“F**k the USA”: Professor Delights Chicago Crowd With Anti-American and Anti-Border Rant

I have previously written about the “radical chic” in higher education of faculty members who espouse extremist views in departments purged of conservative, libertarian, or moderate voices. While it is virtually impossible to get departments to seriously consider a mainstream conservative or libertarian, schools like Princeton eagerly hire professors such as Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, who recently delighted a Chicago audience with an unhinged rant against the United States and the concept of a nation-state.

Bill Ayers and Princeton’s Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor appeared at a July 4th event and denounced the country and its anniversary.

Taylor thrilled the crowd by recounting her disgust that a woman gave her child an American flag at the airport. She credited herself by not instantly burning it, but went on to denounce the country and credited the audience for its “F**k the U.S.” attitude.

Notably, Taylor suggested that only fools rally behind the flag or the notion of a nation-state. She clearly believes not just in open borders but rejects the very concept of borders. She repeatedly declared that “borders kill” and suggested that patriotic people are simply dupes.

Bill Ayers is a former professor and one of the founders of the domestic terrorist organization, the Weather Underground. His wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was also a member of the group, and both were fugitives for several years. Dohrn is also a professor who has taught at Northwestern University School of Law.

Taylor is a Professor in the Department of African-American Studies at Princeton University. She writes for the New Yorker.

In the Chicago event, Taylor called on others to reject “the idea of loving a nation state, which is what patriotism is.” She repeatedly returned to the theme that borders are “deadly” and “borders kill people.” She explained that we have to erase any borders because they are “a tool of death and destruction.”

Furthermore, she emphasized that the very concept of a nation-state should be the “object of political struggle.”

This reflects the level of intellectual rigor in departments like the one at Princeton.  Her writings have been honored by the Marguerite Casey Foundation and Group Health Foundation, the Organization of American Historians, and the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (which gave her a fellowship).

On one level, the erasure of borders could be viewed as the “withering away of the state” espoused by Friedrich Engels and later by Vladimir LeninHowever, it reads more like the jargonistic narrative common in higher education, where radicals espouse such views without serious challenge from their colleagues.

Even European states that once allowed expanded undocumented migration are now struggling to reverse course due to the high social and security costs. However, academics such as Taylor tell students that we can eradicate any nation-states and live without borders. While most people would expect such views to be espoused by raving lunatics on the subway, Princeton made her a chair professor as the Hughes-Rogers Professor of African American Studies.

Her writings are celebrated for her combination of socialism and identity politics. The gushing articles even include praise for her use of emojis. (“All those cry-laughing yellow orbs betrayed a critic with a sense of humor.”).

Few colleagues or critics feel comfortable noting that views like the eradication of the nation-state or erasure of borders are little more than unsupported, jargon-saturated tripe. There is no effort to push her on what happens to an economy without borders where the country (or whatever will replace the nation-state) is responsible for supporting millions of immigrants.

When you hear young socialists in the Mamdani Administration (including Mamdani himself) speaking of “seizing the means of production,” it is the result of college classes taught by figures like Taylor, who offer little more than shallow sound bites and slogans. They have been told that socialism is a successful economic model despite its utter failure historically. It is a fable told by the uninformed to the unquestioning: unicorn economics, eagerly embraced like a bedtime story.

The alternative is what I have called the “liberty-enhancing economy” that the Framers embraced. The combination of political and economic freedom made this republic the greatest engine of prosperity and human rights in history. That does not mean that we do not have difficult economic and social problems. However, the suggestion that we should embrace socialism and erase borders is properly viewed as perfectly bonkers … outside of higher education.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

 

255 thoughts on ““F**k the USA”: Professor Delights Chicago Crowd With Anti-American and Anti-Border Rant”

  1. Here is a winning ticket that any modern Democrat would relish:

    EX-FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR NOMINEE ANDREW GILLUM
    COPS SAY HE HAD METH, CUT STRAWS, BONG DURING BUST

    Andrew Gillum — the former Florida politician who lost to Ron DeSantis by a slim margin in the 2018 governor’s race — allegedly had methamphetamine, cut straws, weed, pipes and a bong on him when he was arrested in Alabama.

