The fag is illogical. He failed to answer the question of how Tucker’s speech is violent. The fag snivels that the speech is putting a target on people. Ok, but it’s targeting the people to vote against and for other nonviolent forms of political opposition. The fag himself said that it’s ok to bang a fist against the table and to have strong disagreement. Such activities have people for targets of protest and differing opinions. No where does he give examples of incitement of actual violence. I watched Tucker’s speech and at no point does Tucker suggest violent attacks against politicians. He suggests mockery. This faggy climate scammer fears mockery.

The fag is illogical. He failed to answer the question of how Tucker’s speech is violent. The fag snivels that the speech is putting a target on people. Ok, but it’s targeting the people to vote against and for other nonviolent forms of political opposition. The fag himself said that’s it’s ok to bang a fist against the table and to have strong disagreement. Such activities have targets. No where does he give examples of incitement of actual violence. I watched Tucker’s speech and at no point does Tucker suggest violent attacks against politicians. He suggests mockery. This faggy climate scammer fears mockery.

The fag is illogical. He failed to answer the question of how Tucker’s speech is violent. The fag snivels that the speech is putting a target on people. Ok, but it’s targeting the people to vote against and for other nonviolent forms of political opposition. The fag just said that’s it’s ok to bang a fist against the table and to have strong disagreement. Such activities have targets. No where does he give examples of incitement of actual violence. I watched Tucker’s speech and at no point does Tucker suggest violent attacks against politicians. He suggests mockery. This faggy climate scammer fears mockery.