This week, I ran a column on how many on the left have discovered the joy and release of unmitigated hate speech. Democratic Helena City Commissioner candidate Haley McKnight is under fire for messages left on the phone of freshman Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., in which she hopes for him to get cancer and die. It comes on the day that voters are going to the polls in Virginia, where the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Jay Jones, admitted that he previously expressed a desire to kill a political opponent and his children. As a measure of the appeal of rage rhetoric, Jones remains the leading candidate in the race, with most Democrats planning to vote for him.
In her voicemail, McKnight states:
“Hi, this is Haley McKnight. I’m a constituent in Helena, Montana. I just wanted to let you know that you are the most insufferable kind of coward and thief. You just stripped away healthcare for 17 million Americans, and I hope you’re really proud of that. I hope that one day you get pancreatic cancer, and it spreads throughout your body so fast that they can’t even treat you for it.”
She then left a litany of insults about Sheehy’s fertility and his children, before warning the senator not to “meet me on the streets.” She then added:
“I hope you die in the street like a dog. One day, you’re going to live to regret this. I hope that your children never forgive you. I hope that you are infertile. I hope that you manage to never get a boner ever again. You are the worst piece of s— I have ever, ever, ever had the misfortune of looking at … God forbid that you ever meet me on the streets because I will make you regret it. F— you. I hope you die…All that you have done since you have gotten into power is do s— for yourself.”
McKnight moved to Montana from North Carolina and owned Sage & Oats Trading Post, which she describes as “a successful Native American-owned gift store” on her campaign website.
What was striking about this story was McKnight’s response. She explained how her rage was righteous and blamed conservatives for making public a voicemail with threats left at the office of a U.S. senator.
In an interview about the controversy, she insisted, “I was responding to some horrible policy with some justified rage.” McKnight blamed Sheehy for not calling her back after her hateful messages to chat:
“I would hope that if Sheehy was so rattled by my voicemail, he would have contacted me instead of leaking my information to conservative news media the night before an election. It feels like a cheap shot. I’m one of his constituents, and you know, this message is nothing that I’d say to my grandmother or in front of any children, it was meant for Senator Sheehy alone.”
There is, of course, another lesson that many of us strive to leave for our children: you should speak with respect and civility in others in both private and public settings. Indeed, you should not talk to others in ways that you would be embarrassed to do in front of children. It is not the consequences that dictate how we act or speak.
Instead, McKnight insists that such threats and insults are justified when you disagree with others. She is clearly not alone. As shown in Virginia, many voters will still vote for such candidates. Indeed, many may be drawn to such candidates by such rhetoric.
Ironically, her campaign site quotes her saying, “I have worked hard to combat the loneliness epidemic in our community.” Raving at others about wishing them cancer and celebrating their death may not be the best approach for building relationships for the chronically lonely.
How can people be so heartless
How can people be so cruel
Easy to be hard
Easy to be cold
How can people have no feelings
How can they ignore their friends
Easy to be proud
Easy to say no
Especially people who care about strangers
Who care about evil and social injustice
Do you only care about the bleeding crowd
How about I need a friend, I need a friend…
So, this lady leaves a voice mail on a US Senator’s public phone line. Claims her rage is justified. Blames the Senator for her rage. Then, when the voicemail is “leaked” to the media, she blames him for foul play . . . for her leaving a message on voicemail on the publicly available, official, US Senator phone line. That is the kind of logic a seven year old would use when caught in a lie.
As to the content of the message, in the past I would have been shocked and surprised a grown adult, running for office, would do such a thing. Now it has become increasingly common. As we noted in yesterday’s column by the good professor, the hate and rage rhetoric is becoming normalized on the left. While quite disgusting to read or hear such words, the upside is it is also turns moderate, and traditional liberal Democrats away from the Democrat party. Same goes for Independents.
To the sane and normal, moderate and traditional Democrats, if you want to win elections, you have to get these kind of unhinged leftists out of your party!
You seem yo know about leaving hate messages with politicians. You should write a book about it. Would be a best seller for you nazis.
No! Keep them in the Party and continue to publicize their hysterical rants as the American electorate continues to shift rightward. The Democrats can no longer successfully cover for this rage that is no longer containable.
Sad day when the party that flooded the country with a third-world flash mob decides they are morally infallible.
Da?
Here’s a simple challenge for everyone who respects Professor Turley—whether you agree with him or not: make a pledge to be civil. Bring arguments, not insults. If you can’t do that, then do everyone a favor and just step away.
And for the rest of us, stop feeding the trolls. They thrive on reaction; without it, they vanish. Every time we take their bait, we cheapen the discussion and disrespect the man who gives us this platform every day.
OLLY
the left here calls every argument that they do not like an insult.
How do you know its The Left?
John, if your reflex is to respond to trolls, then they’re the ones in control—not you. That’s the whole game. They bait, you bite, and the thread sinks. It’s not strength to fire back; it’s exactly what they want.
This is about self-control. If we can’t resist every provocation, we’re not leading the conversation—we’re being led. Smart people know when silence wins.
Trolls serve a purpose; you can sharpen your teeth on them while waiting for a Democrat who wants to attempt something resembling a coherent argument.
Scripture says iron sharpens iron—not mist, not shadows, not noise. You don’t sharpen anything by swinging at a ghost. Trolls don’t test your arguments; they drain your energy. It’s like shadow boxing dust—you tire yourself out fighting what isn’t real.
Real debate needs resistance rooted in reason. Trolls offer none. Save your edge for those who can strike back with thought, not tantrums. Otherwise, all you’ve done is dull your own blade on air.
Trolls don’t test your arguments; they drain your energy. It’s like shadow boxing dust—you tire yourself out fighting what isn’t real.
Trolls know they aren’t going to change your mind – their intention is to win over those standing on the sidelines watching. That’s their target – not you. And for those third parties watching from the sidelines, your silence is agreement with what the troll said/claimed/lied about. You want to argue those watching from the sidelines know better than that? If so, I’d like to hear that argument from you.
It’s not about satisfying the troll; its the response to their lies and gaslighting you put in front of third parties to compare to the troll’s posts.
Who is we please? And how do you know what they want?
Yeah, I think Olly is behind all those comments.
John Say,
Correct. They also try to claim that it is we who are full of hate and rage. They try to claim we post comments full of hate and rage at leftists every day.
However, if you have any degree of critical thinking skills, logic and common sense, you see the vast majority of our comments are well thought out, and most certainty not full of hate and rage.
“if you have any degree of critical thinking skills, logic and common sense, … ” that leaves you out.
OLLY,
Well said!
Although having to point out the lies and gaslighting the trolls do I think does lend to civil discussion.
For example, one of the trolls is now lying about Jan 6th, claiming cops were killed.
Upstate, exactly—that’s the trap. January 6th has been chewed to dust. Everyone knows the script by now. Trolls toss that bait out not to debate, but to hook reactions. And every time we bite, we keep their game alive.
You don’t have to chase every lie. Most of it’s recycled nonsense meant to waste your time. Drop a fact if it’s current, sure—but otherwise, let it rot in silence. They can’t win if no one takes the bait.
1/6, so no cops were killed? Um… Turley said so.
No, no cops were killed. I don’t recall Turley ever saying otherwise, but if he did he was clearly wrong.
A lot of people know arguing with trolls is pointless—but they do it anyway to show off. It’s not about truth; it’s about ego. They want everyone to see how clever or legally precise they can be. But that vanity just feeds the same chaos the trolls want.
It’s no different than trolling in reverse—just wrapped in better grammar. Real wisdom isn’t about proving how smart you are; it’s knowing when a fight isn’t worth having.
A lot of people know arguing with trolls is pointless—but they do it anyway to show off.
A lot of people take the elitist position that if they stay silent in the face of trolls lying, gaslighting, projecting, etc, the third parties standing on the sidelines will NEVER be influenced by the trolls while they stand in silent purity.
Then to fuel their personal massive egos even further, these pure elitists they claim that anyone who speaks up against the trolls to rebut the troll lies, gaslighting and projecting is simply trying to build themselves up.
For their part, the trolls know that without the truth being on their side, one of their only advantages is the silent compliance with their claims of these purist elitists, because silence is compliance in the eyes of the onlookers on the sidelines they hope to influence.
Real wisdom isn’t cosplaying that you’re elite by choosing to stay silent in the face of lying, gaslighting, and the other dishonest tools in the trolls’ toolbox.
Sorry Olly. We stood up and answered the trolls and because of it Trump is in the White House and Republicans control both houses of Congress. Did you think that the mainstream media was going to get the message out? Should we stand by and say nothing when the trolls justify the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I have written of many periods in history when socialist governments approved by the trolls have been responsible for the death of millions of people. I have no problem pointing out their approval of mutilating under age children. If in the process if I have stated that they are bad people then so be it. I don’t give a damn if they derive pleasure from poking the hornets nest because in doing so they reveal who they are and I in turn will continue to point out their insanity because they and their fellow travelers are perfectly fine with shooting a mans children and are openly saying so. If you don’t care to answer the madness thats just fine but please don’t tell me that I should just quietly stand back with hat in hand and offer no rebuttal. Bad people rejoice at the slaying of Charlie Kirk and the mutilation of children. If it’s somehow uncivil in your book to say that they are bad people then let be true that I am uncivil.
” answered the trolls and … ” So you mean you used violence to silence Americans?
TiT, I respect your passion and your willingness to speak up when others stayed quiet — that matters. But I think it’s a stretch to credit any one of us, or any single set of actions here, with the outcome of a national election. That kind of result comes from millions of moving parts and people, not individual voices in a comment thread. To claim otherwise sounds less like conviction and more like self-congratulation.
And if you believe the best way forward is to spar with trolls, then by all means — swing away. But in my view, that’s not strategy; it’s surrendering our time and energy to people who want the distraction. They don’t debate, they bait.
You’ve got too much insight and passion to waste it there. Channel it where it matters — toward those who are still persuadable, not those who thrive on chaos.
So then Olly, we should just stop trying to do our small part because it’s fruitless and has no effect. So we should just all shut up because these things are just really complicated and there are mysterious forces beyond our control at work. Patrick Henry spoke up against the trolls of his day and said “Is life so dear or peace so great as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery.” If England had prevailed he would have been hung for his speech. Resistance is not futile.
Think, Patrick Henry was resisting an empire, not arguing with provocateurs online. There’s a difference between fighting tyranny and feeding trolls.
You’ve built a strawman fallacy — twisting my point into “give up and stay silent.” I’m not encouraging silence; I’m saying that engaging trolls serves the trolls’ interests. If a point needs to be made, post it on your own thread and make them chase you. That way you control the debate instead of performing in theirs. Real resistance requires discipline, not distraction.
agree with Thinkitthrough, olly.
Got to hear both sides. Got to read responses to trolls, “legal” or not. Got to look at it from multiple angles. Got to think it through.
For those not familiar with an issue, silence can be seen as acquiescence. Better to confront with a thoughtful opposing view. Just not empty lashing out with ad hominems.
Appreciate that, and I agree that silence can look like acquiescence to readers who are still learning the issue. The key is to separate audiences. Trolls seek attention, not understanding. Fence-sitters seek clarity.
My rule of engagement: answer once with facts, a clear principle, and no ad hominems. Then disengage from the bait and keep talking to the persuadable. That way we are not rewarding provocation, but we are still putting a thoughtful counterpoint on the record for anyone reading along.
That’s also why I prefer posting standalone comments rather than replying directly to trolls. It lets us correct falsehoods without giving them the attention they crave. It keeps the focus on the readers who might still be weighing the issue, not on those trying to derail it.
So yes, hear both sides and present a reasoned rebuttal — but do it in a way that serves the audience we can reach, not the few who only want a brawl. Silence is not surrender. It is triage.
you are over-intellectualizing this. Readers read a troller’s comment, then want to see a response to it.
While they may later read someone else’s comment (that was actually intended as a reply or response to the Troller), not all will see it or read it or connect it. The momentum of fist over fist over fist up the baseball bat is lost in the disconnect.
That’s true — readers often look for a response right under a troll’s comment. But that’s also part of the trap. When we reply directly, we’re operating inside their frame and on their field. Trolls thrive on that structure because it keeps the spotlight fixed on them.
The “fist over fist up the baseball bat” plan never runs out of bats — and that’s the point. They can swing forever because chaos is their oxygen. If we meet every swing with another, we’re not winning; we’re just playing their game on their field.
A standalone comment reclaims control. It lets us correct the record on our own terms, for readers who want clarity rather than combat. Trolls want the fight in their thread; I’d rather move it out of their reach and make sure the discussion serves truth, not theater.
you see, olly? you fell for it.
I trolled you.
You wanted to be the last fist, the last word. even though all three of your comments are pretty much the same, except for starting out with an acknowledgement of a certain point. Why didn’t you just walk away? You see how easy it is to engage?
You are a pastor working on your skills? At least I give you that you are not hostile.
🤣 That’s an odd confession. Real persuasion doesn’t need to announce itself as trolling. Declaring “I trolled you” just admits there was no argument to begin with — only a need for attention.
I’ll let you have it. I prefer substance to self-congratulation.
No Olly they don’t vanish. They will still be here. To think that they will somehow just vanish is naive at best. Have the socialist vanished with the fall of the USSR? No, they’re alive and well and one of them is going to be the Mayor of New York City. They will still be here whether you ignore them or not.
USSR was a communist republic.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. Socialist Communist its all the same.
I agree with you that they won’t vanish. The action of ignoring is the key. Why waste energy or thought on what is obviously a dead end effort to get them to understand.
I’m not trying to change their minds. I couldn’t care less about changing their minds. I point out the ridiculousness of their positions so that if someone who visits this forum who might be persuaded by their postings would see the folly in their supporting a women who wishes that a man would die of cancer. There are people who are sitting on the fence that can be reached through the use of a cognitive versus madness argument. I will not stand by and allow myself to be cancelled by you or the trolls. When they rejoice at the shooting of man who is running for President in my small way as he declared I will fight, fight, fight. This is not a time to be pusillanimous.
Seems like Haley for Helena has truly sipped some of the Democratic Kool-aid. She looks awfully young to have developed such rage. Makes you wonder about issues with her mental health. I think Professor Turley hit the nail on the head. I would wonder at her move from North Carolina to Montana. She really does not sound like someone you would want to snuggle up to on the cold northern nights.
I think she drives home the old Montana bumper sticker,
“Montana, Where at least the Cows are Sane”.
She almost sounds like a Unabomber in the early stages of development.
You got a fixation with female liberals? Awfully young… snuggle up … just ask her to send you nudies and get it over with.
Do you have an argument ?
Neither GEB nor Turley forced Halley to make a fool of herself.
“Neither GEB nor Turley forced Halley to make a fool of herself.”
Here’s another crazy one folks. He insinuates GEB and Turley are behind the calls. .
The messenger, Prof Turley has nothing to do with what this. Thank goodness for writing about it. If you can’t see that, you’re part of the disease.
Disease? What disease?
Disease? Lots of hate in that comment mr. conservative.
Just like you Anonymous to find some kind of deviant sexuality in every comment. He didn’t think of you did.
You should re -THINK that comment Thinkitthrough.
GEB,
It is the juvenile, “The Senator made me leave those vile messages on his publicly available voicemail!” argument that I find so, well, what was she thinking? Seriously? And who in their right mind would call someone back who just wished you to die of cancer? And the “God forbid that you ever meet me on the streets because I will make you regret it.” What is she going to do? Yell at him and make a bigger fool of herself more so than she already has? Throw a punch? That is going to go over well.
Democrats are the lowest form of political scum on earth. They prove it over and over.
You got a lot of rage there anon. You should get your KKK comrades and go hunt some libs.
Get the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party to hunt their fellow Democrats?!
Since when did the KKK become liberals?
The KKK was part of the Democrat Party.
You should go out and get your John Brown Gun Club buddies and hunt down some conservatives.
Good idea. Where should we start? My license to kill conservatives is only for California.
Anon is making an accurate observation – unlike Halley she did not wish evil to befall those with a different opinion.
The KKK is effectively non-existant in the US.
Those of you on the left are NOT liberals. Turley is a Liberal. Derschowitz is a Liberal.
The left today is progressive and irrational.
Look at Portland – they have destroyed their city, destroyed their tax base, Destroyed their own ability to advance their agenda. Rather than figuring out how to expand government services they are going to have to figure out how to provide even basic services with 25% less funds.
I consider myself to be a pretty tough cookie with nerves of steel and a strong stomach.. Wow- just wow is all I can say. This almost made me physically ill, to read something so vile, so evil. Satan at its finest.
Satan? You mean Trump?
Do you really believe Trump was one of God’s angels?
Yeah… Beelzebub. The King of the flies.
Do you have an argument ?
Trump is doing what he promised – what half the country voted for and what 60-80% support.
Are they all Satan ?
Do you have anything beyond name calling ?
If you think that Halley’s remarks are acceptable – then defend them.
Defend them… they’re not my remarks. Ask Halley. Better still, you discredit them.
“60-80% support”. Donald J. Trump received 49.80% of the popular vote in the 2024 United States presidential election, with a total of 77,302,580 votes cast for him.
“60-80% support. Donald J. Trump received 49.80% of the popular vote in the 2024 United States presidential election, with a total of 77,302,580 votes cast for him.
I see Anonymous. You don’t believe that God exists but you do believe that Satan exists.
Hmm, another witty comment.
“We are not the crazy ones…. They want us to think we are crazy. We are sane.”
Let me guess? Donald Trump?
IT is the left that continues to buy an ideology that has failed – usually with copious bloodshed every-time it has been tried.
Halley’s remarks are not particularly uniue on the left. Everywhere this idiocy has been tried it fails, and when it does the left blames everyone else. And then they harrass them, they whittle away at their rights, then they arrest them, and finally the murder them.
If your ideology reuires you to kill your enemies in the false hope of succeeding, then your ideolgoy is vile.
Lots of sloppy spelling. Slow down, take a deep breath. And stop drooling on your keyboard.
It’s pretty simple…Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15
What delusional nonsense.
Democrats are Fascists who actually hate America….at least the Nazis of Germany loved their country.
Change my mind!
Change you mind? Why should we? Its already closed.
Then make an argument – change other peoples minds.
Why don’t you do it. You posed the challenge.
USA is just a large HOA so go ahead and hate your neighbor go ahead and cheat a friend, do it in the name of freedom you can justify it in the end.
Don’t ya just love capitalism?
Name anything ever that has worked better.
We are not in end stage capitalism.
We are just nearing the end of another of a long long chain of left wing nut historical disasters going all the way back to the french revolution.
Your ideology is so bad that French Monarchy did better.
It was a yes or no question.
It’s amusing when Professor Turley points out how angry people are. He argues that individuals should remain civil regardless of their feelings. However, he fails to acknowledge the reasons behind this widespread anger and rage. Republicans and the president seem to fuel this anger with enthusiasm, and Turley appears either oblivious to this reality or naively unaware.
There is nothing wrong with the Montana representative’s expression of anger; it is protected speech. Professor Turley consistently mischaracterizes Jay Jones’s comments, twisting them into something they are not. He tends to take statements out of context to promote a false narrative.
When people get mad and have had enough they are going to say things that directly express their views. MAGAs and Republicans did the same thing when Obama was in office. They raged and spewed hateful rhetoric about his character, citizenship, and legitimacy. Calls for civil war, “national divorce”, etc., and Professor Turley said nothing about their rage and hate. Apparently, it was ok as long as it was Republicans but when Democrats get angry it’s an “addiction.”
No mention of a MAGA nut driving outside Obama’s home with loaded guns after Trump posted his address as a reason for concern.
The professor seems to think that expressing rage is a bad thing. It’s not. It compels people to take action like protesting, advocating for civil disobedience, and calling out lawmakers and administration officials to be held accountable for clear violations of civil rights and abuses.
Professor Turley enables the rage by not acknowledging the fact that the Trump administration is stoking it on purpose.
People have every right to be mad and sometimes civility doesn’t work when the government isn’t acting civilly either. Cruelty and abuse with impunity will not be met with “civility” when it is clear that those who are doing the abuse and cruelty don’t care. Rage is proper when people are made powerless and it’s exactly what the Trump administration wants it’s what fascists like Stephen Miller want to justify their current drive for authoritarianism. Their own actions are what are enraging people and it’s why individuals like Stephen Miller are now living on military bases. They are afraid of angry people because of their cruelty and abuse of power.
