Get yourself and your family ready ! | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (30).

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

you don’t need to be trained to know you don’t stay put. when the city mobs come to the suburbs, how many rounds do you think you’ll pop off before you’re eventually out numbered. the point of this post was to get ready. 99.99% of the people will die because they will sit home and wait to be saved.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

(edited )

bullshit. any good marine knows to keep moving.

Not what you said nigger.

Speak English. Not this back-and-forth kikery that you are speaking.

No shit the suburbs are going to suck eventually. No shit. The issue isn't that. The issue is that the vast majority of people haven't any idea on how to survive more than a few days innawoods.

You're arguing from a dishonest position.

e;

Also I don't think you understand just how armed even suburb America is. Your hardest street gangs are absolutely far more violent. But the number of guns they posses and the knowledge of gun use and upkeep pales in comparison to even white picket fence suburbs.

oh but that nigger gang has like 80 guns goyim!!!

Yeah. So does that single family down the street.

but the government told me the rate of gun ownership is lower than 1 per US citizen!!!

It's so far well above even 2 per citizen. And that 646? million+ guns is owned by far fewer than 100 million.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

This jarhead brainlet with his lone wolf bullshit would in all likelihood resort to robbing and killing innocent people for their supplies before the month was out.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

...in all likelihood resort to robbing and killing innocent people for their supplies...

niggers?

yes

spics?

yes

chinks?

yes

nips?

yes

gooks?

yes

sandjews?

yes

jews?

yes

So sure. Depends on what you define as innocent and what you think a person is.

Also to be very clear;

I DO NOT CONDONE VIOLENCE IN ANY WAY.

I DO NOT SPEAK FOR POAL IN ANY WAY.

hurrrrr fed ____ The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States. In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States. The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, "[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts. In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wideopen" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat." In so holding, the Court established that there is a "true threat" exception to protected speech, but also that the statement must be viewed in its context and distinguished from protected hyperbole. The opinion, however, stopped short of defining precisely what constituted a "true threat." (archive.md)

Nothing specific. Nothing actionable. No times. No places. No dates. No events. No names. This is what protected speech looks like.

>...in all likelihood resort to robbing and killing innocent people for their supplies... >niggers? >>yes >spics? >>yes >chinks? >>yes >nips? >>yes >gooks? >>yes >sandjews? >>yes >jews? >>yes So sure. Depends on what you define as innocent and what you think a person is. Also to be very clear; I DO NOT CONDONE VIOLENCE IN ANY WAY. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR POAL IN ANY WAY. >hurrrrr fed ____ >[The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States. In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States. The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, "[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts. In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wideopen" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat." In so holding, the Court established that there is a "true threat" exception to protected speech, but also that the statement must be viewed in its context and distinguished from protected hyperbole. The opinion, however, stopped short of defining precisely what constituted a "true threat." ](https://archive.md/zCQfy) [Nothing specific. Nothing actionable. No times. No places. No dates. No events. No names. This is what protected speech looks like.](#spoiler)

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

[–] • 0 pt

He definitely sounds like someone who hasn’t marched full gear with 20 lbs of ammo. I wouldn’t worry if I lived near him, he’ll make it 20 miles, get a whole foot blister, and die from the infection.

parent
link