Bwaaaahahahahaha! You are just so silly. Tantrum time! I think someone needs some juice and a nap.
If they arrest Trump, they will make you more angry, and more insane and dishonest than ever, but little more.

Trump is not a Jedi, he’s a Sith. When you strike down a Sith, they do not become more powerful than you could possibly imagine, they go back to the darkness.

Trump’s appeal has waned, the shine is off that penny but good. You just can’t see it because your face is smashed hard into his grey pubic hair. Even most Republicans want him to go away….and don’t care how. Everyone else wants him under the prison for life to prove laws still matter.

Edit: since this hint at prosecution and the resulting online tantrum, more Republican leaders have come out to endorse DeSantis over Trump despite the fact that DeSantis isn’t running for president. He’s not getting more popular yet.

You know full well that many of the investigations and charges come from well before Biden was elected, many were deferred while Dementia Don was in office until he became a private citizen. Lie to yourself that Biden’s administration has anything to do with any charge, (he’s been quite hands off the justice department unlike Trump that saw and used it as his personal law firm) but you aren’t convincing anyone of anything besides your own gullibility and ignorance, not that Biden’s involvement would matter, no law says he can’t be involved…that’s the bar Trump set.

Even the conservative members of the grand jury in Georgia have said if you knew what they know, even you wouldn’t support Trump anymore. I know that’s not true, absolutely nothing could make you see the reality of Trump’s proven, even admitted criminality, but most people aren’t as delusional as you. Trump is ahead in the polls….ahead of every other declared candidate….Mariam Williamson, Corey Stapleton, Vickey Ramaswamy, and Nikki Haley…only line straddler Haley has any recognition and she’s got zero chance…wait for a real candidate before declaring victory, this is like him playing the first round of golf at his club and declaring himself the course record holder.

Desperate fascists willing to do anything to cling to power….you’re talking about MAGA on Jan 6, right? So many guilty pleas for violent sedition by intolerant white nationalists who admit they were attempting to steal an election for Trump…but you say it wasn’t violent or seditious so nothing to see here, laws have no meaning. 🤦‍♂️

BTW- Joe Tacopina, Trump’s criminal defense attorney consulted with Daniels in 2018 about this issue, which means by law he SHALL NOT represent a client with interests opposed to the “perspective client” (even if no representation/retainment occurs) in the same or a substantially related matter, nor shall any attorney in any law firm the disqualified attorney is associated with. Enjoy Habba as lead counsel! ROTFLMFAHS!!!
Edit: my mistake, he’s not using Habba, he’s using the same attorney that lost all 17 felony counts against the same DA against the Trump orgs and got his CFO put in prison. It just keeps getting better.

And big surprise, since the MAGA Supreme Court can’t discover which MAGA justice leaked Dobbs, Trump is calling for life in prison for the reporter that printed the story because he doesn’t understand or care about the law, constitution, or reality.
FYI- There was no law broken by printing it, only ethics rules broken by the MAGA justice that leaked it.

BTW, that’s the same dismissive, ignorant, just deny the issue stupidity you tried on the 10 year old rape victim that had to cross state lines to save her own life from the rapist’s spawn growing inside her tiny body.
That didn’t turn out well for your disgusting lying fascist side that’s legislating their (im)morals onto everyone.

Just like then, this is EXACTLY what Texas law is, except for the phone call, because Greg already pre-decided….no abortion is necessary for anyone ever…no exceptions. 9 year old girl raped by dad with a brainless Cronenberg growing inside them, killing them in the process…no abortion. Not if she was raped by satan in an involuntary blood orgy and has the antichrist inside her…she still must carry it to full term.

These are the same people who are trying to turn America into a born again Christian theocracy, want public funds for religious schools (only Christian schools though) who absolutely do not understand this country, freedom, or self determination, or the ban on government respecting an establishment of religion. (Hint, it means 1. there can be no official religion and 2. there can be no law that gives precedent or special treatment to any religion).
This is your team. I’m sure, if Ilhan Oman tried the exact same thing (but with Islam) you would be prepared to burn mosques and madrasas across the nation and deport all Muslims just from the suggestion.

