When hundreds of women gathered in San Antonio for Turning Point USA’s Women’s Leadership Summit, protesters assembled to denounce them and disrupt their conference. One speaker told protesters to be “obnoxious” and to “show your hate” as a man dressed as death chopped the air with a sickle. Another speaker said that they were just showing that the “hateful values” have no place in San Antonio as another man in a costume mimicked the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Below is an example of what happens when speakers feed this rage addiction.
In this video, a pro-life advocate is swarmed by an angry mob. Protesters stopped her from speaking and blared ear-piercing noises next to her head.
The crushing irony is that the man who would have fought for the right of these protesters to speak was Charlie Kirk. He was hated precisely because he fought for free speech and free debate on college campuses. As here, he put himself in danger to expose the hypocrisy and hate that pervades our campuses and cities.
This video shows the face of the age of rage. What these people will not admit is that they like it; need it.
If nothing else, it is a recognition that such unhinged influencers like James Carville admits (warning foul language):
Very good article in Law & Liberty today: As Elizabeth Corey puts it, “so much of the chaos of the present has to do with abandoning our own judgment for the judgment of others.”
What you see in San Antonio is exactly that, two groups that have been formed in opposite directions, one toward patient judgment inside the hall and one toward buzzing, second‑hand rage on the sidewalk.
https://lawliberty.org/forum/away-from-the-buzzing-of-flies/?
Thanks for the link, Olly! I’m currently reading Gordon Chang’s 2024 book titled PLAN RED. It appears that there may be a master plan to divide and polarize our citizenry that is coming from foreign influences
Catherine, thank you, foreign influence is certainly worth considering. One thing I find interesting is that many people dismiss citizen formation as unimportant or secondary, yet every major government on earth invests resources trying to influence the formation of foreign populations.
Before military conflict, governments routinely engage in information campaigns, influence operations, propaganda, educational exchanges, cultural messaging, and narrative shaping. Why? Because they understand that beliefs, trust, identity, and civic expectations influence everything that follows.
If formation were not upstream, there would be little reason to devote so much effort to influencing it.
Perhaps the real question is not whether citizen formation matters, but whether we are willing to acknowledge how much of politics, culture, and even international competition ultimately revolves around it.
And once we recognize that foreign governments view citizen formation as strategically important, we should probably recognize that our own government influences formation as well. Every government affects civic expectations, habits, incentives, and norms through education, public messaging, regulations, benefits, and countless other policies. The question is not whether formation is occurring, but what type of citizen is being formed.
That may be the deeper question beneath all of this. If citizen formation is upstream of politics, then it may also be upstream of the government we eventually get.
“. . . blared ear-piercing noises next to her head.”
That is a common tactic by Leftist thugs. It is a physical assault, just as much as is clubbing a person over the head. And that noise-making tool is a weapon used to commit bodily injury.
That thug should be arrested, tried, and jailed.
When you lose the argument on the merits, rage is all you have. And that young woman had incredible poise – she was prepared to engage with the mob, just like Charlie.
Last year I was talking with a friend of mine that I have known since 1964, and Trump came into the conversation. I pointed out that I disliked his personality but felt most of his policies were good for the country. He called Trump an idiot. I asked him why and he told me he just enjoyed saying it. I asked how he could have such a hateful attitude toward a person and he had no response. I have stopped communicating with him as a result. I do not understand how a person can change to be so hateful.
Unfortunately, that describes both me and my only son. Except that he uses much stronger language than “idiot” to describe Trump. I cannot stop communicating with him, so I avoid any mention of politics or civic issues. Sad.
Not being able to talk to a friend or relative of either party presents a problem especially for the young. Discussing politics and understanding both sides enables informed decisions on policy that effects the entire population not just the individual. For example, someone wanting the communist/socialist ideology may not have seen or experienced the results of their ideology. The same with the ultra conservatives. The middle ground, IMHO the constitution, lays out, is the best. However it takes responsibility, willing to work hard for what you want and get. Unfortunately that seems to be lost on the 2nd generation behind me. To them it appears that life is a joke, things should be free and people that disagree with them should not exist or be hounded, bullied and intimidated All of which they cannot handle if the shoe were on the other foot.
The split screen here says a lot about formation. Inside, a few thousand young women paid to sit in seats, listen, and build something around a set of ideas, whether you agree with those ideas or not. Outside, a much smaller, coordinated crowd showed up in masks and costumes to scream at strangers, blast noise in a woman’s ear, and chase viral clips instead of arguments. Same country, same generation, two different answers to the question “what have we been trained to be.” A republic can live with the first model, it cannot survive very long on the second.
Well said.
The display is quite telling. Normal, well formed citizens on the inside, crazies screaming hate and rage on the outside.
Upstate, I keep coming back to a different question. Are we still forming citizens for a constitutional republic, or are we increasingly forming government for citizens who have been formed for something else?
The architecture hasn’t changed nearly as much as the formation environment has. Both parties seem focused on adapting government to the electorate they have. Very few leaders seem interested in asking what kind of citizen self-government actually requires.
That may be the real debate beneath all the others.
Olly, Good citizens are created in their homes, schools, and environment. What do we have today that did not exist in colonial times? Today, concentrations of media power and interest groups are more powerful than ever. All of these, in one way or another, change the dynamic from organic ideas to marketed ones. Combine these influences with bigger and bigger government, and individual freedoms start to disappear.
Conclusion: A structural mutation from functional autonomy to a Borg society where citizens have lost the ability to provide what is needed for survival, permitting the expansion of the state.
SM, I think that’s the crucial point. Citizens formed toward self-reliance, local problem-solving, and civic responsibility tend to prefer one kind of government. That description fits the founding generation remarkably well. The Constitution was written by citizens formed in that environment and, I would argue, for citizens formed in that environment. The Constitution does not create self-government; it presupposes it. It assumes citizens capable of governing themselves before they attempt to govern others.
Which raises a larger question. If our formation environments are no longer producing citizens formed toward self-reliance, local engagement, and civic responsibility, should we be surprised that the constitutional architecture is under increasing stress?
Perhaps the deeper issue is not whether government has become larger, but whether the type of citizen for whom the Constitution was designed is becoming less common.
“Perhaps the deeper issue is not whether government has become larger, but whether the type of citizen for whom the Constitution was designed is becoming less common.”
The vital element, completely understood by those who designed our founding documents, including the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers, is the element of Safety. I say that in the broadest use of the term.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” _Ben Franklin
SM, I think you’re onto something important there. The Founders spent a great deal of time wrestling with the tension between liberty and safety. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists often disagreed on where the balance should be, but both understood that preserving liberty always involved accepting some degree of risk and responsibility.
What strikes me is that Franklin’s quote may tell us as much about citizens as it does about government. Every generation wants both liberty and safety. The question is how people are formed to balance the two. A citizen formed toward self-reliance, responsibility, and local problem solving may tolerate more risk in exchange for greater liberty. A citizen formed to seek security above all else may be more willing to trade liberty for the promise of safety.
That is why I keep coming back to the type of citizen for whom the Constitution was designed. The document itself cannot preserve liberty. It assumes citizens capable of doing so.
Perhaps the deeper question is whether we are still producing those citizens in sufficient numbers today.
Perhaps the deeper question is whether we are still producing those citizens in sufficient numbers today.
To answer your final question, “we the people” still endures in sufficient numbers and with sufficient memory. The only question is whether or not we can unwind the bindings of safety. The first place to start is with the IRS. Whether or not Trump has that in mind when he talks about tariffs as a replacement, I don’t know.
SM, I hope you’re right that sufficient numbers still exist. Where I might differ is on the question of memory.
One of the things that emerged from my examination of fourteen eras is that citizen formation appears to peak at the Founding across all twelve measures I tracked. The Founders were not simply advocates of self-government. They had been formed for it.
What surprised me was that the trend begins softening almost immediately. Within a few generations, some measures begin declining. By the modern era, all twelve show deterioration to one degree or another. That does not mean self-governing citizens no longer exist. Clearly they do. The question is whether the formation environment is still producing them in sufficient numbers to sustain a constitutional republic over the long term.
That is why I keep returning to formation. Before we discuss how to unwind the bindings of safety, we may first need to understand how we moved so far from the formative conditions that once made liberty, responsibility, and self-government seem natural.
“Where I might differ is on the question of memory.”
I don’t think so. We have to discuss the type of memory. The memory of those who create a new country or system? That memory is very quickly lost with the second or third generation, who no longer have the emotions of the first generation. We were lucky and have lasted 250 years.
There is experiential memory, which also fades quickly. When those who knew freedom die out, there is no one with firsthand experience of what freedom is.
I focus on the core: money and security.
I do not think we are that far apart, SM, I just would not call money and security the core. Those are always there. Every regime needs revenue and some promise of safety.
What changes from one system to another is the kind of people you have and what they will tolerate from their rulers.
