Sign in to follow this  
TMSAIL

9th circuit Travel ban appeal going on

Recommended Posts

Quote

seem: (verb) give the impression of being something or having a particular quality.

 
There is indeed someone making shit up.

Share this post


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

Again, you make shit up, who said that you support HRC? But then you do spend a lot of time denying you support HRC.

Somehow Hillary is my fault.  You said "Work towards fielding a decent candidate".

Who says I didn't?  

Of course, some might say the same to you.

As for your last sentence, you sure seem to know a lot about things I may have said prior to your "arrival", in late February.  I am fairly certain I have said very little about my support of any candidate for an election held months prior to the establishment of your avatar.  That tells me you are obsessed with my posting habits (not flattering, and rather creepy), or you are a new identity of someone who has posted before.  Which scenario is more likely?

Share this post


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

No this is cool and 100% legal to own with 120mm cannon. Jack's cannon was a cannonette.

09df14a54d9463d5bce8854db31ccbce.jpg

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/operational-tank-for-sale-armslist/

The reloading dies for that thing would be a bitch!

Share this post


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

Sorry, I live in California and Jerry wouldn't let that within a hundred miles of the border.

Why?  Because of all the gangland killings and school massacres committed with a Main Battle Tank over the years in CA????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:
13 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Sorry, I live in California and Jerry wouldn't let that within a hundred miles of the border.

Why?  Because of all the gangland killings and school massacres committed with a Main Battle Tank over the years in CA????

Doesn't meet pollution standards for California.

Share this post


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

Why?  Because of all the gangland killings and school massacres committed with a Main Battle Tank over the years in CA????

You need to have a long talk with the Fourth Circuit Court. They did what they did under strict scrutiny, too. They removed constitutional protection for

Quote

 "weapons that are most useful in military service",

Kolbe vs Hov/gan 3/2017: AW's Not a Constitutional Right  

http://www.ca4.uscourts.goOpinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You need to have a long talk with the Fourth Circuit Court. They did what they did under strict scrutiny, too. They removed constitutional protection for

 "weapons that are most useful in military service",

Kolbe vs Hov/gan 3/2017: AW's Not a Constitutional Right  

http://www.ca4.uscourts.goOpinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Actually, the ban in question specifically exempted the M1 Garand, which has been used by various military forces, but covered the AR-15, which has never been used by any military.

The only logical conclusion is that judges know better than soldiers which guns are most useful for military service.

Share this post


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

Actually, the ban in question specifically exempted the M1 Garand, which has been used by various military forces, but covered the AR-15, which has never been used by any military.

The only logical conclusion is that judges know better than soldiers which guns are most useful for military service.

Wanker. That model no longer seems  most useful in military service.  Your standards indicate that your pretend militia would not be impressed with a citizen presenting one. You need to get up to speed with modern weaponry.

Quote

SELECTION OF THE AR-15 RIFLE IN INDISCRIMINATE MASS SHOOTINGS Apr 1, 2013 

.. the percentage of AR-15 rifles amongst all firearms held by the American public (that being about 1%, or 0.01).

Using that statistic, and assuming no bias in selection amongst handguns, rifles and shotguns (all can be used to kill people), the odds of an AR-15 rifle being selected simply by chance at any of these individual events would be about 1 in 100, or 0.01.  The odds that an AR-15 would be selected simply by chance at all 4 of these independent events would be 0.01 X 0.01 X 0.01 X 0.01 = 10(-8), or about one chance in a hundred million.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Wanker. That model no longer seems  most useful in military service.  Your standards indicate that your pretend militia would not be impressed with a citizen presenting one. You need to get up to speed with modern weaponry.

 

OK, help me out, wanker.

Show me which militaries issue rimfire. 22's to soldiers. Or, if you can't, admit they're not "like" M16's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Not sure what you're saying. Or why. You lost relevance on Political Anarchy back in December, while spreading confusion about .22's. Cruising Anarchy is your cup of tea now. For my part, I wish your dialogue had content, not sillyness. I miss that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
  1. Not sure what you're saying. Or why. You lost relevance on Political Anarchy back in December, while spreading confusion about .22's. Cruising Anarchy is your cup of tea now. For my part, I wish your dialogue had content, not sillyness. I miss that.

