Democrats Looking To Ramp Up The Fascism

[koriwhat]

I love it when Demonrats argue against voter ID because....reasons...:lol

both of booker's eyes need a license because they're driving in different directions....


i know, i know, weak jokes. that's all i got.

[Chris]

both of booker's eyes need a license because they're driving in different directions....


i know, i know, weak jokes. that's all i got.

These new look Democrats always got those wide crazy eyes:


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FOy07Bqw VZKXsc%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1

[Xevious]

Wouldn't 'adjudicated' indicate that there was indeed due process? Who is the 'accuser' in your scenario? I don't think anyone on the Right is freaking out about bump stocks or (according to you) other rate increasing devices. "Republicans would be up in arms' sounds like vague hyperbole to me, a staple of Left wing news propaganda.
Out of Trump's own mouth, take the guns go to court later. All one has to do is say that they feel somebody is a threat to themselves or others, regardless if that claim is founded or not. LE can roll up to your door and disarm you without you even knowing who made the claim. That isn't due process. And while Republicans may not be upset at a R president banning bump stocks, there are plenty of no-compromise individuals within the gun community as well as organizations not named NRA that are.

[Chris]

All one has to do is say that they feel somebody is a threat to themselves or others, regardless if that claim is founded or not. LE can roll up to your door and disarm you without you even knowing who made the claim.

Pretty sure that's not how it works.

[Xevious]

Pretty sure that's not how it works.
yxgybgEKHHI

[Xevious]

The main point I'm making is that the US has such a Us-vs-Them mentality, that people support the same actions that they opposed under a different administration simply because that administration was part of the other team. It's ridiculous.

[Chris]

yxgybgEKHHI

I didn't agree with Trump when he said that a year ago or whenever, but still to my point - pretty sure that's not how it works currently.

[Chris]

The main point I'm making is that the US has such a Us-vs-Them mentality, that people support the same actions that they opposed under a different administration simply because that administration was part of the other team. It's ridiculous.

That's the red vs blue dichotomy that has been going on since the end of WW2. Trump isn't part of the big club, that's why they hate him.

[Xevious]

I didn't agree with Trump when he said that a year ago or whenever, but still to my point - pretty sure that's not how it works currently.
It does in some areas. It's more of a state issue right now. But when you have a R president saying that he supports red flag laws, supports raising the age to purchase firearms, saying he doesn't like silencers, and the already mentioned bump stock ban... his base should be more vocal about it. Those same people certainly were when Obama even hinted at tighter gun control.

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/1158836715135459328?s=20

People never drive w/o a license amrite guys? :lol
of all vehicular deaths, what % of them involve unlicensed drivers?

[Chris]

of all vehicular deaths, what % of them involve unlicensed drivers?

I'm not looking up your stats for you. If you have a point to make then back it up yourself.

Can you show me in the Constitution where it says we have the right to drive a vehicle? (this is a rhetorical question FYI :tu)

[spurraider21]

I'm not looking up your stats for you. If you have a point to make then back it up yourself.
its a logical question tbh, based on your previous post


Can you show me in the Constitution where it says we have the right to drive a vehicle? (this is a rhetorical question FYI :tu)
i know its rhetorical. and i never claimed that driving a car and owning a gun are subject to the same protections.

the question was posed because you cast doubt on the effectiveness of laws requiring licenses to drive cars, but admittedly dont have the stats to back up that sort of argument

[Chris]

its a logical question tbh, based on your previous post


i know its rhetorical. and i never claimed that driving a car and owning a gun are subject to the same protections.

the question was posed because you cast doubt on the effectiveness of laws requiring licenses to drive cars, but admittedly dont have the stats to back up that sort of argument

I don't need stats. It's called logic.

You might try it sometime.

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1158894837028073483?s=20

This isn't a trusted source. Did CNN, NBC, ABC, or CBS report it?

[Chris]

This isn't a trusted source. Did CNN, NBC, ABC, or CBS report it?

:lol

[spurraider21]

I don't need stats. It's called logic.

You might try it sometime.
:lol... so your feelings about the effectiveness of drivers license requirements and more important than the facts surrounding them

[spurraider21]

This isn't a trusted source. Did CNN, NBC, ABC, or CBS report it?
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/shots-fired-suspect-i-dont-like-white-people-in-my-hood

cbs

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1158926737360773121?s=20

At least she admits she would be a tyrant.

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1158926737360773121?s=20

At least she admits she would be a tyrant.
executive orders = tyranny now

but on the merits, none of those orders would survive a legal challenge, except maybe the last one re: importing guns from outside the country

[Spurtacular]

https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/shots-fired-suspect-i-dont-like-white-people-in-my-hood

cbs

Oh, good. Now I can believe it, sort of.

[Chris]

Interesting:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBI-f0JU8AAOmKA?format=jpg&name=medium
— William Cooper, Navy Intelligence

[spurraider21]

Interesting:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBI-f0JU8AAOmKA?format=jpg&name=medium
— William Cooper, Navy Intelligence
standup guy tbh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper

On November 5, 2001, Apache County (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_County,_Arizona) sheriff's deputies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States) attempted to arrest Cooper at his Eagar, Arizona (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagar,_Arizona) home on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and endangerment stemming from disputes with local residents. After an exchange of gunfire during which Cooper shot one of the deputies in the head, Cooper was fatally shot. Federal authorities reported that Cooper had spent years evading execution of the 1998 arrest warrant, and according to a spokesman for the Marshals Service, he vowed that "he would not be taken alive".

:lmao reading this guys books and taking the contents seriously

[Chris]

On his June 28th, 2001 broadcast, he went on to predict 9/11, adding that the U.S. Government would attempt to use Osama bin Laden as a scapegoat:
"I'm telling you be prepared for a major attack! But it won't be Osama bin Laden. It will be those behind the New World Order... Whatever is going to happen that they are going to blame on Osama bin Laden, DON'T YOU EVEN BELIEVE IT!"


Looks like Bill was talking too much and had to be silenced.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1158196376418885632?s=20

[spurraider21]

On his June 28th, 2001 broadcast, he went on to predict 9/11, adding that the U.S. Government would attempt to use Osama bin Laden as a scapegoat:
"I'm telling you be prepared for a major attack! But it won't be Osama bin Laden. It will be those behind the New World Order... Whatever is going to happen that they are going to blame on Osama bin Laden, DON'T YOU EVEN BELIEVE IT!"