You are right that the emotional memory of the founding generation fades. That is exactly why formation matters more than nostalgia. If you stop forming each new generation to understand and love ordered liberty, they will gladly trade both money and security for comfort, subsidies or a promise to punish their enemies.
The problem is not that the dollars changed, it is that the people holding them did.
“I just would not call money and security the core. Those are always there. “
Olly, money is the effector. It is the precise regulatory mechanism that balances individualism and security.
Individualism Security
Regarding “the kind of people you have”
People build on one another. We were lucky; instead of building on Marx, we built on the Judeo-Christian beliefs and the Greeks. Many of our laws can be seen in the Torah, with and without modification.
It is not surprising that by the third generation there is a softening of the founders’ beliefs. The founders faced the problem of complete change. The following generations only had to deal with modifications and to keep the basic idea of individual liberty from straying.
History documents such changes in all societies.
I get what you mean by calling money an effector, but that is exactly why I would not move it to the core. Money is a lever. It can be used to buy more individual space or to tighten security and control, but it does not tell you which way to pull. People do.
The balance between individualism and security comes from the habits and beliefs of the citizens and the folks they put in office, not from the currency itself.
I also would not call the Founders “lucky.” They were what their environment had formed them to be. The fights they lived through, the books they read, the faith and habits they inherited, all of that produced a people who could even imagine building our kind of republic. Luck did not write the Federalist Papers or sit through Philadelphia in that heat. Formation did.
And when we stop forming that kind of citizen, the same money and the same “security” language can be redirected to build something very different on top of their work.
“I get what you mean by calling money an effector, but that is exactly why I would not move it to the core. Money is a lever. It can be used to buy more individual space or to tighten security and control, but it does not tell you which way to pull. People do.”
Money is not at the core; security and individualism are. Money (power) is the effector, similar to the hydraulic fluid that connects the steering wheel to the axle. It connects the lever of security with the lever of individualism. It is the energy source of the system, and whoever controls that energy is most important in controlling the direction.
You are dealing with morality and character; people telling the system how to act. I think you have taken our system of government as a static endpoint and then tried to work backward to explain it. But the mechanisms that control security and individualism exist everywhere. What would have happened if our founders did not have the history of the Greeks and the Judeo-Christian system that also influenced the British? Though our natural rights always exist, they need not be apparent. We still look toward our individualism and our security. In the world of Marx, absent these other traditions, what happens to those traits? Human habits and beliefs developed over millennia with different types of government prevailing, and in all systems we saw money acting as the effector.
“I also would not call the Founders “lucky.” They were what their environment had formed them to be. “
I never said the Founders were lucky. I said we the people are lucky to have founders who delved into Greek and Judeo-Christian philosophy rather than Marx.
Then again, our Republic came into being supported, at the time, by only 15-20 percent of the people. While we may reach that population ratio support for the Consitution again at some point, I’m fairly confident the Patriots would overwhelm the proverbial Leftist Crown again – if it comes to that, considering the players. One side only has a proven-failed theory, feelings and beliefs while the other will eventually use force to ensure their inalienable rights are maintained. Perhaps only then will many Leftists “see the light”, so-to-speak.
JAFO, I think there is a lot of truth in what you’re saying, but I would frame it a little differently.
The Founding generation was not unanimous about the form government should take. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued vigorously over that question. What strikes me is that they were largely formed for self-government regardless of which side they took. They disagreed about the architecture, but not about the premise that free citizens were capable of governing themselves and that government existed to secure their rights.
What seems different today is that we may have flipped the script. The Constitution and our republican form of government still enjoy broad support in principle, but the type of citizen for whom that system was designed receives far less attention.
The Founders spent years debating the design of government because they largely assumed the citizen. Today we spend years debating the design of government while rarely discussing whether we are still producing citizens formed for self-government.
That may be the deeper issue beneath many of our disagreements.
Correct. Meyer points out the same thing; self-governing citizens do indeed receive far less attention in today’s instant media and the events it chooses to cover. While I don’t media will ever again present a fair/accurate account in their coverage of rage events, the numbers of people watching them grows fewer and fewer. Seems legacy media isn’t getting the message: no one trusts you. Yet, they still control the narrative that people like Professor Turley report. I just can’t roll my eyes often enough anymore. lol
JAFO, I think several people in this thread are identifying real causes. Media, safety concerns, foreign influence, courts, schools, family structure, algorithms, and a dozen other factors all matter. What I’ve been wrestling with is a systems-level question: is there a root cause that affects all of them?
Media influences citizens.
Schools influence citizens.
Foreign actors try to influence citizens.
Courts are staffed by citizens.
Governments are elected by citizens.
The common denominator seems to be the citizen himself.
That is why I keep coming back to citizen formation. Not because it explains everything, but because it appears to sit upstream of so many things we debate. The branches are real, but I find myself increasingly interested in the root system feeding them.
I think we’re agreed on the common denominator being the citizen. Where we may disagree is how much outside influence is actully influencing how many citizens. Legacy Media: ratings accross the board are down (for good reason). Government trust: also, way, way down and accelerating during the first quart of the 21st century. IMHO it’s why Trump has been elected TWICE. Courts: Judges are appointed by others in government with approval from even more ‘others’ already in government – the same government that has lost trust of the informed citizen. The same government that produces nothing in return for everyone’s tax dollars. We’re lucky to have more Originalists on the court today, but that’s only because the people slapped down the System in 2016. Schools: yikes! Government-funded, therefore government-run (just piling on now.) Etc, etc.
What isn’t clear though is just how many ‘out here’ are being influenced in a manner that will result in the downfall of the country to the level of Cuba, North Korea, or even France! Perhaps Turley and others seem to believe the rabble-rousers among us are heavily influencing the majorities of younger generations, which is why he writes about them, I guess. I respectfully, disagree. While I’ll admit I’m a cynic by nature, my 30-year-old kid and nearly all of his friends and neighbors are self-sufficient and self-governing. This gives me more hope than I know what to do with. Is this proof things are turning around or we’re forming better citizens to continue our republic, positively? Definitely maybe. Maybe a positive trend can be started by these underheard, underrepresented kids. More of them voted against the cabal than voted FOR it this time around. One can only hope the signs are looking up to continue the trend.
JAFO, what I find interesting is that your entire comment is really a formation-centered comment, even if neither of us used that term very much. You touched on media, schools, government trust, courts, peers, family, and the attitudes of younger generations. In other words, you were describing the environment that helps shape citizens.
I also find your observations about your son and his peers encouraging. One thing I’ve tried to emphasize is that trends are not destiny. Anecdotally, we can all point to examples of citizens who remain highly self-reliant, engaged, and capable of self-government. Where I remain concerned is whether that formation is happening structurally.
The more I studied the fourteen eras, the more I realized how vast the formation environment really is. Family is part of it. Schools are part of it. But so are churches, peers, media, entertainment, workplaces, civic organizations, economic conditions, technology, government policies, and now algorithms.
My sense is that before we can seriously discuss how to improve outcomes, we first need a broader consensus on where formation is actually happening. Most people dramatically underestimate the breadth and depth of the formation architecture surrounding us every day.
Only after we can see the system clearly can we begin to understand how to strengthen it.
Olly, what I think is central is money. For the country to grow, it needs money. For programs to grow, they need money. For the Federal Government to take over State business, it needs money. Taxes and the size of the government have a direct relationship
Safety is the reason the colonies created the Constitution. Safety costs money. One example is healthcare. Is healthcare a federal responsibility? Of course not.
We have to remember, the more money in one pot, the more resources will be expended by those that want their cut of the resources. If there are 50 pots, sometimes the cost of resources for their cut is too great.
SM, money is everywhere, but that does not make it “central” in the way I think you mean. Every culture uses some kind of currency. A dollar is just paper and ink until a certain kind of person picks it up.
You can build a free republic or a corrupt patronage machine with the same tax dollar, depending on what kind of citizens and office‑holders you have been forming. Blaming “money” for our politics is like blaming the steering wheel for a drunk driver.
The deeper problem is the people we are turning out and what they think government is for.
“SM, money is everywhere, but that does not make it “central” in the way I think you mean. Every culture uses some kind of currency. ”
Money is definitely central. It is the effector. I don’t think it makes a difference if it is gold, dollars, pearls, or any other form of money. They are all the same. Money buys power, and power buys money.
Security was bought with money, and with that purchase came less individualism.
Our founders understood their Judeo-Christian history and the Greeks. We can add the Romans, but they too incorporated distinct parts of Greek civilization. That is where we are lucky. The Russians incorporated Marxism. We went on one path, and they went on the other, but our path led to free individuals. The question we have today is why some want to take a detour towards Marxism.
SM, if money is “central” just because it can be used to buy power, then a firearm is “central” to every crime because it can be used to kill. But we both know the object does not have a will. A gun does not pull its own trigger, and a dollar does not decide whether it is buying freedom or buying control. People do.
