User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:14:41 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Learned something new. Thanks RDak Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............... Lol. That's not how that works. That's not how any of that works. Being stopped at random and searched without probable cause while engaged in legal activities is constitutional? I guess that whole unreasonable search and seizure/warrant thing is just a suggestion then. Because safety and effective policies. No, maybe you should research the issue before spouting off. There has always been the requirement to have reasonable cause for the stop. This has been answered ad nauseam by our very own LEO's here. Time after time after time this has been pointed out by our LEO's here and they ARE correct. And the facts as I state them relative to the vacated decision of the lower court by the Appellate Court are correct. The lower court's decision WAS vacated and the judge removed by the Appellate Court due to anti police bias and the case was remanded for further review by an IMPARTIAL JUDGE appointed by the Appeals Court. DeBlowsio then chose to not pursue another trial because he hates Terry Stops. Terry Stops are allowed by the SCOTUS and have been since I was a little kid in the 50's or 60's. Research the issue before spouting off please.............. Terry v. Ohio.......Supreme Court..................... Learned something new. Thanks RDak I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent. Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:18:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol I recorded it, and will now tell the wife to delete it. For those that watched let me ask you this: Did Trump do OK considering he came into the debate at a disadvantage? I watched it twice and tried to watch a 3rd time before quitting 20 minutes later. Trump sucked exactly as described in GD BUT what everyone is missing about the debate was HER answers. The public heard nothing new from her and it was presented in a arrogant manner. So she came off as more of the same establishment. If your Joe Public. How is that going to feel? We all say she is full of shit. Imagine an independent watching an arrogant politician offer shit as a solution to his or her problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:18:57 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent.
Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:19:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Lots of butthurt in this article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/27/no-matter-how-garbage-the-poll-if-it-shows-that-donald-trump-won-the-debate-hell-endorse-it/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:21:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent.
Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. That is one of the most fucked up laws ever to hit the books. You know how EPO's work in VA? Poof...2nd amendment rights stripped without any due process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:22:51 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is one of the most fucked up laws ever to hit the books. You know how EPO's work in VA? Poof...2nd amendment rights stripped without any due process. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent.
Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. That is one of the most fucked up laws ever to hit the books. You know how EPO's work in VA? Poof...2nd amendment rights stripped without any due process. and, unlike this bedwetting exercise of trump hate, Lautenberg is actually confiscatory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:26:15 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent. Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............... Lol. That's not how that works. That's not how any of that works. Being stopped at random and searched without probable cause while engaged in legal activities is constitutional? I guess that whole unreasonable search and seizure/warrant thing is just a suggestion then. Because safety and effective policies. No, maybe you should research the issue before spouting off. There has always been the requirement to have reasonable cause for the stop. This has been answered ad nauseam by our very own LEO's here. Time after time after time this has been pointed out by our LEO's here and they ARE correct. And the facts as I state them relative to the vacated decision of the lower court by the Appellate Court are correct. The lower court's decision WAS vacated and the judge removed by the Appellate Court due to anti police bias and the case was remanded for further review by an IMPARTIAL JUDGE appointed by the Appeals Court. DeBlowsio then chose to not pursue another trial because he hates Terry Stops. Terry Stops are allowed by the SCOTUS and have been since I was a little kid in the 50's or 60's. Research the issue before spouting off please.............. Terry v. Ohio.......Supreme Court..................... Learned something new. Thanks RDak I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent. Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. There is a whole lot of that sort of thing these days. And I agree with you. I do not like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:31:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She didn't rock. She spoke better than he did, but she didn't rock. She articulated her plans much better than he did, even though they're godawful plans that will run this country into the ground. She's a horrific nightmare, no doubt about that. The stand out point for me, other than his generally abysmal performance, was his willingness to throw constitutional rights under the bus if he deemed a policy effective. Stop and frisk? Ruled unconstitutional, but hey, he thought it worked so that's ok. No fly, no buy? Well, sure it deprives citizens of constitutional rights without any form of due process, but it sounds spiffy, so why not? And THIS is the guy who is supposed to save the SCOTUS? Lol. He's a charlatan willing to say whatever he needs to say to sell a product (himself, in this case), and he's not even doing a good job of that. Own it, Trump voters. You built that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BECAUSE so many are convined Hillary came off poised. I just rewatched the debate. My God, have you all listened to her answers, solutions, plans, ideas, words and responses? Holy shit, you've got to be fucking kidding me that a wax museum with shit solutions = win. Yes Trump sucked but the opposite of Trump sucked isn't Hillary rocks.  FFSI'll rewatch it later too and see if I get something else from it. She didn't rock. She spoke better than he did, but she didn't rock. She articulated her plans much better than he did, even though they're godawful plans that will run this country into the ground. She's a horrific nightmare, no doubt about that. The stand out point for me, other than his generally abysmal performance, was his willingness to throw constitutional rights under the bus if he deemed a policy effective. Stop and frisk? Ruled unconstitutional, but hey, he thought it worked so that's ok. No fly, no buy? Well, sure it deprives citizens of constitutional rights without any form of due process, but it sounds spiffy, so why not? And THIS is the guy who is supposed to save the SCOTUS? Lol. He's a charlatan willing to say whatever he needs to say to sell a product (himself, in this case), and he's not even doing a good job of that. Own it, Trump voters. You built that. Valid points but as you wrote "run this country into the ground". So while I didn't vote for Trump in the primaries but I will in November. HOPEFULLY if he wins we won't get another Justice Kennedy 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:32:20 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
GD seems to be the only place on the internet other than DU that thinks Trump lost lol That's because ARFcom is infested with 5th column shills. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:32:23 PM EDT
[#10]
It's just disturbing to me that he can't take the obvious routes to destroying her. It's either because he's stupid or he doesn't want to. Look at what everyone is talking about this morning: trump calling a beauty pageant contestant fat, birtherism and what he said on Howard Stern in 2002. It's insane.
E-mails, private server, pay-to-play at the Clinton foundation/state dept, Libya. That's it. Talk about nothing else. How hard is that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:35:35 PM EDT
[#11]
OP always has seemed to be a bit of delicate soul, no matter which political allegiance he's held.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:36:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and, unlike this bedwetting exercise of trump hate, Lautenberg is actually confiscatory. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent.
Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. That is one of the most fucked up laws ever to hit the books. You know how EPO's work in VA? Poof...2nd amendment rights stripped without any due process. and, unlike this bedwetting exercise of trump hate, Lautenberg is actually confiscatory. No fly no buy could become that as well. We have many mechanisms in place to strip of us 2ndA rights, we don't need any more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:51:03 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No fly no buy could become that as well. We have many mechanisms in place to strip of us 2ndA rights, we don't need any more. so why is everyone focusing on "could" for 50,000 people (many of whom are not American citizens) and ignoring the over 1 million people who are not only prohibited from buying weapons, they had the weapons they owned taken away from them with no due process? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:53:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so why is everyone focusing on "could" for 50,000 people (many of whom are not American citizens) and ignoring the over 1 million people who are not only prohibited from buying weapons, they had the weapons they owned taken away from them with no due process? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No fly no buy could become that as well. We have many mechanisms in place to strip of us 2ndA rights, we don't need any more. so why is everyone focusing on "could" for 50,000 people (many of whom are not American citizens) and ignoring the over 1 million people who are not only prohibited from buying weapons, they had the weapons they owned taken away from them with no due process? Perhaps because the Lautenberg Amendment was not discussed at last night's debate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:54:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so why is everyone focusing on "could" for 50,000 people (many of whom are not American citizens) and ignoring the over 1 million people who are not only prohibited from buying weapons, they had the weapons they owned taken away from them with no due process? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No fly no buy could become that as well. We have many mechanisms in place to strip of us 2ndA rights, we don't need any more. so why is everyone focusing on "could" for 50,000 people (many of whom are not American citizens) and ignoring the over 1 million people who are not only prohibited from buying weapons, they had the weapons they owned taken away from them with no due process? Dude, just stop 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:57:26 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so why is everyone focusing on "could" for 50,000 people (many of whom are not American citizens) and ignoring the over 1 million people who are not only prohibited from buying weapons, they had the weapons they owned taken away from them with no due process? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No fly no buy could become that as well. We have many mechanisms in place to strip of us 2ndA rights, we don't need any more. so why is everyone focusing on "could" for 50,000 people (many of whom are not American citizens) and ignoring the over 1 million people who are not only prohibited from buying weapons, they had the weapons they owned taken away from them with no due process? Because no one cares. You're talking to a guy that's made threads and attacked felon prohibition and Lautenberg many times over. I think it's disgusting that free men have their rights stripped. As well did you know the former had an appeals process too? Only took ten years for that to fall apart. If no fly no buy happens, it will turn to confiscation, and the "appeals" proccess if made, will crumble like it always does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:57:56 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol I recorded it, and will now tell the wife to delete it. For those that watched let me ask you this: Did Trump do OK considering he came into the debate at a disadvantage? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:58:51 PM EDT
[#18]
Trump didn't "blow it" last night, he won it after being tired of being "fact checked" by moderator Lestor Holt he relied: "I'll release my tax returns against my lawyers advice right after Hillary Clinton releases her 33,000 deleted E-Mails." Trump did just fine last night and he actually came across as the winner. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:59:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent.
Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. Deprivation of rights based on misdemeanor offenses is shit too. Complete and utter shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:01:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so why is everyone focusing on "could" for 50,000 people (many of whom are not American citizens) and ignoring the over 1 million people who are not only prohibited from buying weapons, they had the weapons they owned taken away from them with no due process? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No fly no buy could become that as well. We have many mechanisms in place to strip of us 2ndA rights, we don't need any more. so why is everyone focusing on "could" for 50,000 people (many of whom are not American citizens) and ignoring the over 1 million people who are not only prohibited from buying weapons, they had the weapons they owned taken away from them with no due process? The SCOTUS decision depressed me http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/285021-supreme-court-gun-ban-extends-to-domestic-abusers and I decided to go ostrich after bookmarking the thread in GD. All I could think was how it opens the door for other misdemeanors stripping basic rights. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:01:30 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought he did great and I personally consider him the winner of the debate I didn't know people thought otherwise either until I logged into DUtrolls/DefeatistCentral (arfcom). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lol I recorded it, and will now tell the wife to delete it. For those that watched let me ask you this: Did Trump do OK considering he came into the debate at a disadvantage? Impossible. There isn't even one single Shillary/DU toady posting on Arfcom. Not a single one. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:02:53 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Impossible. There isn't even one single Shillary/DU toady posting on Arfcom. Not a single one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol I recorded it, and will now tell the wife to delete it. For those that watched let me ask you this: Did Trump do OK considering he came into the debate at a disadvantage? Impossible. There isn't even one single Shillary/DU toady posting on Arfcom. Not a single one. And no one on this message board ever advised Jimmy Carter. Nope, not a single poster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:03:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's because ARFcom is infested with 5th column shills. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: GD seems to be the only place on the internet other than DU that thinks Trump lost lol That's because ARFcom is infested with 5th column shills. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:03:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Impossible. There isn't even one single Shillary/DU toady posting on Arfcom. Not a single one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol I recorded it, and will now tell the wife to delete it. For those that watched let me ask you this: Did Trump do OK considering he came into the debate at a disadvantage? Impossible. There isn't even one single Shillary/DU toady posting on Arfcom. Not a single one. Well, except for that one guy who worked for the Carter administration. Anyone who would work for Carter has to be a toady. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:04:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Deprivation of rights based on misdemeanor offenses is shit too. Complete and utter shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent.
Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. Deprivation of rights based on misdemeanor offenses is shit too. Complete and utter shit. shit, if it was even misdemeanor I could stomach that. All it takes is an accusation. Dealt with that shit in the army way too much. to the point, background checks for purchases exist. there are people prohibited from buying weapons. many of them for no due process. as long as a mechanism to be removed from the list exists, I don't have a big problem with it. there is a balance between security and freedom. I don't have a fucking shit fit when a NICS check doesn't come back approved. shit happens, if it continues to happen, it gets fixed. the process to remove people on the list unfairly is important. but everyone having a stroke because trump's position mirrors the NRAs is just more deranged nevertrump bullshit. got it. NRA is coming for your guns. Thank you for your input larry pratt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:05:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Check this out. It is a screen shot of an 4chan overview of the debate. Lester Holt was shillin like a paid surrogate.
https://i.sli.mg/mCjGC9.png https://i.sli.mg/mCjGC9.png |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:06:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Started out strong in the first 10 minutes Then spent the entire time on the defensive Hillary had all of the witty remarks He failed to attack on her plenty of opportunities (BLM, emails). Instead kept saying "I agree with Hillary" then went on tirade all over the place defending himself Then he caps the entire debate with "If she is President I will fully support her" Where was the Trump from the Republican debates with the witty attacks? Where was the energized Trump? He looked nervous and kept rambling on, taking sips of water every second. Meanwhile sickly Hillary didn't touch her water once. While I agree that he was aggressive in the first 20-30 minutes and lost his footing and was on the defensive (unnecessarily) for the rest of the debate, you must have watched a different debate than I did. Yes, he sipped water a few times (I would too under hot stage lights), but, so did Hillary. I noticed her sipping water as much as he did. Unfortunately, I will agree that his defensive posture gave Clinton the win overall in the debate. But, no way was she abstaining from water consumption as you allege. And, I'm glad that he refrained from name calling and childish remarks which he made in the Republican debates. He is, or should be trying to look presidential in an effort to win over those slow witted fence sitter moderates that can't seem to make up their minds as to who they will vote for at this point. Whoever wins their votes will win the election. The Trump and Clinton supporters are about even now. Those undecided voters (unfortunately) will push one or the other over to the win. I'm, thinking that he's smart enough to learn from this debate what he needs to do to win the next two. A successful businessman will never make the same mistake twice and I don't think he will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:06:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps because the Lautenberg Amendment was not discussed at last night's debate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No fly no buy could become that as well. We have many mechanisms in place to strip of us 2ndA rights, we don't need any more. so why is everyone focusing on "could" for 50,000 people (many of whom are not American citizens) and ignoring the over 1 million people who are not only prohibited from buying weapons, they had the weapons they owned taken away from them with no due process? Perhaps because the Lautenberg Amendment was not discussed at last night's debate. There's that as well. It's a confiscatory shit policy with an ineffective mechanism for regaining rights that never should have been taken away in the first place, and "no fly, no buy" will be the same thing. Except you won't even know whether you're on the list. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:08:39 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
shit, if it was even misdemeanor I could stomach that. All it takes is an accusation. Dealt with that shit in the army way too much. to the point, background checks for purchases exist. there are people prohibited from buying weapons. many of them for no due process. as long as a mechanism to be removed from the list exists, I don't have a big problem with it. there is a balance between security and freedom. I don't have a fucking shit fit when a NICS check doesn't come back approved. shit happens, if it continues to happen, it gets fixed. the process to remove people on the list unfairly is important. but everyone having a stroke because trump's position mirrors the NRAs is just more deranged nevertrump bullshit. got it. NRA is coming for your guns. Thank you for your input larry pratt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent.
Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. Deprivation of rights based on misdemeanor offenses is shit too. Complete and utter shit. shit, if it was even misdemeanor I could stomach that. All it takes is an accusation. Dealt with that shit in the army way too much. to the point, background checks for purchases exist. there are people prohibited from buying weapons. many of them for no due process. as long as a mechanism to be removed from the list exists, I don't have a big problem with it. there is a balance between security and freedom. I don't have a fucking shit fit when a NICS check doesn't come back approved. shit happens, if it continues to happen, it gets fixed. the process to remove people on the list unfairly is important. but everyone having a stroke because trump's position mirrors the NRAs is just more deranged nevertrump bullshit. got it. NRA is coming for your guns. Thank you for your input larry pratt. NRA needs some changes as well. That's one of the reasons I got a life membership.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:11:30 PM EDT
[#30]
The common misconception with the #NeverTrump crowd is thinking that if you support Trump you assume him to be some demigod DPRK style omnipotent dictator.
