« prev   random   next »

« First    « Previous    Comments 6 - 45 of 45    Last »

6   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 4:48pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Did the NY attorney general get her law degree from a Cracker Jack box? The Fifth Ammendment of the fracking Constitution prevents double jeopardy! That’s not a “loophole” you mooning sea cow, that’s the supreme law of the fucking land! What a maroon!
7   Tenpoundbass   ignore (11)   2018 Jun 3, 5:02pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Trump would send the National Guard down on the loony NY Liberals in a New York Minute.
8   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 6:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
It really sucks when some one commits a crime pleads guilty and is actually punished. Terrible treatment. We can't have that happening. Pardons for everyone who pleaded guilty. That's fair.

He served his time . The pardon is for filthy law enforcement who target somebody by party. But hey , Rosie O'Donnel is in jail I think? Or atleast being investigated by this land whale??
9   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 3, 6:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
bob2356 says
Roseanne was stupid enough to commit election fraud and leave a paper trail. When did that happen?


Clueless bob and his Wonder memory...


I didn't forget, i never knew. That's why I asked. Duh. Some of us don't know every bit of news. I guess some do. Or think they do.

lostand confused says
He served his time . The pardon is for filthy law enforcement who target somebody by party. But hey , Rosie O'Donnel is in jail I think? Or atleast being investigated by this land whale??


I don't know anything about Rosie. I do know of plenty of democrats who got nailed and went to jail for being equally stupid as D'Souza . Anyone so stupid they can't do illegal campaign contributions shouldn't even be in the gene pool.

So who should filthy law enforcement target then? By definition anyone making illegal campaign contributions belongs to a party. How would that work? Would they only target people who don't make campaign contributions for prosecuting for illegal campaign contributions? Can you explain?
10   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 6:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
I don't know anything about Rosie

You chose not to.
bob2356 says
Can you explain?

Dinesh already plead guilty, because that ambitious pig Bharara threatened to tack on multiple other charges and he served his sentence/probation and is over it. The president pardoning him does not reduce anything. This fat land whale wants to re prosecute him after he finished his sentence.

How much power do you want o give filthy law enforcement. For them to come after someone twice, thrice, hundred times and throw millions fo dollars to prosecute clearly shows this is not prosecution but a mafia. Trump should take down this entire cabal of mafia.

I am sure you would feel the same if some thug mafia pension freak prosecutor decides you looked at him wrong and come sat you limitless times. That is why there are checks and balances, but looks like democrats want to shred the constitution-no wonder leftoids created Hitler, Pol Pot , Stalin-their modus opernadi is the same.
11   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 3, 6:39pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

She's IMMENSE!
12   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 3, 6:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Did the NY attorney general get her law degree from a Cracker Jack box? The Fifth Ammendment of the fracking Constitution prevents double jeopardy! That’s not a “loophole” you mooning sea cow, that’s the supreme law of the fucking land! What a maroon!


You might look up the term "dual sovereignty" and the supreme court ruling in United States v. Lanza and Heath v. Alabama before you get your foot any further in your mouth. Double jeopardy in the constitution only applies to federal crimes and prosecutions. States have their own double jeopardy laws.
13   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 6:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
before you get your foot any further in your mouth.

LOl you were the one arguing about the right to try law that the federal law won't make any change because 40 states already have the law. I mean really-demcorats, democrats-LOLZ.
14   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 6:43pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says
She's IMMENSE!

She Loretta Lynch and Rosie O'Donnel could have a threesome and the earth would be knocked off its axis from all the action!
15   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 3, 6:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
bob2356 says
I don't know anything about Rosie

You chose not to.


You know this how? Vulcan mind meld? Mind reading?

lostand confused says
Dinesh already plead guilty, served his sentence/probation and is over it. The president pardoning him does not reduce anything. This fat land whale wants to re prosecute him after he finished his sentence.


"dual sovereignty" enough said. The federal government can't go after him again, but the state certainly has the right to. If you don't like how the constitution works then perhaps some other place might suit you better.

The idea that trump isn't playing politics with this is laughable but not a peep from you about that. Hypocrisy much?
16   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 3, 6:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Think about what you're saying, Bob.

If I murdered somebody, I would be committing both a Federal and State offense. If the Feds try me and convict me, and I get a pardon, it's over. That's what double jeopardy means. NYS or anybody else couldn't try and sentence a second time for the same crime.