Looks like Bill was talking too much and had to be silenced.

report came out earlier in june 2001 that bin laden's followers were planning an attack on US/israeli interest in the next 2 weeks. attempted cop killer cooper referenced that report in claiming that it would be a false flag attack. cooper referenced that report.

looks like he was just a typical conspiritard who ended up shooting an officer in the head

[koriwhat]

report came out earlier in june 2001 that bin laden's followers were planning an attack on US/israeli interest in the next 2 weeks. attempted cop killer cooper referenced that report in claiming that it would be a false flag attack. cooper referenced that report.

looks like he was just a typical conspiritard who ended up shooting an officer in the head

who knows for sure? i have no clue who that dude is even though i've heard of "Behold a Pale Horse". you make that claim as a matter of fact but the only fact is that you're a hack. :tu

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1158196376418885632?s=20

https://i.imgflip.com/30nmx4.jpg

[Spurtacular]

Interesting:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBI-f0JU8AAOmKA?format=jpg&name=medium
— William Cooper, Navy Intelligence

What's some Wal Mart shoppers and bar tavern commoners to them?

[Pavlov]

who knows for sure? i have no clue who that dude is even though i've heard of "Behold a Pale Horse". you make that claim as a matter of fact but the only fact is that you're a hack. :tuCooper was a fucking nutbar.

I know for sure.

[Chris]

What's some Wal Mart shoppers and bar tavern commoners to them?

Expendable assets.

[Spurtacular]

Expendable assets.

Liquid assets all along.

[koriwhat]

Cooper was a fucking nutbar.

I know for sure.

for sure, for sure? like, you knew him personally or only through someone else's perspective?

[Pavlov]

for sure, for sure? like, you knew him personally or only through someone else's perspective?Here's an excerpt from his book that Chris cited and found "interesting." Apologies for the formatting:

A third landing at Muroc, now Edwards Air Force Base, took
place in 1954. The base was closed for three days and no one was
allowed to enter or leave during that time. The historical event
had been planned in advance. Details of a treaty had been agreed
upon. Eisenhower arranged to be in Palm Springs on vacation. On
the appointed day the President was spirited to the base. The
excuse was given to the press that he was visiting a dentist.
Witnesses to the event have stated that three UFOs flew over the
base and then landed. Antiaircraft batteries were undergoing
live-fire training and the startled personnel actually fired at
the crafts as they passed overhead... the shells missed and no
one was injured.

President Eisenhower met with the aliens on February 20,
1954, and a formal treaty between the alien nation and the United
States of America was signed. We then received our first alien
ambassador from outer space. He was the hostage that had been
left at the first landing in the desert. His name was 'His
Omnipotent Highness Crilll or Krilll,' pronounced Crill or Krill.
In the American tradition of disdain for royal titles he was
secretly called 'Original Hostage Crill, or Krill.' Shortly
after this meeting President Eisenhower suffered a heart attack.

Four others present at the meeting were Franklin Allen of
the Hearst Newspapers, Edwin Nourse of Brookings Institute,
Gerald Light of metaphysical research fame, and Catholic Bishop
MacIntyre of Los Angeles. Their reaction was judged as a
microcosm of what the public reaction might be. Based on this
reaction, it was decided that the public could not be told.
Later studies confirmed the decision as sound.

For sure for sure.

What do you think?

[koriwhat]

Here's an excerpt from his book that Chris cited and found "interesting." Apologies for the formatting:

A third landing at Muroc, now Edwards Air Force Base, took
place in 1954. The base was closed for three days and no one was
allowed to enter or leave during that time. The historical event
had been planned in advance. Details of a treaty had been agreed
upon. Eisenhower arranged to be in Palm Springs on vacation. On
the appointed day the President was spirited to the base. The
excuse was given to the press that he was visiting a dentist.
Witnesses to the event have stated that three UFOs flew over the
base and then landed. Antiaircraft batteries were undergoing
live-fire training and the startled personnel actually fired at
the crafts as they passed overhead... the shells missed and no
one was injured.

President Eisenhower met with the aliens on February 20,
1954, and a formal treaty between the alien nation and the United
States of America was signed. We then received our first alien
ambassador from outer space. He was the hostage that had been
left at the first landing in the desert. His name was 'His
Omnipotent Highness Crilll or Krilll,' pronounced Crill or Krill.
In the American tradition of disdain for royal titles he was
secretly called 'Original Hostage Crill, or Krill.' Shortly
after this meeting President Eisenhower suffered a heart attack.

Four others present at the meeting were Franklin Allen of
the Hearst Newspapers, Edwin Nourse of Brookings Institute,
Gerald Light of metaphysical research fame, and Catholic Bishop
MacIntyre of Los Angeles. Their reaction was judged as a
microcosm of what the public reaction might be. Based on this
reaction, it was decided that the public could not be told.
Later studies confirmed the decision as sound.

For sure for sure.

What do you think?

that's a little crazy to my personal brain but... who fucking knows? we'll all find out on september 21st amirite? haha

[Pavlov]

that's a little crazy to my personal brain but... who fucking knows? we'll all find out on september 21st amirite? haha"Who knows?"

I know.

This did not happen.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1159222020451819526?s=20
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1159222547147370501?s=20

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1159222020451819526?s=20
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1159222547147370501?s=20How is he suspended if I can see his tweet and the tweet he's whining about?

[Winehole23]

TOTAL MSM BLACKOUT

[Chris]

A FEW FAMOUS WORDS FROM Barack Obama


IF THEY BRING A KNIFE, YOU BRING A GUN

I WANT YOU TO ARGUE WITH THEM, GET IN THEIR FACE

HIT BACK TWICE AS HARD

WE TALK TO FOLKS, SO WE KNOW WHO'S A^^ TO KICK

REPUBLICAN VICTORY WOULD MEAN HAND TO HAND COMBAT

I'M ITCHING FOR A FIGHT

[ElNono]

Interesting:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBI-f0JU8AAOmKA?format=jpg&name=medium
— William Cooper, Navy Intelligence


On his June 28th, 2001 broadcast, he went on to predict 9/11, adding that the U.S. Government would attempt to use Osama bin Laden as a scapegoat:
"I'm telling you be prepared for a major attack! But it won't be Osama bin Laden. It will be those behind the New World Order... Whatever is going to happen that they are going to blame on Osama bin Laden, DON'T YOU EVEN BELIEVE IT!"


Looks like Bill was talking too much and had to be silenced.

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Pavlov]

A FEW FAMOUS WORDS FROM Barack Obama


IF THEY BRING A KNIFE, YOU BRING A GUN

I WANT YOU TO ARGUE WITH THEM, GET IN THEIR FACE

HIT BACK TWICE AS HARD

WE TALK TO FOLKS, SO WE KNOW WHO'S A^^ TO KICK

REPUBLICAN VICTORY WOULD MEAN HAND TO HAND COMBAT

I'M ITCHING FOR A FIGHTYou really want to compare quotes, Chris?

[Blake]

that's a little crazy to my personal brain but... who fucking knows? we'll all find out on september 21st amirite? haha

Goddam you're a fucking idiot.

[koriwhat]

Goddam you're a fucking idiot.

and you cuck have no sense of sarcasm whatsoever. you probably signed up with all the other cucks to storm area51.

ps: stop calling out for me you fucking homo. i'm not into your perverted lifestyle and don't appreciate a fruity bastard like yourself constantly following me around here and trying to flirt with me. fuck off already racistBlaKKKe!

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/true_pundit/status/1159581312115757056?s=20

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/true_pundit/status/1159581312115757056?s=20
Trump made it easier for the mentally ill to get guns.

[DMC]

https://twitter.com/true_pundit/status/1159581312115757056?s=20

If she opened her mouth like that sooner, Monica wouldn't have stood a chance.

[koriwhat]

If she opened her mouth like that sooner, Monica wouldn't have stood a chance.

bill's thinking the same in that photo.

[spurraider21]

Hillary wants to abolish guns and the Electoral College. We dodged a major fucking bullet in 2016.


https://twitter.com/true_pundit/status/1159581312115757056?s=20
a) assault weapon ban =/= abolishing guns

b) hillary's tweet didnt say she wants an assault weapon ban

[Chris]

a) assault weapon ban =/= abolishing guns

b) hillary's tweet didnt say she wants an assault weapon ban

What's an assault weapon?

[spurraider21]

What's an assault weapon?
https://i.gyazo.com/018b6e2e4f9e0cdab9d8fa51b18730a5.png

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1159824764309069824?s=20

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1159828381942329344?s=20

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1159824764309069824?s=20
https://i.imgur.com/IKMXExz.gif

also, stephen king tweeting something is ramping up fascism? lol

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1159828381942329344?s=20
nuclear option bad unless turtle man does it

got it

[Winehole23]

Calling out fascists -- which Chris has been dong ITT for the better part of a year -- is now characterized as the real fascism.

[koriwhat]

https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1159824764309069824?s=20

wouldn't doubt if SK is a pedophile with all his perverted pedo stories he sneaks into his writings. sick fuck!

[Thread]

wouldn't doubt if SK is a pedophile with all his perverted pedo stories he sneaks into his writings. sick fuck!

Tell ti, kw. Testify!!!

p.s., ain't no moss growin' on kw, that's for damn sure.

[Chris]

wouldn't doubt if SK is a pedophile with all his perverted pedo stories he sneaks into his writings. sick fuck!

I've got "Stand by Me", but everything else can burn.

[Nathan89]

https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1159824764309069824?s=20

These bigots point out skin color quite frequently tbh

[Chris]

These bigots point out skin color quite frequently tbh

Just change the word white with black and we have a major fucking problem. Twitter account suspended, etc...

[Winehole23]

PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT MY RACIST WORDS AND DEEDS ARE THE REAL RACISTS

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1159834751206735872?s=20
https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1159838657978593282?s=20

[spurraider21]

wouldn't doubt if SK is a pedophile with all his perverted pedo stories he sneaks into his writings. sick fuck!
oh no, somebody took a shot at your beloved tucker? HE MUST BE A PEDO CRIMINAL

[Pavlov]

oh no, somebody took a shot at your beloved tucker? HE MUST BE A PEDO CRIMINAL:lol it's all black and white and pedo in kori's world

[DarrinS]

I understand what Tucker was trying to say, but his timing couldn't have been worse.

[koriwhat]

oh no, somebody took a shot at your beloved tucker? HE MUST BE A PEDO CRIMINAL

wtf are you on? take all the shots you want at tucker, idgaf. :tu

as for SK, he loves to fantasize about kid orgies and the like as well as jot them down in books and then make screenplays out of his sick and twisted fantasies.


I understand what Tucker was trying to say, but his timing couldn't have been worse.

i haven't heard whatever yall are talking about in regard to tucker.

[Chris]

Scary accurate:

https://twitter.com/AaronLeuer/status/1159809356415868929?s=20

[koriwhat]

Scary accurate:

https://twitter.com/AaronLeuer/status/1159809356415868929?s=20

seen the full interview some time back and totally agree with X. as well, funny how shaun "i wish i was black" king was first to be shown.

i watch a lot of these old interviews and find them quite the revelations. i posted a huxley interview a couple weeks ago i'd assume no one watched. lol

[spurraider21]

lol unrelated fleeting images over the audio of a person you'd call a racist if he were alive today

[koriwhat]

lol unrelated fleeting images over the audio of a person you'd call a racist if he were alive today

regardless or not of his stance on race, mixing races, or just the white man in general, he was telling the truth about white liberals.

it's always been about exploiting minorities for the liberal doctrine.

[Chris]

unrelated fleeting images

The disconnect.


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcreoquality.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2FD-Custom-Brand-Disconnect.jpg&f=1

[spurraider21]

regardless or not of his stance on race, mixing races, or just the white man in general, he was telling the truth about white liberals.

it's always been about exploiting minorities for the liberal doctrine.
as opposed to his views about conservatives who are the wolves? :lol

[Winehole23]

I understand what Tucker was trying to say, but his timing couldn't have been worse.What was he trying to say?

[koriwhat]

as opposed to his views about conservatives who are the wolves? :lol

hey, that's all good imo. idc what he thinks of conservatives as well. what he said about liberals is nothing short of the truth. not all liberals imo but the ones i see in the MSM and some i've met he is indeed stating facts.

[spurraider21]

hey, that's all good imo. idc what he thinks of conservatives as well. what he said about liberals is nothing short of the truth. not all liberals imo but the ones i see in the MSM and some i've met he is indeed stating facts.
:lmao mean things he said about conservatives are bad, but mean things he said about liberals are true

such a non-partisan you are

[koriwhat]

:lmao mean things he said about conservatives are bad, but mean things he said about liberals are true

such a non-partisan you are

i didn't say the things he said about conservatives were "bad". i haven't read/seen much of X tbh so i have no clue what you're referring to in order to claim i think it's "bad" because it has to do with conservatives.

i don't think you understand me as much as you think you do. shit on both sides of the political apparatus we have here in the states if you must. i'd like to see all the cockroaches scatter in fear tbh.

[DarrinS]

What was he trying to say?

I think he was trying to say that the actual number of white supremacists is very small, as a percentage of the population.

Problem is, it only takes one of two nutjobs.

And this was only days after El Paso.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1159957917916946432?s=20

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1159957917916946432?s=20

Enemies list.

