These are the Guys You Support

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

"I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power."

That island in the Pacific is referred to as "Hawaii." It is our 50th state and is just as much of a state as Indiana, moron.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/kfile-sessions-psychoanalyze/index.html

 

[HerdBuckeye]

"I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power."

That island in the Pacific is referred to as "Hawaii." It is our 50th state and is just as much of a state as Indiana, moron.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/kfile-sessions-psychoanalyze/index.html

Arguably one of the most important and strategic states we have.

 

[i am herdman]

It is not about the state, morons. It is about some judge in a state(which happens to be an island) stopping the legitimate powers of the executive branch.

Pure horse shit. Damn courts are out of control and stepping on constitutional powers.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

It is not about the state, morons. It is about some judge in a state(which happens to be an island) stopping the legitimate powers of the executive branch.

Pure horse shit.

No I don't get it. A federal judge is a federal judge. Would a federal judge in Alabam be more more entitled to an opinion on this. Dumbest comment from an AG ever.

 

[i am herdman]

No I don't get it. A federal judge is a federal judge. Would a federal judge in Alabam be more more entitled to an opinion on this. Dumbest comment from an AG ever.

No. The judges all over are out of control.

Next thing you know the POTUS will have to go get permission to drop a bomb on ISIS nuts.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

No. The judges all over are out of control.

Next thing you know the POTUS will have to go get permission to drop a bomb on ISIS nuts.

One of the dumbest posts ever.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

It is not about the state, morons. It is about some judge in a state(which happens to be an island) stopping the legitimate powers of the executive branch.

Then, what was the point of "judge sitting on an island in the Pacific?"

If it had been a WV judge, would he have said "judge shooting meth up in a holler?"

The inclusion was a foolish, bigoted comment made by the AG to discount a certain state and make it inferior to his redneck upbringings.

 

[big_country90]

Rifle, tell me how he is wrong.

 

[i am herdman]

Then, what was the point of "judge sitting on an island in the Pacific?"

If it had been a WV judge, would he have said "judge shooting meth up in a holler?"

The inclusion was a foolish, bigoted comment made by the AG to discount a certain state and make it inferior to his redneck upbringings.

You are missing the point. How is it bigoted? An island? Really

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

Rifle, tell me how he is wrong.

He is wrong by being the attorney general for the entire country, yet trying to delegitimize a federal judge based on simply where in the US he is located.

If Loretta Lynch had made the comment I did about a West Virginia based judge, you'd be flipping your shit over it, and rightfully so.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

You are missing the point. How is it bigoted? An island? Really

I know this is above your logic threshold, but "bigoted" doesn't always refer to the color of a person's skin.

 

[i am herdman]

I know this is above your logic threshold, but "bigoted" doesn't always refer to the color of a person's skin.

I know what it means. It means when you are a liberal and making no sense you can throw it out at anything in order to try to win your stupid argument.

 

[Walden Pond]

Saw them whining on Squints tonight about that dreamer getting deported. It was about as sad as the time they had some fat woman on there with her fat kids saying they were going to go hungry now when their EBT got cut, which I doubt ever really even happened.

Go ahead and let 'em in if you want to. I don't, but I think in the long run we're going to make the same mistakes they made in those dinky European countries. I think we're better than them though. Think we can handle it.

Got plenty of room here, plenty of hell holes to cordon 'em off in. Give 'em an EBT card and put a TV camera in there to catch some of the wars. It'll be all right.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Its hard to take liberals all that serious. Not a peep from the peanut gallery when the last President referred to "...all the bitter clingers..." He was celebrated for saying it.

Now??? "..a judge on an island in the pacific..." The faux outrage and bigotry of the left is becoming more hilarious by the day.

 

[big_country90]

He is wrong by being the attorney general for the entire country, yet trying to delegitimize a federal judge based on simply where in the US he is located.

If Loretta Lynch had made the comment I did about a West Virginia based judge, you'd be flipping your shit over it, and rightfully so.

You're missing the point. Trump absolutely has the authority to do what he did. This judge is acting politically and everybody knows it.

 

[extragreen]

You're missing the point. Trump absolutely has the authority to do what he did. This judge is acting politically and everybody knows it.

So, you work in the financial sector as a side job while your primary profession is federal law. Sounds eer ily similar to a real estate professional moonlighting as a president.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

You're missing the point. Trump absolutely has the authority to do what he did. This judge is acting politically and everybody knows it.

And that would be perfectly acceptable for the A.G. to state. But he didn't just state that. He tried discrediting the judge by criticizing and demeaning sitting on an island out in the Pacific as if it somehow meant any less than a redneck sitting in Birmingham.

It isn't faux outrage. I am not outraged. It is just more amateur hour antics showing the lack of professionalism of everything cheeto touches. This whole administration is making a mockery of the office.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Then, what was the point of "judge sitting on an island in the Pacific?"

If it had been a WV judge, would he have said "judge shooting meth up in a holler?"

The inclusion was a foolish, bigoted comment made by the AG to discount a certain state and make it inferior to his redneck upbringings.

Pfffttt. Meth? Everyone knows WV is opioid country. Besides, most country folk smoke their meth.

 

[raleighherdfan]

It is just more amateur hour antics

Conveniently ignored over the previous 8 years. Its why now, the "little island in the pacific" is so funny.

 

[herdfan429]

Conveniently ignored over the previous 8 years. Its why now, the "little island in the pacific" is so funny.

I hope that island doesnt sink

 

[HerdFan76]

I'm pretty sure Sessions made that remark because the judge is making decisions on what most likely won't affect Hawaii. It's kinda like Sally Cohen saying she has no issues with Sharia Law. Both would feel different if they lived in the real world.

 

[andy4theherd]

I'm pretty sure Sessions made that remark because the judge is making decisions on what most likely won't affect Hawaii. It's kinda like Sally Cohen saying she has no issues with Sharia Law. Both would feel different if they lived in the real world.

you would think Captain Implied Context would have realized this.

 

[Walden Pond]

The president was never supposed to be the Pope anyway. People act like he has to be some kind of polished figurine of perfection.

It sure wasn't the case with Obama. Not with Bush either. Not Clinton. I tried to think of who the last one was, maybe Old Man Bush. Even going back to the Andrew Jackson days these are not preachers in the White House. Even George Washington had wooden teeth, probably spit tobacco. And John Adams was a grumpy old bastard who got pissed off when he lost.

It's just people. Not saints.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

you would think Captain Implied Context would have realized this.

Not only are you guys wrong about his intent, which I will show, but even if you were right it would show a lack of knowledge on your part.

If Sessions meant to say what you contend, he would have simply said "it doesn't seem right that a judge from a place that isn't impacted by the issue can make a ruling which impacts those who are impacted by the issue." Seems like an easy and non-controversial comment to make, right? As we know, he didn't say that. He made it a point to demean the location of where the federal judge is from instead of saying what would have been the reasonable comment I just stated . . . had he really intended what you claim.

But, even better, the DOJ came out and clarified his intent:
"The point, however, is that there is a problem when a flawed opinion by a single judge can block the President's lawful exercise of authority to keep the entire country safe.”

So, even by their own clarification, it doesn't fit what you guys are claiming his intent was by saying the point was that this judge in Hawaii was making a decision that most likely won't impact his state.

But, even with that clarification clearly refuting your claim, I will still play along with it. If that were Sessions' intent, it shows just how dumb he, '76, and you are.

Hawaii's population includes 3.2% illegals. That puts them as the 19th highest in the country ahead of places like DC, Massachusetts, and most other places in the country. So, yes, illegal immigration is as much of a pressing issue for Hawaii as it it for many other parts of the country.

 

[HerdFan76]

But, even better, the DOJ came out and clarified his intent:
"The point, however, is that there is a problem when a flawed opinion by a single judge can block the President's lawful exercise of authority to keep the entire country safe.”

Talking points "clarify" statements on a daily basis to make them more digestible, lawful sounding, more centrist, whatever. The DOJ statement is calculated response to a picked apart comment. No shocker there.

I don't think his comment is nuanced at all, or why it's so hard to grasp.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Talking points "clarify" statements on a daily basis to make them more digestible, lawful sounding, more centrist, whatever. The DOJ statement is calculated response to a picked apart comment. No shocker there.

I don't think his comment is nuanced at all, or why it's so hard to grasp.

Then why wouldn't have have just said what you claim he intended to say? It would have been a lot more direct and not controversial at all? It makes no sense for him to try to hide his true intention when his supposed true intention is not controversial.

Again, your story doesn't add up.

But as I said before, I will play along. Would you, the two others, or Sessions like to explain how his comment about Hawaii (19th in illegal immigration) makes any sense in that regard?

 

[andy4theherd]

Then why wouldn't have have just said what you claim he intended to say? It would have been a lot more direct and not controversial at all? It makes no sense for him to try to hide his true intention when his supposed true intention is not controversial.

why didn't the NY Time just say what they intended to say in their Tweet about the Patriots? you claim the poster meant/implied that less players showed up, yet he posted a picture including ~40 non-player personnel compared to a picture in which those ~40 non-player personnel where seated.

you talk out of both sides of your mouth as good as any politician. if you could get your Trump level ego in check you might have a future in it.

 

[HerdFan76]

Then why wouldn't have have just said what you claim he intended to say? It would have been a lot more direct and not controversial at all? It makes no sense for him to try to hide his true intention when his supposed true intention is not controversial.

Again, your story doesn't add up.

But as I said before, I will play along. Would you, the two others, or Sessions like to explain how his comment about Hawaii (19th in illegal immigration) makes any sense in that regard?

Why didn't Clinton say she wanted to reeducate coal miners instead of saying she's going to put them out of work? She sure took the long hard road trying to gain their support when she could have been direct and not controversial. Maybe she would have won WV, PA and KY if she said what she claimed to intend.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

why didn't the NY Time just say what they intended to say in their Tweet about the Patriots? you claim the poster meant/implied that less players showed up, yet he posted a picture including ~40 non-player personnel compared to a picture in which those ~40 non-player personnel where seated.

you talk out of both sides of your mouth as good as any politician. if you could get your Trump level ego in check you might have a future in it.

Besides maybe a coach in the front, I can't tell which ones are or aren't players. I am sure the NY Times employee also couldn't. The NY Times didn't go out of its way to make a controversial, indirect comment when his point could have been made directly and without controversy. Again, it makes no sense for him to make something uncontroversial and direct into something controversial and indirect, which is the case if your theory were true.

Oh, and he just went on TV saying exactly what I claimed! Ha, or is this just him lying now and covering up?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Why didn't Clinton say she wanted to reeducate coal miners instead of saying she's going to put them out of work? She sure took the long hard road trying to gain their support when she could have been direct and not controversial. Maybe she would have won WV, PA and KY if she said what she claimed to intend.

Christ, the lack of logic in these attempts is frightening.

Clinton made a controversial and direct comment. Sessions made a controversial and indirect comment. Clinton wasn't trying to earn their support with her comment.

 

[andy4theherd]

The NY Times didn't go out of its way to make a controversial, indirect comment when his point could have been made directly and without controversy.

bwhahahahahahahahahaha

ok... Stawman... ok... lol

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

bwhahahahahahahahahaha

ok... Stawman... ok... lol

Moron, you aren't even making sense now. I spend more time having to explain basic reading issues you have than I do discussing actual substance of a position with you.

 

[andy4theherd]

you honestly didn't type "The NY Times didn't go out of its way to make a controversial...comment" with a straight face did you?

and my "strawman" claim is just as accurate today as it was weeks ago when i first used it.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Then why wouldn't have have just said what you claim he intended to say?

Please. If you are going to claim superiority with grammar, sentence structure, spelling, etc. set a better example.

 

[herdfan429]

Please. If you are going to claim superiority with grammar, sentence structure, spelling, etc. set a better example.

In before rifle claims he's actually right because we all know he struggles with admitting he's wrong

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

and my "strawman" claim is just as accurate today as it was weeks ago when i first used it.

Do you really want to go back and look at your attempts at accusing two of us of using strawman arguments? Honestly, I will go back and revive that thread. Not a single person came to your side in that long discussion because your attempts were entirely wrong. You accused two people, both who had different arguments, with using strawmen.

Come on- it was comically bad on your part. It showed you had no clue what a strawman is.

you honestly didn't type "The NY Times didn't go out of its way to make a controversial...comment" with a straight face did you?
.

See those three little dots you used in my quote? That is an ellipsis (an improperly formatted one, but still one nonetheless). Those three dots represent something that has been taken out. In doing so, you shouldn't change the meaning of what you quoted. However, you failed with this. Use my entire quote and you will see it had a different meaning than what you just tried claiming.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Please. If you are going to claim superiority with grammar, sentence structure, spelling, etc. set a better example.

Yes, because we all know there is no difference between people who are too dumb to know how to properly spell, use phrases without butchering them, use proper grammar, etc. compared with somebody who clearly knows that typing "have have" was intended to mean "he have."

This is what I mean- I don't call you out for errors on things you know that are just typing mistakes. I call you out on a lack of intelligence in not even realizing your errors; errors which are done because you don't have the intelligence to know the correct way.

I would say even your kind can know the difference, but I am not so sure of that.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Yes, because we all know there is no difference between people who are too dumb to know how to properly spell, use phrases without butchering them, use proper grammar, etc. compared with somebody who clearly knows that typing "have have" was intended to mean "he have."

This is what I mean- I don't call you out for errors on things you know that are just typing mistakes. I call you out on a lack of intelligence in not even realizing your errors; errors which are done because you don't have the intelligence to know the correct way.

I would say even your kind can know the difference, but I am not so sure of that.

Stop with the excuses bigot. Double check your work.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Stop with the excuses bigot. Double check your work.

I said it "tongue and cheek" . . . and lips and teeth.

 

[raleighherdfan]

No tongue and cheek in your comments. You're just a bigot.