Page 2 of 3
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:05 pm
by flockofseagulls104
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:23 pm
by Bob78164
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
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:31 pm
by silverscreenselect
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:52 am
by Estonut
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?
Re: Country over party
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:37 am
by kroxquo
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
Re: Country over party
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:51 am
by flockofseagulls104
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:50 am
by silverscreenselect
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:59 am
by Bob Juch
Re: Country over party
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:07 pm
by Beebs52
Only 4 years old but that's ok.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:08 pm
by flockofseagulls104
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:38 pm
by Bob Juch
flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:08 pm
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:55 pm
by flockofseagulls104
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 3:42 pm
by tlynn78
flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:55 pm
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:09 pm
by BackInTex
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?
Re: Country over party
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:12 pm
by tlynn78
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:07 am
by themanintheseersuckersuit
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:22 am
by flockofseagulls104
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:34 am
by Bob78164
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
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:46 am
by flockofseagulls104
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:59 am
by Bob78164
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
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:17 am
by flockofseagulls104
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:06 pm
by silverscreenselect
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:08 pm
by wbtravis007
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.
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:14 pm
by flockofseagulls104
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......
Re: Country over party
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:52 pm
by Bob78164
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
