Posts made by blablarg18

LOL someone put him in Parliament - & clothed - but close enough.

@raphjd Would be great if anybody knew who uploaded.

Maese-Czeropski's own smirk-upload?

Bf's revenge-upload?

Or a warning shot, by someone else to someone else? Top levels of all governments said to be giant mutual-blackmail rings, USA especially.

Back to @amd11's point - There are sure to be, um, alternate angles on this & many other infractions, from 24/7 building security.

I just never thought about it before.

@amd11 And yet Lauren Boebert caught huge flak, maybe mmore, for only getting her boob grabbed.

CNN’s @eliehonig: Jack Smith wants “Donald Trump convicted before the election”

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1736084401279340600

Regime knows, their ONLY hopes to stop The People from vote in Trump, are

• jail him

• assassinate him...... thus, recent flood of Regime commentary how he's Hitler again blah blah blah - they aim to activate some sleeper

"Democrats will heal USA, restore dignity. Grownups in charge." And here they are... um I'd rather go back to Mean Tweets.

Of course, Establishment GOP is as bad.

Entire "Uniparty" is ridiculous mess.

Oh look @hubrys I know you'd want George Santos' take. https://twitter.com/MrSantosNY/status/1736073437427249544

Having sex in a United States government building and filming it is the reason you got heat.

You being gay and having gay sex NO BODY gives a rats ass…

No one is perusing a political agenda, we are just disgusted about your VILE behavior as a staffer to a United States senator.

Now you do put a new definition to “Fuck around and find out”!

Aidan you will forever be remembered as the Democrats favorite sloppy bottom…

PS . If him: How weird that he thinks "love" is bareback stunt-fucking.

I might be fine with bareback stunt-fucking. I just see what it is.

It's bareback stunt-fucking. Love is something different.

I know what time of day it is. Libs clearly don't. Deranged.

@raphjd Ooh not saying Aidan Maese-Czeropski did it - but on his own, he has made statement.

Plays victim card. I say he is a victim - of his parents, that deranged name.

@raphjd But is this protest? Speech? Insurrection?

It doesn't interrupt official proceedings.

But does symbolize, for world to see, USA Congress as fuckhouse, gay bath house, whore house.

@hubrys I literally quote YOU and say "In which case". You can't even read, can you? Much less argue.

If you were a lawyer, you'd know people explore arguments - prefaced once by "For sake of argument" or "In which case" or "If that were so" - Once & then it's assumed.

Your behavior lame even by Shady Lawyer standards. I don't think you are one.

I do sit & watch your hallucinations manifest - or should I say your demons?

You don't care about Free Speech - until it's pedo, or hatefully anti-Christian.

Which at minimum supports inference: You don't care about Free Speech. Maybe worse??

But anyway YOU have said display was not real religious faith - only blasphemy. aka hate speech

And, as lib, YOU think hate speech (so-called) should be censored or at least removed to non-government platform. Check - mate.

(not quite my view - but more than worth a look)

@hubrys Hey DUMBASS: I repeated your assumption, your concession, back to you.

Preceded by "In which case". You can read, right? Do you have basic literacy?

It's called "for sake of argument" - which you should know if you really were a lawyer.

As whether blasphemous displays should be taken down: It depends who owns the platform.

You get to put blasphemy & mockery - and of course you will - on your lawn.

You don't get to put it on mine.

In this case, platform owner is State of Iowa, whose Constitution reads:

Constitution of the State of Iowa, codified.

Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings
hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and
establish a free and independent government....

Satan is by definition, enemy of Supreme Being (God). Even its followers say so.

When followers put its bullcrap in Iowa State Capitol, by definition they commit insurrection against Iowa government.

Didn't libs say at one point, insurrection is bad?

Now, you can argue any tension of that vs. USA First Amendment. BUT, before it can get to USA Courts there must be injury - a question to decide.

So yes the display must be removed.

After removal, argument before court that Iowa constitution conflicts with USA.

To recap,

• people who want removal, correctly follow Iowa Constitution

• people who say that violates USA Constitution, jump the gun

Enough of your idiot circles, illiteracy & hallucinations.

Bottom line - You don't care about Free Speech. We all know.

"You're assuming their motives" - Nope. I repeat your assumption, your concession, back to you.

@hubrys "Their point, as I surmise it" - So you're hallucinating again?

You think you know?

Either you know..... in which case you need to come clean

Or you don't.

"protest public religious displays" - Nope. Either they made a religious display............ or they sought to mock & blaspheme & tear down. You yourself have conceded it was the latter. You, as a lib, believe yourself that expressions of hate are not protected.

"the TST does not believe or worship Satan" - in which case, they have no business making a "religious" "holiday" display in Iowa State Capitol.

DUMBASS.

Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.

NOT, as you yourself have now been maneuvered (by me) into admitting, to express or celebrate religion.

Go back to what I said earlier:

How would yall libs feel to see a display celebrates Hitler, in taxpayer funded-protected space at Iowa Capitol?

Oh wait - as with satan you'd feel thrill to see your secret hero & master. Let's try something else.

Ummm.... How would yall libs feel to see display that blasphemed & mocked Mohammed in Iowa Capitol? ... USA authorities would CRASH DOWN on such displays - and you'd cheer

Stop pretending you care about Free Speech.

No one believes you @hubrys

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaa - you clown

This is you:

And this is proper answer to you:

Oh I get it. You @hubrys are so retarded, you thought I said judges enforce Preambles.

No. Not what I said. You have responded to................... nothing. Way off my actual point.

Once again: Congratulations, hubrys dumbass retard who hallucinates.

@raphjd I'll give him this: Nice haircut. And legs muscles not bad.

Saucy amateur clip, I'm a bit surprised if it hasn't been torrented yet.

https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/15/staffer-caught-filming-sex-tape-senate-hearing-room/

Staffer & boss not ID'd yet in media - but Twitter comments suggest staffer is known & belongs to Ben Cardin (D).

George Papadapoulos weighs in - McGonigal was key to FBI's non-case on him - & Peter Strzok's boss - yes, THAT Strzok.

https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1735481435388031345

Ex-FBI Counterintelligence Chief, and Peter Strzok’s boss, Charles McGonigal, who was in charge of my “case” during the Russia investigation scam, was just sentenced to 4+ years for colluding with Russian oligarchs.

"I love how the non-lawyers...." - Sorry, your dumbshit authority games don't work here. You cited one decision where Preamble was rejected - which in NO way proves you are, or ever have been, a lawyer. Meanwhile, at many other points, Preambles are indeed cited by actual lawyers & legal commentators - as they find convenient at the time.

And spare rest of us, your pretense of caring about Free Speech.

You don't.

Except of course when satan, or, pornographic children's books - your only times. Know what that makes you @hubrys ?

No honest answer eh? You'd rather not admit it?

My only 'L' would be that, until now, I had forgotten to mention your apparent support for pornographic children's books along with (we now see) the other.

PS. Coincidental RFK quote: "“Trusting the experts is not a feature of science. It’s not a feature of democracy. It’s a feature of religion and totalitarianism.”

And again - hubrys I have zero reason to believe you even are one. You sure don't argue well, or with any intelligence. I don't believe your self-claims, and you're further stupid for trying to set up your self-claims in anonymous forum where NO ONE should believe ANYONE's self-claims.