Yes, Missouri. The unhinged ignorant governor wants to prosecute reporters for viewing source data, but there’s no law about this, no hacking required, just a left click, and despite the governor’s politically motivated attempts to force a case, the prosecutor has declined to file any charges against the reporter who noticed and reported that the government website had publicly posted the social security numbers of every teacher in the state….likely because the only crime was on the government’s part….including the continuing politically motivated retaliatory investigations against the reporter who discovered this inexcusable lapse in security under the governor’s nose.

He (the prosecutor) should file charges against the website administrator for exposing 100000 teachers to identity theft, and the governor for abuse of power for trying to prosecute the whistleblower for reporting the non existent security to the government, he even held off publishing his report to give the school system time to fix the issue before it became public knowledge.

Anyone surprised the governor is a Republican, a moron, is more than willing to abuse his power to try to avoid embarrassment for his administrations incompetence, and has absolutely zero idea of how websites, the internet, meta data, or hacking work, or in many cases what they even are (probably thinks the internet is a bunch of tubes, hackers use hatchets, and that meta data is secret proprietary data)?

Sweet zombie Jesus, these morons get worse daily….I think Trump secretly requires them to eat >1gram of pure lead per day. Stupider by the minute.

It is law enforcement's responsibility and job to protect and serve. The police are suppose to uphold the law and respect the citizens of the community. It is disrespectful to put your hands on someone and especially disturbing to put your hands on a pregnant woman. This also goes against de-escalation training that law enforcement professionals should already have.

Police responding to a scene are paid professionals doing a job. They are owed no respect. There is no law that mandates police receive any respect. The first amendment freedom of speech grants the right to every citizen to express their feeling no matter how disrespectful to the police.

These officers were out of line. They entered a scene where no crime was being committed and immediately took one side and used excessive force. It is a fact that the highest rate of excessive force and death cause by police is against black women. Black women are killed at a higher rate by police then black men. Black women are abused by police at a higher rate then any other demographic.

Respect is earned. Police in america have no intention of even trying earn respect and do not deserve it. Settlements are the only bright spot and one will be paid.

Fake news is strong.

No law professors.

These are from Woman studies and other useless professors.


This fool is standing hope and not Constitutional obligations.

Following on from above.

I didn't say you quoted me or anything about me. It was a "warning". My argument might have lead people to believe that I was against gun control. I gave the warning that it would be dumb to make any assumptions. I can't quite see how you missed this.

If you think it is not dumb to make assumptions, please let me know.

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

You don't know whether advocates care if other arms are regulated. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say you are very wrong.

Gun control means whatever the group in control wants it to mean. Anything else is false. If they want it to mean taking away all of your guns, then that is what it is.

Constitutional amendments can indeed be changed. It is very, very difficult to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Your video, Abandoned city in America with no laws, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Technically, neither party should be using religion for anything. Religion is supposed to be separate from the state. Our founders said this, our bill of rights backs it up, and that is the way it should have been.

Unfortunately, it seeps in. In God We Trust was never on money until a reverend asked that it be added to the two cent piece during the civil war. It didn't appear on paper money until the 1950's when President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. It went on to be considered a side motto to E Pluribus Unum because of continued pressure.

Under God was not part of the pledge of allegiance until in 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s urging, the Congress legislated that “under God” be added.

Both of these broke the guidelines set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They should have never happened but religious Judges keep allowing them under the pretext of Accommodationism, in that as long as they don't specifically recognize or benefit a 'single' religion they can be considered to be OK. They shouldn't be allowed. Churches should have to pay taxes on profits. Priests should be held by the same laws the rest of us are held by. But because of religious fanatics, we allow the blending of church and state. Many would say, to our detriment.

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.

The reason for the Heaven and Earth part is to reaffirm what He said in the previous verse, which is that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. He is saying the law cannot be destroyed. The reason He was strongly reaffirming that is because that is exactly what the Pharisees accused Him of doing.

As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

lol

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

The law is not everything, but the context of that statement is that He is fulfilling the law. The "all" then is all that which is written for Him to fulfill. An example that ties in would be in Luke 4:21

Also, a main piece you are skipping over is where Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law but fulfill it. That tells you the meaning of what He is talking about. He is definitely saying that the law can be fulfilled, and it can be fulfilled by Him. This is the meaning of the text, that He had come to fulfill it and would (and did) fulfill it.

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

He didn't oppose Gods law, He brought something into the situation that had never been there before, which is grace. Since He is the Lord, He can do that. That is exactly what He came to earth to do, which is to bring forgiveness and salvation by faith through grace.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?

I would venture to guess that the majority of the citizens of Israel had never killed anyone except perhaps if they were in the army. You make it sound like they were a bunch of barbarians running around and bashing peoples heads in. The reality is, everyone knew the law and knew the penalty of certain things was death. It probably would have been relatively rare that people were caught violating laws that led to the death penalty. Jesus followed the law perfectly but it doesn't mean He killed anyone. The only example we have in scripture of that situation is when He showed grace.

".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

It would have been right for Him to stone someone who broke the law but the person would be judged by the priests before that could happen. I just doubt that it ever did happen and nothing is mentioned about it in scripture.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.
As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

That is an awful argument......and it kind of makes you an anarchist. Let me explain.
No law ever has completely stopped the crimes they outlaw. By your measure, no law should exist.
E.g. speed laws don't prevent speeding by all cars, theft laws don't prevent theft by all thieves, bribery laws don't prevent bribes by all real estate tycoons, drug laws actually increase drug related crimes, but firearm laws must prevent all misuse of all weapons, not even just all firearms, or forget it?!

Your requirements of gun control are completely...insanely... unrealistic.

Also...crazy cat lady is "using those cats to claw your face" just like shooting wildly into a neighborhood is "using a gun to shoot you". Her irresponsibility directly created a situation that endangered the neighborhood and caused damage, no? Damage caused by firing unguided fur missiles is always the shooters responsibility, not the missiles'.

Private background checks is full of privacy, communication, and liability issues, true, but that could be solved in various ways.
In gun store private sales, that's how California does it.
Does it stop all criminal sales? Clearly not. Does it minimize them and hold illegal sellers who ignore the law accountable for what others do with the guns they illegally sold, making illegally selling a criminal your gun insane? Yes.
If it was the law nation wide, would it severely curtail the illicit gun trade, and have a positive impact on gun crime rates? Absolutely, zero question.
Would it stop it altogether? Duh, no, no law is a panacea, the death penalty doesn't stop all murders, but it definitely stops most. That is not how law works. No law has EVER stopped the crimes they regulate altogether except those that legalize the crime out of existence....like legal marijuana eradicated illegal pot smokers completely.

This. You cannot assault people for speaking their mind, no matter how odious their opinion might be (with huge grey areas around actual incitement to violence and so on).

The second they start something violent though, you have a right to defend yourself and others, and there's no law that says you can't feel immensely satisfied while doing so.

But as much as I viscerally want to see Nazis punched in the face (Indy FTW!), it's not how you ultimately defeat them.

Short term, yeah, you have to defend yourself and stop them from achieving their goals... by any means necessary.

Long term, you have to prove them wrong, and the way to do that is with compassion (like the "Life after hate" guys, or this brilliant story *related=https://videosift.com/video/How-one-black-man-defeated-the-KKK-with-humor-and-grace).

*quality discussion though.

Ahhh...ok...so there are a smattering of insane idiots that don't get they advocate forcing their group to accept, let's say Nazis into their hierarchy.
I certainly hope your leaders understand and don't support those short sighted idiots.
Keep in mind, there's a big difference between 'my group will hate you and complain if you do "x"' and 'you may not do "x"'.
Hires for businesses the church owns can't be discriminatory, not church hierarchy. Sounds right to me.
If there's no law, no complaints will be heard in the courts, at least here in the U.S.. Does Canada litigate legal civil behaviour?

You totally lost me with your last paragraph....but it sounds like you are confusing the ultra far left for democrats....they aren't. Sadly, they are being courted by democrats, something I would like to see stop.