Restoring the Constitutional Order

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  2 months ago  •  386 comments

Restoring the Constitutional Order
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”...Justice Clarence Thomas

It seems that the only thing the radical left doesn't control these days is the Supreme Court. I guess we have two men to thank for that. One is the Senate Minority leader, who never fell for the nonsense that fairly act as a Supreme Court Justice or defend the Constitution. The other was a former President who demanded loyalty to the Constitution. It was kind of ironic since the Court was the first foothold the radical left gained in government. Thus, this past week we witnessed more than a half century of judicial activism wiped out. That of course included the eternally controversial Roe decision.

FWCoL25WQAcmPXP?format=jpg&name=small

Abortion has now been returned to the states and the people.
Regulation has now been returned to the US Congress and the people.
Immigration policy has been returned to the presidency.

 For the first time in memory, the Court has completed a term in which it actually did its job.


It didn't come without cost. The Justices were threatened & harassed. For the first time the Court was verbally attacked by a sitting president from abroad. I suppose in another time, the president would have been censured by the Congress. Also of note yesterday was the retirement of one liberal activist judge and the swearing in of a radical activist judge. There still remains a conspicuous silence concerning the so called "investigation" of who leaked the Roe decision.


The Week:

Jan 6th Committee self destructs: In the rush to destroy Donald Trump the Committee ran a surprise witness this past week. She was obviously put in front of the tv cameras based solely on her unvetted damning testimony. That testimony has been contested by two agents charged with protecting the President and a White House attorney who says "hey wait, I wrote those notes that she claims are hers! Obviously the Committee is not going to let those three testify and thus the committee is a sham.

S & P is at it's worst stage in decades: " The S&P 500 posted its worst first half of the year since 1970, hurt by worries about surging inflation and Federal Reserve rate hikes, as well as Russia’s ongoing war on Ukraine and Covid-19 lockdowns in China."

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/29/stock-market-futures-open-to-close-news.html

Horrific tragedy on Biden's open border: "In all,  53 people died  in what one Homeland Security Investigations' agent called the deadliest human smuggling incident in US history. Some victims could be younger than 18." 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/us/san-antonio-migrant-truck-deaths/index.html

Senate expected to ratify NATO expansion: Two new countries are about to be added to NATO. Our idiot-in-Chief thought Switzerland was one of them. He was in Madrid yesterday attacking the US Supreme Court while trying to follow instructions on the idiot card written for him by his radical handlers.

Woman shot on Upper East Side: "At approximately 8:23 p.m. Wednesday, officers responded to a report of a person shot opposite of 164 E. 95th St. Upon arrival, officers discovered a 20-year-old female who was unconscious with a  gunshot wound to her head.  EMS responded to the scene and transported the victim to Metropolitan Hospital, where she was pronounced deceased at 9:20 p.m., Sewell said at the most recent press conference. Preliminary investigation revealed the woman was pushing an approximately three-month-old infant in a baby stroller when an unknown person approached her and fired a single shot into her head from a very close range, Sewell said. Immediately after the shooting, the suspect fled the scene on foot, heading Eastbound on E. 95th St. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-nyc-shooting-woman-pushing-baby-stroller-upper-east-side-at-large




What have we learned?

All things are not equal. In this case it isn't about left vs right...It's about the radical left vs the rest of the country. We are witnessing the usual violence and harassment that comes from the left when they don't get their way. Unfortunately, we no longer have a fair system of justice any more.

This week a point had been made. The truth finally saw the light of day in a certain precinct. The sad part is that late yesterday, we were told that some people must do things a certain way while others could go on doing it anyway they pleased.



Cartoon of the week:

cartoon-062822-copy.jpg?ve=1&tl=1


Honorable Mention:

Justice Clarence Thomas


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

"Apparently, the committee didn't bother to reach out to the Secret Service before it aired the crud about Trump lunging at security. So I guess they're doing that now, which means new witnesses become responsible for repairing other witnesses's hearsay. But maybe they'll find out that Trump didn't just lunge at the Secret Service, he did a double backflip off the trunk of the car and landed squarely in the lap of Abe Lincoln. Who knew Trump can drive an SUV from the backseat? You won't see that in a Bond movie."...Greg Gutfeld



image.jpg?tl=1&ve=1

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

Why do all of those "radical" talking heads on FOX look constipated 24-7?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1    2 months ago

It's JBS

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1.1    one month ago

"Why do all of those "radical" talking heads on FOX look constipated 24-7?"

#45 is firmly up their rectums.  Or are they up his?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago
Obviously the Committee is not going to let those three testify and thus the committee is a sham.

What lead you to that unfounded conclusion Vic? 

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.2.1  Hallux  replied to  Dulay @1.2    2 months ago

Probably a diet of bitter herbs.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2    2 months ago
What lead you to that unfounded conclusion Vic? 

Past performances

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    2 months ago

Which 'performances' Vic?

Please clarify.

What evidence do you have that this Committe has refused to allow witnesses to testify under oath? 

As for 'past performances', Ornato is well known for denying that he had conversations. Keith Kellogg and Alyssa Farah can attest to that fact. 

I invite you to post a link to Ornato's letter to the Committee requesting to testify. All I have seen is him flapping his gums to Fox et. al. Until Ornato is under oath, his comments are just so much blather. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.2.3    2 months ago

He has claimed he will testify BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.  Let him do it UNDER OATH IN PUBLIC LIKE MS. HUTCHINSON.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2.3    2 months ago

They shouldn't have to request a chance to testify.

If your committee had any integrity they would vet witnesses and demand contradictory testimony.

The question really is why hasn't the committee done those things?

Perhaps if Pelosi has allowed for normal protocol, Hutchinson would have been deposed or at the very least cross examined.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.2.6  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    2 months ago
They shouldn't have to request a chance to testify.

That would truly be an undue burden ... /S

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.2.6    2 months ago

Is today a holiday somewhere?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    2 months ago
They shouldn't have to request a chance to testify.

Ornato was ordered to sit for a deposition by the SS. The SS now claims that he will be 'made available' to testify under oath. 

The Committee Chair has stated at the beginning of the hearings that if anyone has information of any kind, they should contact the Committee. 

You and I both know that your claim is ridiculous. 

If your committee had any integrity they would vet witnesses and demand contradictory testimony. 
The question really is why hasn't the committee done those things?

Hutchinson was deposed during 4 sittings for over 20 HOURS.

Tell me when Ornato undergoes that much 'vetting'. 

NO Congressional Committee has EVER demanded 'contradictory testimony' Vic. 

You and yours keep trying to pretend that this is a trial. It isn't. 

Oh and BTFW Vic, it isn't MY Committee. Just stop. 

Perhaps if Pelosi has allowed for normal protocol, Hutchinson would have been deposed or at the very least cross examined.

It has been established that it was McCarthy that walked away from 'normal protocol'. Even Trump is pissed at McCarthy for fucking it up. 

AGAIN, Hutchinson WAS deposed for over 20 HOURS. 

There is NO 'cross examination' in a Congressional hearing Vic. NONE. So please, stop with the gaslighting. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2.8    2 months ago
You and I both know that your claim is ridiculous. 

Which claim?

The one that Hutchinson should have been vetted or that Pelosi should have followed protocol?


Hutchinson was deposed during 4 sittings for over 20 HOURS.

We should always provide a link on something like that.


Tell me when Ornato undergoes that much 'vetting'. 

That needed to be done at the same time.


NO Congressional Committee has EVER demanded 'contradictory testimony' Vic.

Everyone but this one has allowed it.


You and yours keep trying to pretend that this is a trial. It isn't. 

It is a political commercial


Oh and BTFW Vic, it isn't MY Committee. Just stop. 

Would you say they share your world view?


It has been established that it was McCarthy that walked away from 'normal protocol'.

That's been your interpretation.


AGAIN, Hutchinson WAS deposed for over 20 HOURS.

AGAIN, how about some info?


There is NO 'cross examination' in a Congressional hearing Vic. NONE. So please, stop with the gaslighting. 

What went on with the Benghazi hearings?  Or the Kavanaugh Hearings?

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.2.10  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.7    2 months ago

It is International Joke Day and as such I offer up to our readers 'The Jests of Hierocles and Philagrius' ... t'is the oldest known book of 'jokery'.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.2.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.9    2 months ago

Pelosi follow protocol? She don need no stinkin protocol!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.9    2 months ago
Which claim? The one that Hutchinson should have been vetted or that Pelosi should have followed protocol?

I see that you never tire of posting deflective bullshit Vic. 

We should always provide a link on something like that.

Who the fuck are this 'we' you always pretend to speak for Vic? 

Here's a RW source for you:

Meadows told top aide Cassidy Hutchinson January 6 could be 'read, real bad' just days before riot (dailymail.co.uk)

That needed to be done at the same time.

Why? What possible reason can you have fabricated for that demand? 

Everyone but this one has allowed it.

That is utter bullshit Vic. 

It is a political commercial

Staring the 'best and the brightest' from the Republican party. 

Would you say they share your world view?

No. I have no reason to believe that. 

But even if I DID, it wouldn't make it MY Committee Vic. 

That's been your interpretation.

No Vic, it is a statement of FACT, which I have repeated more than once and which you have failed to refute every time. 

AGAIN, how about some info?

See the link above Vic. 

Oh and BTFW, in the same time it took you to post this, you could have pursued that information for yourself.  

What went on with the Benghazi hearings?  Or the Kavanaugh Hearings?

NOT 'cross examination'. 

Cross examination: the formal interrogation of a witness called by the other party in a court of law to challenge or extend testimony already given :

Do you SEE the restriction there Vic or do you need me to explain it to you with crayons? 

During a Congressional hearing, members are allowed to ask any fucking stupid question they want. Anyone who has seen Jordon or Gaetz or Paul or Gohmert during a hearing knows that. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.2.12    2 months ago

The denial from some is downright psychopathic

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2.12    2 months ago
Here's a RW source for you:

I asked you for a link to the claim you made that Hutchinson had been deposed for 20 hours. You don't have one?


Why? What possible reason can you have fabricated for that demand? 

INTEGRITY!


No. I have no reason to believe that. 

Lol, of course you don't


No Vic, it is a statement of FACT, which I have repeated more than once

Repeating it doesn't make it so.


See the link above Vic.

Your link only repeats what Hutchinson claims she heard. What about the deposition?


Oh and BTFW, in the same time it took you to post this, you could have pursued that information for yourself.  

That's not the way it works here. You make a claim and you have to provide the link.


NOT 'cross examination'. 

No?  One side didn't ask tough questions, while the offered her cover. That sounds a lot like prosecution and defense to the rest of us. So, your view is that everything should be strictly partisan with far left democrats in total control of committees & investigations?


Do you SEE the restriction there Vic or do you need me to explain it to you with crayons? 

What I see there is the TECHNICAL LEGAL TERM that you intend to hide behind. Committees are supposed to be represented by both sides of the aisle, selected by both parties with witnesses questioned just as they would in a courtroom as normally happens in these hearings. Do you need me to draw you a picture with crayons?


During a Congressional hearing, members are allowed to ask any fucking stupid question they want. Anyone who has seen Jordon or Gaetz or Paul or Gohmert during a hearing knows that. 

Everything is stupid that you don't like. Thank you for proving my point.



 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.14    2 months ago
I asked you for a link to the claim you made that Hutchinson had been deposed for 20 hours. You don't have one?

Why ask for a link if you can't be bothered to READ them? 

INTEGRITY!

Exactly how does fabricating a baseless demand connote integrity Vic? 

Lol, of course you don't

You seem to have an ongoing issue with believing truthful answers. Is that one of the lessons you want to teach? 

Repeating it doesn't make it so.

I note that you truncated my comment. Didn't like the fact that I stated that you have failed, over and over again to refute the facts? You had ANOTHER chance to refute it, you FAILED again. Just because YOU deny something over and over again, doesn't mean that it isn't a fact Vic. 

Your link only repeats what Hutchinson claims she heard. What about the deposition?

Actually, my link states more than once that Hutchinson was deposed for 20 HOURS. Why lie about the content when any member can review it for themselves? 

That's not the way it works here. You make a claim and you have to provide the link.

Well gee Vic, I'm just following your 'teachings' of ignoring that obligation.

Oh, and BTFW, I DID provide you with a link and as everyone can see, your comment lies about its content. 

No? 

NO. 

One side didn't ask tough questions, while the offered her cover. That sounds a lot like prosecution and defense to the rest of us.

Then the 'rest of' you are ignorant of the process of Congressional hearings. 

So, your view is that everything should be strictly partisan with far left democrats in total control of committees & investigations?

Strawman. Unworthy. 

What I see there is the TECHNICAL LEGAL TERM that you intend to hide behind.

YOU set the standard by injecting that 'TECHNICAL LEGAL TERM' Vic. 

Committees are supposed to be represented by both sides of the aisle, selected by both parties with witnesses questioned just as they would in a courtroom as normally happens in these hearings. 

You just keep on making up shit Vic.

There is NO rule, process or procedural requirement for questioning witnesses 'just as they would in a courtroom'. NO witness testimony in a Congressional hearing has EVER been conducted like a courtroom. NOT ONE. 

Tell you what, you insist "You make a claim and you have to provide the link." So, provide a link that shows a witness being 'cross examined' per the TECHNICAL LEGAL TERM, during the Benghazi or Kavanagh hearings Vic. I'll wait. 

Do you need me to draw you a picture with crayons?

No, your words illustrate your fictional posit just fine Vic. 

Everything is stupid that you don't like. 

False. I don't like liver but it's not stupid. 

Thank you for proving my point.

You haven't managed to make a point. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.16  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.14    2 months ago

It is as if you still believed in Bernie Madoff...

The witnesses have been solid Republicans!

You got conned. Your investments are gone.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.2.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.13    2 months ago

The blatant, almost rabid, hatred from some is as well.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.18  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.17    2 months ago

That actual rabid hatred comes exclusively from the right/gqp/gop/alleged conservatives

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.2.19  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.18    2 months ago

Please define "alleged conservatives".

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.14    one month ago

The least you could have done is thank me for handing you your head. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

the only way to restore constitutional order is to try, convict, and execute all those that attempted to disrupt it on 1/6/21.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.3    one month ago
"the only way to restore constitutional order is to try, convict, and execute all those that attempted to disrupt it on 1/6/21."

I'm all for that as well!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.3    one month ago
the only way to restore constitutional order is to try, convict, and execute all those that attempted to disrupt it on 1/6/21.

You are hilarious.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
Apparently, the committee didn't bother to reach out to the Secret Service before it aired the crud about Trump lunging at security.

if they did that then they wouldn't have any "evidence".  They would have seen that their "start witness" (or what ever) was full of shit and was just talking out her ass.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2  devangelical    2 months ago

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2    2 months ago

Freaking lying hypocrites!  They need to be impeached for lying under oath about their hardline stance on all the issues that they're about to overturn and the one they've overturned - ABORTION.  A WOMAN'S RIGHTS TO HER OWN BODY.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    2 months ago

I am sure in your infinite wisdom you can point out all of the times the conservative justices lied to Congress? These are highly educated legal professionals who know the law very well; and were all very careful with their answers (the same way the Democrat justices were with their answers to Congress). Just because Democrats are not smart enough to know what they were told- doesn't mean they were lied to.

Republican senator that he believed the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was “settled law” — a comment that Democrats and abortion rights advocates derided as a meaningless dodge.

Emerging from a more than two-hour “courtesy visit” with Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Senator Susan Collins of Maine said they had discussed abortion cases “at length,” and that he told her he agreed with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who told senators during his 2005 confirmation hearings that he regarded Roe as “settled law.” Ms. Collins later said she was heartened by the statement.

Ms. Collins and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are two Republican backers of abortion rights, and both say they are undecided on Judge Kavanaugh. Their votes are critical to his confirmation. The term “settled law” refers to a precedent that is entitled to respect, and does not necessarily indicate that precedent cannot be limited or overturned.

Ms. Collins’s statement on the matter may say less about Judge Kavanaugh’s views on abortion than her ultimate vote, which appears to be leaning toward “yes.” She had already called him a “clearly” qualified nominee. The judge’s confirmation hearings are set to begin on Sept. 4, with a confirmation vote possible before the end of next month.

Democrats immediately pounced on the “settled law” construction, saying it is a standard phrase employed to duck the real question: whether Roe was correctly decided.

Maybe Democrats and a couple of moderate Republican Senators should get smarter where it concerns the law; and statements about it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.1    2 months ago

I don't know why you waste your time because I don't waste my time reading your endless rants which are endless projection, deflection, and denial.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    2 months ago
ABORTION.  A WOMAN'S RIGHTS TO HER OWN BODY.