 

1. A .22 is an assault weapon.

2. Assault weapons are banned because they're "like" M16's and are most useful in military service.

3. Therefore, a .22 needs to be banned because it's "like" an M16 and is most useful in military service.

That's your train of thought. Now find me a military that issues .22's so you can add a bit of reality to it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

1. A .22 is an assault weapon.

2. Assault weapons are banned because they're "like" M16's and are most useful in military service.

3. Therefore, a .22 needs to be banned because it's "like" an M16 and is most useful in military service.

That's your train of thought. Now find me a military that issues .22's so you can add a bit of reality to it.

 

Is this  a) relevant, or B)worthless? My mind, my train of thought, has no room for six months of this. Yours does. You are a silly rabbit lost in a very subjective maze of redneck confusion. 

Share this post


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

1. A .22 is an assault weapon.

2. Assault weapons are banned because they're "like" M16's and are most useful in military service.

3. Therefore, a .22 needs to be banned because it's "like" an M16 and is most useful in military service.

That's your train of thought. Now find me a military that issues .22's so you can add a bit of reality to it.

 

You wanted a personal right. You got a personal right. Personal rights are tightly regulated as you know. Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Raz'r said:

You wanted a personal right. You got a personal right. Personal rights are tightly regulated as you know. Enjoy!

Sorry, but "rights are tightly regulated" is not going to make most people think that .22's need to be banned as assault weapons, even if you would enjoy seeing that happen.

Share this post


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

Sorry, but "rights are tightly regulated" is not going to make most people think that .22's need to be banned as assault weapons, even if you would enjoy seeing that happen.

There never was nor will be a ban on .22 rim fire in Florida. Sorry for your continued confusion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Raz'r said:

There never was nor will be a ban on .22 rim fire in Florida. Sorry for your continued confusion 

Never is a long time but the proposed .22 ban does have a much better chance in Washington State at the moment.

We have lots of FL voters here and only JBSF and I have said anything negative about the proposal so I'd guess it has some support. This crowd is pretty vocal when they don't like something.

But the level of current support for banning .22's doesn't address my point, which is that "rights are regulated" doesn't justify any and every regulation. Specifically, it doesn't justify banning .22's as assault weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A six month wankerfest over nothing.

Hi, I live in WA. Dave Workman is the Tom Ray around here. I'll go check on his rate of alarm about .22's being banned as assault weapons. Be right back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back. Sharpshooter Dave Workman, a spokesman for the SAF,  has not discussed this issue, at least in his last 26 articles (going back to Feb). Tom is wanking.

Quote

Tom has wasted our forum space with a non-discussion since Dec.. 8, 2016. While doing so, he has failed to discuss pertinent developments in the gun control debate. Tom is letting all the fine Libertarians down with silly, irrelevant content... and silence.

Tom is all about a militia with AW's at home, and how "the consittution" supports this sweeping necessity. Next, AW's were ejected from constitutional protection.

Quote

 Kolbe vs Hogan 3/2017: AW's Not a Constitutional Right

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So - I think the original rationale was a ban for 90 days or so, so the issue could be studied and a more perm solution.  Shirley we have that by now...  Right?

Share this post


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

So - I think the original rationale was a ban for 90 days or so, so the issue could be studied and a more perm solution.  Shirley we have that by now...  Right?

Unlikely.  It's been held up by the 30 plan to defeat ISIS, which is on hold for all of those promises of what he would do on Day One.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the 9th. It will get overturned in Oct. 

"bona fide relationship" with people or organizations in the U.S., such as close family

only that goofy group would interpit cousins as close family. 

Share this post


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

It's the 9th. It will get overturned in Oct. 

"bona fide relationship" with people or organizations in the U.S., such as close family

only that goofy group would interpit cousins as close family. 

Wanna take a shot at explaining the government's reasoning mentioned in this quote?

"Stated simply, the government does not offer a persuasive explanation for why a mother-in-law is clearly a bona fide relationship, in the Supreme Court's prior reasoning, but a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or cousin is not," the 9th Circuit said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

It's the 9th. It will get overturned in Oct. 

"bona fide relationship" with people or organizations in the U.S., such as close family

only that goofy group would interpit cousins as close family. 

