You hate people that you disagree with? Not very tolerant. I can’t support that. It’s prepubescent and juvenile. In any event, I’ll support your right to hate whoever you want, even though I disagree with hate. A position that you and other liberals might consider.
“We took down our Pride flags… I took out any books I thought would be incriminating.”
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
Once your side shows an inch of tolerance, I'll consider. Believe it or not, I was a blue dog Democrat until the GOP went batshit. It's hard to find a middle ground with a side that will screw the country just to make the other side lose politically. I'm sure you feel the same way about liberals.
I don’t feel, I think. And I try not to hate.
You do you. You posted your position. I posted my position. I defend your right to have your position. That might be a difference between us.
As long as your side takes rights away from friends of mine, we won't find a common ground. You seem reasonable enough that you might one day realize how evil Trump is. I hope that day comes for you and millions of others.
You're dumb. You insinuated they needed a warrant. Stop being dumb.
It depends if the company or organization you work has a policy for wearing or showing political attire. If they have a strict zero tolerance policy, and termination could result, then yes they could be fired or warned to remove it or termination would result.
So you hate Making America Great Again ... which means you love making Obiden Dictator Again?
And you're proud of that?
One side hates
One side reasons
Anyone confused why America resoundingly rejected Obidenism ??
We get it. Your life is about irrational rage and hate. We all feel sorry for your kids.
Now the libs will say that Trump caused the hate they spew.
What rights are being taken away? Please explain.
I’m not even a liberal, but what’s wrong with hating inferior trash? You reap what you sow.
You're right, you're not a liberal, you're an America-last-leftist
liberal /lĭb′ər-əl, lĭb′rəl/
adjective
- Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded. synonym: broad-minded.
Similar: broad-minded
I’ve given you the best advice I can give. It’s your choice if you choose to use it.
I don't recall asking for your advice. You seem like the type who needs to take some before giving some.
If you work really hard, you can someday upgrade your horse for a car.
Oooohhhh, buddy. I like that you think you nailed it with this post.
Good for you. And I mean that. Good for you.
I don’t care what flag you fly. Not sure why my opinion matters so much to you. Fly a St Louis flag, I don’t care. I’m not better than anyone else on the forum. I wake up, provide for my family, I go to work, I come home and be a father. I could literally careless about your flag. To be honest, most don’t care. I think you’re making it more an issue. If you were my neighbor, I would have no problem. I think 95% feel that way. You seem American as far as I can tell.
What do they call someone who breaks the law, hmm?🤔
Not every violation of law makes the violator a criminal. You realize there are civil laws and regulations?
How are friends of yours experiencing their rights taken away?
What adults friends of yours can’t do today what are they did yesterday?
Getting fired has nothing to do with removing one’s rights
Last edited:
Yes, you won that one minor point. Have you had an opportunity through your Google searches to find anything to support the rest of the fantasies you posted as fact in your original post?
You have the others on here that share your world view fooled, but it is clear in the real world no one takes you seriously based on your inability to grasp facts and reality.
Good one. Now can you post a link, or anything to support the fantasies posted by the OP?
What more do you need? You dismiss the APA, FACA, and the Privacy Act claims out of hand, even though you finally admitted that the plaintiffs will prevail on some of those claims.
I've reposted your original post multiple times. How do the pending lawsuits you provided have anything to do with your claims? You've posted nothing to support your argument. Not one thing. And you are unable to do so, becuase nothing supporting your arguments exists. There is a lot of stuff showing your arguments are fallacy though. And when I say a lot, I mean starting with the Constitution, and crawling down to your level, the very court cases you posted which you think further your argument, but actually further the truth, which is where I and on all of this.
You got caught. You got caught. You should just quit.
More like land of the “Reeeeeeeeee!!!!!! Orange man bad!!!!!!!” 😂😂😂
Now obviously, we've not had a situation where an incoming executive has shut down an agency like this in terms of both personnel and financial operations.
But since (I assume) you are so clearly a rule of law guy, you obviously understand the relationship between Article I and Article II, and you certainly were a fan of this case, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf, and are obviously familiar with this case, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep343/usrep343579/usrep343579.pdf, and their implications for Executive authority to undertake unilateral executive action, including in the context of foreign affairs where the President's powers are noted in the constitution.
With that background, here's a starting point for you to consider in light of these cases: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title22/chapter32&req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title22-chapter32-subchapter1&num=0&saved=L3ByZWxpbUB0aXRsZTIyL2NoYXB0ZXIzMg==|Z3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUyMi1jaGFwdGVyMzI=|||0|false|prelim. I think you'll find it interesting to see some of things that Congress actually "has" spoken about (to put it in Justice Jackson's terms), and "how" they've spoken. Some of them even surprised me, like for example 22 USC 2151-2, and in ways that don't exactly square with the last few days. I'm certain a man of your acumen will see things quickly.
Now I'm sure that in two or three minutes you'll come back and say "I've read all of that stuff and it's irrelevant", which of course you won't have and it will just be another example of "uh-uh." So fine, you troll you. But we all know this is going to court. And to a degree, I'm fine with that, as executives test the limits of their authority all the time. But as my buddy at USAID, who is a very serious guy and whose view is that the agency absolutely had this coming and is in full support of 90% of it despite earning millions over the course of his life from it, has told me, they will lose because they overreached. And he's right. So by all means puff up your chest - and FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T SAY ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE - but just don't turn into a whiney bitch when neither the district court, nor the appellate court, nor scotus, backs the administration on this. Because the dirty little secret of this Scotus over the last 4-6 years is that, while they've been striking down unilateral presidential actions you (and for that matter, often I) don't like, they've been doing so in a way that reinforces the primacy of article I.
Last edited:
I honestly have no idea what you are arguing.
My point is and was that DOGE/Musk/Trump can’t do what they are doing at USAID.
They can’t turn off payments with an EO.
They can’t shut down USAID without a congressional mandate because it’s an independent agency.
Employees still have 1A rights under Garcetti and Pickering.
You admit I didn’t say what they were doing was criminal.
And you admit that DOGE/Musk/Trump are violating at least some laws. I assume the APA.
We disagree on the Privacy Act as you think a security clearance eliminates that claim.
What else are you looking for or do you disagree with?
I've read most of this stuff. It's not all irrelevant, although some is irrelevant based on the recent Judge's order. This posted, none of this furthers the OP's argument. That argument is not defensible. To be very clear, not furthering someone's inaccurate post and what you posted here doesn't mean what you posted is unimportant. I've already stipulated to some parts of the suits being successful.
LOL, of course you have, and right on cue to the letter - you should definitely argue the case and say just that. And you know what the judge will say? "That's super...now could you help me unjam the copier back in my chambers? My executive assistant is having a hard time with it."
1) Sure they can. They have and will continue to keep doing so.
2) No one ever said DOGE turned off payments. No one. It was an EO. You're still beating a dead horse.
3) Who is they? Are you back to DOGE? POTUS can absolutely impact new funding, has, and this part of the suit was ignored by the Judge in links you posted.
4) Not germane to your OP.
5) No germane to your original post. And I corrected my usage of the word criminal to illegal.
6) Yes, we disagree. The Courts disagree with you also.
7) Read your original post, and privide one piece of supporting documentation tat furthers what you think. I'm asking for one thing.
I'm really not going to keep dealing with your deflection.
I am very reasonable (as is StLHawk). Almost like the hypothetical torts guy. That's why it's so laughable and pathetic when I see people who defend the outlier as if it were the median.
Last edited:
You know you're over the target when you're taking a lot of flak, and the dems losing their shit confirms it. USAID must be one of their slush funds, I'm sure there are more. Using our own tax dollars(!) to fund all sorts of leftist NGOs, which employ all leftists, support leftist causes, and donate the rest back to leftist candidates. One big cash cycle for the Dems and it's getting exposed.
