cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam -- Trump is already looking for ways to change the ethnic makeup of the immigrant population. As far as illegals, don't be surprised if he prioritizes deporting non-whites while being more lenient with whites.

True

---

Where do you guys come up with these wacky conspiracy theories?

---

From Republicans "White women have more children and we will keep out people of color."

---

I can glean the content, but from where do you keep getting the weird conspiracies.

---

Straight from the white supremacist propaganda

---

Maybe get new friends?

---

OR call out racism.

---

Racism, party of four!

---

That's funny

Plainly unconstitutional and unlawful. https://t.co/sslHoWq1nJ

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) January 21, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

The FACE act, contrary to what the Minnesota AG said, does specifically deal with churches so it isn't a stretch to apply it.

---

It applies to churches. That's not the issue.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

---

Overreacting?? Because I think it qualifies as a violation of the face act and you don't? So because I disagree with you that is an overreaction?

Somali Sam gonna give value to his buyers!

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

---

This post needs to be in Hamas Harry's Top 10.

It perfectly blends TDS, disinformation, and projection in ways so few can do.

I came across this and thought some of you would enjoy expressing your opinion:

Recently Americans have been exposed to videos of ICE agents forcing their way into homes. It appears there is a recent internal memo which says ICE agents(Immigration and Customs Enforcement) can use administrative warrants (Form I-205) to enter homes to arrest individuals with a final removal order, authorizing force after knocking and announcing, a shift from prior policy requiring judicial warrants or consent, sparking debate over constitutional rights. However, immigrant rights groups emphasize that most ICE warrants are administrative, not judicial, and don't grant entry without consent unless it's a judicial warrant signed by a judge.

Key Points:
* New Policy: A new DHS memo allows agents to use administrative warrants (Form I-205) for home entry to arrest individuals with a final deportation order, using reasonable force if no answer.

* Controversial Interpretation: This interpretation differs from past guidance, which required consent or a judicial warrant for home entry, and is criticized by former officials and advocates as potentially violating Fourth Amendment rights.

* Administrative vs. Judicial Warrants:

* Administrative warrants (I-205) are internal ICE documents, not signed by judges, and historically required consent for home entry.

* Judicial warrants are signed by a judge and allow entry based on probable cause, but ICE doesn't typically have these for home entry.

* Your Rights: You do not have to open the door or let agents in unless they have a judicial warrant (signed by a judge) or you give consent, according to groups like the ACLU and immigrant advocates.

What to Do if ICE Comes to Your Door:
1. Don't Open the Door: Do not open the door unless they show a judicial warrant.
2. Ask for Identification & Warrant: Ask officers to slide the warrant under the door or hold it up to the window.
3. Check the Warrant: Verify it's a judicial warrant (signed by a judge) and lists your name and address.
4. State Your Position: If it's only an administrative warrant, state, "You do not have the right to enter without consent," and ask them to leave.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I came across this and thought some of you would enjoy expressing your opinion:

Recently Americans have been exposed to videos of ICE agents forcing their way into homes. It appears there is a recent internal memo which says ICE agents(Immigration and Customs Enforcement) can use administrative warrants (Form I-205) to enter homes to arrest individuals with a final removal order, authorizing force after knocking and announcing, a shift from prior policy requiring judicial warrants or consent, sparking debate over constitutional rights. However, immigrant rights groups emphasize that most ICE warrants are administrative, not judicial, and don't grant entry without consent unless it's a judicial warrant signed by a judge.

Key Points:
* New Policy: A new DHS memo allows agents to use administrative warrants (Form I-205) for home entry to arrest individuals with a final deportation order, using reasonable force if no answer.

* Controversial Interpretation: This interpretation differs from past guidance, which required consent or a judicial warrant for home entry, and is criticized by former officials and advocates as potentially violating Fourth Amendment rights.

* Administrative vs. Judicial Warrants:

* Administrative warrants (I-205) are internal ICE documents, not signed by judges, and historically required consent for home entry.

* Judicial warrants are signed by a judge and allow entry based on probable cause, but ICE doesn't typically have these for home entry.

* Your Rights: You do not have to open the door or let agents in unless they have a judicial warrant (signed by a judge) or you give consent, according to groups like the ACLU and immigrant advocates.

