There are certain dates that have become a regular feature in American life. In February, the Sandhill Cranes return to the Platte River in Tennessee. In March, the swallows return to San Juan Capistrano…and in October, the protesters have returned to Hupper Island, the summer vacation home of Chief Justice Roberts.
The last migratory pattern is more recent and certainly less welcomed. In past years, liberal protesters have descended on the homes of conservative justices to disrupt their lives, shout abuses, and, in one case involving Justice Brett Kavanaugh, seek to kill a member of the Court. Protesters outside the home of Justice Amy Coney Barrett left bloody dolls on the lawn, knowing that she had young children inside.
This week, the protesters appeared at the vacation home of Chief Justice John Roberts in Maine. Calling themselves “kayak-tivists,” they formed flotillas facing his home to hold up signs and voice their displeasure at the jurist.
It is an ironic moment for a Chief Justice who has been regularly attacked by President Donald Trump for voting against his position in major cases ranging from tariffs to birthright citizenship. However, this is about rage not reason. Back in 2022, Becca Shaw Glaser wrote about how Mainers needed to harass Roberts whenever he ventured out of his home.
She wrote:
“Roberts is one of the most powerful people in the entire world. He comes to Maine to unwind and feel good about himself and his decisions, despite if he has just gutted our rights, forcing rape victims to give birth after an arbitrary time period determined by the government, gutted environmental protections, overruled basic gun regulations, decreed against the separation of church and state, and made politics much more unequal and infested with money.
Exactly why should we continue to let Roberts use Maine as his easygoing backdrop for fun and relaxation? Why should Roberts get to breathe in the beautiful Maine air when he is fine with destroying methods of keeping our air clean?…
Maine is not here as your happy place, your wind-down from all of your hard work destroying my civil liberties and democracy. No. May you never feel welcome here again…”
Glaser, who was later dropped as a columnist, has pushed Mainers to hound Roberts wherever he goes in Maine:
“Should you see Chief Justice John Roberts duck into Squid Ink coffee or the Port Clyde General Store this summer, consider letting him know exactly what you think of him and his illegitimate, ultra-conservative court. Yell, boo, whisper, weep audibly, give him the thumbs down or the finger, hand him a note, refuse to serve him.”
In its recent discussion of these protesters, the New York Times features Glaser and reveals how last year Glaser was approached by Roberts’ daughter, Josephine, who sought to defend her Dad during one of Glaser’s harassing protests. The Times recounts how liberals have been pushed to the breaking point by Roberts despite the fact that he has had to curtail his movement around the island.
One of the featured suffering locals is Wendy Schlotterbeck, who was outraged when Roberts was spotted celebrating the Fourth of July on the island. The Times sympathetically explains the outrage since “[Roberts] and his colleagues had just narrowed protections for transgender athletes and minors and allowed Trump’s immigration crackdown to proceed.” It recounts how Schlotterbeck has transgender relatives and “immigrant friends of hers [have] been arrested.” Outraged, she left the picnic and, the next day, joined the “kayak-tivists” outside Roberts’ home.
Protesting outside the home of a Supreme Court justice is a crime, though some of us have questioned the constitutionality of such laws. Putting that debate aside, the protests should be condemned by all Americans as reckless and wrong.
Justices may hold different views on the left or the right, but they are all people of good faith who are trying to protect what they consider the essential rights of our Republic. (Liberal justices have largely been spared such protests at their homes, though occasional protests have occurred).
What is maddening is that this Court has continued to show its independence in ruling with the law rather than a partisan agenda. Unlike those on the left who want to pack the Court with an instant liberal majority (in the name of fighting partisanship), the Court continues to vote overwhelmingly on a unanimous or nearly unanimous basis. The conservative majority also continues to rule against the Trump Administration when the law requires it.
This term has many potential blockbuster decisions and the protesters are expected to return to the homes of justices around Washington. We have every right to debate, and indeed protest, such decisions. However, we should all unite around all of these justices — on the left and the right — in denouncing these protesters literally bobbing and floating on a sea of rage.
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.”
This column appeared on Fox.com
Sir, I think you meant when the Sandhill Cranes return to the Platte River in Nebraska
The Professor knows that, but he’s making plans to move to Tennessee
Freaking google platte river Tennessee and Sandhill Crane festival Einstien.