Except when it comes to vaccines.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.3    2 months ago

Please cite the federal vaccine mandate for all Americans Jeremy. I'll wait. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.2    2 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.4    2 months ago

Where did I say is was a federal issue?  I'll wait.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    2 months ago

Did they really promise to decide cases a certain way?

Should anyone even ask them to?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.1.4    2 months ago

That makes no freaking sense does it?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.8    2 months ago

What's that?  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.1    2 months ago
I am sure in your infinite wisdom you can point out all of the times the conservative justices lied to Congress?

Brett Kavanaugh was most certainly lied about infinitely worse than he could possibly have lied.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    2 months ago

2.1

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.10    2 months ago

Nope.  Brett 'I LIKE BEER' Kavanaugh is a lying, hypocrite, whiny little bitch . 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.6    2 months ago
Where did I say is was a federal issue?  I'll wait.

I'm pretty sure even YOU realize that the SCOTUS overturned a federal protection, Jeremy. Did you want me to ignore the CONTEXT of the comment that you replied to? I decline. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.13    2 months ago
So you CAN'T show where I said it was a federal issue and still went on blathering about nothing.  

I made a comment showing the hypocrisy between "A WOMAN'S RIGHTS TO HER OWN BODY." and the retarded claims that everybody should get the vaccine.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.1    2 months ago

Most people are smart enough to know that nominees for SCOTUS never answer how they would rule on any particular case.

Some politicians who claim to have got 'assurances' that Roe would not be overturned are lying through their teeth.

Democrats are grasping at straws.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
2.1.16  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @2.1.13    2 months ago
I decline. 

Run Forrest Run

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.17  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.13    2 months ago

Is that what they overturned?

Some would disagree....

4Y-EE4lr?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.14    2 months ago
So you CAN'T show where I said it was a federal issue and still went on blathering about nothing.  

First, WHY is that in block quote form?

Secondly, I answered your question, I didn't blather about anything. 

I made a comment showing the hypocrisy between "A WOMAN'S RIGHTS TO HER OWN BODY." and the retarded claims that everybody should get the vaccine.  

Since there is NO connection, there is NO hypocrisy. 

FAIL.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.16    2 months ago

Please clarify your comment Jim? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.17    2 months ago
Is that what they overturned?

Yes. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.1    2 months ago

290719200_439290278302552_4562031494743484660_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=vzkkQAOQCYcAX_kL1FY&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8t3f9Dkra0dwIh0zh17VdBAw7dBjK5PX3Wb3wGpCExsg&oe=62C42B38

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.1.23  Revillug  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    2 months ago
They need to be impeached for lying under oath

Technically, all they ever said was that Roe v Wade was settled law. They never said they weren't going to overturn it.

It's Susan Collins and Joe Manchin who lied to us.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  Revillug @2.1.23    2 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.1.25  Revillug  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.24    2 months ago

Blah! Blah! Blah! Right back at ya kiddo.

Let's use our Democratic non-majority in the Senate to acquit Kavanaugh and Barrrett in their impeachment trial. And so we don't alienate swing voters, maybe we should sit on the trial until they are no longer active justices like we did with Trump.

Wake me up when AOC says something that is actually actionable. Until then, I will make a point of ignoring her tips on how getting a manicure is a small act of resistance.

Because the truth is, some acts of resistance ARE too small.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.26  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.2    2 months ago

Actually, you do read his comments and others otherwise you would not be here commenting on them.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.1.27  Revillug  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.24    2 months ago

Also, from THREE WEEKS AGO:

My impossible to find answer to your question:

[Tessylo] .. You've never answered my question that the dems. would lose fair and square in 2022 and 2024.

[Me] ...Sorry, I didn't notice it.

To answer your question the polls look really bad for Democrats.

Biden’s approval rating as of today is (Jun 13, 2022) is 53.7% disapprove vs 39,7% approve.

Biden Approval Rating

The gallup party affiliation poll looks like a bit of a wash:

Gallup Party Affiliation Poll

But Democrats used to have an advantage in this area.

And more directly to the mid-terms:

Do Voters Want Democrats Or Republicans In Congress?

Republicans 45% Democrats 42.6%

FiveThirtyEight Generic Ballot
 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Revillug @2.1.27    one month ago

I have very politely asked her to define the term that she frequently throws out  being "alleged conservatives" on at least three separate occasions and she has ignored and refused to answer my question every time, therefore leading me to conclude she invented the term but has no idea how to use it or what it may mean.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.28    one month ago
I have very politely asked her to define the term that she frequently throws out 

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.30  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.29    one month ago

Yep.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.1.31  Revillug  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.28    one month ago
alleged conservatives

I suspect she means "self-proclaimed conservatives"

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.32  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Revillug @2.1.31    one month ago

So that would mean alleged liberal would be the same thing, but that would be okay right?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.33  Tessylo  replied to  Revillug @2.1.25    one month ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.30    one month ago

This isn't about me Ed.  Why do you all always do that?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  Revillug @2.1.31    one month ago

DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

Stop making this 'article' about me.

You reply to a comment from three weeks ago four days ago.  You pretend that you answer my questions from before and then lie to your new found little buddies here.

Stop making this about me.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  Revillug @2.1.27    one month ago

FUCK OFF

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.37  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.34    one month ago

You made a statement about "alleged conservatives", as you have done so repeatedly. I have very politely asked you on more than one occasion to define what you mean by alleged conservatives and you have repeatedly ignored and repeatedly refused to answer. That makes it about you. Just answer the question plain and simple.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 months ago
In the rush to destroy Donald Trump the Committee ran a surprise witness this past week. She was obviously put in front of the tv cameras based solely on her unvetted damning testimony.

This isn't the first time the "bombshell" / "smoking gun" / "final nail" has blown up in the Democrats faces.  The TDS Committee isn't any different.  The witness they coached only gave hearsay "evidence" only to have it rebuked by the driver.  

Honorable Mention:

Justice Clarence Thomas

It's telling that the left [deleted] has shown their racist roots with Justice Thomas after the Row v Wade decision.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    2 months ago

You're speaking of TT regarding the Honorable mention?

For what?

You know it's Ginni who wears the pants in that family, right?

She was also involved in 1/6/21 so therefore so was TT

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @3.1    2 months ago

What a nice racist statement- what we have come to expect from the left.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.2    2 months ago

And the sad part is, they don't understand what the problem is.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.3    2 months ago

No, you don't.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    2 months ago
(some here on NT) has shown their racist roots

And just like clockwork....................................Dog whistle??

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    2 months ago

Oh, I expected to see this dude as soon as I saw Justice Thomas mentioned.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.1    2 months ago

What dude regarding TT?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.2    2 months ago

A bit slow keeping up are we?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
3.2.4  Sunshine  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.1    2 months ago

Never fails.  We can always count on a resident racist to rear an ugly head.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.3    2 months ago

I'm not a dude.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sunshine @3.2.4    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.5    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    2 months ago

And let us never forget the lying liberal  Christine Blasey Ford

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3    2 months ago

Perfect example of how low the Democrats will go.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.1    2 months ago

It seems there is no shortage of progressive women ready to take one for the cause!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3    2 months ago

She was not lying about the whiny little bitch Kavanaugh.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
3.3.4  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3    2 months ago

Yet you are lying in your comments below [deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.3    2 months ago

How do you know?  Even those she listed as witnesses contradicted her.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @3.3.4    2 months ago

That's all some have.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.6    2 months ago

And some here only have their clipboard copy and paste feature so they use it all the time.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.5    2 months ago

"How do you know?  Even those she listed as witnesses contradicted her."

Those SS agents are lying.

Trump's Security Detail Was 'Aligned' With Him And 'Personally Cheering For Biden To Fail,' Says Author Of Book On The Secret Service

Trump's security detail was 'aligned' with him and 'personally cheering for Biden to fail,' says author of book on the Secret Service
Matthew Loh
Thu, June 30, 2022 at 4:44 AM
A "very large contingent" of former President Donald Trump's security detail had used their social media accounts to "cheer on the insurrection" on January 6, said author Carol Leonnig.  Ron Jenkins/Getty Images
  • Two Secret Service agents were close to Trump and seen as his enablers, said      Carol Leonnig   .

  • The agents plan to dispute part of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony regarding Trump, said Leonnig.

  • Many in Trump's detail cheered the Capitol riot, said Leonnig, whose book covers the Secret Service.