Are cousins allow to marry?  if not, why?  because they are close family?

Share this post


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

Are cousins allow to marry?  if not, why?  because they are close family?

In your state they can marry - your point?  

Even states that have an issue only are 1st cousins for genetic reasons. 

Share this post


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

In your state they can marry - your point?  

Even states that have an issue only are 1st cousins for genetic reasons. 

Seems to me if you are too close genetically to marry, you are by definition a close family member.

Share this post


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

Seems to me if you are too close genetically to marry, you are by definition a close family member.

 

Share this post


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

Seems to me if you are too close genetically to marry, you are by definition a close family member.

 

Well, that convinced me. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Well, that convinced me. :lol: 

Amazing how that last post of his was one of the, if not THE, most cogent posts he's ever made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2017 at 7:30 AM, Bus Driver said:

Amazing how that last post of his was one of the, if not THE, most cogent posts he's ever made. 

You and Ed work well together.  Maybe you can pick out some of your 18 year old students and send him some referrals. 

Share this post


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

You and Ed work well together.  Maybe you can pick out some of your 18 year old students and send him some referrals. 

Yeah. I can see why you had to run away from the leftist vitriol in PA. :rolleyes:

What a sad, pathetic little hypocrite you've become...

Share this post


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

You and Ed work well together.  Maybe you can pick out some of your 18 year old students and send him some referrals. 

That is truly despicable.  One of the most despicable comments ever offered here.  

Suggesting I would do that is beneath you.  You should be ashamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

That is truly despicable.  One of the most despicable comments ever offered here.  

Suggesting I would do that is beneath you.  You should be ashamed.

Truly despicable. Check.

One of the most despicable comments ever offered here. Not really - you get banned for going a bit further though.

Beneath TMS? Obviously not.

 

 

You might get a PM apology so the man doesn't have to retract his bile in public. You know, one of those heart-felt, real apologies that can only be made if no-one has to see the asshole back down. The sincere kind of apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

That is truly despicable.  One of the most despicable comments ever offered here.  

Suggesting I would do that is beneath you.  You should be ashamed.

Good now we are even for you calling me a Nazi. Which I viewed as a pretty despicable comment despite your efforts to deny what you clearly implied. 

You have a great talent for dishing it out, but get it thrown back and you are all offended.  Poor baby  

 

Share this post


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

Good now we are even for you calling me a Nazi.

Which he never did. As even you admit when saying that (you think) he implied it.

 

Quote

You have a great talent for dishing it out, but get it thrown back and you are all offended.  Poor baby  

stock-photo-fake-dictionary-definition-o

Share this post


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

Which he never did. As even you admit when saying that (you think) he implied it.

now-im-not-saying-youre-a-dick-head-but-pg-25041842.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

Good now we are even for you calling me a Nazi. Which I viewed as a pretty despicable comment despite your efforts to deny what you clearly implied. 

You have a great talent for dishing it out, but get it thrown back and you are all offended.  Poor baby  

 

What the fuck are you, eleven years old?  "Now we are even".  Grow the fuck up.

I point out the ways in which you seem to be cool with Nazis (which you insist is the same as saying ("TM is a N***").

If you think that is in the same realm as me recruiting 18 year old students of mine for porn production, well, you really have a problem.  Seek help.

Share this post


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

What the fuck are you, eleven years old?  "Now we are even".  Grow the fuck up.

I point out the ways in which you seem to be cool with Nazis (which you insist is the same as saying ("TM is a N***").

If you think that is in the same realm as me recruiting 18 year old students of mine for porn production, well, you really have a problem.  Seek help.

I have never been cool with Nazis nor have I ever talked like a Nazi, acted like a Nazi  or engaged in any activities that would have anyone BUT you make the charge that I was a Nazi   

  Like I said you sure as hell can dish it out, but you get on your high fucking horse when you take a shot.   I never said porn I was referring to his aircraft skills, funny how your mind went right to porn.  Seek help indeed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

I never said porn I was referring to his aircraft skills, funny how your mind went right to porn.

Bullshit.

I never said you are a Nazi.  You bitched because I "implied" it.  

Now, you imply I would refer my students to him.  We all know what you imply, therefore making you a hypocrite for complaining.

I doubt there is anyone who will believe you meant "aircraft skills" when you said that.  You went as low as you could.  

Despicable.  We have our differences, and mix it up.  But, I really thought you were better than that.

It was clear when you were careful enough to avoid the 3rd rail and say "18 year old".  You meant porn and you aren't man enough to admit it.

Share this post


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

What the fuck are you, eleven years old?  "Now we are even".  Grow the fuck up.

I point out the ways in which you seem to be cool with Nazis (which you insist is the same as saying ("TM is a N***").

TM is a Nigger????  

Share this post


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

No.  That would be "N*****", not "N***".  See the difference?

Ah, good point.  I had visions of this:

1711e344584c6939498a18e365740ac9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Bullshit.

I never said you are a Nazi.  You bitched because I "implied" it.  

Now, you imply I would refer my students to him.  We all know what you imply, therefore making you a hypocrite for complaining.

I doubt there is anyone who will believe you meant "aircraft skills" when you said that.  You went as low as you could.  

Despicable.  We have our differences, and mix it up.  But, I really thought you were better than that.

It was clear when you were careful enough to avoid the 3rd rail and say "18 year old".  You meant porn and you aren't man enough to admit it.

And you are not man enough to admit you were calling me a Nazi when everyone knew what you meant with your " he acts like,  talks like and defends Nazi's, but ( wink wink) I'm not calling TM a Nazi comment.  

See the pic LB posted it's exactly the same shit you pulled.  

What's wrong with porn anyway?  I believe  SE has talked about  young college COEDS earning some extra cash behind the camera.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

And you are not man enough to admit you were calling me a Nazi when everyone knew what you meant with your " he acts like,  talks like and defends Nazi's, but ( wink wink) I'm not calling TM a Nazi comment.  

See the pic LB posted it's exactly the same shit you pulled.  

What's wrong with porn anyway?  I believe  SE has talked about  young college COEDS earning some extra cash behind the camera.  

 

You were looking for a way to "get even" (like a 5th grader) and went the route of suggesting I'd be open to referring my students for porn.  At least you've dropped that bullshit pretense that it was about aircraft skills.  It was silly for you to have tried that angle.

That you see the two scenarios as equivalent calls into question your ability to reason.  That you wanted to play "Tag, you're it" calls into question your maturity.

Share this post


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

You were looking for a way to "get even" (like a 5th grader) and went the route of suggesting I'd be open to referring my students for porn.  At least you've dropped that bullshit pretense that it was about aircraft skills.  It was silly for you to have tried that angle.

That you see the two scenarios as equivalent calls into question your ability to reason.  That you wanted to play "Tag, you're it" calls into question your maturity.

No I saw an opportunity to throw a little dig at you in response to the shot you took at me (post 132 ) in this thread.   You called me a Nazi and now you are all butt hurt that I offended your "morals" as they relate to students.  Well snowflake you crossed a line declaring my morals to that of the Nazies and yes I find that equivalent, certainly in our  current society.  In fact I bet Nazies would rate well BELOW a porn star recommendation with your Elk.  

Share this post


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

No I saw an opportunity to throw a little dig at you in response to the shot you took at me (post 132 ) in this thread.   You called me a Nazi and now you are all butt hurt that I offended your "morals" as they relate to students.  Well snowflake you crossed a line declaring my morals to that of the Nazies and yes I find that equivalent, certainly in our  current society.  In fact I bet Nazies would rate well BELOW a porn star recommendation with your Elk.  

I have no doubt you are unwilling to find fault in your own behavior.  Just like you are unwilling to find fault with the behavior of your Messiah.

As far as I am concerned, you can go fuck yourself and your middle school mentality of "getting even".

Share this post


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

I have no doubt you are unwilling to find fault in your own behavior.  Just like you are unwilling to find fault with the behavior of your Messiah.

As far as I am concerned, you can go fuck yourself and your middle school mentality of "getting even".

Kettle to Pot words have consequences take that kind of below the belt shot and you will get it back in spades.  

Love the messiah talking point, looking for support for your snowflake feelings getting hurt?  

Ok you can have the last word,  I've made my position clear - engage in debate without personal shots - no problem.   Cross the line and expect a comeback. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

I have never been cool with Nazis nor have I ever talked like a Nazi, acted like a Nazi  or engaged in any activities that would have anyone BUT you make the charge that I was a Nazi 

No. He didn't. As you have already pointed out, you think his words imply that. When asked to prove your claim, you start talking about what he clearly must have intended the words to mean, despite them not saying so and you making a point of him being a teacher.

You're fucking pathetic, TMSAIL. A hypocrite of the lowest order and without a shred of common decency in you. It's a good thing you volunteer to help out with the races, cos there's nothing else to redeem you of late.

Share this post


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

But, I really thought you were better than that.

Everybody keeps saying that. Only so long a mantra can hold the facts at bay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

And you are not man enough to admit you were calling me a Nazi when everyone knew what you meant with your " he acts like,  talks like and defends Nazi's, but ( wink wink) I'm not calling TM a Nazi comment.  

See the pic LB posted it's exactly the same shit you pulled.  

What's wrong with porn anyway?  I believe  SE has talked about  young college COEDS earning some extra cash behind the camera.  

 

But I was taking a shot at bent siri, not BD. I like BD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

What's wrong with porn anyway?  I believe  SE has talked about  young college COEDS earning some extra cash behind the camera.  

Its not behind the camera, its in front of it.  And the term COED is to vague.  All the actresses I sign are of legal age.  In fact, well above legal age.  My focus is seasoned talent.  My target demographic is past prime white dudes with frumpy spouses.  Get those eyes and the advertisers will beat a path to your door.  And for my airplane skills, they are awesome.  Much better than my producing work, and much more fun.  Except on casting nights, then the producing work is more fun.  More dangerous, hence more fun.

Share this post


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

Its not behind the camera, its in front of it.  And the term COED is to vague.  All the actresses I sign are of legal age.  In fact, well above legal age.  My focus is seasoned talent.  My target demographic is past prime white dudes with frumpy spouses.  Get those eyes and the advertisers will beat a path to your door.  And for my airplane skills, they are awesome.  Much better than my producing work, and much more fun.  Except on casting nights, then the producing work is more fun.  More dangerous, hence more fun.

For a hot second there, TM tried that bullshit about meaning I should recruit some 18 year old students to help you work with planes. It made zero sense, so he decided to drop it. Can't even stay consistent on what he was trying to say. 

Share this post


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

For a hot second there, TM tried that bullshit about meaning I should recruit some 18 year old students to help you work with planes. It made zero sense, so he decided to drop it. Can't even stay consistent on what he was trying to say. 

It was nothing more than a weak attempt to spin his despicable insults as being equivalent to what he chose to read into your comments. TMSAIL's problem is that he cannot back down once he oversteps the line. Then he doubles down on the stupid and hopes to just ride it out.

History suggests that you actually need to be the target of his bullshit before you get past the "I thought you were better than that" misconception.

Share this post


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

 TMSAIL's problem is that he cannot back down once he oversteps the line. Then he doubles down on the stupid and hopes to just ride it out.

Speechless. Is there no end to your hypocrisy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

It was nothing more than a weak attempt to spin his despicable insults as being equivalent to what he chose to read into your comments. TMSAIL's problem is that he cannot back down once he oversteps the line. Then he doubles down on the stupid and hopes to just ride it out.

History suggests that you actually need to be the target of his bullshit before you get past the "I thought you were better than that" misconception.

Jesus Siri, you're getting in the way of a budding bromance between BD and TM. Learn when to STFU and stop cockblocking them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Jesus Siri, you're getting in the way of a budding bromance between BD and TM. Learn when to STFU and stop cockblocking them. 

My apologies, Princess. I wasn't aware you were so eager to watch TMSAIL getting his cock out for BD. Perhaps you should sync up with him in a more private venue?

Share this post


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

My apologies, Princess. I wasn't aware you were so eager to watch TMSAIL getting his cock out for BD. Perhaps you should sync up with him in a more private venue?

Please don't involve me in such fantasies.

If you do, TM will likely say I called him something. 

Share this post


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

Please don't involve me in such fantasies.

If you do, TM will likely say I called him something. 

Talk to the Princess. He's the one disappointed in my "cockblocking" you two.

Personally, I think it's healthy he's coming out about what he wants from men... I just think perhaps he should check with those he fantasises about before making his desires about them public.

Share this post


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

Talk to the Princess. He's the one disappointed in my "cockblocking" you two.

Personally, I think it's healthy he's coming out about what he wants from men... I just think perhaps he should check with those he fantasises about before making his desires about them public.

Not interested.

Hopefully, TM doesn't claim I disparaged his looks. 

Share this post


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

Please don't involve me in such fantasies.

If you do, TM will likely say I called him something. 

   On 8/19/2017 at 4:53 AM,  Bus Driver said: 

This is TM. He is nothing, if not loyal. I read a similar statement, almost verbatim, in an interview with a Nazi at Charlottesville. 

Now, I am NOT saying TM is a Nazi. He just talks like one, and seems to be cool with them. Since they are aligning themselves with Team Red, he is going to defend them.

It's who he is. It's what he does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Let the frottage commence for Jeffiepoos pleasure!

Just enjoying watching TM jump at my command. 

He's getting rather predictable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TMSAIL said:
Now, I am NOT saying TM is a Nazi.

So, you finally got around to admitting he didn't call you a Nazi. Good for you. Didn't think you had it in you.

Perhaps you'd like to update your movie predictions whilst you're at it or is that still too touchy a subject for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2017 at 7:52 AM, Bent Sailor said:

So, you finally got around to admitting he didn't call you a Nazi. Good for you. Didn't think you had it in you.

Perhaps you'd like to update your movie predictions whilst you're at it or is that still too touchy a subject for you?

Here.... let me translate that for everyone:

bent siri nazi.aiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda hard to now claim its a muzzy ban when they add Venezeula and Norkistan to the list and drop Sudan.  It also sounds like DHS actually did a thorough review of which countries were in compliance and which are not and made recommendations and adjustments based on that.

But never mind the facts, Don't let a good muzzy ban meme go to waste.....

Share this post


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

He said 90 days.  He didn't say WHICH 90 days.

Are the 90 days contiguous or can they be used through out the year ?

Share this post


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

Are the 90 days contiguous or can they be used through out the year ?

My mother used to take her 3 week vacation from YALE on "Every sunny day between April 15, and October 15, that I choose"... Worked for her..... Not sure how many other people could get away with it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now, let's hear it from Scotus...

 

"The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that Trump’s travel ban, the third he has proposed since becoming president, is illegal.

The third travel ban, issued in September, imposed “indefinite and significant restrictions and limitations on entry of nationals” from seven countries —  Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

From the decision:

The Government’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) not only upends the carefully crafted immigration scheme Congress has embodied in the INA, but it deviates from the text of the statute, legislative history, and prior executive practice as well. Further, the President did not satisfy the critical prerequisite Congress attached to his suspension authority: Before blocking entry, he must first make a legally sufficient finding that the entry of the specified individuals would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The Proclamation once again conflicts with the INA’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas.

The decision takes direct aim at Trump’s claim that, as President, he can do whatever he’d like with regard to banning people from any country for any reason.

The Government argues that the President, at any time and under any circumstances, could bar entry of all aliens from any country, and intensifies the consequences of its position by saying that no federal court—not a federal district court, nor our court of appeals, nor even the Supreme Court itself—would have Article III jurisdiction to review that matter because of the consular nonreviewability doctrine. Particularly in the absence of an explicit jurisdiction-stripping provision, we doubt whether the Government’s position could be adopted without running roughshod over the principles of separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.

The court also takes on the xenophobia underlying Trump’s order:

In assessing the public interest, we are reminded of Justice Murphy’s wise words: “All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land.” Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 242 (Murphy, J., dissenting). It cannot be in the public interest that a portion of this country be made to live in fear.

The court issued a limited injunction blocking the ban as it applies to “foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

https://thinkprogress.org/breaking-appeals-court-rules-that-trumps-third-travel-ban-is-illegal-52abdc7d97b9/

Share this post


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

The court issued a limited injunction blocking the ban as it applies to “foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States

That's funny, considering "chain migration" is his latest talking point...

Share this post


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

Well, we have to remember who we're talking about.

25508021_1175008129300820_44907297626276

Trump does a great Larry.

Edited by Ishmael
stooged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites