|
Post by liquidreigns on Mar 12, 2024 2:33:56 GMT
Why do you have a fascination with spanking grown men?
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Mar 12, 2024 3:00:24 GMT
You need to grow up. We keep giving you a platform to interact with me since you like stalking me, but this is what you got?
I like watching anybody spank you, but let's face it. You ain't no man. Woman.
Is there any way you could act your age instead of your IQ?
|
|
|
Post by liquidreigns on Mar 20, 2024 19:59:58 GMT
All the links you post are from Democrat operative sites, or your forum. The rest of your diatribe is nothing more then your blubbery mouth (your opinions) based on your Democrat links. When you get challenged on your claims and opinions you whine like a bitch. You are incapable of having a discussion.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Mar 20, 2024 20:13:36 GMT
All the links you post are from Democrat operative sites, or your forum. The rest of your diatribe is nothing more then your blubbery mouth (your opinions) based on your Democrat links. When you get challenged on your claims and opinions you whine like a bitch. You are incapable of having a discussion. You've got to be THE dumbest individual on God's green earth bar none. No wonder they saw fit to put your thread in the humor column. Aside from that you are a pathological liar looking for some kind of acknowledgment and / or relevancy. Damn you're stupid! It's no lie CBS, NBC, ABC, C Span, etc., etc. are all controlled by Democrats. The only medium that claims to be right of center is Faux News. Faux News was started by a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the next major stockholder was a Saudi Prince. I don't know who in the Hell owns it now, but the fact that they controlled it for well over a decade (perhaps several) doesn't give them a lot of credibility. Sooooo... Who in the Hell would any of us quote where the source couldn't be challenged? Let's go one better: What Republican news site would catalog every faux pas that Trump ever made and use it to discredit him? News people don't use the video and, more importantly the things that a public person says when being before a camera. What people like Donald J. Trump writes (what HE writes) and what HE is saying while the cameras are rolling is what HE is to be held accountable for. What is on video; what someone writes in their own book is damn sure NOT my opinion. You can't hold me responsible for posting what HE did any more than you can blame an individual Republican for posting video of Lying Biden making an ass of himself. You've aligned yourself with those who support communism. That's has nothing to do with your personal issues that you are too damn gutless to address. You want a debate? Well, bring your candy ass on. Don't try to dox me; don't try to hijack the threads and then pretend to be innocent. Stand up for whatever it is you want and quit being such a crybaby. You notice that nobody is backing up here. You're the one too much of coward to put yourself on a level playing field and have honest and civil discussions.
|
|
|
Post by liquidreigns on Mar 22, 2024 15:01:53 GMT
You prove my point every time you post. urafuknclwn The internet isn't for you.
As usual, you don't comprehend anything past the headline of an article written by Democrats.
The actual discussion with trump about the EC from your link:
State winner-take-all laws are also the reason why it is possible for a candidate to win the Presidency without winning the national popular vote. Under state winner-take-all laws, all of a state's electoral votes go to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state. If these state laws are not changed, there will likely be more presidential elections in which the loser of the national popular vote wins the Electoral College. This is especially true because we are in an era of close presidential elections (the average margin in the national popular vote has been only 5% since 1988). Five out of our 45 Presidents came into office after losing the national popular vote.
Here's what Trump said to Lesley Stahl about the Electoral College and a national popular vote for President on Sixty Minutes on November 13, 2016:
Stahl: Now for months you were running around saying the system is rigged. The whole thing was rigged. You tweeted once that the Electoral College is a “disaster for democracy.”
Trump: I do.
Stahl: So do you still think it’s rigged?
Trump: Well, I think the Electoral College. Look I won with the Electoral College.
Stahl: Exactly. But do you think it’s rigged?
Trump: Yes. Some of the election locations are. Some of the system is. Ah.
Stahl: Even though you won, you’re saying that.
Trump: Well, I mean, I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play. The Electoral College. And there’s something very good about that. But this is a different system. But I respect it. I do respect the system.
So Trump was referring to State winner-take-all laws in regards to the electoral college.
Why am I not surprised. SMMFH
|
|
|
Post by johndrake on Mar 22, 2024 17:25:43 GMT
You prove my point every time you post. urafuknclwn The internet isn't for you. As usual, you don't comprehend anything past the headline of an article written by Democrats. The actual discussion with trump about the EC from your link: State winner-take-all laws are also the reason why it is possible for a candidate to win the Presidency without winning the national popular vote. Under state winner-take-all laws, all of a state's electoral votes go to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state. If these state laws are not changed, there will likely be more presidential elections in which the loser of the national popular vote wins the Electoral College. This is especially true because we are in an era of close presidential elections (the average margin in the national popular vote has been only 5% since 1988). Five out of our 45 Presidents came into office after losing the national popular vote. Here's what Trump said to Lesley Stahl about the Electoral College and a national popular vote for President on Sixty Minutes on November 13, 2016: Stahl: Now for months you were running around saying the system is rigged. The whole thing was rigged. You tweeted once that the Electoral College is a “disaster for democracy.” Trump: I do. Stahl: So do you still think it’s rigged? Trump: Well, I think the Electoral College. Look I won with the Electoral College. Stahl: Exactly. But do you think it’s rigged? Trump: Yes. Some of the election locations are. Some of the system is. Ah. Stahl: Even though you won, you’re saying that. Trump: Well, I mean, I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play. The Electoral College. And there’s something very good about that. But this is a different system. But I respect it. I do respect the system. So Trump was referring to State winner-take-all laws in regards to the electoral college. Why am I not surprised. SMMFH Someone else needs to step in this time. Gentlemen. WTH are you talking about Liquid Reigns? Let's get this straightened out. In 2012 Trump says that the Electoral College is a disaster for democracy. At that time, Trump is not a candidate for public office. Rather he is hosting a tv show. In 2016 says ""We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the electoral college." All of a sudden the Electoral College works. Why? Because Trump won. Trump won in a winner take all scenario. WTH are you talking about? You do not seem to be able to understand simple English. If you think people are a fucking clown (sic) why are you not ignoring them? Is it because you need to be schooled? If you need people to put you in your place then welcome to Resisters. You might infect the Internet world but here you are just another poster and there will always be people pursuing you for spreading misinformation. If anybody is a clown you are. You should quit trolling and settle this once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by liquidreigns on Apr 2, 2024 12:08:04 GMT
Being awakened at 2AM by JBT's is a state issue, has nothing to do with Trump you dumb ****.
How are they not "illegals" when they are classified as having entered illegally? Courts use the term illegal alien/immigrant, the Government uses the term as well. So explain to everybody why an illegal isn't an illegal. SMFH
I wonder why Biden and Johnson scuttled the peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. Maybe you can explain why they did that, and then explain why Putin attacked at the Donbas.
Why didn't Trump screw those that put him in office the first time, yet I remember you whining about the "Muslim Ban" being unconstitutional, when in fact it was constitutional after all. GOFIGR UDMBFUKNCLWN
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Apr 2, 2024 17:35:26 GMT
Being awakened at 2AM by JBT's is a state issue, has nothing to do with Trump you dumb ****. How are they not "illegals" when they are classified as having entered illegally? Courts use the term illegal alien/immigrant, the Government uses the term as well. So explain to everybody why an illegal isn't an illegal. SMFH I wonder why Biden and Johnson scuttled the peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. Maybe you can explain why they did that, and then explain why Putin attacked at the Donbas. Why didn't Trump screw those that put him in office the first time, yet I remember you whining about the "Muslim Ban" being unconstitutional, when in fact it was constitutional after all. GOFIGR UDMBFUKNCLWN I don't follow you on other boards, but here I respond to this thread just for chits and giggles. Let us begin: Being awakened at 2 am by JBTs IS, in fact, a federal matter so you're wrong there. When federal JBTs descended on patriots in the middle of the night, yanking them out of bed at gunpoint and forcing them to lie on their stomachs outside on the lawn while being handcuffed AND all that without probable cause or a warrant it is federal not state. You could benefit a lot by taking a high school level civics course before arguing. Additionally, when Trump was the Pretender in Chief, he clearly and unequivocally upheld the precedents and the policies that allow for such actions. Now, let us draw you a straight line. Many years ago they passed a law called the " Patriot Act." Now, this so - called " Patriot Act" was passed under the guise of pursuing foreign terrorists. The most likely victims of this law was patriots from the right. During those years the FBI pursued me and one time I am in a room with the lawyers representing the feds and BTW Danny Porter (who was the District Attorney here at the time was there). He heard the exchange. I asked, " When in the Hell did we begin pursuing people and presuming they were guilty without due process of the law?" The government attorney looked me in the face and said, " We do it all the time, sir. Haven't you ever heard of an illegal alien?" So, here is the real skinny on all of this. The illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to " all persons the equal protection of the laws." The people you want to call " illegal aliens" are persons (according to case law laid down by our courts) are persons entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Soooo... when they are denied basic Liberties (i.e. the presumption of innocence) then Americans can be denied the equal protection of the laws. That's my dog in the fight, mam. If I have to stand up for people that I don't agree with in order to protect my own Rights, then that is the way it is. You play the game according to the parameters set by those in power. Finally, Trump DID screw over those that put him office. More are opposing him than working to help him get elected again. And, insofar as Muslims are concerned, unless it is the equal protection of the laws necessary to protect my own Rights, then it's probably one of your incessant lies that you can't back up with facts. The immigration debacle has been explained to you too many times. If you don't know the answer as to why you're wrong, then you need to read the info already provided to you. In over a decade you haven't been able to refute it, so repeating your lies don't change reality. You called me a dumb fucking clown. You must be projecting. You are what? Now toward the decade and a half mark of stalking me and trolling me? You claim to have kids, but you allow me to occupy space in your head, rent free while you cheat your family out of time. I'm the clown? Does your family hate you that much OR is it more likely you're so lonely that you need me to parent you? Do you even have a family? If you have a family and you spend your ever waking moment fretting over what I say and do, you're screwing them over and then trying to get your invisible legion of fans to give you accolades based upon your stupidity makes YOU the fucking clown. And I remind the posters / readers that you called me out, threatened me and lied about me only for me to accept the challenge. Then you haul ass, play peeky boo and try to hide behind anonymous board names instead of stepping out of the shadows and facing me like a decent human being. You are projecting. If there is a dumb clown around here, you should check it out in your mirror.
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 504
|
Post by professorx on Apr 2, 2024 21:05:46 GMT
While getting the boot from the Dumber than turds site was no big deal that commie LR is not a fan favorite to those around here. Her stalking does seem to indicate that she believes that the posts here represent a force to be reckoned with. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the stalking is that Resister must have rejected that woman. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
|
|
|
Post by liquidreigns on Apr 3, 2024 12:35:53 GMT
You claim others are lying, yet you point out no lies. All Giulani did was state the obvious, it's not illegal to be in the US without authorization. What he fails to say and respond to from that line of questioning is that crossing the border is illegal. Christie tried the same obfuscation, and came out and clarified that, yes it is a crime to cross the border illegally.
You claim others are un-educated, yet you are the one claiming the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, when every court and scholar says otherwise. Are you claiming to be smarter then the courts, Congress, each individual state, and legal scholars?
What does the 14th have to do with illegal aliens? It applies to the states, not the Federal Government. ICE can arrest, charge and remove illegals within the US once they are found and identified. Local LEO doesn't have jurisdiction unless the individual commits a state or local crime.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Apr 3, 2024 16:34:53 GMT
You claim others are lying, yet you point out no lies. All Giulani did was state the obvious, it's not illegal to be in the US without authorization. What he fails to say and respond to from that line of questioning is that crossing the border is illegal. Christie tried the same obfuscation, and came out and clarified that, yes it is a crime to cross the border illegally. You claim others are un-educated, yet you are the one claiming the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, when every court and scholar says otherwise. Are you claiming to be smarter then the courts, Congress, each individual state, and legal scholars? What does the 14th have to do with illegal aliens? It applies to the states, not the Federal Government. ICE can arrest, charge and remove illegals within the US once they are found and identified. Local LEO doesn't have jurisdiction unless the individual commits a state or local crime. Liquid, Liquid, Liquid. You have to be the most dishonest charlatan on the Internet. You are full of sh!+ with regards to what Giuliani said to Sean Hannity on immigration. The context is in the interview and when Hannity tried to make the point you did, Rudy shut him down by saying that it wasn't illegal " nor should it be." We have a link to that exchange and not one word limits the illegality to just being in the U.S. Hell, sis, you can't even spell Giuliani's name right. How much do you really know about the topic? You wrote: " You claim others are un-educated, yet you are the one claiming the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, when every court and scholar says otherwise. Are you claiming to be smarter then the courts, Congress, each individual state, and legal scholars?" RESPONSE: You've followed me for what is probably a decade and a half at this point. You are either misrepresenting this issue OR you are outright lying. I've been writing about this issue for several decades and researching it for many years. I've always cited my sources. What? Have you been commenting on my posts without accessing the links? That probably explains why you didn't know what Giuliani's dialogue consisted of on immigration. The only people I've ever read / quoted on the legality of the Fourteenth Amendment have been constitutional researchers, judges, lawyers, a state legislator that was also a lawyer and historians. If others are interested, I can point them to the material on this board so they can research it for themselves and see what a pathetic creature you are. Were you kidding me when you wrote, " What does the 14th have to do with illegal aliens (sic )?" Are you for real? OR did you think that others that might read that might be that damn stupid? IIRC, each time I've written about that, I've explained it. So that it is officially recorded, we can do it one more time: The illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment may have been intended to address issues with Blacks being allowed to vote; however, the courts expanded the meaning so that the word persons as used in that amendment applied to all people... everybody... regardless of immigration status. Those people, in question, have constitutional protections. For other posters, here are what the lawyers say: "... The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as “persons” guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-18/aliens-in-the-united-statesAlso see: www.accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/post/undocumented-immigrants-rights-under-the-united-states-constitutionThe bottom line here is that if a foreigner with questionable " legal" status is presumed guilty without probable cause and having been adjudged to be a criminal, then you (an American) can be presumed to be guilty of a crime without probable cause or having had your day in court. Lady, this isn't rocket science. The equal protection of the laws has a meaning regardless of whether the state or federal government is judging you. We're never addressing this again. You've been responded to. If a foreigner doesn't have due process, neither do you. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by noclevername on Apr 4, 2024 2:08:31 GMT
This is not funny but the troll should be paid by his handlers for asking rhetorical questions that only open the door for deep discussions of which the troll cannot respond to. He keeps changing tactics. What's next?
|
|
|
Post by liquidreigns on Apr 5, 2024 2:31:09 GMT
Here is a question....should the mentally ill have the right to own firearms? Now as to Red Flag Laws since that is what you are alluding to in regards to Trumps quote. (this is what pressure from constituents looks like to make change) www.businessinsider.com/trump-slams-gun-bill-mcconnell-republicans-take-your-guns-2022-6Here is what he said in 2019 regarding red flag laws: "We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken by rapid due process," Trump said in 2019. "That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders." From the above article from 2022, Trump condemned the recent bill in congress because it would "encourage officials to join the 19 states and the District of Columbia that have a version of such a law — those laws can give the authorities the right to temporarily confiscate someone's firearm if they pose an immediate threat to themselves or others. As NPR points out, the grants aren't even restricted to states that pass a red flag law."
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 504
|
Post by professorx on Apr 5, 2024 2:37:55 GMT
Here is a question....should the mentally ill have the right to own firearms? Now as to Red Flag Laws since that is what you are alluding to in regards to Trumps quote. (this is what pressure from constituents looks like to make change) www.businessinsider.com/trump-slams-gun-bill-mcconnell-republicans-take-your-guns-2022-6Here is what he said in 2019 regarding red flag laws: "We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken by rapid due process," Trump said in 2019. "That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders." From the above article from 2022, Trump condemned the recent bill in congress because it would "encourage officials to join the 19 states and the District of Columbia that have a version of such a law — those laws can give the authorities the right to temporarily confiscate someone's firearm if they pose an immediate threat to themselves or others. As NPR points out, the grants aren't even restricted to states that pass a red flag law." You posted that to prove Trump is against gun control? That one is funny. No matter how rapid due process is there must be probable cause to infringe on individual rights. If the risk to public safety is that great a person is put into protective custody and held where within hours to a couple of days they appear before a judge to see if probable cause exists to put the person into a mental health facility or jail. Since Trump has called for red flag gun laws it seems there is not an issue for you to complain about. You really ought to put some thought into what you post. Rapid due process Trump style means take the guns early and then give them due process. That is not how the process works mam.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Apr 6, 2024 18:26:10 GMT
Here is a question....should the mentally ill have the right to own firearms? Now as to Red Flag Laws since that is what you are alluding to in regards to Trumps quote. (this is what pressure from constituents looks like to make change) www.businessinsider.com/trump-slams-gun-bill-mcconnell-republicans-take-your-guns-2022-6Here is what he said in 2019 regarding red flag laws: "We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken by rapid due process," Trump said in 2019. "That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders." From the above article from 2022, Trump condemned the recent bill in congress because it would "encourage officials to join the 19 states and the District of Columbia that have a version of such a law — those laws can give the authorities the right to temporarily confiscate someone's firearm if they pose an immediate threat to themselves or others. As NPR points out, the grants aren't even restricted to states that pass a red flag law." You go from board to board trying to harass me, but here you're having a hard time making people believe this B.S. BTW, what is this crap " rapid due process" you posted? What the Hell is wrong with you? In proper order, you cannot take a person's firearms like that according to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment provides against unreasonable search and seizure. What I have on me is MINE. If a person poses an imminent threat to themselves or others, you put them in protective custody as per the laws regarding arrest and detain. That process must be speedy. You don't take property from freemen. You put them in jail, prison or a mental institution IF you can show they pose a threat to themselves or others. THAT is the proper and constitutional way to do it. The idiotic notion that you strip a freeman of his weapons and tell him not to own them any longer only makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. A well prepared citizen, for example, is not deterred by the fact that a LEO may take a weapon from them. He or she has ways of getting another weapon. It's the person that is dangerous, not an inanimate object. Your objective is gun control. Gun control is not crime control; it does NOTHING to save lives. Red Flag Gun Laws are blatantly unconstitutional as they deny people the fundamental principle of a presumption of innocence. The answer to your question is that a " mentally ill" person has a Right to keep and bear Arms UNLESS they may pose a danger to themselves or others - in which case, they should be adjudged accordingly and put into protective custody for their protection and the protection of others. They should always maintain the Right to counsel - even if it's at taxpayer expense and we should have stringent laws against getting people committed for ulterior reasons. In your case, I realize that you probably would pose a threat and if I knew WHO you really were, it would be appropriate to contact the authorities and have them investigate you for stalking and Internet terrorism. You probably would end up in a mental institution IF we applied the laws correctly. You benefit by the loose terminology of what constitutes " mental illness." Aside from that, a person's mental health records are NOT accessible to the authorities which makes it all the more imperative that we protect the privacy of individuals, but bring them before a judge if they act in a manner so as to pose an imminent threat to themselves or others.
|
|