Protesting at Roberts’ private home looks like crossing the line from protest to harassment. Protest on the Supreme Court steps.
POTUS should assign a couple competent Secret Service agents and a couple door kickers to any SCOTUS justice being threatened. “Protesters” that harass or trespass can be charged. “Protesters” that get violent can be stopped by force.
You don’t understand that no one has touched the judge etc., just a bunch of demonstrators vocalizing. What’s the problem then?
This is not just protesting and you know it you insincere leftist thug.
They can protest at the SCOTUS building, not their private homes.
Let’s say I’m getting a crowd together and protesting in front of your family because I don’t like your words.
That’s the problem.
Protest to harassment to stalking
When I hear liberals and Democrats speak in their own words, they are very fair and reasonable.
Yes. Liberals and Democrats like Bill Maher, professor Turley, they are fair and reasonable.
Illiberals who stalk SC justices, even plot and plan to assassinate one, illiberals who cheer on the killing of a health care CEO or a Bank of America VP coming back from maternity leave in a random stabbing, they, they are not fair or reasonable.
We know this by their words and actions.
After being exposed for saying and doing all kinds of bad things, people still support Trump.
That’s not the way it’s supposed to be. They should stop supporting him.
MAGA is selling-out decency
But I guess that even Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer had their fan clubs.
Hey ding-dong. You’re lib/dems supported Jim Jones… Remember the mess he left.
I’m not convinced that Turley is an expert on the Constitution.
In every article, he expresses a problem with people exercising their freedoms, such as expression, association, conscience, etc.
It’s almost as if he wants to dictate how people excercise their freedoms.
When exercising your “freedoms” intrudes on the rights of others through the forms of open harassment and threats to their well being, it is no longer freedom.
The inability of these idiots to logically understand this concept is the fundamental cause of the problem.
EightBall,
You are correct.
That is a concept illiberals cannot comprehend.
They are the ones who think a guy who shoots a healthcare CEO in the back is some kind of hero.
And you think that shooting illegals in the face is some heroic action.
I never said that. Nor do I think it.
That is just a lie you have to make up about me.
I fully support our immigration laws, as passed by Congress and those agencies who carry out those laws to deport criminal illegals, preferably without violence. But, unfortunately, sometimes the criminal illegals take it upon themselves to harm or even kill LEOs carrying out their duties.
Only when they are using their vehicle in a manner of a deadly weapon in the attempt to evade arrest. Then double tap them.
IT HAS TO DO WITH CHOICE.
The 1sy amendment only guarantees the right to “PEACEFULLY” assemble to air grievances. It does not condone harassment, violence or intimidation as part of that right. And this is where the prog/left thugs seem to want to remain willfully ignorant; and they want the remainder of us to think likewise – that they are well within their rights to cause chaos and danger.
Well, not for nothing, he’s LETTING you exercise your rights here so how’s that work for your absurd viewpoint?
There’s a time and place to protest. A judge’s private home during a holiday is not the time or place.
Decorum goes a long way in making a point, which the frustrated AWFLs lack.
It cracks me up that these are the same people that decry ‘bullying’. The irony couldn’t be cut with a knife; the logic is nonexistent. A violent temper tantrum is still a temper tantrum, and anyone that still thinks money and organization aren’t involved is deluded.
That’s actually the kicker for me: in yet another single brain-celled leap of intellectual gigantism, these fools actually believe they are activists and not thugs.
It cracks me up that these are the same people that decry ‘bullying’. As I recall, you’re not above attacking commenters here right? You don’t call them bullies …
Do you know the definition of hyprocrite?
James
You will find that definition under Anonymous in the dictionary.
Anonymous
You will find that definition under James in the dictionary.
No, you will find your Momma under James, and he says your sister ain’t hal bad either!
Ahh you got me, I AM here to bully and belittle these dopey leftists.
Full Metal Jacket
James isn’t a lefty
James,
Well said.
When they do it, it is fighting for something, or noble, or something.
It is not.
They are crazed thugs.
If it were not for his sister talking him down, that one would be assassin just may have killed a SC justice.
And that you show up here daily to insult and threaten liberals who you don’t know is a worthy action? When you do it, it is fighting for something, or noble, or something.
I have not insulted or threatened any liberals. I am perfectly fine with sane and normal liberals like Bill Maher, the good professor, my own sister.
