Which bridge collapsed, other than the one hit by the boat in Baltimore?

It means nothing. It’s political theatre to distract from the party’s current issues.

https://www.statista.com/chart/31152/share-of-us-respondents-who-have-taken-private-trips/#:~:text=Around a third of Americans,the other hand%2C were rarer.

1/3 of Americans take multiple vacations a year. Have you tried not being poor? It’s worth a shot if you haven’t.

Come on. Have you seen what’s going on on college campuses right now? I’ve heard far less serious things being said with absolute sincerity.

We’re reaching the point where victimhood is the only trait people aspire to achieve.

You’re right, it is very different. The campus encampments are calling for intifada. Calling for violence should not be accepted. That is starkly different from an invitation to a foreign Ally being scuttled by people too afraid to hear what someone has to say.

Yes you can. Just not listen. That’s a very good point. Not listening is very different from scuttling the invitation provided by the speaker of the house.

I’m literally claiming reality. Scuttling an invitation from the speaker of the House is absolutely stifling free speech. I’ve never made the claim. It’s a constitutional violation you’d have to be in absolute moron to interpret my comment that way.

There are many ways to stifle Free speech. I see people making that claim regarding the chance for intifada college campuses. Being an expression of free speech. I’m amused and fascinated by the people claiming that shutting down an encampment that’s calling for in intifada which is unquestionably. A violent action is stifling Free speech. Well they have issues with a politician being invited to speak before Congress.

The reasoning is abundantly clear. The speaker of the House quite literally by definition is in charge of who speaks before the house. Undermining and subverting the invitation of someone to speak before Congress is absolutely limiting free speech before the American public.

That you’re trying to make this a legal argument, proves to me that you understand the problem here. I’m not claiming this is a legal issue. This is a moral issue and the Democrats who constantly claim moral superiority have lost credibility with this action. If they have a problem with what a foreign leader has to say then they should take to the floor with a rebuttal. Well, over half of Americans support this particular Ally. American people have jobs that are entirely independent on the support of this. Ally. Throwing a hissy fit and refusing to allow someone of that stature to speak before Congress is a very sad demonstration of weakness.

Holding people at the border and arresting peaceful protesters are also examples of stifling Free speech. Both can be true regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. It’s wild to me watching liberals turning into the scaredy cats that they claim. The conservatives are with actions like this. Hardly progressive.

Of course they are. Where do you find me saying otherwise?

That’s the legal definition. It’s insane that you’re trying to argue that THAT is what’s needed to consider the limiting of speech to be unacceptable. Your bias has clouded your ability to reason. I’m quite sure you’re not making those claims about the campus protests being shut down by the schools.

Abbott stands for nothing.

The classic Anti-Semitic Holocaust inversion. LMFAO. You bigots are so predictable, the Elder’s of Zion is about to become a Best Seller again based on your kind.

If Congress decides to stop sending Israel after he speaks to them, then that’s something that the American people will have to live with. Including the increase in terrorism and the decrease in American jobs that would come along with it.

No one needs to change the definition when you’re working overtime to twist what I’m saying. I never said you needed to be arrested for violating the Constitution. I’m pointing out the clear and obvious fact that Free speech before they make hunger so it is being stifled…

That you’re supporting this just shows how fascist the claimed progressives have become in America… if you’re afraid of someone speaking then challenge them with ideas. Don’t shut them down. I get that’s what you’re taught to do on campus now, but that’s not an effective way to deal with someone or something you disagree with.

It’s absolutely free speech. I’m not saying someone needs to be arrested for violating a Constitution, but the fact that you’re supporting the subversion of free speech in Congress is absolutely ridiculous.

It doesn’t matter whether the invited party is a citizen or not. They are invited by the speaker of the House once that platform is extended, It’s what matters…

Removed by mod

I’m hardly concerned with who’s the one giving the speech and entirely concerned with the fact the Democratic party is working overtime to stifle Free speech before the American Congress.

Classic Holocaust inversion Anti semitism. Y’all are just so predictable. Can’t handle reality so you revert to your classic tropes.

You’re showing your lack of comprehension here. I never said said they’re violating the Constitution. If that’s how you’re interpreting this, that’s just ridiculous…

I said they’re stifling. Free speech which is exactly what they’re trying to do.

Sure, you’ve convinced me, anyone that the speaker of the house thinks deserves that platform should have it then, ally or not.

That you think limiting the ability of people to speak before Congress, isn’t stifling free speech is beyond absurd.