If the Fed Limit was exceeded, and the State Limit Exceeded, exceeding the donations is one incident. If somebody is already tried and convicted in Federal Court, the State can't have a second go because it also wants to go to court over the same set of donations that was already adjudicated.
17   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 6:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says

You know this how? Vulcan mind meld? Mind reading?

Someone provided a link and you refuse to read it.bob2356 says
dual sovereignty" enough said. The federal government can't go after him again, but the state certainly has the right to. If you don't like how the constitution works then perhaps some other place might suit you better.

LOLz-bob you must be trolling, because even you can't be this -LOLZ. You were here arguing that trump's right to try federal law had no benefit, because state laws were on the book in 40 states. Now you talk about-oh well this is like Bill Clinton talking about fidelity. Does the spinning ever stop or you just bored. Supremacy clause anyone-you should not be talking about the constitution since you proclaim federal law and state laws don't matter as long as state laws allow something and federal does not.
18   Strategist   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 3, 6:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This Dinesh D'Souza dude is just a fanatical extremist Christian. If there were no laws protecting witches, he would be burning them every evening over marshmallows.
19   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (33)   2018 Jun 3, 8:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dinesh D'Souza is exactly like JESUS!
20   Strategist   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 3, 9:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
Dinesh D'Souza is exactly like JESUS!


Awesome. I am ready for Dinesh to die for me.
21   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 4:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says
If I murdered somebody, I would be committing both a Federal and State offense. If the Feds try me and convict me, and I get a pardon, it's over. That's what double jeopardy means. NYS or anybody else couldn't try and sentence a second time for the same crime.


I don't have to think about what I'm saying The supreme court has already said it. You guys really don''t know the basic legal principles of US law. Seriously? Even Wiki managed to get it right.

Heath v. Alabama

Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty" (the concept that the United States and each state possess sovereignty – a consequence of federalism), the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which he had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.

This decision is one of several that holds that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid the U.S. federal government and a state government, or the governments of more than one state, from prosecuting the same individual separately for the same illegal act.
22   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 4:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
LOLz-bob you must be trolling, because even you can't be this -LOLZ. You were here arguing that trump's right to try federal law had no benefit, because state laws were on the book in 40 states. Now you talk about-oh well this is like Bill Clinton talking about fidelity. Does the spinning ever stop or you just bored. Supremacy clause anyone-you should not be talking about the constitution since you proclaim federal law and state laws don't matter as long as state laws allow something and federal does not.


The supremacy clause only applies if the federal government invokes it. No one in the federal government has challenged state right to try laws never mind won a court case against them. Until that happens the state laws stand. You really really don't know the basic legal principles you live under? or are you just trolling because even you can't be this -LOLZ.?
23   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 4:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
The supremacy clause only applies if the federal government invokes it.

No kidding, next your Wikipedia research will tell me that traffic laws only matter if the cop stops you and give you a ticket . LOLZ. You must be trolling, because even you can't be this you know what. Now that Trump signed the alw, if some evil corporate dem tries to go after the dying and their relatives-they can't.

Oh since your wiki research skills are being used up, jabba the hut is actually calling "the loophole of double jeopardy" to be closed-yes the loophole. So stop this silly nonsense, it is entertaining, but silly. Yeah because she is anti trump lunatic, she wants double jeopardy to eb tossed aside, so she can go after anyone -Trump supporters-any number of times and you support this crap. Jabba the hut is not saying federal/state, Jabba the hut is asking lawmakers to close "the loophole of double jeopardy" so she can legally go after anyone she chooses how many ever time she wants.Democrats willt take this nation to the soviet model and gulags will eb the norm-now I understand how communism caught hold, because of stupid people like these.
24   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 6:01am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Which state law of NY did D’Souza break?
25   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 7:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
bob2356 says
The supremacy clause only applies if the federal government invokes it.

No kidding, next your Wikipedia research will tell me that traffic laws only matter if the cop stops you and give you a ticket . LOLZ. You must be trolling, because even you can't be this you know what. Now that Trump signed the alw, if some evil corporate dem tries to go after the dying and their relatives-they can't.


Want to continue to work backwards? It's pretty embarrassing to watch. A law is valid until it is overturned by the courts or repealed. So to use your ridiculous example if a state passed a law the speed limit was now 5mph it matters to everyone until the law was overturned by court or repealed. Everyone would have to pay the fine that was ticketed.

Using an equally absurd example that at least moves in the right direction, if a state passed law that murder was legal then you could legally murder people without prosecution from the state. The federal government could prosecute, just as they COULD (but never will) bring federal prosecution for people using right to try. If the federal government then made murder legal also it wouldn't be more legal in the state were it was already legal. Right to try is a valid law for the states until if is overturned. The right to try law at the state level isn't changed by the federal government passing it's own right to life law. So the federal right to try law doesn't add anything to all the states that already have it. This is really really basic stuff. High school civics stuff.

Evil corporate dem? That's really funny. You make that up yourself? The republican party is the fellatio queen of corporations and the ultra rich libertarians. You didn't get the memo?

lostand confused says
Oh since your wiki research skills are being used up, jabba the hut is actually calling "the loophole of double jeopardy" to be closed-yes the loophole. So stop this silly nonsense, it is entertaining, but silly.


I don't need wiki for basic civics and government. I learned those things 40 years ago. Stuff every citizen should know. The double jeopardy loophole is in NY state law, not federal law or the constitution. She can only go after him once under NY sovereignty if the law is changed to allow it. Since you still don't know this I'm thinking you still didn't do your homework and read up on how double jeopard actually works. No gold star on the forehead for you.

She can go after whoever she chooses now as long as they aren't convicted or acquited already. Just like trump can and does use the power of government to go after whoever he chooses. No mention of that from you. Odd omission. Just a little hypocrisy there?
26   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 4, 7:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
I do know of plenty of democrats who got nailed and went to jail for being equally stupid as D'Souza .

Can a couple of them be named?
27   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 7:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Which state law of NY did D’Souza break?


NY state campaign contributions limit is $5000 the same as federal. Using strawmen to contribute more is a felony in NY under NY ELEC article 17.


http://gobergroup.com/straw-donors-are-the-go-to-jail-offense-of-campaign-finance/
28   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 8:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
Everyone would have to pay the fine that was ticketed.

That is not what you said. You said it only applies if the federal governemtn invokes it. That is the same as saying there is no need of speed laws reform, becuas eit is only valid if a policeman invokes it.
29   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 8:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
I don't need wiki for basic civics and government

But it was you who bought up wiki as areferance.
30   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 8:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
She can only go after him once under NY sovereignty if the law is changed to allow it. Since you still don't know this I'm thinking you still didn't do your homework and read up on how double jeopard actually works. No gold star on the forehead for you.

blah, blah, blah, spew some gibberish and cover up gibberish by spewing even mor egibberish. You didn't even know what she said and then now you try and spin it a new way-you at eworthy of ebing in that treasonous Muellar team.
31   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 8:30am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
It really sucks when some one commits a crime pleads guilty and is actually punished. Terrible treatment. We can't have that happening. Pardons for everyone who pleaded guilty. That's fair.


Are you actually advocating for New York Democrats trying to circumvent a BASIC constitutional protection?
32   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 8:32am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
I do know of plenty of democrats who got nailed and went to jail for being equally stupid as D'Souza


I know of an East Indian who was an Obama supporter who committed the EXACT same crime, during the same time period, and didn't spend a single day in jail.

The FBI file on D'Souza (under Muellar's FBI) had numerous details about his "conservative political leanings", and was used as a document to engage in a witch hunt against D'Souza because Obama is a huge pussy whose ego was hurt by a hyper accurate documentary about his life.
33   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 10:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
bob2356 says
Everyone would have to pay the fine that was ticketed.

That is not what you said. You said it only applies if the federal governemtn invokes it. That is the same as saying there is no need of speed laws reform, becuas eit is only valid if a policeman invokes it.


What are you talking about? Of course it only applies when the federal government invokes it. How do you think it works? The federal government challenges a state law in court and if the courts rule in favor of the federal government then it is revoked. Until that time everyone in the state is subject to the law. WTF how does that relate to whatever you are babbling about with reform and police invoking. That makes zero sense.

Plus it's still ass backwards. Your bizarre example of the supremacy clause, which has no bearing on the supremacy clause at all, is right to try in which the federal government passed a law that duplicates existing state laws, not contradicts them. The supremacy clause only applies when the federal and state government laws are in contradiction.
34   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 10:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Can a couple of them be named?


google " convictions for illegal campaign contributions by democrats" and you can get hundreds. Google doesn't work on your computer some how?
35   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 10:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
bob2356 says
I don't need wiki for basic civics and government

But it was you who bought up wiki as areferance.


No I quoted wiki since they had a good an explanation as anyone. One that you clearly didn't read.
36   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 10:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
I know of an East Indian who was an Obama supporter who committed the EXACT same crime, during the same time period, and didn't spend a single day in jail.


Neither did D'Souza. Do you have a point?

Goran_K says
Are you actually advocating for New York Democrats trying to circumvent a BASIC constitutional protection?


What basic constitutional protection is that? Oh right the one the supreme court says doesn't exist.

You guys are really struggling with the double jeopardy and sovereignty concept. A little study would be in order that this point to have an informed discussion.
37   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 10:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
Your bizarre example of the supremacy clause

No . If a federal alw is on the books, it is on the books. You claim 40 states have state laws and hence it does not matter. it does , for one no pharma company that is governed by the FDA will want to even touch it . Two if the feds decide to fight it, no dying perosn will want to be tied up in courts.
You are spewing gibberish. First you claim there is no impact, then you claim oh only if the fed invokes it. By your standards, no need for federal marijuana reform or heck any law as long state deem it legal. Comedy gold.
38   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 10:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
bob2356 says
She can only go after him once under NY sovereignty if the law is changed to allow it. Since you still don't know this I'm thinking you still didn't do your homework and read up on how double jeopard actually works. No gold star on the forehead for you.

blah, blah, blah, spew some gibberish and cover up gibberish by spewing even mor egibberish. You didn't even know what she said and then now you try and spin it a new way-you at eworthy of ebing in that treasonous Muellar team.


. lostand confused says
so she can go after anyone -Trump supporters-any number of times


Sorry, the law is the law. There is no spin or new way. You can pretend the law doesn't exist or spew nonsense as much as you want, but it won't make it go away. Each sovereign government can prosecute the same crime once. Period
39   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 10:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
Each sovereign government can prosecute the same crime once. Period

LOLZ you are funny.
40   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 11:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says

No . If a federal alw is on the books, it is on the books. You claim 40 states have state laws and hence it doe snot matter. it does , for one no pharma company that is governed by the FDA willw ant to even touch it . Two if the feds decide to fight it, no dying eprosn will want to eb tied up in courts.


More and more bizarre. Why in the world would the feds fight right to try ? They could in theory but why? It would never happen if a federal right to try law wasn't passed. What politico is going home and defend that? In practical terms, which is what I said originally in the other thread, it doesn't matter and it changed nothing except letting citizens of 10 states stay local. You can make up theoretical what if boogymen all you want. None of the right to try laws require drug companies to participate, insurance companies to cover, doctors to prescribe, or provide tort protection so they really don't amount to that much anyway.

lostand confused says
By your stupid standards, no need for marijuana reform or heck any law as long state deem it legal. Comedy gold.


Again ass backwards. You want national marijuana reform so the Feds don't invoke the supremacy clause to override state law legalizing marijuana . Which they have done many times and will continue to do.
41   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 11:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
Neither did D'Souza.


Overnight confinement sleeping next to felons isn't prison?
42   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 11:47am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
What basic constitutional protection is that? Oh right the one the supreme court says doesn't exist.

You guys are really struggling with the double jeopardy and sovereignty concept. A little study would be in order that this point to have an informed discussion.


Then why is the fat assed NY AG / Democrat Muppet trying to circumvent this supposed non-existent constitutional protection?
43   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 12:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Oh my... was doing research on this issue and found something archived that could be a major network story. Anyone have an idea on where I could sell it? Daddy needs cash!
44   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 4, 1:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Which state law of NY did D’Souza break?


NY has a law preventing anybody convicted of a crime (anywhere, period) from being prosecuted twice.

Then there's ex post facto as well.
45   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 4, 1:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
I don't need wiki for basic civics and government. I learned those things 40 years ago. Stuff every citizen should know. The double jeopardy loophole is in NY state law, not federal law or the constitution. She can only go after him once under NY sovereignty if the law is changed to allow it. Since you still don't know this I'm thinking you still didn't do your homework and read up on how double jeopard actually works. No gold star on the forehead for you.


Heath v. Alabama was in 1985, and was a narrow 5-4 ruling, so how did you learn about it 40 years ago?

Another horrible Sandra Day O'Connor ruling.

But then again Bob, Libbies think California has any authority over National Immigration, and can compel non-cooperation with the Federal Government to boot.

« First    « Previous    Comments 6 - 45 of 45    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions