Country over party

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Country over party

#26 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:05 pm

jarnon wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:58 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 3:33 pm
Another concoction of the left-wing media and Nancy. There was a riot, which should never have happened. But it was labeled an 'insurrection' as a political maneuver.
The distinction is more than semantic. The little-known section 3 of the 14th amendment says:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
So any current or former government official who’s convicted of insurrection is barred from any future government office. No such ban on participants in a riot.
So far as I know, no one, either civilian or official, has been charged with insurrection, which should give you an indication how that term is only being used as a political weapon.

Some political zealots on the left are making a feeble attempt at using that section as a weapon against Margaret Taylor Greene.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Country over party

#27 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:23 pm

jarnon wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:58 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 3:33 pm
Another concoction of the left-wing media and Nancy. There was a riot, which should never have happened. But it was labeled an 'insurrection' as a political maneuver.
The distinction is more than semantic. The little-known section 3 of the 14th amendment says:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
So any current or former government official who’s convicted of insurrection is barred from any future government office. No such ban on participants in a riot.
The Amendment doesn't say "convicted." It says "engaged in." The difference is important, because there are civil lawsuits going on right now in court to bar certain notorious Republican representatives from running for reelection on the ground that they engaged in insurrection. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 20477
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Country over party

#28 Post by silverscreenselect » Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:31 pm

Estonut wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:48 pm
DId you even read your quote?
The 41-page review of the the U.S. Park Police's actions on June 1, 2020, broadly concludes that protesters weren't forcefully cleared out of the park to make way for then-president Donald Trump to walk to a nearby church for a photo op, but rather to make way for fencing to be placed around the park in response to violent racial justice protests that had happened on two prior nights.
You are aware that "weren't" means "were not," aren't you?
From a followup article a week later:
The U.S. Park Police did not clear protesters from a park outside the White House so then-President Donald Trump could take a photo-op at a nearby church, an Interior Department inspector general's report found.

"[T]he evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day," Interior Department Inspector General Mark Greenblatt wrote in a statement with the report's release Wednesday. "As such, we determined that the evidence did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park."

Trump walked to St. John's Church, which had been damaged the day before during protests over racial injustice. As he did, law enforcement violently cleared what had been mostly peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park.

As those scenes unfolded, Trump posed for photographs, holding up a Bible outside the church.
So, they made the decision to clear the park earlier, but those efforts were ongoing while Trump staged his little walk to the church. As he was walking, they were gassing. The reporters on the spot didn't have access to the police operational plan made hours before. They reported what they saw. Trump walked; the police gassed.

The headline of Flock's link said: "Media Falsely Claimed Violent Riots Were Peaceful And That Tear Gas Was Used Against Rioters." Nothing about the purpose for clearing the square.

That's standard right-wing propaganda. Point out a problem with 1% of a report and use that to claim "proof" that the entire report is wrong.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10291
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: Country over party

#29 Post by Estonut » Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:52 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:31 pm
Estonut wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:48 pm
DId you even read your quote?
The 41-page review of the the U.S. Park Police's actions on June 1, 2020, broadly concludes that protesters weren't forcefully cleared out of the park to make way for then-president Donald Trump to walk to a nearby church for a photo op, but rather to make way for fencing to be placed around the park in response to violent racial justice protests that had happened on two prior nights.
You are aware that "weren't" means "were not," aren't you?
From a followup article a week later:
The U.S. Park Police did not clear protesters from a park outside the White House so then-President Donald Trump could take a photo-op at a nearby church, an Interior Department inspector general's report found.

"[T]he evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day," Interior Department Inspector General Mark Greenblatt wrote in a statement with the report's release Wednesday. "As such, we determined that the evidence did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park."

Trump walked to St. John's Church, which had been damaged the day before during protests over racial injustice. As he did, law enforcement violently cleared what had been mostly peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park.

As those scenes unfolded, Trump posed for photographs, holding up a Bible outside the church.
So, they made the decision to clear the park earlier, but those efforts were ongoing while Trump staged his little walk to the church. As he was walking, they were gassing. The reporters on the spot didn't have access to the police operational plan made hours before. They reported what they saw. Trump walked; the police gassed.

The headline of Flock's link said: "Media Falsely Claimed Violent Riots Were Peaceful And That Tear Gas Was Used Against Rioters." Nothing about the purpose for clearing the square.

That's standard right-wing propaganda. Point out a problem with 1% of a report and use that to claim "proof" that the entire report is wrong.
I was responding directly to Bob###'s assertion at the top of my quoted section, "People are no longer being tear gassed to facilitate a photo op." That's why I put it there. That's 50% of the bullshit report, not 1%.

Your new quote left out your previously-often-reported detail that he held the bible upside-down. Do you still believe that to be true?
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 2639
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: Country over party

#30 Post by kroxquo » Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:37 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:23 pm
jarnon wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:58 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 3:33 pm
Another concoction of the left-wing media and Nancy. There was a riot, which should never have happened. But it was labeled an 'insurrection' as a political maneuver.
The distinction is more than semantic. The little-known section 3 of the 14th amendment says:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
So any current or former government official who’s convicted of insurrection is barred from any future government office. No such ban on participants in a riot.
The Amendment doesn't say "convicted." It says "engaged in." The difference is important, because there are civil lawsuits going on right now in court to bar certain notorious Republican representatives from running for reelection on the ground that they engaged in insurrection. --Bob
A group of voters here in North Carolina tried to have Madison Cawthorn removed from the ballot based on this clause. The federal judge ruled that the Amnesty Act of 1872, which was originally intended to allow former Confederate soldiers to run for office, also applied in this case, and essentially repealed that aspect of the 14th Amendment. Constitutional scholars called the ruling "absurd." It will be interesting to see if a different judge in Marjorie Taylor Green's case rules differently.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/04/politics ... index.html
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Country over party

#31 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:51 am

kroxquo wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:37 am
Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:23 pm
jarnon wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:58 pm
The distinction is more than semantic. The little-known section 3 of the 14th amendment says:So any current or former government official who’s convicted of insurrection is barred from any future government office. No such ban on participants in a riot.
The Amendment doesn't say "convicted." It says "engaged in." The difference is important, because there are civil lawsuits going on right now in court to bar certain notorious Republican representatives from running for reelection on the ground that they engaged in insurrection. --Bob
A group of voters here in North Carolina tried to have Madison Cawthorn removed from the ballot based on this clause. The federal judge ruled that the Amnesty Act of 1872, which was originally intended to allow former Confederate soldiers to run for office, also applied in this case, and essentially repealed that aspect of the 14th Amendment. Constitutional scholars called the ruling "absurd." It will be interesting to see if a different judge in Marjorie Taylor Green's case rules differently.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/04/politics ... index.html
This is just a group of 'progressive' e-bigot radicals like bob, with financial backing, figuring out ways to be a pain in the ass to people they don't like. This doesn't work they'll come up with another scheme to be a monkey in the wrench.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 20477
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Country over party

#32 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:50 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:51 am
This is just a group of 'progressive' e-bigot radicals like bob, with financial backing, figuring out ways to be a pain in the ass to people they don't like. This doesn't work they'll come up with another scheme to be a monkey in the wrench.
So much for Flock's belief in the Constitution.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 24871
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Country over party

#33 Post by Bob Juch » Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:59 am

Image
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 12839
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Country over party

#34 Post by Beebs52 » Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:07 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:59 am
Image
Only 4 years old but that's ok.
Well, then

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Country over party

#35 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:08 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:59 am
Image
Nice picture.
I have no idea about this guy, but if it's true, good riddance. Nobody with a clear mind believes there are no corrupt repubs. Corruption is a virulent affliction that infects a lot of politicians. Politics, as a profession, attracts a lot of these kinds of scumbags. To attribute this affliction to just republicans is pretty naive on your part. But that is who you are.
Care to find one about the Biden Criminal Family?

Uh, probly not.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 24871
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Country over party

#36 Post by Bob Juch » Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:38 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:08 pm
Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:59 am
Image
Nice picture.
I have no idea about this guy, but if it's true, good riddance. Nobody with a clear mind believes there are no corrupt repubs. Corruption is a virulent affliction that infects a lot of politicians. Politics, as a profession, attracts a lot of these kinds of scumbags. To attribute this affliction to just republicans is pretty naive on your part. But that is who you are.
Care to find one about the Biden Criminal Family?

Uh, probly not.
For what crimes have the Bidens been charged?

Go get your testicles tanned.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Country over party

#37 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:55 pm

Image

I can get pictures too.

I think there's photos of Hunter tanning his testicles on his laptop. If not, there's something just as good.
I think it might be the subject of one of his paintings.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 7783
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: Country over party

#38 Post by tlynn78 » Tue Apr 19, 2022 3:42 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:55 pm
Image

I can get pictures too.

I think there's photos of Hunter tanning his testicles on his laptop. If not, there's something just as good.
I think it might be the subject of one of his paintings.
The video floating around is .. beyond weird.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 11806
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Country over party

#39 Post by BackInTex » Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:09 pm

tlynn78 wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 3:42 pm

The video floating around is .. beyond weird.
You're going to have to be more specific.

Are you talking about the leader of the free world being directed when and where to go by the Easter Bunny?
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 7783
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: Country over party

#40 Post by tlynn78 » Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:12 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:09 pm
tlynn78 wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 3:42 pm

The video floating around is .. beyond weird.
You're going to have to be more specific.

Are you talking about the leader of the free world being directed when and where to go by the Easter Bunny?
The one with an elderly skinny white guy using what appears to be a whip on what appears to be a young girl, both nude - purportedly taken from Hunter's laptop. Of course, it could also be spurious nonsense, but it's beyond bizarre, at any rate.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7536
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Country over party

#41 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:07 am

Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Country over party

#42 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:22 am

We all know this is just more out of state BS. People like bob with money and fake advocacy groups don't like MGT so they want to f**k with her instead of letting the people from her district decide who represents them. They don't care about any consequences or how much money it costs taxpayers. They just want to punish her.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Country over party

#43 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:34 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:22 am
We all know this is just more out of state BS. People like bob with money and fake advocacy groups don't like MGT so they want to f**k with her instead of letting the people from her district decide who represents them. They don't care about any consequences or how much money it costs taxpayers. They just want to punish her.
The opinion piece relies on a single non-binding case, written by the author of Dred Scott v. Sanford. I'm thinking modern courts won't find it very persuasive.

What do you have against the Constitution? Why do you want insurrectionists serving in Congress when the Constitution (to be precise, the Fourteenth Amendment) say they can't? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Country over party

#44 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:46 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:34 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:22 am
We all know this is just more out of state BS. People like bob with money and fake advocacy groups don't like MGT so they want to f**k with her instead of letting the people from her district decide who represents them. They don't care about any consequences or how much money it costs taxpayers. They just want to punish her.
The opinion piece relies on a single non-binding case, written by the author of Dred Scott v. Sanford. I'm thinking modern courts won't find it very persuasive.

What do you have against the Constitution? Why do you want insurrectionists serving in Congress when the Constitution (to be precise, the Fourteenth Amendment) say they can't? --Bob
Hey bob, what is your stake in this? Does MGT represent you? Does she have anything to do with you? She represents a district in MY state. Not yours. You and your ilk really should stay out of it.
When someone puts her on trial for the crime of 'insurrection', then we can talk about it. That's never going to happen, because then we will see the whole story, which your party doesn't want to have happen. You and I both know the 'insurrection' is BS. The last guy who was tried in this case showed conclusively that the Capitol Police were actively letting people in. He was acquitted. When are you going to talk about that and investigate that?
It's always just one way with you.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Country over party

#45 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:59 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:46 am
Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:34 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:22 am
We all know this is just more out of state BS. People like bob with money and fake advocacy groups don't like MGT so they want to f**k with her instead of letting the people from her district decide who represents them. They don't care about any consequences or how much money it costs taxpayers. They just want to punish her.
The opinion piece relies on a single non-binding case, written by the author of Dred Scott v. Sanford. I'm thinking modern courts won't find it very persuasive.