Right on brother!
george
No mention of a MAGA nut driving outside Obama’s home with loaded guns after Trump posted his address as a reason for concern.
Any proof.
You got proof?
Got proof of what – that someone else is making a claim from thin air ?
The proof is the absence of evidence of the original claim.
Regardless, it is the left that has the long reputation for bogus conspiracy theories.
It the the left that has burned its credibility and is obligated to provide proof of future idiotic claims.
Why is it even an issue that someone drove on a public road, to get from point A to B, while carrying a weapon for self defense? What could possibly be more normal than that?
Even if the reason he drove past the house was out of curiosity, to see this house whose address Trump posted, why would anyone expect him to leave his weapon at home? Was he less likely to be attacked that day than any other day?!
This is all assuming the story is even true, but I see no reason not to assume that. I’m sure hundreds of people drive past that address every day while armed.
Milhouse, as in Nixon?
Dustoff just loves postings lies. Its his conservative nature.
Nixon’s middle name was Milhous. No E.
You seem embarrassed about that. He was a great president.
No, he wasn’t. He was a terrible president. May as well have been a Democrat.
ATS what kind of idiot are you ?
Sharing a name is not a connection.
What lies has Dustoff posted ?
The evidence – collusion delusion, hunter laptop, Covid source, Demented Joe, Corrupt Joe, … of lying by nature is historically the left
Millhouse, look up Taylor Taranto.
Looked him up. He was convicted of a bogus and unconstitutional charge — simply having weapons in his van. Two guns and a machete, and about half a case of ammo. That’s a reasonable amount for a person to have. And he was in 0bama’s neighborhood, just like thousands of other drivers.
Now making a fake bomb threat against the NIST, he said it was a joke, but that’s at least reckless.
As for his joking about looking for secret tunnels so he could harm the 0bama and Podesta families, that’s not cool But he wasn’t convicted of it, so we can assume there was a good reason for that.
Please name any elected Republican official that wished death on Obama… Please respond as promptly as you can.
Never at any point in time is it ever okay to wish death on anyone; not if you want to claim the moral high ground. Although this should be expected from the party of unborn baby murderers that gets excited when someone is politically assassinated.
Civil disobedience is not what makes a democracy function, especially if it’s from the minority (we’re not a democracy, FYI). You seem to think that every action they take is illegal.
News flash: Even if a rogue liberal loon judge claims “the president acted unconstitutionally,” that is simply an opinion from a rogue Democrat until SCOTUS rules. In case you forgot, SCOTUS is the final say, in a way. And on appeals, they have won many cases that the initial unelected judges claimed were unconstitutional; oftentimes with strong rebuke from the appeals court.
So step off with your misguided indignation.
Never at any point in time is it ever okay to wish death on anyone; not if you want to claim the moral high ground.
King David would strongly disagree. See Psalm 109.
Sorry laws trump bible verses.
Laws?! What laws? There is no law against wishing death on people. On the contrary, it’s protected speech and can’t be criminalized.
You’re supposed to be following the word of god and gods actions. Not king David.
The Psalms are the word of God. He endorses everything that is in there.
I agree and respectfully disagree. Some individuals in this country are behaving at an all-time low, but being an adult means controlling your own behavior – making good choices – owning up to the bad choices. No one else is to blame for a choice one makes to speak, to act, to not act, to not speak. Our problem today is no one accepts this responsibility any longer. Everything is always someone else’s fault, and prosecutors have gone the way of not bothering to prosecute because they, too, are confused about who to blame. Chaos.
Agreed.
Ifyou don’t like the things that Turley chooses to talk about, why don’t you start your own website. No one is suggesting that the things she said were not free speech, just that they were despicable.
Someone’s feeling snarky this morning. Must be that conservative rage we all hear about.
ROFL
So conservative rage is telling someone they have the option of starting their own blog if they are not happy with Turley.
Lock him up now – throw away the key. We can not have this. Next thing you know he will be over powered by “conservative rage” and tell a left wing nut that WordPress provides blog sites for free..
These Conservatives are so dangerous.
It is quite uncivil under any circumstance to wish or promote violence against anyone. What I have observed is that the stated rationale for all the expressions of rage by the left are based on false premises. The party of empathy and tolerance shed all pretense to such attributes in favor of promoting hatred for its opposition.
Too bad yoo just focus on liberals. Statistically your statement doesn’t hold up. Increase the sample size to include conservatives.
While you are correct – there are very very very few legitimate basis’s for initiating violence against others.
No matter what they say or beleive.
It does not matter whether the premises underlying your choice to initiate violence are true or false,
it is still nearly always wrong.
The declaration of independence is many things – one of those is an effort to lay out the legal moral and ethical conditions necescary to resort to violence. Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin make it really clear that the circumstances must be extremely egregious.
“When people get mad and have had enough they are going to say things that directly express their views.”
Are you referring to hysterical people who have no self-control and who do not possess an inner voice favoring moderation in their public discourse?
Hey X, you tell us of rage but not one time have you told us that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a horrific occurrence. Obviously you also hope that a man should die from cancer and a mans children should be shot and die in their mothers’ arms. Take heart, you are one of the reasons that the Democrats have a 35% popularity rating. Keep up the work. I originally said the good work but I changed it.
To establish my bona fides, I don’t think I have ever agreed with “X” about ANYTHING political. I find most of his comments so predictable to be unreadable. Virtually every one is a criticism of whatever Turley wrote. Usually he reframes the topic or tries to deflect away to something else as a way to portray Democrats as right. It is so formulaic that I usually just skip it.
However, I do remember he did condemn Kirk’s assassination shortly after it happened. For a brief moment he came off as a normal person, rather than the Democrat hack polemicist he is.
“It’s amusing when Professor Turley points out how angry people are. ”
Ony SOME people – the vast majority of the anger and rage is coming fromt he left who has been thwarted at imposing the will on the rest of us.
“He argues that individuals should remain civil regardless of their feelings.”
Not an argument it is a reuirement of the law.
You are free to feel whatever you wish.
You are NOT free to act with violence.
“However, he fails to acknowledge the reasons behind this widespread anger and rage.”
Because it is not relevant.
” Republicans and the president seem to fuel this anger with enthusiasm”
Some due – they enjoy baiting your out of control rage.
It is STILL YOUR rage.
If you allow the words of others to drive you crazy with rage – that is YOUR problem.
“Turley appears either oblivious to this reality or naively unaware.”
Because what Republicans and/or Trump SAY that gets you hot and bothered is YOUR problem
“There is nothing wrong with the Montana representative’s expression of anger; it is protected speech. ”
It is protected speech – and I will defend that. It is also WRONG and Vile speech.
I will defend the speech of Nazi’s.
That does not change the FACT that speech is WRONG, it is VILE.
There is a great deal Wrong with Halley’s speech. It is vile repugnant and immoral.
What it is not is illegal.
“Professor Turley consistently mischaracterizes Jay Jones’s comments, twisting them into something they are not. He tends to take statements out of context to promote a false narrative.”
The context is available for everyone.
“When people get mad and have had enough they are going to say things that directly express their views. ”
Correct – as Maya Angelou noted they are going to SHOW US WHO THEY REALLY ARE and we should beleive them.
“MAGAs and Republicans did the same thing when Obama was in office. They raged and spewed hateful rhetoric about his character, citizenship, and legitimacy. ”
Yes, all testable propositions. Time has proved Obama’s character to be worse than he was accused of
He is the first US president to have deliberately sabatoaged his successor.
He has changed the US presidency in horrible ways forever.
Democrat and Republican presidents alike often used former presidents as proxies in foreign and other negotiations. Even former presidents of the other party.
Why would Trump ever Trust Obama ? Why would whoever Trump’s successor is Trust Obama ?
Former presidents used to aide their successors – even when they were defeated by them.
Obama ended that.
BTW while a few loonies might have challenged Obama’s citizenship – I am not aware of any.
What was challenged is whether he was eligable to be president.
Facts from multiple sources make that certain. It is near impossible that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii.
HOWEVER Obama has been very evasive about his birth certificate and an unaltered one has never been provided. People are ALWAYS driven to attack when there is a lack of candor.
My guess is that Barack Obama Sr. was not his father.
“Calls for civil war, “national divorce”, etc.,”
Are coming primarily from the left.
“Professor Turley said nothing about their rage and hate.”
It is not republican leaders wishing horrible deaths and cancer on those who disagree with them.
It is not republicans who are murdering political enemies.
It is not prominent republicans fantasizing about the murder or assassination of their enemies.
It is not republicans burning down their own cities
Portland is dying. Republicans did not do that – left wing nuts did it to themselves.
“Apparently, it was ok as long as it was Republicans”
Nope, but there is no parity.
There is a gigantic gulf between political opposition and actually immoral speech and acts.
Few Republicans have crossed that, large numbers of democrats have.
“when Democrats get angry it’s an “addiction.””
Democrats are addicted – it is likely to get worse, and it will not end well.
X you are free to disagree. That is just my opinion of where this will lead.
But that has been the pattern of history.
“No mention of a MAGA nut driving outside Obama’s home with loaded guns after Trump posted his address as a reason for concern.”
The source for this is YOU – why should we trust it ? Why should we trust that it is accurate ?
Regardless, YOU Dox republicans ALL the time. Tucker Carlson moved his family to an undisclosed location in the backwoods of new england. Sen Paul was assaulted at his home AND in DC by left wing nuts.
Kavanaugh was nearly assassinated at his home.
You make public the addresses of ICE and CBP agents who are just doing their job.
Obama can be legitimately protested – he remains a major leader in the Democratic Party.
ICE and CBP agents ? Really ?
If you are unhappy with US immigration laws – go to the capital – like the J6 protestors.
Republicans have no longer unconstitutionally closed the capital to the public and protests.
Speak, assemble. protest, petition government – these are all first amendment rights.
But they are NOT rights you may excercise at private homes of relatively low level govenrment employees.
All you are doing is making all government employees a legitimate target in the future.
Should Republicans start sending Death Threats to govenrment employees whose departments are deliving benefits to illegal aliens ?
“The professor seems to think that expressing rage is a bad thing.”
No – he things that wishing bad things happen to political oponents is a bad thing.
You can express rage many ways. You need not do so immorally.
“It compels people to take action like protesting”
But you are not doing that – if you do not like the enforcement of immigration law
AGAIN – like J6 protestors Take your protests to congress
I would note that “protesting” is a right.
It is not really an action, it is not really doing anything.
“advocating for civil disobedience”
Advocating for civil disobedience is unbeleivabley hypocritical.
Do you “advocate” that others do what you will not.
Do it yourself – or shut up. “Advocating” for civil disobedience when you will not act yourself is immoral.
“calling out lawmakers”
For voting as their constituents and the majority of people wanted ?
The best way to influence law makers is to VOTE.
“administration officials to be held accountable for clear violations of civil rights and abuses.”
Turley has had several articles on the unconstitutional efforts of state lawmakers to interfere with ICE.
But if ICE or any other Federal agency is violating civil rights – we already have state and federal laws that can be enforced against them
Neither you nor the state can interfere with a federal agent doing their job.
BUT if they are actually violating civil rights – you can take take them to court. If the violation is criminal – the state can prosecute.
Put simply PUT UP OR SHUT UP
If as you claim the conduct iof the Trump administration is criminal, unlawful or unconstitutional – we have a judicial system to address that. So far pretty much all your claims pushed in cherry picked jurisdictions have failed on appeal. Often without getting to the supreme court. Even the 9th circuit is ruling against you.
“Professor Turley enables the rage by not acknowledging the fact that the Trump administration is stoking it on purpose.”
Because NO MATTER WHAT TRUMP MIGHT SAY – YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU SAY AND DO.
“People have every right to be mad”
Correct – but the RIGHT to get made does not make getting mad rational or virtuous.
You are gettinmg mad in the way that 4yr olds do and saying stupid things – like 4yr olds.
That something is a Right means Government can not punish you.
It does not make immoral words or deeds moral.
Turley is judging you HARSHLEY for the vile things you say NOT your right to say them.
“sometimes civility doesn’t work”
Correct – you are NOT always entitled to get your way.
Only toddlers think that.
You are fighting against the enforcement of law that was passed by democrats and republicans.
You are fighting against the enforement of laws that was a major issue in the 2024 election.
You are fighting against the enforcement of laws that 60-80% of americans want.
You have the absolute right to do so. You can even win if those laws are unconstitutional, or the enforcement actions themselves are unconstitutional.
But you are NOT entitled to success. The majority have spoken against you, loudly.
You can try to change their mind, or you can try to challenge the constitutionality of the law and enforcement.
But you are not ENTITLED to succeed – whih your argument presumes.
A significant part of the Problem is that you PRESUME your ideology, your values, are not merely right, but so right that no one else is free to argue against them. Then having failed to support your ideology with arguments, you get self righteously pissy when you lose.
Now you are wishing Vile plagues and death on those who disagree with you – and their families.
And you wonder why people JUDGE you as immoral and vile ?
Turley is highlighting YOUR bad conduct – because YOU made that possible.
“when the government isn’t acting civilly either.”
Government is FORCE – I have said this a thousand times – you keep ignoring it.
Govenrment is NOT persuasion, it is not civility, it is FORCE – possibly violence if you resist.
“Cruelty and abuse with impunity will not be met with “civility” when it is clear that those who are doing the abuse and cruelty don’t care.”