What to Do if ICE Comes to Your Door:
1. Don't Open the Door: Do not open the door unless they show a judicial warrant.
2. Ask for Identification & Warrant: Ask officers to slide the warrant under the door or hold it up to the window.
3. Check the Warrant: Verify it's a judicial warrant (signed by a judge) and lists your name and address.
4. State Your Position: If it's only an administrative warrant, state, "You do not have the right to enter without consent," and ask them to leave.

---

How many times do you guys have to fall for this stuff before you stop believing the Orwellian disinformation?

---

He didn't provide his sources, not sure if it was Oceania or The View which provided that list.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

---

Overreacting?? Because I think it qualifies as a violation of the face act and you don't? So because I disagree with you that is an overreaction?

---

And because I disagree with you, I'm "flat out lying to make my fellow leftists not appear as bad?"

Distracting your enemies most impassioned actors while your men do the work across town.

A leader. https://t.co/Foxp9xzKCo

— Dissident Soaps (@DissidentSoaps) January 22, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

---

Overreacting?? Because I think it qualifies as a violation of the face act and you don't? So because I disagree with you that is an overreaction?

---

And because I disagree with you, I'm "flat out lying to make my fellow leftists not appear as bad?"

---

When you dismiss the facts with statements like "just a guy on a message board" or bend facts to say that "no physical force" was used when the law does not say it has to be physical force and are trying to bend the law or lie about what it says to fit your side then yes you are lying. By the very definition of that word.

But leftists like to create new definitions for words or refuse to define words……like woman.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bill Clinton in 1995: "Every day, illegal aliens show up in court who are charged… Whether they are innocent or guilty of the crimes they are charged with in court, they're still here illegally and they should be sent out of the country."pic.twitter.com/2OrYid0TfI

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) January 20, 2026

---

Yes, your point? No one disagrees.

Once again, you keep posting the WHAT and overlooking the HOW.

How we do it matters just as much as what we do. No one here has disagreed on what Trump is doing or his anticipated outcome. You can't go in bully-mode across the Board. That is what the Trump Administration has done.

Gangs of masked ICE agents grabbing individuals on their way to lunch is not accomplishing the goal. Look at the ICE numbers, they are down from 2024 and 2023, dramatically. The method (HOW) is causing high levels of push-back, high levels of complaints and low levels of deportations. That is not productive or efficient. It begs the question is the goal deportations and arrests or fear?

---

good grief man! you cannot possibly be so misguided! If we cannot arrest an illegal on the way to lunch, when the hell can we arrest him?

There's also no way to deport people that will not angert the open borders crowd. They see these illegals as neighbors who have a right to be here. They are morally opposed to ANY deportation, by ANY means. And these Democrat leaders are going to fight to the last breath to keep their apportionment base from being deported Democrats will lose approx 20 house seats if all the illegals go home.

Thank you for showing us why moderates are so damned ineffective. They will not do anything, no matter how important it might be, if some old lady complains somewhere.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Over-zealous enforcement can also erode the rule of law.

---

Would you agree that the Biden policy of open boarders and catch and release helped to erode the rule of law?

---

There was no such policy. The increase and decrease in border crossings had to do with changes in the labor market, not Biden or Trump.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

---

Overreacting?? Because I think it qualifies as a violation of the face act and you don't? So because I disagree with you that is an overreaction?

---

And because I disagree with you, I'm "flat out lying to make my fellow leftists not appear as bad?"

---

When you dismiss the facts with statements like "just a guy on a message board" or bend facts to say that "no physical force" was used when the law does not say it has to be physical force and are trying to bend the law or lie about what it says to fit your side then yes you are lying. By the very definition of that word.

But leftists like to create new definitions for words or refuse to define words……like woman.

---

Take a chill pill.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

two faced...huh. you are how old?

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Over-zealous enforcement can also erode the rule of law.

---

Would you agree that the Biden policy of open boarders and catch and release helped to erode the rule of law?

---

There was no such policy. The increase and decrease in border crossings had to do with changes in the labor market, not Biden or Trump.

---

What an absolute lie. Lol, hilarious troll job.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bill Clinton in 1995: "Every day, illegal aliens show up in court who are charged… Whether they are innocent or guilty of the crimes they are charged with in court, they're still here illegally and they should be sent out of the country."pic.twitter.com/2OrYid0TfI

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) January 20, 2026

---

Yes, your point? No one disagrees.

Once again, you keep posting the WHAT and overlooking the HOW.

How we do it matters just as much as what we do. No one here has disagreed on what Trump is doing or his anticipated outcome. You can't go in bully-mode across the Board. That is what the Trump Administration has done.

Gangs of masked ICE agents grabbing individuals on their way to lunch is not accomplishing the goal. Look at the ICE numbers, they are down from 2024 and 2023, dramatically. The method (HOW) is causing high levels of push-back, high levels of complaints and low levels of deportations. That is not productive or efficient. It begs the question is the goal deportations and arrests or fear?

---

good grief man! you cannot possibly be so misguided! If we cannot arrest an illegal on the way to lunch, when the hell can we arrest him?

There's also no way to deport people that will not angert the open borders crowd. They see these illegals as neighbors who have a right to be here. They are morally opposed to ANY deportation, by ANY means. And these Democrat leaders are going to fight to the last breath to keep their apportionment base from being deported Democrats will lose approx 20 house seats if all the illegals go home.

Thank you for showing us why moderates are so damned ineffective. They will not do anything, no matter how important it might be, if some old lady complains somewhere.

---

once again , you have NO clue what you are talking about. No way to deport people with the open border crowd. Nobody I know is for illegal immigration. We are for legal immigration. Nobody believe the BS you spew about they think they are our neighbors who have a right to believe. I do not know anyone who thinks that. Immigrants are barely marginally successful. Musk, Serge Brinn, Jenson , ect. bunch of damn immigrants. this google thing really sucks, so does, EVS, ultra powered chip stacks, YouTube aint cool either.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

---

Overreacting?? Because I think it qualifies as a violation of the face act and you don't? So because I disagree with you that is an overreaction?

---

And because I disagree with you, I'm "flat out lying to make my fellow leftists not appear as bad?"

---

When you dismiss the facts with statements like "just a guy on a message board" or bend facts to say that "no physical force" was used when the law does not say it has to be physical force and are trying to bend the law or lie about what it says to fit your side then yes you are lying. By the very definition of that word.

But leftists like to create new definitions for words or refuse to define words……like woman.

---

Sam is simply a troll. Loves to argue, enjoys the attention.

D. C. Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bill Clinton in 1995: "Every day, illegal aliens show up in court who are charged… Whether they are innocent or guilty of the crimes they are charged with in court, they're still here illegally and they should be sent out of the country."pic.twitter.com/2OrYid0TfI

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) January 20, 2026

---

Yes, your point? No one disagrees.

Once again, you keep posting the WHAT and overlooking the HOW.

How we do it matters just as much as what we do. No one here has disagreed on what Trump is doing or his anticipated outcome. You can't go in bully-mode across the Board. That is what the Trump Administration has done.

Gangs of masked ICE agents grabbing individuals on their way to lunch is not accomplishing the goal. Look at the ICE numbers, they are down from 2024 and 2023, dramatically. The method (HOW) is causing high levels of push-back, high levels of complaints and low levels of deportations. That is not productive or efficient. It begs the question is the goal deportations and arrests or fear?

---

good grief man! you cannot possibly be so misguided! If we cannot arrest an illegal on the way to lunch, when the hell can we arrest him?

There's also no way to deport people that will not angert the open borders crowd. They see these illegals as neighbors who have a right to be here. They are morally opposed to ANY deportation, by ANY means. And these Democrat leaders are going to fight to the last breath to keep their apportionment base from being deported Democrats will lose approx 20 house seats if all the illegals go home.

Thank you for showing us why moderates are so damned ineffective. They will not do anything, no matter how important it might be, if some old lady complains somewhere.

---

once again , you have NO clue what you are talking about. No way to deport people with the open border crowd. Nobody I know is for illegal immigration. We are for legal immigration. Nobody believe the BS you spew about they think they are our neighbors who have a right to believe. I do not know anyone who thinks that. Immigrants are barely marginally successful. Musk, Serge Brinn, Jenson , ect. bunch of damn immigrants. this google thing really sucks, so does, EVS, ultra powered chip stacks, YouTube aint cool either.

---

You need to get out more.

Also, when people in and out of government allow and even promote massive illegal immigration, that is an indication of being "for" it.

---

So many folks choose to 'forget' the United States leads the world in legal immigration.

Robert Wilson said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

What to Do if ICE Comes to Your Door:
1. Don't Open the Door: Do not open the door unless they show a judicial warrant.
2. Ask for Identification & Warrant: Ask officers to slide the warrant under the door or hold it up to the window.
3. Check the Warrant: Verify it's a judicial warrant (signed by a judge) and lists your name and address.
4. State Your Position: If it's only an administrative warrant, state, "You do not have the right to enter without consent," and ask them to leave.

---

Here is an idea, why not get the F-out of the country? If you are here illegally - you do not belong. Leave and apply to come back legally.

---

When you boil down the anti-ICE messaging, 90% of it boils down to "we don't want to enforce immigration laws, including for criminals."

I can't fully wrap my brain around why.

---

Same reason these idiots were calling Ivermectin horse medicine.

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

---

Overreacting?? Because I think it qualifies as a violation of the face act and you don't? So because I disagree with you that is an overreaction?

---

And because I disagree with you, I'm "flat out lying to make my fellow leftists not appear as bad?"

---

When you dismiss the facts with statements like "just a guy on a message board" or bend facts to say that "no physical force" was used when the law does not say it has to be physical force and are trying to bend the law or lie about what it says to fit your side then yes you are lying. By the very definition of that word.

But leftists like to create new definitions for words or refuse to define words……like woman.

---

Sam is simply a troll. Loves to argue, enjoys the attention.

---

This must be it. He did not come a moron overnight unlesss rona literally ate his brain.

D. C. Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bill Clinton in 1995: "Every day, illegal aliens show up in court who are charged… Whether they are innocent or guilty of the crimes they are charged with in court, they're still here illegally and they should be sent out of the country."pic.twitter.com/2OrYid0TfI

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) January 20, 2026

---

Yes, your point? No one disagrees.

Once again, you keep posting the WHAT and overlooking the HOW.

How we do it matters just as much as what we do. No one here has disagreed on what Trump is doing or his anticipated outcome. You can't go in bully-mode across the Board. That is what the Trump Administration has done.

Gangs of masked ICE agents grabbing individuals on their way to lunch is not accomplishing the goal. Look at the ICE numbers, they are down from 2024 and 2023, dramatically. The method (HOW) is causing high levels of push-back, high levels of complaints and low levels of deportations. That is not productive or efficient. It begs the question is the goal deportations and arrests or fear?

---

good grief man! you cannot possibly be so misguided! If we cannot arrest an illegal on the way to lunch, when the hell can we arrest him?

There's also no way to deport people that will not angert the open borders crowd. They see these illegals as neighbors who have a right to be here. They are morally opposed to ANY deportation, by ANY means. And these Democrat leaders are going to fight to the last breath to keep their apportionment base from being deported Democrats will lose approx 20 house seats if all the illegals go home.

Thank you for showing us why moderates are so damned ineffective. They will not do anything, no matter how important it might be, if some old lady complains somewhere.

---

once again , you have NO clue what you are talking about. No way to deport people with the open border crowd. Nobody I know is for illegal immigration. We are for legal immigration. Nobody believe the BS you spew about they think they are our neighbors who have a right to believe. I do not know anyone who thinks that. Immigrants are barely marginally successful. Musk, Serge Brinn, Jenson , ect. bunch of damn immigrants. this google thing really sucks, so does, EVS, ultra powered chip stacks, YouTube aint cool either.

---

You need to get out more.

Also, when people in and out of government allow and even promote massive illegal immigration, that is an indication of being "for" it.

---

Exactly. Democrats are screaming bloody murder and organizing riots to stop deportation of violent criminals. Hear this wild-eyed MAGA-head go off on the subject.

Sen. Fetterman: "ICE agents are just doing their job, and I fully support that... People in my party might... treat them as criminals... That's inappropriate and outrageous."pic.twitter.com/ZgtUhSoGIv

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) January 21, 2026