCRAT.
Cite it or bite it.
Loser.
Paradox for Conservatives, Current Events Forum #91 (6/18/18) - My post:
"I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices and cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable."
Legion is a Crybaby, Off Topic Forum #(6/26/18) - Your Post:
"I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices and cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable."
Black and white, lying, plagiarizing stalkerboy
I cited the statute. It doesn't say "and," does it, DEMOCRAT?
Loser.
lol
It sure doesn't, illiterate dumbfuck.
Your post # 27 that we've been referring to:
"Disorderly Conduct under Virginia law is an act that 1) takes place in a public place, 2) has direct tendency to cause violence at the person at whom such conduct is directed, and 3) the accused intended to cause a public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk for one of those."
Sad little illiterate can't even remember his own posts.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
kolobian , Jell-O Eater, magical underwearer
Gotcha68
Verified User
I'm almost positive nobody has said otherwise.
It's glorious fun, dear Brother.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
lol
It sure doesn't, illiterate dumbfuck.
Your post # 27 that we've been referring to:
"Disorderly Conduct under Virginia law is an act that 1) takes place in a public place, 2) has direct tendency to cause violence at the person at whom such conduct is directed, and 3) the accused intended to cause a public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk for one of those."
Sad little illiterate can't even remember his own posts.
"Page 315 U. S. 573
On the authority of its earlier decisions, the state court declared that the statute's purpose was to preserve the public peace, no words being "forbidden except such as have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, the remark is addressed." [Footnote 7] It was further said:
"The word 'offensive' is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are 'fighting words' when said without a disarming smile. . . .
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568/case.html