What do you have against the Constitution? Why do you want insurrectionists serving in Congress when the Constitution (to be precise, the Fourteenth Amendment) say they can't? --Bob
Hey bob, what is your stake in this? Does MGT represent you? Does she have anything to do with you? She represents a district in MY state. Not yours. You and your ilk really should stay out of it.
When someone puts her on trial for the crime of 'insurrection', then we can talk about it. That's never going to happen, because then we will see the whole story, which your party doesn't want to have happen. You and I both know the 'insurrection' is BS. The last guy who was tried in this case showed conclusively that the Capitol Police were actively letting people in. He was acquitted. When are you going to talk about that and investigate that?
It's always just one way with you.
She gets to vote on laws that affect me, and if she's still in office after the 2024 elections she may get to cast another vote to invalidate the election of a President for whom I voted, so it's absolutely my business.

I'll ask again. What do you have against the Constitution and its Fourteenth Amendment? What do you have against a court deciding whether her conduct renders her ineligible to serve? If you're right that she isn't actually an insurrectionist, then you should have nothing to worry about. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Country over party

#46 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:17 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:59 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:46 am
Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:34 am
The opinion piece relies on a single non-binding case, written by the author of Dred Scott v. Sanford. I'm thinking modern courts won't find it very persuasive.

What do you have against the Constitution? Why do you want insurrectionists serving in Congress when the Constitution (to be precise, the Fourteenth Amendment) say they can't? --Bob
Hey bob, what is your stake in this? Does MGT represent you? Does she have anything to do with you? She represents a district in MY state. Not yours. You and your ilk really should stay out of it.
When someone puts her on trial for the crime of 'insurrection', then we can talk about it. That's never going to happen, because then we will see the whole story, which your party doesn't want to have happen. You and I both know the 'insurrection' is BS. The last guy who was tried in this case showed conclusively that the Capitol Police were actively letting people in. He was acquitted. When are you going to talk about that and investigate that?
It's always just one way with you.
She gets to vote on laws that affect me, and if she's still in office after the 2024 elections she may get to cast another vote to invalidate the election of a President for whom I voted, so it's absolutely my business.

I'll ask again. What do you have against the Constitution and its Fourteenth Amendment? What do you have against a court deciding whether her conduct renders her ineligible to serve? If you're right that she isn't actually an insurrectionist, then you should have nothing to worry about. --Bob
She doesn't represent you, bob. She represents the citizens who elected her. What she does is represent the wishes of the people who sent her to Congress. And she votes on the things that affect you based on the way that the proposed law affects her constituents. They get to decide whether she remains in office NOT YOU OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Do you not understand that, bob? Is that too complicated for you?
I'm not worried about her. I'm just sick and tired of your ilk f**king with and gaming the system for your own benefit.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 20477
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Country over party

#47 Post by silverscreenselect » Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:06 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:17 am
She doesn't represent you, bob. She represents the citizens who elected her. What she does is represent the wishes of the people who sent her to Congress. And she votes on the things that affect you based on the way that the proposed law affects her constituents. They get to decide whether she remains in office NOT YOU OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
No, the Constitution gets to decide whether she remains in office. The reason that this section of the 14th Amendment was adopted was the recognition that Southern states could and would elect people into office who had engaged in an insurrection.

The Griffin case which appears to be the only case discussing this provision was not a Supreme Court decision but was issued by Chief Justice Chase in his capacity as a Circuit Judge (the rough equivalent of today's Fourth Circuit, which didn't exist in 1869). His decision insofar as stating that Congressional action was the only way to determine that someone was disqualified from office is dicta and the issue hasn't arisen since that time.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

wbtravis007
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: Country over party

#48 Post by wbtravis007 » Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:08 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:17 am
Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:59 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:46 am
Hey bob, what is your stake in this? Does MGT represent you? Does she have anything to do with you? She represents a district in MY state. Not yours. You and your ilk really should stay out of it.
When someone puts her on trial for the crime of 'insurrection', then we can talk about it. That's never going to happen, because then we will see the whole story, which your party doesn't want to have happen. You and I both know the 'insurrection' is BS. The last guy who was tried in this case showed conclusively that the Capitol Police were actively letting people in. He was acquitted. When are you going to talk about that and investigate that?
It's always just one way with you.
She gets to vote on laws that affect me, and if she's still in office after the 2024 elections she may get to cast another vote to invalidate the election of a President for whom I voted, so it's absolutely my business.

I'll ask again. What do you have against the Constitution and its Fourteenth Amendment? What do you have against a court deciding whether her conduct renders her ineligible to serve? If you're right that she isn't actually an insurrectionist, then you should have nothing to worry about. --Bob
She doesn't represent you, bob. She represents the citizens who elected her. What she does is represent the wishes of the people who sent her to Congress. And she votes on the things that affect you based on the way that the proposed law affects her constituents. They get to decide whether she remains in office NOT YOU OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Do you not understand that, bob? Is that too complicated for you?
I'm not worried about her. I'm just sick and tired of your ilk f**king with and gaming the system for your own benefit.
Oh good grief. Are you really this dumb, and blind ?

Something tells me that you wouldn't get all that worked up and frothy about somebody outside of her district donating to her campaign.

Or Trump donating to a candidate not representing Mara Lago.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Country over party

#49 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:14 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:08 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:17 am
Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:59 am
She gets to vote on laws that affect me, and if she's still in office after the 2024 elections she may get to cast another vote to invalidate the election of a President for whom I voted, so it's absolutely my business.

I'll ask again. What do you have against the Constitution and its Fourteenth Amendment? What do you have against a court deciding whether her conduct renders her ineligible to serve? If you're right that she isn't actually an insurrectionist, then you should have nothing to worry about. --Bob
She doesn't represent you, bob. She represents the citizens who elected her. What she does is represent the wishes of the people who sent her to Congress. And she votes on the things that affect you based on the way that the proposed law affects her constituents. They get to decide whether she remains in office NOT YOU OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Do you not understand that, bob? Is that too complicated for you?
I'm not worried about her. I'm just sick and tired of your ilk f**king with and gaming the system for your own benefit.
Oh good grief. Are you really this dumb, and blind ?

Something tells me that you wouldn't get all that worked up and frothy about somebody outside of her district donating to her campaign.

Or Trump donating to a candidate not representing Mara Lago.
I don't think we were talking about donations here, travis. But thanks for your deflection.
Perhaps they can try the Logan Act on for size. Won't hurt to try......
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Country over party

#50 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:52 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:08 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:17 am
Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:59 am
She gets to vote on laws that affect me, and if she's still in office after the 2024 elections she may get to cast another vote to invalidate the election of a President for whom I voted, so it's absolutely my business.

I'll ask again. What do you have against the Constitution and its Fourteenth Amendment? What do you have against a court deciding whether her conduct renders her ineligible to serve? If you're right that she isn't actually an insurrectionist, then you should have nothing to worry about. --Bob
She doesn't represent you, bob. She represents the citizens who elected her. What she does is represent the wishes of the people who sent her to Congress. And she votes on the things that affect you based on the way that the proposed law affects her constituents. They get to decide whether she remains in office NOT YOU OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Do you not understand that, bob? Is that too complicated for you?
I'm not worried about her. I'm just sick and tired of your ilk f**king with and gaming the system for your own benefit.
Oh good grief. Are you really this dumb, and blind ?
That question is rhetorical, right? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Post Reply