You are right that every regime uses money, and that money can be used to buy security at the cost of individual space. But that is exactly my point. The same tax dollar can fund a limited government that defends rights, or a sprawling bureaucracy that manages every corner of life. The difference is not in the currency, it is in the kind of officeholders and citizens you have been forming, and what they think government is for.
Our founders were not just “lucky” to inherit Judeo‑Christian and Greek ideas, they were formed by them into people who could even imagine a republic of free individuals. The Russians inherited Marx and built something very different. The detour you are worried about now is not being driven by money suddenly becoming evil, it is being driven by elites and voters who have been formed to want Marx’s promises more than the founders’ responsibilities.
“SM, if money is “central” just because it can be used to buy power, then a firearm is “central” “
Olly, you are taking the teleological view, explaining what you have rather than how you got there. I am trying to explain the mechanism developed of the ages; energy (money) provides the fundamental needs (security and individualism).
The rifle you talk about isn’t energy; it is a tool created by that energy, and can function in systems completely different from our own. A rifle is inert; money is a force. In Ben Franklin’s quote, there is an exchange of security for individualism. The state has the power to alter that equation by changing the calculation of survival. Even the most formed citizenry will yield to the power of government trading individualism for security when survival is at stake.
Excellent observations, SMeyer. It doesn’t help matters when the people elected ignore their oath to honor, support and defend the form of government that allows them to do exactly that with reprisal.
Thank you, JAFO.
Spot on, Olly!
Baby Lives Matter (BLM)
I don’t think that these demonstrators were hired to be there to listen. If you watch enough of these demonstrations, you notice the similarity of organization and choreography, handheld noisemakers right next to the head, etc. What I would wonder is about how much is paid to each and what the overall outlay of cash would be.
They are well trained. A lot of that is a good facsimile of rage but appears more a trained expression of hate without the real emotion. They have not even made it into a real mob which is another level entirely and is more spontaneous and unpredictable.
They are similar in action, as seen on film and still pictures, of the Brown Shirts of the Nazi SA in the era of the early 1930’s. But the SA actually got out and beat and bludgeoned people.
James Carville is vying for the role of Ernst Rohm who led the SA and had an untimely end during the “Night of the Long Knives”. Mr Carville should be careful. Mr. Rohm’s own side did him in.
Spot on.
Carville is doing everything he can to get his name back in front of the public. He’s a “has been” wanting to get back into the political race.
Your observations are very astute, GEB. There appears to be a sinister effort by certain groups to polarize our citizenry with an end game of destruction.
Well now, Graham Platner winning the Democratic party primary in Maine now make the Democratic party the official party of NAZI Fascists.
Graham Platner’a NAZI fascists ball caps adorned with a NAZI Deaths-Head are already on sale at your local Democratic party headquarters.
Nobody is less tolerant than the Fascist left. How is assaulting a speaker with very loud noises near her head not a crime?
I attended LSU after Carville left. He is an embarrassment to the school. Vitriol was always a defining part of his personality. He wasn’t praying to the God of Christianity to rain more rage on others. He exhorts others to violence while remaining safe in his home. He is a loud mouthed coward. The Dems want to stoke a violent reaction from the right so they can point to conservatives as the violent party.
Carville appears to be in decline, but like all crazy, nasty people, he will continue spouting his vitriol for years to come.
If Carville actually said that, and it’s not some computer generated garbage, he is more mentally unstable than I previously understood. He seems to be in real need of psychiatric help.
Hope Mary has the guns and knives locked up.
I do not know what further evidence is needed to see these people, the modern left in general, are insane. Not hyperbole. We created the perfect storm over the past two decades, and we have reached the point of conflation. Disgusting. Ironically, even though leftists blare ear-piercing noise, there seems to be no waking blue voters from their slumber.
what further evidence is needed … wait! Its just 2 videos you dumbass. So extrapolate 2 videos and you get … what? A perfect storm. Seriously, where do yo get such stupid ideas?
James has been pointing out the stupid and crazy by the leftists for months if not years.
How is it his fault leftist illiberal Democrats say and show us exactly how they have embraced stupid and crazy for, well, over a decade now.
I’d save your breath in getting any civil conversation with this Anonymous person. My guess is he’s a male, somewhat unhinged and always using epithets against those on this forum. In essence, a crybaby who dumps his cereal on the floor because his parents took away his favorite toy.
phantomboldly5cb0d04b6f,
Just pointing out the facts. And those facts are an anathema to him.
Carville puts to shame that little girl in ‘The Exorcist’ (1973) movie…
I suspect this violent demonstration against TPUSA was planned, organized and financed by a 3rd party. Where were the police to protect the speakers from being assaulted?
@unadulterated
It was. All of them have been. Left-wing activism hasn’t been organic or grassroots for decades. As much as dems love to project, these are their foot soldiers, and they know it. Your average 20 year old today has been indoctrinated to be dependent, reactive, and paranoid since childhood, they don’t have any idea how ignorant they are. There’s actually a term for it, The Dunning-Kruger Effect.
When X tried to convince us how smart he was, he referred to the “Krueger-Dunning” effect.
I laughed my head off. THat’s why I don’t believe he is an AI creation, because AI would have self-corrected. He is real, just a low clown filled with pretend that we all see through, who for some reason feels the need to criticize Turley.
James Carville is one ugly no life brain dead jerk. He has no soul and should be Putin’s left hand man.
#HateLovesAbortion
#AbortionLovesHate.
There is no reason with that crowd. They cannot and will refuse to be reasoned with. Recent history has and is showing that they are willing to kill as a testament to their unbridled rage. At some point there will be an irretrievable tipping point where rage will be met with rage. Then they will begin to suffer the the same fate that they intend and have inflicted upon MAGA. Ask not,” for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.”
There is no reason with that crowd. They cannot and will refuse to be reasoned with. … its a mob you dumb f_uck.
Which is more hateful … a non-violent person with “hateful values”, or a hateful mob physically assaulting a non-violent person with “hateful values”?
to S.B.B., Esq. your puzzle needs tweaking in this case as there is no ‘non-violent person with “hateful values..” ‘just a non-violent person with different values, which a large number of people would consider normal…. and regardless of the non-violent person’s values, there is no excuse for physically assaulting or abusing someone because you don’t like their values…
Trying to be profound eh? Fail.
Must have waited a lifetime to write that eh?
Is it profound if it is true? And as we can see by the video and all the previous videos of similar actions taken by leftists, it is true.
You shouldn’t be drinking this early in the day.
Yes, Professor, we know that these people exist. They have always been there, usually nursing their hatred in dark corners of our world. The question I had hoped to see answered by you is: how can they be crushed? How can decent people deal with the haters who sometimes feel they can attack and destroy what we have built? Does our tolerance for “free speech” simply encourage these animals?
Thank you for responding.
By the sound of your comment, there is hatred in your dark corners too.
Amend the constitution to eliminate protests in any form violent or not. Find the funding of these sick people and put them in jail.
No let us not follow our misguided European Cousins. Rather in such instances let local authorities establish free speech zones nearby but not blocking entrance to venue where events are being held. Same rules apply to right and left. Block the entrance violate the personal space of someone get arrested. Then stay in jail for 24 hrs before charges are pressed or dropped.
Many of these people want to believe they are part of something important. It allows and demands action, suitable for unstudied young adults. There are no long treatises on political theory as required reading, just action and talking points, embedded in hate. And, it’s an easy revolution with scarcely any risk. Perfect.
Many of the commenters here want to believe they are part of something important. Delusion.
But you could not be more wrong.
We are here, part of something important.
It is called America.
Democrats think they are virtuous. A delusion.
gdonaldallen,
That is a good point.
They have been sold a lie they are fighting . . . something.
These people are truly demented and satanic. The fact that they are so brazen and shameless in acting ouut such shameful conduct should be deeply troubling.
demented and satanic? So says anon.
Alright you filthy MAGAots, show your rage. Let loose, show how ugly you are.
It seems those tolerant liberals are the filthy maggots showing rage, not conservatives. Maybe you have a reading and comprehension problem?
It seems those tolerant Republicans here are the filthy maggots showing rage, not conservatives. Maybe you have a reading and comprehension problem?
Um… showing rage eh? You SF.
Thanks you made my day. It always makes my day when I trigger a liberal troll! LOL and you are triggered.
So are you saying Democrats are conservatives or Republicans are liberals?
Or are you saying the people against abortion are trying to shout down and shut up the speaker against abortion?
You comment like always makes no sense and again proves you can’t read and comprehend.
That would be the libs you dummy
______________________
One speaker told protesters to be “obnoxious” and to “show their hate” as a man dressed as death chopped the air with a sickle.
Hate is all you have. Enjoy it.
Hate is all you have. Enjoy it.
the people who call us magats put mentally ill men in bathrooms with little girls, admit they are too stupid to get an ID, and think we have a king.
That’s why we call you LIBTARDS