The rest of the world is not obligated to care about what you do – again behaving like a toddler.
Just because your upset about something does not reuire the rest of us to share your anger.
Laws are enforced by FORCE – when resisted even VIOLENCE.
That is litterally the way the social contract works.
It is the only way govenrment CAN WORK.
There is no form of government that is not FORCE.
“Rage is proper when people are made powerless”
FALSE.
Rage is only proper when it is justified.
Read the declaration of independence it is LITTERALY the blue print for the moral and legal reuirements for turning anger at govenrment and “powerlessness” into rage and action.
You are NOT free to do anything you want. You have the right to be enraged – but that right does NOT convey legitimacy on your rage. Your right to ACT on that rage is defined by the law and constitution, and you can be guided by the declaration of independence.
You have this looney idea that your FEELINGS justify what ever actions you wish.
That is obvious nonsense.
“it’s exactly what the Trump administration wants”
Correct – Trump and Republicans want you to behave badly, to behave badly – and you are giving them what they want.
Trump and republicans want you to behave badly – because as Sun Tzu said – do not interfere with your enemy when they are making a mistake.
” it’s what fascists like Stephen Miller want to justify their current drive for authoritarianism.”
Enforcing constitutionally enacted laws is neither fascist or authoritarian.
If you do not like those laws – change them.
“Their own actions are what are enraging people”
People like YOU – who beleive like toddlers you are ALWAYS free to get your own way.
“it’s why individuals like Stephen Miller are now living on military bases. They are afraid of angry people because of their cruelty and abuse of power.”
Actually because the left assassinates people who piss them off. And because people enforcing the law piss you off.
I remember when this blog felt like a real exchange of ideas. Folks like Mike Appleton and MESPO could go toe-to-toe—liberal, conservative, whatever—and still keep it civil, even witty. You could learn something from either side, and that was the point. Debate sharpened thought instead of poisoning it.
Now it feels more like a street fight for clicks. The one-liners, the rage bait, the performative outrage—it’s the same decay we see in the wider culture. What’s happening out there is happening in here, too. If we can’t model reasoned disagreement in a space built for it, how can we expect the country to do any better?
What BS you write. You conservatives are animals. Looks at what your president posts. Exchange of ideas … ha!
Has Prez Trump ask for the death of any dem-o-rat…
Post away
Read his posts. Sorry, forgot you’re illiterate.
I’ll reiterate, who did the president wish death on?
Liberals. But you must have not gotten the memo, you were hunting liberals in your neighborhood that day.
Oh so you’re a liar and mentally ill? Got it.
Lot’s of rage in that comment Tony.
Are you sure about that?
If only Professor Turley would take a more proactive approach in enforcing his civility rule, particularly by removing the trolls who seem to thrive on insulting and belittling others purely out of spite. These individuals often dominate the conversation, diverting attention from meaningful dialogue and genuine exchange of ideas.
While Turley has expressed a commitment to free speech, this principle makes it challenging for him to take decisive action against those who engage in such disruptive behavior. As a result, his blog frequently falls victim to a toxic environment where anonymous trolls make relentless personal attacks and participate in discussions that lack sincerity and good faith. This not only undermines the potential for thoughtful interaction but also discourages individuals who might otherwise contribute to a more constructive conversation. Ultimately, the persistent presence of these trolls highlights a significant issue: Turley’s platform struggles to foster authentic discussions when it is overrun by those who choose to engage in negativity rather than encouraging a respectful and enriching exchange of opinions.
HAHAHAHA. george.
Stay away from mirrors
Svelaz, I agree with your frustration—trolls thrive where good-faith discussion dies. But I also see Turley’s dilemma. Once you start policing tone, the line between moderation and censorship gets blurry fast. The whole strength of this forum has always been that ideas, not moderators, do the filtering.
The better antidote to trolling isn’t tighter control—it’s self-discipline. When the rest of us refuse to feed the chaos and keep modeling reasoned argument, the noise eventually gets bored. Turley’s role is to hold the space; it’s on us to elevate it. Free speech only works if participants still value the freedom to think.
Olly, self-discipline is not going to help when the blog cannot attract people who want to engage in honest discussion. There are blogs with more meaningful discussions and far better moderation to control trolls. Moderation is not anti-free speech.
Professor Turley always emphasizes civility and some form of decorum. He is perfectly within his rights to moderate the content and maintain civil discussion. He fails to exercise more discipline of trolls on the blog. He’s not really obligated to allow trolls to populate the blog for the sake of free speech. Professor Turley loves to dictate how others should exercise free speech, except on his blog. He’s right at the line on free speech absolutism. But he gets really liberal with restrictions when it’s speech he doesn’t particularly like such as defending pro-Palestinian protests and Trump’s attacks on free speech. He relies on the emphasis of conduct as an excuse to restrict it than the speech itself. That’s a cop-out in my book.
george/X
HAHAHAHAHA
–coming from YOU the person who comes here daily to call Turley “naive” and “disingenuous” and “hypocritical” and “dishonest” and pretending superiority in views after throwing out juvenile insults. THen when someone calls you out, you revert to the fake wise philosopher with a dignified post, telling others how to live their lives. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Svelaz lies and contradicts himself all the time, but he carries a name and a unique icon. This blog would drastically improve if all anonymous posters were forced to do the same. There would be no loss of privacy for the poster, and therefore, it would continue as a free speech platform.
Since there is no advertising, an effective goal is not high posting numbers, but free speech to all who desire it.
SM, I’m with you on that. Most of us here use consistent pseudonyms — you as S. Meyer, me as OLLY, and others the same — and over time, our style and tone make us recognizable. That’s enough to build credibility without sacrificing privacy.
The real problem is the revolving door of “Anonymous” posters. When everyone hides behind the same generic label, it’s impossible to tell who’s debating in good faith and who’s just trolling. A simple requirement for each user to pick a unique ID wouldn’t violate anyone’s anonymity, but it would create a basic layer of accountability.
That alone would elevate the quality of discussion here and make it easier to engage serious voices — and ignore the noise.
100% correct X!
Oh George… it’s so hard for you to function as a normal human beng when your prefrontal cortex never developed as you entered your teenage years. And there’s no medical cure!
What will it be from you for today’s display of mental incompetence? One squat and dump and then disappear until the next column as you normally do? Or will this be one of your days where you feel you have the energy to stay and deliver more lyin’ and denyin’.
George X says If only Professor Turley would take a more proactive approach in enforcing his civility rule
If Professor Turley weren’t here to satisfy your daily psychopathic need to be able to anonymously and safely stalk, insult and demean a public figure in order to give some sense of purpose to your otherwise meaningless life, you would have been institutionalized and under 24 hour psychiatric care by now.
And if he enforced that civility rule, within days of your repetitive and predictable attacks on Professor Turley as your host, you would have been one of the first people given the boot…
Civil is not the same as agreeing with you.
You are posting today as X – either because you were banned for incivility under another name or so besmirched that name you are embarassed to continue to use it.
Conservatives did not attempt – multiple times, to assassinate the president.
They did not murder the CEO of a health insurance company.
They did not assassinate a political enemy because what he said – particularly winning arguments pissed them off.
Conservatives did not try to burn the country down because a black petty criminal got caught passing a counterfeit $20 resisted arresst, ate his drug stassh and died with 3 times fatal doses of multiple drugs.
Conservatives did not transform Portland into a $hithole that businesses are fleeing with property values declining by 90% and the tax base in deep trouble.
Conservitives did not allow tens of millions of illegal immigrants into the country in violation of the law.
Conservatives did not elect a corrupt and brain dead idiot as president who spiked inflation to 10% while claiming the economy was great.
YOU made the mess people are blaming you.
Pi$$ing on the people cleaning up your mess is …. not civil.
So true olly
The left is full of hate and nothing more.
Oh oh, stoopid is here. Your comments are full of hate. Seems you’re too stoopid to see that.
What sort of drugs you on?
Maybe—but hate isn’t a political monopoly. The left just learned to market it better. The real issue isn’t who hates; it’s who profits from keeping people angry. Stop feeding that machine, and both extremes lose their power.
OLLY,
Correct. The only reason to respond to the trolls is to point out their claims and assertions, lies and gaslighting, is to point out how it is not us who feed the machine but them. And we do it in a reasoned, logical, common sense fashion. Just as Charlie Kirk did. Just as the good professor would.
Olly, the right does NOT want to stop the left’s raging. They need it to justify their cruelty and abuse of power. The right raged and hated on President Obama when he got elected. It took many on the right by surprise and it followed with predictable rhetoric. Racist rhetoric, questioning his citizenship because of his name, proclamations from the speaker of the house to not let any policy of his make it into law. Their rage was equally as bad as the left’s today. Professor Turley is capitalizing on what some are calling the rage economy. He’s selling books on the topic and stoking it at the same time through dog whistle statements and articles.
It’s beneficial to keep the rage going for him and those on the right. Keeping people angry distracts from the real issues and the corruption that is going on within the Trump administration.
Turley is enabling it to sell his books. Because it works. Just as fear is used as an effective tool to gain compliance.
Svelaz, that’s not analysis — it’s projection. You’ve stacked ad hominem, genetic fallacy, and false equivalence into one post, attacking motives instead of ideas. You talk about others “feeding the rage economy,” but you’re the one being fed by it.
Rage keeps you supplied with an endless target. Reason would end the argument — and the attention.
“Olly, the right does NOT want to stop the left’s raging. They need it to justify their cruelty and abuse of power.”
George Svelaz, if you can’t be specific, you’re a troll.
Huh
OLLY,
I believe the decay is the end goal of the illiberal leftists. They do not want honest debate as their ideas, policies, fail in the face of reason, logic and common sense. Charlie Kirk proved that. That is why the trolls are so desperate to highjack the good professor’s blog by polluting it with ever so dumb comments, lies and gaslighting. As you know, I just scroll past the slow and dumb ones comments are they are not worth reading. Why waste one’s time listening to the village idiot? However, even she must be cringing at some of the moronic comments by the trolls. They certainly make the Democrat party look bad. That is why so many sane and normal, moderate and traditional Democrats want them out of their party. Bill Maher has been saying that for years now.
Upstate, You’re absolutely right about the decay—that’s the strategy, not the accident. The illiberal left knows its ideas can’t hold up under honest debate, so they muddy the water instead. Trolls exist to drown reason in noise. When discussion becomes impossible, propaganda fills the void.
But you’ve got the right instinct: scroll past them. Nothing deflates a troll faster than indifference. They want to drag everyone down to their level because they can’t rise to yours. Every time we refuse to engage, we prove reason still has restraint—and that’s something they can’t imitate.
” The one-liners, the rage bait, the performative outrage—it’s the same decay we see in the wider culture.”
Olly, performative outrage is getting the upper hand while involving a greater number of people. Yesterday, I mentioned to Upstate the Leibowitz piece, MAGA’s False Patriots, and others at the Free Press. Some on the right are speaking and acting like the left, seeking raw power just for the power. Essentially, they are pushing the line into brawling territory. Moderation seems to have been lost, and when that happens, trouble begins.
Younger influencers are spreading the outrage as if it were a currency to be spent at will for personal gain. Since they are young, we can expect that outrage will be normalized. That is dangerous, since restraint will be seen as weakness and fury as strength. That generation will be left confused between power and principle, while the noise is considered courage.
SM, I agree completely — and I’d take your point one step further. The tragedy is that this performative outrage hasn’t just been normalized; it’s been moralized. The loudest, most hostile voices now claim the moral high ground simply because they shout the hardest.
What once passed for civic virtue — patience, humility, reason — is now branded as weakness, while fury is rebranded as righteousness. That inversion of moral order is what makes this moment so dangerous.
When outrage becomes the only acceptable proof of conviction, we stop reasoning together and start performing for applause. The result isn’t courage — it’s noise mistaken for virtue.
“The loudest, most hostile voices now claim the moral high ground simply because they shout the hardest.”
That is the hardest to deal with, but I think replies to such actions, even to masked persons, should be pure facts without the attendant debate. If facts do not do, mockery and facts together might work. Finally, one can always use the methods of Alinsky.
One has to be careful arguing with factless ignorance; don’t debate. Keep the replies to facts and mockery by not permitting the opponent to feel respected. That respect occurs when one has a debate with a provocateur.
SM, I agree that sticking to facts is the best first step. Truth, stated plainly and calmly, is often its own rebuke. Where I hesitate is in moving from clarity to mockery — because that’s the very tactic the outrage merchants perfected. When we borrow their tools, even for good cause, we risk becoming what we’re trying to correct.
Ridicule can land a point, but it rarely builds understanding. Facts and moral consistency do. If we can hold the line there — answer distortion with truth, and provocation with composure — we deny them both the respect and the reaction they’re seeking. That, in itself, is a quiet form of victory.
“Where I hesitate is in moving from clarity to mockery — because that’s the very tactic the outrage merchants perfected.”
Then be better. As soon as you show weakness, you will be mocked. George Svelaz frequently doesn’t reply to me because, along with mockery, comes fact, and he doesn’t want to bleed. That is the same in the animal kingdom. Animals don’t attack unless they feel they have to.
Some elevate George’s pride by discussing George’s fallacies and lies as if George were on an equal footing. He isn’t. He is at the bottom tier, and that is one of the reasons he continuously insults Turley. Turley is well-regarded everywhere, so George feels that by being able to mock him, George climbs the ladder. He doesn’t. It just demonstrates one more reason not to like George and treat him with mockery and insult. George’s only redeeming feature is, he carries a name and a unique icon.
SM, This exchange has clarified something for me. Even many who claim to despise the trolls aren’t really seeking a comment section free of them; they’re seeking the moral high ground for out-trolling the trolls. It gives them a sense of superiority while keeping the very dynamic alive that they say they detest.
That’s the illusion outrage offers — it feels like control, but it’s just participation in decay. The moment we start measuring success by how cleverly we insult or mock, we’ve already surrendered the higher ground we claim to defend.
I’m perfectly fine stepping back from that. I read Turley’s posts for clarity, not combat. If leaving the comment pit is what it takes to stay clear-minded, then I’ll do so without regret. Some lessons are best absorbed in silence.
“The tragedy is that this performative outrage hasn’t just been normalized; it’s been moralized.”
Moralized? How does immorality get moralized? By building an idol and declaring that the idol approves. Once you do that, anything becomes ‘virtue’: coercion, lies, intimidation, and the erasure of basic truths. That’s what we’re dealing with. I have no issue with mockery in the face of that.
Mike Appleton is an unabashed communist. He can’t wrap his brain around the fact that there is only one definition of natural born citizen in the universe, and it excludes Obama. Blackstone wrote only about natural born subjects. Vattel was all over the American Revolution, the Constitutional Convention, and the Constitution, and he wrote that parents (plural) and a father who were citizens established a natural born citizen. In addition, Appleton believes that because secession is not prohibited, secession is prohibited.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“That dudn’t make any sense.”
– George W. Bush
He can’t wrap his brain around the fact that there is only one definition of natural born citizen in the universe, and it excludes Obama.
Normal Americans can’t wrap their heads around your hatred that demands that American children born to American citizens posted overseas, whose spouse is a foreign citizen, are not good enough for you to be allowed to run for president.
Is it because you have a deep hatred of Americans who served their country in uniform, and were willing to be posted overseas for years protecting you while you cowered in safety in your civilian jammies on the couch?
Vattel was all over the American Revolution, the Constitutional Convention, and the Constitution, and he wrote that parents (plural) and a father who were citizens established a natural born citizen.
Dear Mad Confederate King George: Vattel died in 1767. If you hadn’t continually failed Civics in High School, you would know that Vattell was worm food rotting underground by the time of the Constitutional Convention and Constitution – the exact opposite of your claim he was “all over the American Revolution, Constitutional Convention (1787) and the Constitution (1787)”
Vattel didn’t write a word about those events in America – he was dead. But he DID write an earlier work reinforcing The Golden Rule Of Sovereigns.
Which makes sense – Vattel buttered his life’s bread by choosing to work his entire life for royalty.
In addition, Appleton believes that because secession is not prohibited, secession is prohibited.
And you as a fellow communist of Appleton, claim as a Kluxxer Confederate Constitutional expert, that unilateral secession was constitutional. But, as always, you’re wrong.
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
Affirming the perpetual nature of American federalism, and that the USA is an indestructible union from which no state can unilaterally secede.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
The Union of the States was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And, when these Articles of Confederation were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
When those states became one of the United States, they entered into an indissoluble relationship. The union between individual states and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of all the States to amend the Constitution.
So she hopes that Sheehy suffers from incurable cancer, which I guess would cause infertility. Then because his children abandon him, he’s left alone dying in the streets. At which point she will bravely pummel him.
Charming.
I sense a lot of hate in your comment.
Sam is expressing sarcasm. Not hate.
What crystal ball are you using to determine what cannot be parsed from the comment’s wording? I want to avoid the brand you purchased, if ever I want one of my own.
You do not sense a lot of hate from Sam’s comment. In fact, you sense no hate. You are a liar.
The Left’s predilection for violent rhetoric and rage has resulted in exactly what you would expect: a predilection for actual violence. The Left is by far the more violent party and its subscribers the more violent people.
Predilection? As I recall 1/6 was an attack on democracy. Any comment? Oh, and they killed cops.
No cops were killed, just Ashley Babbit. Check your “facts” before posting lies.
As I recall 1/6 was an attack on democracy.
Your “recall” is faulty. And no, they didn’t kill anyone.
Milhouse,
Well said and correct. It is another attempt to gaslight, one that we all see through.
And the lie. We see through that one too.
Predilection? As I recall 1/6 was an attack on democracy. Any comment?
We recall the previous MONTHS of attacks on democracy during the Election Season Mostly Peaceful Rioting, Pillaging, Arson, Looting and Murder. Where, unlike lies about J6, they actually did murder cops. Any comment?
And we recall the weeks earlier days long attack on democracy with the assault on the White House by the Democrats’ street criminals and terrorists in Black Liars & Marxists and Antifa. Where dozens of cops were wounded by Molotov Cocktails and other lethal weapons, requiring them to be hospitalized. Any comment?
Probably not, huh? Of course not – for Democrat apparatchiks that come here lyin’ and denyin’ history only began on that January 6th.
And given recent Antifa/Black Liars & Marxists deadly violence, we’re supposed to believe history also ended that January 6th.
Don’t lie and run – surely you can stick around and offer some comments on those earlier attacks on democracy prior to your obsession with January 6th.
Confirmation of the necessity for The 2nd Amendment. Pretty stupid threats coming from a Dem who wants to control and take away our guns. I predict a rise in such stories as well as a rise in stories about people of her particularly dangerous political persuasion being eliminated by gun owners exercising their right of self defense
When people show you what they are, believe them
Dick Cheney dead. Any thoughts?
As a red blooded American conservative, I say, rot in hell.
You are a liberal pretending to be a conservative. We all know!!
You all know !!! Know what?
Hey hockey puck, After decades of being used as one, what can you possibly process?
Nope RIP
R.I.H. Rest in Hell
Did someone hurt you?
He dead, let it go
Cheney’s dead. Thank you God!
Horrible picture of him online, and that it’s sad how his daughter embarrassed herself and him in his old age.
What kind of question is that to ask after reading an article on hate and rage?
I guess it shows conservatives are not innocent when they talk about lib rage.
Can you prove any of those responses are coming from conservatives?
Prove it for yourself.
Not really. Wish him to RIP as I would any other person.
He would have made a good president, but there was no way he could be elected. Pity about his daughter.
In the top ten of the all-time most absurd comments on this blog.
Milhouse, the insane war monger extraordinaire!
Ain’t no time to wonder why
We’re all gonna die!
The age of rage will get much worse before it can begin to get better.
Must be a red meat day at Turley’s.
Truth hurts.
No, just another example of how unhinged people are against conservatives. What has this freshmen senator done to warrant such a disgusting message?
Conservative?
Dollar
That’s why I said Truth hurts. Libs are full of hate.
Ever read your comments dustoff?
I can read, you?
Its not about reading, its understanding what you’re saying. I’ve seen you comments. You got deep rage in them.
Also, most are just completely childish nonsense.
How old are you?
Let me guess… 12?
Can you prove that?