    According to the incident report, obtained by TMZ … Gillum was arrested last week on U.S. Highway 98 near Walmart Drive in Daphne, where cops say they found 3 grams of methamphetamine, 8 pre-rolled marijuana joints, 4 cut straws, 3 pipes, and a bong during the bust.

    https://www.tmz.com/2026/07/07/andrew-gillum-had-meth-bong-and-more-during-arrest/

    Gillum lost to DeSantis in 2018 by ~ 34,000 votes (0.4% of the vote).

    and then this wholesome item:

    Graham Platner’s Ex-GF Claims He Would Sneakily Remove Condoms During Sex
    MAINE DEMOCRAT GRAHAM PLATNER
    EX CLAIMS HE TOOK OFF CONDOMS DURING SEX WITHOUT CONSENT

    Fresh trouble for Graham Platner … a second ex-girlfriend has stepped forward with new sexual misconduct allegations against the embattled Maine Senate candidate … claiming he had a penchant for stealthily removing condoms without her consent when they were banging.

    According to a new Washington Post report, Lyndsey Fifield claims Platner repeatedly removed condoms during sex without her knowledge or consent … despite allegedly knowing she wasn’t using birth control. She says she later confronted him about the alleged encounters, and a friend told the Post she remembered her being upset over his alleged behavior.

    Here is the DNC DSA Winning Ticket: Platner-Gillum in 2028!!!!

    Platner is a Nazi and a rapist
    Gillum hires gay hookers to do crystal meth even if he sez he bisexual

    Win win!!!

  2. Name-calling and “Google it”. You are useless. You contribute nothing of substance. No one needs you.

  3. Trump putting David Pakman on an enemies list would be a good topic for discussion.
    For a first amendment attorney, it’s a no-brainer.

    1. *. How can AI be charged with a crime? Its creators are charged? I assume it’s all bunk. Unless I’m personally involved with other people I think it’s all fiction.

    2. You really do not understand that because you have lied so much – no one trusts you.

      I have Zero Doubt Trump has said mean things about Pakman – Pakman has said mean things about Trump – Trump is entitled.

      Can you cite where Trump has asked the govenrment to target Pakman where there is no evidence Pakman engaged in misconduct ?

      Trump’s DOJ has and continues to go after people who are enemies of Trump – people for whom there is reasonable suspicion they have committed actual crimes.

      Not the nonsense of the left – “Show me the person and I will show you the crime” Conversely as we are learning the Obama administration had ACTUAL enemies lists – people it targeted for publicly disagreing with the president. People it sought to censor, to get fired, to take away tenure.

  4. I just finished “Rage and the Republic.” Educational, informative, well written – I’m recommending to family, friends, and my social media network.

  5. Who cares what this Taylor woman and Bill Ayers are doing? There’s an element of gravitas missing in the daily topics Prof. Turley chooses to write about. It’s not like there aren’t big, gnarly legal issues to be debating….
    • addictive social media content directed at youth (and its regulation)
    • IP rights in the age of AI (should AI companies’s compensate copyright holders for content trained on?)
    • when someone dies (e.g. Richard Feynman), can anyone make deep fake videos using his face and voice?
    • should doxxing be a criminal offense, a civil tort, or merely disparaged?

    Bill Ayers?….why give anything he spouts your attention? That’s bottom feeding for a daily theme.

    1. “That’s bottom feeding for a daily theme.”

      For fifteen consecutive years, Princeton has been the top ranked university in the country.

      So I think what you mean is top feeding.

  6. Capital Punishment For Treason
    ____________________________________

    Article 3, Section 3

    Treason against the United States, shall consist…in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    The Thomas Hickey Case

    The most famous example is Thomas Hickey, a soldier in Washington’s personal Life Guard. Hickey was convicted by a court-martial of mutiny, sedition, and treachery for his involvement in a British-backed plot to kidnap or assassinate Washington. Washington approved his execution, and Hickey was hanged in June 1776 in front of a massive crowd in New York. He is recorded as the first person executed for treason against the United States.

  7. Under 1A, people are free to speak, to articulate ideas.

    Other people, hearing those ideas, are permitted to criticize them, and to offer other ideas.

    Nobody is saying anyone doesn’t have the right to speak.

    The person who criticized the first person, and offered other ideas, never said the first person wasn’t permitted to say her ideas.

    Is that really so complicated? To me, it seems like kindergarten level stuff, but apparently there are real people in the world who appear not to understand it.

    1. Communism is unconstitutional.

      Social Security and Medicare enjoy no legal basis in the Constitution.

      Certainly, “general Welfare” is not comprised of programs that address merely 18.7% of the population.

      Social Security and Medicare—financial services and healthcare insurance—have existed for centuries in very similar forms in the free markets of the private sector.

      The judicial branch has failed thus far and must now privatize these unconstitutional programs.

      The entire communist American welfare state must also “wither on the vine.”

      Parasites may assimilate into American freedom and self-reliance or remigrate.

        1. Darren, EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY RULE BY IMPUDENT IMPERTINENCE HERE. BAN FOR LIFE!!!

  8. Would you have preferred that she not say it at all? Is your criticism of her intended to discourage her criticism of America? How is that conducive to speaking freely?

    1. Free speech includes the right to speak reprehensible things or to discourage criticism – either of america or of the left.

      What you are not permitted to do is use FORCE – government to censor people – bot can government contract out censorship.

    1. EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY RULE BY IMPUDENT IMPERTINENCE HERE.

      BAN FOR LIFE!

  9. MAGA – You are all pieces of SHIT if you don’t think Loomer is sub human.

    Here is Laura Loomer…
    “A US Senator who represents a BORDER STATE wearing Mexico’s jersey is bad enough, but I thought he was ‘super loyal’ to his medically brain dead wife who was shot in the head?” Loomer wrote on X, referring to how Kelly’s wife — the former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) — nearly died in a 2011 assassination attempt.

    It was a picture of Senator Kelly with his wife, Gabrielle Giffords.
    Laura Loomer is a piece of SHIT.

    1. Awww, you poor thing. Laura Loomer has you that upset?!? Wow. Get a life, dude. Get back on your meds.

    2. Hey, aren’t you the same low-IQ troll who said that, if anyone criticizes anyone else’s speech, then they can’t be for free speech?

      P.S. Laura Loomer doesn’t hold public office. She’s a commenter. You really need to get a grip.

        1. Are you the same person who just name called in the unhinged Laura Loomer comment?

    3. Because you say so ?

      Are US senators free to wear jesey’s of other countries – absolutely – should they ? No.

  10. Alas, what Professor Turley giveth with his right hand, he taketh away with his left.

    This is a good comment board. But it has gone to sh*t because stupid, idiotic trolls bomb it with smelly turds all day long and there is no moderator to clean it up so intelligent people can have meaningful discussions.

    1. There haven’t been intelligent discussions here since Estovir’s puppets took over 6 years ago.

      1. EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY RULE BY IMPUDENT IMPERTINENCE HERE.

        BAN FOR LIFE!

  11. Trump originally criticized crypto as a scam…then he remembered that he loves scams.

    1. Lost of people have misunderstood cyrpto and then changed their minds.

      Among Trump’s company is JP Morgan CEO Jamie Diamond.

      Cyrpto is not a scam – but just as meny can be used as part of a scam – so can cyrpto.

  12. I don’t believe that my questions are ridiculous and idiotic.
    Freedom of inquiry is part of the market place of ideas.
    Questions are a better contribution to this blog than what others bring.

    1. Questions are ridiculous when they start with the premise that believing in freedom of speech means one believes no speech should ever be criticized. Seriously, are you so low-IQ that you actually can’t distinguish between criticizing something and saying that thing should be prohibited by law?

  13. Princeton offers a class on ASCII dick art.
    Princeton is where I learned how to do this:

    ░░░░█─────────────█──▀──
    ░░░░▓█───────▄▄▀▀█──────
    ░░░░▒░█────▄█▒░░▄░█─────
    ░░░░░░░▀▄─▄▀▒▀▀▀▄▄▀──DO─
    ░░░░░░░░░█▒░░░░▄▀───YOU─
    ▒▒▒░░░░▄▀▒░░░░▄▀───LIKE─
    ▓▓▓▓▒░█▒░░░░░█▄───WHAT─
    █████▀▒░░░░░█░▀▄───YOU──
    █████▒▒░░░▒█░░░▀▄─SEE?──
    ███▓▓▒▒▒▀▀▀█▄░░░░█──────
    ▓██▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█░░░░█─────
    ▓▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒█░░░░░█────
    ░▒▒▀▀▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀░░░░░░░█─

    1. EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY RULE BY IMPUDENT IMPERTINENCE HERE.

      BAN FOR LIFE!

  14. Princeton offers a class on ASCII dick art.
    That is where I learned how to do this:

    ░░░░█─────────────█──▀──
    ░░░░▓█───────▄▄▀▀█──────
    ░░░░▒░█────▄█▒░░▄░█─────
    ░░░░░░░▀▄─▄▀▒▀▀▀▄▄▀──DO─
    ░░░░░░░░░█▒░░░░▄▀───YOU─
    ▒▒▒░░░░▄▀▒░░░░▄▀───LIKE─
    ▓▓▓▓▒░█▒░░░░░█▄───WHAT─
    █████▀▒░░░░░█░▀▄───YOU──
    █████▒▒░░░▒█░░░▀▄─SEE?──
    ███▓▓▒▒▒▀▀▀█▄░░░░█──────
    ▓██▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█░░░░█─────
    ▓▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒█░░░░░█────
    ░▒▒▀▀▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀░░░░░░░█─

    1. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⡀⢠⣀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣤⣶⣾⢟⣤⣈⠉⠙⠺⣍⠛⠷⣯⣑⡒⠀⠢⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⠶⠋⢉⣁⡀⠀⠈⠁⠈⠉⢁⣀⠈⠓⠦⣈⠻⣿⠲⠤⣀⠙⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡉⠲⣄⡈⠑⠦⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⢧⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⠀⠀⠀⠐⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠢⡀⠈⠲⠀⠀⠉⠓⢲⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣷⣾⠰⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⠀⠀⠈⠒⠦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠒⠄⠀⠒⠐⠒⢤⠙⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡿⣶⣦⢂⠘⠘⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠲⡀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⢏⠁⢹⣯⣻⣧⠀⠙⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠒⠶⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣯⣿⠂⠀⢻⣳⡝⠷⣄⡈⢱⡘⡂⢀⣀⠄⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠘⢂⣀⠲⠖⠀⣀⡀⠀⠀⢰⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣾⡇⠀⠀⠈⠓⠙⢲⣬⡙⠲⣝⣮⡙⠻⣷⣂⠀⣈⠂⠤⢄⡀⠈⠙⠒⢖⡒⠹⣯⡀⢬⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⣿⣷⣯⡴⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠛⢿⣿⡷⣽⣒⡬⠯⢝⣛⠷⠢⢴⠦⠄⡀⠨⢈⣩⣽⡟⣿⣾⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⡶⢿⠟⠱⠁⠀⠀⣽⡦⠤⢤⣝⠿⣷⣦⣉⡓⣀⢍⡙⣷⣄⡴⠛⣡⡖⠋⡙⢿⣇⣿⠏⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡿⣛⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣯⣶⣦⣌⣋⢈⣉⣩⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⣤⣴⣷⣶⣷⣿⢸⣿⣋⡔⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣷⢹⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⠏⢸⣿⣿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡾⢷⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⣹⣿⣿⣿⣯⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⠿⢶⣞⣵⠀⡼⢹⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢳⡬⢿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠋⢻⢇⣿⣯⡄⠀⣉⠻⠽⠛⠛⠉⠀⢰⡷⣾⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢋⡾⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⢹⡀⠀⣿⣦⠀⠀⠀⣀⣶⠟⣰⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⡇⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣟⣷⠀⠁⠀⢸⣿⡆⠀⢀⡽⠋⢰⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢹⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡄⣻⠻⡿⢿⣖⣷⡟⠨⢿⣦⡬⠁⠀⢻⡧⣤⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢻⣷⡄⠀⠀⢀⣰⠏⢸⠯⠤⠾⢀⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠻⣄⠀⡀⣼⠇⠀⠈⠉⠙⠳⠶⢤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀
      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠻⣿⣤⠀⠈⠁⣤⡷⠶⠶⣤⣾⣷⠶⣶⣖⠿⣶⡌⡄⣸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠛⠳⠦
      ⠀⠀⣀⣤⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠈⢿⣧⠀⠘⠁⠀⠀⠀⠰⣾⣿⡿⠿⠿⠟⠻⣷⣿⡏⢙⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠷⣶⣤⡀⠀⠀⢸⣦⡡⠠⢄⣀⣠⠶⠋⢹⡇⢸⡏⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
      ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢻⣝⣠⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⠾⠝⡏⠀⠀⠈⡇⠘⢱⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣰
      ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⢉⣿⣿⣭⡉⠀⠀⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⣇⠀⢸⣷⠀⠀⠀⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿
      ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡷⣄⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⢸⣯⡷⣶⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿
      ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠊⣇⠉⢻⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠈⠛⢦⡀⠀⠀⢻⠀⢸⣿⣿⣷⡏⠻⣆⠀⢠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿
      ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠿⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⡐⠛⠉⠉⠉⠉⠃⠀⢸⡆⢸⣿⣿⣿⡷⣤⢹⣧⢀⣟⣿⣿⣿⣿
      ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⢸⣿⣿⣿⡏⣷⠞⠹⢿⣿⣿⣷⣯⣯

  15. Why is it that a free speech advocate would prefer that people not say certain things?

    1. Darren, EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY RULE BY IMPUDENT IMPERTINENCE HERE. BAN FOR LIFE!!!

Leave a Reply