OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[NoleSoup4U]

207 killed in church bombings.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/89076...r-sunday-tourists-190-dead-bombs-toll-latest/

Gee, I wonder who was responsible for this?

 

[strummingram]

I dunno if this was an actual quote... but, that's kinda the whole point. It probably is, based on his usual struggle when faking-his-way through whatever solemn occasion is at-hand.

 

[TarHeelMark]

I dunno if this was an actual quote... but, that's kinda the whole point. It probably is, based on his usual struggle when faking-his-way through whatever solemn occasion is at-hand.

Yeah, I’m always amazed at how some will say that trump is a good Christian man, because it fits their narrative. LOL.

 

[strummingram]

Yeah, I’m always amazed at how some will say that trump is a good Christian man, because it fits their narrative. LOL.

 

[uncboy10]

View embedded media

Lol she is such a twat.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

@strummingram would enjoy this one:

 

[strummingram]

@strummingram would enjoy this one:

View embedded media

Where the hell did you find that???

"The Ben Ber-nank." That's hilarious.

I can't watch that without getting concerned. The sand our system is built on is more like dust. I shudder when I think of just how precarious it is and how completely it can just wipe everything out.

 

[cletusnow]

@strummingram would enjoy this one:

View embedded media

If you like British comedy this explanation is hilarious.

 

[strummingram]

Lol she is such a twat.

She's pretty delusional, in my opinion. But, I would never call her that .

 

[uncboy10]

She's pretty delusional, in my opinion. But, I would never call her that .

Por que?

 

[strummingram]

Por que?

I don't feel the need to call her a vulgar insult.

 

[uncboy10]

I don't feel the need to call her a vulgar insult.

I don’t really consider that to be vulgar. It just means someone who is dumb and obnoxious.

 

[strummingram]

I don’t really consider that to be vulgar. It just means someone who is dumb and obnoxious.

Okay. To me it's a vulgar insult.

 

[uncboy10]

Okay. To me it's a vulgar insult.

Fair enough

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I don’t really consider that to be vulgar. It just means someone who is dumb and obnoxious.

I'm not saying you shouldn't say it, but go call a woman a "twat" and see what kind of reaction you get.

 

[nctransplant]

I'd like for you to try saying it to Rhonda Rousey.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Leader of self-styled U.S. citizen border patrol attacked in jail

http://news.trust.org/item/20190424190640-j4n8c

If I were this guy, I would be suing both the state of New Mexico and the ACLU over this.

 

[prlyles]

Leader of self-styled U.S. citizen border patrol attacked in jail

http://news.trust.org/item/20190424190640-j4n8c

If I were this guy, I would be suing both the state of New Mexico and the ACLU over this.

Why is he any different than anybody else who gets attacked in jail?

 

[strummingram]

Leader of self-styled U.S. citizen border patrol attacked in jail

http://news.trust.org/item/20190424190640-j4n8c

If I were this guy, I would be suing both the state of New Mexico and the ACLU over this.

"Hopkins was arrested on Saturday by the FBI on an outstanding warrant accusing him of being a felon in illegal possession of firearms, a charge dating back to a 2017 search of his home."

It's the State's fault for him being in jail for illegal possession of a firearm?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

"Hopkins was arrested on Saturday by the FBI on an outstanding warrant accusing him of being a felon in illegal possession of firearms, a charge dating back to a 2017 search of his home."

It's the State's fault for him being in jail for illegal possession of a firearm?

Why is he any different than anybody else who gets attacked in jail?

Because he was denied bail and the ACLU ran a hit piece on him, stoking the flames of racism.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

And this is why it shouldn't be illegal to exclude people from your business. If you do that, this is what happens.

Vegan Feminist Cafe That Imposed 18% “Gender Surcharge” on Men Closes Down

https://www.infowars.com/vegan-feminist-cafe-that-imposed-18-gender-surcharge-on-men-closes-down/

 

[NoleSoup4U]

University hosts no-whites-allowed faculty and staff listening sessions — to promote inclusivity

https://www.thecollegefix.com/unive...ff-listening-sessions-to-promote-inclusivity/

El
Oh
Friggen
El

What's the best way to promote inclusivity? Why to ban people of course! This one is right up your way, peeps.

 

[strummingram]

Because he was denied bail and the ACLU ran a hit piece on him, stoking the flames of racism.

I don't think your lawsuit would have much of a chance.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I don't think your lawsuit would have much of a chance.

The fact that he was denied bail for something so simple is pretty messed up. You could also go after the ACLU for slander, especially since their carelessness contributed to his bodily harm. They should be held responsible for their actions.

 

[strummingram]

The fact that he was denied bail for something so simple is pretty messed up. You could also go after the ACLU for slander, especially since their carelessness contributed to his bodily harm. They should be held responsible for their actions.

Sounds like a slam dunk.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Sounds like a slam dunk.

I didn't say that, however I also didn't outright dismiss it because of my personal beliefs. The refusal of giving the man his Constitutional rights is pretty disturbing. The ACLU should be angry about that, seeing as they're supposed to be a "civil liberties" organization, but they're too busy pushing their own agenda, which is anything but civil rights anymore.

 

[strummingram]

I didn't say that...

I know... I did.

 

[tarheel0910]

I didn't say that, however I also didn't outright dismiss it because of my personal beliefs. The refusal of giving the man his Constitutional rights is pretty disturbing. The ACLU should be angry about that, seeing as they're supposed to be a "civil liberties" organization, but they're too busy pushing their own agenda, which is anything but civil rights anymore.

Are you saying bail is a constitutional right?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Are you saying bail is a constitutional right?

8th Amendment

 

[tarheel0910]

8th Amendment

Are you talking about the excessive bail clause? That doesn't say someone has to get bail. The courts have ruled that judges have discretion as far as who can get bail.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Are you talking about the excessive bail clause? That doesn't say someone has to get bail. The courts have ruled that judges have discretion as far as who can get bail.

It did until SCOTUS overruled it. So, let's just say that the ruling by SCOTUS is Constitutional. Do you think this minor infraction, which btw happened back in 2017, is severe enough to deny him bail? Either way you look at it, the decision was wrong. I could at least understand the argument if he was running around killing people. What he's guilty of isn't a big deal, and honestly shouldn't even be illegal. The law itself is unconstitutional.

 

[tarheel0910]

It did until SCOTUS overruled it. So, let's just say that the ruling by SCOTUS is Constitutional. Do you think this minor infraction, which btw happened back in 2017, is severe enough to deny him bail? Either way, you look at it, the decision was wrong. I could at least understand the argument if he was running around killing people. What he's guilty of isn't a big deal, and honestly shouldn't even be illegal. The law itself is unconstitutional.

According to the SCOTUS they never had that right. Bail is determined by many factors, not just the actual crime. They also take into account past criminal history, likelihood he will show back up at trial, does he pose a threat, etc.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

According to the SCOTUS they never had that right. Bail is determined by many factors, not just the actual crime. They also take into account past criminal history, likely hood he will show back up at trial, does he pose a threat, etc.

Yeah, it was implemented by a SCOTUS ruling. That's what I said. Also, if he was such a threat, why has he been running around free these last couple of years? It's a tragedy to his civil rights, but we seem to value the rights of illegals over the rights of our own citizens nowadays.

 

[tarheel0910]

Yeah, it was implemented by a SCOTUS ruling. That's what I said. Also, if he was such a threat, why has he been running around free these last couple of years? It's a tragedy to his civil rights, but we seem to value the rights of illegals over the rights of our own citizens nowadays.

It wasn't implemented by them. It was determined that they never had the right based on the wording and past history. I'm not saying the guy was a threat. I don't know the guy's background and history, so I can't make that assessment one way or the other.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

It wasn't implemented by them. It was determined that they never had the right based on the wording and past history. I'm not saying the guy was a threat. I don't know the guy's background and history, so I can't make that assessment one way or the other.

He obviously wasn't a threat if he was running around free. As for your acceptance of legislating from the bench, it doesn't really surprise me. We do so much of that in this country that everyone has become pretty numb to it.

 

[tarheel0910]

He obviously wasn't a threat if he was running around free. As for your acceptance of legislating from the bench, it doesn't really surprise me. We do so much of that in this country that everyone has become pretty numb to it.

How is that legislating from the bench? The exact wording is : "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." It doesn't say bail is required. The decision was based on the history and original meaning/purpose of the law as well as the plain language. It was a sound decision. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't. Who gets credit for the Van Damme on this one, me or the SCOTUS?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

How is that legislating from the bench? The exact wording is : "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." It doesn't say bail is required. The decision was based on the history and original meaning/purpose of the law as well as the plain language. It was a sound decision. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't. Who gets credit for the Van Damme on this one, me or the SCOTUS?

Because the law wasn't that way until SCOTUS intervened. That's legislating from the bench. Regardless, your defense of New Mexico isn't warranted in this situation despite the ruling from SCOTUS. It's obvious that his infractions were pretty mild and their refusal to let him post bail is a terrible one.

 

[prlyles]

He obviously wasn't a threat if he was running around free. As for your acceptance of legislating from the bench, it doesn't really surprise me. We do so much of that in this country that everyone has become pretty numb to it.

Serious question. Are you self aware enough to see how you come across in your post?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Serious question. Are you self aware enough to see how you come across in your post?

Informed? Yes. Are you aware that you never add anything to the coversation and are here strictly to lob pathetic insults at others?

 

[tarheel0910]

Because the law wasn't that way until SCOTUS intervened. That's legislating from the bench. Regardless, your defense of New Mexico isn't warranted in this situation despite the ruling from SCOTUS. It's obvious that his infractions were pretty mild and their refusal to let him post bail is a terrible one.

The law was that way going all the way back to merry olde england. Had they ruled different, it would have been legislating from the bench because they wouldn't have followed the intent and language. I'm not defending NM. Never have. We are talking about the law you don't seem to understand. I'm taking credit for this Van Damme.