Democrat terrorists released by the hundreds while every 1/6 protester faces prison



Show us where it says you have to make bail easy for domestic terrorists and flight risks to take advantage of, imbecile. We'll wait.

:laugh:

Wow. Just fucking wow.

You fucking ignorant hillbilly.

'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.'

Which fucking word are you having trouble with?
 


Raise money...for a DOMESTIC FUCKING TERRORIST? Obviously, yes, that's hard for all the sane people to justify. :laugh:

No, it is IMPOSSIBLE you dumb fucking idiot. If there is no bail granted, no one can raise money for bail. Seriously, you can't figure this one out?

If someone is a flight risk, then NO BAIL SHOULD BE GRANTED.
 


Do I need to break out the crayons? Try comprehending it so we don't have to go through this a fourth time. Obviously, if the person is a flight risk or a domestic terrorist, you don't give them bail, or you set it so incredibly high that it will financially destroy them to screw it up.

Again, obviously. A normal, adult level debater would have comprehended this about twelve posts ago. :palm:

Grasp it yet? :awesome:

Your proposal is unconstitutional. A fucking sixth grader would have grasped that about twelve posts ago.
 
No, it is IMPOSSIBLE you dumb fucking idiot. If there is no bail granted, no one can raise money for bail. Seriously, you can't figure this one out?

If someone is a flight risk, then NO BAIL SHOULD BE GRANTED.

Or take away his passport.
 
Wow. Just fucking wow.

You fucking ignorant hillbilly.

'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.'

Which fucking word are you having trouble with?

The word "excessive." When someone is a domestic terrorist or a flight risk, a million dollar bail is NOT excessive.

Comprehend it now, genius? :awesome:

 
No, it is IMPOSSIBLE you dumb fucking idiot. If there is no bail granted, no one can raise money for bail. Seriously, you can't figure this one out?

If someone is a flight risk, then NO BAIL SHOULD BE GRANTED.

Again, the judge is completely irrelevant in this equation (speaking of 'dumb fucking idiots'). Whatever they set the bail at, if they allow any at all, Democrats help the terrorists get back on the streets to violate more people's rights. The point here is about the Democrats aiding domestic terrorism, not the decision the judge made, imbecile. Try to keep up.

Still failing to comprehend it? :awesome:
 


1) I can tell you they aren't charged with terrorism because terrorism isn't a chargeable crime. The charge would be arson, rioting, assault on a police officer, etc.

2) Here are six of the domestic terrorists the Vice Resident of the United States herself helped get out of jail so they could burn down more cities and violate more people's rights:

Davlin Devonte Gates (strangulation)
Donavan Dexter Boone (strangulation with multiple witnesses)
Matthew Owens Earl Thompson (breaking and entering)
Tyrone Thomas Shields (assault)
Reece Omaur Bonneville (assault)
Marcus Marshun Butler (assault)

Man twice bailed out by Kamala Harris-backed fund — gets arrested again

Kamala Harris and Biden Staffers Donated to Bail Out Folks Arrested During Riots, Here's What One of Them Then Did

Next. :cool:

I didn't realize that one could commit domestic terrorism in their own home. None of those you listed were charged with arson, rioting, assault on a police officer, etc. So what exactly is your argument based on other than ridiculous claims since domestic abuse is NOT domestic terrorism. Are you completely illiterate to think they are?
 
Your proposal is unconstitutional. A fucking sixth grader would have grasped that about twelve posts ago.

You failing to comprehend that the meaning of "excessive" varies depending on whether the person is a flight risk or domestic terrorist, etc., in no way makes anyone who wants high or no bail for flight risks anti-Constitution. That's just you being too low-IQ to comprehend incredibly straightforward concepts.

Plus, you ACTUALLY oppose virtually EVERY part of the Constitution.

giphy.webp
 
I didn't realize that one could commit domestic terrorism in their own home. None of those you listed were charged with arson, rioting, assault on a police officer, etc. So what exactly is your argument based on other than ridiculous claims since domestic abuse is NOT domestic terrorism. Are you completely illiterate to think they are?

LOL. Yeah I was thinking the same. :rofl2: He's a special case.
 


The word "excessive." When someone is a domestic terrorist or a flight risk, a million dollar bail is NOT excessive.

Comprehend it now, genius? :awesome:


I am still waiting for you to list anyone charged with domestic terrorism or even arson, rioting, assault on a police officer, etc. that was bailed out by the fund you claim is bailing out domestic terrorism.

I guess you consider anyone with an IQ over 80 to be a genius based on your reading, logic and thinking skills presented here.
 


You failing to comprehend that the meaning of "excessive" varies depending on whether the person is a flight risk or domestic terrorist, etc., in no way makes anyone who wants high or no bail for flight risks anti-Constitution. That's just you being too low-IQ to comprehend incredibly straightforward concepts.

Plus, you ACTUALLY oppose virtually EVERY part of the Constitution.

giphy.webp

Nope. If the person is a flight risk, they are denied bail. Period, end of story. And I support every part of the Constitution.

I think I've batted you around like a pinata for long enough. Bye!
 
I didn't realize that one could commit domestic terrorism in their own home. None of those you listed were charged with arson, rioting, assault on a police officer, etc. So what exactly is your argument based on other than ridiculous claims since domestic abuse is NOT domestic terrorism. Are you completely illiterate to think they are?

Jaleel Stallings: "MFF paid $75,000 to bail out Stallings, who shot at a SWAT Team during May riots with a modified pistol, Fox9 reported. He was charged with attempted murder"

There, a direct quote of a direct example of the fund the Vice Resident of the United States herself publicly encouraged people to donate to...putting not just murderers and rapists, but explicitly a domestic terrorist, after their violent attack, back onto the streets. Does that pass your little test to be able to say what is already common knowledge...that Democrats openly sponsor domestic terrorism? Or would you like to invent another bullshit diversion?

:awesome:
 


That's idiotic. Flight risks and terrorists SHOULD be denied bail, crack-smoking lunatic. :lolup:

So everyone arrested for being in the US Capitol should be held without bail? Even I don't think that should be the case even with all the video and picture evidence of their violent acts.
image.jpg
 


Jaleel Stallings: "MFF paid $75,000 to bail out Stallings, who shot at a SWAT Team during May riots with a modified pistol, Fox9 reported. He was charged with attempted murder"

There, a direct quote of a direct example of the fund the Vice Resident of the United States herself publicly encouraged people to donate to...putting not just murderers and rapists, but explicitly a domestic terrorist, after their violent attack, back onto the streets. Does that pass your little test to be able to say what is already common knowledge...that Democrats openly sponsor domestic terrorism? Or would you like to invent another bullshit diversion?

:awesome:

Your issue is with the judge. Period. End of story.
 
Nope. If the person is a flight risk, they are denied bail.

It's a matter of opinion who is and is not a flight risk. That's why it is argued out in court all the time, dumb-ass. :nono:

And I support every part of the Constitution.

Except free speech, free religious exercise, gun rights, state sovereignty, due process, and every other right that's specifically spelled out in unmistakable clarity, sure.

:bs:

I think I've batted you around like a pinata for long enough. Bye!

I would run to after your performance here. :laugh:
 


Jaleel Stallings: "MFF paid $75,000 to bail out Stallings, who shot at a SWAT Team during May riots with a modified pistol, Fox9 reported. He was charged with attempted murder"

There, a direct quote of a direct example of the fund the Vice Resident of the United States herself publicly encouraged people to donate to...putting not just murderers and rapists, but explicitly a domestic terrorist, after their violent attack, back onto the streets. Does that pass your little test to be able to say what is already common knowledge...that Democrats openly sponsor domestic terrorism? Or would you like to invent another bullshit diversion?

:awesome:

It's amazing the way the RW websites change facts or forget to include them.

Jaleel Stallings was charged with lesser crimes than Derick Chauvin and I don't recall you complaining that Chauvin was out on bail.
 
So everyone arrested for being in the US Capitol should be held without bail? Even I don't think that should be the case even with all the video and picture evidence of their violent acts.
image.jpg

Well that depends. Is trying to resist the open theft of the presidency domestic terrorism? The people who spent the last four years straight committing non-stop domestic terrorism in every corner of the country say it is...but consider the source.

:bs:
 
Back
Top