(04-23-2025 06:10 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 05:16 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 05:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Thanks for answering the question. "Nope"

They didn't have access to all the videos but just the ones the government wanted to present.

Care to prove up that assertion/ conjecture/ assumption bolded above?

You answered your own question above.

"Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?

"Nope"

Nope.

If *you* want to state there is a due process issue, show it up. My saying anything on the subject doesnt do that. *I* dont have a clue as to everything in the world. Which is what was asked.

You made an assertion, then you prove your assertion. Easy peasy.

Or simply say that you are pulling that assumption and assertion out of your ass.

"Or simply say that you are pulling that assumption and assertion out of your ass"

You sound upset.

Pointing out a factual issue is now upset. Cool cool.

(04-23-2025 06:18 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:24 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:37 AM)hoopfan Wrote:  Illegal aliens are not Americans. Blindly throw them out at will.

It’s as simple as that

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Its as simple as *that*, champ.

I find it really odd how the people who complain about others not following the Constitution, how others are trying to destroy the Constitution, how others ignore the Constitution -- are now too stupid as not understand that simple quote above, and seemingly champion not following the Constitution.

They *wrap* themselves as the champions of the Constitution -- then seemingly go out of their way to piss on it, most notably and currently the above. lmao.

I’ve demonstrated on several occasions it’s actually not simple.

You've demonstrated in pretty much every occasion that in some form, it is that simple.

And in the AG case, SCOTUS (18-0) (and two district judges, and 6 Appeals Judges)
have said that for AG -- due process was violated.

And for the attempt to use the AEA, SCOTUS and four individual district judges have said it is that simple -- have to give notice, have to give a hearing).

And Ive plopped two different cases in front of you terming that Due Process must be accorded even in terms of an ERH -- and that failure to abide by the boundaries defined in 8 CFR is a failure of due process.

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Yeah, its that simple.

(04-23-2025 06:25 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 03:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For all the people who back the Trump position on Abrego in particular to the end, a really quick question.

What would each or any of you think if the Trump administration engaged in diplomatic discussions with El Salvador to bring back AG? (just as a hypothetical exercise, of course).

Would you change your tune? Get mad? Oppose it? Welcome it? Be disappointed with the Administration?

Using this hypothetical to understand the opposition here, is it a true belief that AG shouldnt be afforded due process in the determination to rendition him? Support Trump no matter what? Hate having anyone not born in the this country being around?

Not trying to bait your individual convictions. Trying to understand why it is so important to deny such due process rights to AG.

Is this an exercise in futility?

Either way! He comes back just to be deported again.

Hypothetically he is an American citizen that has no ties to El Salvador nor MS 13.

This is a fun game

Hypothetically there are no cartels in Mexico and no drugs nor human trafficking is happening.

I see your angle it’s like in an alternate world where hypotheticals exist and we can agree and be likeminded. NOT

What would you say to a fact that the Trump administration has engaged in diplomatic discussions with El Salvador to bring back AG, then?

(04-23-2025 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 05:16 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 05:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Nope. Showing your comments are full of supposition, speculation, coulds, and mights.


The record is full of three things.

The state showing video of them in the trial setting. Which each defendant has the full right, and ability, to challenge that proffered video.

Them asking for all video that the government has of that particular defendant. No surprise video has been sprung on a defendant. And to the opposite, if you have particularized knowledge of video that the government has, was not revealed at the trial of a defendant, was asked for by a defendant, and not turned over to a defendant -- I am all ears.

Thanks for answering the question. "Nope"

They didn't have access to all the videos but just the ones the government wanted to present.

Care to prove up that assertion/ conjecture/ assumption bolded above?

You answered your own question above.

"Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?

"Nope"

Nope.

If *you* want to state there is a due process issue, show it up. My saying anything on the subject doesnt do that. *I* dont have a clue as to everything in the world. Which is what was asked.

You made an assertion, then you prove your assertion. Easy peasy.

Or simply say that you are pulling that assumption and assertion out of your ass.

