User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 10:39:29 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 10:40:28 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The state of cognitive dissonance that many live in is astounding, combine this with a shift in their personal Overton Window is to the point that anything outside of what is the current narrative is "extremism". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 10:43:02 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The FBI did nothing wrong. Trump is not above the law. If he is then America is DEAD !!! GTF outta here with your hyperbole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 10:50:06 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Past behavior *IS* indicative of future behavior (and present behavior). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:14:08 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe it is absolutely POSSIBLE that Trump may have (unintentionally) committed the type of "crime" with handling of classified material that ALL PRESIDENTS prior to him undoubtedly also committed unintentionally... and which no reasonable prosecutor would EVER pursue criminally.  Heck, even when people like Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton clearly and deliberately violated such laws, nobody was ever charged with a felony. That is the level of precedent. The fact that the FBI under a Democratic administration has suddenly decided to aggressively pursue something like that for a former Republican president and political rival stinks to high heaven and is extremely disturbing. The relevant question is not whether or not technically a crime might have been committed, but why suddenly all precedent and standards have been flushed down the toilet in order to use the might of the DOJ to aggressively go after a political rival of the sitting president. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No However unlikely you, or I, may believe at this time, not even possible? Well, ok.  I believe it is absolutely POSSIBLE that Trump may have (unintentionally) committed the type of "crime" with handling of classified material that ALL PRESIDENTS prior to him undoubtedly also committed unintentionally... and which no reasonable prosecutor would EVER pursue criminally. Heck, even when people like Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton clearly and deliberately violated such laws, nobody was ever charged with a felony. That is the level of precedent. The fact that the FBI under a Democratic administration has suddenly decided to aggressively pursue something like that for a former Republican president and political rival stinks to high heaven and is extremely disturbing. The relevant question is not whether or not technically a crime might have been committed, but why suddenly all precedent and standards have been flushed down the toilet in order to use the might of the DOJ to aggressively go after a political rival of the sitting president. You know the answer to your question. The said thing is most of know the answer or at least have a pretty damn good idea what the answer is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:17:47 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They used the same pattern of leaking information to the media and then using press stories to get judges to sign off on shit in the Russiagate hoax. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:
They used the same pattern of leaking information to the media and then using press stories to get judges to sign off on shit in the Russiagate hoax. We all know it wasn't just Russiagate. One of my favorite testimonies in Congress during the Russiagate/Spygate nonsense was Jonathan Moffa and his description of this technique...which he quickly walked back and Dems jumped in to save him along with his attorney. Moffa of course was the lead analysis (someone will know the appropriate title for his position, non agent) assigned to Crossfire Hurricane. As someone told me once "Moffa really didn't like Trump." Huh, I couldn't figure that out LOL but it's always good to hear it from another source. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:32:55 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe it is absolutely POSSIBLE that Trump may have (unintentionally) committed the type of "crime" with handling of classified material that ALL PRESIDENTS prior to him undoubtedly also committed unintentionally... and which no reasonable prosecutor would EVER pursue criminally. Heck, even when people like Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton clearly and deliberately violated such laws, nobody was ever charged with a felony. That is the level of precedent. The fact that the FBI under a Democratic administration has suddenly decided to aggressively pursue something like that for a former Republican president and political rival stinks to high heaven and is extremely disturbing. The relevant question is not whether or not technically a crime might have been committed, but why suddenly all precedent and standards have been flushed down the toilet in order to use the might of the DOJ to aggressively go after a political rival of the sitting president. I think we all know why. Trump is a threat to the deep state gravy train and the rampant corruption which accompanies it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:33:34 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know this because we already have evidence of the corrupt criminals in the FIB seeking FISA warrants using false information and deliberately lying to a FISA court. These corrupt criminals have no compunction at all with lying or fabricating evidence. That is how I know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:35:03 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unlike stocks, past *behavior* is in fact indicative of future behavior. The totally corrupt FIB has been shown to commit perjury and fraud upon multiple courts. There is an implicit guarantee, then, that this one will be just as bogus, hence the reason they want to keep the affidavit covered up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:35:52 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If we're still debating the Vietnam war - it was a crap war, planned by cowards and traitors who never wanted to win, and as a combat vet, I have no problems with anyone who did whatever it took to avoid serving in that waste of blood and treasure. McCain was a petty little piece of shit, who divorced his wife upon his return for a rich heiresses who could finance his political career. He lusted after being nominated for president, then threw the race so as not to fall into the bad graces of those who's opinion he truly craved - the media, and to hell with the GOP voters he lied to during the primaries. He was called a crazy little war criminal by the media during the race, yet came crawling back to them, licking their boots to get back in their favor, which he did via voting against the wishes of those who elected him. Yet Trump insults him one time and he's made an enemy out of him for life. He got brain cancer and was unable to fulfil his duties as Senator, yet refused to resign, wanting to die in office for more attention and media hype. His last act before he shit the bed was to dis-invite Sara Palin to his funeral - a person who had always stood by him and never had a bad thing to say about him - so that they media would love him even more. John McCain was a terrible Naval pilot who gravy trained his way in the Navy via his family of Admirals, crashed a plane and killed sailors on the ship, stabbed everyone who voted for him in the back, and was a general piece of shit. I'd take Trump over that turd any day of the week. Very well said. And thank you for your honorable service! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:37:53 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Taking about legal processes that you have no experience with just makes you look like you don't know what you are taking about. The fact that this judge is going to release a redacted version of the affidavit at this stage of the case is VERY unusual. They follow the rules all of a sudden ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:44:25 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Existential crisis. Both sides. Who fucked a Chinese spy? Who had a Chinese chauffeur? Who received huge hedge fund investments from the Chinese? Fucking clown world bullshit. And who has family involved/invested in shady foreign business dealings? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:47:38 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think I remember reading interviews with fellow prisoners back when he was running, and I recall them pretty much supporting the songbird nickname. A lot of stuff was said - most, coming to public attention as a counter to things said about another "hero", John Kerry. May God curse his name. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:48:14 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And who has family involved/invested in shady foreign business dealings? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Existential crisis. Both sides. Who fucked a Chinese spy? Who had a Chinese chauffeur? Who received huge hedge fund investments from the Chinese? Fucking clown world bullshit. And who has family involved/invested in shady foreign business dealings? Mitch McConnell for sure |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:52:05 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They follow the rules all of a sudden ? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Taking about legal processes that you have no experience with just makes you look like you don't know what you are taking about. The fact that this judge is going to release a redacted version of the affidavit at this stage of the case is VERY unusual. They follow the rules all of a sudden ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:58:16 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I see. So you actually know nothing about how often Affidavits supporting warrants in national security cases are released prior to charges. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I know this because we already have evidence of the corrupt criminals in the FIB seeking FISA warrants using false information and deliberately lying to a FISA court. These corrupt criminals have no compunction at all with lying or fabricating evidence. That is how I know. So, I actually do but apparently you do not. And, in this instance, as a matter of public policy, it should be released unredacted immediately. The FIBs are automatically suspect and should be treated as such. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:59:22 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was already admitted here that FATF asked for payment info from paid memberships and the people running the site gave it over WHAT?!? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:02:34 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Taking about legal processes that you have no experience with just makes you look like you don't know what you are taking about. The fact that this judge is going to release a redacted version of the affidavit at this stage of the case is VERY unusual. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Unlike stocks, past *behavior* is in fact indicative of future behavior. The totally corrupt FIB has been shown to commit perjury and fraud upon multiple courts. There is an implicit guarantee, then, that this one will be just as bogus, hence the reason they want to keep the affidavit covered up. You have that bassackwards in that it is evident you have no experience whatsoever with any of this. You seem to not understand that a corrupt, rogue, criminal organization should never even be given the opportunity to go on a political witch hunt as a matter of course. Further, a clearly compromised judge being used in this case is the most damning indicator of acting in bad faith imaginable. There is no excuse whatsoever for the supporting "affidavit" not to be released unredacted and let the chips fall where they may. The fact you are supporting this says everything we need to know about you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:02:42 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, I actually do but apparently you do not. And, in this instance, as a matter of public policy, it should be released unredacted immediately. The FIBs are automatically suspect and should be treated as such. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know this because we already have evidence of the corrupt criminals in the FIB seeking FISA warrants using false information and deliberately lying to a FISA court. These corrupt criminals have no compunction at all with lying or fabricating evidence. That is how I know. So, I actually do but apparently you do not. And, in this instance, as a matter of public policy, it should be released unredacted immediately. The FIBs are automatically suspect and should be treated as such. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:04:18 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have that bassackwards in that it is evident you have no experience whatsoever with any of this. You seem to not understand that a corrupt, rogue, criminal organization should never even be given the opportunity to go on a political witch hunt as a matter of course. Further, a clearly compromised judge being used in this case is the most damning indicator of acting in bad faith imaginable. There is no excuse whatsoever for the supporting "affidavit" not to be released unredacted and let the chips fall where they may. The fact you are supporting this says everything we need to know about you. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Unlike stocks, past *behavior* is in fact indicative of future behavior. The totally corrupt FIB has been shown to commit perjury and fraud upon multiple courts. There is an implicit guarantee, then, that this one will be just as bogus, hence the reason they want to keep the affidavit covered up. You have that bassackwards in that it is evident you have no experience whatsoever with any of this. You seem to not understand that a corrupt, rogue, criminal organization should never even be given the opportunity to go on a political witch hunt as a matter of course. Further, a clearly compromised judge being used in this case is the most damning indicator of acting in bad faith imaginable. There is no excuse whatsoever for the supporting "affidavit" not to be released unredacted and let the chips fall where they may. The fact you are supporting this says everything we need to know about you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:04:19 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, the judge is explicitly breaking with the rules by indicating that he is likely to release a redacted affidavit. That is not a common thing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Taking about legal processes that you have no experience with just makes you look like you don't know what you are taking about. The fact that this judge is going to release a redacted version of the affidavit at this stage of the case is VERY unusual. They follow the rules all of a sudden ? As a matter of public policy, as noted by the filings in this case, the "judge" should release a completely unredacted version and let the public decide whether this was a political witch hunt (by virtue of the illegal general warrant) or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:06:14 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hahahahahaha. Yeah, I don't believe you. Its extremely unusual that it is getting released even in redacted form. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know this because we already have evidence of the corrupt criminals in the FIB seeking FISA warrants using false information and deliberately lying to a FISA court. These corrupt criminals have no compunction at all with lying or fabricating evidence. That is how I know. So, I actually do but apparently you do not. And, in this instance, as a matter of public policy, it should be released unredacted immediately. The FIBs are automatically suspect and should be treated as such. What is extremely unusual is to have a corrupt, rogue, criminal organization who has already been proven to engage in criminal activity relative to Trump, to even be heard in court at all. They expended any benefit of the doubt they ever had. As a matter of public policy, the bogus affidavit should be released unredacted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:07:43 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think we all know why. Trump is a threat to the deep state gravy train and the rampant corruption which accompanies it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I believe it is absolutely POSSIBLE that Trump may have (unintentionally) committed the type of "crime" with handling of classified material that ALL PRESIDENTS prior to him undoubtedly also committed unintentionally... and which no reasonable prosecutor would EVER pursue criminally. Heck, even when people like Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton clearly and deliberately violated such laws, nobody was ever charged with a felony. That is the level of precedent. The fact that the FBI under a Democratic administration has suddenly decided to aggressively pursue something like that for a former Republican president and political rival stinks to high heaven and is extremely disturbing. The relevant question is not whether or not technically a crime might have been committed, but why suddenly all precedent and standards have been flushed down the toilet in order to use the might of the DOJ to aggressively go after a political rival of the sitting president. I think we all know why. Trump is a threat to the deep state gravy train and the rampant corruption which accompanies it. A federal judge ruled on this. Ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson "Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," "Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," This is an old case where someone was trying to force Clinton to give up his records. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:07:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You seem to be very, very confused. I never argued against the release of the affidavit in full. I think they should and I'm completely against the DOJ trying to keep it sealed. The reality is that they are almost never, ever released in any form, redacted or not. The fact that the Judge is willing to even release a redacted version is a good thing, but not the ideal thing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Unlike stocks, past *behavior* is in fact indicative of future behavior. The totally corrupt FIB has been shown to commit perjury and fraud upon multiple courts. There is an implicit guarantee, then, that this one will be just as bogus, hence the reason they want to keep the affidavit covered up. You have that bassackwards in that it is evident you have no experience whatsoever with any of this. You seem to not understand that a corrupt, rogue, criminal organization should never even be given the opportunity to go on a political witch hunt as a matter of course. Further, a clearly compromised judge being used in this case is the most damning indicator of acting in bad faith imaginable. There is no excuse whatsoever for the supporting "affidavit" not to be released unredacted and let the chips fall where they may. The fact you are supporting this says everything we need to know about you. It read to me that was precisely what you were arguing. Frankly, the "judge" should have recused himself from this case precisely as he did from the other Trump-related case because of his inability to remain unbiased. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:21:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It read to me that was precisely what you were arguing. Frankly, the "judge" should have recused himself from this case precisely as he did from the other Trump-related case because of his inability to remain unbiased. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:22:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A federal judge ruled on this. Ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson This is an old case where someone was trying to force Clinton to give up his records. You seem to be missing the distinction that was at issue in that case: personal vs presidential (public) records. The plaintiff was pursuing Clinton's personal records. That doesn't appear to be the issue with Trump. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:25:10 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think he is likely referring to the incident a few years back where a staff member told membership that anybody who had participated in the EE or group buys had their info given to the IRS or ATF. Or something like that. I don’t remember the specifics. Thankfully he made it up for lolz. The pit thread? Yes that was a joke but he's not referring to that . A member got a visit from the AFT |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:52:34 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, the judge is explicitly breaking with the rules by indicating that he is likely to release a redacted affidavit. That is not a common thing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Taking about legal processes that you have no experience with just makes you look like you don't know what you are taking about. The fact that this judge is going to release a redacted version of the affidavit at this stage of the case is VERY unusual. They follow the rules all of a sudden ? Not a common thing? Similar to searching the home of a previous POTUS? like that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:56:54 PM EDT
[#29]
This whole thing reeks of same old tired iteration of the "Wrap-Up-Smear" used countless times now on Trump.
1. Demonize with falsehoods 2. Press reports it as truth/reality 3. Merchandize the reporting of the Press  Nancy Pelosi on Smear Tactics |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 1:08:48 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You seem to be missing the distinction that was at issue in that case: personal vs presidential (public) records. The plaintiff was pursuing Clinton's personal records. That doesn't appear to be the issue with Trump. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A federal judge ruled on this. Ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson This is an old case where someone was trying to force Clinton to give up his records. You seem to be missing the distinction that was at issue in that case: personal vs presidential (public) records. The plaintiff was pursuing Clinton's personal records. That doesn't appear to be the issue with Trump. I guess you missed this part The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 1:12:35 PM EDT
[#31]
Hopefully I did that correctly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 1:12:58 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You seem to be missing the distinction that was at issue in that case: personal vs presidential (public) records. The plaintiff was pursuing Clinton's personal records. That doesn't appear to be the issue with Trump. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A federal judge ruled on this. Ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson This is an old case where someone was trying to force Clinton to give up his records. You seem to be missing the distinction that was at issue in that case: personal vs presidential (public) records. The plaintiff was pursuing Clinton's personal records. That doesn't appear to be the issue with Trump. By whose discretion is that distinction determined? Read again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 1:19:06 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopefully I did that correctly.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 1:48:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Shadow_Dancer and ISEEYOU2 have been removed from the thread. Please do not waste time replying to them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 1:49:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shadow_Dancer and ISEEYOU2 have been removed from the thread. Please do not waste time replying to them.  My sincere thanks! The trolling was obnoxious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 1:55:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess you missed this part Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: A federal judge ruled on this. Ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson This is an old case where someone was trying to force Clinton to give up his records. You seem to be missing the distinction that was at issue in that case: personal vs presidential (public) records. The plaintiff was pursuing Clinton's personal records. That doesn't appear to be the issue with Trump. I guess you missed this part The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will. That is beautiful. Nevertrumpers, Please continue making our case that the government is lying and has been lying in relation to Trump, his associates and supporters. It is evident that the FBI and DOJ, in coordination with democrats, have interfered in several elections since 2016 and probably many before that they covered up. *The 2020 election was mixed with mail-in ballot fraud and a coordinated cover-up from the media and FBI about Hunter Biden's laptop and the big guy's 10%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 1:55:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That exact article, for example.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Post one time they haven't been caught not telling the truth. Can you? That exact article, for example. Seems that Ron corrected you and your claims that the article is wrong are dishonest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 1:57:40 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: - at this point you are just trolling. Please stop posting in this thread - @DK-Prof, can you do the rest of the thread slider trolls too? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:07:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And who has family involved/invested in shady foreign business dealings? Mitch McConnell |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:15:10 PM EDT
[#40]
So nothing new will happen until the judge is briefed and provided with a redacted affidavit showing probable cause for search warrant next Thursday.
I can’t wait to see what they typed up for the judge. Is that Tweet about the feebs using the flushed papers true? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:15:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So nothing new will happen until the judge is briefed and provided with a redacted affidavit showing probable cause for search warrant next Thursday. I can't wait to see what they typed up for the judge. Is that Tweet about the feebs using the flushed papers true? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:18:57 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nobody knows because the affidavit is sealed. That’s what I was saying. They are supposed to bring it with redactions to the judge who says he may unseal it. I’m sure he’s already seen it. So he knows if it’s legit or not.(not that legitimacy matters in our fucked up country) Everything else we hear until then is going to be clickbate and or lies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:24:35 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopefully I did that correctly. Usually Twitter links will let me see the linked tweet before asking.me to sign in. That one doesnt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:25:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shadow_Dancer and ISEEYOU2 have been removed from the thread. Please do not waste time replying to them. Much appreciated. I myself was falling into the thread sliding trap. I should know better... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:26:11 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By whose discretion is that distinction determined? Read again. Quote HistoryQuoted: By whose discretion is that distinction determined? Read again. Quoted: I guess you missed this part Yeah, that's a line from the article. You should read the actual ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:28:57 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was already admitted here that FATF asked for payment info from paid memberships and the people running the site gave it over |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:29:23 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems that Ron corrected you and your claims that the article is wrong are dishonest. Wrong |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:33:37 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mitch McConnell for sure Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Existential crisis. Both sides. Who fucked a Chinese spy? Who had a Chinese chauffeur? Who received huge hedge fund investments from the Chinese? Fucking clown world bullshit. And who has family involved/invested in shady foreign business dealings? Mitch McConnell for sure Prosecute him too. IDGAF what party they are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:35:45 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, that's a line from the article. You should read the actual ruling. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: By whose discretion is that distinction determined? Read again. Quoted: I guess you missed this part Yeah, that's a line from the article. You should read the actual ruling. You should focus on page 20 forward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:36:28 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryLove these!! every time you ask a TDS libtard any why or what question for how they think they ALWAYS let out a BIG sigh and then have nothing to say. Then they act like 'you just dont get it..'.... and the whole time you know in their tiny little head they are thinking 'well shit... I don't know, the news headlines told me what to think/feel"... Completely full retard. How do these people function? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