Two top members of former President Donald Trump's personal security detail were "very, very close" to Trump and are "viewed as being aligned" with him, said Carol Leonnig, a long-time investigative reporter at The Washington Post.

Leonnig is the author of the book "Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service" and co-author of "I Alone Can Fix It," which delves into Trump's final year as president.

Leonnig told   MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Wednesday evening    that many Secret Service agents in Trump's detail were also rooting for President Joe Biden's failure, and used their social media accounts to "cheer on the insurrection" at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

"There was a very large contingent of Donald Trump's detail, who were personally cheering for Biden to fail, and some of them even took to their personal media accounts to cheer on the insurrection and the individuals riding up to the Capitol as patriots," Leonnig said. "That is problematic."

"I'm not saying that Tony Ornato or Bobby Engel did that, but they are viewed as being aligned with Donald Trump, which cuts against them," she added.

"However, if they testify under oath: 'This is what happened,' I think that's going to be important because Cassidy Hutchinson can only say what she heard happened," Leonning continued.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.3.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.7    2 months ago

And right on time................................are you clairvoyant?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.8    2 months ago

First of all where is your link?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.3.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3    2 months ago
And let us never forget the lying liberal  Christine Blasey Ford

I'm not sure she lied.  

By her own admission, she's under treatment for mental illness.  I think it's quite possible she believes the events she described occurred.

I think the real villain here is Diane Feinstein.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.11    2 months ago
I think it's quite possible she believes the events she described occurred.

Did you hear what her former boyfriend said about her?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.11    2 months ago

Of course

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.8    2 months ago
Trump's Security Detail Was 'Aligned' With Him And 'Personally Cheering For Biden To Fail,'

If that is true, then why didn't they take him to the Capital on 6 Jan?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.10    2 months ago

Second of all I was talking about Christine Blassey Ford

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.16  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.14    2 months ago
If that is true, then why didn't they take him to the Capital on 6 Jan?

It isn't true, of course.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.16    2 months ago

Agree, thought that I would challenge our friend to try thinking..   

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.10    2 months ago

You can't link to imagination.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.19  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.14    2 months ago

It is true of course.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.20  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.17    2 months ago
"Agree, thought that I would challenge our friend to try thinking.."   

I'm not your friend or hers

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.21  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.18    2 months ago

Google is your friend.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.21    2 months ago

You should find somebody to show you how to use it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.23  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.22    2 months ago

FUCK OFF

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.20    2 months ago

I'm not your friend or hers

That cuts like a knife.
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.25  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.24    2 months ago

Go back to your favorite pastime.  See private message.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.26  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.25    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3.27  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.26    2 months ago

Do you know what I'm seeing more and more?

Rightwing trolls bullying liberal women online.

Three or four to one as we see in this thread.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.28  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.3.27    2 months ago

[ Deleted ]

Thank you jbb.  jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

I deal with that every day here.  

[ Deleted ]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.3.27    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.31  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.28    2 months ago

My wife is a very strong and very truthful woman and I love dealing with her.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.3.34  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @3.3.27    2 months ago

Sorry but we are all equal here..............................................It works both ways too. Gonna jump into a conversation or make wild assed, uninformed commentary, you will be called on it..............Right, left, male, female, or whatever one identifies as at any particular minute.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.35  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.3.27    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.3.36  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to    2 months ago

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3.37  JBB  replied to    2 months ago

What they are doing to you is online bullying!

Notice how quickly bullies claim victimhood?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.38  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.36    2 months ago

LOL! 

Good one!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.45  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.35    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.46  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.36    2 months ago

Now that's a great cover.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
4  Hallux    2 months ago

Radical? There certainly is a radical use of the term in this 'radical' seed ... makes one wonder if there is a shortage of mirrors.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @4    2 months ago

BINGO!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1    2 months ago

Bingo Bongo!

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
4.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.1    2 months ago

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @4.1    2 months ago

NOT!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @4    2 months ago

If the description fits....

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
4.2.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    2 months ago

Your descriptions are 90% Spandex.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @4.2.1    2 months ago

Oh come on, don't let everyone down. You're supposed to be the most well educated man in the world!

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
4.2.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.2    2 months ago

As my daughter once opined, boys are stupid throw rocks at them ... I was smart enough to duck and remain a Sophomore Principal. Perrie to my ongoing chagrin has yet to elevate me to Sapphic Sadist.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @4.2.3    2 months ago

Perhaps I can make some suggestions. Give her a chance, she just arrived

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
4.2.5  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.4    2 months ago

Please do so, anything along the lines of Tantrum Tyke works for me.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @4.2.5    2 months ago
Tantrum Tyke

I was thinking along the lines of Head Coach Emeritus of the Yale Debate Association.

How does that sound?

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
4.2.7  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.6    2 months ago

As you have noted, I'm over qualified.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @4.2.5    2 months ago

"Tantrum Tyke"

#45 already has that one.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5  Wishful_thinkin    2 months ago
Horrific tragedy on Biden's open border:  "In all,  53 people died   in what one Homeland Security Investigations' agent called the deadliest human smuggling incident in US history. Some victims could be younger than 18." 

As horrific as this is, if the border was truly open, those people would have just walked across the open border instead have having to be smuggled in.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5    2 months ago

It is wide open. The only reason Biden isn't offering transportation right now is just a formality.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    2 months ago
The only reason Biden isn't offering transportation right now is just a formality

The ONLY reason he isn't providing transpiration (any more) is that he was caught flying illegals all over the country.  Biden Air Lines was put on hold until a big enough distraction or crisis could be politicized.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.2  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    2 months ago

No it isn't wide open, and the fact that these poor people had to be smuggled in is proof of that fact.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.3  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.1    2 months ago

The federal government can fly whoever they want wherever they want and don't need permission from any state, county, city, town, entity or you to do so.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.1    2 months ago

Poor clueless Joe. Rice and Klain leave him holding the bag every time.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.2    2 months ago

It is. 

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.6  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.5    2 months ago

No, it's not.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.3    2 months ago

The president takes an oath to protect the US from invasion.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.8  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    2 months ago

The president takes an oath to protect the Constitution.  We are not being invaded no matter how much you scream, shout, and pout about it.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.3    2 months ago

So they are aiding and abetting law breakers in that case.........................

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.6    2 months ago

Are we really going to go back and forth. It's like wanting the last word.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.11  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.9    2 months ago

No, they aren't.  Seeking asylum is not illegal no matter how much you scream, shout and pout about it.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    2 months ago

An oath he, so far has failed to uphold.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.1.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.8    2 months ago

Where in the Constitution does it say turning the other cheek and allowing law breakers to be dispersed all over the country is okie dokie?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.12    2 months ago

I think he should be impeached for it, among other things

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.11    2 months ago

You are correct, as usual WT.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.11    2 months ago
Seeking asylum is not illegal no matter how much you scream, shout and pout about it.  

There is a process for seeking asylum.  Crossing the border at points other than authorized locations or in a 53 foot semi trailer is not in that process.  That is what makes them ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.  They are not asylum seekers, they have no rights under US law.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.1.17  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.11    2 months ago

That you think these people are all, every single fucking one of them, seeking asylum just magnifies the fact that the left side of the aisle is naive as hell. They jumped on a bandwagon once they found out that was a gate opener. How many of them are going to show up for their court date do you think?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.14    2 months ago

Unfortunately, impeachment would put the paid escort as POTUS.  Next in like is the Crypt Keeper.  We'd have to run 3 simultaneous impeachments.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.19  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.17    2 months ago

Wrong again.  They are seeking asylum (whether or not they deserve it is another issue) and some are unaccompanied minors.  If they don't show for their court date, then a warrant is issued just like a criminal case when the defendant doesn't show.  The border is not open and the fact that those poor people had to be smuggled over the border proves it.  If the border was wide open (as in the conservative talking point), then they would have walked over the fucking border.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.20  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.16    2 months ago

Yes, there is a process for seeking asylum and the fact that these people did not seek asylum and were smuggled in a trailer proves that the border is not wide open otherwise they would have walked across the wide open border and would be alive today (and would be considered illegal immigrants and not asylum seekers). 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.21  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.18    2 months ago

Potus, AG and Homeland Security?

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.22  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.13    2 months ago

Again, seeking asylum is not illegal, and illegal immigrants are not being disbursed all over the country.  Asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors are.  Illegal immigrants don't need to be disbursed all over the country because they disburse themselves all over the country once they sneak in over the boarder while hoping and praying they don't get caught because they are illegal and not asylum seekers.  There is a difference, but you have been trained to say they are all illegal.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.1.23  Jack_TX  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.19    2 months ago
Wrong again.  They are seeking asylum (whether or not they deserve it is another issue) and some are unaccompanied minors.  If they don't show for their court date, then a warrant is issued just like a criminal case when the defendant doesn't show.  The border is not open and the fact that those poor people had to be smuggled over the border proves it.  

They are definitely not all seeking asylum.

If the border was wide open (as in the conservative talking point), then they would have walked over the fucking border.

That's utterly idiotic.  Have you ever even been to Texas?  It's over 150 miles from Laredo (on the border) to San Antonio?  I guarantee you're not walking that if a ride is available.  In 105 degree heat?  With kids?   Just stop.

It's a very valid point that border enforcement is poor, and has been for decades.

The valid counterpoint is that the only reason 99% of illegal immigrants don't come across legally is that we have a batshit antiquated system we haven't updated in 30 years that doesn't allow them to come legally.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.24  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.10    2 months ago

Apparently, we are.  You can always put me on ignore.  That would solve your problem.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.25  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.24    2 months ago

Why should I do that?

Especially when you make my case for me.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.1.26  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.22    2 months ago

And again, isn't/wasn't the Remain in Mexico order still in place? If so, they broke the law.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.27  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.23    2 months ago
That's utterly idiotic.  Have you ever even been to Texas?  It's over 150 miles from Laredo (on the border) to San Antonio?  I guarantee you're not walking that if a ride is available.  In 105 degree heat?  With kids?   Just stop.

There is nothing idiotic about it.  If the border was open, there would be no need to ride in closed in trailer with no air conditioning where the heat inside will soar well above 105.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.28  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.25    2 months ago

I did no such thing.  The boarder is not wide open or they wouldn't have had to be smuggled in.  They would have just walked over the wide open boarder. 

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.29  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.26    2 months ago

They did not break any law if they are seeking asylum.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.30  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.20    2 months ago
Yes, there is a process for seeking asylum and the fact that these people did not seek asylum

I thought the illegals were all seeking asylum?  See your comment in 5.1.11 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.1.31  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.29    2 months ago

Remain in Mexico has to do with waiting for your day in court if I am not mistaken. And I'm not...............

The Remain in Mexico policy requires certain asylum seekers arriving by land at the U.S./Mexico border (both at and between official ports of entry (POEs)) who pass a credible fear screening with a U.S. asylum officer (a first step in the process for requesting asylum) to return to Mexico to await their asylum hearing in U.S. immigration court.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.32  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.29    2 months ago
They did not break any law if they are seeking asylum. 

If they are crossing the border at ANY OTHER POINT THAT IS NOT AN AUTHORIZED LOCATION then they are in fact BREAKING THE LAW.  

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.33  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.22    2 months ago
Illegal immigrants don't need to be disbursed all over the country because they disburse themselves all over the country once they sneak in over the boarder while hoping and praying they don't get caught because they are illegal and not asylum seekers. 

And yet they are being disbursed all over the country.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.24    2 months ago

Pay no mind.  We never make their case for them.  They're always putting words in other's mouths.

Projecting.  Deflecting.  Denying.  Lying.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.35  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.30    2 months ago

Where did I say all immigrants crossing the border were seeking asylum?  Hint:  I didn't.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.36  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.31    2 months ago
The Remain in Mexico policy requires certain asylum seekers arriving by land at the U.S./Mexico border (both at and between official ports of entry (POEs)) who pass a credible fear screening with a U.S. asylum officer (a first step in the process for requesting asylum) to return to Mexico to await their asylum hearing in U.S. immigration court.

I guess you missed the word "CERTAIN" in your quote.  Certain doesn't mean all.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.32    2 months ago

We all know why we are seeing such a huge surge in numbers crossing the border--both legally AND illegally.

Just some of us realize that this particular Administration doesn't give a crap how many come illegally and will do little to stop them.

Some of us also realize the sheer folly in states declaring themselves 'sanctuary states'. They are encouraging and abetting illegal aliens to come and stay.

What could possibly go wrong?

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.38  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.32    2 months ago

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that if the border were "wide open" as conservatives claim, then these poor people would not have had to be smuggled in and would not be dead?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.38    2 months ago
Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that if the border were "wide open" as conservatives claim, then these poor people would not have had to be smuggled in and would not be dead?  

Biden's policies and his Border Czar's ineffectiveness have led to a huge surge in immigrants coming both legally and illegally.

Thanks, Joe, thanks, Kamala.

For absolutely nothing.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.40  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.39    2 months ago
Biden's policies and his Border Czar's ineffectiveness have led to a huge surge in immigrants coming both legally and illegally

He literally invited them to surge the border and than  incentivizes them governmental benefits and almost no risk of deportation once they cross into the interior.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.1.41  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.36    2 months ago

Didn't miss it................

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.42  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.33    2 months ago

Yet, the Post provides no proof that the migrants are illegal and not asylum seekers.  They just assume they are illegal migrants.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
5.1.43  Hallux  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.42    2 months ago

... the descriptives one uses define what one is selling.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.44  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.22    2 months ago
Again, seeking asylum is not illegal, and illegal immigrants are not being disbursed all over the country.  Asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors are.  Illegal immigrants don't need to be disbursed all over the country because they disburse themselves all over the country once they sneak in over the boarder while hoping and praying they don't get caught because they are illegal and not asylum seekers.  There is a difference, but you have been trained to say they are all illegal.  

Do you realize that relatively few people actually are seeking asylum, and that of that number, the vast majority will not qualify for it?

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.45  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.44    2 months ago

I commented above that whether or not they deserved asylum is another matter.    

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.45    2 months ago

Do you realize the Biden policies are ineffective?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.47  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.42    2 months ago
They just assume they are illegal migrants.

Historically speaking, most are.  Over the past twenty years, most immigrants that received asylum in the US were from Asia, Africa and most from Latin America were from Venezuela, and El Salvador. Those from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras was about 5% each or less than a thousand each per year.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5.1.48  Greg Jones  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.3    2 months ago

No they can't..

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.49  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.38    2 months ago

Show me where the border ISN'T wide open.  I can show you the Human Fuck Up signed on January 20, 2021 where Biden STOPPED securing the US southern border.  

I love the first sentence to it:

Like every nation, the United States has a right and a duty to secure its borders and protect its people against threats.

Then the Human Fuck Up does exactly the fucking opposite.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.50  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.48    2 months ago

Yes, they can. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.1.51  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.48    2 months ago

Would that be considered human trafficking? After all, they are taking them across several borders in most cases and more than likely just dropping them off for the local GovCo to deal with...................

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.52  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.34    2 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.53  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.49    2 months ago

I live 6 blocks from the AZ/Mexico border fence in SE Cochise County, AZ. The border is in fact wide open these days. I have illegals running the alleys behind my house every night seven nights a week 365 days a year. My late wife used to tell me the Southern border in AZ and NM has more holes in it than her favorite pasta strainer and she was right. The Biden administration has the CBP working with one arm tied behind their backs, sometimes both arms! The vacancy sign at the border continues to be brightly lit for all coming across the border into the US. On this Joe can truly say "I did that!".

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.54  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.53    2 months ago
I live 6 blocks from the AZ/Mexico border fence in SE Cochise County, AZ. 

Douglas AZ?

I remember my first tim driving south on on US 90 to Fort Huachuca, it was mid-Dec at around 2300.  About halfway between I-10 and Whetstone, I needed to take a piss.  I pulled off of the road and turned off my lights.  While standing there, I looked up and never saw such a beautiful sky.  I’m envious.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.55  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.54    2 months ago

I was just there yesterday making a commissary run for groceries on Ft Huachuca. 45 minute drive Northwest from Douglas.

Yep, some of the best sunsets and night time skies in the country. Being a born and raised desert rat, I never tire of them. You get away from the light pollution and out into the open desert, the stars are incredible.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.1.56  Jack_TX  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.27    2 months ago
There is nothing idiotic about it.

Oh...it's completely idiotic.  

  If the border was open, there would be no need to ride in closed in trailer with no air conditioning where the heat inside will soar well above 105.  

And this is more idiotic. Surely you're not serious.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.1.57  Jack_TX  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.38    2 months ago
Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that if the border were "wide open" as conservatives claim, then these poor people would not have had to be smuggled in and would not be dead?

Because that fantasy only exists in your mind.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.58  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.55    2 months ago

I’ll never forget that moment, looking up in awe at the beauty of the sky.  You are very fortunate my friend, treasure your geography.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.59  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.39    one month ago

Interesting how it seems that some folks who obviously live nowhere on or even near our Southern borders, as opposed to those of us that do, think they know so much more because they got spoonfed by CNN, MSNBC, and other manner of blatantly leftist liberal MSM outlets. Living in a small rural border town with a CBP crossing point with a very large Border Patrol facility and a large number of agents living in the community that are my neighbors as well. Said agents are disgusted that illegals that are caught are rounded up, then bussed to the CBP sector headquarters in Tucson 2 hours away for processing and trans-shipment to points North, East, and West wherever they want to go. one has to love the waste of taxpayer dollars spent to molly coddle illegals and increase the potential voter base of leftist liberal Democrat politicians in DC. Pathetic and disgusting!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.60  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.59    one month ago

Where does Mike Kelly stand in his Senate campaign on border enforcement/

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.61  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.60    one month ago

Mark Kelley pays only lip service to border issues. He could really care less about border issues as it affects those of us who live down on or near the border. He has history of making statements of concern about border issues, but then votes in lockstep with the leftist liberal Democrats of his party! The man is retired U.S. Navy Captain (0-6) who flew the Grumman A-6E Intruder attack jet in combat in the 1st Gulf War. I am retired U.S. Navy myself and greatly respect his Naval and NASA accomplishments, but that is as far as my respect for the man goes. I detest his politics and would not trust him to walk my dog! My feeling is that man sold his soul to the CCP and the leftist liberals in his party. I actually trust Sinema far more than I trust Kelley. Enough said.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.62  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.61    one month ago

Thanks, I wondered what the ground  truth was.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.63  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.62    one month ago

Well, you got Doc's truth. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.64  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @5.1.63    one month ago

Exactly, what is Dulay's truth?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.65  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.64    one month ago

I'd be curious to know that as well.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.66  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.64    one month ago

I would trust him to walk my dog. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.67  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.65    one month ago

Doc has me on ignore so he can't be that curious. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.68  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.58    one month ago

I do every single day!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.69  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @5.1.66    one month ago

Exactly, I’m sure that Mark Kelley could handle that well.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.70  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.56    one month ago

Not idiotic at all.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.71  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.57    one month ago

Not a fantasy at all.  If borders were open, they wouldn't have HAD TO BE SMUGGLED IN.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.72  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.71    one month ago

I am sure the million or so aliens Biden has released into America would quite agree with you.

Just get here in any way you can and get access!

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.73  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.72    one month ago

Those migrants that have been "released into America" have been vetted and are not considered "illegal".  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.74  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.73    one month ago
Those migrants that have been "released into America" have been vetted and are not considered "illegal". 

I never stated illegal or legal.

I stated (quite clearly) 'aliens'.

Joe has let in over 1 million of them.

Please don't insult me by attempting to tell me they have all been vetted properly.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.1.75  Jack_TX  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.70    one month ago
Not idiotic at all.  

Past idiotic at this point.  Moving toward senile.

If borders were open, they wouldn't have HAD TO BE SMUGGLED IN.  

Your repeating this idiocy verifies emphatically that you have less than zero familiarity with the situation. 

If there were no border patrol of any kind, they're still not walking from Laredo to San Antonio.  To put that in perspective, that distance is almost exactly equal to the north-south distance across the entire state of Pennsylvania.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.76  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.74    one month ago

I don't care that you didn't qualify what you stated.  I'm qualified my comment and my comment stands as is.  You don't have to like it too bad.  You can just move on.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.77  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.75    one month ago

I keep repeating myself, because you keep replying to me.  My comments are not idiotic at all and if the border was open, they would not have had to have been smuggled in.  They would have just crossed the wide open border with or without a vehicle, would not have been stopped by Border Patrol (because you know the border is open and according to you people, border patrol is useless), and they would not be dead.  Period.  End of Story.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.78  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.76    one month ago
I don't care that you didn't qualify what you stated. 

Yes, your pitiful strawman argument has been duly noted.

I'm qualified my comment and my comment stands as is. 

Sure you did, you just can't see that I don't agree with you.

You don't have to like it too bad. 

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
5.1.79  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.74    one month ago

He let in close to 500 in Eagle Pass just today alone. There's no vetting -- merely processing (many don't have a passport, birth certificate, or other legit ID), given clean clothes, shoes, an IPhone, and put on a bus to get dropped off somewhere in the US.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.80  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.76    one month ago
I don't care that you didn't qualify what you stated

What need was there to qualify?  What do you call them?

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.81  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.78    one month ago

Again, I don't care what you think of my comment.  You can fuck off and move along.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.82  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.80    one month ago

Well you should pay attention to the comments prior to what you are commenting on.  Then you wouldn't have to ask questions about what has already been said.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.83  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.82    one month ago

I think that I have.  In 5.1.73 you called them migrants, you didn't qualify the term.  What distinction do you see between migrants and aliens in this context?

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.84  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.83    one month ago

Read the rest of the comment.  Geez.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.85  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.84    one month ago
Read the rest of the comment.

I read, "Those migrants that have been "released into America" have been vetted and are not considered "illegal". 

So neither you nor Texan called them illegal but you didn't like his use of the term "alien", you felt he should have qualified it.  I then asked you what qualification was needed and what you referred to them as.  I might have expected 'asylum seekers', but you preferred snark.  Oh well.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
5.1.86  Jasper2529  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.85    one month ago
I might have expected 'asylum seekers

Although more than 90% of illegal aliens don't qualify for that status.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.87  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.86    one month ago
Although more than 90% of illegal aliens don't qualify for that status.

I don't disagree, just thought that might have been Wt's response.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.88  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.86    one month ago
Although more than 90% of illegal aliens don't qualify for that status.

Yet 100% of asylum seekers qualify to have their case adjudicated. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.89  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.81    one month ago

childish response. but not surprised. 

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.90  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.89    one month ago

Again, I don't care what you think about my comment. Move along and fuck off. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
5.1.91  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @5.1.88    one month ago
Yet 100% of asylum seekers qualify to have their case adjudicated.

Only if they show up on their court dates for adjudication, and the majority are no-shows. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.92  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.90    one month ago
Move along and fuck off. 

No, don't think I will.

That is not how things work here.

People don't have to move along and fuck off just because someone else has their panties in a wad.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.93  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.91    one month ago
"Yet 100% of asylum seekers qualify to have their case adjudicated."
"Only if they show up on their court dates for adjudication, and the majority are no-shows.

Citation?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.94  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.91    one month ago

FAIR Fact-Check: Do 95 Percent of Illegal Aliens Show Up for Their Court Dates? | ImmigrationReform.com

Here are some real facts.

About HALF of them don't bother showing up for court.

The left likes this for some stupid reason.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.95  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.91    one month ago

I see you are unable to provide proof of your allegation.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
5.1.96  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.95    one month ago

Why would you say that? I don't live on NT waiting for comments/replies. I also do not reply to everyone's comments. When I want verification to someone's comments, I look for it on the Internet.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.97  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.96    one month ago
When I want verification to someone's comments, I look for it on the Internet.

Hey, that's what I did!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.98  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.96    one month ago

Because I said it.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
5.1.99  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.94    one month ago

Thanks, Texan! More ...

DHS chief reveals startling stat on asylum seekers who skip hearings, disappear

The acting Homeland Security secretary  gave lawmakers a glimpse Tuesday into just how many asylum seekers skip their hearings after being released into the United States -- telling a Senate panel that a recent program found 90 percent miss their court dates.

The acting Homeland Security secretary said on Tuesday that 90 percent of asylum seekers are missing their court dates after being released into the US.

At the order of President Biden, not only has Customs and Border Protection (CBP) been releasing illegal migrants into the United States due to the   catch and release policy , but now, Border Patrol in the   Rio Grande Valley Sector   (RGV) is releasing asylum seekers without court dates.

The ending of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) once again opened the door to fraudulent claims and abuse of the asylum system. Now, this new move is certain to make the situation significantly worse.

Usually, illegal aliens who claim asylum are issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) before being released from custody. However, border agents have been directed to use prosecutorial discretion to forgo the process of issuing an NTA due to the massive surge of migrants at our border. Instead, biometrical data is collected and then the migrants are released into the interior of the United States.

The controversial move by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and CBP places the responsibility of seeking out a court hearing on the migrant, who must then contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or obtain legal assistance to schedule a court date. It should be clear that this is a horrible idea. What illegal migrant who has just been released into the United States without a rock-solid case to remain here would willingly seek out proceedings which could get them expelled from the country?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.100  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.99    one month ago
"Thanks, Texan! More ..."

I didn't ask her.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.1.101  Jack_TX  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.77    one month ago
I keep repeating myself, because you keep replying to me.  My comments are not idiotic at all and if the border was open, they would not have had to have been smuggled in.  They would have just crossed the wide open border with or without a vehicle, would not have been stopped by Border Patrol (because you know the border is open and according to you people, border patrol is useless), and they would not be dead.  Period.  End of Story.

You really have zero clue about immigration in this country.  Have you actually ever met an illegal immigrant?  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.102  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.101    one month ago

And you have zero clue about what I know, and yes, I have met illegal immigrants and I have met legal immigrants.  So what.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.103  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.92    one month ago

And no one owes you an audience to spew [Deleted.]  So, I'll repeat myself again, [Deleted.]  I don't owe you shit.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.104  Tessylo  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.103    one month ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.105  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.103    one month ago
And no one owes you an audience to spew your bs.

A claim never made by me, but hey, great deflection.

So, I'll repeat myself again, Fuck Off. 

Thus forcing me to repeat myself:

childish response. but not surprised. 

"I don't owe you shit."

Since I never said you did, who in the fuck are you trying to con with that pitifully weak strawman argument?

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.106  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.105    one month ago

If you won't fuck off, then I'll put you on ignore.  Bye bye [Deleted]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.107  Trout Giggles  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.106    one month ago

the ignore thingy works well. Especially if you turn off Private Notes. You don't know what kind of horseshit you get from the people you ignore.

And maybe that's why I only had 2 tickets last month instead of my usual 10

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.108  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.107    one month ago

Thanks for the information.  I appreciate it.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.109  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.106    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.110  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.91    one month ago
Only if they show up on their court dates for adjudication, and the majority are no-shows. 

Prove that the majority are no shows Jasper. I'll wait. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
5.1.111  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @5.1.110    one month ago

I already did. See comment 5.1.99 .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.112  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.111    one month ago

Oh my bad Jasper, I thought you were claiming that the majority of ALL asylum seekers are no shows. 

Your 2019 link states:

Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan told the Senate Judiciary Committee that a new pilot program resulted in thousands of families ditching their scheduled hearings, according to Fox News.

“We see too many cases where people are not showing up,” McAleenan said, referring to the program.

Out of those 7,000 cases , 90 received final orders of removal in absentia, 90 percent.”

I certainly hope that the Trump Administration scrapped that failed 'pilot program' because it's obvious that either their design or their implementation sucked. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
5.1.113  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @5.1.112    one month ago

Curious that you only chose 2019. Let's see what my March, 2021 link states:

At the order of President Biden , not only has Customs and Border Protection (CBP) been releasing illegal migrants into the United States due to the  catch and release policy , but now, Border Patrol in the  Rio Grande Valley Sector  (RGV) is releasing asylum seekers without court dates.

The ending of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) once again opened the door to fraudulent claims and abuse of the asylum system. Now, this new move is certain to make the situation significantly worse.

Usually, illegal aliens who claim asylum are issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) before being released from custody. However, border agents have been directed to use prosecutorial discretion to forgo the process of issuing an NTA due to the massive surge of migrants at our border. Instead, biometrical data is collected and then the migrants are released into the interior of the United States.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.114  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.113    one month ago
Curious that you only chose 2019.

YOU are the one who chose to block quote AND link the 2019 article Jasper. 

FAIL. 

I don't give any credence to a website funded and run by white nationalists. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.115  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.93    one month ago

You mean like you routinely do?jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5    2 months ago
As horrific as this is, if the border was truly open, those people would have just walked across the open border instead have having to be smuggled in.

We are one quota increase away from a 95% cut in illegal immigration and immigrant trafficking.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6  Nerm_L    2 months ago

Tis a sad day for autocrats defending democracy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @6    2 months ago

And all the talk about "our democracy!"

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    2 months ago
And all the talk about "our democracy!"

'Our democracy' is being required to confront a crisis of leadership.  And no one with elected authority knows what to do.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.1    2 months ago

It seems that only the SCOTUS has found some fortitude.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    2 months ago
It seems that only the SCOTUS has found some fortitude.

Or simply stepped away from the whipping post.  SCOTUS has certainly spawned a tectonic shift in our politics.  Promises seem rather inadequate now.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.3    2 months ago

It was like a big festering problem that kept getting kicked down the road. This Court stood tall. What a session they had!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.4    2 months ago
It was like a big festering problem that kept getting kicked down the road. This Court stood tall. What a session they had!

Yes.  And SCOTUS is being pilloried for not siding with autocratic government.  Tis a sad day for autocrats defending democracy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.5    2 months ago
Tis a sad day for autocrats defending democracy.

Let us hope that such days are numbered

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.1    2 months ago

More like a crisis of total lack of leadership.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

But the Supreme Court is fascist because it told the elected representatives of the people to legislate instead of  unelected bureaucrats.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    2 months ago

Like Liz Warren asked "What are we to do?"

Starting with that asshole they should do the work they were elected to do.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8  Drinker of the Wry    2 months ago

In her dissenting opinion as SCOTUS blocks the EPA  from claiming an enormously consequential powers, Justice Kaga wrote, “The majority today overrides that legislative choice... In so doing, it deprives EPA of the power needed and the power granted to curb the emission of greenhouse gases.”  

She forgets that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities. In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), the Supreme Court held that "Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8    2 months ago

Well done Sir!

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
8.2  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8    2 months ago

It's a 'tad' more complex than that:

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @8.2    2 months ago

Of course it frequently is, which is why their Opinion runs so many pages. 

Justice Roberts couldn't find the language in  the Clean Air Act language, that Congress tasked the EPA, “and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in deciding how Americans will get their energy.” 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.3  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8    one month ago
She forgets that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities.

How was the EPA legislating?

I have never read legislation in which the Congress 'enumerated' the regulations, processes and procedures required to meet its mandate. The Congress empowers the Secretaries, Directors and Administrators of Agencies to propose, authorize and implement them. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8.3.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @8.3    one month ago
How was the EPA legislating?

Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.3.2  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.3.1    one month ago

That's a lot of words that don't state how the EPA legislated. 

BTW, the SCOTUS didn't claim that they legislated either. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
8.3.3  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Dulay @8.3.2    one month ago
BTW, the SCOTUS didn't claim that they legislated either. 

Over regulate, Legislate..... whatever.

Just another symptom of Symantic arguing.

It all means the same thing.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.3.4  Dulay  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @8.3.3    one month ago
Over regulate, Legislate..... whatever.

Just another symptom of Symantic arguing.

It all means the same thing.

Right, the actual meaning of words is meaningless. /s

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
8.3.5  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Dulay @8.3.4    one month ago
Right, the actual meaning of words is meaningless.

Eye of the Beholder, or Beholden...... whichever.

Regulate: To govern or direct, to bring under the control of law or constituted authority, to make regulations for or concerning

Legislate: to perform the function make or enact laws, create, provide, or control.

Both = Control !

Tomato, Toe,maaaaaaaaato !

Symantics !

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.3.6  Dulay  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @8.3.5    one month ago

Wow, you're really determined to make ridiculous comments. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8.3.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @8.3.2    one month ago

“On EPA’s view of Section 111(d), Congress implicitly tasked it, and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in the basic regulation of how Americans get their energy,” Roberts wrote. “There is little reason to think Congress did so.” In instances like this, he said, “[a] decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.3.8  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.3.7    one month ago

MORE words that don't state how the EPA legislated. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8.3.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @8.3.8    one month ago

I'm sorry that Justice Roberts didn't write more clearly for you.  Maybe Gorsuch can help you:

"When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands.  But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives. In our Republic, “[i]t is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the government of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810). Because today’s decision helps safeguard that foundational constitutional promise, I am pleased to concur."

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.3.10  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.3.9    one month ago

Strike three. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8.3.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @8.3.10    one month ago

Are you a baseball fan?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
8.3.12  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Dulay @8.3.6    one month ago
Wow, you're really determined to make ridiculous comments. 

No "Participation Trophy" for you.

So Sad !

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.3.13  Dulay  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @8.3.12    one month ago

I see that you've chosen to eliminate all doubt. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
8.3.14  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Dulay @8.3.13    one month ago
I see that you've chosen to eliminate all doubt. 

Of ?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
8.3.15  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @8.3.5    one month ago

"Eye of the beholder, or beholden ......whichever."

Or the beerholder.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
8.3.16  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @8.3.15    one month ago
Or the beerholder.

I saw the responses that way too !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9  author  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

"Former President Donald Trump, denying the House Jan. 6 Committee hearing claims of Cassidy Hutchinson, is now calling out the Justice Department to investigate her for "lying under oath."

"Social climber Hutchinson lied about my attack on our great Secret Service, lied about her writing the White House note, lied about my throwing food at a wall in the Oval Office, & lied about my wanting to be surrounded by 'people with guns' during my 'Go Peacefully and Patriotically' speech (how crazy is that?), yet no guns were found in the Capitol," Trump  wrote Thursday night on Truth Social.

"These lies, among others, were made under oath. What is the Justice Department going to do about this? Do we have a two tiered system of justice?"




It won't happen.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
9.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    2 months ago

Aesop would have had fun with Donald's fabrications.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @9.1    2 months ago

Aesop would have driven huge holes through the Hutchinson testimony.

Probably why Pelosi didn't allow any cross examination.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.1    2 months ago

What cross examination?  This isn't a trial.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.2    2 months ago
What cross examination? 

Had Pelosi allowed for McCarthy's members there would have been such questioning.

th?id=OIP.W83imLPLUTu4XL7KjCcqIgHaEK&pid=Api&P=0&w=300&h=169

Point of order

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
9.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.3    2 months ago

Oh Lord, there you go bringing up Lars Thorwald again.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @9.1.4    2 months ago
Lars Thorwald

That was a tough role for him. He didn't have many lines in that one.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
9.1.6  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.5    2 months ago

It takes time for American producers to recognize Canadian talent.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @9.1.6    2 months ago

It wasn't American producer's fault that Norm Macdonald's first comedy special was televised during earth hour. (When everyone is supposed to shut off everything electrical.)

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
9.1.8  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.7    2 months ago

I would not know about that, I was blasting Terry Riley's in C from my balcony in some vague form of protest against organizers of all stripes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.3    2 months ago

What cross examination?

This isn't a trial.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    2 months ago

The biggest fucking liar in the world is calling someone else a liar 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.2.1  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @9.2    2 months ago

Yes, we now know there were Trump loyalists in the Capitol Police and Secret Service willing to assist Trump's insurrection, and the coverup!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
9.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @9.2.1    2 months ago

Yes and we now know that they weren't driving him on 6 Jan, wonder why?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.2.3  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.2.2    2 months ago

Do we really know that?

original

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @9.2.1    2 months ago

They're lying for the trumpturd.  

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
9.2.5  Revillug  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.2.2    2 months ago
Yes and we now know that they weren't driving him on 6 Jan, wonder why?

I think you underestimate the way that the Secret Service is protocol driven.

There were probably protocols that were disregarded the day Kennedy was shot and that is a mistake that will not be repeated.

EDIT: Except of course when they are partying with Russian hookers.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    one month ago

That's fucking hilarious Vic. 

To PROVE that Hutchinson lied, the DOJ would have to interview the Secret Service detail, have a forensic handwriting expert check out the note, interview WH stewards that served Trump for 4 years AND interview everyone that was around Trump in the tent before his speech [including Meadows, Conway, Don Jr. and his girlfriend, Ivanka, Eric et. al.]. Of course, they'll have to interview Trump too. The DOJ already KNOWS that guns WERE 'found in the Capitol'. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

More deep thoughts from AOC:

"We are witnessing a judicial coup in process. If the President and Congress do not restrain the Court now, the Court is signaling they will come for the Presidential election next. All our leaders — regardless of party — must recognize this Constitutional crisis for what it is."

We have to restrain the Court from giving too much power to elected representatives. It's a judicial coup to let the legislature do its job!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
10.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    2 months ago
More deep thoughts from AOC

No tip for the waitress that brings nothing to the table.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1    2 months ago

How misogynistic of you.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
10.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.1    2 months ago

She doesn't have a masters yet.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.1.3  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1    2 months ago

Who knows your Representative's name?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @10.1.3    2 months ago
Who knows your Representative's name?

Notoriety shouldn't be celebrated.

Everyone knows who Ted Bundy was, did you want him representing you?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.1.5  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.4    2 months ago

That comment is lame even by your standard!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @10.1.5    2 months ago

Sorry, no time to explain it to you!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
10.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.6    2 months ago

256

This may come in handy....................................

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
10.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @10.1.3    2 months ago

Gerry Connolly at the federal level, my state delegate is Eileen Filler-Corn.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.1.9  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1.8    2 months ago

Exactly, I have never heard of either one...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.7    2 months ago

thanks!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
10.1.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @10.1.9    2 months ago

[DELETED]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.7    2 months ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1.2    2 months ago

Some people make the cardinal mistake of equating education with common sense.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
10.1.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.13    2 months ago

Indeed.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.15  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.4    one month ago

If Bundy had been a card carrying liberal Democrat, that probably would not have been a problem to some./sarc

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.2  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    2 months ago
More deep thoughts from AOC:

I have to take exception to that.

I have a very hard time imagining AOC has ever had a deep thought.

On anything.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
10.2.1  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @10.2    2 months ago

Meh, I'd watch a debate between deep thought AOC and deep throat MTG.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @10.2.1    2 months ago

There is no accounting for personal taste, I suppose.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @10.2.1    2 months ago
"and deep throat MTG"

Everyone's ridden that train

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.2.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Hallux @10.2.1    2 months ago

It would be a dead heat because neither one have the collective brain tissue of one person.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.2.4    one month ago

Ms. Ocasio Cortez has a brain.  That skank Taylor Greene?  

Why anyone would compare the two is beyond me.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
10.2.6  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @10.2.5    one month ago
Ms. Ocasio Cortez has a brain.

Too bad she doesn't use it.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.2.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.2.6    one month ago

It's a paperweight on her desk...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11  author  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

"Tonight, 68 White House journalists asked @PressSec to end the mysterious prescreening of reporters let into President Biden's events, calling it 'antithetical to the concept of a free press' https:// nypost.com/2022/06/30


FWic9KrXgAEuiH8?format=png&name=900x900
FWidARSWQAMMAru?format=png&name=large

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    2 months ago

They limit it so as to be able to control what people are allowed to ask the President or his staff.

Pitiful, but I bet Goebbels would be proud!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1    2 months ago

I believe that's where Klain got the idea!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
11.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1    2 months ago

The questions are all prescreened...........he knows who to pick.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.1.2    2 months ago

We know the reason the Biden Admin. has held the least amount of press conferences in the last 40 years!

He simply can't be trusted off-script.

Even his handlers know that much.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.3    2 months ago

Any time Joe goes off script and ignores the cards carefully prepared for him, it scares the crap out of his handlers because he usually winds up putting his foot in his mouth.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
12  Thrawn 31    2 months ago

The constitutional order is done IMO. It was struggling since Newt and the 90s, but Trump was really the nail in the coffin. Our institutions are broken, poisoned, including the SCOTUS.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @12    2 months ago
The constitutional order is done IMO. It was struggling since Newt and the 90s, but Trump was really the nail in the coffin. Our institutions are broken, poisoned, including the SCOTUS.

If the country was half as bad as you seem to think it is, why is Biden telling us how great everything is?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
12.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1    2 months ago

I don't really listen to him, don't know what he is saying. 

Just going on what I am seeing, and that is a slow moving coup of democracy that is going to be reaching its climax sooner rather than later. Was hoping I'd be dead by the time it happened, but no luck. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
14  JBB    2 months ago

Trump's house of cards has completely collapsed.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
14.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  JBB @14    2 months ago

Not by a longshot. They have only built the base. Wait for the SCOTUS to rule that state legislatures can do whatever they want with electors, election rules and whatnot, and boom, American Democracy is done. Trump won.

Ladies, unless you vote en mass Democrat in a few months, you all will lose the most.  Well, aside from anyone not straight and white.

Shit, they may even become bold enough to go flat out after us atheists.

 
 
 
MisterT
Freshman Silent
14.1.1  MisterT  replied to  Thrawn 31 @14.1    2 months ago

As much as the recent ruling is wrong, the economy remains more important. I am tired of paying $178 to fill up my tank and telling us to spend 70k on an electric car or stop complaining isn't gonna work either.