Cool -- not triggered. Just obsessive. Quite the distinction there, dude. All the better look. Lolz.

I heard that at some point crying little babies finally wind themself, and settle down. Some perhaps not. Double lolz.

Keep up that crying, tards. Triple lolz.

Apparently you give enough of a damn to whine. Lolz. Imagine that. Double lolz.

Im always impressed with the idiots that feel the overriding urge to say how much they dont care. Like a bitchy 6th grader girl yelling to her friends that she really doesnt care. I guess some folks are just too explicitly stupid to learn that lesson from 6th grade bitchy girls. Triple lolz.

How old are you Gemini? Lmao.

Who’s triggered, actually?

…throw that bait out there and that fish takes it every time!!

Every. Single. Time.

It’s almost not fair.

(10-11-2025 05:30 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Every. Single. Time.

Yep. And I was just posting that I don't care. (Because I don't.) What happens? Well, I'm labeled as "triggered" by you-know-who. lol (And I wasn't even responding to him. lol)

I mean seriously, if I was triggered, I'd be acting like a spoiled brat screaming at the sky. Thank God I ain't a spoiled brat.

Oh I like that!

(10-11-2025 05:46 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-11-2025 05:30 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Every. Single. Time.

Yep. And I was just posting that I don't care. (Because I don't.) What happens? Well, I'm labeled as "triggered" by you-know-who. lol (And I wasn't even responding to him. lol)

I mean seriously, if I was triggered, I'd be acting like a spoiled brat screaming at the sky. Thank God I ain't a spoiled brat.

Glad to know your butthurt whiny bitchy schtick above isn’t triggered. Not sure if that helps your cause, dude. You be you.

(10-11-2025 05:52 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

Hell yeah!

I guess he doesn't realize how many of us can't see his posts.

(10-11-2025 06:01 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I guess he doesn't realize how many of us can't see his posts.

I was gonna ask if you heard something, but it was just the sweet ass song stink posted. Nevermind. lol

(10-11-2025 01:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2025 10:46 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2025 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-10-2025 06:39 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-10-2025 06:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Maybe check the facts. The cited portion happened pre- Sept 18. Per the filing.

Your brand new find is noted as Sept 30.

But hey, just try to make one incident into another with zero effort to check any facts. Neat stuff.

Have any more magic tricks for us?

OK, you got me what can I say. Did you have a reason for not adding the 30 Sep. issue to what's going on in Portland? You keep acting like there is no problem in Portland. Listening to you it's all a peaceful protest.

Mentioning the basis for the judges ruling. The ruling on the callup. A callup is judged to be valid or invalid on the date it is made. Callup was made on the 28th.

Acting like no problem? For the vast part, there isnt much violence by the protestors. And, as the evidence showed, there is some. All is managed.

The issue isnt whether "there is no problem". The issue is whether a callup is necessary. The issue is whether the feds and locals are able to manage the issue.

I doubt I have ever said it is *all* a peaceful protest there. Another excursion from fact there Red?

I said you act like it. I never said you said it. Their you go again trying to put words in other peoples mouth.

" isn't much violence"

How much is too much in your book? Like I said the other day, " you want blood in the street" before anything is done.

Good word spaghetti there champ. I list the violent acts, give credit to the violent acts in evidence, but in your world even when listing the actual violence in the record it seems to you as t "listening to [me] it is all a peaceful protest."

Listing and giving credit by my own posts is simply proof positive against that, friend.

Listing the actual violence in the record is, to you, "acting like there is no problem". My listing of the actual incidents that are in the evidentiary record is, once again, kind of simple negation of your shallow rhetoric, friend.

As for your 'putting words in [your] mouth', the italicized above simply arent. And you might note one of them is saying exactl opposite that you note bolded above. Neat second magic trick there, friend.

Quote: How much is too much in your book?

Ill take the predicates in the law for the answer, friend. How much is 'too much' to allow US military in domestic cites -- 1. actual military invasion by a foreign power; 2. actual rebellion within the United States 3. The President totally or near totally unable to enforce Federal law, either by natural disaster, or by state obstruction.

Ill even add a fourth for you : when the governor allows it and cooperates with it.

Quote:Like I said the other day, " you want blood in the street" before anything is done.

The presence of US military operating domestically in the United States is serious 'break glass *ONLY* in event of national or local existential crisis'. Kind of how the Constitutional order and military laws are supposed to work. Kind of based on a notion of literally nearly a quarter millennia of the basic notions of what our Constitutional order means.

Any other questions, my friend? As opposed to your shallow rhetoric above, that is.

The only spaghetti words I hear are the ones coming out of your mouth. All you want to talk about is what's in a Court record that was filed. It's like the laser incident didn't happen because it's not in a court record. You seem to have no problem with anyone obstructing law enforcement for performing their official duties.

You will be proven wrong again when you see the National Guard in Portland and Illinois. Your little quote here is that you don't think it's serious yet. The reason being there has to be blood in the street for it to be serious to you. What else could it be.

"The presence of US military operating domestically in the United States is serious 'break glass *ONLY* in event of national or local existential crisis"

Quote:BREAKING: In a disgusting move, ANTIFA has just forced OHSU hospital in Portland to DIVERT AWAY their air ambulance helicopters because leftists are plotting to shine lasers in the sky.

Their goal is to mess with federal helicopters, but now HOSPITAL helicopters are impacted due to massive safety concerns.

These people are sick.

Portland authorities need to RE-GAIN CONTROL of their city.

Either go in there and take the city back or just say “F you freaks” and let it implode.

(10-11-2025 06:36 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  The only spaghetti words I hear are the ones coming out of your mouth. All you want to talk about is what's in a Court record that was filed.

Yep, its called evidence, and facts. To determine if the callup on Sept 27 was valid.

And its test of whether the callup is valid is 'as of the day of the callup.' Imagine that.

Quote:It's like the laser incident didn't happen because it's not in a court record.

Not at all. Read the above carefully.

If there are very large number of incidents that allow the court to reach any of the following, sure, call them up.

If the incidents add up to: 1. actual military invasion by a foreign power; 2. actual rebellion within the United States 3. The President totally or near totally unable to enforce Federal law, either by natural disaster, or by state obstruction -- then call them up.

And once again --- again -- Ill even add a fourth for you : when the governor allows it and cooperates with it.

Quote:You seem to have no problem with anyone obstructing law enforcement for performing their official duties.

I have never said. If folks obstruct law enforcement sufficient to invoke the Federal criminal law -- charge them.

The issue isnt 'Have no problem with anyone obstructing law enforcement.' Please stop with the stupid strawman expansions.

The issue is whether it is proper to call up the military for use in the domestic United States. Not your strawman above.

Quote: You will be proven wrong again when you see the National Guard in Portland and Illinois. Your little quote here is that you don't think it's serious yet. The reason being there has to be blood in the street for it to be serious to you. What else could it be.

Having US military in the streets of US cities is a pretty big deal. Im glad you think it should be done because someone is shining laser pointers, from what I can gather above. That is a really asinine rationale to se for that step.

And, hate to tell you, for many folks it shouldnt occur as a result of 'something MIGHT happen.' Given that level, there is no lower bound on a fing stupid order to callup the military and send them into the streets. I would suspect that even the stupidest person might see the problem with the 'it might happen' standard.

But apparently many Trump glorifiers seem okey dokey with the 'hey, someting MIGHT happen, send in the 82nd Airborne'.

Quote: "The presence of US military operating domestically in the United States is serious 'break glass *ONLY* in event of national or local existential crisis"

Funny, that has been the traditional outlook. And the explicit outlook of our founding fathers. And quite honestly the words in the enabling statutes conform to that level as well.

Its just a bunch of Trump dogma slurpers that at the present seem to be off put by that comment italicized.

And those people who seem to be Trump dogma slurpers seem to be offput by my standards to do so, outlined above as 1, 2, and 3. Which pretty much track the Federal statutes.

Cool cool.

Do *you* think opposite of the italicized, and think any stupid kneejerk reason short of an existential threat, either nationally or localized, is a good one to send in Delta Force, the 1st Marine Division, and/or the 10th Mountain Division?

As an aside, next time, try to use my actual words, and actual positions, instead of a bunch of strawman superlatives with a mode up position. Just saying.

"Use my actual words." That's rich. You often misrepresent what I post. You've done it 2 or 3 times in the past week. You do that with lots of folks.