There is a significant distinction between a sane and normal liberals and the crazy and stupid illiberals.
Bill Maher and the good professor have been pointing this distinction for years.
USF
Oh but you have Up State. Your very voicing of the anti-thesis to their narrative threatens them. It does so through connecting logic to their political narrative which exposes the fallacy and delusion of their message.
Please carry on!
No, it’s just entertainment.
Except for the dolls on the lawn incident, which could constitute criminal trespass, the depicted behavior appears to be legitimate exercise of the 1A right to free speech, so what really is the point of this column? Do I sympathize with the protestors and/or their points of view? Not at all. Would I support any kind of official effort to stifle their expression of those points of view? Never. Hopefully the justices have thick enough skins to brush this off. If they don’t, possibly that should not have accepted appointment; the potential for encountering offensive speech of this kind is part of the territory. All of us, including SC justices, have the prerogative to relocate, should the exercise of free speech by others in our present locations become unbearable. Since these protestors obviously rely on some level of support from locals to conduct their actions, perhaps that would be the best alternative. Another possibility would be for the affected justice to rally locals against the protestors in order to deny them food, lodging, and other essential services. While some might characterize that as an abuse of power, I see it as clearly within the purview of a private citizen, no matter what public office he or she might hold. None of us are immune to the necessity to get our hands dirty to clean up behavior in our own neighborhoods; again justices are not excluded from that by virtue of their positions.
“. . . the depicted behavior appears to be legitimate exercise of the 1A right to free speech . . .”
No it is not. It is “hounding” (aka stalking): to continuously chase someone or refuse to leave them alone, because you want something, e.g., their attention, their affection — or as in this case, for them to leave.
It was a crime when white supremacists did it to blacks, to leave a neighborhood. And it is a crime now.
It is “hounding” (aka stalking)? Ask yourself why the disgruntled citizens were not arrested for stalking, hounding etc. because its 100% 1st A territory. And I say good for them. Democracy in action, just like you people screaming, threatening any person eg., liberals, Turley chooses to make a target.
Turley describes the activity directed at Roberts thusly:
“Calling themselves “kayak-tivists,” they formed flotillas facing his home to hold up signs and voice their displeasure at the jurist.”
That sure sounds like his vacation home is on a lake, and the protestors are out on that lake somewhere visible from that home in kayaks with signs. It also seems to be a tremendous stretch to call that “picketing” (which implies an effort to impair traffic to and from the object picketed), much less effective “intimidation”. I might or might not support a right for protestors to parade back and forth on the sidewalk in front of his house with signs, the devil would be in the details on that evaluation. But on the water in kayaks? Give me a break. And re the other commenters calling this an effort to influence decisions and citing the 1954 precedent: they should get a grip – all meaningful political speech activity is an effort to influence the decision of someone or other who holds political power, that is its entire point. Should it all be banned? That court decision, if correctly cited (I’m not bothering to check) is wrong, directly violates 1A and the purpose it was created to serve, and should be challenged and overturned. The now nearly universal absence of objective analysis in this comments section of cited behavior wrt whether or not that behavior reflects a constitutionally guaranteed liberty, which has been replaced by nearly exclusively subjective reaction that depends solely on whether the commenter agrees or disagrees politically with the point of the behavior, is disheartening and frankly disgusting, and Turley increasingly seems to be deliberately inflaming that kind of reaction. At one time, it was the lefties here who were primarily guilty of those kinds of irrational responses, but nearly all of the right-leaning commenters have now allowed those lefties (along with Turley, whatever his motivation might be) to suck them down into the same fetid pit. Nearly everyone here should all do more thinking and less undisciplined emoting before sending comments.
“But on the water in kayaks? Give me a break.”
Why did you leave this out? “. . . Mainers needed to harass Roberts *whenever he ventured out of his home*.” (emphasis added)
“Nearly everyone here should all do more thinking . . .”
Speaking of which:
If you had done some independent research and reading, you could have discovered that there is a lot more to the *hounding* that just kayaks.
Turley describes the activity directed at Roberts thusly:
“Calling themselves “kayak-tivists,” they formed flotillas facing his home to hold up signs and voice their displeasure at the jurist.”
That sure sounds like his vacation home is on a lake, and the protestors are out on that lake somewhere visible from that home in kayaks with signs. It also seems to be a tremendous stretch to call that “picketing” (which implies an effort to impair traffic to and from the object picketed), much less effective “intimidation” or “stalking”. I might or might not support a right for protestors to parade back and forth on the sidewalk in front of his house with signs, the devil would be in the details on that evaluation. But on the water in kayaks? Give me a break. And re the other commenters calling this an effort to influence decisions and citing the 1954 precedent: they should get a grip – all meaningful political speech activity is an effort to influence the decision of someone or other who holds political power, that is its entire point. Should it all be banned? That court decision, if correctly cited (I’m not bothering to check) is wrong, directly violates 1A and the purpose it was created to serve, and should be challenged and overturned. The nearly complete absence of objective analysis of behavior wrt whether or not that behavior reflects a constitutionally guaranteed liberty, nearly universally replaced by subjective reaction that depends solely on whether the commenter agrees or disagrees politically with the point of the behavior is disheartening and frankly disgusting, and Turley increasingly seems to be deliberately inflaming that kind of reaction. At one time, it was the lefties here who were primarily guilty of those kinds of irrational responses, but nearly all of the right-leaning commenters have now allowed those lefties (along with Turley, whatever his motivation might be) to suck them down into the same fetid pit. Nearly everyone here should all do more thinking and less undisciplined emoting before sending comments.
It is illegal to picket a judge’s residence in efforts to influence the court. This is a 1950’s era law that is predominantly accepted by legal scholars. The Feds should enforce it and stop this nonsense.
Add stalking to residence…
the 1st amendment only guarantees PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLY to air grievances – it never mentions a right to threaten, harass or intimidate – those are the tactics of the Jacobins.
And what is a grievance then? If he was threatened, intimidated, and harassed, wouldn’t the secret service be involved? Yet he keeps showing up at his Maine house. Go figa huh?
Your ignorance is astounding, and if it isn’t plain pure ignorance; then your level of obfuscation is a talent only found in sociopaths and democrats ( and I wonder if there is a difference between the two)
My, my, my, aren’t you just full of vim and vigor today. You put yourself out there, anonymously of course, attack blindly anything that smacks of liberalism, and when you rightly get criticized for the sickness you spew, you call others sociopaths and whatever else your twisted mind targets. Sociopath… remember, its takes one to know one.
That is not liberalism.
That is illiberalism.
Learn the difference.
Picketing the residence of ANY judge is an attempt to sway or influence the court. It is illegal to do so by law.
Then you’ll get more justices like kjb and Sotomayor. No person should live with such stress just to do a job, military excluded.
They want a war. Give it to them.
Attacks on Supreme Court Justices are troubling, but seeing them as attacks on only Supreme Court Justices is more troubling. It almost seems as though violence has become accepted as another form of free speech (similar to “mostly peaceful protests”). It was inevitable. When America’s borders were opened to every other culture in the world (including cultures that shoot guns in the air while screaming “Death To America!”), how could any intelligent person have thought that the glue holding America together would not be stressed? “Lord of the Flies” by William Golding is a worthy read.
Not only such attacks, but what about average Americans, don’t they count?
So read Lord of the Flies huh? Think Dr. Seuss is par for this crowd.
Stephen B. Benisch, Esq.,
Well there is a small but growing group of people who do in fact believe violence may be necessary and even justified to reach one’s political goals.
Truly disturbing.
… group… and they’re called uneducated conservatives, people without high school diplomas.
Wrong.
The poll the good professor pointed out of those who believed violence was justified were young, educated and generally identified as Democrat.
You are just making up lies again.
Did you mean Platte River in Nebraska?
Striking fear into the judges and threats to their families influence how they vote. It shouldn’t but it does. They worry about their kids and their own lives. How many liberal judges go through these type of threats from the right?
Question, how do you know threats influence judges, have you done that?
Why would a person threaten a judge but for to influence them?
Question, how do you know threats influence judges, have you done that?
Man, leftys get mad when they are in the minority!
Only lefties?
“Exactly why should we continue to let Roberts use Maine . . .”
Two reasons:
1) You don’t own Maine.
2) Civilized people use arguments, persuasion, debate — not physical harassment and bloody dolls.
Sam, your first point goes deeper than it looks.
Let assumes she gets to grant permission. A justice doesn’t need the approval of people who disagree with his rulings to walk into a coffee shop in Maine. Neither does anyone else.
That’s the formation tell. Somewhere along the way, losing on an issue became a claim on the other guy’s life.
Formation tell huh? Words with no meaning olly.
And this, deeper than? No it does not. Man you spew nonstop GOBBLEDYGOOK its defies belief.
Anonymous, you’ve reviewed more of my comments than my editor has. Still waiting on your first original thought.
Take your time.
Formation is an your original thought huh? Ya fooled us all. We just see you as a pompous old fool screaming, begging for attention. And failing. It just ain’t sticking. Editor huh? How unimpressive. Only a delusional old fool would say something like that. So, don’t start foaming at the mouth… calm down, wait an hour before screaming at everyone.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Oh oh Olly is big mad this morning.
Typical of the left. Some jerk pretending to be me. The real (Dustoff)
I’m sure this fool has no idea, what Dustoff even means.
And no one is listening …
I suppose you’re the only “thing” who can hear it
And what is it saying Olly?
OLLY,
That is lost on them.
They think these rulings some how harm them in some way and they use that to justify their actions, which border on the criminal. As someone else pointed out, it is illegal to protest outside of a SC justice home.
They want to protest, do it outside of the SC building.
As for formation,that would require a degree of civility, education and common sense.
Well said Upstate. What you’re describing isn’t thinking though. It’s a reflection of how they have been formed to instinctively respond to certain triggers.
You can’t sit at this counter?
Use Maine? Just as you would decry trolls showing up here and expressing their opinions. Well Mainers just doing their 1st A thing. Got a problem with that eh?
And BTW, you don’t own Maine so butt out. Its none of your business.
Reading between the lines, it’s probably a reasonable supposition that former “journalist” Becca Shaw Glaser tipped off the New York Times that Roberts was vacationing in Maine and that Glaser had helped organize a handful of privileged white liberals to make him miserable while he is there.
The New York Times, of course, decides to take the tip and run with it. In doing so, they have chosen to publish where Roberts home is located. They do so with the knowledge that recent polls show a large percentage of Democrat voters are deranged nuts who support political assassinations.
I understand JT’s belief in free speech, but when a nut approaches you with threats it should not be considered free speech. People like these “kayak-protestors” are unhinged and you can never tell how unhinged people will react. Do you want to wait until someone is actually killed?
I keep coming back to formation.
The real test of a constitutional system isn’t what people do when they win. It’s what they’ve been formed to do when they lose.
You can believe a decision is badly wrong. Protest it. Write about it. Challenge its reasoning. Bring another case. Elect people who share your view. Amend the Constitution. Those are all ways citizens respond to a decision.
Something changes when the target is no longer the decision but the judge’s private life. Show up at his house. Confront him at the coffee shop. Refuse to serve him. Make sure he can’t escape it even on vacation.
So here’s the question. What have we formed citizens to do when the system produces an outcome they deeply oppose?
Winning tells you very little about someone’s commitment to constitutional government. Losing is where you find out.
I keep coming back to formation. You certainly do and you sound like someone screaming at the world demanding they play your childish words games.
Anonymous, yes, I keep coming back to formation. I’ve written two books about it.
You keep coming back to me. I’m beginning to think I’ve found my most dedicated reader.
Two books huh? And one can bet that no one is buying. You pathetic old fool.
You’re our most dedicated commenter; a pathological bent in your thinking we assume. Or just plain ole stupid.
OLLY,
What you are describing is something sane, normal, rational people would do.
As we see by their words and actions, they believe it is their right to harass and intimidate people. They give into their more base, child like emotions of “I want it and I want it now!”
The part that is really lost on them is as the good professor points out, “. . . the Court continues to vote overwhelmingly on a unanimous or nearly unanimous basis.”
But the SC rules to protect women and women sports and women’s spaces and now the Court is illegitimate.
There is no reasoning with these people.
“Winning tells you very little about someone’s commitment to constitutional government. Losing is where you find out.”
Excellent Olly. We have a bunch of losers on the blog, and most of them seem to be anonymous creatures lacking knowledge and respect for the Constitution. They need to live their dreams in the hellholes the world has experienced from those who dream such dreams: the hellholes of the Russian Gulag system, Nazi concentration and extermination camps, the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, and many others.
SM, formation isn’t new and it isn’t theory. It’s been happening as long as people have lived together. And people have been writing about it for a few thousand years.
Formation is just how we become who we are. Family forms us. School forms us. So do church, neighborhood, work, culture and habit. Most of it happens without anyone calling it formation.
Citizen formation is the same process with one question attached: What kind of citizen is all of that producing?
Does it produce people who can weigh evidence, own their choices, act without being told, work with others and accept a fair loss? Or does it produce something else?
We spend enormous energy arguing about government, policy and outcomes. I’m interested in what sits underneath all of it: the people those systems depend on.
A constitutional republic doesn’t run itself. Parchment doesn’t govern. People do. And people carry habits, capacities and expectations they learned somewhere.
So if self-government asks something of the citizen, we should be asking whether anything is still teaching it. That’s why I spend so much time on formation.
I didn’t discover formation. Aristotle knew it. Cicero knew it. The Founders and Tocqueville knew it. A people’s character and capacities help set the limits of the government they can sustain.
What I’m doing is taking that old question and trying to measure it. What kind of citizen are we forming. Because the ceiling of government competence is set by the floor of citizen capacity.
Did it form when burning a flag became speech?
Once again, as Thomas Paine noted: any attempt to argue with someone who has repudiated reason as a principle of rational debate is like administering medicine to the dead. While perhaps not yet physically “gone,” the Maine “kayak-tivists” prove yet again that Democrats are not only evil, they are stupid.
Thomas Paine never used a kayak for his activism during his era, so he knows nothing about how fulfilling it can be to be a kayak-tivisit! Me? I never step away from my mom’s basement where I have free wifi. no kayak for me. not a hard decision at all!
The right resorts to name-calling.
That’s some real governance there.
No thoughtful deliberations about the merits of an issue.
Just call call your political opponent a name.
Just call call your political opponent a name? And where else can one find the 1st A working but on this blog.
Name calling… works for both sides of the spectrum.
My personal favorite is- snake in the grass. 😂
They’re emotional. They meet the world with emotion and not reason. When attempting to use reason the edit. Editing emotions can’t be done..
Anonymoose
“the protests should be condemned by all Americans as reckless and wrong.”
No. Hell no. Roberts deserves to be protested because he enables the lawless Trump. Protesting is a core 1A right: one would think such a strong “defender” of 1A such as Turley would know this.
Lawless? how come you never provide details of your TDS machinations?
“Protesting is a core 1A right”
They are not protesting trying to sincerely convince Roberts of their argument and to effect his vote because they know it won’t.
They are threatening him with “We know where you live” because the left thinks violence is the answer to their unpopularity woes.
I never said I was intelligent. I post long and tired AI comments and stupid shite because it makes me look clever and / or it pays for my lifestyle.
First if SCOTUS says something is Constitutional it isnt lawless. Second if SCOTUS says something is unconstitutional and its been done by Trump, how is that Roberts or anyone else defending Trump?
The Constitution has no provisions for SCOTUS to have the sole power to declare what is and is not Constitutional.
Such a life for these young protesters. Living in rage and hate through their twenties for causes they haven’t studied, then living to earn money for a couple of decades (their pupae stage), only to emerge later in life with the rage bubbling up again. Hence, the great dichotomy, troupes of the young and old marching together full of emotional rage fueled by hatred. Strange and tragic, they have stripped away the joy of life.
Sounds like you lived through it too, Don.
gdonaldallen,
That is what happens when they fail to grow up past their ID phase of childhood.
They’ve been told to use their hatred and anger to fuel their conduct.
Leads to the Dark Side that does.
-g
The leftists have lost their minds. They are in full meltdown mode and believe everything they see and hear on the MSM. They believe the Harpies, the Maddcows, every single lie.
One does not need MSM to protest Roberts. All the reasons are openly published on the SCOTUS website.
What a way to make a living. How sad, that all one’s life consists of is to scream at someone else.
You mean like on this blog?
No screaming here. Instead, Prof. Turley writes rationally.
What are we supposed to do for income if we do not post far left agitprop as our employer dictates? Do you expect me to get a real job? Besides I’m lonely, have no lover, all of the gays block me on the gay apps. I really have no choice but to spend all of my time here to make believe I have friends!
LMAO
I try my best 🤡
I want to make a joke about Cornell, but I don’t want to get sued 😉
No screaming here. Seriously?
BTW, its not about Turley, it about the commenters insulting threatening etc.
Except for you.