Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Rush51 Not that I would,but you don't think somebody could use deadly force with any of those objects you mentioned? Maybe sufficient means to overthrow your kid's elementary school,... but enough to overthrow a government ? Boy, you sure do have dopey responses...
I see you never answered (with even a dopey response) if you thought a fire extinguisher or flagpole could be used with deadly force?And that's what I was responding to because you posted in #171 about whether certain objects could be used with deadly force when you said "So how bout those deadly flagpoles and dangerous campaign signs".But now you want answer if those objects could actually be dangerous or used with deadly force.As I said in my post #157 I never said those objects could overthrow the government,or that was what those people were trying to do was overthrow the government.That's just the objects they used to attack the police.You are the only one mentioning overthrowing the government as to what they were looking to accomplish that day.
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Rush51 Not that I would,but you don't think somebody could use deadly force with any of those objects you mentioned? Maybe sufficient means to overthrow your kid's elementary school,... but enough to overthrow a government ? Boy, you sure do have dopey responses...
I see you never answered (with even a dopey response) if you thought a fire extinguisher or flagpole could be used with deadly force?And that's what I was responding to because you posted in #171 about whether certain objects could be used with deadly force when you said "So how bout those deadly flagpoles and dangerous campaign signs".But now you want answer if those objects could actually be dangerous or used with deadly force.As I said in my post #157 I never said those objects could overthrow the government,or that was what those people were trying to do was overthrow the government.That's just the objects they used to attack the police.You are the only one mentioning overthrowing the government as to what they were looking to accomplish that day.
You are your daughter , I mean your daughter posted in “ Obviously the True Face of the Republican Party “ thread ….. Post # 77 …… “ you gotta be a certain kind of pusssy to even say that to somebody. That’s all we need today in American politics, is another sniveling kiss ass . “ you sure about your story ? You feel like just being honest ? Do you want me to pick this apart ? My God . The travesty of it all . This thread just keeps getting better and better .
No my daughter has an account also.You can check with Covers they have her picture cause she had to send it in when she won money.She uses this computer also,and left her account open.I just got back tonight and just figured it was my account open and started replying to the posts somebody had quoted me on.This has happened a couple times before so that quote you posted is probably me posting mistakenly under her account.You can pick as much as you want.
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato:
You are your daughter , I mean your daughter posted in “ Obviously the True Face of the Republican Party “ thread ….. Post # 77 …… “ you gotta be a certain kind of pusssy to even say that to somebody. That’s all we need today in American politics, is another sniveling kiss ass . “ you sure about your story ? You feel like just being honest ? Do you want me to pick this apart ? My God . The travesty of it all . This thread just keeps getting better and better .
No my daughter has an account also.You can check with Covers they have her picture cause she had to send it in when she won money.She uses this computer also,and left her account open.I just got back tonight and just figured it was my account open and started replying to the posts somebody had quoted me on.This has happened a couple times before so that quote you posted is probably me posting mistakenly under her account.You can pick as much as you want.
@soup-can I'm having trouble putting quotes from other people's posts into my post,so I will just tell what # post I am referring to.This response has to do with your post #224. But you have no problem with trump not even acknowledging the 4 military members killed under his watch for 12 days,now that seems like somebody taking their sweet ass time.Since you've had a lot of members of your family serve.If one of your family members had been captured how would you have felt if someone (who just so happened had ducked the war your family member was captured in) had called them a "loser" because they were captured?You would be ok with that?
No I wouldn't be, and I am not a Trumper either. I just can't with the Joe, Bernie, Hilary, OB and Big Mike OB now. I want to keep this short tonight so let's call him Mr. Orange just to lower the hate in this thread. Before Mr. Orange took on politics, he had a show where he fired everyone. The theme of the show. It's his personality, and there was NEVER this much hate towards him then. He did just that as POTUS, draining the swamp, right? I could be wrong here, but I think he first dabbled on the Dems side in his early political stunts when OB was coming to be. Didn't work out, DNC and all so he went conservative and open arms took him in and love him like Reagan. Even his haters see he feeds off the crowds like a popstar/movie star, and everyone also knows when he is backed into a corner he fights like no other. Thats how he relates to the other 50% the Libs don't get. IMO the Libs hate the other side and that's why they're compared to communists or in the least socialists. The other side is not EVIL.
I do have a serious question here, I have noticed over the course of this back and forth that both,
@MrWhatsItToYa
@wallstreetcappers
you both when questioned and even more so when going on tilt you retaliate with....your post #123 for example. Responded to your post #345.... Its a pattern, could there be two posters who have the same political views and post the same way? Maybe a stretch here but I have to now call out BULLSHIT, not just the only flag either. I would lay odds of these two are the same poster at -130.
for the emoji haters
Quote Originally Posted by BuckFalls:
@soup-can I'm having trouble putting quotes from other people's posts into my post,so I will just tell what # post I am referring to.This response has to do with your post #224. But you have no problem with trump not even acknowledging the 4 military members killed under his watch for 12 days,now that seems like somebody taking their sweet ass time.Since you've had a lot of members of your family serve.If one of your family members had been captured how would you have felt if someone (who just so happened had ducked the war your family member was captured in) had called them a "loser" because they were captured?You would be ok with that?
No I wouldn't be, and I am not a Trumper either. I just can't with the Joe, Bernie, Hilary, OB and Big Mike OB now. I want to keep this short tonight so let's call him Mr. Orange just to lower the hate in this thread. Before Mr. Orange took on politics, he had a show where he fired everyone. The theme of the show. It's his personality, and there was NEVER this much hate towards him then. He did just that as POTUS, draining the swamp, right? I could be wrong here, but I think he first dabbled on the Dems side in his early political stunts when OB was coming to be. Didn't work out, DNC and all so he went conservative and open arms took him in and love him like Reagan. Even his haters see he feeds off the crowds like a popstar/movie star, and everyone also knows when he is backed into a corner he fights like no other. Thats how he relates to the other 50% the Libs don't get. IMO the Libs hate the other side and that's why they're compared to communists or in the least socialists. The other side is not EVIL.
I do have a serious question here, I have noticed over the course of this back and forth that both,
@MrWhatsItToYa
@wallstreetcappers
you both when questioned and even more so when going on tilt you retaliate with....your post #123 for example. Responded to your post #345.... Its a pattern, could there be two posters who have the same political views and post the same way? Maybe a stretch here but I have to now call out BULLSHIT, not just the only flag either. I would lay odds of these two are the same poster at -130.
the last report I read was they all got on a bus to Cali from a church sponsor of migrants ..... they're on a greyhound to the sunshine state but may get off when it stops in east bumfrick.
If we did this as law abiding citizens, no mercy. tazed if lucky, maybe shot dead. 24 hours ago, my state Gov Hochul completely side stepped a direct question about her "greatest city in the world" cops as it will be looked into and considered, fast forward a day and her stance is deport. She needed legal or what? Nope she needed her BASE to agree. This is why I have no party. I see both sides and call out the shit. But I live in a blue state so on a national level its Lib or it doesn't matter. Local level voices may heard and lately that includes school boards
@THEMUGG
the last report I read was they all got on a bus to Cali from a church sponsor of migrants ..... they're on a greyhound to the sunshine state but may get off when it stops in east bumfrick.
If we did this as law abiding citizens, no mercy. tazed if lucky, maybe shot dead. 24 hours ago, my state Gov Hochul completely side stepped a direct question about her "greatest city in the world" cops as it will be looked into and considered, fast forward a day and her stance is deport. She needed legal or what? Nope she needed her BASE to agree. This is why I have no party. I see both sides and call out the shit. But I live in a blue state so on a national level its Lib or it doesn't matter. Local level voices may heard and lately that includes school boards
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: A wall and a GOP president isnt going to make much of an impact...but it sounds good on tv and someone busting the chops of the POTUS to get elected. No, just a stroke of a pen can stop this nonsense. Just like Biden used the pen to undue all that was working. And if it takes GOP to do it, which it obviously does, SO BE IT. You're right... the solution ain't that hard, but DEMS make it out to be anyway. The idea is to try something different versus doing the same thing knowing it is not working....there needs to be changes implemented and no one takes the initiative to make that change...the front should be united on trying something different to combat the change that's needed...in Einstein's theory of insane, where doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, the US for all tense and purposes, is insane
No " change" is really needed to fix the illegal immigration problem ( like passing "another" bill in Congress)... you just need to go backwards to what was already working in ths first place,... like Trump's policies.... i.e. give the Border Patrol their authority back, remain in Mexico policy, etc..
The belief we need to " change" and "add more legislation" also rears its ugly head in many other facets of life, like
on trying to control smash & grab, shoplifting, whatever you want to call it. Here around LA , they've come w an ""Organized Retail Theft Task Force.""
You don't need any of this * new shit. You just need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. But no one wants to put prosecute the 'hoodrats and put them back in jail, instead give them no- cost bail. What a great deal for society.
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: A wall and a GOP president isnt going to make much of an impact...but it sounds good on tv and someone busting the chops of the POTUS to get elected. No, just a stroke of a pen can stop this nonsense. Just like Biden used the pen to undue all that was working. And if it takes GOP to do it, which it obviously does, SO BE IT. You're right... the solution ain't that hard, but DEMS make it out to be anyway. The idea is to try something different versus doing the same thing knowing it is not working....there needs to be changes implemented and no one takes the initiative to make that change...the front should be united on trying something different to combat the change that's needed...in Einstein's theory of insane, where doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, the US for all tense and purposes, is insane
No " change" is really needed to fix the illegal immigration problem ( like passing "another" bill in Congress)... you just need to go backwards to what was already working in ths first place,... like Trump's policies.... i.e. give the Border Patrol their authority back, remain in Mexico policy, etc..
The belief we need to " change" and "add more legislation" also rears its ugly head in many other facets of life, like
on trying to control smash & grab, shoplifting, whatever you want to call it. Here around LA , they've come w an ""Organized Retail Theft Task Force.""
You don't need any of this * new shit. You just need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. But no one wants to put prosecute the 'hoodrats and put them back in jail, instead give them no- cost bail. What a great deal for society.
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Rush51 Not that I would,but you don't think somebody could use deadly force with any of those objects you mentioned? Maybe sufficient means to overthrow your kid's elementary school,... but enough to overthrow a government ? Boy, you sure do have dopey responses...I see you never answered (with even a dopey response) if you thought a fire extinguisher or flagpole could be used with deadly force?And that's what I was responding to because you posted in #171 about whether certain objects could be used with deadly force when you said "So how bout those deadly flagpoles and dangerous campaign signs".But now you want answer if those objects could actually be dangerous or used with deadly force.As I said in my post #157 I never said those objects could overthrow the government,or that was what those people were trying to do was overthrow the government.That's just the objects they used to attack the police.You are the only one mentioning overthrowing the government as to what they were looking to accomplish that day.
The reason I didn't respond to you is because " your argument " just got dumb. " You" changed the argument from an " insurrection," to what constitutes deadly force to kill an "individual." I'd argue you'd need a helluva lot of flagpoles and fire extinguishers (and cardboard campaign signs) to carry out your insurrection.
If the people on Capitol on Jan. 6th truly wanted to overthrow the government, don't you think they would've planned it better, or maybe use "" some other form(s) of deadly force."" .... you know what I mean ???
Put your thinking cap on buddy..
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa:
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Rush51 Not that I would,but you don't think somebody could use deadly force with any of those objects you mentioned? Maybe sufficient means to overthrow your kid's elementary school,... but enough to overthrow a government ? Boy, you sure do have dopey responses...I see you never answered (with even a dopey response) if you thought a fire extinguisher or flagpole could be used with deadly force?And that's what I was responding to because you posted in #171 about whether certain objects could be used with deadly force when you said "So how bout those deadly flagpoles and dangerous campaign signs".But now you want answer if those objects could actually be dangerous or used with deadly force.As I said in my post #157 I never said those objects could overthrow the government,or that was what those people were trying to do was overthrow the government.That's just the objects they used to attack the police.You are the only one mentioning overthrowing the government as to what they were looking to accomplish that day.
The reason I didn't respond to you is because " your argument " just got dumb. " You" changed the argument from an " insurrection," to what constitutes deadly force to kill an "individual." I'd argue you'd need a helluva lot of flagpoles and fire extinguishers (and cardboard campaign signs) to carry out your insurrection.
If the people on Capitol on Jan. 6th truly wanted to overthrow the government, don't you think they would've planned it better, or maybe use "" some other form(s) of deadly force."" .... you know what I mean ???
Republicans question House attempt to impeach Mayorkas the homeland security secretary. This includes Buck, Collins, Capito, McClintock and others. Murkowski criticizes House effort as a detour from congress important work. Impeachment sham is not based on evidence of impeachable offense but about politics. Legal experts and former officials say House evidence fails to meet the standard of high crime. Arguing that republicans are abusing impeachment by falsely accusing Mayorkas of failing standards that have never been met under past administrations. Republicans are angry that children aren't separated from parents and put in cages. They have no serious policy solutions to fix border issue except for cruelty. But policy disagreement is not a valid reason and Biden administration is entitled to wide authority under the law. Besides, Trump policies have been struck down by the courts.
Republicans question House attempt to impeach Mayorkas the homeland security secretary. This includes Buck, Collins, Capito, McClintock and others. Murkowski criticizes House effort as a detour from congress important work. Impeachment sham is not based on evidence of impeachable offense but about politics. Legal experts and former officials say House evidence fails to meet the standard of high crime. Arguing that republicans are abusing impeachment by falsely accusing Mayorkas of failing standards that have never been met under past administrations. Republicans are angry that children aren't separated from parents and put in cages. They have no serious policy solutions to fix border issue except for cruelty. But policy disagreement is not a valid reason and Biden administration is entitled to wide authority under the law. Besides, Trump policies have been struck down by the courts.
He’s answered it many times . I’m too abrasive and me questioning anything is considered an attack . It’s politics C-Dogg . I’m just glad that some of the great people in our nation’s history that fought for my civil rights persevered passed these types of countermeasures and that progress was made because of them .
wallstreetcappers craps in his draws and pees fuckin backwards from his vaj with a squirt.
He’s answered it many times . I’m too abrasive and me questioning anything is considered an attack . It’s politics C-Dogg . I’m just glad that some of the great people in our nation’s history that fought for my civil rights persevered passed these types of countermeasures and that progress was made because of them .
@Raiders22 This is a response to your post #197. How does any of the statement you posted equate to sanctuary cites agreeing to support illegal aliens shipped in from other states like Rush posted in #175?Protecting them from ICE,or limiting their cooperation in federal immigration enforcement actions,is in no way agreeing to support them.
I did not see anyone that did say that? It was in reply to the definition of them and what they purport to do.
Sanctuary cities have never agreed to support illegal aliens.All sanctuary cities do is limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities regarding the location and removal of unauthorized immigrants,but nice try.
So it was simply to point out the exact definition of what the sanctuary cities claim to do and actually do. So, to claim they never agree to support illegals is wrong.
Now you can start another question on whether they agreed to support any/all illegals no matter where they are from if you like. For sure, I can answer that as well.
For example, how many illegals in a harder to reach city (SF, NYC, etc.) did not come into another state first? Whether they went to the sanctuary city -- after arriving in a border state first -- on their own or not is not the point. But if you want to make it the point you can do that.
But to say they did not agree to support them is wrong -- it is pretty much the exact definition of what a sanctuary city is.
@MrWhatsItToYa
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa:
@Raiders22 This is a response to your post #197. How does any of the statement you posted equate to sanctuary cites agreeing to support illegal aliens shipped in from other states like Rush posted in #175?Protecting them from ICE,or limiting their cooperation in federal immigration enforcement actions,is in no way agreeing to support them.
I did not see anyone that did say that? It was in reply to the definition of them and what they purport to do.
Sanctuary cities have never agreed to support illegal aliens.All sanctuary cities do is limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities regarding the location and removal of unauthorized immigrants,but nice try.
So it was simply to point out the exact definition of what the sanctuary cities claim to do and actually do. So, to claim they never agree to support illegals is wrong.
Now you can start another question on whether they agreed to support any/all illegals no matter where they are from if you like. For sure, I can answer that as well.
For example, how many illegals in a harder to reach city (SF, NYC, etc.) did not come into another state first? Whether they went to the sanctuary city -- after arriving in a border state first -- on their own or not is not the point. But if you want to make it the point you can do that.
But to say they did not agree to support them is wrong -- it is pretty much the exact definition of what a sanctuary city is.
@Raiders22 I still can't quote no one,so this is in response to your post #195. He was stating how stunning it was how many posters here try to find any way they can to justify all this.(Meaning the immigration issues).And how crazy that sounds to him that posters would try justifying all that being done. My response of kinda like the other guys in here justifying that a president should have absolute immunity against 91 indictments,while they are still trying to find crimes another president supposedly committed.Was me commenting how crazy that sounds to me,that posters would try justifying that being done. So I wasn't really comparing the absolute immunity issue to the immigration issue.I was comparing how posters try and justify things that sound crazy to the other side.That's what I was comparing to each other. To you,it wasn't "even close to a good comparison".That's because you weren't comparing the same things I was.And until I get notification from someone that you are in charge,don't be telling me what I should or shouldn't pick to compare.You complaining about what I chose to compare,simply looks like the normal deflection the Right uses.
Okay, I guess. It just did not seem good comparison to me. It seemed to be a complete change of subject or deflection. I am not telling you what to do. I am just saying comparing an illegal immigration problem for a whole nation to one person's legal problems is a big leap. I did not even see anyone saying he should have absolute immunity -- I may have missed that argument.
There are many other issues that you could have chosen to counter with as a comparison, yet, you chose Trump once again. No matter what the issue is you guys always bring your guy into the argument.
@MrWhatsItToYa
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa:
@Raiders22 I still can't quote no one,so this is in response to your post #195. He was stating how stunning it was how many posters here try to find any way they can to justify all this.(Meaning the immigration issues).And how crazy that sounds to him that posters would try justifying all that being done. My response of kinda like the other guys in here justifying that a president should have absolute immunity against 91 indictments,while they are still trying to find crimes another president supposedly committed.Was me commenting how crazy that sounds to me,that posters would try justifying that being done. So I wasn't really comparing the absolute immunity issue to the immigration issue.I was comparing how posters try and justify things that sound crazy to the other side.That's what I was comparing to each other. To you,it wasn't "even close to a good comparison".That's because you weren't comparing the same things I was.And until I get notification from someone that you are in charge,don't be telling me what I should or shouldn't pick to compare.You complaining about what I chose to compare,simply looks like the normal deflection the Right uses.
Okay, I guess. It just did not seem good comparison to me. It seemed to be a complete change of subject or deflection. I am not telling you what to do. I am just saying comparing an illegal immigration problem for a whole nation to one person's legal problems is a big leap. I did not even see anyone saying he should have absolute immunity -- I may have missed that argument.
There are many other issues that you could have chosen to counter with as a comparison, yet, you chose Trump once again. No matter what the issue is you guys always bring your guy into the argument.
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: Yesterday, a number of supposed asylum seekers attacked two NYC police officers & the Governor hasn't decided whether the fucktards should be deported. ABC news report suspects have been arrested and charged by police. New York governor calls for deportation. Deporting criminals is a priority for Homeland security department. Generally, legal and illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans. Studies show immigration doesn't increase crime rates in the US. Also foreign terrorism is rare since 9/11. FBI found that domestic terrorism is a far greater threat especially from right wing extremists.
Good lord.....you're getting desperate. This is classic lib doublespeak.
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: Yesterday, a number of supposed asylum seekers attacked two NYC police officers & the Governor hasn't decided whether the fucktards should be deported. ABC news report suspects have been arrested and charged by police. New York governor calls for deportation. Deporting criminals is a priority for Homeland security department. Generally, legal and illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans. Studies show immigration doesn't increase crime rates in the US. Also foreign terrorism is rare since 9/11. FBI found that domestic terrorism is a far greater threat especially from right wing extremists.
Good lord.....you're getting desperate. This is classic lib doublespeak.
Double speak , double usernames , double the trouble , doublemint gum is delicious and the flavor lasts a really long time , can I have a second username also ? And if you protest that I gotta ask , in all honesty , why the criticism ? What’s it to ya anyway ?
wallstreetcappers craps in his draws and pees fuckin backwards from his vaj with a squirt.
Double speak , double usernames , double the trouble , doublemint gum is delicious and the flavor lasts a really long time , can I have a second username also ? And if you protest that I gotta ask , in all honesty , why the criticism ? What’s it to ya anyway ?
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato: You are your daughter , I mean your daughter posted in “ Obviously the True Face of the Republican Party “ thread ….. Post # 77 …… “ you gotta be a certain kind of pusssy to even say that to somebody. That’s all we need today in American politics, is another sniveling kiss ass . “ you sure about your story ? You feel like just being honest ? Do you want me to pick this apart ? My God . The travesty of it all . This thread just keeps getting better and better .No my daughter has an account also.You can check with Covers they have her picture cause she had to send it in when she won money.She uses this computer also,and left her account open.I just got back tonight and just figured it was my account open and started replying to the posts somebody had quoted me on.This has happened a couple times before so that quote you posted is probably me posting mistakenly under her account.You can pick as much as you want.
um , it’s not like I’m having to go through the trouble of digging up Gobekli Tepe or anything brother . Just a small amount of digging reveals all that I need to know . In less than 5 minutes I can tell very easily that is you . The jig is up my friend . Own up to it .
wallstreetcappers craps in his draws and pees fuckin backwards from his vaj with a squirt.
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa:
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato: You are your daughter , I mean your daughter posted in “ Obviously the True Face of the Republican Party “ thread ….. Post # 77 …… “ you gotta be a certain kind of pusssy to even say that to somebody. That’s all we need today in American politics, is another sniveling kiss ass . “ you sure about your story ? You feel like just being honest ? Do you want me to pick this apart ? My God . The travesty of it all . This thread just keeps getting better and better .No my daughter has an account also.You can check with Covers they have her picture cause she had to send it in when she won money.She uses this computer also,and left her account open.I just got back tonight and just figured it was my account open and started replying to the posts somebody had quoted me on.This has happened a couple times before so that quote you posted is probably me posting mistakenly under her account.You can pick as much as you want.
um , it’s not like I’m having to go through the trouble of digging up Gobekli Tepe or anything brother . Just a small amount of digging reveals all that I need to know . In less than 5 minutes I can tell very easily that is you . The jig is up my friend . Own up to it .
Bro I saw the thread where you caught him . You let him get off easy . I don’t want to have to “ bump and thump “ all of these threads , and I won’t , but something needs to be done about this or this forum will have lost any little shred of integrity that it even had left .
wallstreetcappers craps in his draws and pees fuckin backwards from his vaj with a squirt.
Bro I saw the thread where you caught him . You let him get off easy . I don’t want to have to “ bump and thump “ all of these threads , and I won’t , but something needs to be done about this or this forum will have lost any little shred of integrity that it even had left .
"He fights like no other".You mean he whines and cries like no other?
Now the big "Covers Deep State' brigade comes out.I tell you what I'll even make it more enticing for you.I'll give you +200 odds,on as much money as you'd like to put on it.
@soup-can
"He fights like no other".You mean he whines and cries like no other?
Now the big "Covers Deep State' brigade comes out.I tell you what I'll even make it more enticing for you.I'll give you +200 odds,on as much money as you'd like to put on it.
Bro I saw the thread where you caught him . You let him get off easy . I don’t want to have to “ bump and thump “ all of these threads , and I won’t , but something needs to be done about this or this forum will have lost any little shred of integrity that it even had left .
Just now lost integrity or was that lost some time ago...
When one is quick to point out other peoples flaws but they themselves are not able to accept their own flaws even when they are pointed out is a problem…so it makes you wonder why should everyone accept what they tell some of us when they themselves do not follow the same…seems rather one sided and therein lies the problem…
Nothing will be done about this poster because he has a family member with he same IP...just email COVERS and let them know you have a few family members and they will be signing up using the same IP address and then you are clear....that's what the poster is saying...it cannot be proven and it is not against the rules so have some babies or adopt one and then create a username and let the powers that be know...this is how one can circumvent the system in place...whether it is true or not it allows for aliases to be created without violating the rules...there is no way around a legitimate IP address and multiple users except for this way (notice I said legitimate because you could block your IP address)....this just gave everyone an out to properly create aliases or have others in your household join COVERS and tally-ho....
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato:
Bro I saw the thread where you caught him . You let him get off easy . I don’t want to have to “ bump and thump “ all of these threads , and I won’t , but something needs to be done about this or this forum will have lost any little shred of integrity that it even had left .
Just now lost integrity or was that lost some time ago...
When one is quick to point out other peoples flaws but they themselves are not able to accept their own flaws even when they are pointed out is a problem…so it makes you wonder why should everyone accept what they tell some of us when they themselves do not follow the same…seems rather one sided and therein lies the problem…
Nothing will be done about this poster because he has a family member with he same IP...just email COVERS and let them know you have a few family members and they will be signing up using the same IP address and then you are clear....that's what the poster is saying...it cannot be proven and it is not against the rules so have some babies or adopt one and then create a username and let the powers that be know...this is how one can circumvent the system in place...whether it is true or not it allows for aliases to be created without violating the rules...there is no way around a legitimate IP address and multiple users except for this way (notice I said legitimate because you could block your IP address)....this just gave everyone an out to properly create aliases or have others in your household join COVERS and tally-ho....
No the reason you didn't respond was because you know you can't admit that those objects could cause deadly harm,and then still stick to your sarcastic comment about "So how bout those deadly flagpoles and dangerous campaign signs".
Hold on a second,let me put my thinking cap on.
I didn't change the argument from an "insurrection to what constitutes deadly force to kill an individual.And that you would need a helluva lot of flagpoles and fire extinguishers and campaign signs to carry out your insurrection".The only time I even mentioned the word insurrection was in post #143 asking you how many insurrections you had seen.You are the only one between the 2 of us that has brought up an "insurrection" or that they were there to "overthrow the government".In my post #157 I completely explain to you why I thought they were there and what I thought they were looking to accomplish that day.And not 1 time do I even mention that it was an insurrection and that they were looking to overthrow the government,not once,only you have brought those 2 things up.And you were the 1 bringing up that if it was a group looking to overthrow the government "then they just might use deadly force".That's when i pointed out and asked you if you thought those objects could be used with deadly force.And since then,you have still ducked the question.
@Rush51
No the reason you didn't respond was because you know you can't admit that those objects could cause deadly harm,and then still stick to your sarcastic comment about "So how bout those deadly flagpoles and dangerous campaign signs".
Hold on a second,let me put my thinking cap on.
I didn't change the argument from an "insurrection to what constitutes deadly force to kill an individual.And that you would need a helluva lot of flagpoles and fire extinguishers and campaign signs to carry out your insurrection".The only time I even mentioned the word insurrection was in post #143 asking you how many insurrections you had seen.You are the only one between the 2 of us that has brought up an "insurrection" or that they were there to "overthrow the government".In my post #157 I completely explain to you why I thought they were there and what I thought they were looking to accomplish that day.And not 1 time do I even mention that it was an insurrection and that they were looking to overthrow the government,not once,only you have brought those 2 things up.And you were the 1 bringing up that if it was a group looking to overthrow the government "then they just might use deadly force".That's when i pointed out and asked you if you thought those objects could be used with deadly force.And since then,you have still ducked the question.
Or just post as BuckFalls and let him take the heat
Tell me what I had to gain by posting on a different account on purpose.I was clearly responding to soup can and what we were talking about.It wasn't like I used my daughters account to back up something I was saying.On a account that hasn't made any posts in like a year,besides when she has left her account open before.So what "heat" was I looking to avoid?
Stick with making up nursery rhymes.
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato:
Or just post as BuckFalls and let him take the heat
Tell me what I had to gain by posting on a different account on purpose.I was clearly responding to soup can and what we were talking about.It wasn't like I used my daughters account to back up something I was saying.On a account that hasn't made any posts in like a year,besides when she has left her account open before.So what "heat" was I looking to avoid?
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato: Or just post as BuckFalls and let him take the heatTell me what I had to gain by posting on a different account on purpose.I was clearly responding to soup can and what we were talking about.It wasn't like I used my daughters account to back up something I was saying.On a account that hasn't made any posts in like a year,besides when she has left her account open before.So what "heat" was I looking to avoid? Stick with making up nursery rhymes.
Well, I guess one could argue that if she hadn't used the account or made posts in a year, what was she doing logged in yesterday then, when looking at posts or threads does not require a login...that is what the people might say if there were people in these said forums...
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa:
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato: Or just post as BuckFalls and let him take the heatTell me what I had to gain by posting on a different account on purpose.I was clearly responding to soup can and what we were talking about.It wasn't like I used my daughters account to back up something I was saying.On a account that hasn't made any posts in like a year,besides when she has left her account open before.So what "heat" was I looking to avoid? Stick with making up nursery rhymes.
Well, I guess one could argue that if she hadn't used the account or made posts in a year, what was she doing logged in yesterday then, when looking at posts or threads does not require a login...that is what the people might say if there were people in these said forums...
Show me in the definition you quoted where it says sanctuary cities agreed to support illegal aliens,since it's pretty much the exact definition of what a sanctuary city is.Limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities,is not "Agreeing to support" them.Most times nobody from the cities even meets the illegal immigrants,they just won't cooperate or give authorities the location of aliens or help with their removal.
@Raiders22
Show me in the definition you quoted where it says sanctuary cities agreed to support illegal aliens,since it's pretty much the exact definition of what a sanctuary city is.Limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities,is not "Agreeing to support" them.Most times nobody from the cities even meets the illegal immigrants,they just won't cooperate or give authorities the location of aliens or help with their removal.
@MrWhatsItToYa Sanctuary cities have never agreed to support illegal aliens.All sanctuary cities do is limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities regarding the location and removal of unauthorized immigrants,
Mrwhatsittoya is right. Sanctuary cities are no more supportive of illegal immigrants as non-sanctuary cities that provide aid to the homeless. In sanctuary cities, police still help ICE. If immigrants commit serious crimes, police can still detain them for federal agents to deport. However illegal for police to arrest someone who hasn't been suspected of committing a crime. Simply being an illegal immigrant is an civil violation and not a crime. Sanctuary cities are legal under US constitution.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@MrWhatsItToYa Sanctuary cities have never agreed to support illegal aliens.All sanctuary cities do is limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities regarding the location and removal of unauthorized immigrants,
Mrwhatsittoya is right. Sanctuary cities are no more supportive of illegal immigrants as non-sanctuary cities that provide aid to the homeless. In sanctuary cities, police still help ICE. If immigrants commit serious crimes, police can still detain them for federal agents to deport. However illegal for police to arrest someone who hasn't been suspected of committing a crime. Simply being an illegal immigrant is an civil violation and not a crime. Sanctuary cities are legal under US constitution.
for the emoji haters 
But no one wants to put prosecute the 'hoodrats and put them back in jail, instead give them no- cost bail. What a great deal for society. 
.... you know what I mean ??? 
Hot Forum Topics
