'libertarian' thinks a seatbelt violation should mean you lose all your rights
x.com/teapartytempes…

When you cannot win, ad hominem

The clarity is wrong. The appeal does not require it, the stay does.

'a law was passed, ruled unconstitutional, but congress never repealled the unconstitutional law, so even though SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional, its still good'
-someone who does not understand how things work.

this has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I have seen where someone claims rights to other peoples property.
x.com/umbrellaboss/s…

My credit card debt makes me richer.

The right to life is negated by heart attacks, apparently the right to bear arms is negated by gun jams
x.com/FarmFermFree/s…

FOR THE LAST TIME FOREIGNERS AREN'T PAYING THE TARIFFS

Remember a few weeks ago when musk claimed this was a lie?

appeal to popularity fallacies are not good argument. The law does not care how popular your argument is.

Coward keeps saying stupid shit then looking down their posts so no one can comment.

No fighting words CAN be hate speech, it is not ALWAYS hate speech. There are requirements for when speech are fighting words.

If they were then they would be protected, as SCOTUS has pointed out, hate speech is protected.