tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post1056592379222722382..comments2024-01-13T07:38:36.064-05:00Comments on Target Liberty: Tucker Carlson Denies Avenatti’s Claim of Alleged 'Assault on Gay Latino Immigrant'Robert Wenzelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-49818110038335535962018-11-12T06:46:34.096-05:002018-11-12T06:46:34.096-05:00Nowadays in our politically-correct word, the Left...Nowadays in our politically-correct word, the Left views everything said on Fox News as "fighting words."Sui Jurishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13797769895327734780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-51655295005236932562018-11-11T22:37:22.340-05:002018-11-11T22:37:22.340-05:00So much for “dems fightin woids”.
Good for Tucker ...So much for “dems fightin woids”.<br />Good for Tucker holding back I guess, while I don’t think I would have done anything in the bar, if that would have been my daughter, I certainly would have had a visit with him when he left and beat him. Hard. Then let my sons beat him. Joshua Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14314841330994831499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-25524922776935481102018-11-11T18:00:01.190-05:002018-11-11T18:00:01.190-05:00On the other hand, Tucker likely could have punche...On the other hand, Tucker likely could have punched the guy & got away with it, although he probably would have been sued for civil liability & paid a settlement. <br /><br /><br />Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of Humanum Genushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10997040364509831635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-41580195317478555902018-11-11T17:50:45.202-05:002018-11-11T17:50:45.202-05:00Ticket in the same statement writes "My son t...Ticket in the same statement writes "My son threw a glass of red wine in the man’s face" & then <br /><br />"I did not assault this man, and neither did my son."<br /><br />Very very dumb, first of all, to admit anything. <br /><br /><br />Does he not know the legal definition of "assault"?<br /><br />What would happen if one of the "mob" on tucker'Humanum Genushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10997040364509831635noreply@blogger.com