• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
TMSAIL

9th circuit Travel ban appeal going on

Recommended Posts

I was listening in and while I didn't hear enough to predict an outcome.  One interesting part was when the plaintive argued that standing under a immigrant visa law should apply to someone who is planning to apply for said VISA for someone else. I found that strange, applied for maybe but how can you have standing on something that isn't even applied for. 

The other thing was when a judge asked the same lawyer didn't you file a brief arguing the exact opposite in regards to the Obama administration vs TX.  That the supreme authority was POTUS?  Led to some interesting backtracking by the lawyer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump shouldn't have called for a complete ban on muslims until we can figure out what the hell is going in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neat how the one judge asked if Trump had retracted any of his campaign bullshit to demonstrate that it's, you know, campaign bullshit.

He hasn't.  Travel ban will be struck down. . . . again. 

Dog will defend Trump's ban without supporting Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Clove Hitch said:

Neat how the one judge asked if Trump had retracted any of his campaign bullshit to demonstrate that it's, you know, campaign bullshit.

He hasn't.  Travel ban will be struck down. . . . again. 

Dog will defend Trump's ban without supporting Trump.

You do realize it's a pause, not a ban right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sportboat Jeff said:

You do realize it's a pause, not a ban right?

 

Speaking of defending Trump without being a Trump supporting.  A pause?  So we can call it a temporary ban. 

A temporary ban is still a ban. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sportboat Jeff said:

You do realize it's a pause, not a ban right?

Kinda like the global cooling pause?

Kindly keep your pause off of my Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

 

Speaking of defending Trump without being a Trump supporting.  A pause?  So we can call it a temporary ban. 

A temporary ban is still a ban. 

It's simply a temporary ban to a pause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it was only supposed to last for 90 days "until they could figure out what was going on", why do they still need it?

They've had over 100 days now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

It's simply a temporary ban to a pause.

More like a temporary pause to a not-ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like the Courts made the Executive take a morning-after-pill.

 

Trump can still get pregnant again, but maybe he'll think a little more about who he has knock them up.

 

 

Strike that.

 

 


trump doesn't think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Turd Sandwich said:

Its just a temporary pause on the way to a higher court

Question is will they go there

Maybe they will figure out what the hell is going on by then and we won't need to ban all the muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spatial Ed said:

Maybe they will figure out what the hell is going on by then and we won't need to ban all the muslims.

If we wait for Trump to figure out anything we'll be waiting a long long time.  That guy is a complete fucking moron with a tiny attention span on top of his stupidity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:

You do realize it's a pause, not a ban right?

Think of it as 6 15-day pauses in a row.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amazing part is apparently there was a lawyer for the administration today arguing the case on the ground that what Trump said during the campaign WRT intent of the ban is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

The amazing part is apparently there was a lawyer for the administration today arguing the case on the ground that what Trump said during the campaign WRT intent of the ban is meaningless.

But he also asked the judges to parse his intention of the ban without consideration to his statements.    The judges were incredulous saying they want us to divine intent, but ignore actual statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spatial Ed said:
16 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

The amazing part is apparently there was a lawyer for the administration today arguing the case on the ground that what Trump said during the campaign WRT intent of the ban is meaningless.

But he also asked the judges to parse his intention of the ban without consideration to his statements.    The judges were incredulous saying they want us to divine intent, but ignore actual statements.

Gettin' it done...

the-tonight-show-starring-johnny-carson-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:

You do realize it's a pause, not a ban right?

You do realise a ban can be temporary right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

You do realise a ban can be temporary right?

The good sign of a solid policy is to have an exit strategy.   The Muslim ban was only to be in effect until we can find out what the hell is going on.  Pretty solid if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We didn't ask, Spatial. But a guy like you could replace Spicer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

We didn't ask, Spatial. But a guy like you could replace Spicer.

You need to tune your sarcasm meter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

You need to tune your sarcasm meter

He pegged it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

We didn't ask, Spatial. But a guy like you could replace Spicer.

I would be outstanding in the press room.  And only Eddie Murphy could spoof my on SNL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:
11 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:

You do realize it's a pause, not a ban right?

 

Speaking of defending Trump without being a Trump supporting.  A pause?  So we can call it a temporary ban. 

A temporary ban is still a ban. 

How is pointing out a fact considered "support" for a person?  It is a fact that its a temporary pause in issuing visas to immigrants from certain countries.  If you want to call it a temporary ban, feel free.  Its still temporary.  Much ado about nothing.  Meh.  Had it been left alone, it would be expiring in July.  That's like 8 weeks away.

FTR - I don't think this temp ban/pause was really necessary.  This purported "review" of immigration procedures from these countries could just as easily been accomplished without this EO.  They could have quietly sat on any application that looked even remotely suspicious while they did this review.  I absolutely don't think its a muzzy ban given there's lots of other muzzy countries still open to travel.  

I furthermore think this will (or should) pass constitutional muster and judicial review.  The fact of the matter is the POTUS has broad authority to change immigration policy - as evadent by Obama's DACA program.  Especially in matters of National Security.  Also, since those same 7 countries were the ones Obama himself singled out for further scrutiny, it will be hard to convince a reasonable judge that this was a capricious and random selection of countries for discrimination.  Another issue is that there is nothing, despite what the jackass in the WH has said, in the order that discriminates against muzzies.  There are likely other religiously affiliated people who live in those countries who could be affected that want to travel to the US.  Unless the EO says "all citizens of country X except Christians are banned", there is not a case to be made for religious discrimination.  And finally, citizens in other countries who are denied immigration do not have standing.  There is no "Right" to immigrate or visit the US.

Now all that being said, it might not be "morally right", but its not illegal.  

And because I point out fact..... I'll be labeled a trump supporter in 3..... 2...... 1........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:

How is pointing out a fact considered "support" for a person?  It is a fact that its a temporary pause in issuing visas to immigrants from certain countries.  If you want to call it a temporary ban, feel free.  Its still temporary.  Much ado about nothing.  Meh.  .

Let's call it a waiting period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

The amazing part is apparently there was a lawyer for the administration today arguing the case on the ground that what Trump said during the campaign WRT intent of the ban is meaningless.

You disagree?   I'd think that a legal determination has to be based upon the articulation of the statute, and that the comments of a candidate who at the time had absolutely zero authority to implement policy are equivalent  to hearsay.  Any attorneys care to help me correct my understanding?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ianal of course. The court is trying to identify the actual intent of the law. Is the intent related to religious discrimination?

If a candidate lays out goals and promises, then acts on them an an official, his words and MO are inter-connected toothpaste out of the tube. It would be sur-real to not connect a candidate's stated goals to his actions.

The Donald bashed the immigration of all Muslims. Once elected, when does one's word become disconnected from his bond or his brand? He spoke like a constitutional cowboy, then he acted like one once elected. The behavior is inter-connected and matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Let's call it a waiting period.

But I thought waiting periods were good...... sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You disagree?   I'd think that a legal determination has to be based upon the articulation of the statute, and that the comments of a candidate who at the time had absolutely zero authority to implement policy are equivalent  to hearsay.  Any attorneys care to help me correct my understanding?  

I disagree. Intent is important in determining whether one's actions do or do not breach the law. A person's own comments for why they do what they do is often critical in determining that intent. It is not "hearsay" to use one's own comments regarding an act for determining the intent of that act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:
13 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Let's call it a waiting period.

But I thought waiting periods were good...... sometimes.

Don't you two lovebirds have enough ammosexual threads to play in already? Geez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:

But I thought waiting periods were good...... sometimes.

They certainly can be.  Just think how much more intelligent your posts would be if there were a waiting period for you to sober up before posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

They certainly can be.  Just think how much more intelligent your posts would be if there were a waiting period for you to sober up before posting.

Oh come on..... I do my best work here when I've had a wee dram.  Of course there is always a fine line.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

18 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:

But I thought waiting periods were good...... sometimes.

 

Some will look at one and say "it's a pause, not a ban," as you did. Others will say that about another "pause, not a ban."

I think the whole "a right delayed is a right denied" thing applies to more than one right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
18 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:

But I thought waiting periods were good...... sometimes.

 

Some will look at one and say "it's a pause, not a ban," as you did. Others will say that about another "pause, not a ban."

I think the whole "a right delayed is a right denied" thing applies to more than one right.

I agree with that.  Except the big difference being the folks applying for a US Visa in Yemen do not have a "right" to that visa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true. His original travel ban was more broad.

In oral arguments, the idea was pitched that you can't use Trump's campaign statements to decide whether his intent is to ban Muslims because he said different things at different times and it's impossible to know which time he meant it.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/05/ninth-circuit-hears-oral-argument-trump-travel-ban/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fourth Circuit (not a liberal bastion) just came down hard on the travel ban.  

Quote

speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.

They didn't buy the plausible deniability bull-malarkey.  

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/335163-appeals-court-upholds-injunction-blocking-trumps-travel-ban

7-6 so it was an En banc decision.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The Fourth Circuit (not a liberal bastion) just came down hard on the travel ban.  

They didn't buy the plausible deniability bull-malarkey.  

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/335163-appeals-court-upholds-injunction-blocking-trumps-travel-ban

7-6 so it was an En banc decision.  

looks like it was 10-3?

I bet Trump is SO tired of winning. Needs a nap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha!  What a beat down.

Quote

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 10-3 ruling that Trump’s executive order "speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

I can't connect to that server. I'll assume it was poor reporting that said 10-3....

Yeah, it is pretty busy....  It was 7-6, and three concurred in various parts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the money shot:

Quote

As we previously determined, the Government’s asserted national security interest in enforcing Section 2(c) appears to be a post hoc, secondary justification for an executive action rooted in religious animus and intended to bar Muslims from this country. We remain unconvinced that Section 2(c) has more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the President’s promised Muslim ban. We do not discount that EO-2 may have some national security purpose, nor do we disclaim that the injunction may have some impact on the Government. But our inquiry, whether for determining Section 2(c)’s primary purpose or for weighing the harm to the parties, is one of balance, and on balance, we cannot say that the Government’s asserted national security interest outweighs the competing harm to Plaintiffs of the likely Establishment Clause violation.

For similar reasons, we find that the public interest counsels in favor of upholding the preliminary injunction. As this and other courts have recognized, upholding the Constitution undeniably promotes the public interest. Giovani Carandola, 303 F.3d at 521 (“pholding constitutional rights surely serves the public interest.”); see also Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (“t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” (quoting Sammartano v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002))); Dayton Area Visually Impaired Pers., Inc. v. Fisher, 70 F.3d 1474, 1490 (6th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he public as a 76 whole has a significant interest in ensuring . . . protection of First Amendment liberties.”). These cases recognize that when we protect the constitutional rights of the few, it inures to the benefit of all. And even more so here, where the constitutional violation injures Plaintiffs and in the process permeates and ripples across entire religious groups, communities, and society at large.

When the government chooses sides on religious issues, the “inevitable result” is “hatred, disrespect and even contempt” towards those who fall on the wrong side of the line. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431 (1962). Improper government involvement with religion “tends to destroy government and to degrade religion,” id., encourage persecution of religious minorities and nonbelievers, and foster hostility and division in our pluralistic society. The risk of these harms is particularly acute here, where from the highest elected office in the nation has come an Executive Order steeped in animus and directed at a single religious group. “The fullest realization of true religious liberty requires that government neither engage in nor compel religious practices, that it effect no favoritism among sects or between religion and nonreligion, and that it work deterrence of no religious belief.” Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 305 (1963) (Goldberg, J. concurring). We therefore conclude that enjoining Section 2(c) promotes the public interest of the highest order. And because Plaintiffs have satisfied all the requirements for securing a preliminary injunction, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining Section 2(c) of EO-2.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2017 at 3:05 PM, Spatial Ed said:

Trump shouldn't have called for a complete ban on muslims anybody not white ,until we can figure out what the hell is going in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Yeah, it is pretty busy....  It was 7-6, and three concurred in various parts.  

At the core of the case, it was 10-3 with 3 dissenting on some parts.

But always ready for some spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't have called for total ban on Muslims if you don't want your ban on Muslims to be tossed.  Politics 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Shouldn't have called for total ban on Muslims if you don't want your ban on Muslims to be tossed.  Politics 101

Yeah the court noted that you can't just hit reset and forget about what was said in the campaign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Yeah the court noted that you can't just hit reset and forget about what was said in the campaign. 

What happens on the campaign trial stays on the campaign trail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Yeah the court noted that you can't just hit reset and forget about what was said in the campaign. 

Some Sea Lawyers on the forum are going to be very unhappy that they were (once again) proven wrong about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Some Sea Lawyers on the forum are going to be very unhappy that they were (once again) proven wrong about that.

Trump could claim that all his campaign rhetoric was a total lie.  The wall, his healthcare plan, draining the swamp, not getting involved in conflicts, all lies.  Including the muzzie ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Some Sea Lawyers on the forum are going to be very unhappy that they were (once again) proven wrong about that.

They were brutal about it, hammering at those who hide behind plausible deniability.  

Quote

Just as the reasonable observer’s “world is not made brand new every morning,” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 866, nor are we able to awake without the vivid memory of these statements. We cannot shut our eyes to such evidence when it stares us in the face, for “there’s none so blind as they that won’t see.” Jonathan Swift, Polite Conversation 174 (Chiswick Press ed., 1892). If and when future courts are confronted with campaign or other statements proffered as evidence of governmental purpose, those courts must similarly determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether such statements are probative evidence of governmental purpose. Our holding today neither limits nor expands their review.21

Quote

For a past statement to be relevant to the government’s purpose, there must be a substantial, specific connection between it and the challenged government action. And here, in this highly unique set of circumstances, there is a direct link between the President’s numerous campaign statements promising a Muslim ban that targets territories, the discrete action he took only one week into office executing that exact plan, and EO-2, the “watered down” version of that plan that “get just about everything,” and “in some ways, more.” J.A. 370.

Quote

The Government has repeatedly asked this Court to ignore evidence, circumscribe our own review, and blindly defer to executive action, all in the name of the Constitution’s separation of powers. We decline to do so, not only because it is the particular province of the judicial branch to say what the law is, but also because we would do a disservice to our constitutional structure were we to let its mere invocation silence the call for meaningful judicial review. The deference we give the coordinate branches is surely powerful, but even it must yield in certain circumstances, lest we abdicate our own duties to uphold the Constitution.

“there’s none so blind as they that won’t see.” 

Bad Dog!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

They were brutal about it, hammering at those who hide behind plausible deniability.  

“there’s none so blind as they that won’t see.” 

Bad Dog!  

bad_dog.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Betel Buai said:

Shit posting

No need to advertise, BB, we know to call on you if we need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Such foul language. Dude, please..."Malarkey" is the preferred nomenclature for feces. 

7 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

bad_dog.jpg

I'm following Porter's lead. That's shit posting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Porter doesn't have your petty little obsession with me, BB. Try another angle - this one is just digging your hole deeper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

As this and other courts have recognized, upholding the Constitution undeniably promotes the public interest. Giovani Carandola, 303 F.3d at 521 (“pholding constitutional rights surely serves the public interest.”); see also Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (“t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” (quoting Sammartano v. First Jud. Dist. Ct

Melendres is about the 4th and 14th amendment implications of stopping brown people and Sammartano is about the 1st and 14th amendment implications of biker jackets.

Those rights aren't exactly the same as religious discrimination but are somehow related to Trump's Muslim ban waiting period. It's another case that reminds me of how awesome Favre was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Betel Buai said:

Shit posting

Have you ever posted in these Forums under another name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those who continually maintain President Trump did not call for a travel ban, how do you explain this?

“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” wrote Trump in a series of tweets Monday morning. (emphasis his)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

To those who continually maintain President Trump did not call for a travel ban, how do you explain this?

“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” wrote Trump in a series of tweets Monday morning. (emphasis his)

The official line per Minister Gorka is that we should not obsess over social media. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

To those who continually maintain President Trump did not call for a travel ban, how do you explain this?

“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” wrote Trump in a series of tweets Monday morning. (emphasis his)

It's a blue thing? I don't click blind links. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Betel Buai said:

It's a blue thing? I don't click blind links. :rolleyes:

That's perfectly understandable.  We used to have a poster here who gathered info on other posters by inserting some sort of tracking code in his links.  maybe you've heard of that.......

The article to which I linked is a Yahoo News article about President Trump disputing his own administration on what he was trying to do with his EOs.  People in the WH, along with a few posters here, have long maintained he did not institute a "travel ban".  His recent Tweet directly contradicts this assertion.

Go ahead, click on the link.  Nothing nefarious or sneaky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

That's perfectly understandable.  We used to have a poster here who gathered info on other posters by inserting some sort of tracking code in his links.  maybe you've heard of that.......

The article to which I linked is a Yahoo News article about President Trump disputing his own administration on what he was trying to do with his EOs.  People in the WH, along with a few posters here, have long maintained he did not institute a "travel ban".  His recent Tweet directly contradicts this assertion.

Go ahead, click on the link.  Nothing nefarious or sneaky.

And we've still got Jocal running a database of other peoples' posts.

Fuck you asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Betel Buai said:

And we've still got Jocal running a database of other peoples' posts.

Fuck you asshole.

Actually, I don't think you have much to be worried about, most people here don't think you are going to be with us much longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Betel Buai said:

And we've still got Jocal running a database of other peoples' posts.

Fuck you asshole.

Why does a database kept by another poster make me an asshole?

I thought we were talking about the link I provided. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
38 minutes ago, Betel Buai said:

And we've still got Jocal running a database of other peoples' posts.

Fuck you asshole.

Why does a database kept by another poster make me an asshole?

I thought we were talking about the link I provided. 

I'll talk about whatever I like, asshole. You brought up this poster that "gathered info on other posters by inserting some sort of tracking code in his links.", not me.

You get it yet, asshole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Betel Buai said:

I'll talk about whatever I like, asshole. You brought up this poster that "gathered info on other posters by inserting some sort of tracking code in his links.", not me.

You get it yet, asshole?

As a "newcomer", you seem a bit touchy about mention of someone who slunk away in shame, after BJ handed him his ass and exposed him (once again) as a liar.

That same poster reacted much like you just did after someone posted "The Aristocrats" joke, mentioning "the Family Malarkey". He didn't object to the joke, just the family reference. Mind you, he preferred to ignore questions about previous identities. 

Just like you.

Co-inky-dink?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

I get the mental picture of many angels dancing on Betel's head.

I had my doubts about BB being HJ. 

I will worry when I see a threat of e-lawyers being retained. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

I had my doubts about BB being HJ. 

I will worry when I see a threat of e-lawyers being retained. 

We should hear from him soon, we're getting close to 4th of July and you know he will find the opportunity to show off his cannon impossible to resist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

We should hear from him soon, we're getting close to 4th of July and you know he will find the opportunity to show off his cannon impossible to resist. 

Damn good point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Betel Buai said:

And we've still got Jocal running a database of other peoples' posts.

Fuck you asshole.

Such a potty mouth for a sock.  You should mind your elders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
44 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

We should hear from him soon, we're getting close to 4th of July and you know he will find the opportunity to show off his cannon impossible to resist. 

Damn good point. 

If he hadn't thought of it before, he's read it now and it'll be stuck in his mind. Nicely played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy Jack's cannon is a toy for spoiled boys.  His Ridgeline sucks.  The F35 is an albatross.  Romney is weak.  That should evoke him from his socks.

 

The sock that responds to this post is his sock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Happy Jack's cannon is a toy for spoiled boys.  His Ridgeline sucks.  The F35 is an albatross.  Romney is weak.  That should evoke him from his socks.

 

The sock that responds to this post is his sock.

cheesyrdn2.gifsmiley-laughing.gifcheesyrdn2.gif

35065670826_b93650b657_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schrodingers Cat got flicked by calling me a pedophile.  So did his follow on sock.  That is not a sock I would want to wear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Will I get in trouble later if I mention that? Cop this sort of shit?

1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

As a "newcomer", you seem a bit touchy about mention of someone who slunk away in shame, after BJ handed him his ass and exposed him (once again) as a liar.

That same poster reacted much like you just did after someone posted "The Aristocrats" joke, mentioning "the Family Malarkey". He didn't object to the joke, just the family reference. Mind you, he preferred to ignore questions about previous identities. 

Just like you.

Co-inky-dink?

 You know what I mean? "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Betel Buai said:

Interesting. Will I get in trouble later if I mention that? Cop this sort of shit?

 You know what I mean? "

To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about.

You avoid the simple questions and go off on a tangent.  Weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

We should hear from him soon, we're getting close to 4th of July and you know he will find the opportunity to show off his cannon impossible to resist. 

Dude, that cannon was cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Moderate said:

Dude, that cannon was cool.

Member since April 24, and you have a memory of Jack's cannon?

Wow, that sounds dirty.  Didn't mean it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites