Jump to content

Martial law , fuck the constitution


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is a deeply confusing issue for Trump supporters. Half of them think that Marshall Law was a character from a famous Western, or one of the rules of rock guitar, you gotta have a Marshall (most ass

Thanks for posting the definition of misunderstood.  It may well be no skin off your nose, but hardly “Meh”, your whiny dance consumes a great amount of PA bandwidth. 

Who? Oh! You mean Trump and Flynn? Only took you 4 years dopey, but hey, nothing wrong with being a bit simple.   

Posted Images

36 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

I would direct your attention (deficit disorder) to Article VI, section 2 

Sorry professor... The Geneva conventions and protocols are a treaties. They are not part of the constitution.

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

My daddy never took me to China to drum up family business and he never withheld a billion dollars to get a prosecutor fired and then bragged about it in public.

He obviously withheld any sort of education for you though.

He should have withheld his sperm from your mother.

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

Sorry professor... The Geneva conventions and protocols are a treaties. They are not part of the constitution.

Art 6, Sec 2  elevates treaties to the level of the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the Land". 

The fact that the US national security state ignores the Geneva Accords regularly 

does not make them any less part of US law. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To interrupt this dog and saorsa show I see 2 scenarios

1. Trump has gone batshit crazy unable to deal with a defeat and is determined to burn it down or worse

2. He is pandering to his base to create his online/TV presence to get his 20+million followers to subscribe to his daily bloviance.

I hope it's #2 as there may not be enough sanity left to stop him from blowing the place up.

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

Art 6, Sec 2  elevates treaties to the level of the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the Land". 

The fact that the US national security state ignores the Geneva Accords regularly 

does not make them any less part of US law. 

Sorry  professor...Treaties are adopted as prescribed by the constitution but are not part of the constitution and can be changed without constitutional amendment.. 

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

Maybe congress should live up to their constitutional responsibilities instead of passing the War Power Act and one 'emergency' after another.

You can't keep declaring emergencies, doing what you damn well please and get 90 days to explain your actions and then complain that you weren't consulted in advance.

Agreed.  I keep foolishly hoping the Senate will claw back their responsibility either because the POTUS was of the wrong party, or because he's a complete nutter.  Unfortunately   Unfortunately Senator McConnell overlooked both transgressions.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dog said:

Sorry  professor...Treaties are adopted as prescribed by the constitution but are not part of the constitution and can be changed without constitutional amendment.. 

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

The Supremacy Clause reflects the framers’ concern that the states, if left to their own devices, would ignore the new national government and, even worse, would encroach upon the powers and authority of the central government (see The Federalist Nos. 39, 45, and 46). If the states were to govern according to their own pleasure without regard for the other states or for the needs of the union, the framers of the Constitution feared that anarchy would ensue and that in the long run the Constitution and the union among the 13 original states would perish. Seen in this light, the Supremacy Clause, with its assertion that the new Constitution and all laws and treaties made under it are the supreme law of the land, represents an attempt on the part of the framers to protect the federal government from the states and, more to the point, to ensure its survival. At the same time, many Americans were concerned that the new government not abuse its powers vis-à-vis the states and that the two coexist. Representative of this concern is the view of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, a strong supporter of creating a stronger central government and a key author of the Constitution, acknowledged that the existence of the states, which would “retain [certain] independent and uncountroulable [sic]” authorities, whose “concurrent existence” would impose a limit on the national government (see The Federalist No. 33).

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

Is this a semantics thing? 

It would take the Dogster ten minutes to read Art 5, Sec 2, and what it means. 

He won't do it 

And note that 6/2 specifically mentions "treaties" 

In fact, depending on a comma, you can read 6/2 as elevating treaties over the constitution itself. 

But I don't go that far 

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

I think part of the axios article needs to be posted ......

 

"

The latest: Targets of his outrage include Vice President Pence, chief of staff Mark Meadows, White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Secretary of State Pompeo and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Why it matters: Trump thinks everyone around him is weak, stupid or disloyal — and increasingly seeks comfort only in people who egg him on to overturn the election results. We cannot stress enough how unnerved Trump officials are by the conversations unfolding inside the White House.

Top officials are trying to stay away from the West Wing right now.

  • Trump is lashing out, and everyone is in the blast zone: At this point, if you're not in the “use the Department of Homeland Security or the military to impound voting machines” camp, the president considers you weak and beneath contempt.
  • Trump is fed up with Cipollone, his counsel. Some supporters of Cipollone are worried that Trump is on the brink of removing him and replacing him with a fringe loyalist.

A source who spoke to Trump said the president was complaining about Pence and brought up a Lincoln Project ad that claims that Pence is "backing away" from Trump. This ad has clearly got inside Trump’s head, the source said.

  • Trump views Pence as not fighting hard enough for him — the same complaint he uses against virtually everybody who works for him and has been loyal to him.

Pence’s role on Jan. 6 has begun to loom large in Trump’s mind, according to people who’ve discussed the matter with him.

  • Trump would view Pence performing his constitutional duty — and validating the election result — as the ultimate betrayal.

A new fixation: Trump has even been asking advisers whether they can get state legislatures to rescind their electoral votes. When he’s told no, he lashes out even more, said a source who discussed the matter with the president.

  • And in an Oval meeting Monday night, Trump spoke with House Republicans about voting to overturn the result on Jan. 6 — a desperate vote that even Trump has privately acknowledged he's bound to lose.

The person who has the worst job in Washington, according to multiple administration officials: the incoming head of the Justice Department, Jeffrey Rosen.

  • The consensus is he has no earthly idea the insanity he is in for.
  • The next month will be the longest of his life."
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

You're a day late in calling for the 25th.

Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2020 at 9:38 PM, Swimsailor said:

@Dog approves for sure 

On 12/19/2020 at 10:37 PM, benwynn said:

If the Supreme Court does not rule on this, it still has legs. 

You guys need to go have a circle jerk and release some pressure.

Martial Law ain't gonna happen.

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

At least we can agree he is a sick fuck then. Only a sick fuck would wish for war. Isn’t that right teacher?

Who?

Oh! You mean Trump and Flynn?

Only took you 4 years dopey, but hey, nothing wrong with being a bit simple. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

Who?

Oh! You mean Trump and Flynn?

Only took you 4 years dopey, but hey, nothing wrong with being a bit simple. 

 

Incidentally, your post seems to infer knowledge of my politics regarding the matter. Got a source?

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

Incidentally, your post seems to infer knowledge of my politics regarding the matter. Got a source?

Yep, you.
Inferring Mid has an issue whilst ignoring the POTUS and his fanboys threat which is order of magnitude more relevant. 
Myopic at best, bereft of a modicum of intelligence at worst. 
But please continue, it’s highly entertaining for us rational types. 

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

Yep, you.
Inferring Mid has an issue whilst ignoring the POTUS and his fanboys threat which is order of magnitude more relevant. 
Myopic at best, bereft of a modicum of intelligence at worst. 
But please continue, it’s highly entertaining for us rational types. 

So you know what I think based on what I don’t post?

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

May I hazard a guess that you're not a Bernie Bro, based on your non-posting of anything resembling enthusiastic support for Sen. Sanders?

- DSK

 Why is this about me? I called Mid a sick fuck because he’s lusting for people to start killing eachother. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
37 minutes ago, chum said:

So you know what I think based on what I don’t post?

May I hazard a guess that you're not a Bernie Bro, based on your non-posting of anything resembling enthusiastic support for Sen. Sanders?

- DSK

He's got you there @chum.  Steam Liar is the rezident professional mind reader here in PA. If he says this is what you think, then you'd better just accept it.  Because no one knows what you think and believe better than steamers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
51 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

May I hazard a guess that you're not a Bernie Bro, based on your non-posting of anything resembling enthusiastic support for Sen. Sanders?

 

He's got you there @chum.  Steam Liar is the rezident professional mind reader here in PA. If he says this is what you think, then you'd better just accept it.  Because no one knows what you think and believe better than steamers.  

That's right. I was even wearing my sparkly mind reading turban.

- DSK

 

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

So you know what I think based on what I don’t post?

It is the responsibility of the writer to be properly understood. The reader is blameless. Plus, the misunderstood snowflake space has been long and fully occupied by Burning Man. 

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

So you know what I think based on what I don’t post?

 

39 minutes ago, El Borracho said:

It is the responsibility of the writer to be properly understood. 

1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

May I hazard a guess that you're not a Bernie Bro, based on your non-posting of anything resembling enthusiastic support for Sen. Sanders?

- DSK

 

1 hour ago, benwynn said:

 

 

I like him 'cause he sayez what's on his mahnd...

 

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

It would take the Dogster ten minutes to read Art 5, Sec 2, and what it means. 

He won't do it 

And note that 6/2 specifically mentions "treaties" 

In fact, depending on a comma, you can read 6/2 as elevating treaties over the constitution itself. 

But I don't go that far 

Professor...The Geneva accords are not part of the constitution. I can't dumb it down any more than that.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, badlatitude said:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So this means that every law and treaty is actually part of the constitution?

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

Professor...The Geneva accords are not part of the constitution. I can't dumb it down any more than that.

what did I write?  you ought to stop dumbing your own self down . . 

"elevated to the level of" does not mean "part of". 

your phony parsing is deliberate, stupid and a waste of time 

21 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Art 6, Sec 2  elevates treaties to the level of the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the Land". 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:
5 hours ago, Polytelum Tom said:

So this means that every law and treaty is actually part of the constitution?

No

Professor? Are you going to correct badlat?

On 12/21/2020 at 11:13 PM, AJ Oliver said:

The point is that Prez orders in violation of the constitution, or the Geneva Accords WHICH ARE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

what did I write?  you ought to stop dumbing your own self down . . 

"elevated to the level of" does not mean "part of". 

your phony parsing is deliberate, stupid and a waste of time 

 

You have a short memory professor....What you wrote was the following :

The point is that Prez orders in violation of the constitution, or the Geneva Accords WHICH ARE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION”  

You even emphasized the “part of the constitution” bit by capitalizing it. You do understand that the Geneva Accords are not part of the constitution....right professor?

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

Professor? Are you going to correct badlat?

Then how did the president stop the Paris Agreement and the Joint comprehensive plan (Iran Nuke agreement)? I thought a Constitutional Amendment was necessary to change the Constitution? Federal statutes and treaties are Supreme as long as they don't contravene the Constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's Iran deal was an executive agreement, not a treaty. 

EA's need not involve Congress at all - which is problematic. 

Many are secret - the worst one of which I am aware was Teddy Roosevelt's EA with Japan which gave them a green light to occupy and horribly abuse Korea. 

Racist TR thought the Japanese were racially superior to other Asian people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, El Borracho said:

It is the responsibility of the writer to be properly understood. The reader is blameless. Plus, the misunderstood snowflake space has been long and fully occupied by Burning Man. 

I don't believe I'm misunderstood at all.  I think that because I do not easily fit into a neat ideological box and I challenge your core beliefs, some of y'all (Steam Liar being the most prolific of this sub-elk herd) prefer to deliberately misquote me or just simply make up shit that you think I must believe or say rather than deal with what I DO actually believe in or actually say.  I guess it's easier to do that than to have to defend your beliefs and positions when challenged.  Meh, I've come to accept that some of you are just small people that way and that there is no changing you.  No skin off my nose.  

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

"elevated to the level of" does not mean "part of". 

Yet treaties are not "elevated to the level of" the US Constitution.  Go back and re-read your article that you posted.  Here, I'll save you the time to scroll back up:

Quote

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The connie is the foundation of all of our governing laws.  The red bolded say that all laws are made "in pursuance of" the constitution.  Not EQUAL to the constitution.  Nor are treaties.  Yes they are ALL the body of the supreme law of the land, but the constitution still trumps any law made in pursuance of.......  Hence why all federal and SC courts rule on all laws made through the filter of the Big C.  If they were equal, elevated to the same level - then the Connie would have no ability to overrule other laws or treaties.  

For a supposed poly sci prof - this is supposed to be fundamental stuff.  

There needs to be a facepalm emoji in this forum.  Just saying.

 

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

...some of y'all (Steam Liar being the most prolific of this sub-elk herd) prefer to deliberately misquote me ...

Want some cheese with that whiny bullshit?

You've pulled this a dozen or more times and you've never once showed where I misquoted you

Who's the liar?

- DSK

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

Want some cheese with that whiny bullshit?

You've pulled this a dozen or more times and you've never once showed where I misquoted you

Who's the liar?

- DSK

I've never once showed???  YGBSM!!  I have continually shown you where you've either misquoted me or more often just completely made up something I've said when I've said the exact opposite.  I'm in awe of your audacity to even attempt to make that claim that I've never called you out and backed it up with actual quotes.  JFC, what kind of fantasy doug alternate universe do you live in?   

 

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

I've never once showed???  YGBSM!!  I have continually shown you where you've either misquoted me or more often just completely made up something I've said when I've said the exact opposite.  I'm in awe of your audacity to even attempt to make that claim that I've never called you out and backed it up with actual quotes.  JFC, what kind of fantasy doug alternate universe do you live in?   

 

The one where you're a whiny bullshitter who can't face (or perhaps can't remember) the import of your own words.

Like I said, show where I misquoted you. Should be easy, huh? If it really happened, that is.

- DSK

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

Then how did the president stop the Paris Agreement and the Joint comprehensive plan (Iran Nuke agreement)? I thought a Constitutional Amendment was necessary to change the Constitution? Federal statutes and treaties are Supreme as long as they don't contravene the Constitution.

You'll have to ask Professor Oliver about those things. He's the one who thinks laws and treaties are part of the constitution, not me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

You'll have to ask Professor Oliver about those things. He's the one who thinks laws and treaties are part of the constitution, not me.

Polytedium fits you better.

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

The one where you're a whiny bullshitter who can't face (or perhaps can't remember) the import of your own words.

Like I said, show where I misquoted you. Should be easy, huh? If it really happened, that is.

- DSK

Sure, here you go.  This is what YOU said:

On 11/28/2020 at 8:19 AM, Steam Flyer said:

According to Jeffreaux and Joke and a few others, the real crime is that the kid only shot 3 and the rest of the militia didn't join in the fun.

The following are exactly what I said....  How do you square your above statement with these I've made in the very same thread before your BS assertion????

On 8/29/2020 at 10:52 AM, Burning Man said:

First of all - let me say up front that the kid was fucked up for even being there, more fucked up for being armed and whomever gave him the rifle should be in jail right now.  

 

 

On 8/29/2020 at 12:11 PM, Burning Man said:
On 8/29/2020 at 10:58 AM, Raz'r said:

What would YOU do if some kid was waving a rifle in your direction and you were peacefully protesting, along with you was your bride? 

I certainly wouldn't chase him down the street and try to attack him.  That's an almost certain way to become dead.  If you're a "peaceful" protester, then peacefully exit the area, remove yourself from harm and call the Po-Leece.

What would YOU do, tough guy?

And I'm even giving MJ shit here for actually suggesting what you're accusing me of - vigilante justice.  Here is clear evadents that I've said the exact opposite of what you've accused me of.

On 8/29/2020 at 2:01 PM, Burning Man said:

Not even slightly lying, unlike you and your sock raz'r penchant for lying.  You clearly said that the mob should NOT call the Po Leece and instead should take matters into their own hands and that attacking him was justified because supposedly the cops are biased.  

 

 

On 8/29/2020 at 2:47 PM, Burning Man said:

This was a sad tragedy that could have been prevented at many steps along the way, namely by the kid not being there and certainly not with a weapon. 

And this one is the pièce de résistance.  Far from saying I wish he had killed more, I'm praising him in the quote below for being disciplined and engaging only those who are threats to him.  If he were the militia killer you are trying to make him out to be, he could have gunned down many many more without even breaking a sweat.  So I don't see where you got from this that I wish he had killed more.  

On 8/29/2020 at 8:24 PM, Burning Man said:

If he wanted to mass murder a bunch of people, he had every opportunity to do so.  I watched the video and he was amazingly restrained and disciplined, especially for a 17 year old kid.  What did you see different?

 

Not only did I not ever say that I wished the kid had shot more people but I certainly didn't say I wished the militia had joined in on the fun.  If I did, why would I then say I think the adult who gave him the rifle should be in jail???  He's part of the militia, right?

On 8/30/2020 at 5:58 PM, Burning Man said:

Secondly, who here is saying that he should have been there in the first place much less justifying having a teen carrying around a firearm in a volatile situation?  Certainly not me, I have been VERY clear that whatever adult allowed this to happen should already be in jail for neglect and endangerment of a minor - at a minimum.

 

On 8/31/2020 at 11:04 AM, Burning Man said:

Of course I denounce those "militia's" who are obviously racist. 

 

On 8/31/2020 at 4:17 PM, Burning Man said:

And I never said KH specifically was not acting illegally or didn't have the rifle illegally. 

 

 

On 8/31/2020 at 4:20 PM, Burning Man said:

I have said all along that the person who gave him the weapon should be in jail.  I'm glad the law backs me up on that.

 

So if I wished the he had killed more and the militia had joined in, why would I have said my assumption was the kid was a SHITBAG white supremacist who gunned down black folk?  Usually people don't call those they admire "shitbags".  Dunno, maybe you do doug.

On 9/3/2020 at 6:57 AM, Burning Man said:

I think what I find incredibly saddening (and maddening) about this thread is how people can completely ignore what their own eyes see in their dogged defense of their entrenched ideological positions.  And I'm pointing fingers at both sides here on this issue.  I entered this topic at the beginning with an assumption, based on the initial hysterical media reports, that the kid was a white supremacist shitbag who gunned down black people in cold blood while peacefully protesting injustice.

On 9/3/2020 at 7:09 AM, Burning Man said:

I said all along that the kid made poor choices by being there with a rifle.  But that doesn't mean he should have paid the price with his life when the mob pounced on him.  He will likely pay for those poor choices, but it doesn't mean the narrative that you liars are pushing that he deliberately went there to shoot him some nigras is true.  It's not and you know it.  But liars like you will continue to lie.  It's what you do.  You're a disgrace btw.

Again below, exactly the opposite here of wishing he had killed more and the militia had joined in.

On 9/3/2020 at 11:05 PM, Burning Man said:

Given that he attempted to turn himself into the Po Leece immediately on the street while the adrenaline was still coursing through his veins, I would say the chances of evil are pretty low. True evil would have been to unload his mag into the crowd. Instead he was incredibly disciplined for an untrained 17 year old kid on his own in the middle of a hostile mob. 

 

 

@steam liar - do you need me to go on?  Is that sufficient for you to see that you not only "misquoted" me, but you deliberately and repeatedly doubled down on your lie that I wished he had killed more and the militia had joined in the killing spree.  Your turn..... show me a single post where i said anything even close to what you accused me of.  tik tok. tik tok.

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

....

 

@steam liar - do you need me to go on?  Is that sufficient for you to see that you not only "misquoted" me, but you deliberately and repeatedly doubled down on your lie that I wished he had killed more and the militia had joined in the killing spree.  Your turn..... show me a single post where i said anything even close to what you accused me of.  tik tok. tik tok.

Already did

Let's see your statements about the characteristics of the demonstrators, and Rittenhouse's brilliant tactics, although did praise him for "discipline" here. You bailed on that discussion IIRC

FWIW I agree that he should not have been there and he should not have had access to a firearm.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I don't believe I'm misunderstood at all.  I think that because I do not easily fit into a neat ideological box and I challenge your core beliefs, some of y'all (Steam Liar being the most prolific of this sub-elk herd) prefer to deliberately misquote me or just simply make up shit that you think I must believe or say rather than deal with what I DO actually believe in or actually say.  I guess it's easier to do that than to have to defend your beliefs and positions when challenged.  Meh, I've come to accept that some of you are just small people that way and that there is no changing you.  No skin off my nose.  

Thanks for posting the definition of misunderstood. 
It may well be no skin off your nose, but hardly “Meh”, your whiny dance consumes a great amount of PA bandwidth. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Already did

Let's see your statements about the characteristics of the demonstrators, and Rittenhouse's brilliant tactics, although did praise him for "discipline" here. You bailed on that discussion IIRC

FWIW I agree that he should not have been there and he should not have had access to a firearm.

- DSK

 

Already did what?  Show my quotes where I said that??  Utter fucking BS!  I just posted almost an entire threads worth of statements that are 100% contradictory to what you accused me of saying, and yet you still cannot admit you lied about what I said.  

For the last fucking time, show me where I said or even inferred that I "wished he shot or killed more and that I wished the militia had joined in the rampage".  It's an easy $1000 bucks if you can. 

Man up and stop being such a pussy.  You literally only have to go through one single thread to find it.  Get to work boy, your merry christmas could come true if you act now.  

Edit to add:  Not only are you a liar like your hero trump.  But you're a sore loser doubling down on your lies in an attempt to get out of being found out.  Nobody likes a liar AND a sore loser.  Or is it looser?

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

Let's see your statements about the characteristics of the demonstrators, and Rittenhouse's brilliant tactics, although did praise him for "discipline" here. You bailed on that discussion IIRC

Sure.  Post them.  They're easy to find.  But the characteristics of the demonstrators of KR's tactics has no relevance to your accusations of what I supposedly said about "how I wish he would have shot more and I wish the militia would have joined in".  But if you feel they do, knock yourself out and post them.  Just get on with it and stop being such a goddamned pussy. 

Put your money where your mouth is.  The $1000 wager is still in effect, even though you reneged on it once, I'll give you another shot to make good on it.  

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

Thanks for posting the definition of misunderstood. 
It may well be no skin off your nose, but hardly “Meh”, your whiny dance consumes a great amount of PA bandwidth. 

Meh.  Give your little buddy Duarte a smooch for me.  

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

Meh.  Give your little buddy Duarte a smooch for me.  

You might like the government, and Duterte, here in the PI. The situation is about as close to the libertarian dream as one might get. Unintentional, but de facto. The government is closely followed, as a running drama, but seems to be quite powerless in day-to-day life. 

I don’t like Duterte, but it is not my affair. He does enjoy a 91% approval rating.

You might also find comfort in Duterte’s long whiny ramblings that leave the listener unclear on what his position is, or if he even has one.

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

You might also find comfort in Duterte’s long whiny ramblings that leave the listener unclear on what his position is, or if he even has one.

I see you have learned well from him then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Sure.  Post them.  They're easy to find.  But the characteristics of the demonstrators of KR's tactics has no relevance to your accusations of what I supposedly said about "how I wish he would have shot more and I wish the militia would have joined in".  But if you feel they do, knock yourself out and post them.  Just get on with it and stop being such a goddamned pussy. 

Put your money where your mouth is.  The $1000 wager is still in effect, even though you reneged on it once, I'll give you another shot to make good on it.  

Nyet

YOU want to bet, I don't. Too bad so-o sad. One of us is honest about that.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nyet

YOU want to bet, I don't. Too bad so-o sad. One of us is honest about that.

- DSK

SO you can't come up with any posts that back your accusation up, huh?  If you could, you would take the bet again (since you reneged on it the first time), because backing it up would be a piece of cake and you'd be $1k richer.  If you could find a post that backs your assertion up, you would have already done so just to shut me the fuck up.  Right?  So what are you waiting for, pussy?  

You asked me to back up my assertion that you lie and you misquote.  I did.  I didn't equivocate, move the goalposts or piss and moan about it.  I just did it.  It's your fucking turn now to post my statements that corroborate your assertion.  What's stopping you, pussy?  

I know you'll continue to tap dance and deflect, so it will be no surprise when you do it again, right on cue.  But the one thing I'm curious about is are you even aware of what a fucking joke you come off as?  Do you even see how easily it has been to manipulate you using your own words (which I KNOW you can't back up) into making you look like a fool and an outright liar???  Does any of that even sink in?  You've been Hoisted by your own petard when you could have simply avoided all of this and just apologized.  Or even just admitted you exaggerated for dramatic effect.  But Nooooooo...... you had to fight this tooth and nail until you look like a dumbass.  Is suspect many of your "marital disagreements" end up much the same.  A zebra can't change its stripes.  Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

YOU want to bet, I don't. Too bad so-o sad. One of us is honest about that.

dougy-boy, you wouldn't know honest if it bit you on the ass.  

You know, being a liar is just like being a sheep fucker.  And you, my friend, are not known here as a bridge builder.  Just saying.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

dougy-boy, you wouldn't know honest if it bit you on the ass.  

You know, being a liar is just like being a sheep fucker.  And you, my friend, are not known here as a bridge builder.  Just saying.  :lol:

I'm not known as Burning Karen, either, with a constant load of sand in a personal orifice, and I've never once had to change my ID

Just sayin

- DSK

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm not known as Burning Karen, either, with a constant load of sand in a personal orifice, and I've never once had to change my ID

Just sayin

- DSK

 

 

now-theres-a-5ac66b.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

dougy-boy, you wouldn't know honest if it bit you on the ass.  

You know, being a liar is just like being a sheep fucker.  And you, my friend, are not known here as a bridge builder.  Just saying.  :lol:

Is there any animal you don’t think of fucking in the ass?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dog said:

You have a short memory professor....What you wrote was the following :

The point is that Prez orders in violation of the constitution, or the Geneva Accords WHICH ARE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION”  

You even emphasized the “part of the constitution” bit by capitalizing it. You do understand that the Geneva Accords are not part of the constitution....right professor?

Stop doing homework.

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

Stop doing homework.

I really hate to say it, because I've nothing but contempt for Dog, but - he really schooled AJ on that one. He's headed off with his tail between his legs. Knows he fucked up, can't bring himself to admit it.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites

gosh you yanks are lucky with the talent you have to spare

just think

that heroic young kid that saved all those senators

could grow up to become president one day

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

He's headed off with his tail between his legs. Knows he fucked up, can't bring himself to admit it.

What impressive mind reading skills you exhibit. 

I'll bet you took this course . . 

image.jpeg.3476b78f5b19df098609d0eaf2562f56.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I really hate to say it, because I've nothing but contempt for Dog, but - he really schooled AJ on that one. He's headed off with his tail between his legs. Knows he fucked up, can't bring himself to admit it.

FKT

Heh. Schooling requires a willingness to learn. Instead we've seen doubling down, then moving of goalposts, and most recently deflection, all attempts to avoid admitting this statement is flat wrong:

On 12/21/2020 at 11:13 PM, AJ Oliver said:

The point is that Prez orders in violation of the constitution, or the Geneva Accords WHICH ARE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, 

 

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

Sorry for the thread drift. 

The OP concerns marital law . . 

All respect to Marshall Dillon (and Marco Rubio), it's 'martial law' -  MarketWatch

...Martial, it’s martial law, and that’s a handsome cowboy indeed. That’s ok AJ, we’re starting to get the whole picture here. My New Years resolution is going to be to try to take your condition into consideration when responding to your outbusrts. 

 

 

5CEBF2F5-5461-4F5C-9202-A7B7DEED94E4.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I really hate to say it, because I've nothing but contempt for Dog, but - he really schooled AJ on that one. He's headed off with his tail between his legs. Knows he fucked up, can't bring himself to admit it.

FKT

There's a lot of that here.  For instance, @Steam Flyer errr Steam Liar would elect to have a hand chopped off rather than admit he was wrong.  I don't see the big deal.  I've admitted when I was wrong many times.  There's no shame in making a mistake and fessing up to it.  You look even more stupid when you continue to double down on being fucked up like steamers and AJ often do.  

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

Heh. Schooling requires a willingness to learn. Instead we've seen doubling down, then moving of goalposts, and most recently deflection, all attempts to avoid admitting this statement is flat wrong:

 

There are many schools of skooling, some address the issue of willingness... 

 JAEb383.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Burning Man said:

There's a lot of that here.  For instance, @Steam Flyer errr Steam Liar would elect to have a hand chopped off rather than admit he was wrong.  I don't see the big deal.  I've admitted when I was wrong many times.  There's no shame in making a mistake and fessing up to it.  You look even more stupid when you continue to double down on being fucked up like steamers and AJ often do.  

Oh fuck. I shouldn't have even looked

One of us can't admit when he's wrong, or apologize

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/214984-flynn-not-exonerated-apologies-from-the-right/&page=15&tab=comments#comment-7295917

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/218387-bidens-laptop/&page=3&tab=comments#comment-7254982

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/218608-so-whats-the-plan-if-trump-wins/&tab=comments#comment-7257140

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/218656-how-did-trump-get-so-much-support/&tab=comments#comment-7260715

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/219443-the-106/&tab=comments#comment-7318785

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/219022-sarasota-youth-accident/&tab=comments#comment-7291677

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/218387-bidens-laptop/&pagAe=3&tab=comments#comment-7254982

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/217895-i-dont-want-trump-to-die/&tab=comments#comment-7215701

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:
25 minutes ago, PHIRKIN said:

Where is that from? Brilliant!

Blues Brothers. They were on a mission from God.

PHIRKIN you should check it out, especially if you have any liking at all for R&B music. Absolute classic movie, it's practically mythology at this point.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites