Right.. and you don’t establish gun laws because you don’t agree with it.. who cares about the carnage happening every year.. constantly…only in the US..
One of the dumbest takes I have read. 1St amendment rights are protected speech, PERIOD! You don’t get to ban speech just because you don’t agree with it. If that were so I’d welcome you all back to September 1st, 1939. Weaponization is where it leads!
I guess you didn’t understand my response either. Don’t start negative comments towards a person. That’s what the Orange team does. THAT says way more about you than anything. We are talking about free speech, right? Lol. I wasn’t referring to your article as dumb, although I have reread it and now see why you might have thought that way. I was talking about the dumb take in reference to someone suggesting we should not allow the hateful rhetoric on the platform. That’s the whole idea behind the first amendment. In the end, I was fully agreeing with you! Have a wonderful day!
Okay, I apologize. I thought indeed that you referred to my article, and without your explanation I would have never guessed what you mean. From my point of view your comment -- "one of the dumbest takes I've read" -- sounded very negative, hence my reply. I'm glad we agree, have a wonderful day too.
Right.. and you don’t establish gun laws because you don’t agree with it.. who cares about the carnage happening every year.. constantly…only in the US..
One of the dumbest takes I have read. 1St amendment rights are protected speech, PERIOD! You don’t get to ban speech just because you don’t agree with it. If that were so I’d welcome you all back to September 1st, 1939. Weaponization is where it leads!
Did you even read what I wrote. Your negative comment says more about you than about the article.
I guess you didn’t understand my response either. Don’t start negative comments towards a person. That’s what the Orange team does. THAT says way more about you than anything. We are talking about free speech, right? Lol. I wasn’t referring to your article as dumb, although I have reread it and now see why you might have thought that way. I was talking about the dumb take in reference to someone suggesting we should not allow the hateful rhetoric on the platform. That’s the whole idea behind the first amendment. In the end, I was fully agreeing with you! Have a wonderful day!
Okay, I apologize. I thought indeed that you referred to my article, and without your explanation I would have never guessed what you mean. From my point of view your comment -- "one of the dumbest takes I've read" -- sounded very negative, hence my reply. I'm glad we agree, have a wonderful day too.
Yah I didn’t do a good job on that one. That’s on me! All the best!
Whew, I'm glad we resolved that peacefully. Feels so much better ;)