Some of us see this as a simple "HRC or Trump" decision, hence I wouldn't be too quick to rejoice at a poor debate by the only viable candidate we have
Last night showed me that we have more closet #NeverTrump folks on this board than I thought we did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:13:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent. Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............... Lol. That's not how that works. That's not how any of that works. Being stopped at random and searched without probable cause while engaged in legal activities is constitutional? I guess that whole unreasonable search and seizure/warrant thing is just a suggestion then. Because safety and effective policies. No, maybe you should research the issue before spouting off. There has always been the requirement to have reasonable cause for the stop. This has been answered ad nauseam by our very own LEO's here. Time after time after time this has been pointed out by our LEO's here and they ARE correct. And the facts as I state them relative to the vacated decision of the lower court by the Appellate Court are correct. The lower court's decision WAS vacated and the judge removed by the Appellate Court due to anti police bias and the case was remanded for further review by an IMPARTIAL JUDGE appointed by the Appeals Court. DeBlowsio then chose to not pursue another trial because he hates Terry Stops. Terry Stops are allowed by the SCOTUS and have been since I was a little kid in the 50's or 60's. Research the issue before spouting off please.............. Terry v. Ohio.......Supreme Court..................... Learned something new. Thanks RDak I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent. Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. That's exactly why the rest of us are extremely happy that you are not the dictator of the United States. I am so happy that the US Supreme Court doesn't agree with you and are reasonable. Otherwise we would never have had the Heller decision and Alito, Thomas, and Scalia would never have been justices if you were in charge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:14:53 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The common misconception with the #NeverTrump crowd is thinking that if you support Trump you assume him to be some demigod DPRK style omnipotent dictator. Some of us see this as a simple "HRC or Trump" decision, hence I wouldn't be too quick to rejoice at a poor debate by the only viable candidate we have
Last night showed me that we have more closet #NeverTrump folks on this board than I thought we did. Points out the error in assuming binary choice on supporting trump. Immediately resorts to binary choice for anyone saying anything negative about the debate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:15:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump didn't "blow it" last night, he won it after being tired of being "fact checked" by moderator Lestor Holt he relied: "I'll release my tax returns against my lawyers advice right after Hillary Clinton releases her 33,000 deleted E-Mails." Trump did just fine last night and he actually came across as the winner.
That was probably about the ONLY reference he should have directly made to Madam Secretary. It's my opinion that he should have (as much as was possible) completely ignored her, focused on succinct answers to the questions posed and not get baited into a vague defensive posture - which he did and it came across horribly. THE point he should have kept directing back to - and he tried a few times but made it too personal so he came off as immature - is that the present system (of which she is a BIG part of) has not only failed but is corrupted - as evidenced by her not being behind bars. "And we are going to try it differently now. Game over for you". ....ignoring her probably would have really gotten the reaction some were hoping for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:16:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's exactly why the rest of us are extremely happy that you are not the dictator of the United States. I am so happy that the US Supreme Court doesn't agree with you and are reasonable. Otherwise we would never have had the Heller decision and Alito, Thomas, and Scalia would never have been justices if you were in charge.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............... Lol. That's not how that works. That's not how any of that works. Being stopped at random and searched without probable cause while engaged in legal activities is constitutional? I guess that whole unreasonable search and seizure/warrant thing is just a suggestion then. Because safety and effective policies. No, maybe you should research the issue before spouting off. There has always been the requirement to have reasonable cause for the stop. This has been answered ad nauseam by our very own LEO's here. Time after time after time this has been pointed out by our LEO's here and they ARE correct. And the facts as I state them relative to the vacated decision of the lower court by the Appellate Court are correct. The lower court's decision WAS vacated and the judge removed by the Appellate Court due to anti police bias and the case was remanded for further review by an IMPARTIAL JUDGE appointed by the Appeals Court. DeBlowsio then chose to not pursue another trial because he hates Terry Stops. Terry Stops are allowed by the SCOTUS and have been since I was a little kid in the 50's or 60's. Research the issue before spouting off please.............. Terry v. Ohio.......Supreme Court..................... Learned something new. Thanks RDak I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent. Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. That's exactly why the rest of us are extremely happy that you are not the dictator of the United States. I am so happy that the US Supreme Court doesn't agree with you and are reasonable. Otherwise we would never have had the Heller decision and Alito, Thomas, and Scalia would never have been justices if you were in charge.
Goody for you? The SC makes decisions people don't agree with. Just ask Sylvan about their decision on Roe v. Wade. That doesn't mean they don't get it right sometimes, or that they're immune from getting it wrong. They aren't infallible. Obamacare was ruled constitutional too. So reasonable. Much justice. Wow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:18:03 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's exactly why the rest of us are extremely happy that you are not the dictator of the United States. I am so happy that the US Supreme Court doesn't agree with you and are reasonable. Otherwise we would never have had the Heller decision and Alito, Thomas, and Scalia would never have been justices if you were in charge.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............... Lol. That's not how that works. That's not how any of that works. Being stopped at random and searched without probable cause while engaged in legal activities is constitutional? I guess that whole unreasonable search and seizure/warrant thing is just a suggestion then. Because safety and effective policies. No, maybe you should research the issue before spouting off. There has always been the requirement to have reasonable cause for the stop. This has been answered ad nauseam by our very own LEO's here. Time after time after time this has been pointed out by our LEO's here and they ARE correct. And the facts as I state them relative to the vacated decision of the lower court by the Appellate Court are correct. The lower court's decision WAS vacated and the judge removed by the Appellate Court due to anti police bias and the case was remanded for further review by an IMPARTIAL JUDGE appointed by the Appeals Court. DeBlowsio then chose to not pursue another trial because he hates Terry Stops. Terry Stops are allowed by the SCOTUS and have been since I was a little kid in the 50's or 60's. Research the issue before spouting off please.............. Terry v. Ohio.......Supreme Court..................... Learned something new. Thanks RDak I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent. Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. That's exactly why the rest of us are extremely happy that you are not the dictator of the United States. I am so happy that the US Supreme Court doesn't agree with you and are reasonable. Otherwise we would never have had the Heller decision and Alito, Thomas, and Scalia would never have been justices if you were in charge.
lulzinga |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:18:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Points out the error in assuming binary choice on supporting trump. Immediately resorts to binary choice for anyone saying anything negative about the debate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The common misconception with the #NeverTrump crowd is thinking that if you support Trump you assume him to be some demigod DPRK style omnipotent dictator. Some of us see this as a simple "HRC or Trump" decision, hence I wouldn't be too quick to rejoice at a poor debate by the only viable candidate we have
Last night showed me that we have more closet #NeverTrump folks on this board than I thought we did. Points out the error in assuming binary choice on supporting trump. Immediately resorts to binary choice for anyone saying anything negative about the debate. Real clever delivery but where did I say that? hell I pointed out myself I thought he did a poor job. If you read the thread you'll find examples of idiots telling all the Trump supporters to leave this board forever. Seems downright ridiculous that members on this board are telling supporters of the Republican nominee to leave a pro 2A board because of a bad debate?
Fucking bizaroo world. But continue with your circle jerk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:20:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Real clever delivery but where did I say that? hell I pointed out myself I thought he did a poor job. If you read the thread you'll find examples of idiots telling all the Trump supporters to leave this board forever. Seems downright ridiculous that members on this board are telling supporters of the Republican nominee to leave a pro 2A board because of a bad debate?
Fucking bizaroo world. But continue with your circle jerk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The common misconception with the #NeverTrump crowd is thinking that if you support Trump you assume him to be some demigod DPRK style omnipotent dictator. Some of us see this as a simple "HRC or Trump" decision, hence I wouldn't be too quick to rejoice at a poor debate by the only viable candidate we have
Last night showed me that we have more closet #NeverTrump folks on this board than I thought we did. Points out the error in assuming binary choice on supporting trump. Immediately resorts to binary choice for anyone saying anything negative about the debate. Real clever delivery but where did I say that? hell I pointed out myself I thought he did a poor job. If you read the thread you'll find examples of idiots telling all the Trump supporters to leave this board forever. Seems downright ridiculous that members on this board are telling supporters of the Republican nominee to leave a pro 2A board because of a bad debate?
Fucking bizaroo world. But continue with your circle jerk. You realize who started this thread, right? You realize I think trump did a better job than he does, right? You're the only one circle jerking here with your "closet never trumpers" bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:25:13 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The common misconception with the #NeverTrump crowd is thinking that if you support Trump you assume him to be some demigod DPRK style omnipotent dictator. Some of us see this as a simple "HRC or Trump" decision, hence I wouldn't be too quick to rejoice at a poor debate by the only viable candidate we have
Last night showed me that we have more closet #NeverTrump folks on this board than I thought we did. Just because I'm voting for him, doesn't mean I'm going to suck his dick. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:29:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because I'm voting for him, doesn't mean I'm going to suck his dick. YMMV. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The common misconception with the #NeverTrump crowd is thinking that if you support Trump you assume him to be some demigod DPRK style omnipotent dictator. Some of us see this as a simple "HRC or Trump" decision, hence I wouldn't be too quick to rejoice at a poor debate by the only viable candidate we have
Last night showed me that we have more closet #NeverTrump folks on this board than I thought we did. Just because I'm voting for him, doesn't mean I'm going to suck his dick. YMMV. Cheering on the Republican candidate = sucking his dick. Alright, got it Scooter. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:31:00 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You realize who started this thread, right? You realize I think trump did a better job than he does, right? You're the only one circle jerking here with your "closet never trumpers" bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The common misconception with the #NeverTrump crowd is thinking that if you support Trump you assume him to be some demigod DPRK style omnipotent dictator. Some of us see this as a simple "HRC or Trump" decision, hence I wouldn't be too quick to rejoice at a poor debate by the only viable candidate we have
Last night showed me that we have more closet #NeverTrump folks on this board than I thought we did. Points out the error in assuming binary choice on supporting trump. Immediately resorts to binary choice for anyone saying anything negative about the debate. Real clever delivery but where did I say that? hell I pointed out myself I thought he did a poor job. If you read the thread you'll find examples of idiots telling all the Trump supporters to leave this board forever. Seems downright ridiculous that members on this board are telling supporters of the Republican nominee to leave a pro 2A board because of a bad debate?
Fucking bizaroo world. But continue with your circle jerk. You realize who started this thread, right? You realize I think trump did a better job than he does, right? You're the only one circle jerking here with your "closet never trumpers" bullshit. lol, yup you got me. I'm a huge #NeverTrumper
And no, just like the rest of this forum I have absolutely no idea who you are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:37:06 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Learned something new. Thanks RDak Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: ............... Lol. That's not how that works. That's not how any of that works. Being stopped at random and searched without probable cause while engaged in legal activities is constitutional? I guess that whole unreasonable search and seizure/warrant thing is just a suggestion then. Because safety and effective policies. No, maybe you should research the issue before spouting off. There has always been the requirement to have reasonable cause for the stop. This has been answered ad nauseam by our very own LEO's here. Time after time after time this has been pointed out by our LEO's here and they ARE correct. And the facts as I state them relative to the vacated decision of the lower court by the Appellate Court are correct. The lower court's decision WAS vacated and the judge removed by the Appellate Court due to anti police bias and the case was remanded for further review by an IMPARTIAL JUDGE appointed by the Appeals Court. DeBlowsio then chose to not pursue another trial because he hates Terry Stops. Terry Stops are allowed by the SCOTUS and have been since I was a little kid in the 50's or 60's. Research the issue before spouting off please.............. Terry v. Ohio.......Supreme Court..................... Learned something new. Thanks RDak |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:38:36 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cheering on the Republican candidate = sucking his dick. Alright, got it Scooter.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The common misconception with the #NeverTrump crowd is thinking that if you support Trump you assume him to be some demigod DPRK style omnipotent dictator. Some of us see this as a simple "HRC or Trump" decision, hence I wouldn't be too quick to rejoice at a poor debate by the only viable candidate we have
Last night showed me that we have more closet #NeverTrump folks on this board than I thought we did. Just because I'm voting for him, doesn't mean I'm going to suck his dick. YMMV. Cheering on the Republican candidate = sucking his dick. Alright, got it Scooter.
You can cheer on your team, but if they do poor, they do poor, no changing that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:43:16 PM EDT
[#43]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:46:47 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I watched it twice and tried to watch a 3rd time before quitting 20 minutes later. Trump sucked exactly as described in GD BUT what everyone is missing about the debate was HER answers. The public heard nothing new from her and it was presented in a arrogant manner. So she came off as more of the same establishment. If your Joe Public. How is that going to feel? We all say she is full of shit. Imagine an independent watching an arrogant politician offer shit as a solution to his or her problems. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lol I recorded it, and will now tell the wife to delete it. For those that watched let me ask you this: Did Trump do OK considering he came into the debate at a disadvantage? I watched it twice and tried to watch a 3rd time before quitting 20 minutes later. Trump sucked exactly as described in GD BUT what everyone is missing about the debate was HER answers. The public heard nothing new from her and it was presented in a arrogant manner. So she came off as more of the same establishment. If your Joe Public. How is that going to feel? We all say she is full of shit. Imagine an independent watching an arrogant politician offer shit as a solution to his or her problems. I just got back from helping to wire up a new 3 ton HVAC package unit for a guy's home. Home owner was listening to the radio while we working working and the news report came on...."I could not stomach watching that bitch smirk. My wife watched it all and said that woman came off as a smug arrogant politician. Does she even realize how many people are out of work in this country..." Lots of people watched the same debate and only saw Hillary and all her warts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:56:20 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote History
I'm guessing that Trump's biggest strength last night was that Hillary came off as a totally unlikeable, mean spirited, stone cold political apparatchik. There's not an ounce of sincerity or humanity about her. But I'm waiting to hear the opinion of some libtarded Canadian Concern Troll before I come to any final conclusions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:57:26 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But I'm waiting to hear the opinion of some libtarded Canadian Concern Troll before I come to any final conclusions. [chortle] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 2:58:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent. Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. Due process. Lautenberg is unconstitutional but there is due process. It at least requires a conviction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 3:00:46 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Due process. Lautenberg is unconstitutional but there is due process. It at least requires a conviction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent.
Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. Due process. Lautenberg is unconstitutional but there is due process. It at least requires a conviction. The worst part of Lautenberg was the expost facto bullshit. Guys who has plead to a nothing misdemeanor years before because it was a nothing slap on the risk got the big government ass raping years or decades later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 3:01:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Due process. Lautenberg is unconstitutional but there is due process. It at least requires a conviction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent.
Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. Due process. Lautenberg is unconstitutional but there is due process. It at least requires a conviction. No there isn't. Not in VA. A magistrate will issue an emergency protective order on the word of a person, on the spot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 3:02:05 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Due process. Lautenberg is unconstitutional but there is due process. It at least requires a conviction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:I also learned something, and learning is good. I learned that I fundamentally disagree with that particular decision, but there is precedent.
Still troubling, as is "no fly, no buy", whereby your rights are taken away without due process, and you then have to fight to have them restored. Which he also supports. He paid lip service to establishing a process by which you get them back, but he still fundamentally supports deprivation of rights without due process. Funny, I haven't heard you upset about Lautenberg. Due process. Lautenberg is unconstitutional but there is due process. It at least requires a conviction. not true at all. restraining order or accusation of abuse is all that is required. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