[Chris]

Enemies list.

Better believe they already have one, and adding new faces daily. China set the blueprint.

[Spurtacular]

Scary accurate:

https://twitter.com/AaronLeuer/status/1159809356415868929?s=20

Dude shouldn't have strayed from the plantation.

[Spurtacular]

Better believe they already have one, and adding new faces daily. China set the blueprint.

They're looking for any excuse....

Trump gonna give in?

[Chris]

They're looking for any excuse....

Trump gonna give in?

Doubt it.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1160027496034820096?s=20

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1160027496034820096?s=20

Elitists on their perch. These demsheep don't even get that their chattel to them.

[Winehole23]

I think he was trying to say that the actual number of white supremacists is very small, as a percentage of the population.

Problem is, it only takes one of two nutjobs.

And this was only days after El Paso.You're pulling my leg.

You don't think it's fair to point out supporters of Trump, so close to a mass killing straightforwardly inspired by DJT and his media megaphones. It's understandable supporters might want to avoid the social consequences of supporting a racist president.

[Spurtacular]

More pussy liberals hating others for participating in democracy.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/armie-hammer-calls-out-marvel-executives-trump-contributions/ar-AAFA2RL?ocid=spartandhp

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1161406391963332609?s=20

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1161806836070342657?s=20

Try this shit in Texas :lol

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1161808155418009600?s=20

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1161815005412462593?s=20

[boutons_deux]

"actual number of white supremacists is very small"

yes, just a few bad apples existing in isolation from 10Ms of racists empowered and encouraged by racist Trash and a culture pervaded with with the acceptance of gun violence is a Constitutional solution to anything that bothers you, esp your wife or girlfriend, non-whites, non-Christians, etc, etc.

[koriwhat]

"actual number of white supremacists is very small"

yes, just a few bad apples existing in isolation from 10Ms of racists empowered and encouraged by racist Trash and a culture pervaded with with the acceptance of gun violence is a Constitutional solution to anything that bothers you, esp your wife or girlfriend, non-whites, non-Christians, etc, etc.

you're sick man. seek help!

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1162065400101629952?s=20

[Winehole23]

PDs doing the bidding of private companies in NY:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/kendalltaggart/insurance-fraud-erie-state-farm-farmers

[koriwhat]

Buzzfeed "news" :lmao

[Chris]

Buzzfeed "news" :lmao

lmao

[Chucho]

lmao

Do you like The Epoch Times?

[koriwhat]

lmao

i walked around the buzzfeed "as big as a las palapas" building when i was in LA. that place is small and dull. not sure if they have any other offices but damn the one i saw was weak.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1163629695939694594?s=20

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1163629695939694594?s=20

:lol Angry brown woman.

[Chris]

:lol Angry brown woman.

Even Fredo grimaced :lol

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1163629695939694594?s=20It ain't Antifa, that's for sure.

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1162065400101629952?s=20

1162054344042274818

[Winehole23]

lmaoat what, police departments doing the bidding of private companies?

[Winehole23]

disliking the outlet isn't a refutation of the primary reporting

[boutons_deux]

"CNN’s Angela Rye tells Republican Patrick Griffin: “The greatest terrorist group in this country are white men. White men who think like you. That is the greatest terrorist threat in this country”

CNN is now claiming that Republicans are “the greatest terrorist threat”

duh Is there any argument that they aren't?

Repug policies, as dictated by their BigDonor, results in increasing 10Ks of human deaths every year, and now they're going after endangered (and non-endangered) species.

The yearly Repug body count in 100s times more than a few of you rightwinnutjob haters slaughtering churches, synagogues, gay nightclubs, etc, etc.

[Thread]

"CNN’s Angela Rye tells Republican Patrick Griffin: “The greatest terrorist group in this country are white men. White men who think like you. That is the greatest terrorist threat in this country”

CNN is now claiming that Republicans are “the greatest terrorist threat”

duh Is there any argument that they aren't?

Repug policies, as dictated by their BigDonor, results in increasing 10Ks of human deaths every year, and now they're going after endangered (and non-endangered) species.

The yearly Repug body count in 100s times more than a few of you rightwinnutjob haters slaughtering churches, synagogues, gay nightclubs, etc, etc.






Please. That chick is always on the rag. Just another perpetually angry black woman.

[Winehole23]

Ungrateful darkies.

How dare they resent their second class status in the US racial caste system -- they're lucky to have it!

[Thread]

Ungrateful darkies.

How dare they resent their second class status in the US racial caste system -- they're lucky to have it!

Please. They've been doted upon since the '60's & still need to be doted upon 1/2 century+ on.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1163887624614023168?s=20

[koriwhat]

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1163887624614023168?s=20

funny how much of a race baiting retard ryan is as she straightens and conditions her hair to resemble that of a white woman. :lmao

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1163887624614023168?s=20So April Ryan isn't in hot water at all.

:lol Qhris

[Blake]

funny how much of a race baiting retard ryan is as she straightens and conditions her hair to resemble that of a white woman. :lmao

Oh you mean like how you grew your hair long like a white woman

[Chris]

Oh you mean like how you grew your hair long like a white woman

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fr%2F2013%2F 02%2Fincredulous.gif&f=1

[koriwhat]

Oh you mean like how you grew your hair long like a white woman


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fr%2F2013%2F 02%2Fincredulous.gif&f=1

right, what the fuck does that even mean? of course cuckles is illogical. racistBlaKKKe is such a weak pos.

[Chris]

right, what the fuck does that even mean? of course cuckles is illogical. racistBlaKKKe is such a weak pos.

He's so dumb :lol

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1164585353950507009?s=19

[Winehole23]

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1164585353950507009?s=19


Most disappointing was the fact that of the more than 400 teachers attending the workshop, not one teacher challenged Essa’s denigration of Christianity or attacks on America.Maybe the teachers weren't offended.

LOL propaganda by press release.

[Winehole23]

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) is a Christian, conservative, nonprofit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit), public interest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest) law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan), and active throughout the United States.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-3) According to its website, its goals are to "preserve America's Judeo-Christian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian) heritage, defend the religious freedom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_freedom) of Christians, restore time-honored moral and family values (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values), protect the sanctity of human life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate), and promote a strong national defense and a free and sovereign United States of America."[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-thomasmore.org-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-5)
The Thomas More Law Center is active in social issues such as opposing same-sex marriage,[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-Detroit_Free_Press-6) abortion,[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-7) and provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act)[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-Thomas_More_Law_Center_v._Obama-8) and the HHS Mandate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)).[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-9) The Law Center has been involved, often unsuccessfully, in high-profile cases including the litigation of the Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) case,[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-10) the defense of Lt Col Jeffrey Chessani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Chessani) against misconduct allegations stemming from the November 2005 Haditha incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_incident),[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-11) and the Law Center's federal lawsuit against the US Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_the_United_States) regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Individual Mandate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Mandate).[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-Thomas_More_Law_Center_v._Obama-8) The Law Center also litigates cases related to the defense of Christians and anti-abortion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-life_movement) activists,[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-12) and has successfully defended the use of dark money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money) in American elections.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center#cite_note-13)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center

[Winehole23]

STOP THE PRESSES: Christian, conservative AF non-profit objects to teacher training with non-Christian themes and defended a Marine commander who turned his head while his subordinates slaughtered civilians in Haditha.

[Winehole23]

To be fair, Chris and the TMLC are probably just happy that Americans slaughtered Iraqis, because...wait, what did Iraq do to us to warrant an invasion?

[koriwhat]

To be fair, Chris and the TMLC are probably just happy that Americans slaughtered Iraqis, because...wait, what did Iraq do to us to warrant an invasion?

Those like yourself are so fucking dumb and emotionally wrecked.

[Winehole23]

Those like yourself are so fucking dumb and emotionally wrecked.You're the one who wishes death daily on Muslims and any poster who happens to disagree with you. The unrestrained vehemence and rage in yoir posts makes you seem not totally emotionally stable, so there may be some degree of projection there.

Btw, what's your take on why we invaded Iraq? Did Iraq do something to deserve it?

[koriwhat]

You're the one who wishes death daily on Muslims and any poster who happens to disagree with you. The unrestrained vehemence and rage in yoir posts makes you seem not totally emotionally stable, so there may be some degree of projection there.

Btw, what's your take on why we invaded Iraq? Did Iraq do something to deserve it?

the excuses you losers make for yourselves is comedic at best.

show me where i wish death daily on you posters let alone muslims. i have never wished death of muslims though i have said numerous times that i don't trust them. you can cry all you'd like about me sarcastically telling pav, bd24, blake, and the like to act like lemmings and jump off a cliff or you can pull your big girl panties up and stop looking so pathetic; it's your choice.

where'd this stupid iraq bullshit come from anyhow? oh yeah, you made a blanket statement you can't back up and now you're using pav's playbook. you fucks are all the same damn losers i pegged yall for years ago. :tu

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1165286432308695040?s=19

[Spurtacular]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More_Law_Center

:wow

:lmao Blakehole

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1165286432308695040?s=19States' rights bad now.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1165258353053982721?s=19

[Winehole23]

:wow

:lmao BlakeholeDerp on TILT

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1165258353053982721?s=19Yeah, Jesus was a damn tycoon.

[Spurtacular]

States' rights bad now.

States have the right to harbor illegals?

:lmao Chump doesn't know how the Constitution works. :lmao

[Pavlov]

States have the right to harbor illegals?

:lmao Chump doesn't know how the Constitution works. :lmaoOK, show me how the Constitution works in this case. Please cite the relevant clause and court cases.

Thanks in advance. I know you'll answer and not shit yourself.:tu

[Spurtacular]

OK, show me how the Constitution works in this case. Please cite the relevant clause and court cases.

Thanks in advance. I know you'll answer and not shit yourself.:tu

So, are you saying that ICE is an unconstitutional operation?

[koriwhat]

So, are you saying that ICE is an unconstitutional operation?

so glad i stopped dealing with that fucking queer... you should try it yourself spurt and just ghost the loser from here on out. it's been a great 2 weeks on ST since... :tu

[Pavlov]

So, are you saying that ICE is an unconstitutional operation?You're shitting yourself.

Show me how the Constitution works in this case. Please cite the relevant clause and court cases.

Your claim. Back it up or back down.

[Pavlov]

so glad i stopped dealing with that fucking queer... you should try it yourself spurt and just ghost the loser from here on out. it's been a great 2 weeks on ST since... :tu:lol You're still raging at everyone. Take some drugs.:tu

[koriwhat]

:lmao can't stop, won't stop...

[Pavlov]

:lmao can't stop, won't stop...Nope, you can't stop your rage, nor can you stop responding.

It's so cute.

Now respond again.

[koriwhat]

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fr%2F2013%2F 02%2Fincredulous.gif&f=1

[Spurtacular]

You're shitting yourself.

Show me how the Constitution works in this case. Please cite the relevant clause and court cases.

Your claim. Back it up or back down.

Your questions are based on ICE being unconstitutional. Step up, or step down.

[Pavlov]

Your questions are based on ICE being unconstitutional. No, my question is based on your backing up your claim.

You've just shit yourself and completely failed to back up your claim.

Good talk.

Stay down.

lol derp

[Spurtacular]

No, my question is based on your backing up your claim.

You've just shit yourself and completely failed to back up your claim.

Good talk.

Stay down.

lol derp

So, you believe that ICE is a constitutionally instituted organization?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

So, you believe that ICE is a constitutionally instituted organization?

Yes or no.Sure.

I never said it was unconstitutional.

You changed the subject to the Constitution.

Who said it was unconstitutional?

Answer or fold.

[Spurtacular]

Sure.

Who said it was unconstitutional?

Answer or fold.

If it's Constitutional, then I don't see why the states would have the power to materially interfere with their charter.

[Spurtacular]

Sure.


Also, :lol at the typical ambivalent affirmation from Chump.

[Pavlov]

If it's Constitutional, then I don't see why the states would have the power to materially interfere with their charter.1) Is "materially interfere" a legal term or something you just made up?

2) What is the legal basis for your opinion?

[Pavlov]

Also, :lol at the typical ambiguous affirmation from Chump.What part of "sure" is ambiguous?

Explain or back down again.

[Spurtacular]

What part of "sure" is ambiguous?

Explain or back down again.

Ambivalent, as I just made the change. Go ahead and explicitly state that ICE is a constitutionally instituted organization, or stand down.

[Chris]

so glad i stopped dealing with that fucking queer... you should try it yourself spurt and just ghost the loser from here on out. it's been a great 2 weeks on ST since... :tu

:tu

[Spurtacular]

1) Is "materially interfere" a legal term or something you just made up?

2) What is the legal basis for your opinion?

They have an obligation to cooperate or to not obstruct their duties.

[Pavlov]

Ambivalent, as I just made the change. Go ahead and explicitly state that ICE is a constitutionally instituted organization, or stand down.What's ambivalent about sure?

Explain or back down again.

[Pavlov]

They have an obligation to cooperate2) What is the legal basis for your opinion?

[Spurtacular]

so glad i stopped dealing with that fucking queer... you should try it yourself spurt and just ghost the loser from here on out. it's been a great 2 weeks on ST since... :tu


:tu

Yea, but I routinely hand Chump his ass. Then when his Chumpettes have to sperm shield for him, it only gets funnier. :lol

[Pavlov]

Yea, but I routinely hand Chump his ass.Oh, give some examples.

This should be good.

[Spurtacular]

What's ambivalent about sure?

Explain or back down again.

The fact that it can just be considered a filler later on, or that you can say sure was responding to something else. You know this; that's why you do it (every time).

Go ahead and explicitly state that ICE is a constitutionally instituted organization, or stand down.

[Pavlov]

The fact that it can just be considered a filler later on, or that you can say sure was responding to something else. You know this; that's why you do it (every time).Like when?

Give some examples.

I'm calling bullshit.

[Spurtacular]

Oh, give some examples.

This should be good.

You think I document all your failures?

:lol I wish I had that kind of time.

If I did, I'd have stuff like you calling yourself gay by multiple lines of your own logic. :lmao

[Pavlov]

You think I document all your failures?

:lol I wish I had that kind of time.

If I did, I'd have stuff like you calling yourself gay by multiple lines of your own logic. :lmaoderp folds

[Spurtacular]

Like when?

Give some examples.

I'm calling bullshit.

Chump making demands for pretend w's / take off the heat. Par.

Go ahead and explicitly state that ICE is a constitutionally instituted organization, or stand down.

[Pavlov]

Chump making demands for pretend w's / take off the heat. Par.

Go ahead and explicitly state that ICE is a constitutionally instituted organization, or stand down. Already did.

It is.

derp folds

Good talk.

Stay down.

[Spurtacular]

Already did.

It is.

derp folds

Good talk.

Stay down.

"Sure" is not explicitly.

Go ahead and explicitly state that ICE is a constitutionally instituted organization, or stand down.

[Pavlov]

"Sure" is not explicitly.

Go ahead and explicitly state that ICE is a constitutionally instituted organization, or stand down. It is.

derp folds

[Spurtacular]

It is.

derp folds

That's not explicit either. More ambivalence. Par.

Go ahead and explicitly state that ICE is a constitutionally instituted organization, or stand down.

[Pavlov]

That's not explicit either. More ambivalence. Par.

Go ahead and explicitly state that ICE is a constitutionally instituted organization, or stand down. I never said it wasn't.

I never will say it isn't.

It is constitutional.

I accept your folding forever on your baseless claim.:tu

[Spurtacular]

I never said it wasn't.

I never will say it isn't.

It is constitutional.

I accept your folding forever on your baseless claim.:tu

More ambivalence. Make a declarative stance that definitively supports your purported stance, or stand down.

In fact, I'll make it easy for you. If you agree, then just fill in the blank with the organizational entity at hand (while writing out the complete sentence), or stand down.

_____________ is a constitutionally instituted organization.

[Pavlov]

More ambivalence. Make a declarative stance that definitively supports your purported stance, or stand down.

In fact, I'll make it easy for you. If you agree, then just fill in the blank with the organizational entity at hand (while writing out the complete sentence), or stand down.

_____________ is a constitutionally instituted organization.ICE is constitutional.

I'm not going to use your tortured vocabulary. It's stupid.

Now. What is the legal basis for your claim that local law enforcement is required to cooperate with ICE?

[Spurtacular]

ICE is constitutional.

I'm not going to use your tortured vocabulary. It's stupid.

Now. What is the legal basis for your claim that local law enforcement is required to cooperate with ICE?

You won't use the "tortured vocabulary" because you want the potential ambivalence of ICE is constitutional.

[Spurtacular]

Pavlov

Is ICE constitutionally instituted?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

You won't use the "tortured vocabulary" because you want the potential ambivalence of ICE is constitutional.Sorry, there is nothing ambivalent about the simple sentence "ICE is constitutional."

Explain how "ICE is constitutional" is ambivalent or back down again.

[Spurtacular]

Sorry, there is nothing ambivalent about the simple sentence "ICE is constitutional."

Explain how "ICE is constitutional" is ambivalent or back down again.

There's plenty of wiggle room to your mind. But if there isn't, then explicitly state that ICE is constitutionally founded.

[Pavlov]

There's plenty of wiggle room.Like what?

Explain or back down again.

[Spurtacular]

Like what?

Explain or back down again.

There's plenty of wiggle room to your mind. But if there isn't, then explicitly state that ICE is constitutionally founded, or stand down.

[Pavlov]

There's plenty of wiggle roomLike what?

Explain or back down again.

[Hillary2020]

Stand-down order 0001 to Chump: Do not explicitly state that ICE is constitutionally founded.

[Pavlov]

Stand-down order 0001 to Chump: Do not explicitly state that ICE is constitutionally founded.derp folds
derp runs to yet another alt

[Spurtacular]

Looks like Chump is following orders. :lmao

[Pavlov]

Looks like Chump is following orders. :lmaoderp folds three times :lmao

[Spurtacular]

derp folds three times :lmao

Explicitly state that ICE is or isn't constitutionally founded, or stand down.

[Winehole23]

By any chance you know what federalism is, Spurtacular?

[Spurtacular]

By any chance you know what federalism is, Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615)?

I'll tell you this once more (if I haven't told you already); don't ask questions as if I'm an unknowing middle-schooler if you want serious responses (or any response), blakehole.

[Pavlov]

I'll tell you this once more (if I haven't told you already); don't ask questions as if I'm an unknowing middle-schooler if you want serious responses (or any response), blakehole.Sorry, what is your legal basis for claiming local law enforcement is required to cooperate with the constitutionally OK ICE?


I'm giving you another chance to fold, so take it quickly.

[Pavlov]

Explicitly state that ICE is or isn't constitutionally founded, or stand down.ICE is constitutional.

That's all.

If you think that's ambivalent you need to explain how.

You can't so we're moving on.

[Spurtacular]

ICE is constitutional.

That's all.

If you think that's ambivalent you need to explain how.

You can't so we're moving on.

Chump standing down. Par.

[Winehole23]

I'll tell you this once more (if I haven't told you already); don't ask questions as if I'm an unknowing middle-schooler if you want serious responses (or any response), blakehole.You don't seem to be showing any signs of knowing what the word means.

[Spurtacular]

You don't seem to be showing any signs of knowing what the word means.

The non-point point from blakehole.

[Pavlov]

The non-point point from blakehole.

He says you don't know what you're talking about.

Again.

I said it too.

You folded right after.

[Spurtacular]

Spiteful blather by Chump. Par.

[Winehole23]

The non-point point from blakehole.You should look it up.

Subsidiarity is baked into the US Constitution, you may be familiar with it as "states rights." Believe it or not, the principle of subsidiarity extends down to the municipality.

Cities and counties are no more bound than states to enforce federal law -- which is to say, not at all.

[Spurtacular]

You should look it up.



You should look it up.

[Winehole23]

You should look it up.I just explained it to you.

[Spurtacular]

Cities and counties are no more bound than states to enforce federal law -- which is to say, not at all.

:lol

[Winehole23]

:lolNot sure why you're laughing, that's how the law works here.

[Spurtacular]

Not sure why you're laughing, that's how the law works here.

Cos that's something that snowflakes like you desperately want to believe, but only when it suits you.

[Pavlov]

Spiteful blather by Chump. Par.What part did you not understand?

I'll help you with it.

[spurraider21]

Cos that's something that snowflakes like you desperately want to believe, but only when it suits you.
scalia bad now

https://i.gyazo.com/d06809f4c0a19fa2a8b70a235c934009.png

[Winehole23]

Cos that's something that snowflakes like you desperately want to believe, but only when it suits you.It's not a matter of opinion. It's fairly cut and dried, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

scalia bad now

https://i.gyazo.com/d06809f4c0a19fa2a8b70a235c934009.png

My point exactly. Snowflakes will side with Scalia when it suits them. Thanks for the back-up, Lite.

[spurraider21]

It's not a matter of opinion. It's fairly cut and dried, tbh.
well. it was US Supreme Court opinion :lol

[spurraider21]

My point exactly. Snowflakes will side with Scalia when it suits them. Thanks for the backup, Lite.
no, federal commandeering is always illegal.

[Pavlov]

My point exactly. Snowflakes will side with Scalia when it suits them. Thanks for the back-up, Lite.

well. it was US Supreme Court opinion :lol:lol back-up

[Winehole23]

well. it was US Supreme Court opinion :lolI was coming at it from the principle of subsidiarity, but yeah, legally it does come down to opinions.

[spurraider21]

My point exactly. Snowflakes will side with Scalia when it suits them. Thanks for the back-up, Lite.
so do you think commandeering should be allowed when it suits your immigration narrative?

[Spurtacular]

Also, that was a philo, lite. We weren't talking about appropriation. But :lol at blakehole for giving you props on backing him up with your philo.

:rollin

[spurraider21]

Also, that was a philo, lite. We weren't talking about appropriation. But :lol at blakehole for giving you props on backing him up with your philo.

:rollin
im not talking about appropriation either. the federal government cannot compel state or local governments to do their bidding for them

[Spurtacular]

so do you think commandeering should be allowed when it suits your immigration narrative?

When did I say that the feds needed to commandeer anything, philo?

[Pavlov]

Also, that was a philo, lite. We weren't talking about appropriation. But :lol at blakehole for giving you props on backing him up with your philo.

:rollin
What is your legal basis for claiming local law enforcement is required to help ICE?

[Spurtacular]

im not talking about appropriation either. the federal government cannot compel state or local governments to do their bidding for them

That doesn't mean they're allowed to obstruct matters. That's the word I used.

[Spurtacular]

What is your legal basis for claiming local law enforcement is required to help ICE?

You can participate when you ante up.

You know what to do:

_____ is / isn't a constitutionally founded agency.

'Til then, enjoy the kiddies table.

:rollin

[Pavlov]

That doesn't mean they're allowed to obstruct matters. That's the word I used.But that's not obstruction.

[Pavlov]

You can participate when you ante up.

You know what to do:

_____ is / isn't a constitutionally founded agency.

'Til then, enjoy the kiddies table.

:rollinWhy did you change your wording on muh demands?

:lol demanding I ante up after folding three times

[Spurtacular]

:cry Muh kiddies table :cry

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1165286432308695040?s=19


States have the right to harbor illegals?

:lmao Chump doesn't know how the Constitution works. :lmao


They have an obligation to cooperate or to not obstruct their duties.
this was the conversation.

there is no reason why North Carolina should compel their officers to do the bidding of the feds

[Spurtacular]

Why did you change your wording on muh demands?

:lol demanding I ante up after folding three times

Does my wording substantively differ from "ICE is constitutional"?

[Pavlov]

Does my wording substantively differ from "ICE is constitutional"?So you're saying ICE is constitutional now?

Cool.

I agree.

[Spurtacular]

this was the conversation.

there is no reason why North Carolina should compel their officers to do the bidding of the feds

So, your argument is that states can knowingly break federal law :tu

[Spurtacular]

So you're saying ICE is constitutional now?

Cool.

I agree.

Chump trying to weasel out. Par. This is your issue on the wording.

Does my wording substantively differ from "ICE is constitutional"?

[Chris]

there is no reason why North Carolina should compel their officers to do the bidding of the feds

Enforcing the law withstanding. :jack

God help the citizen that hires lawyer21.

[Pavlov]

Chump trying to weasel out. Par. This is your issue on the wording.

Does my wording substantively differ from "ICE is constitutional"?I seriously don't know where you're going with all this.

We agree that ICE is constitutional.

So why are you whining and making muh demands?

[Spurtacular]

I seriously don't know where you're going with all this.

We agree that ICE is constitutional.

So why are you whining and making muh demands?

Let's break it down:

You took exception to the wording that you previously claimed was on par with your wording, anyways.

Then when you realized that you had compulsively shat on yourself, you tried to divert from that glaring reality.

[Spurtacular]

We agree that ICE is constitutional.


Now rid yourself from the ambivalence to be promoted from the kiddies' table.

[Pavlov]

Let's break it down:

You took exception to the wording that you previously claimed was on par with your wording, anyways.

Then when you realized that you had compulsively shat on yourself, you tried to divert from that glaring reality.You were the one demanding I post a sentence verbatim then changed that sentence.

That proves my point.

lol derp

[Pavlov]

Now rid yourself from the ambivalence to be promoted from the kiddies' table.What is ambivalent about that?

You never explained.

You folded.

So explain it now.

[Winehole23]

So, your argument is that states can knowingly break federal law :tuThat's not what he said; a few hostile inferences must be supplied to reach your conclusion.

What laws do you think cities and states are breaking by harboring asylees?

[Spurtacular]

What is ambivalent about that?

You never explained.

You folded.

So explain it now.

It's not ambivalent?

Then state it more explicitly. You shouldn't mind, since you claim it's not at odds with your position.

[Pavlov]

It's not ambivalent?No.

You're the one who said it's ambivalent then immediately folded when asked to explain.

So explain how it's ambivalent or fold again.

[Spurtacular]

You were the one demanding I post a sentence verbatim then changed that sentence.

That proves my point.

lol derp

What point is that?

[Spurtacular]

No.

You're the one who said it's ambivalent then immediately folded when asked to explain.

So explain how it's ambivalent or fold again.

It's ambivalent b/c you can ascribe whatever convenient meaning you want to it. But if you say it's the same, then explicitly confirm. You won't b/c you revel in ambivalence I.E. wriggle room.

[Pavlov]

What point is that?That it all means the same thing and muh demands are just a stalling tactic.

lol derp

[Pavlov]

It's ambivalent b/c you can ascribe whatever convenient meaning you want to it.What meaning other than ICE is constitutional could I ascribe to it?

[spurraider21]

Enforcing the law withstanding. :jack

God help the citizen that hires lawyer21.
They cannot be compelled to do the federal governments bidding. They can do so voluntarily. North Carolina doesn’t want to spend State and local resources to do the federal governments job. That’s their prerogative.

There is is no way they can be mandated to do so. That’s federalism aka states rights.

So, your argument is that states can knowingly break federal law :tu
No. My argument is that states have no obligation to carry out the federal governments agenda.

the feds can still bust illegal immigrants in North Carolina.

[Chris]

Looks like obstruction of justice.

[Pavlov]

Looks like obstruction of justice.It's not.

Sorry.

[Spurtacular]

No. My argument is that states have no obligation to carry out the federal governments agenda.

the feds can still bust illegal immigrants in North Carolina.

Pretty spurious stuff, tbh.

[Pavlov]

Pretty spurious stuff, tbh.OK, what is your legal argument that local law enforcement has the obligation to do the bidding of ICE?

[spurraider21]

Looks like obstruction of justice.
nah, just looks like federalism

[Chris]

An Obama-appointed federal judge is forcing Wisconsin taxpayers to provide costly sex reassignment surgery and hormonal procedures for low-income transgender residents who get free medical care from the government. In a recently issued ruling U.S. District Judge William M. Conley writes that Medicaid, the publicly funded insurance that covers 65.7 million poor people, cannot deny the medical treatment needs of those suffering from “gender dysphoria.” Officials estimate it will cost up to $1.2 million annually to provide transgender Medicaid recipients in the Badger State with treatments such as “gender confirmation” surgery, including elective mastectomies, hysterectomies, genital reconstruction and breast augmentation. The intricate operations are typically done by plastic surgeons.

The ruling culminates a lawsuit filed more than a year ago by two transgender Wisconsinites, who accuse the federal and state-funded insurance program of providing them with disparate and inferior health care on the basis of sex. Cody Flack of Green Bay and Sara Makenzie of Baraboo say they suffer from severe gender dysphoria that requires costly surgery. Flack, a woman, claims to be ashamed of her breasts and wants to have them surgically removed as she transitions into a man’s body. To make a case for the government to pay for her surgery, she claims that she engages in “binding,” which flattens her breasts and causes sores, skin irritation and respiratory distress. Flack also has difficulty binding her breasts due to a disability, according to court documents. Makenzie, a man who legally changed his name to Sara and wears women’s clothing, says his “male-appearing genitalia” causes him “great distress” and negatively affects his sexuality and social life. Showering and seeing his body in a mirror is “painful,” court records state, and Makenzie fears someone will be able to see his “male genitals” through his clothing.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/obama-judge-rules-medicaid-must-pay-for-transgender-sex-reassignment-surgery/

[spurraider21]

Pretty spurious stuff, tbh.
take it up with the supreme court, not me :lol

it was scalia, thomas, rehnquist, o'connor, kennedy for that ruling

stevens, souter, ginsburg, breyer against

[Pavlov]

Surprisingly small about of money tbh.

[Spurtacular]

take it up with the supreme court, not me :lol

it was scalia, thomas, rehnquist, o'connor, kennedy for that ruling

stevens, souter, ginsburg, breyer against

I'm not disputing the ruling, though I'll acknowledge it's dicey. I'm saying your interpretation regarding the application(s) thereof is spurious.

[Pavlov]

I'm not disputing the ruling, though I'll acknowledge it's dicey. I'm saying your interpretation regarding the application(s) thereof is spurious.OK, what is your legal argument saying states and local law enforcement are required to cooperate with ICE?

[Spurtacular]

:cry Muh kiddies' table :cry

[Pavlov]

derp folds a tenth time

lol derp

[spurraider21]

I'm not disputing the ruling, though I'll acknowledge it's dicey. I'm saying your interpretation regarding the application(s) thereof is spurious.
how else could it be applied?

you seem like you share the position of stevens' dissenting opinion (joined by ginsburg):

Moreover, the text of the Constitution does not support the Majority's apparent proposition that "a local police officer can ignore a command contained in a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to an express delegation of power enumerated in Article I."

[Winehole23]

I'm not disputing the ruling, though I'll acknowledge it's dicey. I'm saying your interpretation regarding the application(s) thereof is spurious.Spurious use of the word spurious. It's more accurate to say sr21's take is the orthodox reading of the case.

Just say you disagree, Spurtacular, there's no need to hokey it up with pompous phraseology. Makes your case look siller, not stronger.

[Winehole23]

how else could it be applied?

you seem like you share the position of stevens' dissenting opinion (joined by ginsburg):

Moreover, the text of the Constitution does not support the Majority's apparent proposition that "a local police officer can ignore a command contained in a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to an express delegation of power enumerated in Article I."This may be another case of political realignment

The conservative majority may have conceived itself then as raising a federalistic bulwark against a burgeoning liberal adminstrative state; conservatives now, firmly in control of that adminstrative state, want to bully states and localities into doing their bidding vis-a-vis immigration policy.

[Spurtacular]

Spurious use of the word spurious. It's more accurate to say sr21's take is the orthodox reading of the case.

Just say you disagree, Spurtacular, there's no need to hokey it up with pompous phraseology. Makes your case look siller, not stronger.

It doesn't pass the sniff test.

States may take rulings like this and be more audacious in flouting federal authority; but there's going to be limits to how much of it they can do.

[Winehole23]

States rights bad now

[spurraider21]

It doesn't pass the sniff test.

States may take rulings like this and be more audacious in flouting federal authority; but there's going to be limits to how much of it they can do.
Lol sniff test

so you agree with stevens and Ginsburg

[Spurtacular]

Lol sniff test

so you agree with stevens and Ginsburg

I don't recall all the specifics off the top of my head; but wasn't Sherrif Joe prosecuted for not doing King Barry's bidding?