did he mean site (as stated) or state?
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom Disagree, you had only two choices.Cannonpointer » 12 Aug 2024, 9:17 pm » wrote: ↑ He'd have wasted his vote if he voted for the loser.
He'd have wasted his vote if he voted for the winner.
The only POSSIBLE way not to waste a vote is to vote your conscience.
That is how we turn it around - not by smart-ratting.
not true
Nonsense!Cannonpointer » 12 Aug 2024, 9:19 pm » wrote: ↑ Nor will you. Ever.
The patriot act - passed by repukes and signed by a repuke - is not designed for transparency. Quite the opposite - it is designed for opacity, obscurity, unaccountability, deniability. No one's hands are clean and no one's hands are dirty.
The democrats are only using the powers republicans gave them.
I lived in Myrtle for 18 yearsCannonpointer » 12 Aug 2024, 9:23 pm » wrote: ↑ She was there around Christmas. If anyone gets around Myrtle near the Christmas season, Brookgreen Gardens puts lights on centuries old oak trees by the hundreds - it's a life enriching display that leaves a forever imprint. It is quite something. I recommend it to children of all ages.
I misread. I thought he said state lol.
****.
Using powers signed into law by George W. Bush, fruitcake.Zeets2 » 13 Aug 2024, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑ Nonsense!
NO Republican took away Tulsi's rights under the 1st and 4th Amendment!
That was the doing of the Obama/Biden/Harris cabal,
Did you ever go to the Festival of Lights at Brookgreen Gardens?
Yeah, you said site,not state.
Cannonpointer » 13 Aug 2024, 1:48 pm » wrote: ↑ Did you ever go to the Festival of Lights at Brookgreen Gardens?
Isn't that cool as ****?
Tulsi didn't lose her rights under the first, fourth, or sixth amendment due to anything signed by GW Bush, fool!Cannonpointer » 13 Aug 2024, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑ Using powers signed into law by George W. Bush, fruitcake.
SouthernFried » 12 Aug 2024, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑ Don’t you support “progressives”, ***? This is the result.
Google patriot act, jackass.Zeets2 » 13 Aug 2024, 2:11 pm » wrote: ↑ Tulsi didn't lose her rights under the first, fourth, or sixth amendment due to anything signed by GW Bush, fool!
And if the case were to go as far as the Supreme Court, they'd confirm that!
Zeets2 » 13 Aug 2024, 2:11 pm » wrote: ↑ Tulsi didn't lose her rights under the first, fourth, or sixth amendment due to anything signed by GW Bush, fool!
And if the case were to go as far as the Supreme Court, they'd confirm that!
And it was extended by both parties, to be sure. The repukes did not do it alone - but they DID it.*Huey » 13 Aug 2024, 2:18 pm » wrote: ↑ With respect the authority came from the Patriot Act that was extended numerous times.
EXPECT THE WORST IF YOU'RE NOT A PROPONENT OF WAR AND THE MIC.Mrkelly » 12 Aug 2024, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑ Not to harp on it
but
this country is ****
https://youtu.be/L1wy_kppu5U?si=NrxmXNl_XgyaFK3w
And what I'm telling you is that if Tulsi took this to the Supreme Court, her Constitutional rights on those amendments would NOT be null and void! She CANNOT be prohibited from her free speech under the first amendment, she CANNOT be found guilty of a charge leveled against her without a public jury trial! And Congress can make NO LAW abrogating those rights because they are granted to her by GOD and not by the power of government, no matter WHICH party controls it!Cannonpointer » 13 Aug 2024, 2:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Google patriot act, jackass.
That is where the authority came from.
Sorry-not-sorry if actual facts injure your butt, fruitcake.
Have another: It was a repuke house and a repuke senate than sent him the legislation to eagerly sign into fake law.
The USA Patriot Act grants unprecedented new powers to the attorney general to detain noncitizens whom he certifies as a threat to national security, with minimal judicial review or due process safeguards. Civil rights organizations did succeed in adding a number of limitations to the bill. For example, the attorney general's certification of someone as a security threat is subject to judicial review, which may be sought in any federal district court. After seven days of detention, the government must either charge a detainee with a crime, initiate deportation, or release the person. The certification of a person as a suspected terrorist must be reviewed by a federal court every six months and either renewed or revoked.