Hodad Posted February 13 Report Posted February 13 1 minute ago, Nationalist said: Don't be too upset. Their Tweenkie-ass attempt to corrupt military personnel was...ignored by the military personnel. Nobody else knows what a "Tweenkie" is. Best guess is that you're obsessed with the idea of tweens filled with cream.🤷♂️ "Nationalist" does appear 313 times in the Epstein files. Maybe you'd be in trouble in Somalia too? Oh, noes! I threatened you!🙄 1 Quote
Nationalist Posted February 13 Report Posted February 13 2 minutes ago, Hodad said: Nobody else knows what a "Tweenkie" is. Best guess is that you're obsessed with the idea of tweens filled with cream.🤷♂️ "Nationalist" does appear 313 times in the Epstein files. Maybe you'd be in trouble in Somalia too? Oh, noes! I threatened you!🙄 Hilarious... Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
CdnFox Posted February 13 Report Posted February 13 3 hours ago, Deluge said: Citizenships can be revoked, and hers is in desperate need of revocation. Her a$$ needs to be deported yesterday. Well it's pretty hard to revoke citizenship, the courts have weighed in on this numerous times. That's why you have to be so careful about who you let in in the first place unfortunately Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
gatomontes99 Posted February 13 Author Report Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: Don't be too upset. Their Tweenkie-ass attempt to corrupt military personnel was...ignored by the military personnel. Saying that is like saying "Dont be mad, I missed" after shooting at someone. The intent is what matters, not the harm. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
gatomontes99 Posted February 13 Author Report Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Hodad said: Sorry, but the courts don't take into consideration the made-up narrative in your mind. The facts are the facts. Your delusions are your delusions. Noted though that you think political speech that "causes problems" should result in imprisonment. Tell us again how you're not an eager fascist? The freedom to speech is not absolute. Attempting to turn the military against the president is sedition. Whether they hoped for one, two, twenty or more, they wanted to turn some of the military into obstructionists. Their failure does not absolve them of responsibility either. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
CdnFox Posted February 13 Report Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: "HE'S...HE'S...HE'S NOT NORMAL!!!" No sh1t Sherlock. "Normal" had gotten insane! During trump's first run for the presidency there was actually a lot of focus on this. It was clear that even people that didn't really believe in his policies were often voting for him specifically because he wasn't normal and was disruptive. They felt that the political parties took the voters for granted and they kept just spewing out the same type of candidate who would promise the world and then not do anything and only those who the party executives liked could run etc. They specifically wanted someone who would throw a few cogs in the gears and send the message that 'if you don't take us seriously, we'll put in guys like this" and shake things up." I think a lot of Americans were just sick and tired of being told that the system is the way the system is and nothing can be done. See what you like about Trump, that guy gets things done and he's not afraid to break things to do it. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Nationalist Posted February 13 Report Posted February 13 6 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Saying that is like saying "Dont be mad, I missed" after shooting at someone. The intent is what matters, not the harm. That's true. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Hodad Posted February 13 Report Posted February 13 57 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: The freedom to speech is not absolute. Attempting to turn the military against the president is sedition. Whether they hoped for one, two, twenty or more, they wanted to turn some of the military into obstructionists. Their failure does not absolve them of responsibility either. Freedom of speech 100% absolutely and unequivocally covers speaking the written laws of this land. And our legislators enjoy speech privileges on top of that. Fascists cannot tolerate free speech, because it allows room for dissent or speech that "causes trouble." Free speech is a threat to authoritarianism and the subjugation of the individual in service to the state. I get why you guys don't like it, but that's what it's there for. There's a reason it was laughed out of court. A case has to be comically, unbelievably, abysmally bad to fail a grand jury test. Almost NONE of them fail. This one is just that bad. Suck it up. There are a lot of fascist irons in the fire, but this one is dead. We're still the USA, for now. 1 Quote
robosmith Posted February 13 Report Posted February 13 3 hours ago, Nationalist said: "HE'S...HE'S...HE'S NOT NORMAL!!!" No sh1t Sherlock. "Normal" had gotten insane! You have no idea what "ethical norms" means. Quote
robosmith Posted February 13 Report Posted February 13 3 hours ago, Nationalist said: I see. Hey didn't Hegseth say he would appeal this "up the chain"? You don't "appeal" a "no true bill" when an indictment FAILS. They can go 'grand jury shopping' and TRY to find one that's INSANE enough to indict something that Hegseth himself SAID a few years ago when he set Trump straight on the UCMJ before he went insane. LMAO Quote
robosmith Posted February 13 Report Posted February 13 3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: They were trying to get the soldiers to disobey lawful orders in hopes that it would cause chaos. They had no interest in informing soldiers. the soldiers are taught everything they need to know. The Seditious Six were trying to cause problems. They should rot in jail. You are ^insane. They failed to indict and you STILL want to CONVICT. Do you even know what the First Amendment protects? LMAO Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 14 Author Report Posted February 14 7 hours ago, Hodad said: Freedom of speech 100% absolutely and unequivocally covers speaking the written laws of this land. It is not what is said but what the intent was. The intent was to turn at least some military members against the POTUS. That is blatantly illegal. And it should be. 7 hours ago, Hodad said: And our legislators enjoy speech privileges on top of that. On the floor of the house/senate but not on YouTube. 7 hours ago, Hodad said: Fascists cannot tolerate free speech, because it allows room for dissent or speech that "causes trouble." Free speech is a threat to authoritarianism and the subjugation of the individual in service to the state. I get why you guys don't like it, but that's what it's there for. Free speech is not an issue here. The law is written. The House voted for it. The Senate voted for it. The POTUS signed it. The SCOTUS has not over turned it. It applies to all sides equally. You are just unhappy because your side can't have a revolution without consequences. 7 hours ago, Hodad said: There's a reason it was laughed out of court. A case has to be comically, unbelievably, abysmally bad to fail a grand jury test. Almost NONE of them fail. This one is just that bad. Suck it up. There are a lot of fascist irons in the fire, but this one is dead. We're still the USA, for now. It never went to court. What makes you think it went to court? It went to a grand jury in DC. Almost certainly it was full of LWNJs and they did not care about the law. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
gatomontes99 Posted February 14 Author Report Posted February 14 7 hours ago, robosmith said: You are ^insane. They failed to indict and you STILL want to CONVICT. Yep. Go to a fair district and let them decide. 7 hours ago, robosmith said: Do you even know what the First Amendment protects? LMAO Is it your contention that it is legal to plead with the military to disobey orders from the President? Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Hodad Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 (edited) 35 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: It is not what is said but what the intent was. The intent was to turn at least some military members against the POTUS. That is blatantly illegal. And it should be. On the floor of the house/senate but not on YouTube. Free speech is not an issue here. The law is written. The House voted for it. The Senate voted for it. The POTUS signed it. The SCOTUS has not over turned it. It applies to all sides equally. You are just unhappy because your side can't have a revolution without consequences. It never went to court. What makes you think it went to court? It went to a grand jury in DC. Almost certainly it was full of LWNJs and they did not care about the law. You and the rest of the Thought Police are utterly full of crap. They did nothing even remotely illegal. That's not even in question. That's why the indictments were DOA. And yes, we all know the grand jury is not a trial, but a grand jury is certainly part of the court. Congress.gov "As an arm of the U.S. District Court which summons it, upon whose process it relies, and which will receive any indictments it returns, the grand jury's subject matter and geographical jurisdiction is that of the court to which it is attached." This is still America where we have free speech (despite Trump's aggressive efforts to end it) and where service members DO NOT have to follow illegal orders. And anyone anywhere. Edited February 14 by Hodad 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 14 Author Report Posted February 14 8 minutes ago, Hodad said: You and the rest of the Thought Police are utterly full of crap. They did nothing even remotely illegal. That's not even in question. Oh please. Where were you when the thought police shutdown YouTube accounts for saying masks don't work? This is not about free speech. All those people did was give their opinions on masks and our government strong armed social media into silencing them. Then they went out and arrested people that went to church or had Thanksgiving with friends and family. Your people tried to cause chaos. They wanted the chaos so they could point to it and amplify it. They wanted to say, "See! Even the military won't obey Trump!" It is the same playbook they are using in Minnesota. The same playbook they used in LA. The same playbook they used in Chicago. It is nothing new. Your side's leaders stick their heads out of their mansions, with Fort Knox worthy security, and demand that people resist. Then they go back and sip on their brandy and hope you are dumb enough to sacrifice your freedom or life just so they have a gotcha for the sunday morning political shows. And, for the most part, you have enough useful idìots on your side that it works. The play did not work with the military. Oh darn. Boo hoo. And now you're people had real consequences propsed. Oh the horror. They should. They tried to turn the military against the President. You know they did. That is why you continually ignore that that was the purpose of what they did. Because if you acknowledge the purpose of their actions, you have no choice but to conclude that they violated the law. There is no other option. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Hodad Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 (edited) 7 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Oh please. Where were you when the thought police shutdown YouTube accounts for saying masks don't work? This is not about free speech. All those people did was give their opinions on masks and our government strong armed social media into silencing them. Then they went out and arrested people that went to church or had Thanksgiving with friends and family. Your people tried to cause chaos. They wanted the chaos so they could point to it and amplify it. They wanted to say, "See! Even the military won't obey Trump!" It is the same playbook they are using in Minnesota. The same playbook they used in LA. The same playbook they used in Chicago. It is nothing new. Your side's leaders stick their heads out of their mansions, with Fort Knox worthy security, and demand that people resist. Then they go back and sip on their brandy and hope you are dumb enough to sacrifice your freedom or life just so they have a gotcha for the sunday morning political shows. And, for the most part, you have enough useful idìots on your side that it works. The play did not work with the military. Oh darn. Boo hoo. And now you're people had real consequences propsed. Oh the horror. They should. They tried to turn the military against the President. You know they did. That is why you continually ignore that that was the purpose of what they did. Because if you acknowledge the purpose of their actions, you have no choice but to conclude that they violated the law. There is no other option. The "purpose" of what they did is to remind the military that their duty is to the country, rather than being the fat orange bastard's personal army. And it was an important reminder because for the first time in our history we have person in office so selfish, corrupt and addicted to power that he would have no hesitation turning the military on the American people. In which case the military SHOULD turn against him. And it simply is not a crime to remind service people of where their loyalties must lie. Edited February 14 by Hodad 1 Quote
robosmith Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 3 hours ago, Hodad said: The "purpose" of what they did is to remind the military that their duty is to the country, rather than being the fat orange bastard's personal army. And it was an important reminder because for the first time in our history we have person in office so selfish, corrupt and addicted to power that he would have no hesitation turning the military on the American people. I'm which case the military SHOULD turn against him. And there simply is not a crime to remind service people of where their loyalties must lie. What is utterly unbelievable is MAGAt here foolishly arguing that Trump makes the law, not Congress signed by Trump. Maybe Trump can violate the law with impunity by pretending an ACT is OFFICIAL, but the ONLY way impunity from Federal legal penalities can be bestowed on OTHERS is by a pardon, and that doesn't work for state laws. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 14 Author Report Posted February 14 7 hours ago, Hodad said: The "purpose" of what they did is to remind the military that their duty is to the country, rather than being the fat orange bastard's personal army. And why did they remind them? What were these six trying ti get them to do? 7 hours ago, Hodad said: And it was an important reminder because for the first time in our history we have person in office so selfish, corrupt and addicted to power that he would have no hesitation turning the military on the American people. I'm which case the military SHOULD turn against him. Do you even understand that every boat they blew up carried enough drugs to kill up to 13,000 Americans? That is not being selfish. That is protecting Americans. 7 hours ago, Hodad said: And there simply is not a crime to remind service people of where their loyalties must lie. Nice try, but that was not their motivation. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Hodad Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 36 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: And why did they remind them? What were these six trying ti get them to do? Do you even understand that every boat they blew up carried enough drugs to kill up to 13,000 Americans? That is not being selfish. That is protecting Americans. Nice try, but that was not their motivation. Your enthusiasm for murder and war crimes aside, this is a dead issue. You can stamp your little feet all you like, there will not be any consequence for that video. That protected, ESSENTIAL, speech is the purest exercise of the first amendment. With Trump in office, we should be reminding the military every damn day to follow their oaths instead of illegal orders. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 14 Author Report Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, Hodad said: Your enthusiasm for murder and war crimes aside, this is a dead issue. You can stamp your little feet all you like, there will not be any consequence for that video. That protected, ESSENTIAL, speech is the purest exercise of the first amendment. With Trump in office, we should be reminding the military every damn day to follow their oaths instead of illegal orders. You did not answer my question. You just fell back on this appeal to authority fallacy. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Hodad Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said: You did not answer my question. You just fell back on this appeal to authority fallacy. I've answered you multiple times. You simply prefer the far-fetched version pulled straight out of Trump's ass. No service member should ever feel compelled to follow illegal orders. They should not feel compelled to become war criminals just because the orders were given. And it's important for people in a position of power to stand up and remind them that they are not alone if they refuse--that they are not standing alone against the system, but rather standing with the constitution, with the people and alongside leaders who will support such acts of conscience. 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 14 Author Report Posted February 14 1 hour ago, Hodad said: I've answered you multiple times. You simply prefer the far-fetched version pulled straight out of Trump's ass. No service member should ever feel compelled to follow illegal orders. They should not feel compelled to become war criminals just because the orders were given. And it's important for people in a position of power to stand up and remind them that they are not alone if they refuse--that they are not standing alone against the system, but rather standing with the constitution, with the people and alongside leaders who will support such acts of conscience. You are admitting it, without admitting it. The goal was to cause someone on the military to disobey orders. It has been shown that none of the orders were illegal. Not one. The goal had nothing to do with helping soldiers enforce the law or resist illegal orders. The goal was to cause a soldier to resist legal orders to create a spectacle. Then "Let no good tragedy go to waste" becomes "Look, the military disagrees with the Nazi!" What they did was purely partisan and crossed the line into sedition. Unfortunately, the left is so partisan they won't turn on anyone they see as on their side. If this had been a conservative and the grand jury was in Texas or Florida, it would have gone to trial. But they were liberal and it was DC. Justice will forever be tarnished by their partisanship. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Hodad Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: You are admitting it, without admitting it. The goal was to cause someone on the military to disobey orders. It has been shown that none of the orders were illegal. Not one. The goal had nothing to do with helping soldiers enforce the law or resist illegal orders. The goal was to cause a soldier to resist legal orders to create a spectacle. Then "Let no good tragedy go to waste" becomes "Look, the military disagrees with the Nazi!" What they did was purely partisan and crossed the line into sedition. Unfortunately, the left is so partisan they won't turn on anyone they see as on their side. If this had been a conservative and the grand jury was in Texas or Florida, it would have gone to trial. But they were liberal and it was DC. Justice will forever be tarnished by their partisanship. A. It has NOT been shown that the orders were legal. It's been claimed by the people giving the orders, but most legal experts disagree. And this is doubly true of the "double tap" strike, which isn't even legal within the absurd framework of a fictional "war." B. The service member who pulled the trigger on the double tap should have refused that order. Even if you grant the ridiculous premise that we are at "war" with our drug dealers, and call the victims enemy combatants, it is unquestionably illegal to murder shipwrecked sailors. C. Whether Congress can get it together to stop them is another matter. As is the question of whether there is any legal body to hold the perpetrators accountable. But remember, there is no statute of limitations on murder. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. I would love to see Hegseth do his fake tough guy routine in gen pop. 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 15 Author Report Posted February 15 4 hours ago, Hodad said: A. It has NOT been shown that the orders were legal. It's been claimed by the people giving the orders, but most legal experts disagree. And this is doubly true of the "double tap" strike, which isn't even legal within the absurd framework of a fictional "war." B. The service member who pulled the trigger on the double tap should have refused that order. Even if you grant the ridiculous premise that we are at "war" with our drug dealers, and call the victims enemy combatants, it is unquestionably illegal to murder shipwrecked sailors. C. Whether Congress can get it together to stop them is another matter. As is the question of whether there is any legal body to hold the perpetrators accountable. But remember, there is no statute of limitations on murder. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. I would love to see Hegseth do his fake tough guy routine in gen pop. The double tap was actually 4 strikes and the last 3 shots were meant to sink the remaining parts of the vessel because drugs were still in play. It was known that they were going to rendezvous with another boat to transfer the drugs that would, eventually, make their way to the US. It baffles me how much you want to defend people that are intentionally killing thousands of Americans. Why? You also defend illegal aliens that have killed, raped and stole from americans. Why? Why do you always defend our enemies? Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Hodad Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 44 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: The double tap was actually 4 strikes and the last 3 shots were meant to sink the remaining parts of the vessel because drugs were still in play. It was known that they were going to rendezvous with another boat to transfer the drugs that would, eventually, make their way to the US. It baffles me how much you want to defend people that are intentionally killing thousands of Americans. Why? You also defend illegal aliens that have killed, raped and stole from americans. Why? Why do you always defend our enemies? Do you think that we should chop the hands off of shoplifters? No? Why are you defending criminals? Why do you hate America? 🙄 This argument you keep making seems too dumb for functional adults to believe. I'd like to think it's just a specious argument, but so many of you keep making it--even after being called out--that I'm starting to believe you think it's serious. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.