2
AllowMeToExplain 2 points ago +2 / -0

Those guys have literal "weapons of war" like rpg's, mortars, and even helicopters with door mounted machine guns. Plus, their torture videos make ISIS look like choir boys. Would certainly be better than being fucked with no arms. But think of what happens if you defend yourself, and then they get you afterwards? You'll receive a death worse than a single shot to the head in a split second, and broadcast on the internet. These guys are truly savages. Worse than animals. The rival cartels have arms, and that isn't enough to prevent the internet broadcast videos. I refuse to watch these...haunts your dreams.

Then people wonder why so many are flooding the border from northern Mexico...its this shit. This deep state drug/human trafficking grift is causing the influx. Nobody wants to live like these poor people have to live.

1
AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's someone on the list. Almost certainly. That might actually be the only basis you could be allowed to intervene anonymously, and succeed. Although the article states they did not rule on whether Doe could proceed anonymously, I wouldn't be so sure of that. Without going to the actual filings, I have little factual to go on. But it would be considered to have ruled on the motion for anonymity when ruling on keeping the list sealed by implication.

2
AllowMeToExplain 2 points ago +2 / -0

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) is still the leading 1A case in schools. It is where the Tinker Test or "substantial disruption" test came from that is still employed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) is another leading 1A case involving profane student speech at school

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/478/675

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) is an interesting case on school officials censoring the student paper.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/484/260

Morse v. Fredrick (2007) is the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" case

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/06-278


New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is the case that holds 4A applies to searches conducted by school officials and not just police.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/469/325

Safford Unified v. Redding (2009) is about strip searching students. It is a mixed bag of results. On the one hand, it was held the search was unconstitutional. On the other hand, the Court held that qualified immunity applied because:

"Although the strip search violated Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights, petitioners Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier are protected from liability by qualified immunity because “clearly established law [did] not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment ,” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. ___, ___. The intrusiveness of the strip search here cannot, under T. L. O., be seen as justifiably related to the circumstances, but lower court cases viewing school strip searches differently are numerous enough, with well-reasoned majority and dissenting opinions, to counsel doubt about the clarity with which the right was previously stated."

The idea that any person thought it permissible for school officials to strip search a student is asinine. Or that this was "unsettled" in case law. Ask 1,000 random people whether this was ok, and you might get 2 glue sniffers that said "seems legit..."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-479.ZS.html

J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) is not just applicable to schools, but is governing case law on juveniles as it relates to Miranda rights and being "in custody."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/9-11121.ZS.html

3
AllowMeToExplain 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, it applies. You don't shed your constitutional rights at the school house gates. However, its a lot more nuanced than what an adult would have as "rights."

4
AllowMeToExplain 4 points ago +4 / -0

Not lawful. Fast track way to a nice verdict.

11
AllowMeToExplain 11 points ago +11 / -0

And here is a shining example of taking a legit gripe and creating a racket: campaign finance reform. They set up a system where infinite black market unknown sourced funds can be spent for influence/corruption in elections through NGOs and non profits. Meanwhile, candidates are limited in how much money they can take. We were sold this cuz we can’t have the money corrupting the representative. What we got were wide open floodgates on elections, candidates, and election integrity. Then they decry the citizens united decision. Because this allows the US citizen to combat this influence machine with their business. So they gotta take over the corporations and steer that cash to these NGOs and non profits.

Whatever they do, they must put the squeeze on the candidate. And they use the rules to threaten jail for “campaign finance” violations. Rules that cannot ever be absolutely complied with. And they require expense reporting so that they know who these campaigns are visiting with.

All of this was sold to us with an entirely different purpose. Just like every other problem likely without solution has a solution that benefits and promotes corruption instead of checking it.

5
AllowMeToExplain 5 points ago +5 / -0

Non rhetorical/non shitpost/non troll question: What actually has to happen to accomplish this? What is going to spark this off? I ask because only a moron or someone in on the cheating is going to deny fraud at this point. And we have been discussing the mountains of evidence since pre-jan 6. They cheated their asses off in Nov 2020. They'll cheat again this November. They'll give up races they have to so they can preserve the large blue urban areas that are the heart of the fraud. And they might even get more flagrant about it. But if we have no prosecutors, we have nothing. The Sheriff thing is good, but they don't have anything beyond investigatory/arrest powers. They cannot charge/prosecute anyone. So who is doing the indicting?

3
AllowMeToExplain 3 points ago +3 / -0

HA! Gavin Newsome take that! DeSantis can wade in on other states just like you can...and he doesn't even have to take any time off from the bath house like you do, too.

2
AllowMeToExplain 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's like "how about I gouge out my left eye to hide my syphilis from my girlfriend?" Seems like you made a more permanent bad news story that is at least as bad as the combined above, if not worse, by doing that...

3
AllowMeToExplain 3 points ago +3 / -0

precisely 0 before and 0 since...complete bs and truly impossible to occur in the manner they suggested. Not enough force to break a wing spar on vapors, and not enough oxygen at that altitude to ignite. There is a reason jet engines have big ass compressors...

6
AllowMeToExplain 6 points ago +6 / -0

And this is exactly why Garland would never have approved it. Once it becomes mainstream thought to say "abolish it" you don't get to unring that. Hillary's black ops raid has really put them in a bind.

17
AllowMeToExplain 17 points ago +17 / -0

The fuck did this guy do to own a 2.2 mil house??

edit: happen to know a lil somethin about real estate...might be worthy to have a look at area comparable sales. Did he get a grossly inflated price as a "reward" for his work? Who's the buyer? That would be interesting information, wouldn't it? Properties like his don't exactly fly off the shelf, even in this market. And especially at that price point...

10
AllowMeToExplain 10 points ago +10 / -0

Queen of the skies...and the best ride across the ponds either direction. Damn shame they were forced out over a larp. They continually kept pushing back the effective date over and over and over. Delta and United couldn't justify a couple of million bucks to comply with it, when the frame itself wasn't worth more than a few million. And worth a helluva lot more parting it out.

Part of me feels like the market didn't force the 747 out of the airline lineup. Something else did. Nothing inherently wrong with the 777 or the A330. The A380 is a boondoggle that died before it started. The A340 has massive gas guzzling engines that put out the power of a hair dryer and get weight limited on virtually all summer long hauls due to their hair dryers lacking sufficient power to get off the ground fully loaded in the heat.

Air travel will never be the same without the 747. It is a flying experience unlike any other. You just can't understand unless you've ever been on it. I've been very upset since they were booted.

I've not been on an airplane since this covid nonsense started. I will NEVER wear a mask on a plane. So I simply didn't fly. And now I am swamped and don't have time to fly for now. We used to travel on average every six weeks. I was an enthusiast - always buying tickets based on rate/travel time/airline quality/alternate options if something goes wrong/aircraft type. And I knew the ins and outs of all the travel reward systems...damn near OCD levels...I just stopped cold. Didn't touch it during covid and I've not gotten back into it. Kind of like sports - that's a lifetime activity that was halted cold turkey recently from wokeness.

It used to be (pre-covid and post US airline retirements) you could catch 747 rides in the US on Qantas, British Airways, Lufthansa, & Korean Air. Maybe Air China. But airlines were decimated in 2020/2021. Not sure those birds are out of moth balls. And they might not ever come out...who knows. Very very sad for the aviation fanatics.

7
AllowMeToExplain 7 points ago +7 / -0

I knew this exact story within less than 12 months of the incident. Maybe even sooner. Someone I know was on that plane. In fact, it was not very long ago that I read some theory that she was a target. Her name was Pam Lychner and she was a crusader against sex offenders. Also was pushing Texas to pass sex offender tracking laws...hmm...

The NTSB/FAA knew damn well that the center fuel tank larp was a larp. That is why it wasn't until 2018 - 22 years later - that they finally made the airworthiness directive take effect on 747 center fuel tanks. And was the AD that rid the skies of the 4 holers :(

18
AllowMeToExplain 18 points ago +18 / -0

Yep. Can't just issue some blanket proclamation. "Unknown people who committed yet to be known 'offenses' on jan 6 at the capitol are hereby pardoned!" Not only doesn't work, but would pardon the killer of Ashley Babbitt and other Capitol Police crimes. Plus any other crowd agitators and antifa etc.

We can talk hindsight, but I, for one, never considered the possibility that we would go full Stalin with the DC gulag. Nor that FBI would still be no knock raiding people on the other side of the country because they happened to be in the same city.

If a system is corrupt enough to tell the President “We’re illegally imprisoning and torturing these 300 people, and if you pardon them, we’ll imprison you and thousands more,” it is too corrupt to be bargained with. There are no checks to prevent it from prosecuting the President and his followers anyway.

You could make the same argument re: FBI/Hillary Russia larps. "Why didn't he prosecute these people??"

There are a lot of things I might have done differently if it was me. But there's a helluva lot of shit I am not privy to that might have changed my thoughts if I was aware of all that.

The fact of the matter is that there is no glory in taking a righteous stand that results in being immediately routed. Ya, leaving them out to hang is not an optimal situation. But he didn't cause this, and he didn't send the FBI to bring them all to the gulag. This was plainly all of those goons.

The reason that they didn't ultimately convict Trump is that they were fully aware of the resulting backlash if they did so. Which might have been all for naught, given that you cannot impeach someone not a member of the government. They would have spent substantial political capital on negative results. Just look at what has happened to the people up for re-election that voted to impeach him...not looking so hot for them.

This guy basically thinks that Trump should have taken a righteous stand against insurmountable odds, and allowed them to completely remove him from the game board. This is the battle of hamburger hill, with a cost grossly disproportionate to the benefit, and that loses your war even if you win the fight. Pardoning them, if it were possible, results in a de facto admission of inciting muh erections.

I'm not trying to be insensitive here. It is egregious what they are doing to jan 6 people. It is egregious the horse shit undercover ops these people engineered to generate this result. But the fact of the matter is, people should have known that walking in there or hanging around during the mayhem was an extremely poor idea. Invited in by police or not. They don't deserve this, and they don't deserve any sort of punishment - save for the handful of dickheads that just went nuts doing bad shit. But they put themselves in that position by just going along with the crowd. Trump has no obligation to save them from themselves, no matter how they got in that position. He has an obligation to survive to continue the fight. Period.

1
AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ya, that's like profiling yourself. Of course it wouldn't be on there.

2
AllowMeToExplain 2 points ago +2 / -0

Cuomo is a Clintonista. Obama values loyalty well above and beyond competency. Even if a long shot, he is a threat. Had he not purged Cuomo, it could be Cuomo challenging Biden or Harris (whichever survives to 2024) for the presidency. This is why you scratch your head wondering how dipshits like Bill De Blasio survive when a stuffed shirt with a dart board would accidentally end up making some good decisions by random chance. De Blasio is an Obama acolyte.

Gavin Newsome was attempted to be purged. That was the whole recall thing. It didn't work. He cheated as usual. He is not an Obama acolyte and you can see him similarly positioning himself for a white house run. That isn't going to stand without another run at purging him. So be on the look out for the next attempt. There isn't a lot of time for these guys to knock him out of the way before he gains steam.

2
AllowMeToExplain 2 points ago +2 / -0

Check his accounts. Guaranteed at least 50 mil of that was insta wired back to his offshore Cayman Islands accounts.

16
AllowMeToExplain 16 points ago +18 / -2

Nah. People say what they have to say to keep a certain appearance. Or for self preservation reasons like Cuomo.

Pretty obvious at this point that Garland didn’t authorize this. Possibly Wray as well. This was Hillary black op. They didn’t have any prepared remarks. Which means it didn’t leak out of that inner circle. If they planned this, it was a small group. It didn’t come from the top down. Hence Garland has a brown stained britches record short 4 minute press conference to not take questions about the unprecedented act just done by the FBI. If he didn’t own it, it would only confirm the FBI is rogue. “Ya, wtf? I didn’t tell them to do that…” would only grow the backlash. And they used an Epstein magistrate. If this came from the top, they would have used a district court judge. Not that a magistrate cannot sign these…just that no self respecting magistrate would. You’d kick it up to an appointed and confirmed district court judge - your boss.

Cuomo was purged by Obama. He’s thinking Obama did this and he might be next. He disclaimed it because it looks to most people like it does to us. And that gives an Obama purged ex governor some serious concern.

Pence & McCarthy could not maintain any semblance of credibility by avoiding it or saying anything other than condemnation and joining the chorus.

This is a rare case of reading too much into it. Monumental backlash is not the M.O. of the deep state. They don’t poke you in the eye brazenly like this with their actions in the hopes of tricking you into some other agenda by thinking you are retaliating against them. They trick you into going along with it as being your idea with no subterfuge. Or stealth pulling this shit while pretending no such thing is happening. Deep state doesn’t false flag themselves. That would be a new level of idiocy for an already retarded group.

14
AllowMeToExplain 14 points ago +14 / -0

First, they have to serve a subpoena. Trump's lawyers don't have to accept service for it. Good luck getting past secret service...

Second, a subpoena is not a prohibition on dissemination.

Third, they can be contested.

Fourth, it is not certain that Trump actually has them. He might have access. But a third party might run that for him.

Fifth, you can send a subpoena for anything. Unless its signed by a judge you don't have to comply. You all and I can send a subpoena for the videos. Doesn't mean we will get them.

And he'll have some amount of time to comply with it. If they were actually worried about it, they'd issue another warrant and take it.

7
AllowMeToExplain 7 points ago +7 / -0

What ever happened with the 500 mil in unappropriated CA taxpayer money he sent to a chinese electric car company to buy masks? Did that story die? If not, it should be brought back up again...

26
AllowMeToExplain 26 points ago +29 / -3

I'm sure that something is coming out of this. But ffs why do we tick tock ourselves? I feel like I am in the middle of a timeshare presentation...

2
AllowMeToExplain 2 points ago +2 / -0

ya that was a wholly bizarre event as well. She was completely unqualified for the position. You couldn't even make up any qualifications besides (1) she's alive (2) she's a lawyer; and (3) Bush likes her. Totally insufficient. And big time strange.

view more: Next ›