Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
59 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thank goodness there is no such thing as an activist judge, or an appeal of decisions, or rulings that change.  
 

Have some credibility man. 

Talk to the Supreme Court about activist judges.  Trump seems to have appointed a few of them.  

Posted
10 minutes ago, Governor said:

Credibility? Everything that came out of Joe’s mouth yesterday I previously discussed months ago on this board, all the way down to the Medicare/Medicaid requirement.

Well,  @Big Blitz has called it as well, and anyone paying half attention would know that Scranton Joe would find the nickledick way to thump the unvaxxed but avoid upsetting too large a portion of his base, all while pretending his patience was at an end.  He’s the death by paper cut president, and continues to send the most dangerous mixed messaging imaginable.  But hey—the government picks up another revenue stream.
 

In this case, it was less about your overall view on what was to come, more about linking that a judge made a ruling like it proved anything beyond the fact that this is how the process work.  
 

If you perceived that to be a broad statement on credibility in general, that was not my intent. 

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Talk to the Supreme Court about activist judges.  Trump seems to have appointed a few of them.  

Why would I talk to anyone about a subject I referenced and that you and I apparently agree on?  
 

It’s the system, and it was fortuitous that DJT and Mitch moved as they did. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Well,  @Big Blitz has called it as well, and anyone paying half attention would know that Scranton Joe would find the nickledick way to thump the unvaxxed but avoid upsetting too large a portion of his base, all while pretending his patience was at an end.  He’s the death by paper cut president, and continues to send the most dangerous mixed messaging imaginable.  But hey—the government picks up another revenue stream.
 

In this case, it was less about your overall view on what was to come, more about linking that a judge made a ruling like it proved anything beyond the fact that this is how the process work.  
 

If you perceived that to be a broad statement on credibility in general, that was not my intent. 

Why would I talk to anyone about a subject I referenced and that you and I apparently agree on?  
 

It’s the system, and it was fortuitous that DJT and Mitch moved as they did. 

Or they’ve tarnished the judiciary.  Either one.  We didn’t have to politicize the Supreme Court.  But we did.  And, in the long run, it will be bad for the country. 

Posted
1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Or they’ve tarnished the judiciary.  Either one.  We didn’t have to politicize the Supreme Court.  But we did.  And, in the long run, it will be bad for the country. 

Sure. Yeah. Of course.  Definitely.  The purity pledge.  Liberals only.  If only….

 

 

Posted
32 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Well,  @Big Blitz has called it as well, and anyone paying half attention would know that Scranton Joe would find the nickledick way to thump the unvaxxed but avoid upsetting too large a portion of his base, all while pretending his patience was at an end.  He’s the death by paper cut president, and continues to send the most dangerous mixed messaging imaginable.  But hey—the government picks up another revenue stream.
 

In this case, it was less about your overall view on what was to come, more about linking that a judge made a ruling like it proved anything beyond the fact that this is how the process work.  
 

If you perceived that to be a broad statement on credibility in general, that was not my intent. 

Why would I talk to anyone about a subject I referenced and that you and I apparently agree on?  
 

It’s the system, and it was fortuitous that DJT and Mitch moved as they did. 


What I’m telling you is that DeSantis, and now Abbott, already know how these silly laws are going to shake out in court before they pass them. That’s what their legal team is for.

 

Why do they pass them anyway?

 

Because it tricks people like BuffaloTimmy into thinking they’re “fighting for his freedom.”

 

When it gets laughed out of court, they simply go to their natural/comfortable fall-back position of victimhood and blame it on “activist” judges, like you did.

 

You’re being played here people.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Governor said:


What I’m telling you is that DeSantis, and now Abbott, already know how these silly laws are going to shake out in court before they pass them. That’s what their legal team is for.

 

Why do they pass them anyway?

 

Because it tricks people like BuffaloTimmy into thinking they’re “fighting for his freedom.”

 

When it gets laughed out of court, they simply go to their natural/comfortable fall-back position of victimhood and blame it on “activist” judges, like you did.

 

You’re being played here people.

Apparently you haven’t been brought up to speed on the recent history of the executive order pendulum? 

how about this…?  So a local mandate stuck down by state court, versus a state mandate ban strict verses a federal mandate? 
 

you don’t see this game runs the gamut yet? 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/texas-supreme-court-denies-san-164000420.html

 

 

Come on man! 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Talk to the Supreme Court about activist judges.  Trump seems to have appointed a few of them.  

 

Just like Barry did years before.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Apparently you haven’t been brought up to speed on the recent history of the executive order pendulum? 

how about this…?  So a local mandate stuck down by state court, versus a state mandate ban strict verses a federal mandate? 
 

you don’t see this game runs the gamut yet? 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/texas-supreme-court-denies-san-164000420.html

 

 

Come on man! 