You had Posted this and stated it as facts. So I replied to your stated facts. Have a good evening Tanq.

Not an opinion. Simple facts.

let me pose them to you. A simple yes/no for each line will suffice.

Did each J6er charged with one or more crimes have:

1. notice of what they are being charged with?
2. the ability to challenge the arrests and charges?
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
4. the ability to present their own evidence?
5. the ability to assert the right to quick trial, if they did not waive the statute?
6. the ability to have a right of trial by jury, if not waived?
7. the ability to be represented by counsel?

(04-23-2025 07:22 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 05:16 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 05:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Thanks for answering the question. "Nope"

They didn't have access to all the videos but just the ones the government wanted to present.

Care to prove up that assertion/ conjecture/ assumption bolded above?

You answered your own question above.

"Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?

"Nope"

Nope.

If *you* want to state there is a due process issue, show it up. My saying anything on the subject doesnt do that. *I* dont have a clue as to everything in the world. Which is what was asked.

You made an assertion, then you prove your assertion. Easy peasy.

Or simply say that you are pulling that assumption and assertion out of your ass.

You had Posted this and stated it as facts. So I replied to your stated facts. Have a good evening Tanq.

Not an opinion. Simple facts.

let me pose them to you. A simple yes/no for each line will suffice.

Did each J6er charged with one or more crimes have:

1. notice of what they are being charged with?
2. the ability to challenge the arrests and charges?
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
4. the ability to present their own evidence?
5. the ability to assert the right to quick trial, if they did not waive the statute?
6. the ability to have a right of trial by jury, if not waived?
7. the ability to be represented by counsel?

You state (without any evidence whatsoever) that position. Cool cool. That is the fact, sir.

And that is the by far majority position and stance on this board -- yelp 'no due process' at any insigation whatsoever for J6ers, and when pressed for evidence on that issue run away from act, substituting assertions, maybes, mights, coulds, and everything else under the sun for actual facts of the matter. Double cool cool.

Hey, what’s up Nazi’s, just checking in.

Saw your orange god along with that dumb as rocks AG, are working on appealing sections of the civil rights act of 1964! Please, just guess which title they are going after first? Guess?


That’s right, What's Title VI! And do y'all know what Title VI does?

"prohibits discrimination against or otherwise excluding individuals on the basis of race, color, or national origin"

You crazy old racists are definitely trying to re-segregate the country. Why? Well, obviously the hate of all minorities, but also to keep lying to yourselves by thinking you’re better than others. Because, if you don’t ever have to compete with them, you can keep thinking you’re smarter, stronger, better, etc.

Anyway, carry on your conversation about sending innocent people to a concentration camp on foreign soil. Didn’t mean to interrupt.

Ex-Dem Rep Harold Ford said on The Five today that illegal aliens should not have the same due process rights as American citizens, and SCOTUS needs to define exactly what it should be. The sooner the better.

That means the argument that "all persons" deserve due process is not a settled matter, even among some politicians on the Dem side.

And I remind again where I stepped into this debate, by posting Miller's position, which seems of some merit to me, b/c I recall a lot of complaints from the right then.

Nobody has the 100% high ground here.

(04-23-2025 06:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 06:18 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:24 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:37 AM)hoopfan Wrote:  Illegal aliens are not Americans. Blindly throw them out at will.

It’s as simple as that

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Its as simple as *that*, champ.

I find it really odd how the people who complain about others not following the Constitution, how others are trying to destroy the Constitution, how others ignore the Constitution -- are now too stupid as not understand that simple quote above, and seemingly champion not following the Constitution.

They *wrap* themselves as the champions of the Constitution -- then seemingly go out of their way to piss on it, most notably and currently the above. lmao.

I’ve demonstrated on several occasions it’s actually not simple.

You've demonstrated in pretty much every occasion that in some form, it is that simple.

And in the AG case, SCOTUS (18-0) (and two district judges, and 6 Appeals Judges)
have said that for AG -- due process was violated.

And for the attempt to use the AEA, SCOTUS and four individual district judges have said it is that simple -- have to give notice, have to give a hearing).

And Ive plopped two different cases in front of you terming that Due Process must be accorded even in terms of an ERH -- and that failure to abide by the boundaries defined in 8 CFR is a failure of due process.

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Yeah, its that simple.

It’s not that simple. I believe you and I generally believe that due process is inherently applicable in immigration settings. But I think we might disagree on what constitutes due process in an immigration setting especially for illegal aliens. Or moreover what depth and degree of due process should be warranted in such settings.

Expedited removal makes clear that due process, in those scenarios, does not warrant a hearing or judicial approval, trial, or any other court proceeding.

(04-23-2025 06:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 06:25 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 03:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For all the people who back the Trump position on Abrego in particular to the end, a really quick question.

What would each or any of you think if the Trump administration engaged in diplomatic discussions with El Salvador to bring back AG? (just as a hypothetical exercise, of course).

Would you change your tune? Get mad? Oppose it? Welcome it? Be disappointed with the Administration?

Using this hypothetical to understand the opposition here, is it a true belief that AG shouldnt be afforded due process in the determination to rendition him? Support Trump no matter what? Hate having anyone not born in the this country being around?

Not trying to bait your individual convictions. Trying to understand why it is so important to deny such due process rights to AG.

Is this an exercise in futility?

Either way! He comes back just to be deported again.

Hypothetically he is an American citizen that has no ties to El Salvador nor MS 13.

This is a fun game

Hypothetically there are no cartels in Mexico and no drugs nor human trafficking is happening.

I see your angle it’s like in an alternate world where hypotheticals exist and we can agree and be likeminded. NOT

What would you say to a fact that the Trump administration has engaged in diplomatic discussions with El Salvador to bring back AG, then?

Really don’t care because I know it’s not Trump. Just trying to placate the judicial branch.

SC better wake up. We can’t afford millions of illegals due process at a snail pace especially when these illegals are not allowed to work.

(04-23-2025 08:42 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 06:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 06:18 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:24 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  It’s as simple as that

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Its as simple as *that*, champ.

I find it really odd how the people who complain about others not following the Constitution, how others are trying to destroy the Constitution, how others ignore the Constitution -- are now too stupid as not understand that simple quote above, and seemingly champion not following the Constitution.

They *wrap* themselves as the champions of the Constitution -- then seemingly go out of their way to piss on it, most notably and currently the above. lmao.

I’ve demonstrated on several occasions it’s actually not simple.

You've demonstrated in pretty much every occasion that in some form, it is that simple.

And in the AG case, SCOTUS (18-0) (and two district judges, and 6 Appeals Judges)
have said that for AG -- due process was violated.

And for the attempt to use the AEA, SCOTUS and four individual district judges have said it is that simple -- have to give notice, have to give a hearing).

And Ive plopped two different cases in front of you terming that Due Process must be accorded even in terms of an ERH -- and that failure to abide by the boundaries defined in 8 CFR is a failure of due process.

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Yeah, its that simple.

It’s not that simple. I believe you and I generally believe that due process is inherently applicable in immigration settings. But I think we might disagree on what constitutes due process in an immigration setting especially for illegal aliens. Or moreover what depth and degree of due process should be warranted in such settings.

Expedited removal makes clear that due process, in those scenarios, does not warrant a hearing or judicial approval, trial, or any other court proceeding.

Pretty much what they were debating on The Five today.

(04-23-2025 08:23 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Hey, what’s up Nazi’s, just checking in.

Saw your orange god along with that dumb as rocks AG, are working on appealing sections of the civil rights act of 1964! Please, just guess which title they are going after first? Guess?


That’s right, What's Title VI! And do y'all know what Title VI does?

"prohibits discrimination against or otherwise excluding individuals on the basis of race, color, or national origin"

You crazy old racists are definitely trying to re-segregate the country. Why? Well, obviously the hate of all minorities, but also to keep lying to yourselves by thinking you’re better than others. Because, if you don’t ever have to compete with them, you can keep thinking you’re smarter, stronger, better, etc.

Anyway, carry on your conversation about sending innocent people to a concentration camp on foreign soil. Didn’t mean to interrupt.

dgaf if ewe click or not...

but it easily applies to ewe ding dongs...

(04-23-2025 08:42 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 06:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 06:18 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:24 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  It’s as simple as that

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Its as simple as *that*, champ.

I find it really odd how the people who complain about others not following the Constitution, how others are trying to destroy the Constitution, how others ignore the Constitution -- are now too stupid as not understand that simple quote above, and seemingly champion not following the Constitution.

They *wrap* themselves as the champions of the Constitution -- then seemingly go out of their way to piss on it, most notably and currently the above. lmao.

I’ve demonstrated on several occasions it’s actually not simple.

You've demonstrated in pretty much every occasion that in some form, it is that simple.

And in the AG case, SCOTUS (18-0) (and two district judges, and 6 Appeals Judges)
have said that for AG -- due process was violated.

And for the attempt to use the AEA, SCOTUS and four individual district judges have said it is that simple -- have to give notice, have to give a hearing).

And Ive plopped two different cases in front of you terming that Due Process must be accorded even in terms of an ERH -- and that failure to abide by the boundaries defined in 8 CFR is a failure of due process.

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Yeah, its that simple.

It’s not that simple. I believe you and I generally believe that due process is inherently applicable in immigration settings. But I think we might disagree on what constitutes due process in an immigration setting especially for illegal aliens. Or moreover what depth and degree of due process should be warranted in such settings.

Expedited removal makes clear that due process, in those scenarios, does not warrant a hearing or judicial approval, trial, or any other court proceeding.

Correct on *court* proceeding. Every bit of 8 CFR 253 outlines the minimal boundaries of due process that *must* be followed -- even without a court setting.

I think the issue is that you are locked on to some *requirement* of a *court*.

To the exclusion of all the other aspects of due process even in that very minimal setting.

Its simple. Even in the most minimal aspect, *some* due process is required.

A hearing (need not be court, can be the officer, with the sign off of his supervisor).

Notice (the form that must be signed by the detainee, saying that they are aware of what is happening)

Right to see evidence against them (that same form).

Right to counter evidence (again, same form, detailing anything the detainee might say in their favor).

Right to counsel, if the detainee can get one.

I will absolutely agree that for puposes of ERH, the above is sufficient for due process purposes. No fight from me on that.

I think our disagreement occurs in the context of the current AEA issues, and for Abgrego in particular.

In every time that has hit the courts so far, they have ruled (sometimes in a preliminary aspect) that NO due process was afforded. And that *some* should be.

And interestingly when it comes to brass tacks, it appears that the DHS tried to do a 'whack a mole' (or as US District judge this week labeled a 'shell game') with the SCOTUS order that did come down, and also attempted to do a first move to spirit the last group away from a standing order to a district that didnt have one in place.

Those moves (which one Federal judge in yet another district characterized the notice and 'waiver' moves that reared their heads in Anson as a 'dodge'), and the entire structure of the government being noted as 'untruthful', 'deliberate evasions', and 'willful and intentional noncompliance' by another judge.

Again -- there is an easy way to do this, for all parties.

Do. It. The. Right. Way.

Apparently that seemingly cannot be part of the thought process in the Trump administration, or Noem. I hope that the mid-level and lower level personnel at DHS and ICE note the apparent lawlessness that unfortunately seems to be the calling card that is being more and more associated with them these days -- by no less than the judiciary itself.

(04-23-2025 08:52 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 06:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 06:25 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 03:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For all the people who back the Trump position on Abrego in particular to the end, a really quick question.

What would each or any of you think if the Trump administration engaged in diplomatic discussions with El Salvador to bring back AG? (just as a hypothetical exercise, of course).

Would you change your tune? Get mad? Oppose it? Welcome it? Be disappointed with the Administration?

Using this hypothetical to understand the opposition here, is it a true belief that AG shouldnt be afforded due process in the determination to rendition him? Support Trump no matter what? Hate having anyone not born in the this country being around?

Not trying to bait your individual convictions. Trying to understand why it is so important to deny such due process rights to AG.

Is this an exercise in futility?

Either way! He comes back just to be deported again.

Hypothetically he is an American citizen that has no ties to El Salvador nor MS 13.

This is a fun game

Hypothetically there are no cartels in Mexico and no drugs nor human trafficking is happening.

I see your angle it’s like in an alternate world where hypotheticals exist and we can agree and be likeminded. NOT

What would you say to a fact that the Trump administration has engaged in diplomatic discussions with El Salvador to bring back AG, then?

Really don’t care because I know it’s not Trump. Just trying to placate the judicial branch.

SC better wake up. We can’t afford millions of illegals due process at a snail pace especially when these illegals are not allowed to work.

SC "better wake up" and shitcan due process? That is a neat idea. Lolz.

(04-23-2025 08:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Ex-Dem Rep Harold Ford said on The Five today that illegal aliens should not have the same due process rights as American citizens, and SCOTUS needs to define exactly what it should be. The sooner the better.

That means the argument that "all persons" deserve due process is not a settled matter, even among some politicians on the Dem side.

And I remind again where I stepped into this debate, by posting Miller's position, which seems of some merit to me, b/c I recall a lot of complaints from the right then.

Nobody has the 100% high ground here.

You are highly confused between the concept of 'all people' and the amount of due process afforded to different classes within 'people'.

The issue isnt 'some get more than others' -- that is a given. Has been for literally centuries. No one is debating that.

The issue is 'some' vs 'none', champ.

Leave it to the idiot who parrots Miller about J6 never received due process, and doesnt have the level of thought process to even name *what* due process (if any) the J6ers were denied, let alone cannot name any instance of the same Miller squawk. Good fing grief.

But since it makes the applesauce minds feel all warm and comfy to say 'J6ers werent afforded due process' as the retarded level comeback to this, let the applesaucers keep repeating that blindly. Lolz.

(04-23-2025 09:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 08:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Ex-Dem Rep Harold Ford said on The Five today that illegal aliens should not have the same due process rights as American citizens, and SCOTUS needs to define exactly what it should be. The sooner the better.

That means the argument that "all persons" deserve due process is not a settled matter, even among some politicians on the Dem side.

And I remind again where I stepped into this debate, by posting Miller's position, which seems of some merit to me, b/c I recall a lot of complaints from the right then.

Nobody has the 100% high ground here.

You are highly confused between the concept of 'all people' and the amount of due process afforded to different classes within 'people'.

The issue isnt 'some get more than others' -- that is a given. Has been for literally centuries. No one is debating that.

The issue is 'some' vs 'none', champ.

Leave it to the idiot who parrots Miller about J6 never received due process, and doesnt have the level of thought process to even name *what* due process (if any) the J6ers were denied, let alone cannot name any instance of the same Miller squawk. Good fing grief.

But since it makes the applesauce minds feel all warm and comfy to say 'J6ers werent afforded due process' as the retarded level comeback to this, let the applesaucers keep repeating that blindly. Lolz.

I'm not highly confused about anything, Clarence. I'll just take Miller's knowledge on the subject over yours.

And as usual, you skip the points I make, insult me, and act like you know everything and nobody else does. Cool cool.

(04-23-2025 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 08:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Ex-Dem Rep Harold Ford said on The Five today that illegal aliens should not have the same due process rights as American citizens, and SCOTUS needs to define exactly what it should be. The sooner the better.

That means the argument that "all persons" deserve due process is not a settled matter, even among some politicians on the Dem side.

And I remind again where I stepped into this debate, by posting Miller's position, which seems of some merit to me, b/c I recall a lot of complaints from the right then.

Nobody has the 100% high ground here.

You are highly confused between the concept of 'all people' and the amount of due process afforded to different classes within 'people'.

The issue isnt 'some get more than others' -- that is a given. Has been for literally centuries. No one is debating that.

The issue is 'some' vs 'none', champ.

Leave it to the idiot who parrots Miller about J6 never received due process, and doesnt have the level of thought process to even name *what* due process (if any) the J6ers were denied, let alone cannot name any instance of the same Miller squawk. Good fing grief.

But since it makes the applesauce minds feel all warm and comfy to say 'J6ers werent afforded due process' as the retarded level comeback to this, let the applesaucers keep repeating that blindly. Lolz.

I'm not highly confused about anything, Clarence. I'll just take Miller's knowledge on the subject over yours.

And as usual, you skip the points I make, insult me, and act like you know everything and nobody else does. Cool cool.

"This unique combination of traits makes a narcissistic sociopath especially difficult to deal with. For example, a narcissistic sociopath displays a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, often presenting as an exaggerated sense of self-importance. Typically, narcissistic sociopaths have an extreme need to be admired for their beauty, intelligence, success, or other positive traits.

Likewise, narcissistic sociopaths believe they are unique in many ways and that others should admire them for their specialness. Because they think they are special, they also believe that only other special people can truly understand them."

(04-23-2025 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 08:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Ex-Dem Rep Harold Ford said on The Five today that illegal aliens should not have the same due process rights as American citizens, and SCOTUS needs to define exactly what it should be. The sooner the better.

That means the argument that "all persons" deserve due process is not a settled matter, even among some politicians on the Dem side.

And I remind again where I stepped into this debate, by posting Miller's position, which seems of some merit to me, b/c I recall a lot of complaints from the right then.

Nobody has the 100% high ground here.

You are highly confused between the concept of 'all people' and the amount of due process afforded to different classes within 'people'.

The issue isnt 'some get more than others' -- that is a given. Has been for literally centuries. No one is debating that.

The issue is 'some' vs 'none', champ.

Leave it to the idiot who parrots Miller about J6 never received due process, and doesnt have the level of thought process to even name *what* due process (if any) the J6ers were denied, let alone cannot name any instance of the same Miller squawk. Good fing grief.

But since it makes the applesauce minds feel all warm and comfy to say 'J6ers werent afforded due process' as the retarded level comeback to this, let the applesaucers keep repeating that blindly. Lolz.

I'm not highly confused about anything, Clarence. I'll just take Miller's knowledge on the subject over yours.

Yes, you exhibit quite clearly the sheer ability to follow blindly. Good for you.

Quote:And as usual, you skip the points I make, insult me, and act like you know everything and nobody else does. Cool cool.

Asking you to name a *single* instance of 'J6er not receiving due process' seems to be quite the fing stretch for you. How insulting to bring up that fact.

The 'point you make' is just repeating the fktard 'whadabout'. With no substantiation at all in it. About par for you, and that seems to be the level that you understand.

Yeah, that is horribly insulting. I am glad that at least you can discern that tying you to that fktard style of blind response is insulting. Lolz.

(04-23-2025 10:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 08:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Ex-Dem Rep Harold Ford said on The Five today that illegal aliens should not have the same due process rights as American citizens, and SCOTUS needs to define exactly what it should be. The sooner the better.

That means the argument that "all persons" deserve due process is not a settled matter, even among some politicians on the Dem side.

And I remind again where I stepped into this debate, by posting Miller's position, which seems of some merit to me, b/c I recall a lot of complaints from the right then.

Nobody has the 100% high ground here.

You are highly confused between the concept of 'all people' and the amount of due process afforded to different classes within 'people'.

The issue isnt 'some get more than others' -- that is a given. Has been for literally centuries. No one is debating that.

The issue is 'some' vs 'none', champ.

Leave it to the idiot who parrots Miller about J6 never received due process, and doesnt have the level of thought process to even name *what* due process (if any) the J6ers were denied, let alone cannot name any instance of the same Miller squawk. Good fing grief.

But since it makes the applesauce minds feel all warm and comfy to say 'J6ers werent afforded due process' as the retarded level comeback to this, let the applesaucers keep repeating that blindly. Lolz.

I'm not highly confused about anything, Clarence. I'll just take Miller's knowledge on the subject over yours.

And as usual, you skip the points I make, insult me, and act like you know everything and nobody else does. Cool cool.

"This unique combination of traits makes a narcissistic sociopath especially difficult to deal with. For example, a narcissistic sociopath displays a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, often presenting as an exaggerated sense of self-importance. Typically, narcissistic sociopaths have an extreme need to be admired for their beauty, intelligence, success, or other positive traits.

Likewise, narcissistic sociopaths believe they are unique in many ways and that others should admire them for their specialness. Because they think they are special, they also believe that only other special people can truly understand them."

What does the psychiatrist say about internet keyboard masters who seemingly have an obsession in a chat forum to play cyber AR-15 soldier wannabes who seemingly obsess over shooting people with their toy soldier wannabe digital personas? Lolz.

(04-23-2025 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 08:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Ex-Dem Rep Harold Ford said on The Five today that illegal aliens should not have the same due process rights as American citizens, and SCOTUS needs to define exactly what it should be. The sooner the better.

That means the argument that "all persons" deserve due process is not a settled matter, even among some politicians on the Dem side.

And I remind again where I stepped into this debate, by posting Miller's position, which seems of some merit to me, b/c I recall a lot of complaints from the right then.

Nobody has the 100% high ground here.

You are highly confused between the concept of 'all people' and the amount of due process afforded to different classes within 'people'.

The issue isnt 'some get more than others' -- that is a given. Has been for literally centuries. No one is debating that.

The issue is 'some' vs 'none', champ.

Leave it to the idiot who parrots Miller about J6 never received due process, and doesnt have the level of thought process to even name *what* due process (if any) the J6ers were denied, let alone cannot name any instance of the same Miller squawk. Good fing grief.

But since it makes the applesauce minds feel all warm and comfy to say 'J6ers werent afforded due process' as the retarded level comeback to this, let the applesaucers keep repeating that blindly. Lolz.

I'm not highly confused about anything, Clarence. I'll just take Miller's knowledge on the subject over yours.

And as usual, you skip the points I make, insult me, and act like you know everything and nobody else does. Cool cool.

"This unique combination of traits makes a narcissistic sociopath especially difficult to deal with. For example, a narcissistic sociopath displays a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, often presenting as an exaggerated sense of self-importance. Typically, narcissistic sociopaths have an extreme need to be admired for their beauty, intelligence, success, or other positive traits.

Likewise, narcissistic sociopaths believe they are unique in many ways and that others should admire them for their specialness. Because they think they are special, they also believe that only other special people can truly understand them."

What does the psychiatrist say about internet keyboard masters who seemingly have an obsession in a chat forum to play cyber AR-15 soldier wannabes who seemingly obsess over shooting people with their toy soldier wannabe digital personas? Lolz.

I think you just played yourself.

(04-23-2025 08:23 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Hey, what’s up Nazi’s, just checking in.

Saw your orange god along with that dumb as rocks AG, are working on appealing sections of the civil rights act of 1964! Please, just guess which title they are going after first? Guess?


That’s right, What's Title VI! And do y'all know what Title VI does?

"prohibits discrimination against or otherwise excluding individuals on the basis of race, color, or national origin"

You crazy old racists are definitely trying to re-segregate the country. Why? Well, obviously the hate of all minorities, but also to keep lying to yourselves by thinking you’re better than others. Because, if you don’t ever have to compete with them, you can keep thinking you’re smarter, stronger, better, etc.

Anyway, carry on your conversation about sending innocent people to a concentration camp on foreign soil. Didn’t mean to interrupt.

I love how you keep calling us Nazis, yet you seem to not know what it means. Here. Let me educate you. Let's take the actual Nazi Party platform and compare it to that of today's Democrat Party.