And it also allows you to retreat to “your” natural position of “both sides equally bad meanies!”

Posted
26 minutes ago, Governor said:


What I’m telling you is that DeSantis, and now Abbott, already know how these silly laws are going to shake out in court before they pass them. That’s what their legal team is for.

 

Why do they pass them anyway?

 

Because it tricks people like BuffaloTimmy into thinking they’re “fighting for his freedom.”

 

When it gets laughed out of court, they simply go to their natural/comfortable fall-back position of victimhood and blame it on “activist” judges, like you did.

 

You’re being played here people.

I’m not blaming anyone for anything playa. I’m simply acknowledging what everyone in America knows, that politicians and judges do what politicians and judges do.

 

If it makes you happy to think you’ve uncovered the Holy Grail of insider information, I’m happy that you’re happy.  
 

Why the shot at Buffalo T?  Seems unnecessary and sorta shallow.  
 

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Governor said:

Make sure that hill is located north of the Mason/Dixon line.

I’m not sure I’ve ever been stoned enough to understand what profound meaning this is supposed to have….  Is this about being able to tax my beneficiaries and redistribute to you or something? 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

I’m not sure I’ve ever been stoned enough to understand what profound meaning this is supposed to have….  Is this about being able to tax my beneficiaries and redistribute to you or something? 

No. We wouldn’t want to mistakingly identify you as a Trump cultist, so you need to play on your hill on the safe side, since you’re an independent and all. 

56 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m not blaming anyone for anything playa. I’m simply acknowledging what everyone in America knows, that politicians and judges do what politicians and judges do.

 

If it makes you happy to think you’ve uncovered the Holy Grail of insider information, I’m happy that you’re happy.  
 

Why the shot at Buffalo T?  Seems unnecessary and sorta shallow.  
 

 

He was the most recent post in this thread to use as an example. It’s right above ours.

Posted
15 minutes ago, Governor said:

No. We wouldn’t want to mistakingly identify you as a Trump cultist, so you need to play on your hill on the safe side, since you’re an independent and all. 

 

You’re always talking about nature and watching squirrels and gerbils in the forest…. Now you’re mandating what hill I can  play on? Typical woke supremacist. 

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

You’re always talking about nature and watching squirrels and gerbils in the forest…. Now you’re mandating what hill I can  play on? Typical woke supremacist. 

There are no gerbils in the forest. You’ve been hiding them.

 

I have a coyote, which I thought was a Fox that had mange. I tried to order Ivermectin but they wouldn’t ship it to NJ.

Posted
1 minute ago, Governor said:

There are no gerbils in the forest. You’ve been hiding them.

 

I have a coyote, which I thought was a Fox that had mange. I tried to order Ivermectin but they wouldn’t ship it to NJ.

 

In urban dictionary Fox mange is Appalachian slang for humans developing rashes from close contact with sheep… 🤔 

 

It’s for your own good they didn’t ship you ivermectin. It’s unhealthy to vape that stuff… 

Hiding gerbils I’ve gotta admit, I’ve not don’t it yet, but you never know when the bucket list gets freed up enough for the next thing. 

Posted
4 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

DeSantis is against female freedom of choice and the ability of local governments to decide whether face coverings are appropriate in congregate settings.  Spare me the freedom cliches.  

DeSantis is against punishing children, right now OCPS has a mask mandate for children but not adults in Orange county overall, but you believe that punishing those at virtually no risk is proper. Secondly what law has he passed that took away freedom from individuals? People who want to mask have always been allowed to mask. Spare me your belief that my rights can be infringed upon by your paranoia.

 

Posted
4 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Talk to the Supreme Court about activist judges.  Trump seems to have appointed a few of them.  

Ohhhhh, now I get it.  Deep down it's mean old Trump that brings this out in you.  Rest assured, he's not in the White House anymore. It's gonna be ok.  

Posted
Just now, Tenhigh said:

Ohhhhh, now I get it.  Deep down it's mean old Trump that brings this out in you.  Rest assured, he's not in the White House anymore. It's gonna be ok.  

 

For him/them...no it's not.  He's irrevocably broken them.  

Posted
5 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Or they’ve tarnished the judiciary.  Either one.  We didn’t have to politicize the Supreme Court.  But we did.  And, in the long run, it will be bad for the country. 

It takes a special kind of stupidity to be a lawyer and try and claim that the right politicized the supreme court. From Robert Bork to Clarence Thomas to Kavanaugh the left has given credence to absurd notions to try and stop qualified judges from being seated all the while pushing Sotomayor that clearly does not belong on the highest court.

  • Agree 1
×
×
  • Create New...